Would you uy a 0.9 liter car, reliable and cheap?

rocky

Most of the current cars are too costly, lots of expensive components, expensive service. There is a huge service industry around them.

Some say that at the current state of technology, a simple car that would last 20+years with little to no problems, is possible. Of course, such a car would not be in the car manufacturers' interest. Once they fill the market, thank you, please come back in 20+ years .

Such a car would not have most of the gadgets, that increase costs and decrease reliability.

What do you say, would you buy such a car? And which gadgets can you do without?

Stephen

No. 0.9 litres? Pfft.

rocky

Stephen wrote:

No. 0.9 litres? Pfft.

I think the Matiz has a .8 liter engine, and does ok (?)

the 0.9 was only a suggestion, for increased mileage and low emissions.

smcgiff

If there were only two types of car in the world to choose from, either 0.9 or 9.0 litre I'd be and anti-environmentalist and go with the latter.:D

afatbollix

no 2.0 + for me

Tails142

I drive a 1.1 litre 91 rover metro. It could very easily the fit the bill of what you described.

I think the car is great for a number of reasons, sure its very small but its quite nippy, and I can slip into any gaps through parked cars or gridlocked traffic. Its got a 4 speed gear box, so the extra distance you get out of first and second... easily do 34mph in second gear... and the fact that the cars is super lightweight means that I can dust a lot of people, which always gives me a smile.

The downsides are numerous, for a start I look a bit ridiculous but meh, who cares. I often give 2 or 3 people a lift and the leg room in the back is quite sparse for a grown lad. On the other hand I regularly carry cargo like timber and boxes, and you can get quite a bit more stuff than into it than a regular saloon/hatchback due to the fact there is almost no interior padding.

Fuel consupmption could be improved upon, I get about 180 miles out of 30 litres in city driving, up about 250 if I stick to motorway driving, would be much better if I had a 5th gear =P

I drive a lot of company/hire cars through work and it doesnt really bother me that I dont have any of the 'comforts' like electric windows, central locking or AC, except for those 2 days during the summer when it would be glorious.

The major criticism I would have about the car would be lack of safety measures, the bodywork is very weak, and I've seen the euro MCAT (?) report or whatever it is, and its pretty dismal, but if you could modernise the metro design with greater safety measures such as airbags and soft head rests, the ones I have are rock hard molded foam =P then it would be a great cheap runner.

peasant

Yes, I certainly would.

Having said that, 0.9 liters may be a tad weak for the type estate car that I'm looking for.

A 1.5 diesel sounds just about right.

ABS, Airbags, elec. windows, elec. heated mirrors, 20.000 kms between services, up to seven seats, 5.3 liters/100km, 140g CO2 / km

...already out there !

With the above spec, yours for €11.850 list price (before VRT and LHD only)


http://www.dacia.de/dacia_logan_mcv_preise.php

rocky

peasant wrote:

Yes, I certainly would.
...
A 1.5 diesel sounds just about right.

ABS, Airbags, elec. windows, elec. heated mirrors, 20.000 kms between services, up to seven seats, 5.3 liters/100km, 140g CO2 / km

...already out there !

With the above spec, yours for €11.850 list price (before VRT and LHD only)

Now you're talking Are they going to be sold in Ireland?

Captain Slow IRL

diahatsu charade, around 91-94, 3 cylinder diesel!
they go forever, cost nothing to run and are pretty nippy

I'm trying to get one currently, gonna go 2.5litre+ for the weekends

peasant

rocky wrote:

Now you're talking Are they going to be sold in Ireland?

Rumour has it that they are now going to be built in India for the RHD market and should appear in the UK early next year.

Irish VRt will surely price them out of the market though :rolleyes:

The no frills (at all!) bottom spec 1.4 petrol estate sells for 8.4k in Germany btw and the saloon for a shade over 7k.

Apparently there's a hatchback in the lineup as well.

leeroybrown

If I needed it for limited urban mileage yes. Currently, I'd look for a slightly larger car as it would cost almost nothing extra in terms of tax, insurance or running costs. I'd probably keep it for a decent few years for ecological reasons. The ultimate reason to sell it would probably be improved crash safety of newer cars. For any other use I'd say no.

