1.4 petrol Vauxhall Astra - Would you recommend it?
Discussion
Hi Guys
I'm and student who drives about 100 miles a week which is mainly on motorways. I'm thinking about getting a vauxhall astra around about 2005-2008. Just wondering would you recommend it?
Internet search seems to come up with conflicting information i.e the 1.4 engine lacks power on the motorways, not relaible etc
Any help would be appreciated
I'm and student who drives about 100 miles a week which is mainly on motorways. I'm thinking about getting a vauxhall astra around about 2005-2008. Just wondering would you recommend it?
Internet search seems to come up with conflicting information i.e the 1.4 engine lacks power on the motorways, not relaible etc
Any help would be appreciated
I had a 2005 1.4 petrol Astra as my first car. Contrary to what a lot of people will tell you on here, they're not that bad, provided you want a cheap, reliable car. Fuel economy is decent, insurance is extremely cheap, and I genuinely prefer the interior over the equivalent Focus (although neither are much to write home about).
Handling is predictable, if boring, and there's no getting round the fact that they are slow. It was faster than most of my friends cars at the time, but with 88BHP in a fairly heavy car, you won't be getting anywhere very quick. Motorways were fine provided you stuck around 70MPH, over about 90 it was very noisy and was really out of puff: you could just about coax it over 100, but it didn't inspire much confidence at those speeds.
I never had any problems with mine at all when I had it, and you could easily get 45MPG
Basically, if you want a cheap, reliable car, you could do a lot worse. If you want something that's fun to drive, look elsewhere.
Handling is predictable, if boring, and there's no getting round the fact that they are slow. It was faster than most of my friends cars at the time, but with 88BHP in a fairly heavy car, you won't be getting anywhere very quick. Motorways were fine provided you stuck around 70MPH, over about 90 it was very noisy and was really out of puff: you could just about coax it over 100, but it didn't inspire much confidence at those speeds.
I never had any problems with mine at all when I had it, and you could easily get 45MPG
Basically, if you want a cheap, reliable car, you could do a lot worse. If you want something that's fun to drive, look elsewhere.
We had the 1.6 twinport. It kept up with traffic ok but when you put your foot down it just made a noise, didn't seem to go anywhere.
I can only imagine the 1.4 will be slower.
They still look fairly fresh. I liked the driving position, the gearbox on the 1.6 was nice to use and the brakes were very good.
The build quality is good and apart from front springs I think it was faultless.
Probably fine if you're not interested in going quickly or looking for driver satisfaction.
I can only imagine the 1.4 will be slower.
They still look fairly fresh. I liked the driving position, the gearbox on the 1.6 was nice to use and the brakes were very good.
The build quality is good and apart from front springs I think it was faultless.
Probably fine if you're not interested in going quickly or looking for driver satisfaction.
I did rent a few Astras around 2006 and even the 1.4 was adequate for illegal velocities, but if you're doing so few miles (and they're mostly motorway) I'd be inclined to go for something a little bit more powerful just so you get a car with longer gearing that isn't quite so noisy on the motorway.
davepoth said:
I did rent a few Astras around 2006 and even the 1.4 was adequate for illegal velocities, but if you're doing so few miles (and they're mostly motorway) I'd be inclined to go for something a little bit more powerful just so you get a car with longer gearing that isn't quite so noisy on the motorway.
What do you mean by adequate for illegal velocities?I had a 1.4 golf that i only got 4 months ago but have had loads of problems with it that i want to get something where the parts are cheaper....
Ideally i would like to go up to a 1.6 but that would meaning higher running and insurance cost and with bringing a student i can't really afford
For something a bit more powerful, what would you recommend?
This will be by 4th car perviously I had a micro as my first car and a 1.2 polo. I used to drive approx 400 miles a miles a week in the polo. a lot being on motorway and duel carriage ways
Edited by annie90 on Monday 14th April 00:24
deltashad said:
We had the 1.6 twinport. It kept up with traffic ok but when you put your foot down it just made a noise, didn't seem to go anywhere.
I can only imagine the 1.4 will be slower.
They still look fairly fresh. I liked the driving position, the gearbox on the 1.6 was nice to use and the brakes were very good.
The build quality is good and apart from front springs I think it was faultless.
Probably fine if you're not interested in going quickly or looking for driver satisfaction.
