After my first brand new car (Grande Punto, mentioned elsewhere here) turned out to be a four wheeled disaster, I changed for a new 57 plate Ford Sportka SE in silver. It was a fantastic car to drive and never played up once during the time I had it, but it started rusting very quickly and by the last time I took it in for a service (Feb/March) when the garage finally found someone free to look at the bodywork after months of excuses they told me that this was to be expected and all cars rust (at 18months old?). Rust was appearing in all the seams/joins underneath, the drivers side front wheel arch, the base of the windscreen both sides, the sills and up behind the back bumper and bootlid. Anyway, getting to the point.
I was in touch with a friend (who works for VW dealer) about Beetles, he let me know about a VW Fox 1.4 that a customer had ordered and then upon delivery decided that he did not want and bought a Golf Plus instead! I think I got a good deal with the car as it is a 09 plate, delivery mileage. The original customer ordered the base model 1.4 Fox (he did not want the hinged side rear windows as he thinks they leak?) and spent nearly £3000 spec-ing it up to above Urban trim levels including black paint, electric pack (windows, mirrors, remote locking, alarm), colour coding (bumpers, mirrors, side strips), air con, side airbags. The garage also threw in paint/interior protection, mats, boot liner, mudflaps and I bought a chrome strip for the bootlid to finish it off. All in all it was about £10,000 worth of Fox for £7,500.
I've read up as much as I could prior to purchasing the Fox and it seemed a better prospect than the Ka, does anyone here have any opinions/knowledge about them here?
|
|
If it's not a silly question, what did Ford/the dealer do about the Ka?
|
Seconded.
Serious rot on an undamaged 57 reg car is unacceptable. Surely no court in the land would say otherwise.
It's not up to you to buy another car. It's up to Ford to sort out the one you have.
|
|
Ah, good point! They took photos of the rust and sent them to Ford....the result...I heard nothing at all. There were other reasons for the change also, the Sportka could manage 30mpg at best, usually around the 25mpg mark, it was very uncomfortable for any drive longer than about an hour plus it had highish emissions/tax.
|
HJ's car-by-car-breakdown:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/carbycar/index.htm?md=1013
|
So you are on your third new car in four or five years?
You didn't really answer the question about the Ka - did you PX it for the Fox?
|
|
|
|
There were other reasons for the change also the Sportka could manage 30mpg at best usually around the 25mpg mark it was very uncomfortable for any drive longer than about an hour plus it had highish emissions/tax.
Bloomin 'eck; my 1800 Kg 2.5 V6 Omega estate could manage that! How could such a small car have such poor fuel consumption? IIRC the official figure for this Ka is 36 combined.
Losing thousands in depreciation / cost to change to 'save' a hundred quid or so in road tax has always struck me as a strange financial model.
|
|
|
|
In my humble, you've done alright here, Owen. The verdict in the recent What Car, New Car Guide is that the Fox is good to drive and well built, but some rivals offer as much or more for the same money. You seem to have got a lot of extra kit, so negated the downside.
For me, the Fox harks back to the original Beetle, particularly in the cabin. Functional, simple motoring but with mega load potential through that hatch for a supermini.
I've run a Lupo for 138k and it uses no oil etc. If you have the same motor as mine (the 1.4), I think you have done OK. As long as it looks good to you on the drive, relax.
|
In my humble you've done alright here Owen.
I agree. At £10K+ it would have been insane, but £7,500 including things like a/c is a lot more reasonable.
I don't think you've really got any discount for not being the first registered keeper, but the reality is that that doesn't really matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>and spent nearly £3000 spec-ing it up to above Urban trim levels including black
>>paint, electric pack (windows, mirrors, remote locking, alarm), colour coding
>>(bumpers, mirrors, side strips), air con, side airbags. The garage also threw in
>>paint/interior protection, mats, boot liner, mudflaps and I bought a chrome strip for
>>the bootlid to finish it off. All in all it was about £10,000 worth of Fox for £7,500.
Nah, it was £7,000 worth of Fox, plus some accessories that cost Ford virtually nothing but they charge a whole load for. Only the aircon adds any sort of value.
And cos it's a base-spec model, when it comes to p/x, it will only be worth base-spec value.
