Cheap Motoring

[GTG]

Poor advice.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=cambelt snapped&LH_Complete=1&rt=nc&_trksid=p2045573.m1684

Absolutely loads there in the link above. We bought several, most of the misdiagnosed as something else. I have to admit I had trouble myself with failed tensioners thanks to believing in fake receipts from the previous owner (fake as in no work done, money taken, printout given); luckily no major damage done.

So go on, make us bargain broken car

Yea but they don't tell you in the advert that they are a speeding idiot who thrashes their car with total disregard for the engine.

 

[Mr Bump]

Wow when did it get to timing belts. Bottom line is sometimes running a cheap car into the ground is a good idea. Yes it might go bang but maybe it won't and if it does buy another cheap car.

 

[Jim_Tod]

Or maybe a SAAB 9-5 for something a bit different - the last estate version they did just before they went bust were fab, not sure how much they are now though (parts still readily available I believe).

I do high mileage (25-30k per yr depending on contracts). Regret having to give up the 9-5 auto estate as getting too risky to keep going. If you find a low mileage one and somewhere local to service then go for it and be a happy chappy. Great car.

 

[maarten.dhaese]

The mx5 was temporary diversion! Yesterday briefly looked at a 2004 133k avensis that has been in the same family for 10 years with history, and am off to look at a 99 accord 1.8 auto with 86k that has been owned by the same man since 2003. The toyota is showing "HEAVY CORROSION NEARSIDE + OFFSIDE REAR SUSPENSION ARMS + SUB FRAME" on the mot advisory, the honda has an almost unblemished list of advisories on the mot history, bar tires, pads and most recently a failure on "Offside Suspension component mounting prescribed area is excessively corroded outer sil (2.4.A.3)" that must have been repaired as the car passed the test 5 days later.
there is also a mk3 gti a few miles away that has been owned by the same man since 99, but not sure how that would stack up against the above for reliability. But may be a little better to drive. that agin has good mot advisory history.
all are around £600-800...yes I'm a tight git!

I have a 99 1.8 Accord since 2001. It's a very reliable car and quite nice to drive as well. It's approaching 20 years of age though and some minor things have gone wrong: boot shocks don't work when it's cold, handle to the rear door stopped working, the airco broke down once but we got it fixed. At the most recent service there was a bolt that couldn't be undone because it had seized up so the mechanics had to find another way to replace one of the parts (which they did but it resulted in higher labour charges). Overall I've been very happy with it and don't really want to replace it if I can help it. Aside from the yearly service (we drive around 5,000 miles/year), I've had almost no trouble with it.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Yea but they don't tell you in the advert that they are a speeding idiot who thrashes their car with total disregard for the engine.

Oh yeah, next you'll tell us cambelts don't fail at low revs, moving off the driveway, or just starting engine. They do. I've seen plenty. Normally these are the lucky ones that survive with no valve damage.

 

[andya700]

I looked att his for a second car, then looked at the tax - £280

http://www2.autotrader.co.uk/classi...ion=at_cars&radius=1500&sort=price-asc&page=1

 

[wave01]

I'm in Florida at the moment and it gives you a different perspective on cheap. They think 17mpg around town is good

 

[AJQS]

Early Mk1 mx-5s rusted, mostly sills at the rear. Later ones dont, or at leat not in my 7 year old one that I'm currently driving due to no motorbike
Road tax on a 2010 2.0 sports tech (6 speed, hard folding roof, leather all the toys) is £240 so not expensive
35mpg if gentle, 30mpg-ish if driven at pace.

mk2s rust worse, notably the front chassis in an area that is very difficult to see to the average joe, and the rest of the car could well look mint. In another 7 years time I'd expect yours to be rusty as well - modern cars all seem to be much worse underneath for rust than stuff built in the 90s, which seemed to be more prone to rust on the 'cosmetic' shall we say bodywork.

 

[nilagin]

I'm in Florida at the moment and it gives you a different perspective on cheap. They think 17mpg around town is good

An Imperial (UK) gallon is equal to 1.2 US gallons , so it's not as bad as you think.

 

[Byker28i]

mk2s rust worse, notably the front chassis in an area that is very difficult to see to the average joe, and the rest of the car could well look mint. In another 7 years time I'd expect yours to be rusty as well - modern cars all seem to be much worse underneath for rust than stuff built in the 90s, which seemed to be more prone to rust on the 'cosmetic' shall we say bodywork.

Good job mines not a mk2 then We had a 17 year old mk1 for 8 years, henc ei know about rusty sills. Other than that the thing was bullet proof.