What is does twinport mean?I can only imagine the 1.4 will be slower.
They still look fairly fresh. I liked the driving position, the gearbox on the 1.6 was nice to use and the brakes were very good.
The build quality is good and apart from front springs I think it was faultless.
Probably fine if you're not interested in going quickly or looking for driver satisfaction.
Completely stolen from another website 
"Each of the two inlet valves per cylinder has their own port (hence "twinport"). Under light/medium throttle and low/moderate engine speeds, one of the ports for each cylinder is closed off by flaps which increases the gasflow in the other ports, which is good for economy, emissions and torque.
At full throttle all ports are open ensuring no loss of output."
"Each of the two inlet valves per cylinder has their own port (hence "twinport"). Under light/medium throttle and low/moderate engine speeds, one of the ports for each cylinder is closed off by flaps which increases the gasflow in the other ports, which is good for economy, emissions and torque.
At full throttle all ports are open ensuring no loss of output."
deltashad said:
Completely stolen from another website
"Each of the two inlet valves per cylinder has their own port (hence "twinport"). Under light/medium throttle and low/moderate engine speeds, one of the ports for each cylinder is closed off by flaps which increases the gasflow in the other ports, which is good for economy, emissions and torque.
At full throttle all ports are open ensuring no loss of output."
alrite so to put it simply the twinport is faster. is that right?"Each of the two inlet valves per cylinder has their own port (hence "twinport"). Under light/medium throttle and low/moderate engine speeds, one of the ports for each cylinder is closed off by flaps which increases the gasflow in the other ports, which is good for economy, emissions and torque.
At full throttle all ports are open ensuring no loss of output."
pretty clueless when it come to car term
annie90 said:
deltashad said:
Completely stolen from another website
"Each of the two inlet valves per cylinder has their own port (hence "twinport"). Under light/medium throttle and low/moderate engine speeds, one of the ports for each cylinder is closed off by flaps which increases the gasflow in the other ports, which is good for economy, emissions and torque.
At full throttle all ports are open ensuring no loss of output."
alrite so to put it simply the twinport is faster. is that right?"Each of the two inlet valves per cylinder has their own port (hence "twinport"). Under light/medium throttle and low/moderate engine speeds, one of the ports for each cylinder is closed off by flaps which increases the gasflow in the other ports, which is good for economy, emissions and torque.
At full throttle all ports are open ensuring no loss of output."
pretty clueless when it come to car term
I had an analogy about BBQ's written out but I realised it didn't make much sense.
matthias73 said:
Basically what it's doing is making the combustion process in each cylinder more efficient. Not sure if it makes it faster, but it might feel slightly more responsive at lower engine speeds.
I had an analogy about BBQ's written out but I realised it didn't make much sense.
Thats great thanks... I just looked up on auto trader it says the 1.4 golf i had perviously has 75 bhp and and 1.4 90 bhp.. Will i notice that kind of change is engine power or will it not be a big enough change to notice?I had an analogy about BBQ's written out but I realised it didn't make much sense.
The astra i want to get is the SXI model
annie90 said:
Thats great thanks... I just looked up on auto trader it says the 1.4 golf i had perviously has 75 bhp and and 1.4 90 bhp.. Will i notice that kind of change is engine power or will it not be a big enough change to notice?
You'll notice it, the difference won't be staggering but overtaking will be less stressful and big hills no problem. The engine wont have to work so hard so you'll probably find there wont be much of a difference in MPG.For something the size of a Golf/Astra I wouldn't look at a 1.4. But I'm quite hard on my cars and would probably kill the engine in a shorter period of time than the average driver. I think the 1.4 would be fine for something Polo sized.
Have some relevant experience.
Also a student and my second car was a 2005 Astra 1.6 Twinport, Was an ok car, nothing special and never really bonded with the car despite having it for two years.
The interior is simple but pretty bland, its comfortable enough to be sat in for an hour or so but I wouldn't want to commute regularly in it, fuel was pretty good usually got around late thirties with almost exclusively urban trips, servicing wasn't horrendous although Lookers Vauxhall started to take the piss a bit and it was quick enough for nipping around in but the few times I had it on the Motorway I didn't feel that it was strong at all, no puff above 60ish.
Ended up selling it and getting myself a nice and cheaper BMW 330i E46 which is better in every way bar the fuel economy.
