A Comfortable Car & Cheap To Run

We had a couple of 1.8 "lean burn" Carina Es on the fleet that also had a
light.

I struggled to get it to go out...

 

Yep, I haven't experienced an S40 though, so I recommend the Carisma. I
figure they were cheap cars, but also, they're faster depreciating
because of the negative image.

Richard

 

You can't use that argument with me, though, and /I/ thought the GDI was
a good car - it went through the Coldstream bends 5-up at 90, a speed
which my Porsche 924S felt quite twitchy at in comparison.

I notice the GDI was dropped from the later ones, making last-gen
Carismas probably very, very dull indeed.

Richard

 

Mine had no such thing, and it didn't need any degree of caning to make
decent progress, but made remarkably /good/ progress when caned.

It had a little fuel computer in the dash, too. Driving it slowly (as
in, 55mph) gave me 52mpg average on a 12 mile run from cold.

Richard

 

RichardK () gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Mmmm. Don't think this one would have hit 90. But it was a
rentaslushomatic.

 

Ah, mine was a manual. I can't imagine what it would be like with an
auto because the Supra's box (as an example of a Japanese auto) is a
power-sapping slug of a thing, the Sera's is a frantic, mad thing, and
the Hondamatic Accord I had was quite snappy.

I don't know if the Carisma would have had a CVT or something.

Either way, mine would do 120+ on the clock, and was a compelling
argument for the "Increased efficiency means 20% more power or economy
depending on how you drive" theory behind the direct petrol injection
engine.

Richard

 

RichardK () gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

No, it was a normal autobox. Think it would have been closer to the Supra,
in that way if in no other.

 

Mine would do >45mpg if you kept to speed limits on my regular hull /
gatwick round trips - >500 miles a tank.

 

I don't remember there being an auto GDi carisma.

 

Tim S Kemp () gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

This wasn't in the UK.

 

I would hardly call £250 'really expensive'.

 

Skoda Octavia?

I've got one, an S-reg 1.6. It's great. Much better than the
pile-of-toss mk2 Mondeo I had before it.

 

The 1.6 is just plain wrong. The Octavia works best with VAG TDI engines,
otherwise it's just, well, mediocre. Not a bad car, but not good either.

Oh and the Mondeo rides and handles better and has more interior space, too.

 

People say that the VAG 2.0 8valve 115bhp lump is crap, I loved the one
I had in a mk3 golf estate and that had done 135k miles and still going
very strong.

The TDI is the choice though, my TDI is a million miles away from my
other car (peugot 406 2.1TD).

I know Dervman is a Ford fan, but I think there crap, it's only MHO.

Andy

 

The 1.6 is great, fast enough (for the car it is...), economical
enough. Built so well, much better than the Mondeo. Mondeo had less
head and leg room than the Octavia (I'm 6'6" so I'm acutely aware of
the room issue!).

The Octavia may be mediocre, but it's a hell of a lot better than the
Mondeo.

Just my oppinion of course.

Cheers.

 

My dad has an Octavia Estate with the 2.0 engine, I think it's pretty
good too, loads of torque low down, will drive around all day at
'motorway speeds' and still get 40 ish mpg. It's effortless to drive.

Never driven the TDI version.

Other than the Mondeo, the only Ford I've driven is a Focus. It was
breathtakingly uncomfy, but I think that was more to with my hugeness
combined with the smallness of the focus' seat than anything. Never had
the same problem in another car.

 

You'd be lucky to find a garage willing to do it for £250. The subframe
needs to be dropped to get the box out, which means a whole load of jiggery
pokery to get it all set back up again, if you want the thing to drive right
again.

Ta,
G.

 

I suspect that's the 1.6 I have in my Beetle.

3,400 RPM at 60, or something equally silly - always looking for 6th
gear. Goes very well for a 1.6 in a car of that weight (the Beetle is a
cabrio, so pretty heavy), but returns a shameful 33mpg.

It is a nice engine, and unlike the 2.0 doesn't use oil (allegedly the
2.0 is quite heavy on oil, which is one reason I didn't want one), but
economical enough? My Golf GTI 1.8 8v returned 45mpg.

Richard

 

What was it you didn't like about the Mondeo? I really like mine - it's
comfortable, effortless on long journeys, smooth and pliant around town, has
a decent engine, is reasonably well built (125k now and nothing has fallen
off), reliable, suprisingly fun to drive with decent handling and
communicative steering, absolutely loaded with every conceivable extra, a
nice pleasant interior, cheap to run, and it cost less than £3k @ 4 years
old.

Top notch.

Did you get lumbered with a horrible old TD Aspen or something?

 

The 1.6 is great, fast enough (for the car it is...), economical

Aye, my Dad's 1.8 Mk1 Mondeo's been nothing but reliable. He bought it at
around 2 years old with around 30k on the clock for around £8k (cue cries of
'HFM?'), back in around 98 - it's a P reg - last of the Mk1s.

It's recently clocked over 100k, and has never needed anything major doing -
just normal consumables, plus I think one pair of lower suspension arms
(front IIRC, the ones that Mondeos are known for knackering). Once it
failed to start, and we took the plugs out and cleaned them up, and it went
fine. It doesn't get much use at all these days, but it'll probably go on
strong for another 10 years or so - they don't seem to rust generally (well
this one hasn't anyway).

It's a good drive - decent ride/handling combination for a car of its size,
and the 1.8 Zetec is a relatively perky engine (not going to set the world
on fire, but nippy enough).

Peter