|
Back in 2004, we changed our 1996 Mk1 Mondeo estate for a Jazz.
As the dealer was only offering £1000 trade in, we gave the Mondeo to some friends who were temporarily down on their luck. It lasted another 13 years, with only regular maintenance and (I think) a clutch.
Edited to add: 2.0 petrol ghia.
Edited by NARU on 03/05/2019 at 10:06
|
|
Out if interest, as this is a 2 year old thread revival, is JohnF's Focus which the original questoon was about still going? If so, that repair will have only cost him £40 for each year of motoring.
I probably spend more than that on running my push bike!
On old cars with no value, the time to change is when something catastrophic fails like an engine or gearbox, or you get bored of it. For people who prefer to run newer cars, there is however a 'sweet spot' where swapping a car a few years old for a nearly new one can be only a little more expensive than changing a large number of consumables at once. It's perfectly possible to blow £2000 on tyres, timing belt, brakes and a major service if they all happen at once.
I'm amazed at the number of people though who've justified replacing a car because it's just had a very expensive service. A typical example was a colleague who paid a main dealer £750 for a timing belt and water pump replacement, and then traded the car in a week later because 'it was getting a bit expensive to run'.
|
Out if interest, as this is a 2 year old thread revival, is JohnF's Focus which the original questoon was about still going?
Yes. Although it cost £25 at the MoT in March this year to replace a sheared corroded bolt which secures the rear antiroll bar. And a new coil pack in Aug 2017. Now approaching 140,000 miles - still has original cam and poly-v belts and exhaust. Only bulbs needing replacement have been rear stop/side and number plate. Ford really got this one right (plus, of course, my careful maintenance regime :-).
|
Ford really got this one right (plus, of course, my careful maintenance regime :-).
Yes, they did.
All makers do this at some point, they all at some point design a cracker, but all too often then rest on the laurels and the reputation that the good designs bring, we've seen all makes do this no maker is immune, in some cases they then go on to fit unreliable inadequately tested engines or gearboxes destroying the rep the years of good service cars like yours have given them, its very odd.
as for the bracketed bit, that shows just how good the design was that it's still going :-)
slipped another oil change into the Forester earlier in the week, and yesterday went to town on topping up the rustproofing on my 4x4 beasty...which itself had its twice a year oil change about 6 weeks ago...just for you that JohnF, knew you'd approve...;)
|
|
|
|
|
Normally, a car is only worth changing if one or more of the following apply:
- Structurally it is in bad shape and seriously expensive major repairs are necessary;
- The engine needs replacing or a LOT of major (expensive) work;
- A component that has to be in full working order needs replacing and cannot be sourced (including non-OEM/pattern parts to the same) any more, and to have it manufactured from scratch or the car modified to take another would be very expensive or physically impossible.
|
|
At that price I'd get the car repaired. Then you'd get at least another year out of it. It would also be worth a bit more if you sell it or trade it in.
|
|
|
Normally, a car is only worth changing if one or more of the following apply:
- Structurally it is in bad shape and seriously expensive major repairs are necessary;
- The engine needs replacing or a LOT of major (expensive) work;
- A component that has to be in full working order needs replacing and cannot be sourced (including non-OEM/pattern parts to the same) any more, and to have it manufactured from scratch or the car modified to take another would be very expensive or physically impossible.
The tighter emission standards for the MOT test introduced recently are going to send a lot more cars to an early grave.
|
Normally, a car is only worth changing if one or more of the following apply:
- Structurally it is in bad shape and seriously expensive major repairs are necessary;
- The engine needs replacing or a LOT of major (expensive) work;
- A component that has to be in full working order needs replacing and cannot be sourced (including non-OEM/pattern parts to the same) any more, and to have it manufactured from scratch or the car modified to take another would be very expensive or physically impossible.
The tighter emission standards for the MOT test introduced recently are going to send a lot more cars to an early grave.
Why? They aren't applied retrospectively, but like VED bands, only to the newest cars at the time. If a car is well cared for over its life and reasonably well designed, then it should pass the emissions test each year, until it either falls it bits or parts aren't available any more. My 13yo car had essentially the same (pass) emissions result on this years MOT than it did every year before.
It's a different kettle of fish for LEZs stopping vehicles in older Euro emissions bands from driving into certain larger towns and cities. Quite ironic as some are actually quite clean, relative to certain newer cars, and are mainly villified because they have higher CO2 emissions.
|
|
I was told the new emission standards do apply retrospectively inasmuch as all cars now have to be within the manufacturer's original specified emission limits.
|
I was told the new emission standards do apply retrospectively inasmuch as all cars now have to be within the manufacturer's original specified emission limits.
That's really not the same as older cars meeting the more stringent, lower emissions standards of newer ones, which, to me, is what you appeared to be implying. And I would doubt (though not 100% sure) that cars would be restricted to meet what the limits were by the manufacturers when first produced, as all that would do is make it unfair for car owners who had cars that more than met the emissions regs (Euro-4 etc) by law at the time.
Some makes have the foresight to make sure their cars easily meet the limits and well in good time, unlike some that recently had to stop sales for months in order to make sure they'd produced enough new cars that met the new emissions levels. The former would be punished because their cars would have to meet higher standards than others sold at the same time. This may be true (I hope not), but it doesn't make it right or fair.
|
|
|
I was told the new emission standards do apply retrospectively inasmuch as all cars now have to be within the manufacturer's original specified emission limits.
Exactly, so the original standards for a 2010 car are what it is to be tested to, not the standards for a 2019 model. So not retrospective.
Emissions limits have not been retrospectively applied to older/classic/vintage cars, have they?
|
Exactly, so the original standards for a 2010 car are what it is to be tested to, not the standards for a 2019 model. So not retrospective.
Emissions limits have not been retrospectively applied to older/classic/vintage cars, have they?
The problem is until now some later diesels were tested to the same standards as diesels some 20 years older. The new test introduced last year is a lot more stringent especially for post 2008 cars - most cars will have to achieve the original manufacturer plate value.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mot-changes-from-may-2018-guidance-for-mot-testers/diesel-vehicle-emission-limits
|
|
Aren't those changes more to do with just applying the MOT as it essentially should've been, e.g. checking to see if the DPF has been removed, and that vehicles perform as they designed to the standards at the time they were built? The emissions standards for such cars haven't changed, only how rigorously they are checked, it appears, perhaps in the light of Dieselgate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