I'd also argue that if you produce a reliable, practical, economical small car with acceptable passenger space and good crash safety, you'd be charging a sizable percentage of the cost of a modern supermini and that the limited extra cost of the step up would be a very attractive to a lot of people.

goldflake

Not a hope in hell, you need a bit of power to overtake trucks etc. At least 1.3L

rocky

Aparently there was a company that went bankrupt because of the quality of its cars

Peerless' downfall was in its quality. In the 1920s, the company was producing conservatively-styled vehicles that would last for ten or more years. Current Peerless owners held onto their cars, which ran very well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerless

TJJP

The sub-800cc concept isn't new, K-Cars have had a significant share of the Japanese market for years. Lower tax models with the distinctive yellow number plate such as the Suzuki Carry (mini-van) or Alto (available in 4WD!) have been very popular. Classics liked the Honda Beat (1991-1996) and Suzuki Cappuccino were miniscule at 656cc and 800cc but still a lot of fun. The tiny K-cars are both light weight and frugal on juice but generally lack all the extras in order to keep the weight down.

I drove an 800cc 3cyl 4WD alto for a while and really enjoyed it.

Stephen

My mother had an 800cc Matiz a few years back, in fact I learned to drive in it. I hate it
It felt like it would crush like tinfoil in a crash, and had the power of a crippled gerbil.

eamon234

Smart Roadster - only 698cc and up to 100bhp!

unkel

peasant wrote:

The no frills (at all!) bottom spec

Aren't there some frills that all new mainstream cars in the EU have to be fitted with? Is it ABS, or is there more?

peasant

The Logan estate bottom spec does indeed have ABS, two airbags, rear head rests, an immobiliser and internally adjustable (manual) mirrors.

That's it.

No radio, no elec windows, no heated rear screen, no rear wiper, and ...get this ...no passenger sun visor either:D (never mind the vanity mirror)

unkel

That's a pretty decent spec for a €7k car

Any idea how sales on the continent are faring? Is it what Renault expected?

Max_Damage

peasant wrote:

The Logan estate bottom spec does indeed have ABS, two airbags, rear head rests, an immobiliser and internally adjustable (manual) mirrors.

That's it.

No radio, no elec windows, no heated rear screen, no rear wiper, and ...get this ...no passenger sun visor either:D (never mind the vanity mirror)

Tell us this though, is it a DIY-maintenance friendly car?

I myself prefer to do my own work on a car, rather than charging some garage ridiculous amounts of money just to, at the end of the day, turn some engine/service light off.

peasant

I have no idea ...I've never seen one.

But as it was originally designed for developing markets, I would suspect that it doesn't even HAVE a service light

BostonB

goldflake wrote:

Not a hope in hell, you need a bit of power to overtake trucks etc. At least 1.3L

You need to learn to do it properly. I switch between a 2.0 and a 999c all the time and I've no problem with overtaking in the 999c. While I wouldn't think think its the most economical. Car engine size isn't a good gauge of performance or economy. Moving up to a 1.4 in a bigger car the extra weight nullifies any extra power you have. I had a 1.6 CRX for a while that was much more economical than any 999c or 1.1 I've run.

peasant

unkel wrote:

That's a pretty decent spec for a €7k car

Any idea how sales on the continent are faring? Is it what Renault expected?

It's a lot better, actually.

They never really expected to sell into "western" Europe at all ...and now people are tearing them out of their hands.
The estate is expected to do even better, especially as it is a full 7 seater.
At the moment it has a delivery time of up to four months.

They have brought two or three new eastern European factories on stream as well and are expanding into "third world" countries rapidly now.

I'd say you could call it a massive success.

The only drawback is:

It only has a three star NCAP rating and was never designed to get anything better.

ninty9er

FIAT's cunttogetinto is .9 (899cc) and my corsa is just slightly better (973cc) and the power drop is extremely noticable with passengers.

