as the title suggests this an opinion question.
if you had to choose, which of the 3 following vehicle types would you choose?
the ultra reliable, not so interesting car that does average mpg but if it breaks it costs a fortune to fix---japanese for example
the not so reliable, not so interesting car that does average mpg and is cheap to fix---
ford, pug, vauxhall
the unreliable, expensive to fix car that drinks fuel and costs a fortune to fix BUT drives like a gem and handles like a beauty--- something italian mabey
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 27/08/2009 at 01:31
|
For me
the not so reliable, not so interesting car that does average mpg and is cheap to fix---
ford, pug, vauxhall
Cheap repairs are ease of getting repairs are as important as anything else for me. What is also important is that there car has a good web community on it. When my MAF went the diagnostics were pointed to something different put people on here such as bellboy and the Corsa site all suggested I checked it and they were right.
The worst thing would be driivng some rare car I know would cost a fortune as soon as it goes wrong.
My car now is a bit boring but at least it is quite high spec for its age and its nippy. I think I will always stick to common cars.
Edited by Rattle on 27/08/2009 at 00:20
|
|
|
Given the amount that cars cost, one is entitled not to have to make that choice. Why can't I have reliable + interesting?
So far my Octavia vRS estate fulfils both, as did the Golf estate before it. Thinking of a few others - Mini Cooper, 1.3 Yaris, most BMWs, Nissan 370z. Porsches....
I think the same should apply to buying used as much as new. If for any reason (and I can't think of one) I had to make that choice, it would have to come down on the side of reliability. Without that, a car is arguably not fulfilling its purpose.
|
|
|
I find the question contradictory.
Ultra reliable cars are not necessarily expensive to fix or only do average mpg.
Expensive cars are not necessarily unreliable and drink fuel.
Hence does not compute.
BUT if I had to weight things, relaibility would score high alongwith TOTAL cost of ownership.
Regards.
FTF
|
|
it just a question. you don't need to give it the third degree. i just wondered if others here had the same thoughts about cars as i have.
|
Fair comment, as I clicked post I wondered whether I was getting a bit too analytical!
Its late!
FTF
|
|
no worries, atleast you read it. thanks.
|
From the list, I would choose a Ford.
Allegedly this falls into the category of "the not so reliable, not so interesting car that does average mpg and is cheap to fix-"
However, Fords are rapidly closing the gap in terms of reliability, and modern Fords are good to drive. I think that you are right about the average MPG, though. That's what puts me off a Mondeo.
|
|
Would be the third one for me, but without the unreliability issues, which are greatly exaggerated nowadays.
|
Two possible answers in my view. Take your pick.
1/ Mondeo
2/ 42
|
"Cheap to fix" is irrelevant if the car is reliable -- within reason.
In my experience, Japanese cars are far cheaper to run than an equivalent Peugeot or Vauxhall because they fail less often.
The simple maths bears it out.
Car A goes wrong twice a year. Part costs say £30. Labour is 2 hours each time. Total cost (30+(35x2))*3=£200.
Car B goes wrong once a year. Part costs say £70. Labour is the same. Total cost (70+(35x2))*1=£140.
So the "cheap parts" car ends up costing more. This is an extreme example as well, as in my experience Nissan parts are rarely more than 30-40% more expensive than Peugeot ones, and they do, definitely, last longer and suffer fewer premature failures.
As for "fun to drive", this is subjective. I personally find a Primera much more enjoyable than a 406. The Peugeot's chassis is good, but it's gearbox is evil. All IMHO of course.
|
This question is just waaaaaaayyyyy too hypothetical for me to even begin to attempt an answer.
:-)
|
|
|
|
