|
Here you go, Honda Accord 2.4 (188bhp) on Autotrader. Reliable fairly quick, and big load space,
202101077731634
|
|
|
I'm in the market for a petrol estate (could go saloon for the right model if no estate option)
You will find that the Octavia Hatch has just about as much space to the parcel shelf as the estate and you will get more choice. We also found the Octavia estate extremely noisy, the hatch was far better in this respect. You will also get a newer hatch for the same money.
Compared to a Mazda 6 its in a different league, that car with its lack of torque is a slug and heavy on fuel.
|
|
Thanks all for the input so far!
Definitely taking a hard look at the Honda, got very little experience with them but the reputation is appealing. Also definitely interested in the Skoda Octavia, great choice I hadn't thought of.
I've previously driven a Mazda 6 and not a fan of it at all.
In central Scotland so local options are somewhat limited, fairly resigned to having to either travel or get something delivered.
|
I'm used to a 2 litre turbo diesel so don't want something too weak.
Not spotted that comment but get the correct petrol and its not an issue. We went from a 2 litre BMW diesel (143PS) to a 1.4TSi Seat Leon (140PS) and found the Leon TSi engine better is every respect and very nearly as economical.
The 1.4 TSi is available in the Skoda Octavia but make sure its a post mid 2013 model which uses the newer belt drive engine, they should just be available for your £5000 budget. The earlier engines were less powerful, much less torquey and had a reputation for cam chain issues in some cars.
We were stunned with the engine when we drove the first one in the Leon and almost 4 years later we bought a Skoda Superb with the same engine which even in the much bigger car was still very capable and actually more economical than the Leon.
|
|
Would welcome your views on a petrol BMW 3 series around the same price as the Accord .
|
Would welcome your views on a petrol BMW 3 series around the same price as the Accord .
I wouldn’t touch one at £5,000 but if a prestige badge is an absolute must then go with the 6cyl petrols. The 4cyl cars are notorious for timing chain failures. Any older BMW will be an ongoing money pit though.
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure which Accord you are looking at but must confess I am not a big fan of the later one (post 2008).
A very average car in every way, some annoying design faults (try changing a bulb), feels cheap and boring to drive. Way below the perceived quality of the previous version. Will probably be reliable however.
I'd avoid the Audi and BMW simply because the petrol versions of these of that era and age have some common and expensive faults.
Others are fine. I wouldn't dismiss something a bit left field like a Peugeot 508 either.
|
|
|
|
|
“ Compared to a Mazda 6 its in a different league, that car with its lack of torque is a slug and heavy on fuel.”
A Mk II Mazda 6 2.0 petrol isn’t a slug at all nor is it heavy on fuel. I’ve owned one and it was an excellent big family car. Very pleasant to drive, went well enough if you let it rev and it was averaging just over 40mpg with me. At £5k you’re better off avoiding performance models like a Skoda VRS or complex and costly to repair turbo diesels. Yes the power is further up the Rev range in a normally aspirated petrol motor but in this case there’s enough of it there for any reasonable need on road. It’ll overtake fine, you’ll just need to drop a gear. No great hardship. I wouldn’t describe a car that’s capable of exceeding 125mph as “a slug.” I also wouldn’t touch an early TSi petrol VAG model, only buy the later belt driven cars.
Edited by SLO76 on 08/02/2021 at 15:46
|
“ Compared to a Mazda 6 its in a different league, that car with its lack of torque is a slug and heavy on fuel.” A Mk II Mazda 6 2.0 petrol isn’t a slug at all nor is it heavy on fuel. I’ve owned one and it was an excellent big family car. Very pleasant to drive, went well enough if you let it rev and it was averaging just over 40mpg with me.
