Engine sizes and age of cars

Question

I have £2500 to spend, and so far I've been confining my searches to 03 plates or newer.

The car has to do 46 miles round trip per day for work, and must be reliable, as there's no option of using public transport. I use the motorway for most of the journey.

I've got 2 questions:

1. Would I be better off with a higher engine like a 1.3, rather than a 1.0?

2. If I do have to get a higher engine size, I'm only going to get a 2001 or 2002 plate for my money. Will this prove much less reliable than a 2003 plate?

Basically I'm trying to work out whether I'd be better with a 2003/4 plate, 1.0L engine, or a 2001/2 1.3L engine?

Answer 1

A 1.0l will be more economical in terms of fuel and insurance.

A 1.3l will be better for longer distances. At 46 miles a day you would be better with the 1.0l

There will be no difference in reliability between a 2001 or a 2003. Recent cars are far more reliable than the cars of 20 years ago.

With the rising costs in fuel and road tax then for just 46 miles a day I would personally go for the cheaper car to own and run.

Answer 2

As above, for the 46 miles a day, I'd go for a 1.4 or a 1.5 diesel - I'd still say a Honda Civic on the grounds of economy, comfort & reliability

Answer 3

i would definetly go for a better engine it will make a big difrence

                                      good  luck

Answer 4

I would go for a 1.0 - 1.1-ish 2-5 person car with 3 doors or something.

So yeah, go for the 1.0L.

Answer 5

For £2.5K you can get a 2002 Mitsu Carisma or Lancer

They have an 1800 petrol direct injection engine that will get you 45 MPG on the motorway, or 42 MPG average.

Ultra reliable mechanics, massive spec inside ( CD changer, loads of airbags, air con, auto climate control, electric all around, electric sunroof )

Longer wheelbase than small hatches so safer and more relaxing on the motorway.

Not the best quality trim, but with £2.5K you are going to have to compromise somewhere,

Smaller engines like 1.0 and 1.3 will be tiresome for commuting on the motorway and with such good MPG, why not the Mitsu ?

Answer 6

I'd go for a petrol 1.4 engine which should be fine on a motorway. In terms of the age of the car I'd look at both 01/02 and 03/04 and get a car with the lowest mileage you can find as this is a better measure of reliability. A 01 car with 40,000 miles will be alot more reliable than a 03 car with 60,000 miles.

Answer 7

Try and get a car with as low mileage as possible with all the cars service history.A small diesel or a small petrol car would keep running costs down also.Hope this helps.

Answer 8

All the cars you're talking about are at least 4 years old so they'll only be as reliable as the maintenance they've had, if you follow me. A 2001 car that's been well looked after and serviced regularly will be a far better bet than a 2004 car that's been driven like it's been stolen and never seen a workshop in its life.

I'd go for a slightly bigger engine, like a 1.3/1.4 which will give better performance on motorways and will have less chance of having been thrashed to keep up with traffic. 1.0 litre engines are pretty gutless and often not much more economical than a 1.3.

Answer 9

i have a 1.0 suzuki that i use in the states.  it is a 98 and has 200K miles (300K kilometers) on it.  i run it on the motor ways and through hills and everywhere.  it will do anything i need for a commuter and gets 48-52 mpg US (56-60 european).  it's not a bad choice...