De Peoples Vagon - Second Hand VW's

figs

I'm looking at buying a VW Passat.

It's a 02 - 1.8 Comfortline Petrol with 80k+ miles.

I'm a bit worried about the mileage. I've heard that VW's go for years, but I reckon that's the diesels.

Anyone any experience of VW Passat's??

peadair 11

bought a 00 Passat with 110K Diesel. I was under the same influence about VW. Last weekend the Injector Pump went and to get it fixed its Roughly 1400euro. I have the car 4 Months. Dealer not being very helpful nor is VW Ireland. Its not a Normal part that goes on these car/model and they have not given me any reason why it has gone in mine. as my vw dealer said its Luck !!!!

Peoples Wagan My H*le

Henry Ford III

80 or 110k is high mileage on any car. Parts will fail as they've been well used.

Not unique to VW btw.

figs

I agree that 80k is a considerable mileage, and it is reasonable to expect parts failure on vehicles when they are getting on a bit... but some vehicles fare better than others.

A good judge is the car a taxi driver picks - a lot drive Toyotas - and they can clock 200k+ and not give much trouble. Same for the Mercs.

Don't see so many in VW's. Do they typically do big mileage? Or should I stick to a Skoda / Toyota with my 12k budget.

Owen

peadair 11 wrote:

Dealer not being very helpful nor is VW Ireland.

Not to sound like a prick, but why would VW Ireland have an input on a 7 year old car? Their warranty responsibilities on the car are long since completed!

pburns

figs wrote:

A good judge is the car a taxi driver picks - a lot drive Toyotas - and they can clock 200k+ and not give much trouble. Same for the Mercs.

Don't see so many in VW's. Do they typically do big mileage? Or should I stick to a Skoda / Toyota with my 12k budget.

Ah, the VW reliability myth...

Top Gear Car Satisfaction Survey 2005:

1 Lexus
2 Skoda
3 Honda
4 Mazda
5 Toyota
6 Subaru
7 Mini
8 Porsche
9 Jaguar
10 BMW
......
.....
....
21 Volkswagen

A Mazda 6 or Avensis diesel are way better than any Passat...

Henry Ford III

Henry Ford III wrote:

80 or 110k is high mileage on any car. Parts will fail as they've been well used.

Not unique to VW btw.

And regardless of an engine supposedly going forever, theres no way you get the same performance or fuel economy from an engine that has that kind of millage on it. Oh and the turbocharger could need looking at soon.

unkel

pburns wrote:

Ah, the VW reliability myth...

Top Gear Car Satisfaction Survey 2005:

Measurable reliability (objective) and customer satisfaction (by definition subjective) do not necessarily go hand-in-hand

The main reason Skoda (=VW) have been packing a punch in customer satisfaction surveys recently imho is that the package exceeded customer expectation. An Octavia is a lot of car for your money

maidhc

ronoc wrote:

And regardless of an engine supposedly going forever, theres no way you get the same performance or fuel economy from an engine that has that kind of millage on it. Oh and the turbocharger could need looking at soon.

I have a 1968 tractor on the original engine with an unquantifiable number of hours up.

TBH an engine that is serviced properly and driven sympathetically will probably last for a long long time in the same condition as it came out of the factory. Most engines get neither treatment though. We have a mondeo who's MPG has steadily increased with age!

ned78 wrote:

Not to sound like a prick, but why would VW Ireland have an input on a 7 year old car? Their warranty responsibilities on the car are long since completed!

They have statutory obligations for up to 6 years regardless of the warranty. I know Ford supplied a friend with a replacement engine FOC for his Focus when it was 6yrs old... with only moderate hassle.

In relation to a fuel pump... VW won't cover it because the likelihood is that it was killed prematurely by petrol or poor fuel/servicing. I hear that some warranty claims for fuel pumps are not being granted prior to an analysis of the fuel in the tank now.

junkyard

I've been saying it for years that VW aren't as good as they used to be. I wouldn't agree that regular servicing equals long engine life, If the design is flawed to start with, regular servicing isn't going to be a guarantee of a reliable engine. Engines generally get heavier on fuel as they get older as injectors and fuel jets get worn.

Elessar

maidhc wrote:

They have statutory obligations for up to 6 years regardless of the warranty. I know Ford supplied a friend with a replacement engine FOC for his Focus when it was 6yrs old... with only moderate hassle.

What is this? Can you prove it? I've never heard of "statutory obligations" for manufacturers up to 6 years?

Owen

maidhc wrote:

They have statutory obligations for up to 6 years regardless of the warranty. I know Ford supplied a friend with a replacement engine FOC for his Focus when it was 6yrs old... with only moderate hassle.

Where did you pull this out of? Manufacturers give you a warranty, when the warranty expires, you're on your own. Most manufacturers have 2/3 year warranties. There are no 'statutory obligations' that you speak of.

junkyard

ned78 wrote:

Where did you pull this out of? Manufacturers give you a warranty, when the warranty expires, you're on your own. Most manufacturers have 2/3 year warranties. There are no 'statutory obligations' that you speak of.

I would have though this was the case, I've never come across any manufacturer covering warranty after 5 or 6 years unless it was a safety recall and even then they'll try and wriggle out of it, anyone remember the many cases involving the Fiat 131 Mirafiori?

maidhc

ned78 wrote:

Where did you pull this out of? Manufacturers give you a warranty, when the warranty expires, you're on your own. Most manufacturers have 2/3 year warranties. There are no 'statutory obligations' that you speak of.

Statute of Limitations. The right to bring an action exists for 6 years from the date of its accrual. If one speaks of Merchantable quality as defined in the Sale of Goods Act 1893 as amended by the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980 then the cause of action would accrue from, presumably, the date of manufacture.

This is not exactly groundbreaking stuff, although only likely to be of practical benefit in narrow situations. One would be a catastrophic engine failure on a properly maintained car with sensible mileage (like happened the focus), another may be rust.

This is why people always insert the chestnut "this does not affect your statutory rights" when advertising warranties!

EDIT: I should be clear, I am not saying you can demand something trivial, nor that anything like that a warranty exists for 6 years. Just that it is completely incorrect from a legal point of view to say that a person is "on their own" once the manufacturers warranty runs out, and tough sh1t thereafter.

Owen

maidhc wrote:

Statute of Limitations. The right to bring an action exists for 6 years from the date of its accrual. If one speaks of Merchantable quality as defined in the Sale of Goods Act 1893 as amended by the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980 then the cause of action would accrue from, presumably, the date of manufacture.

This is not exactly groundbreaking stuff, although only likely to be of practical benefit in narrow situations. One would be a catastrophic engine failure on a properly maintained car with sensible mileage (like happened the focus), another may be rust.

This is why people always insert the chestnut "this does not affect your statutory rights" when advertising warranties!

I'm the Sales Manager for a Dealership, and in my years of trading, this has never ever been invoked, nor do I know if it's possible to do it - up until 5 minutes ago, I didn't even know it existed. Are you sure your Sale of Goods act 1893, ammended 1980 actually includes Motor Vehicles? And if this is so obvious, why aren't Manufacturers obliged to follow the guidelines?

If this is the case, then there's no need for a Warranty at all, with a Car, TV, or Cookers! It'll certainly cut my paperwork in half. I look forward to more input on this

Owen

junkyard wrote:

anyone remember the many cases involving the Fiat 131 Mirafiori?

No, my knowledge of the 131 is very limited. I know it ended up being sold in Turkey as the Tofas, and it was also rebadged by Seat as the Supermirafiori. What happened J?

maidhc

ned78 wrote:

I'm the Sales Manager for a Dealership, and in my years of trading, this has never ever been invoked, nor do I know if it's possible to do it - up until 5 minutes ago, I didn't even know it existed. Are you sure your Sale of Goods act 1893, ammended 1980 actually includes Motor Vehicles? And if this is so obvious, why aren't Manufacturers obliged to follow the guidelines?

If this is the case, then there's no need for a Warranty at all, with a Car, TV, or Cookers! It'll certainly cut my paperwork in half. I look forward to more input on this

This is why warranties exist really. Because for most issues, it is going to be difficult to argue in court that a car is not merchantable/not fit for purpose etc if it has given 2/3 years of service.

Manufacturers do follow the law (rather than mere guidelines), but normally don't do so unless it is a very obvious defect on their part...e.g. the Toyota VVTi saga. I know kearys (is that where you work...) once had a stack of them in Grange for older Avensi.

The most blatant example of ignoring legislation is Dell. For a time they offered a 3mth warranty, despite a European Directive providing (in broad terms) that if something breaks in 6 mths it is to be presumed it was sold broken and must be repaired. I challenged dell about this when buying a computer, and the rep admitted that they fixed any computer for the first 6mths anyway, but that you just had to pay carriage! Maybe she made this up, but either way they were obliged to do so.

... and Motor vehicles are most definitely included. They are a finicky thing to apply to the law though because there are so many opportunities for muppets to cause the damage themselves, plus the fact by their nature they break down and wear out in reasonable circumstances.

junkyard

ned78 wrote:

No, my knowledge of the 131 is very limited. I know it ended up being sold in Turkey as the Tofas, and it was also rebadged by Seat as the Supermirafiori. What happened J?

Well very briefly ned, the 131 suffered from an electrical fault whereby if the car was involved in an accident it would lock you in the car, and in many cases, burst into flames and burn the occupants alive. Fiat, in their wisdom, decided it would be cheaper to pay out compensation to the unfortunate survivors families than to recall that model car and rectify the fault worldwide. Many people were killed worldwide as a result of this problem and it all boiled down to pounds and pennies for Fiat, the callous b@stards that they are.:mad:

maidhc

junkyard wrote:

Well very briefly ned, the 131 suffered from an electrical fault whereby if the car was involved in an accident it would lock you in the car, and in many cases, burst into flames and burn the occupants alive. Fiat, in their wisdom, decided it would be cheaper to pay out compensation to the unfortunate survivors families than to recall that model car and rectify the fault worldwide. Many people were killed worldwide as a result of this problem and it all boiled down to pounds and pennies for Fiat, the callous b@stards that they are.:mad:

Are you sure you are not referring to the Ford Pinto?