I say it as I found it and when we were looking for a petrol replacement for the wifes Ceed SW to Mazda was shortlisted. It had more power than the Leon TSi I had at the time but on our test drive it was poor in comparison. As for mpg, on our 10 minute drive on mixed roads the dash display read about 35mpg from zero when we set off. Compared to 50 mpg from the Ceed and 45 mpg from the Leon that was thirsty in my opinion. Before we bought the Ceed in 2010 we tried the Avensis 1.8 petrol estate which was slow and unresponsive and the Octavia 1.4 TSi estate (2 actually) both of which went well (despite being the earlier less powerful engine) but both made a huge amount of road noise.
I also wouldn’t touch an early TSi petrol VAG model, only buy the later belt driven cars.
In my post above I wrote "The 1.4 TSi is available in the Skoda Octavia but make sure its a post mid 2013 model which uses the newer belt drive engine, they should just be available for your £5000 budget. The earlier engines were less powerful, much less torquey and had a reputation for cam chain issues in some cars" thus I covered the model to be avoided. with just a bit more info for the OP to help him make a choice.
|
|
|
|
“Compared to a Mazda 6 its in a different league”
Indeed it is, one look underneath at the suspension setup and its like comparing a limousine with a cart. Unfortunately a cheap torsion beam setup as found on Octavia’s the world over never quite matches a fully independent setup for ride quality and handling.
I’ve never driven a Gen2 6 (did briefly try a Gen1 once), but I am a happy owner of a Gen3 estate, with the fantastic Skyactiv G petrol engine (which undeservedly gets slated on here for some reason), that revs like a sowing machine and pulls like a train, all through a lovely slick manual box.
Every good engineer knows that’s its torque at the wheels that moves a car, torque at the crank is less important than the ratios of the gearbox it drives. I find my 6 to be more than swift enough and, because it begs to be worked hard, a lot of fun to drive when going from A to B.
As far as fuel goes, I can exceed 50 mpg on a longer trip but my typical average is about 45, which I find to be more than acceptable.
For the OP, if internal space is your main priority, an 8 or 9th gen Honda Civic (2005 -2015) is worth a look. A family member of mine owns a 2011 Type S (8th) and the interior is absolutely cavernous when the rear seats are dropped.
|
|
Sounds like I need to find my nearest garage that has some Civics and Accords I can take a look at.
For Mazda 6s it looks like I'd be getting something from 2008-2010, which would be gen2. Might be another one I need to look at.
I miss covid free days when I could just spend the weekend going around showrooms and test driving cars, made things a lot easier!
|
Indeed it is, one look underneath at the suspension setup and its like comparing a limousine with a cart. Unfortunately a cheap torsion beam setup as found on Octavia’s the world over never quite matches a fully independent setup for ride quality and handling.
In theory a properly designed and set up fully independent set up is better but in the real world a properly developed torsion beam rear end is just fine.
We have had 6 VAG cars with the Torsion Beam rear end and I cannot think of ever feeling short changed. The Seat Leon we bought replaced a BMW with their 5 link set up and it was in no way inferior. At the time the wife had a Kia Ceed with independent rear suspension and the Leon was definitely superior to that for ride and refinement.
The 2nd generation Octavia (2004 to 2013) did have independent suspension and it made the car very noisy due to a lack of rear isolation. We only drove the "cheaper" models and it may have been better in the more expensive ones but I doubt it from Forum comments over the years. The 3rd Generation Octavia (2013 to 2020) based on the MQB platform reverted to Torsion beam on the lesser models (up to 150 PS) but retained independent on the higher powered versions. On the 2 cars I drove (both Torsions Beam) it was definitely better but compared to the Leon which we still had it was still a little noisier (perhaps the bigger boot was suggested on the Forums).
But there is one major exception. the Civic from 2000 to 2006 had a fully independent rear end and it rode and handled brilliantly, witness the success of the Type R. The 2006 onward car had a beam rear axle and was dreadful in the 2 we tried.
