What age and gearbox selection are you thinking of for both?
Budget?
One year old if possible, up to two years old.
Probably manual. I had ruled out auto as I thought they both used the same dodgy powershift, but I've just read on another thread that the Volvo has a conventional auto box.
Budget: Whatever it takes. Probably less than 16k. I've seen 1.5 year old Focus Titanium for under 16k.
Part of me thinks it's time to go back to petrol but I've read on the Ford Forum about awful (less than 50MPG) economy.
|
|
Given when the V40 first came out (2012), I think it must have shared platforms with the Mk3 Focus. It certainly feels surprisingly like a Mk3 Focus to drive.
My Dad has one, and it's certainly a nicer place to sit than a Focus though the boot is a really awkward shape.
It will be difficult getting a one year old one though, as they were discontinued in early 2019.
|
It will be difficult getting a one year old one though, as they were discontinued in early 2019.
This is the clincher, Thank you. I want a one year old car, so it won't be a V40.
|
|
|
It will be difficult getting a one year old one though, as they were discontinued in early 2019.
This is the clincher, Thank you. I want a one year old car, so it won't be a V40.
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to the relevant page on this website, the current Focus is available with a 150bhp 2.0 turbo diesel.
Whether or not the Volvo is a better car will depend on your priorities. For example, the Volvo's boot is pretty meagre, smaller than the current Focus, who's own boot is smaller than average for the class. The Focus also has a longer wheelbase, so will probably have more rear legroom.
|
|
They're a bit cramped in the back and boot but if you can find a SE Lux one they are a nice place to be and feel like a quality car.
The era you are looking at will have Volvo's own 3 and 4 cylinder engine. When they came out in 2014 they had some issues with EGR valves but should be well sorted by now.
|
Part of me thinks it's time to go back to petrol but I've read on the Ford Forum about awful (less than 50MPG) economy.
Not sure I'd class "less than 50mpg" as "awful", less than 30mpg?, fair enough!.
The era you are looking at will have Volvo's own 3 and 4 cylinder engine.
Which V40 has a 3 cyl engine?.
|
Part of me thinks it's time to go back to petrol but I've read on the Ford Forum about awful (less than 50MPG) economy.
Not sure I'd class "less than 50mpg" as "awful", less than 30mpg?, fair enough!.
The era you are looking at will have Volvo's own 3 and 4 cylinder engine.
Which V40 has a 3 cyl engine?.
From the perspective of having a car that's meant to do up to 70MPG, less than 50 is awful.
My previous Focus 2.0 TDCi did 60 MPG on a long journey, my current 1.5 gets 55 on the same route. I would have thought modern petrol's would get somewhere near that, but apparently I'm wrong, so I'll be staying with diesel.
|
|
|
|
According to the relevant page on this website, the current Focus is available with a 150bhp 2.0 turbo diesel.
This is probably what I'll go for, but they are extremely hard to find. There is one within 100 miles and two within 200 miles.
|
From the perspective of having a car that's meant to do up to 70MPG, less than 50 is awful.
I read a lot of motoring magazines, in the back of which are the reports on their long term test cars. The cars actual economy is listed along with the claimed economy. Believe me, as annoying as it is for owners, that is just par for the course. There are very few cars who's actual economy comes anywhere near the claimed economy, certainly doing anything other than cruising on the main road!. Also, taking as gospel the claims on the Focus forum is not necessarily wise. I used to have a Ford Transit Connect 1.8TDCI, and was a member of a Transit forum for a while. The general opinion on the forum was that the Connect would average about 32mpg with some members claiming as low as 25mpg(!). In a mixture of single carriageway A and B roads, along with lots of stop start town running (I am a self employed window cleaner) I usually averaged 39mpg.
I would have thought modern petrol's would get somewhere near that, but apparently I'm wrong, so I'll be staying with diesel.
There are quite a few forum members (this one) who have, or have had, a car with the VAG 1.4TSI petrol turbo. It certainly seems capable of more than 50mpg in a car the size of a Golf or Leon.
Doesn't change the fact that in relative terms, 49mpg would be considered pretty good by most folk rather than awful.
