For me, it would depend entirely on what the bells and whistles are. I want a DAB radio, electric windows and Aircon. I couldn't care less about lane-keep assist, collision assist or auto parking.

Usually I prefer last gen top trim. Entry level trims often have poor specs.

I have always gone for bottom level trim. I have done this twice and kept the first one 25 years. I still have the second one at 19 years with no intention of selling while it stays reliable. It used to be that poverty spec vehicles were bought by fleets and were unpopular on the secondhand market. This meant that an 18 month old vehicle would go for half the new price when auctioned. Those days are gone now, mores the pity.

If intent on a new car, I suspect the choice between new and old generation depends mainly on what has changed.

Minor upgrades, but essentially the same drivetrain, wheels, capacities, suspension etc, and it may be worth going for the old gen if the gizmos are what you want or need.

If the basic vehicle has been materially updated then I would suggest going with the latest. Otherwise you are (a) buying into outdated tech, and (b) come trade in in 3 years (or whenever) the older generation will be truly dated.

Personally I tend towards the lower end of a car range as (a) less to go wrong, (b) largely superfluous to the driving experience, (c) the important bits are functional across an entire range. (d) top of the range is where the manufacturer makes most profit, and where the punter pays the most for unnecessary froth!

We visited the Classic Car Show at the NEC this weekend.

On display was a Mark 1 Ford Fiesta Popular. It didn't get any more base level than that!

No passenger sun visor, passenger side door mirror, radio or heated rear window.

Vinyl seats with no head rests.

It was our first visit to the show, went with youngest son who is now 28. He was somewhat taken aback at seeing a Peugeot 308 in the show. He said, "When I was learning to drive Peugeot 308's were just cars people had, not classsics!"

Then he thought for a minute and said, "My god, that's what 75% of this show must be like for you !"

Edited by Stackman II on 14/11/2022 at 11:35

My mum had a MK2 (C Reg) Fiesta Popular. 950cc engine, no headrests, one mirror etc. We used to drive up and down the country in it, and it was truly awful. Completed rust bucket too. The upgrade to a MK2 Cavalier was quite something.

I bought a 2 year old 957 Fiesta Popular in 1987. Mine was a great car. No rust issues with mine, sold it at 8 years old and saw it about locally (still looking smart and tidy) till it was scrapped at 18 years old.

Fair to say that run of the mill cars of this era didn't suffer neglect well. If you didn't touch in stone chips, they rusted quickly. Also had no rear wheel arch liners and only partial front arch liners (behind the front wheels). I hosed under the arches and the wheel arch lips every time I washed the car. My car certainly benefited from this approach.

Yes, by today's standards, the Fiesta Popular was a very basic car. I'm always confused when a car gets criticism for being too basic. If you don't want a basic car, then spend a bit more and get a higher spec one. I knew the spec before I bought it.

The MK2 Cavilier was a cracking car though. Only drove one the once. Very nice car. You're now in rep mobile money though. Cost a lot more than a Fiesta Popular.