|
Nothing at all wrong with a Golf, it ticks all your boxes, apart from value. Being the go-to choice, means that your money is not going to go very far with a Golf, hence your £10k is only getting you a 5 year old example.
Having a look online at used cars, for £10k i can get a 2018 Astra 1.4 turbo*. a 2018 Hyundai i30 1.4 turbo, a 2017 Seat leon 1.4 turbo, a 2017 Skoda Octavia 1.4 turbo (more space for your mates), a 2016 Ford Focus 1.5 turbo (180bhp).
*There is actually a 2019 example on Autotrader,
www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/20200619030...1
As i said, nothing wrong with a Golf, but there is no way i'd blow £10k on a 5 year old example when there are so much younger cars, equally capable of meeting your requirements out there for the same money.
Edited by badbusdriver on 03/07/2020 at 08:07
|
|
Good call on the Leon, badbusdriver.
Much as the Focus 1.5T sounds tempting both in 148 and 180 bhp forms, I would avoid. They have a terrible reputation for supping fuel at a more alarming rate than an idiot Englishman will be supping ale tomorrow night down the pub.
|
Good call on the Leon, badbusdriver.
Much as the Focus 1.5T sounds tempting both in 148 and 180 bhp forms, I would avoid. They have a terrible reputation for supping fuel at a more alarming rate than an idiot Englishman will be supping ale tomorrow night down the pub.
Personally, i've always considered the Golf a bit overrated, so i'd sooner take a Leon or an Octavia, even if they were the same age to price ratio!.
But in terms of bang per buck, i'd find it hard to overlook the Astra, that 2019 example in particular which offers an awful lot of car for the money, especially with it being the 150bhp version.
Edited by badbusdriver on 03/07/2020 at 09:16
|
|
I have a 2018 1.4 Golf 122hp bought last year. It has similar oomph in day to day driving as the Civic 1.8 it replaced. Economy is outstanding at 50-55 Mpg on the computer with 60 achievable with care on a run. Even if the computer is generous it’s very economical.
I fancied a 148/150 hp model but they are very rare in the Golf. They are much commoner in Skoda and Seat, especially the Octavia. However in my price range they were all 1.5’s which have had kangarooing issues.
£10k gets you just into 1.5 Octavia territory but you are better off with the 1.4 unless you can be absolutely sure the engine issues have been solved retrospectively for older cars.
|
|
Nothing wrong with a 1.4 golf but the Hyundai i30 as suggested would still have plenty of warranty
|
|
Thanks all for your excellent suggestions. I like the idea of an i30 now with a few years warranty left! For my budget that seems a steal and they have comparable specs to the golf. I had looked at japanese cars but as suggested I just found them a bit boring and the -2017 body of the civic just ugly and the 2018+ models (which i like the look of) for a 1.5 were out of my budget.
|
|
|
Nothing wrong with a 1.4 golf but the Hyundai i30 as suggested would still have plenty of warranty
A KIA Ceed would have even more (+2 years), assuming the previous owner(s) didn't drive it to the Moon and back...
Same car underneath. I prefer the styling of the Ceed over the i30 (fastback excepted). Both decent cars either way.
|
Nothing wrong with a 1.4 golf but the Hyundai i30 as suggested would still have plenty of warranty
A KIA Ceed would have even more (+2 years), assuming the previous owner(s) didn't drive it to the Moon and back...
Same car underneath. I prefer the styling of the Ceed over the i30 (fastback excepted). Both decent cars either way.
Sadly the OP's budget wouldn't get into a Ceed 1.4 turbo, that engine didn't get into the Ceed till the new model in 2018. So going with the Kia would mean the n/a 1.6 which offers 133bhp, not far short of the 1.4 turbo's 138bhp, but quite a bit less torque delivered at much higher revs. A 1.6 petrol turbo (201bhp) is on the cards, but not many out there to choose from and the youngest in budget would be a high miles 2016, otherwise a 2015. Personally, i'd still take that over the Golf, but the OP seems to be looking at the sweet spot in performance/economy that 1.4 turbo's seem to pull off well.
|
Honda Civic
If you want a nice drive you could try and get a current shape Ford Focus for £10k but I don’t think you will find one for that kind of money.
Don’t buy the previous shape Ford Focus (significantly inferior vehicle although it did drive well) - they ended on the 18 plate.
So ideally you want a 68 plate Focus which for £10k I don’t think you will find one and if you do it will be on a decent mileage. If your doing low mileage then no problem otherwise go with a Civic.
|
Forgot to add, for £10k if you went into a decent Fiat dealers (the one in Coventry is very good) and made a straight £10k offer for a a Fiat Tipo 1.4 brand new, they would have with you a deal.
Brand new, 3 year warranty, drives nice, plenty of space inside, very good heater system (air con ice cold for once), a very under rated car.
With 30k and 3 years old forecast to be worth £6.1k - your losing £1.3k a year depreciation which is pretty good especially for a mid size hatchback.
|
|
|
|
|
would you suggest saving up a bit for that 1.4 ceed? it does look really good and the extra warranty is appealing
|
would you suggest saving up a bit for that 1.4 ceed? it does look really good and the extra warranty is appealing
That is really up to you and how much you want/like the Ceed along with how much that warranty appeals.
Cheapest 1.4t GDI on Autotrader is £12.5k, not too much of a jump from £10k, but next cheapest is £14k which is a fair chunk more money!. Cheapest on Ebay is £14789 so no bargains to be had there.
