Cheap older car?

Erich Kriegler · 21 Nov 2015 at 11:06

My 03 Polo was recently written off. I was thinking of just buying a slightly newer version of the same car. At the moment I have my eye on an 05 with 60k miles. I've been told buying a car that old is a waste of time as things will just start going wrong with it, and it will be expensive to repair.

Is this likely to be the case with a car that old?

Hades · 21 Nov 2015 at 11:15

Well yes an older car is likely to neeed more maintenance than a newer car. But a lot will depend on how well it has been maintained (not just servicing but other wear and tear items like belts, clutches, etc). Also the depreciation on an older car will be a lot less. So while it will cost more to fix you won't be losing as much money on its value.

Also check whether there are is any additional scheduled maintenance or recommended changes at 60k.

iaind · 21 Nov 2015 at 11:15

Absolute rubbish - it's not 10 years old not 50. Was your 12 year old one falling apart and constantly unreliable? I don't see any part of a polo being expensive to repair even if it does go wrong.

But on condition and history and you'll be fine

InvaderGIR · 21 Nov 2015 at 11:17

What went wrong with your super ancient 2003 car?

A 2005 car is hardly old and if it's what you want and you can't really afford something newer then ignore them...also it looks like that Polo ran from 2002-2009 so if you went for a 2009 Polo you'd still have the same basic car with all the same things able to go wrong.

Hades · 21 Nov 2015 at 11:19

Just to add, my two cheapest cars to run were my 2003 Golf (9 years old when I sold it) and my current 1994 Corrado (21 years old).

Erich Kriegler · 21 Nov 2015 at 11:20

Thanks, I'm also looking at a fiesta now. Few hundred more, but 2 years younger. Anyone have much experience witch them v a polo?

Hades · 21 Nov 2015 at 11:22

I would always buy on condition and history over mileage. A poorly maintained low mileage car could cost more to maintain than a previously well maintained high mileage car.

Iron-man · 21 Nov 2015 at 15:50

as others have said an "older" car if well maintained can be potentially better than a newer car that has been ragged around and abused by a careless owner so it is all about the car and what its like

radderfire · 21 Nov 2015 at 16:02

kcon1 said:
My 03 Polo was recently written off. I was thinking of just buying a slightly newer version of the same car. At the moment I have my eye on an 05 with 60k miles. I've been told buying a car that old is a waste of time as things will just start going wrong with it, and it will be expensive to repair.

Is this likely to be the case with a car that old?

I would not have a problem with buying that, I would expect it to be fairly reliable and cheap to run. If there was a problem, it's only a Polo so shouldn't cost the Earth to fix. Take a look at car reviews to see which engine and gearbox is most reliable if you want to give yourself the best chance of a cheap to run car.

Lopéz · 22 Nov 2015 at 07:25

My colleague described his 3 year old Golf as "Ready for scrap" the other day. He was deadly serious too. "It's done 90,000 miles - it shouldn't really be on the road"

So god knows what he'd make of your potential 05 plate purchase

Nathan · 22 Nov 2015 at 09:18

Look at Ibizas and fabias within your budget. Same car as your polo

MeAnBoY · 22 Nov 2015 at 11:13

Lopéz said:
My colleague described his 3 year old Golf as "Ready for scrap" the other day. He was deadly serious too. "It's done 90,000 miles - it shouldn't really be on the road"

So god knows what he'd make of your potential 05 plate purchase

Did you even think about bothering to reply or just for your own sake stay quiet?

bimbleuk · 22 Nov 2015 at 11:18

Older cars are easier to maintain, assuming you have basic diy mechanical skills, as there's less intrusive electronics and emmision ******** to get in the way.

Hades · 22 Nov 2015 at 13:23

Lopéz said:
My colleague described his 3 year old Golf as "Ready for scrap" the other day. He was deadly serious too. "It's done 90,000 miles - it shouldn't really be on the road"

So god knows what he'd make of your potential 05 plate purchase

He has a point though. My 2003 mk4 Golf and was waaaaaaaaay better built than my 2009 mk6 Golf.

Orionaut · 22 Nov 2015 at 13:44

Hades said:
He has a point though. My 2003 mk4 Golf and was waaaaaaaaay better built than my 2009 mk6 Golf.

I have noticed that many manufacturers have gone back to the 70's.

Very little protection underneath on some late model cars, almost back to the days when they didn't bother painting the bits you couldn't see! :eek:

jono_astra · 22 Nov 2015 at 17:17

tickedon · 22 Nov 2015 at 18:17

kcon1 said:
Thanks, I'm also looking at a fiesta now. Few hundred more, but 2 years younger. Anyone have much experience witch them v a polo?

I'm assuming you are looking at a 2007 Fiesta.. but have gotten a bit lost with all the relative referencing!

I had a slightly older Fiesta (2005), they are fine cars and well put together. The interior, and particularly the dashboard, was never very pleasing to sit in or look at for long periods of time. It was however very cheap to service and replace/repair any parts - and I never had anything out of the ordinary to deal with. Avoid the 1.2l 65bhp engine (or thereabouts) if you can - it's very underpowered.

If you can stretch to it, they replaced the Fiesta with a brand new model in 2009. I personally think they look much nicer outside & inside, but that is a bit of personal preference.

I also used to own a 2007 Ford Focus (still in the family, with my parents now) which was also a great car. Everything was so much better with it - interior quality, seats, etc. and again really cheap to maintain. Your running costs will be a bit higher, but, you might find it a bit cheaper to buy than a Fiesta, as there are more of them about (and less popular as a starter car for 17 year olds!). You will also get more for your money in terms of spec, as they tended to come with more being a bigger class of car.