I would never base my car choice on suspension design. Not all designers are equal and not all development teams know what they are doing. A well developed Torsion beam like the VAG one does the job brilliantly at a fraction of the cost of a fully independent set-up, that is why its still used. Plus it leaves more space for people and luggage due to the compact design.
|
|
Returning to the original thread, I have an A4 Tdi 1.9 130 hp and SLO has suggested that I hang on to it as this car has a really good heritage and a long life PD engine and no DPF
How about the Avant version of this car which has good looks and long life mechanicals, if it’s possible to find one in reasonable condition?
|
Returning to the original thread, I have an A4 Tdi 1.9 130 hp and SLO has suggested that I hang on to it as this car has a really good heritage and a long life PD engine and no DPF
How about the Avant version of this car which has good looks and long life mechanicals, if it’s possible to find one in reasonable condition?
Rare to find in good order and with less than 200,000 miles up but these were very good cars along with the Passat of similar vintage which shares its internals with. But at £5k it’ll be a newer DPF equipped model with the less reliable 2.0 TDi or a chain cam TSi petrol, neither of which I’d recommend here.
|
|
These are a couple of A4s I'd found, are these not timing belts? I'd thought the 2.0 TFSI in the B7 was ok reliability-wise?
www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202101218220304
www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202101318541080
|
These are a couple of A4s I'd found, are these not timing belts? I'd thought the 2.0 TFSI in the B7 was ok reliability-wise?
www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202101218220304
www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202101318541080
If looked after the 2.0 can be ok but I’d leave the auto. Not sure if it’s the now notorious DSG box here but VAG don’t have a great reputation for automatic transmissions and a 16yr old example isn’t a safe place to put your money. To be honest, I wouldn’t sink £5k into a 14yr old 117,000 mile Audi anyway.
Edited by SLO76 on 09/02/2021 at 18:12
|
|
|
Whilst I liked the 1.9 Tdi Octavias I owned, neither were particularly reliable, the first Mk1 needing a new turbo at 15000 miles plus numerous electrical gremlins, springs and water leaks as it aged, the 2nd, a 1.9 PD estate Mk2, at least 3 wheel bearings and additional diff/transmission noise that was never resolved. Both were good to drive, the best overall was the Mk1, it was quieter and quicker than the Mk2 (estate), which was extremely noisy on anything but a perfectly smooth road. But likeable cars despite, and hugely practical. I then inherited a 5 year old 9th Gen Civic hatch, 1.8, which is now 9 years old. A completely different car, 100% reliable, refined (far quieter than the octavias) and nearly as economical at average 47mpg. It is completely competent to drive but uninvolving, not as sharp as our other mk2 Focus, but perfectly acceptable. It is nowhere near as practical as the octavias, but not bad. The 1.8 petrol needs revving to really move, whereas the octavias had the instant torque on tap, the Civic needs at least one or possibly 2 downchanges to access the real powerband, which goes all the way up to about 6700rpm from memory. In practice, it makes no difference to me, though many people probably don't like or are not used to revving an engine that high. Day to day, it is not necessary to exceed 3 to 4000 rpm. The engine itself is as refined and smooth as I've encountered.
|
|
A little unfair to say a 9th gen Civic hatch is "way less practical" than an Octavia estate, particularly the 1st gen version, practicality is not just about boot size. Compared to the 1st gen Octavia, the Civic has nearly 3" extra in the wheelbase (so much more space for rear passengers), plus a wider cabin. And while the Octavia wagon does have around 80 litres more boot volume than the Civic hatch, the Civic in turn has around the same volume advantage over the contemporary Focus and Golf hatches. And of course the Civic can call on the 'magic' rear seats to give even more practicality.
|
|
Yes perhaps being a bit harsh on my own car! But the boot on the MK1 Octavia hatch was hugely practical, the boot on the estate even better, but that's not a fair comparison with the civic as you say. I never had a problem with rear passenger space as the kids were small when we had the MK1. The Civic is fine for 4 adults, bootspace is much greater than the Focus we have. Rear visibility is rather an acquired taste, partially compensated by excellent door mirrors. I'd have another, simply for its overall integrity, the estate Civic would be perfect! I'm not struck on the 10th gen styling, although it's undoubtedly a decent car.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