IMO you were done. On the other hand, you seem pretty happy to have a load of tat for £500 - notwithstanding that I wouldn't. Drivethedeal would have got you 10% off the cost, so it was arguably £6,300 worth of Fox for £7,500. Again, arguably, the aircon would have cost you £1,000 on top, so perhaps you paid exactly the right price.
Surely this is a question you should have asked before buying it... at the risk of some miserable old fool like Mapmaker saying it's not a good deal.
As for paying extra for a chrome strip...
|
|
Your new VW sounds very nice - enjoy it.
|
Ive always liked these cars, far more practical than the Lupo that came before and they do look solid if slightly dull, but then more often than not, cars which look exciting disappoint as you found out with the Ford!
If I were to buy a VW ( Im no fan aside from this model ), it would be one of these and I would seriously consider one as and when I replace the Charade ( not for a long while though! ). The only minus is the lack of a diesel which would have improved the range no end.
If you are happy with your purchase, thats all that counts - regardless of the moaning minority on here, sometimes its not the financial bottomline that counts, but whether or not it makes you happy and makes previous motoring 'pain' go away.
Id think of it like this - you could have spent alot more on a small car - just look at people who spend £15k on a Mini which I can assure you, is no bigger and not that well specced either, but just look how many Minis there are around.
Do send us in some reports on ownership as there arent that many about and firsthand ownership experiences make excellent reading!
|
Do send us in some reports on ownership as there arent that many about and firsthand ownership experiences make excellent reading!
Well so far after two weeks (and around 1,700 miles) Im pleased with it, its averaging around 40+mpg, its quiet, nippy and feels very solid. The thing Im most impressed with however is the comfort, the seats are well shaped and supportive and the ride is very soothing (coming from someone who used to run hydropneumatic Citroens). In a way it feels like a mini mpv to drive as your sat up higher than in other city cars, behind a large, sloping windscreen with a large dash area infront of you.
|
|
|
|
Nah it was £7 000 worth of Fox plus some accessories that cost Ford virtually nothing but they charge a whole load for. Only the aircon adds any sort of value. IMO you were done. On the other hand you seem pretty happy to have a load of tat for £500
SQ
Im not quite sure what you are getting at really, the base model 1.4 Fox costs £7,675 (from VW), black paint was £185.00, side airbags were £235, air con £955, the elec/luxury pack was £645, leather wheel, handbrake, gearstick £135, foglights £85...making a total of around £9900, so not exactly sure where the £7,000 came from.
What load of tat?
What £500?
Personally I was quite happy to get mats, flaps, paint/interior protection, bootliner, 12mths tax and tank of fuel thrown in for free.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 01/05/2009 at 19:28
|
Yes, you got more toys, but come sale time those toys won't add much to the value - it'll be worth much the same as any other Fox of that age/mileage.
Quite how they can charge an extra £185 for black paint is beyond me. There are guys on BR who can remember when cars only came in black...
|
|
I am aware of that, and Im not sure I've implied that these toys would make a difference to the 2nd hand price. The reason I mentioned them was that I was suprised at someone ordering the base model and spec-ing it like this, when buying an Urban Fox may well have worked out cheaper.
|
I was suprised at someone ordering the base model and spec-ing it like this
...and I bet the dealership was thrilled when they then cancelled it. Wonder if the salesperson who took the order still works there?
|
|
|
|
There are guys on BR who can remember when cars only came in black...
>>>>>>>>> beauty
|
Some of us can remember when personal transport was, or was pulled by, Black Beauty!
|
|
|
|
|
Fox plus some accessories that cost Ford virtually nothing
That reminds me a VW advertising campaign some years ago where they compared Polo and Fiesta - they apparently dropped it after people kept writing in and calling asking for details on their Polo/Fiesta range!
|
|
I had a Fox loan car, was ok. Thought the plastics were a bit hard/shiny, and apparently the co2 emissions are way too high for a likkle car - 159g/km £155/yr from next yr.
|
I like the Fox for the room and height, not sure thats its class leading but it looks very impressive.
The interior quality and spec is poor, engines are just dire, performance, Co2 and MPG are all far worse than any of the competitors. 46 MPG average for the 1.2 is even worse than the POLO and thats rather poor compared to other brands.
|
!2 years corrosion warranty though.. at least it will likely be on the road in 18 yrs time - and not been recycled into a cheap washing machine, then back into a car, then been rusting in the seams again if the steel gets the misfortune to go back to one of the non galvanizing manufacturers.