If you have to do a lot of motorway or long commutes I'd suggest looking at something a bit older, more luxurious like an old Lexus or Merc, they usually arn't much to insure due to the lack of use by young people and the poorer fuel economy is balanced with a much better ride and somewhere you'll actually want to be for a few hours
Also a student and my second car was a 2005 Astra 1.6 Twinport, Was an ok car, nothing special and never really bonded with the car despite having it for two years.
The interior is simple but pretty bland, its comfortable enough to be sat in for an hour or so but I wouldn't want to commute regularly in it, fuel was pretty good usually got around late thirties with almost exclusively urban trips, servicing wasn't horrendous although Lookers Vauxhall started to take the piss a bit and it was quick enough for nipping around in but the few times I had it on the Motorway I didn't feel that it was strong at all, no puff above 60ish.
Ended up selling it and getting myself a nice and cheaper BMW 330i E46 which is better in every way bar the fuel economy.
If you have to do a lot of motorway or long commutes I'd suggest looking at something a bit older, more luxurious like an old Lexus or Merc, they usually arn't much to insure due to the lack of use by young people and the poorer fuel economy is balanced with a much better ride and somewhere you'll actually want to be for a few hours
deltashad said:
You'll notice it, the difference won't be staggering but overtaking will be less stressful and big hills no problem. The engine wont have to work so hard so you'll probably find there wont be much of a difference in MPG.
For something the size of a Golf/Astra I wouldn't look at a 1.4. But I'm quite hard on my cars and would probably kill the engine in a shorter period of time than the average driver. I think the 1.4 would be fine for something Polo sized.
Yeah the 1.4 golf i had the engine went when i was going 70 down the motor way. Since been told the timing chain went and because i was going motor way speed it shattered a piston. I was told that a 1.4 golf and 1.4 polo have similar engine so that experience has kind of put me off that type of engine.For something the size of a Golf/Astra I wouldn't look at a 1.4. But I'm quite hard on my cars and would probably kill the engine in a shorter period of time than the average driver. I think the 1.4 would be fine for something Polo sized.
I would like the 1.6 but the higher running cost is off putting plus I'm only 23 so would be hit with higher insurance cost as well
Afromonk said:
Have some relevant experience.
Also a student and my second car was a 2005 Astra 1.6 Twinport, Was an ok car, nothing special and never really bonded with the car despite having it for two years.
The interior is simple but pretty bland, its comfortable enough to be sat in for an hour or so but I wouldn't want to commute regularly in it, fuel was pretty good usually got around late thirties with almost exclusively urban trips, servicing wasn't horrendous although Lookers Vauxhall started to take the piss a bit and it was quick enough for nipping around in but the few times I had it on the Motorway I didn't feel that it was strong at all, no puff above 60ish.
Ended up selling it and getting myself a nice and cheaper BMW 330i E46 which is better in every way bar the fuel economy.
If you have to do a lot of motorway or long commutes I'd suggest looking at something a bit older, more luxurious like an old Lexus or Merc, they usually arn't much to insure due to the lack of use by young people and the poorer fuel economy is balanced with a much better ride and somewhere you'll actually want to be for a few hours
Yeah there are some nice 2004 BMW 3 series that i would love to get but the insurance cost is around 1400 for them which it a bit to much for me to afford Also a student and my second car was a 2005 Astra 1.6 Twinport, Was an ok car, nothing special and never really bonded with the car despite having it for two years.
The interior is simple but pretty bland, its comfortable enough to be sat in for an hour or so but I wouldn't want to commute regularly in it, fuel was pretty good usually got around late thirties with almost exclusively urban trips, servicing wasn't horrendous although Lookers Vauxhall started to take the piss a bit and it was quick enough for nipping around in but the few times I had it on the Motorway I didn't feel that it was strong at all, no puff above 60ish.
Ended up selling it and getting myself a nice and cheaper BMW 330i E46 which is better in every way bar the fuel economy.
If you have to do a lot of motorway or long commutes I'd suggest looking at something a bit older, more luxurious like an old Lexus or Merc, they usually arn't much to insure due to the lack of use by young people and the poorer fuel economy is balanced with a much better ride and somewhere you'll actually want to be for a few hours
As it stands the most i do at a time is about 30 miles most of it being the M6
e with bubonic plague.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff