What economy car for a 19 year old?

[LukeR94]

MK6 Ford Fiesta Zetec S TDCI, you should pick one up for just over half that budget and they are really cheap to insure, look sporty, no DPF to worry about (unlike the mk7 your looking at) and not as many problems.

This one looks alright

[Qwert1e]

Petrolhead95 said:

My car is in no way economical. £50 won't see me 300 miles.

£50 for 300 miles is about 17p a mile - or about 35 mpg.

Even if someone with a 35 mpg car buys a car which can achieve 45 mpg the difference in annual fuel use over, say, 10,000 miles would be only be 64 gallons - saving just £384 a year.

Or to put it another way, spending £5,000 on the new car would take 13 years for the "fuel savings" to get back to beak-even point!

[HereBeMonsters]

Qwert1e said:

Petrolhead95 said:

My car is in no way economical. £50 won't see me 300 miles.

£50 for 300 miles is about 17p a mile - or about 35 mpg.

Even if someone with a 35 mpg car buys a car which can achieve 45 mpg the difference in annual fuel use over, say, 10,000 miles would be only be 64 gallons - saving just £384 a year.

Or to put it another way, spending £5,000 on the new car would take 13 years for the "fuel savings" to get back to beak-even point!

This.

[james_gt3rs]

doogz said:

Not sure if I should be proud or embarrased at 42mpg.

It's pretty good, most I got was 39 IIRC.

Worst was 16mpg

[Mr SFJ]

Fiat Grande Punto Sporting 1.9? 40+ easy. Cheap to insure (group 7 springs to mind? 130hp, 6 speed Gearbox. the bearings are known to wear out so check that out.

Or, the 1.4 t-jet has 120hp, the stronger 5 speed gearbox and mine costs me (at 20 with 2 years no claims) £650 fully comp, with 2000 business miles a year, and it's left outside. If I drive carefully 42 is acheivable, but if I go like Miss Daisy, the highest i've seen is 48, but that was driving like miss Daisy.

I will add, that I rarely drive on the Motorway. It's all A road and Town work.

[Petrolhead95]

Qwert1e said:

£50 for 300 miles is about 17p a mile - or about 35 mpg.

Even if someone with a 35 mpg car buys a car which can achieve 45 mpg the difference in annual fuel use over, say, 10,000 miles would be only be 64 gallons - saving just £384 a year.

Or to put it another way, spending £5,000 on the new car would take 13 years for the "fuel savings" to get back to beak-even point!

That puts things into perspective. I think I would benefit greatly from a car with more motorway suited gear ratios. 70 MPH in my car is 4,500 RPM which is definitely not economical.

[Petrolhead95]

doogz said:

What sort of Corsa do you have?

Corsa C 1.2 Active

[otolith]

Petrolhead95 said:

My car is in no way economical. £50 won't see me 300 miles.

That's about 35mpg. Which engine is it?

[Park'O]

VW Lupo.
Drop a VAG 1.9TDi engine in and don't tell a soul.

[otolith]

I'm pretty sure I could get better than that out of a 1.2 Corsa - I reckon mid 40's wouldn't be hard.

[Rovinghawk]

Qwert1e said:

Or to put it another way, spending £5,000 on the new car would take 13 years for the "fuel savings" to get back to beak-even point!

How much more is depreciation on the £5k car than on the corsa?

[HereBeMonsters]

Petrolhead95 said:

That puts things into perspective. I think I would benefit greatly from a car with more motorway suited gear ratios. 70 MPH in my car is 4,500 RPM which is definitely not economical.

That can't be right. It was around 3,000 in my old Corsa B, same engine.

I did find that dropping my "motorway speed" from 80-85 down to 70 improved fuel economy from 300 to 400 miles per tank. Worth doing in a commute as I didn't really arrive any later...

[JakeT]

Petrolhead95 said:

Rovinghawk said:

You'll find very little more economical, especially when you think about costs involved in changing vehicles.

Keep the corsa.

My car is in no way economical. £50 won't see me 300 miles.

That does not sound right really. I have a Fester which is a similar class of car, and can do 45MPG out of it with no issue. You say it is doing 4500 RPM at 70 which does not sound right either, but it is best to drop to 60-65 really, less revs and wind noise, better fuel economy and you won't get there any later.

However if you're set on a new car I would recommend the 1.4 TDCi fiesta. They're not overly slow and do great fuel economy. I have driven one and was not really disappointed. The 1.6 as you said would be better though. But keep in mind a N/A petrol will achieve closer to NCAP ratings than diesels will.

[SteBrown91]

LukeR94 said:

MK6 Ford Fiesta Zetec S TDCI, you should pick one up for just over half that budget and they are really cheap to insure, look sporty, no DPF to worry about (unlike the mk7 your looking at) and not as many problems.

This one looks alright

X2 to this. I ran one for 2 years and 30k and barely missed a beat. Driving normally 55mpg (calculated tank to tank) was achievable on a mixed run and it was almost I possible to drop it below 48mpg. They are cracking cars. If you try hard mid 60s mpg can be had.

[Paradaxos]

Do your CBT, Get a 125 and take the back roads.

[JB!]

Petrolhead95 said:

JB! said:

I had one at 21 and it was fine to insure.

Still only a diesel hatchback at the end of the day...

Quotes for the VRS with 1 years NCB come back at £2,200 a year.

Wow. Where do you live??!?!? Mine was £900 ish fully comp with coilovers and wheels and a 200bhp power cap.

[*Fletch*]

Clio 1.5 Dci - 75mpg+ if you use a motorway, 65-70mpg everywhere else.

I was astonished - £10 = 100 miles and it's quick enough not to hold anyone up.

[Fastpedeller]

Petrolhead95 said:

- Economical

- Not too slow, I'd like something fairly sporty

Edited by Petrolhead95 on Tuesday 16th September 15:19

Mutually exclusive goals!
Having said that I once had a mk2 fiesta, logged the petrol/miles for a few weeks driving really gently - 49MPG on my regular (under 10mile) run to work. Then tried the same experiment driving with no consideration to fuel economy. Result 46 mpg. Not a great drop (although it's about 6% if my mental maths serves me)

[g3org3y]

Petrolhead95 said:

Qwert1e said:

£50 for 300 miles is about 17p a mile - or about 35 mpg.

Even if someone with a 35 mpg car buys a car which can achieve 45 mpg the difference in annual fuel use over, say, 10,000 miles would be only be 64 gallons - saving just £384 a year.

Or to put it another way, spending £5,000 on the new car would take 13 years for the "fuel savings" to get back to beak-even point!

That puts things into perspective. I think I would benefit greatly from a car with more motorway suited gear ratios. 70 MPH in my car is 4,500 RPM which is definitely not economical.

Seriously!? Seems a bit high.

I've just returned from a holiday in Cyprus where I had a Nissan Note hire car. I'm not sure what petrol engine it had (certainly small!) and that was around 3.5k at 70mph.

[zeduffman]

JB! said:

I had one at 21 and it was fine to insure.

Still only a diesel hatchback at the end of the day...

A 21 year old can have twice as much driving experience as a 19 year old though. One year can make a big difference to insurance premiums for younger drivers.