We have a toaster that now and then emits a ghostly rattle sounding like tappets - also a ca ca ca coughing sound.........
;-)
|
we had a fox in our garden last night
wasnt a black one though and it pushed the bins over
Edited by bell boy on 02/05/2009 at 11:50
|
|
|
|
>>46 MPG average for the 1.2 is even worse than the POLO and thats rather poor compared to other brands.<<
Thats official figures and as we all know they mean not alot.
|
>>46 MPG average for the 1.2 is even worse than the POLO and thats rather poor compared to other brands.<< Thats official figures and as we all know they mean not alot.
Yes - that VAG engine has terrible economy, and is well known for it. We have one in a SEAT Ibiza and it does about 35MPG. Also have a Colt and a Jazz and they both nudge 50 with the same kind of use.
|
Owen - hope you enjoy your new motor.... the deal sounds good to me.
|
|
|
"Yes - that VAG engine has terrible economy"
Once again it shows that having the larger, less stressed, engine, as Owen has done, is worthwhile: he says somewhere above that he's getting 40+ mpg so far.
|
Once again it shows that having the larger less stressed engine as Owen has done is worthwhile: he says somewhere above that he's getting 40+ mpg so far.
A car that size should be getting 50+ mpg (should be nearer 60), thats 20% extra fuel costs that are being paid for an engine with a 0-60 of 17.5 seconds!
Edited by carl_a on 03/05/2009 at 02:25
|
I was reading a long term test of a Fiesta diesel where they say so far they have averaged 47 mpg. Hmm.
In real world figures, is it so much worse than other similar cars? I cant believe I feel compelled to defend any VAG product, but this is such a poor arguement - not because mid 40's is good mpg ( my Charade is 15 mpg better than this with ease ) but there are plenty of similarly sized petrol cars which are no better. You should check out the dimensions of it - its longer than some so-called superminis such as the Yaris, so if its a bit heavier on fuel, I would suggest this may be why.
|
A car that size should be getting 50+ mpg (should be nearer 60) thats 20% extra fuel costs that are being paid for an engine with a 0-60 of 17.5 seconds!
It is true that the Fox is not exceptionally economical, however it is considerably larger than most city cars. Most of its rival also have 1.0-1.1 engines, mine is the 1.4 with 0-60 of 13.0 sec.
|
SQIt is true that the Fox is not exceptionally economical however it is considerably larger than most city cars. Most of its rival also have 1.0-1.1 engines mine is the 1.4 with 0-60 of 13.0 sec.
My 1.1 in the Colt produces the same BHP as the VW 1.4 and a better 0-60 time, it also does 51 MPG average I get over 60).
The Kia Cee`d a much larger car than the Fox (2 classes up) has a 1.4 engine with 30 Bhp more yet does 4 MPG more, all this in a car that weighs a great deal more.
15 years ago the figures of the fox were ok, but small car petrol engines have moved on a great deal in the last 10 years since Toyota brought in the Yaris.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 04/05/2009 at 01:35
|
|
Skoda Fabia smallest petrol model only has 44 mpg combined and yet its considered one of the best.
|
|
No, its not the most economical small car, but 40+mpg is far from terrible and certainly alot better than the 25mpg the Sportka was giving!!
|
|
Sorry I labored the point a little to far. You'll get good service from it I'm sure, very cheap insurance is quite a blessing too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now, 12 months tax, a tank of fuel are worth having. £250 for free.
Mats are £5.99 for a universal set from Lidl, so the £150 branded set seem quite pricey in comparison... Paint protection costs £250, or a tin of wax costs a fiver - nobody really buys it at £250, do they? Interior protection probably exactly the same.
>>What load of tat
errr, the sundry add-on bits of leather and trim you're so chuffed with
>>What £500 -
the difference between the £7.5k you paid, and the £7k cost price I came up with.
>>£7,675 (from VW)
Just because you can source a car more expensively elsewhere doesn't mean that it's a better car from the expensive source...
As mentioned, you seem to have paid about the right price for the car as sourced from a broker, plus you've got a load of cosmetic extras that seem to make you happy. Job's a good 'un.
|
|
|
|
|