The Honda Civic 1.6DTEC is supposed to be extremely efficient, with actual mpg of 65+. So if mpg is that important, maybe look at one of them. They also happen to be very reliable, comfortable spacious and refined.
|
|
Unless you are a high miler I wouldn't get too hung up on mpg differences. Assuming £5.60 a gallon, 56mpg = 10p per mile. 42mpg = 13.3p per mile and 37mpg =15p per mile. But the newish cars you mention will be depreciating probably from £2000 (20p per mile) to £4000 (40p per mile) per annum, assuming 10,000 miles a year. Double those depreciation pence per mile figures if your current annual covid mileage is 5,000.
|
Unless you are a high miler I wouldn't get too hung up on mpg differences. Assuming £5.60 a gallon, 56mpg = 10p per mile. 42mpg = 13.3p per mile and 37mpg =15p per mile. But the newish cars you mention will be depreciating probably from £2000 (20p per mile) to £4000 (40p per mile) per annum, assuming 10,000 miles a year. Double those depreciation pence per mile figures if your current annual covid mileage is 5,000.
88 miles a day just for work, so I'm a high miler.
According to your figures, I'd be £22 a week worse off, just going to work, if I dropped to 37MPG.
I filled up this morning and it was £1.28 a litre, £5.81 a gallon.
Not sure I get your point re depreciation.
|
Not sure I get your point re depreciation.
Most people don't. Or if they do, they're not bothered. It can be quite painful for some punters to divide the number of miles their car has done into how many pennies it has cost when they sell it or trade it in, so mostly they don't do it. As a high miler using older cars you might get into single figures if you are lucky. But for most people driving decent newish cars depreciating around £3500 a year, if they only do an average 10,000 miles a year, that's 35p per mile - before they put the fuel in.
I offer two extreme examples from personal experience. When I bought my A8 it had depreciated by £60,000 from its list price of £72k and done 49,000miles. That's over £1.20 per mile suffered by its previous owners - perhaps a bit less if the first owner got a discount when new. On the other hand, my TR7 is probably worth at least as much in numerical pounds as the amount I paid for it - although today's debased pound buys much less than it did then. Even so, that's zero pence per mile depreciation.
Apologies for thread drift, but I thought it was worth explaining this point.
|
Not sure I get your point re depreciation.
Apologies for thread drift, but I thought it was worth explaining this point.
Definitely worth explaining. It does put it into perspective, the difference between 50 MPG and 60 MPG compared to the thousands lost in depreciation. . . daft worrying about a few pence when you are losing loads anyway.
To my simple mind, it boils down to this:
I'm going to lose 10 - 12 grand over the next 4 years. I can't do anything about that if I want a nearly new car. I could buy an older car and lose less, or a new car and lose more. My compromise is to buy 1-2 years old. I'll worry about how much its worth in four or five years time.
My weekly budget would take a hit of £22 to £25 if I averaged 42MPG instead of the 55MPG I get now on my journey to work. Thats £6k if I keep the car 5 years. £25 a week might not be much to some, but it's £25 I don't want to lose.
*I reserve to right to change my views if I get a 180BHP diesel that returns 42MPG :-)
|
|
|
|
. There are very few cars who's actual economy comes anywhere near the claimed economy,
I agree, but I used to get 60MPG on my route to work, now I get 55 MPG. There's talk of getting as low as 35MPG from petrol Focus's on the forum (I think I'll go check, that sounds stupidly low). I want to go forwards, not backwards, so I'm looking for more MPG or/and more power. If I could be sure of getting 50MPG I'd consider a petrol.
So, in the context of my 55 - 60 MPG, less than 50 is awful.
|
|
|
The Honda Civic 1.6DTEC is supposed to be extremely efficient, with actual mpg of 65+. So if mpg is that important, maybe look at one of them. They also happen to be very reliable, comfortable spacious and refined.
I'd ruled them out due to looks, but a quick search shows loads for sale. Year old 1.6 i-DTEC (120ps) SR (s/s) 5dr for around 15k certainly appeals.
120PS same as my Focus, but if I could get near 65MPG on a long journey, I'd be happy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
