| Hi Ivor,
You really shouldn't go far wromg with either a Vauxhall or a Ford as
just about any modern car (I'm not counting Ladas etc here) should
manage 100,000+ miles with ease.
The only thing you might want to give a good deal of consideration is
the diesel vs petrol question. The basis (as I understand it) is that
Diesel works out cheaper to run if you are doing a lot of miles but as
the initial purchase cost of a diesel is higher you have to establish
the break even point where the increase in mpg pays for the extra
purchase cost. Another thing to bear in mind is the fact that diesels
require additional oil changes etc (it all ads up).
Personally if I was about to buy a car f
|
| Ivor,
I would think that the basic mechanicals of a large engine would indeed
see less wear than a small engine (when driven the same way), however
there are some things against larger engines
- often 'sporty' types, and likely to have been driven hard
(If you are buying secondhand). In any case, if you have a
larger engine you do tend to use the extra power.
- often more complicated, with more bits to wear out
- often have more expensive parts.
- more expensive to insure
- more expensive on fuel
- harder on tyres, brakes, transmission and suspension (and
probably use bigger, more expensive ones to deal with it).
These factors might well override any savings.
The general wisdom is that diesel engines are long lived. In fact the
Peugeot high-mileage warranty allows lots more miles for a diesel
engine than a petrol engine (Peugeot have been putting diesel engines
in cars for a long time). Diesels are inherently simpler, and should be
more reliable. I think you do have to change the oil (and filter) more
frequently though, and the initial cost of a diesel is quite high.
I would say that if you dont need much performance then get a diesel
engine, if you need fair performance then get a turbo diesel and if you
want high-performance then get a petrol engine. Generally a
higher-powered car is more pleasant to drive (especially over long
distances), as the engine is not having to work so hard and is quieter.
If you are worried about the environment with diesel emissions, then I
think some diesels have a catalytic converter.
I currently drive a turbo-diesel and a small petrol-engine car. The
diesel if much nicer to drive. It has lovely low-end torque (it can
easily start up the ramp to the motorway junction in second gear from
idle without using the accelerator pedal at all. And it runs steadily
at slow speeds in traffic in gears 1, 2 and 3 with no accelerator as
well). It is also quieter. Yes it does produce smoke, but only when I
floor the pedal, which I dont often need to do.
Andrew
|
|
Yes,
I would go with .2.
I have a Diesel Peugeot with 130,ooo miles on it, no probs.
I also had until recently a 2.0i Carlton with 128,000 miles.
Neither car broke down or required expensive repairs.
I have not found the Carlton to cost much more than yer average 1.3l
in maintenance costs. Generally, although more sophisticated, it is
better & more substantially engineered.
Keep changing the (good quality)oil & modern engines should run for very
high mileages.
Tony.
|
| I have two high mileage motors,
Mine, a TDi Discovery has 117,000 miles on it. I do however haev this
regularly maintained ie: every 6000 miles and at Landrover prices that
tends to cost a bit, but 'touch wood' its yet to let me down.
The wife has a VW Golf 1.6 with 145,000 miles on it and this receives
very little in the care and attention department, but still it soldiers
on, infact it's sailed through both it's last two MOT's. The only major
let down being a voltage regulator, at first I was on the verge of
buying a new alternator, but took some friendly advice from a local
mechanic, changed the regulator and haven't looked back since.
Rgds
Chris.
|