Owen

junkyard wrote:

Well very briefly ned, the 131 suffered from an electrical fault whereby if the car was involved in an accident it would lock you in the car, and in many cases, burst into flames and burn the occupants alive. Fiat, in their wisdom, decided it would be cheaper to pay out compensation to the unfortunate survivors families than to recall that model car and rectify the fault worldwide. Many people were killed worldwide as a result of this problem and it all boiled down to pounds and pennies for Fiat, the callous b@stards that they are.:mad:

Ho-ly Sh*t. :eek:

junkyard

Do you honestly think I'd mix something like this up? I though you of all people maidhc would have heard of this. An Irish solicitor from the midlands was killed in the 70's as a result of one of these defective Fiats.

maidhc

junkyard wrote:

Do you honestly think I'd mix something like this up? I though you of all people maidhc would have heard of this. An Irish solicitor from the midlands was killed in the 70's as a result of one of these defective Fiats.

Never heard of the issue. But I bow to your knowledge!

My uncle overturned one once. He had a load of wavin drainage pipes sticking out the back of a trailer and they lifted the rear of the car clean off the ground at 50mph.

Sandwich

maidhc wrote:

Are you sure you are not referring to the Ford Pinto?

He may be. I never heard this about the 131. The Pinto was the famous case, more or less as described. the problem was the fuel tanking bursting if the car was hit from behind and the petrol igniting. Trouble for Ford when the documents were produced showing they knew about it but with a cost analysis showing it was indeed cheaper to let people die and keep paying compensation than to recall the cars.

The 131 story might just be an Irish mutation of the Pinto events (given Ireland love of Fiat horror stories!).

maidhc

Sandwich wrote:

He may be.

He isnt:

Irish Times: High Court strikes out Fiat defence Children burned in car fire 7 years ago get damages

THE High Court yesterday struck out the Fiat motor company's defence to a claim brought on behalf of two children severely burned seven years ago when their father's Fiat Mirafiori car burst into flames in the driveway of their home.

The court will assess damages to be paid by Fiat to the children, who through their mother, Ms Margaret Murphy, had sued Fiat Auto Spa of Turin and Fiat Auto (Ireland).

Mr Justice Johnson said the Fiat companies had failed to comply with the discovery orders because of their failure to contact their sources, and he still did not know what documents had been, or were in their possession relating to fires which occurred in the Fiat model Mirafiori between January 1st, 1979, and June 23rd, 1988, and reported to the Fiat parent company.

Some time ago New PMPA, the insurers of the car, agreed to pay damages totalling Pounds 815,000, with Pounds 407,500 being lodged in the High Court to the credit of each child. From the assessment the New PMPA will seek to recoup the amount they paid to the children so as not to subject them to the delays of the legal process.

The two children, Lena Maria (8) and James Joseph (10), had been in their father's (Mr James Murphy) car parked in the driveway of their parents' home, it was stated, when it burst into flames and both, then two years and 3 1/2 years, sustained "horrendous burns".

The court had been asked last July to strike out the defence of the Italian and Irish Fiat companies for their failure to "make discovery" in relation to car fires.

Counsel for the parents, Mr James Nugent SC, claimed the two Fiat companies were engaged in a deliberate and sustained attempt to conceal from the court details of fire hazards in Fiat Mirafiori type cars in the 1980s.

In his reserved judgment yesterday, Mr Justice Johnson paid tribute to the solicitor for the children - Mr Francis X. Burke - and said it was through his extraordinary energy that the failures of the Fiat companies to comply with the discovery orders of the court had been brought to light.

The judge said he could not speak sufficiently highly of the solicitor for the work he had done in the interests of procuring Justice.

Mr Justice Johnson said that the two witnesses for the Italian Fiat company demonstrated, to him in the witness box an elusiveness, an unwillingness to be pinned down as to what document precisely they might have had or might not have had or what they might get when inquiries were made.

In this regard in particular he found the attitude taken by Fiats Auto Spa towards the recall campaign of Fiat Mirafiori cars nothing short of treating the court with contumely.

At the end of the judgment Mr Nugent said he thought the logical conclusion arising was toe strike out the defence of the Fiat companies to the plaintiffs' claim and enter judgment for the children. Their damages would be assessed by a High Court judge.

Mr Justice Johnson said the order would be complicated and he adjourned the matter until Thursday to hear submissions, and an application by counsel for, Fiat, Ms Mary Finlay SC, for a stay on the order in the event of an appeal to the Supreme Court.

March 7, 1995

junkyard

Thanks for that maidhc, I would have poked that out if I had more time but work is hectic at the moment. There were other cases involving the 131 in Ireland too.