What's a good first car??
Discussion
Yazza54 said:
My Fiat Stilo was a good car, loads of kit, A/C, 5CD changer etc etc and was a cheap buy. Had that at 19 with 1 year NCB before I built the GTM. How old are you Ellie?
Yellow maybe not to everyones taste but gives you an idea
I love yellow and I've just turned 20. What was insurance like for you with the Stilo? Yellow maybe not to everyones taste but gives you an idea
Edited by Yazza54 on Sunday 19th June 14:13
LEG13 said:
Yazza54 said:
My Fiat Stilo was a good car, loads of kit, A/C, 5CD changer etc etc and was a cheap buy. Had that at 19 with 1 year NCB before I built the GTM. How old are you Ellie?
Yellow maybe not to everyones taste but gives you an idea
I love yellow and I've just turned 20. What was insurance like for you with the Stilo? Yellow maybe not to everyones taste but gives you an idea
Edited by Yazza54 on Sunday 19th June 14:13
To give you an idea, I sold that car for £2000 with 42,000 miles on the clock and it was immaculate.
I'll be honest though, insurance seems weird at the moment, I've just turned 21 and now have 2yrs NCB and though about maybe getting another stilo.. The price hasn't really dropped and that's with an extra yr NCB and 2 years older driver age.
Best thing to do is just punch some details in on the net and see what you get
tercelgold said:
Petrol ford fiesta is the default choice, good fun to drive, there are so many available and it costs almost nothing to run.
If it's your first car as well then a fiesta is a great starting point.
Fiesta and Polo have the lowest insurance. I put in MX5 thinking why not - insurance was more than the cars worth... Insurance isn't actually horrendous, Polo was £1000 and Fiesta £1200, Streetka was £1400, Focus £1500 so it's not that bad this even includes break down cover. Fiesta seems to be getting quite a good response on here, I was hoping people would tell me to get a convertible but nvm If it's your first car as well then a fiesta is a great starting point.
Edited by tercelgold on Sunday 19th June 14:33
Just remember Ellie, you're not going to get any money back from insurance. £2000 one year, then £2000 the next. That's £4000 down a drain you will never see again. For around £2k chances are, you'll be able to buy the car, and sell it on again in 1-2 years, at nearly the same price.
ambuletz said:
Just remember Ellie, you're not going to get any money back from insurance. £2000 one year, then £2000 the next. That's £4000 down a drain you will never see again. For around £2k chances are, you'll be able to buy the car, and sell it on again in 1-2 years, at nearly the same price.
So, go for the cheapest car to insure then. In that case, what costs less to run, a Fiesta or a Polo? LEG13 said:
ambuletz said:
Just remember Ellie, you're not going to get any money back from insurance. £2000 one year, then £2000 the next. That's £4000 down a drain you will never see again. For around £2k chances are, you'll be able to buy the car, and sell it on again in 1-2 years, at nearly the same price.
So, go for the cheapest car to insure then. In that case, what costs less to run, a Fiesta or a Polo? I've got a Polo and have to say I've been very pleased with it. For under £4k, which was my budget incidentally, you should be able to get a very good condition 9n model (9n is the model from 02-05).
For my £4k I got a 2003 Polo 1.4 Sport 100 (picture in my profile) with FSH and 42,000 miles. If you weren't so interested in performance I'd stick to the 1.4 75 or 86 bhp as it, as it would be cheaper to insure, more economical, and has just as much low down torque so wouldn't feel any slower in the "real world". Avoid the 1.2, as they are very underpowered with just 55 or 65 bhp, in quite a heavy car for it's class.
What I like most about it is it's all round solidity which makes it feel "a class above" (e.g. interior lights that dim down slowly), nice interior, good spec (A/C, cd changer, excellent stereo sound quality, 4 airbags, etc) and comfortable ride.
What I dislike is that the handling isn't very "sharp" (but is comfortable instead so it's swings and roundabouts), the lack of torque for the horsepower (i.e. it only comes alive over 4k rpm) and the fuel economy (25mpg around town, 35mpg on a mixed run, and 40mpg at 80mph). However, these criticisms would be reduced by opting for the 1.4 75 or 86 bhp instead, which would also be cheaper to buy and insure.
On the subject of insurance mine costed £1000 for the year, as an 18 y/o male with 1 year NCB, parked on the street in Bristol. This was with Admiral, and I'm sure you're insurance would be less than mine.
Here are some examples, all for under £4k:
1) This is the 86 bhp model, which is more powerful AND more economical than the 75 bhp as it's FSI
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2011...
2) For something a little different you could get the DUNE model. It looks a little 'funkier' but don't expect it to better off road than a normal polo, it's differences are only cosmetic
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2011...
3) Your budget will JUST scrape you into the earlier 9n2 models (05-09) which are basically just a facelift of the 9n, but the same underneath.
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2011...
HTH
ETA: This and that...
For my £4k I got a 2003 Polo 1.4 Sport 100 (picture in my profile) with FSH and 42,000 miles. If you weren't so interested in performance I'd stick to the 1.4 75 or 86 bhp as it, as it would be cheaper to insure, more economical, and has just as much low down torque so wouldn't feel any slower in the "real world". Avoid the 1.2, as they are very underpowered with just 55 or 65 bhp, in quite a heavy car for it's class.
What I like most about it is it's all round solidity which makes it feel "a class above" (e.g. interior lights that dim down slowly), nice interior, good spec (A/C, cd changer, excellent stereo sound quality, 4 airbags, etc) and comfortable ride.
