hi everyone,
new to the forum...it looks great
am in a bit of a dilemma......want to buy a new car but not sure what exactly to get.
am looking for a car that will last me at least 5 years and my main concerns are that it will be reliable and not be too expensive to maintain. i do about 12-15k miles a year and hence am looking at a diesel. would this be about the right mileage to look at diesels?
the cars i'm thinking of are the new accord (perhaps 2-3 years old) 2.2cdti exec, 3 series(old shape perhaps 3-4 years) sport/se spec and the a4 2.0 tdi with a SE spec.
am not sure which of these choices seems the best option. presume that the bmw and audi are deemed to be more "upmarket" but are they better cars for the money. i guess that i would get a newer car with higher spec for the same money.
any help would be gratefully appreciated
thanks
slight tweak to subject line - PU
|
Order of recommendation would be :
1. Audi (renowned for having the best interior design/quality)
2. BMW (renowned for best driving dynamics)
3. Honda (used to be renowned for reliability but not any more - especially on diesel versions)
Would recommend driving all 3 - the choice will become obvious to you, depending on your personal needs.
|
thanks for the reply...
what are the reliability problems with the accord? the only thing that i heard of was that the paint was very thin and chipped easily...
|
What makes the Audi a good choice, also makes it a bad one.
The Audi A4 design has been around for about 7 years, the recent facelift only changed the exterior slightly, everything else remained the same. As a result any problems are ironed out, but when you sit in newer Audis such as the A3 or A6 the A4 seems very dated (friends had a 51 reg and I had a 'facelifted' 06 reg courtesy car and inside you couldn't tell the difference). The new A5 shows you what a new A4 interior will be like and it is a vast improvement.
The 2.0TDi engine is a good choice - it's based on proven VAG PD technology. I'm on my second A3 with this engine and do 15-20,000 a year - averaging mid 40 mpg. There are problems with particulate filters clogging up, but this crops up if you potter round town and never give the car a good workout.
|
|
|
|
Audi A4 is 1.9tdi for old shape I think, either 100, 115 or 130 hp.
Accord is 138hp.
Equivalent BMW is 320 with 150hp.
Accord seems like the obvious choice, can hardly see it being less reliable than others, and the BMW would cost about £2k more, as would any but the 100hp A4. Plu the Exec has leather, if that's a plus, and more friendly image than BMW when driving.
|
I had extended 2-3 day tests in all 3 of those cars 2 1/2 yrs ago, and also Mondeo TDCi Ghia X.
I ended up buying a 5mth old (so it's just coming up to 3yrs old now) Merc C270CDi and (touch wood) I've been very pleased with it.
I did really like the Accord, and one of the age the OP is looking at would be a 5 speed which I felt suited the car well - 3rd was good for anything from a crawl upwards. Very nice engine.
I thought the BMW was a lovely A road drive.
The Audi just didn't do anything for me at all.
|
thanks everyone so far for the replies....all very interesting stuff. i think they all appear safe choices but i wonder if the accord is the best bet....reliable car (i hope, except what whoopwhoop said) and more spec for your money.
which of the 3 would be cheapest to run in terms of maintenance, parts and yearly service?
|
I'm sure any of the three models mentioned would provide fine transport - it really comes down to what you like the look of.
Speaking personally I would go with a petrol engine at your annual mileage - that's mainly because I don't yet trust CR Diesels and I much prefer the characteristics of a good petrol engine.
Statistically I suspect the Honda may prove to be the most reliable, although none of them would be 'bad'. You could probably get a newer car by going for the Honda for your money, possibly one still under factory warranty.
|
I was looked for ?rep-mobile? but I did have some issues with the Accord ?package? ? the car I drove would have been a 54 reg one and some things have no doubt been changed since then.
The Exec model demonstrator I had had sat nav, so the big rotary dials in the middle of the dash were replaced with an LCD touch screen ? that really lifted the interior. I thought elec folding mirrors and no trip computer were strange omissions. There was no easy way of integrating a mobile phone. The way the dash was illuminated all the time bugged me ? during the day it wasn?t obvious is the cars lights were on or off. I also thought the side bumper strips should have been standard.
I didn?t notice your mileage but I would have thought you?d be better off with petrol too ? at a given age they?re likely to be cheaper to buy, and have done less miles than a diesel. You?ll probably have more choice of privately used petrol cars, where most diesels will have been used as company cars. Diesel pumps and injectors can bring large bills. There?s always the risk a diesel could have been mis-fueled and have lurking problems,
|
|
|
|
IMO at your mileage a petrol Honda Accord would be the best. As we all know Honda is second to none when it comes to reliability and I don't think there should be any issues with petrol Accords. Diesel would be expensive to buy so you could save that money while buying a car and it'll come handy while re-fueling :)
Couple of links to show you how reliable Accord is!
www.whatcar.co.uk/news-special-report.aspx?NA=2255...7
www.whatcar.co.uk/news-special-report.aspx?NA=2255...2
{please do not post direct links to 'What Car' , ie, leave off the http part of the link - DD}
|
As we all know Honda is second to none when it comes to reliability
Keep dreaming.
I disagree. My 2004 CR-V was a dog
The chap with the 3 year old Honda which had spat a big end out of the sump would disagree.
|
The chap with the 3 year old Honda which had spat a big end out of the sump would disagree.
To be fair it was nearly 5yrs old and Honda put a new engine in (and didn't even quibble about the last service not being at a Honda dealer).
|
>>I disagree. My 2004 CR-V was a dog<<
I think you are on your own in suggesting that Honda are no longer reliable.
I can't disagree that you have had a poor ownership experience but most people would be very suprised with that in a Honda and would consider it to be the exception and not the norm.
IMO the Accord is better built than either of the 2 alternatives - and even better built inside than the A4 now which is really showing its age.
|
|
|
|
Sounds to me a personal grudge with Honda or the intent that I'm going to hate Honda it doesn't matter what!
My next door neighbour has got a 2002 CR-V and the family loves it!
I'm not saying that Honda can't make a bad car but more often than not their cars are spot on and the JD Survey proves that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
