Skoda Fabia Estate?

I don't think it continued into the current version but the newest of them should be around 3 years. The 1.2litre petrol pulls well, light turbo I think, and is reasonably economical. Given the similarity in size of the cars the same engine may well be in some Polos too.

Huge boot, nearly as long as in our Berlingo though shallower and narrower. The downside of that is that it's cramped for legroom in the back. Not an issue for us but would have been when we had teenagers.

Some models, my Monte Carlo amongst then, have a larger wheel/lower tyre profile combo which may be best avoided if ride is a priority.

Edit - re read you want an auto. That might narrow your choice and introduce some complication as they can be complex and/or troublesome.

Edited by Bromptonaut on 31/12/2023 at 11:01

I've been looking for a replacement for my 80yo Dad's new 20 plate Fiesta 1L T (125PS) titanium X, because he hates it (too 'new techy') after just a year after parting company (px) with his near base spec 08 plate Fiesta 1.25 (82PS and slow).

Even though my dad's needs are different to some degree than the OP's, some of the criteria do coincide, such as ride quality, especially over poor surfaces, where his current car's low profile (45) 17in tyres are not really suitable.

I agree with BBD over looking at the low and mid-spec cars of the Fiesta/Polo size to get cars shod with tyres with a sidewall profile percentage of 55-65 and preferably an actual height of between 112 - 127mm (depending on the size/weight of the car).

My 'elderly' (now 18yo) Mazda3 currently is on 195/65 (126.75mm high sidewall) R15 tyres and it helped improve the ride quality over the ok 205/55 R16s originally fitted - more to offset the ageing suspension parts and lengthen their life as the higher sidewall tyre takes more of the strain in that regard, but should last longer themselves and are cheaper to replace.

I also agree as regards the auto design for the OP as they are going for a second hand car, and whilst most of the dual clutch design issues contributing to early failures have been sorted to a large degree, second hand cars may still get enough usage in the urban setting before being sold to mean buying one is still far more of a risk reliability-wise than a decent torque converter or CVT.

The ride on the latest Fiesta is fine if you avoid the lower profile tyre versions, and if I recall, they did stop fitting the infamously unreliable 'Powershift' dual clutch auto box for a 'standard' torque converter from around the end of 2017. Only available with the 100PS version of the 1L T engine - hopefully its own design issues have now either been rectified or (warranty) repairs undertaken.

The 2015+ Mazda2 is fine for the drive, albeit not quick, as it's only auto in 90PS form with its 1.5 non-turbo engine, which is 12 sec for the 0-60 dash rather than 9.7 for the manual version. As BBD says (same issues on ride quality for the Mazda3), look at the mid-spec SE-L, which has a decent amount of kit for the money, and avoid the Sport models on lower profile tyres.

If the OP can afford a Mazda3 and it's not too big for the country lanes/tracks, then the decent profile tyres on the previous (3rd) gen car's SE-L (Nav) models combined with the more powerful 2L engine (by no means swift, but fine in auto form and about 1.5 sec quicker to 60 than the Mazda2's auto) would suit.

A late model version 3rd gen (updated spec from late 2016 to 2019, better sat nav [Apple CP/Android auto from 2018]) with reasonable/lower mileage would be better than a high mileage (possibly abused) early 4th gen (from 2019) car. Not sure if the more powerful Skyactiv-X in an (early) gen4 would be in their price bracket, unless its a high-miler and/or been abused/suspect service history.

Prices of cars have softened somewhat in the last 6 months, but I'd be careful buying from some indie/smaller scale outfits (rather than main dealers or nationally recognised car supermarkets with a reasonable reputation to uphold). One local one (only in my region) looks to have lots of 'bargains', but reading the reviews, they look like a bunch of Arthur Daleys to me.

I agree that a Citroen C3 is the obvious choice. Or a C3 Aircross if that doesn't count as an SUV.