What I dislike is that the handling isn't very "sharp" (but is comfortable instead so it's swings and roundabouts), the lack of torque for the horsepower (i.e. it only comes alive over 4k rpm) and the fuel economy (25mpg around town, 35mpg on a mixed run, and 40mpg at 80mph). However, these criticisms would be reduced by opting for the 1.4 75 or 86 bhp instead, which would also be cheaper to buy and insure.
On the subject of insurance mine costed £1000 for the year, as an 18 y/o male with 1 year NCB, parked on the street in Bristol. This was with Admiral, and I'm sure you're insurance would be less than mine.
Here are some examples, all for under £4k:
1) This is the 86 bhp model, which is more powerful AND more economical than the 75 bhp as it's FSI
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2011...
2) For something a little different you could get the DUNE model. It looks a little 'funkier' but don't expect it to better off road than a normal polo, it's differences are only cosmetic
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2011...
3) Your budget will JUST scrape you into the earlier 9n2 models (05-09) which are basically just a facelift of the 9n, but the same underneath.
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2011...
HTH
ETA: This and that...
Edited by Synchromesh on Sunday 19th June 15:29
te for Ford.If you're not snobbish about brands I second the Skoda Fabia vote. Basically a Polo with a different badge and not as high demand with younger drivers so may have the edge on insurance over a Fiesta etc. Something like the 1.4 TDI would be perfect for running costs if you don't mind running on the fuel of satan (diesel!). I may be biased as I have the Fabia VRS and love it!
If I was looking at a first car I'd also consider the Toyota Aygo/ Peugeot 107/Citroen C1 (all the same car, basically a Toyota so no French car problems). They cost peanuts to run and they are genuinely good fun to drive for such small low power cars, although will struggle with passengers or overtaking / motorway lane changes etc.
Both sensible options with similar fuel economy and tax costs, the latter maybe being a better match for you image wise?!
If I was looking at a first car I'd also consider the Toyota Aygo/ Peugeot 107/Citroen C1 (all the same car, basically a Toyota so no French car problems). They cost peanuts to run and they are genuinely good fun to drive for such small low power cars, although will struggle with passengers or overtaking / motorway lane changes etc.
Both sensible options with similar fuel economy and tax costs, the latter maybe being a better match for you image wise?!
I guess it also helps with an idea of what you'll use it for.
Is it just to have a car to get around when you need it, and that you'll mostly walk take the bus? Or will it be an everyday car? How many miles will you probably do a year?
My first car has been an MX-5. I found the 1 passenger issue can be good (don't have to give everyone a life), but also bad in regards to wanting to give someone a lift but not having space. The boot is quite small, although certainly big enough for a weekend camping trip. As you said though, the insurance is not the best. Do you know if you tried an eunos or mx-5 (the eunos is the import from Japan, and used to be more expensive to insure, but recently has potentially been cheaper). The other possibility is try the Mk 1 with a 1.6 litre engine from 1995-1997. The power is reduced, so could be cheaper.
One of the things to consider is to get a crap normal car now, and use the money to save up for something more fun later. Also don't rule out unusual cars - there are some cars that due to the lack of young people buying can actually be very good insurance bargins, compared to the usual suspects (polo, focus etc). Just try the insurance quotes on stuff you like, then ask here if there are big problems to look out for (i.e. MX-5 and rust on wheel arches).
I wouldn't be put off by the miles, it's better to buy a 100 000 mile car with a full history of reciepts and services than buy a 70 000 mile car that has had no checks, oil changes etc. Also when you've narrowed down your choice check on the service dates and if there will be expensive services coming up on the car you want - if so add it to the price of the car.
Is it just to have a car to get around when you need it, and that you'll mostly walk take the bus? Or will it be an everyday car? How many miles will you probably do a year?
My first car has been an MX-5. I found the 1 passenger issue can be good (don't have to give everyone a life), but also bad in regards to wanting to give someone a lift but not having space. The boot is quite small, although certainly big enough for a weekend camping trip. As you said though, the insurance is not the best. Do you know if you tried an eunos or mx-5 (the eunos is the import from Japan, and used to be more expensive to insure, but recently has potentially been cheaper). The other possibility is try the Mk 1 with a 1.6 litre engine from 1995-1997. The power is reduced, so could be cheaper.
One of the things to consider is to get a crap normal car now, and use the money to save up for something more fun later. Also don't rule out unusual cars - there are some cars that due to the lack of young people buying can actually be very good insurance bargins, compared to the usual suspects (polo, focus etc). Just try the insurance quotes on stuff you like, then ask here if there are big problems to look out for (i.e. MX-5 and rust on wheel arches).
I wouldn't be put off by the miles, it's better to buy a 100 000 mile car with a full history of reciepts and services than buy a 70 000 mile car that has had no checks, oil changes etc. Also when you've narrowed down your choice check on the service dates and if there will be expensive services coming up on the car you want - if so add it to the price of the car.
zaphod42 said:
If you fancy a convertible, the MX5 would be well within budget and very practical from a running costs perspective - parts and servicing are cheap.
Insurance will be the main problem. When I had my MX5 I couldn't get a quote from the people who insured my Focus, as they wouldn't touch anyone under 30 on one. In the end, I was able to get the insurance for it very cheaply, but that was with some experience and no claims bonus. One very helpful underwriter explained to me that a lot of companies now won't touch the MX5 because it's so cheap and it's becoming popular with younger drivers, most of which have never driven anything RWD/where your seat is 6" from the ground. With increasing popularity, they've had bad experiences and so are refusing to offer quotes on them. In the end, I was lucky as the cost for my insurance fully comp ended up being cheaper than it would have for my 1.6 petrol Focus Zetec!My first car was a mk5 Fiesta Zetec S and it was an excellent car. That said, I don't think you'd be able to get one as a first car these days unless you paid through the nose for the insurance.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff