|
The Almera is very dull, also not sure how it does re NCAP (you mention safety as a reason for change), it may be that a smaller car with a good rating (Clio etc) is actually safer.
|
Interesting point.
It is a 4 star NCAP and I would think that is likely to be pretty good. I view it that a bigger car with 4 stars is probably close to a smaller car with 5 because of the extra amount of car to absorb any impact.
As far as power is concerned 97hp in the Almera has to be comparable to 75hp in the smaller Fiesta. Again, good enough for 3,000 miles a year of mainly short journeys.
As the earlier post points out, they were cheaply sold towards the end of their life but that must work in my favour? In 3 years time with 20,000 on the clock it would probably still be worth £3,500 plus?
I am wondering if there is a better buy (for the same money) that could be justified as an alternative. Focus's (Foci?) at this money are much older and higher mileage, and not always as well kitted out. Driving dynamics better yes, but as mentioned before that is less of a priority.
|
"I view it that a bigger car with 4 stars is probably close to a smaller car with 5 because of the extra amount of car to absorb any impact."
NCAP ratings should only be used to compare cares in the same class. A supermini with a 5 star rating cannot be compared with say a Mondeo or similar with only 4 stars. But not enough people realise this. They probably think something small with a 5* rating is safer than a 5 Series BMW with fewer stars.
|
I flogged my Focus for an Almera, and both have their good and bad points.
The Almera certainly 'feels' underpowered compared to the Focus, but both have similar outputs. It shows how subjective these things are.
The Almera's got a much more useful boot/luggage area.
The Almera goes round corners much faster, but it's on 16" alloys with lower profile rubber. I'd prefer the higher profile 15" steels of the Focus for comfort and economy.
The Almera's got a Renault engine (and I suspect many other parts). I wouldn't have touched it with a barge pole at the time if I'd realised, as I generally don't go near a PSA.
I actually quite like the Almera, and wouldn't have got rid of the Focus if it hadn't presented me with an unexpected £1300 bill.
|
>>The Almera goes round corners much faster but it's on 16" alloys with lower profilerubber. >>
I just dont believe it, my experience of an Almera is stodgy soggy, no communication through the steering where even a basic 1998 Focus in reasonable order has a responsive chassis and sharp steering.
The Almera's got a Renault engine (and I suspect many other parts). I wouldn't have touched it with a barge pole at the time if I'd realised as I generally don't go near a PSA.>>
Renault is not PSA.
|
|
And the 1.5 petrol engine has never been near a Renault either.
|
|
|
|
"They probably think something small with a 5* rating is safer than a 5 Series BMW with fewer stars."
But you cant prove its not.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
Not unless I challenge it against a bus hey TVM? :)
It is true though. I hope we never test it.
Safety is always subjective of course. Volvo are insistent that the safety of their cars is above that of the NCAP standards because they feel their testing is much more 'real world' than NCAP's. I am happy with that and, whilst I didn't chose the S60 on that basis alone it does give a (slight) feeling of reassurance.
With my wife's car it is striking the balance between affordability, practicality and safety and I would think the Almera is likely to be safer than the Fiesta, especially as it is the 'old' shape Fiesta not the latest shape.
|
'Renault is not PSA. '
I always understood PSA were Citroen/Peugeot/Renault. Please put me right.
'And the 1.5 petrol engine has never been near a Renault either.'
Perhaps not. But isn't it basically a Renault lump?
|
'Renault is not PSA. ' I always understood PSA were Citroen/Peugeot/Renault. Please put me right.
No. PSA is Peugeot SA, essentially Peugeot PLC, which bought Citroen out of bankruptcy in the 1970s. Renault is a partly state-owned company, independent of PSA, which has an alliance with Nissan (although Renault does NOT own Nissan).
'And the 1.5 petrol engine has never been near a Renault either.' Perhaps not. But isn't it basically a Renault lump?
No. The QG15DE engine is a Nissan design. The 2.2 diesel takes much of its technology from Renault, and many parts of the car are Renault-sourced (a contributing cause of Nissan's reliability decline in recent years). The petrol engines are a development of the bombproof Nissan petrols of the 90s (the GA series), although they don't appear to be as good -- they ain't Renault.
|
|
Many thanks for putting me right. I stand humbled before the forum's collective knowledge.
|
|
|
|
"They probably think something small with a 5* rating is safer than a 5 Series BMW with fewer stars." But you cant prove its not.
Can too:
www.euroncap.com/Content-Web-Faq/f795b985-edb5-4fd...x
"In frontal impacts between cars, the occupants of the heavier car or the one with higher structures tend to fare better than those travelling in lighter lower cars. As these effects are currently impossible to overcome, Euro NCAP only makes comparisons within size categories. The rating of a car within its size category is a function of the quality of its safety design."
"Results should only be compared within the same group. The frontal testing method mirrors a crash between two similar sized cars. A heavier car or one with a higher structure will tend to have an advantage if it impacts a smaller car. The Euro NCAP results cannot be used to predict the outcome of such crashes."
Only the side-impact ratings are comparable between cars of different sizes. The adult occupant ratings and front impact ratings are not.
Note also:
"It is essential that no attempt is made to compare theratings between cars in different segments or mass groups. The frontal crash test aims to measure the performance of the car impacting another car of similar mass. There is no capability to determine what would happen if cars of widely different masses impact each other. It is not primarily the mass difference that has the effect, but the effect that mass has on thestructural stiffness combined with the relative height of the structures from the ground."
Which is not terribly illuminating.
Also www.edmunds.com/ownership/safety/articles/106748/a...l
"In the latest crash figures available from 2003, provided by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (see chart below), there were 142 fatalities per million registered vehicles for the smallest cars. That figure drops to 108 fatalities for the next larger class of cars. For large sedans, that number drops to 61 per million. For small SUVs, the figure was 75 deaths per million as compared with 62 for large SUVs. For pickups, totals increased to 124 per million for small trucks and 102 per million for large."
One would have thought the large sedan likely to do more miles than the superminis, so it seems that you are many times more likely to die driving a Renault Clio than say a Volvo S80
|
Re safety.
I am told by EuroNCAP that my old Accent was a one-and-a-half star car (even though they couldn't be bothered to test the newer one). However, in the States the one I had was a four-star motor, respectable enough.
The nay-sayers on this very forum bleated about how unsafe it must be, since the gods at EuroNCAP said so.
Well, I did put the car to the test.
I hit a metal post at 25mph, head on (and that was the speed I hit it) -- about as bad as low-speed collisions get, since the post does not give way.
The front of the car was a right old state, it had caved in around 2-3 feet around the affected area. Needless to say the airbags deployed.
I, however, walked away without a scratch. The interior of the car was totally unaffected -- no encroachment, no movement of the pedals, the windscreen was undamaged and the only part of me that was hurt was my pride (even though it was not my fault -- I had swerved to avoid an idiot who drove in front of me).
So, these "unsafe" cars then.....
|
My middle daughter bashes her car about horribly and people (poor judges however) tell me she goes fast.
She's in her thirties now and has sort of got away with it so far. Time was when I would have got her a brick-style Volvo or Mercedes taxi if I could have afforded it, although the thought of what she might do with it used to worry me. But actually she never hits anything really hard. She has children fortunately. Just hard enough to cost money and make the people in the other cars take unfair advantage.
It's obviously safer for you to be in something big. But if you run over a Mini or something there may be hell to pay.
Fingers crossed basically. She has a boy friend now with a really fast car. I hope he doesn't let her drive it.
|
I read this week about companies like Ford investigating some sort of hydraulic legs (on wheels) that shoot out under a car to lift it's front end in a collision. Logic being you raise the front profile of smaller cars to better withstand impact with larger ones.
But what if it fires by mistake...
|
|
|
|
The nay-sayers on this very forum bleated about how unsafe it must be since the gods at EuroNCAP said so. Well I did put the car to the test.
I never fail to be impressed at the length some people go to in order to further the fountain of knowledge that flows from this forum!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