Safe to say if the OP's partner considers the Puma as being an SUV, the C3 Aircross will also be a no no!. Which is kind of sad, ruling out a car, which may otherwise be perfect for your needs, because it has been given meaningless label by marketing types with nothing better to do. OK, the C3 Aircross is pretty tall and boxy, but the Puma isn't.

I'd actually consider another Citroen. the C4 Cactus, in post facelift (2014 on) guise. The marketing types I mention above would also consider it an SUV, even though it is only 6mm(!) taller than a C3 hatchback (and 18mm taller than a 2009-2017 Polo). And it was the facelifted C4 Cactus which ushered in Citroen's new focus on comfort with the dual density foam seats, hydraulic bump stops and extra sound insulation. It also replaced the hopeless single clutch automated manual in the first gen with a torque converter auto. Much is made in road tests and reviews about the rear windows being hinged to open rather than wind down, but personally I really can't see it being a big issue.

On balance of you wanting an upgrade from a Polo and the type of mixed routes and narrow street, I'd say a C class hatchback is the way to go.

Seems like most C class products from the Toyota stable will tick your boxes, plus you get better residuals and reliability thrown in.

For the cool factor I would put a Lexus over Toyota but this is subjective.

How about a Lexus CT200h? Based on the bigger Prius but comes in a smaller package.

DS3 with the EAT6 auto?

Could be a good shout. Presumably just a C3 under all the fancy bits?

If you do look at a Corolla, some models come on sensible sized tyres, some on much bigger wheels with low profile tyres, no prizes for guessing which will provide the best ride and tyre replacements as much as 50% lower than the low profiles for the same make and model tyre, on our Forester the difference in ride between the summer 17" 55 aspect tyres/wheels and the winter 16" 60 aspect is striking and that's only one step up/down in both tyre measurements, imagine if the difference was 2 or more steps in both.

I've not been in a Polo for years, but a friend had a GTD Golf on 19" wheels and it was probably the hardest and noisiest ride i've experienced in a car for years, ridiculous almost covers it, amazed he bought the horrid thing, it was even worse than the short lived Citroen C2 VTS bone shaker wifey once had.

Suggest you compile a shortlist of what you fancy and test drive a few.

Yes, Citroens C4 are a good shout for comfort. But don't rule out any of the small crossovers, eg I have a Vitara, it's very comfortable and does 50mpg, it's not really a SUV, at all, weighs the same as a Fiesta! I don't think anything in the small hatch category will give you anything different to what you have. A Corolla rides nicely but ground clearance is not that good.

• petrol
• apple car play
• under £16K
• 5 door
• auto (which will be a first for me, but my partner would prefer)

, but my partner has declared they are vehemently anti SUVs.....

Reasons why? Such antipathy excludes many small cars, e.g our Peugeot 2008 EAT6, with which we are still very pleased after 4yrs ownership.

Hmm, I hold my hand up and say we're not as keen on the SUV. To myself and Mrs BJ many seem really "boxy". As an extreme example if I had lots of money (I don't) I would never consider a Bentley SUV - to me they look awful.

I know, it's just me! Also SUV's usually have smaller boots and come with a large premium over the car they are underpinned by although they do seem to keep their value better - for now. There are a few exceptions - bizarrely I'm keen on the Ford Puma although it looks more like a hatch to me.

One thing for certain though seat comfort is an individual choice or joint compromise. One person's heaven is another's hell. Driving position/ seat ergonomics, ride and refinement are top of my future car decision making process.

Edited by Big John on 02/01/2024 at 21:16

Yes, they're marginally easier to get into (if you're an average sized man), but otherwise they're fairly silly.

The missus is about 5' and she is adamant that we are never to get an SUV. She says that she doesn't want to have to climb up to get into one. She tried it with her friend's Hyundai Tucson and didn't like the height at all. Luckily we are not in the market for new cars as our existing ones are 20 and 15 years old and look like they may do us another 5 or 6 years.