Rust ?

[m44kts]

The hinge panel was shot, the rest towards the front of the inner wings was just surface, still though, I didn't think it had holed through that much!

[versus]

I bought a car once and the advert said it was rust free. When I got it home and washed it, I could see plenty of rust underneath the car. I went to back to the seller and complained that he advertised it as rust free. He said "yes thats right, the rust is free. I didn't charge you for it.".

i'm here all week.

[All that jazz]

versus said:

I bought a car once and the advert said it was rust free. When I got it home and washed it, I could see plenty of rust underneath the car. I went to back to the seller and complained that he advertised it as rust free. He said "yes thats right, the rust is free. I didn't charge you for it.".

i'm here all week.

I'll have to remember that one.

[blearyeyedboy]

GuitarTech said:

Fox- said:

Mr2Mike said:

And the fallacy in that argument is that the cars you can buy for the cost of fixing your own will undoubtedly be suffering from the same problem, whether it's rust or needing a timing belt change. This is something that people just can't seem to understand, yet is blatantly obvious. Once you have spent the money on fixing a particular problem, it's unlikely to need more attention for a considerable period, yet another cheap banger could have even more problems lurking. "Better the devil you know" is very true in this case, unless the car really is beyond reasonable repair.

Glad to have finally found someone who shares my view on this.

Scrapping a car for a cambelt change seems particularly stupid, given that its likely any £500 replacement will also need.. a cambelt change.

+2

I can see where you're coming from but I'm going to stick my neck out on this one. I would drive it and not change the cambelt. If the cambelt went, I'd junk it. Then I'd buy another and drove that til it died. I'd recoup some of the cost through scrap/EBay fees.

Don't get me wrong: I'd change the oil and filters, possibly the plugs, wash and wax the thing and put OK tyres on it. But for any significant job I'd consider a low cost car to be a disposable item unless it had some specific attachment for me.

[300bhp/ton]

Mr2Mike said:

300bhp/ton said:

I think that's right, to an extent at least. You have to weigh up the pros and cons at the time really.

Well yes, if you are lucky enough to find a genuinely better car (e.g. you know it's history and can get it for mates rates) then you'd be daft not to. If you are simply going to buy the next cheap banger that you find then it's car roulette. You can check it for obvious faults, but these cars rarely come with any history and there is probably a good reason it's being moved on (good for the seller I mean, usually not so good for the buyer).

Yeah I do agree, don't think I was very clear in my last post.

With a cheaper car, it (IMO ) is worth doing some jobs on them, I ran a £650 Pug 106 for a while doing 110 miles a day in it. I put a new clutch in it, new drive shafts, exhaust and a few other bits. Sold it for £250 once I was done with it. But all in all for the mileage I did in it is was very cheap motoring. But to sort of counter this, I bought this Pug to replace another 106 that had a HG failure, it really wasn't worth spending the money on the first one to fix it.