Personally. i don't think it is worth the extra money just for the warranty, these are reliable cars so it is unlikely you'll need it.
To me, the Kia is not worth any more than the i30, so i'm not really sure why the big difference in prices, especially when underneath they are exactly the same car. If we were comparing past models, the previous gen Ceed was (to most eyes) a far nicer looking car than the previous gen i30. But with the current versions?, yes, maybe the Ceed is better looking overall, but the difference (IMO) is much smaller.
But as i said earlier, perhaps through being Scottish and liking a bargain(!), i'd find it difficult to look past the Astra. Quite the underdog (maybe not as much as the Tipo), which is a shame because they are actually really good cars, much better than you might imagine. If i were you i'd try to get a test drive in a 1.4 turbo (ideally the 150bhp version) before discounting it (unless of course you really don't like its looks).
|
https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/202007040840858?postcode=cf158ee&model=ASTRA&fuel-type=Petrol&onesearchad=New&onesearchad=Nearly%20New&onesearchad=Used&advertising-location=at_cars&transmission=Manual&radius=1500&price-to=10000&exclude-writeoff-categories=on&minimum-badge-engine-size=1.4&sort=price-asc&maximum-mileage=15000&make=VAUXHALL&year-from=2018&page=1
something like this you'd recommend? looks good, how does vauxhall do in terms of reliablity? i appreciate they'd be cheaper to repair being a uk company, anything else i should know? it's my first proper car lol, currently drive a 2007 ford fiesta zetec diesel 1.4
Ultimately, probably not quite as reliable as a Toyota or Honda, but pretty good all the same. Seems most of the reliability issues likely to affect a Vauxhall are going to be centred around the diesels which, certainly for the last 10 years or so, have been sourced from Fiat.
But as I said, try the car first. Personally, I'd be wanting to check the ride comfort of this SRI, it might be a tad harsh on the bigger wheels.
|
|
Quite liking the look of a 2017 mazda 3 SEL NAV
|
Quite liking the look of a 2017 mazda 3 SEL NAV
Fantastic looking car, very reliable, very well built, good to drive......up to a point!.
Hampered by its engine. A 2.0 petrol probably sounds like a good start right?. Well , while there is a 165bhp version available in the Sport trim, most 3's (including the SEL) have the 120bhp version. To put that in perspective, the Kia Ceed 1.6 which would get into your budget has 134bhp. Not slow exactly, but not as fast as you'd expect, and apparently the engine doesn't respond well to being worked hard. Fine up to a point, but not enjoyable to really cane it which, given the impeccable road manners, is a shame.
|
|
It's torque that you need as well as bhp. Some engines, like the Mazda 2.0, have plenty of power but limited torque, so that although the power is there at the top end of the rev range, it doesn't feel very lively lower down.
When we first got a Peugeot 205 GRD for SWMBO in 1988, it was the torque as much as the extra economy that sold it to us; and it didn't disappoint. There are now some torquey petrol engines like the excellent VW Group TSIs, which are good fun to drive and also more economical as you don't need to floor it to get good acceleration.
Diesel is still a good idea for larger cars doing high mileages, but probably not any more for small cars.
|
It's torque that you need as well as bhp. Some engines, like the Mazda 2.0, have plenty of power but limited torque, so that although the power is there at the top end of the rev range, it doesn't feel very lively lower down.
When we first got a Peugeot 205 GRD for SWMBO in 1988, it was the torque as much as the extra economy that sold it to us; and it didn't disappoint. There are now some torquey petrol engines like the excellent VW Group TSIs, which are good fun to drive and also more economical as you don't need to floor it to get good acceleration.
Diesel is still a good idea for larger cars doing high mileages, but probably not any more for small cars.
I think from memory, both variants of the 2.0 SA-X engine on the gen-3 Mazda3 come with about 155 lbs-ft of torque. And from a long term owner of a gen-1 1.6 petrol car, it wasn't the step change in performance (given mine has 104bhp and about the same torque) I was expecting when I test drove one (that had already done about 4k).
Shame really - a very nice car otherwise - great handling.
Edited by Engineer Andy on 07/07/2020 at 09:29
|
Quite liking the look of a 2017 mazda 3 SEL NAV
Fantastic looking car, very reliable, very well built, good to drive......up to a point!.
Hampered by its engine. A 2.0 petrol probably sounds like a good start right?. Well , while there is a 165bhp version available in the Sport trim, most 3's (including the SEL) have the 120bhp version. To put that in perspective, the Kia Ceed 1.6 which would get into your budget has 134bhp. Not slow exactly, but not as fast as you'd expect, and apparently the engine doesn't respond well to being worked hard. Fine up to a point, but not enjoyable to really cane it which, given the impeccable road manners, is a shame.
SWMBO had a Mazda 6 with that engine in 143hp guise. It's a heavier car than the 3 but never felt under powered.
A little flat perhaps but it always felt deceptively quick to me.
I would try the 3 if you like everything else about it to see if you think the engine is fine.
A previous diet of turbo-charged engine might put you off.
|
|
My last car was a 1.4 Ford fiesta zetec diesel so it hasn't got to beat much ??
|
Seems most of the reliability issues likely to affect a Vauxhall are going to be centred around the diesels
or the electrics/electronics ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
