Accord 2.4 VTec type S

[Chong Warrior]

Yeah so we should all be driving 220 bhp 3.0 V6 lumps because they're perfect. Almost as economical as a 1.8 tuned for driving around town in a car that weighs less aswell...

From the figures I've seen and heard from forums it's around town driving that really kills the ST220 where figures plummet to high teens - official figures are 19.8mpg for urban (Civic 33.6mpg) and they're usually on the optimistic side. Getting them on a motorway in 6th gear and below the speed limit and then they aren't too bad. Also every owner I spoke to said they don't like short trips, they respond and run better when they get used a lot. Also put your foot down and then they gulp it down and I had to ask myself what's the point in buying a car like that if I'm bothered about mpg and scared to put my foot down? The Civic is managing to stay in the 30's. Overall it's not far behind my Golf TDi.

Also a sporty ST220 will cost about the same to look after during it's life aswell I assume? One thing that I noticed when looking at all these cars was just how much they had cost their owners. Mondeo's seem to have more than their fair share of clutch problems, backed up by the fact two of the lads at work have them, one is currently off the road with a.... clutch problem. The other had his replaced just 6 months ago. Along with a new DMF this is a very expensive problem!

Throw in tyres, it's about 7 insurance groups higher and also more to tax.

Tax was an issue because I was limited to a 2005 mondeo or had to suck up the death tax of £400 a year. I think 3 year old cars offer good value for money, warranted miles and have sucked up most of the depreciation bomb whilst still being relatively new and dealer serviced?

 

[[TW]Fox]

Yeah so we should all be driving 220 bhp 3.0 V6 lumps because they're perfect. Almost as economical as a 1.8 tuned for driving around town in a car that weighs less aswell...

From the figures I've seen and heard from forums it's around town driving that really kills the ST220 where figures plummet to high teens - official figures are 19.8mpg for urban and they're usually on the optimistic side.

I wasn't disputing that the economy was poor - my point is that it doesn't matter. Crawling around town during short trips might well mean poor economy but it also means you never go very far.

I do less than 10 miles a day in my 3.0 Six - it gets 20mpg, but actually it's not really much more expensive than a car doing 30mpg because... I simply dont drive it enough round town to actually use a huge amount of fuel.

Throw in tyres, it's about 7 insurance groups higher and also more to tax.

Tax was an issue because I was limited to a 2005 mondeo or had to suck up the death tax of £400 a year. I think 3 year old cars offer good value for money, warranted miles and have sucked up most of the depreciation bomb whilst still being relatively new and dealer serviced?

If you wanted a Civic and not a performance car great but what I am confused about is why you wasted your time looking at Mondeos, test driving them etc only to then decide the tyres were expensive, the insurance was a lot and it cost more to tax, something you could have worked out spending 4 minutes reading Google or something.

Just seems a bit odd, thats all.

It's like me spending a thread going yea yea yea gonna get a 335i, perhaps an Audi S5 or something and then coming back with a 1.6 Golf and saying 'Well the insurance'

 

[Chong Warrior]

It's a bit odd to want a nice sports car? Or to really look into actually owning one and being honest with myself about the true costs?

I came to a conclusion after finding out all the info by driving them, talking to owners, reading up on them and how I felt off my own back, my own opinion.

I think it's more odd to ask for other peoples thoughts and just seemingly get attacked at every turn, not that it bothers me in any way....

Just seems a bit odd, that's all.

 

[[TW]Fox]

What odd is that your last post before you announced you'd bought a Civic because the tax and insurance on the Mondeo was 'expensive' (How old are you anyway, I wouldnt have thought the insurance was much different, did you get a quote) as one where you almost bought a particular ST220 you test drove, but didnt because it had a fault (Fair enough).

If that ST220 you'd driven had a perfect clutch you'd have bought it, right?

Had it not been for the clutch I prob would have bought it

Yet now you have a Civic 1.8

Just seems so odd to get so close to purchasing a car like the ST220 and *then* decide you dont like the insurance group.

 

[stulid]

it would have cost the same to service the accord at a main dealers, as the civic, with the fixed price servicing/repairs

 

[Chong Warrior]

What odd is that your last post before you announced you'd bought a Civic because the tax and insurance on the Mondeo was 'expensive' (How old are you anyway, I wouldnt have thought the insurance was much different, did you get a quote)

£790 fully comp for me and a named driver, 10+ NCB on ST220
£512 for the Civic

Both done through moneysavingexpert using comparison sites moneysupermarket and go compare to cover the whole market. The Green Company was cheapest on both cars.

As with pretty much everything, the ST220 is usually around 50%+ more expensive. It's cumulative, insurance, tax, tyres, fuel, looking after the car... it all adds up over the whole year, not sure why you find this so hard to understand?

If that ST220 you'd driven had a perfect clutch you'd have bought it, right?

Yes and might well have regretted it, I'm glad I didn't buy it now. Which kind of shows it was a genuine thought process I went through to arrive at the decision to buy a smaller, newer, cheaper to run car. This is how I make decisions...

I pick somewhere to start - do some homework - look at the good and bad points - work out what is best for me - do what is best for me all round.

I don't just decide I want something and then make all the answers fit around that, dismissing everything else just because I want it... I've grown out of that after making many mistakes with fast cars in my teens and twenties.

 

[[TW]Fox]

£790 fully comp for me and a named driver, 10+ NCB on ST220
£512 for the Civic

Both done through moneysavingexpert using comparison sites moneysupermarket and go compare to cover the whole market. The Green Company was cheapest on both cars.

There is your problem right there - comparison sites.

My 530i costs me £380 a year to insure - I have only 3 years NCB, am almost 10 years younger than you and it includes Business Use!

That is staggeringly expensive insurance given your age and NCB - you are being quoted more to insure an ST220 than I was quoted to insure a BMW M5!

As with pretty much everything, the ST220 is usually around 50%+ more expensive. It's cumulative, insurance, tax, tyres, fuel, looking after the car... it all adds up over the whole year, not sure why you find this so hard to understand?

It's not hard to understand at all - I totally get that. Infact, I'm usually the voice of reason in 'Spec me a car' threads pointing out exactly this.

But it seems like you discovered this after you'd gone through the test drive process, almost buying an ST220 and then decided what you really wanted was a run of the mill hatchback.

It just seems a bit odd, I'd have expected you to have simply plucked for the normal car in the first place

It's an inferior car to the cars you were talking about throughout this thread - I'd have probably understood better had you gone for the Accord instead, but it just seems like an odd and random decision following 2 pages of discussion about large reasonably quick saloons to instead go for a 1.8 hatchback.