OK for city driving, very reliable but I won't be buying smaller than 1.4 at any point in the future

peasant

ninty9er wrote:

FIAT's cunttogetinto is .9 (899cc) and my corsa is just slightly better (973cc) and the power drop is extremely noticable with passengers.

OK for city driving, very reliable but I won't be buying smaller than 1.4 at any point in the future

Had a 0.9 Peugeot 205 (for the wife) for a while ...that actually went veeery well and was nice to drive. But then again, it was extremely light and had nothing in it. Plus it ran on fumes.

overdriver

I drive the missus' Micra a lot, and I have to say, it's quite fun. Nippy enough when required, too. So a 10% or thereabouts drop in engine size wouldn't upset me a great deal, particularly if it's tuned correctly.

Bring it on!

BostonB

ninty9er wrote:

FIAT's cunttogetinto is .9 (899cc) and my corsa is just slightly better (973cc) and the power drop is extremely noticable with passengers.

OK for city driving, very reliable but I won't be buying smaller than 1.4 at any point in the future

Try the 1.4 with four people in it. it might not be much better...

Kojak

anto-t wrote:

no 2.0 + for me

I would tend to agree with you, anto - anything from a 1.6 up would be fine for me. I'm used to driving diesel cars, anyway, so a 0.9 diesel would not be a viable option.

hi5

Mk 1 or mk2 Fiesta would make a good choice,something bigger then how about a mid eighties merc,merc will hold parts up to 40 years.think pre computers and pre fuel injection,a a galavanised body will help with longtivity,but any metal will last forever if treated properly,cleaned regularly,stonechips touched up when they happen,waxoiled/shultzed underneath and into the cavities.
what I couldnt live without? front disc brakes,5 speed gearbox,heater, radio.

What I could live without? Power steering,electric windows,air con,abs,traction control,not too sure about airbags?
most modern safety features dont work,they give a false sense of security,people are still being killed in car crashes as always.
Give me big chrome bumbers,heavey gauge metal and a big long bonnet over all your gimmicks any day.

Modern cars are all about marketing and have a built in obsolenance.

Ive seen kits in the US where you can convert fuel injected chevy engines back to carb so enthusiasts can work on them.

most bodies and engines last far longer than the electronics,many cars are now dumped because a single component like the computer is broke.

A new Merc 500s costs over 100 grand,a twelve year old one will only cost you back about 15 grand even in excellent condition,but only poor people drive 12 year cars and image is everything.

BostonB

Kojak wrote:

I would tend to agree with you, anto - anything from a 1.6 up would be fine for me. I'm used to driving diesel cars, anyway, so a 0.9 diesel would not be a viable option.

Theres lots of small diesels too 1.4~1.0.

BrianD3

Yes, I would consider a 0.9-1 litre like an Aygo or a "simple" cheap car like a Logan. These cars are relatively lightweight and uncomplicated compared to other modern vehcies but still a lot more complex than say a 20 year old car with carbs, no airbags and ABS etc. I think that's unavoidable. However little things can make a difference - eg as mentoned the Logan has a 3 star safety rating. IIRC it has single stage airbags which may have affected its rating but at the same time may result in a less complex SRS system.

If a car could be engineered to have the safety, refinement, service intervals and efficiency of a modern car combined with the light weight and simplicity of an older car then that woudl be some feat. Eg if you could produce a Ford Focus II 1.6 TDCI but keep the weight at that of the Escort Mk3 (about 900 kg) you would have a seriously economical car.

I don't agree with the comments about modern safety systems being of little benefit. Cars are far safer now than 20, 15 or even 10 years ago. Even leaving aside airbags and other technology, the basic structure of cars' passenger compartments are much stronger now. It would be interesting to take a modern supermini with a high safety rating (eg Clio III) and collide it with a much larger, heavier older car which had a good name for safety in its day (eg 1985 Mercedes S Class) I think I'd prefer to be in the Clio if the two collided. And If the cars were crashed separately into "immovable" objects such as large trees I'd much prefer to be in the Clio.