Seat Toledos

Thats exactly what I'd heard and why the Toledo was what instantly sprung to mind. My logic is as follows:

a) Crappy horrible diesel engine that develops zero bhp yet does 50mpg even if you have lead feet.
b) Diesel engine develops zero power so never breaks
c) Boring looking saloon so nobody wants it so its good value, but it still looks quite modern so not like an old banger.
d) Audi A3 dashboard, 'VAG build quality', plenty of kit so it should feel like quite a nice car.

I view the Toledo is a half decent cheap to run econobox.

AMIWRONG?
 
So long as it's had the belt and water pump changed recently then a Toledo would do the trick yes.
Nothing Skoda'ish coming to mind yet? Pretty much the same deal with the VAG diesels across the range with the 4 pots. You might even get some love from the diesel fanboys if you stop calling it a *crappy horrible engine ;)
The engine is about the only thing left in my Golf that I still appreciate :(



*even if only for the duration of the thread :rolleyes:
 
If she can push it to £3,500 I'd say go for a Colt Mitsubishi CZ2 diesel. Just got rid of a three year old one myself. Needed more space. The CZ2 is fully loaded, ultra economical (44'ish in town, 65'ish on motorways) and surprisingly quick 0-60 in 9.9secs. Plus Mitsubishi renown reliability.

See -http://www.carsite.co.uk/used/MITSUBISHI/COLT/1.5-DI-D-CZ2-5dr-Auto/2007/WJ07JEO?src=carsite

This is the auto but you might find a manual even cheaper. Would recommend it 100%. Best small-mid car I've ever had. More rear seat room than a Volvo S60 also.
 
Whats the catch with that? Ok it looks crap but it's a 2007 car for £3500!?

Everything on that site looks very cheap. I'm not sure thats the expected amount of money for a car like that, is it? All the others for similar money are 54 plates, and a 2 year older Toledo for a grand less seems better?
 
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;17590797 said:
Thats exactly what I'd heard and why the Toledo was what instantly sprung to mind. My logic is as follows:

a) Crappy horrible diesel engine that develops zero bhp yet does 50mpg even if you have lead feet.
b) Diesel engine develops zero power so never breaks
c) Boring looking saloon so nobody wants it so its good value, but it still looks quite modern so not like an old banger.
d) Audi A3 dashboard, 'VAG build quality', plenty of kit so it should feel like quite a nice car.

I view the Toledo is a half decent cheap to run econobox.

AMIWRONG?
Click to expand...

Nah, pretty much spot on Fox. I've never driven any of the diesels but I think they do a 150bhp variant of it, if she wants something with a bit of extra oomph. It might break more often though :p
Cheap, reasonable build quality and interior, loads of car for the money, 50mpg from a bombproof diesel engine.

Budget of £3k will buy you one with all the trimmings. It's just finding one that's been specced with half leather, C/C and is still in good nick.
 
I'd consider a Bora Fox.

A friend of mine had one, X Reg iirc, well over 280k miles and tbh you'd have thought it had done 80k from the way it drove!

Very few squeaks & rattles, bodywork was A1, interior too.

Despite being not really that into VW's - always found them ultra bland tbh - I must admit that Bora impressed me big time.

He swapped it for a 320d of dubious origins that subsequently lunched its engine via the dreaded swirl flaps, the Bora is still chugging along nearly 2 years later (and I bet its on 300k+ by now!)

Well, just my £0.02 - these sorts of threads by you make me chuckle - I'm damn sure you already know what you need, how much to spend and probably have already got it. ;) :D
 
[TW]Fox;17590351 said:
Last year I picked up a Mazda3 1.6 for my sister who does 20kish a year or so. The theory being that it was great value (They are very cheap),
Click to expand...

For a 2005 car surely it must have been at around £4k unless it had huge mileage or was Cat D etc?

Decent quality after market shocks (KYB) are £35+vat per side, and sumps are typically quite cheap if third party ones available (£60-£70 typically). Surely worth getting a few more quotes - after all some wise person on this forum has often stated the cheapest car to own is the one you already have :D
 
mjt said:
Just keep the Mazda. Any diesel at this price range will cost a lot more than £600 to fix.
Click to expand...

I'm quite capable of making rational decisions about whether its worth keeping a car or not, it would be pretty hypocritical of me if I wasn't. The repair cost is a contributing factor - previously the excessive fuel consumption of the Mazda was tolerated becuase it 'just worked' and did not generate excessive bills. Now it has both generated an excessive bill *and* has apalling fuel consumption.

Seriously, it pretty much drinks like my 530i and thats pathetic.
 
Get a VAG 1.9 then, doesn't really matter what its in though.
Skoda Octavias are worth investigating.
 
At the risk of sticking with the same marque, would something like this be considered?

Untitled-1.jpg
 
[TW]Fox;17590351 said:
It has emerged from it's MOT with a bill of almost £600 for new shocks on the front and, bizarrely, the sump was completely rusted through. On a 2005 car. Brilliant.
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting into such a funk about. Maybe the previous owner liked to bottom out the car over speed humps at 40mph. Maybe he drove a lot through salty gritted roads in the winter. Who knows. But its not as if the engine's blown up.

You stick on a new sump for £100-£150 or whatever, and its not going to need changing for another 5 years or more. Are you sure, you haven't been ripped off because unless its leaking oil, a rusty sump isn't the end of the world. It's not exactly a major cost.

As for the shocks, they're Ford supplier sourced parts, sourced with low cost in mind, so they're not exactly going to be known for their engineering longevity. What was wrong with them anyway? Unless they were leaking, there's no reason it should fail its MOT.

And what are the labour rates of Mazda dealers these days? £120 p/h? There goes your £600. So to say, 'its a Mazda, therefore I shouldn't have had to pay anything' is missing the point. If avoiding any cost is an issue (and I don't see how it can be when you're already spending £3,500+ a year on petrol), it would have been sensible to sell the car before incurring the cost of the work.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom