Honda or vauxhall?

[Jay29]

Having owned my fabia vrs diesel for 5years I'm feeling the need to move on, however the money I'd get for it now with the milage it's on, I'm strongly considering keeping it as well, I can't get enough of the torque and fuel economy 

 

Two cars which have sparked my inteest

 

 Honda Sr 1.0 vtec cvt 

Reason: long term reliability, the looks would have to grow on me 

 

Vauxhall astra 1.4t auto elite nav 

Reason: cheap, wealth of equipment list, I also miss a complete leather interior 

 

Does anyone have any experiences of the above,,? 

Both are petrol variants 

 

Thanks 

[Ryeman]

The small turbo.

We had the 1.4t Astra and like all small turbos they are simply quiet diesels.

Just make sure you use the ashless approved oil.

[Jay29]

Cheers for reply, how did you find the astra 1.4t, did you have it long, reliability issues? 

[Guest]

I had a 2003 Honda Civic 1.6 SE Executive vtec for 6 years and 90,000 miles prior to getting my Octavia Scout and I still have a soft spot for it.

 

It covered about 40,000 miles Travelling around France and Spain and apart from needing new brake pads, discs and annual servicing, cost peanuts to run.  I forget how much the VED was,  but I was getting 40mpg around town and 50mpg on a long run. More efficient and reliable than my current vehicle. 

Skoda take note. 

 

Ride would loosen your fillings,  but handling was fantastic. Local Honda dealer was spot on with 'while you wait' servicing that lived up to its name,  and was on time. 

Skoda take note! 

 

Probably the fondest car I've ever owned,  and more importantly,  no fecking DPF!!

[KenONeill]

My sis has just moved on a 55 plate Jazz, after getting a £900 bill for a new wiper motor (needed for MOT). Saying which she still replaced it with another Jazz.

[Ootohere]

We know Honda's reputation for Quality and reliability, 

so what about 1.0l vtec CVT Civics?

 

I remember a member here got one.

 

As to Vauxhall's their reputation goes before them and it is known used they can be cheap.

 

I have driven a 1.4 Automatic Mokka.  it was dire really as a Petrol Automatic.  Comfy though.

[skomaz]

Having owned a Mk 8 Civic Honda's reliability is not all it is made out to be...   engine was good - clutch and the rest of the car less so with many common problems.

 

If you are interested in the 10G Civic check out Civinfo...

[Aspman]

I don't know the models but I see a lot of broken down vauxhalls and very few broken down hondas.

 

I've only had one Honda an Accord. I bought it at 4yr old with 70k on the clock and Honda sold me a 3yr unlimited mileage warranty for £250. I thought that sounded like a company that trusted the reliability of its cars.

 

So on no further knowledge I'd vote Honda.

[Jay29]

Real question is quality control which seems to be less and less these days 

I've even considered a focus but sitting inside one felt like I was in the 90s horrible. 

 

New corolla looks good as does the mazda 3 with skyactiv, the only two that are sticking with naturally aspirated which may be good for long term reliability 

 

The astra sri and elite nav are relatively cheap for a  2yr old car, but you're right there just be reason behind this. 

 

The civic 1. 5 t suffered from oil dilution issues hence I'm considering the 1.0vtec turbo cvt but need more info on ownership with this one

 

I sat in the new fabia too small, octavia don't like its looks

Edited 27 August, 2019 by Jay29

[camelspyyder]

Modern 1.0 turbos that I have driven (Fords and VWs) and owned (SEAT) are gutless little horrors.

No useable torque means you row them along using the gearbox and the official MPG figures are like a work of total fiction.

 

I don't see that feedback you've been given on 2003 Hondas and sundry different Vauxhalls is going to help you make an informed choice,  but I can say that this cross manufacturer drive to tiny turbos is making a generation of cars that are quite awful to drive.

 

Pick one with a  decently sized engine.

 

 

[Ootohere]

The difference is that the Japanese know how to actually do small capacity turbos having done it for decades.

Suzuki & Honda know what gearboxes to use as well after gaining the experience.

 

That is why VW bought into Suzuki and Ford went to Yamaha.  But then that helped them little because the Japanese are not stupid.

[mac11irl]

My vote would be honda..

 

I honestly dont know anyone with a particularly kind work to say about vauxhall/opel...

[skomaz]

4 hours ago, camelspyyder said:

Modern 1.0 turbos that I have driven (Fords and VWs) and owned (SEAT) are gutless little horrors.

No useable torque means you row them along using the gearbox and the official MPG figures are like a work of total fiction.

 

 

 

You my be right with some of that but my personal experience of the 1.0 Suzuki with mild hybrid is the opposite.  111bhp with 125lbft and an additional 50lbft from the hybrid element in something that only weighs 950kg certainly doesn't need to be rowed along on the gears and the low down torque is almost diesel like.

 

As for mpg the urban figure is 58mpg and I'm getting 51mpg to 54mpg over the last few thousand miles of stop start urban commute...

[skomaz]

A quick flick through Civinfo suggests the 1.0 is a very good engine and the CVT is a good combination with it (even if the speed sensitive CVT programming takes a bit of getting use to).

 

However, as I mentioned earlier re my 8th gen civic Honda have gone backwards with regard to trim and build quality with lots of owners of the new 10th gen reporting poor exterior panel fit, lots of rattles, leaking sunroofs and rough and ready interior trim.  Dealers can be good and bad as with most marques.

 

Personally I'd hesitate a lot before comitting to one but it depends on what your after...

Edited 27 August, 2019 by skomaz

[Aspman]

I've not driven a 1.0T or a Japanese small turbo.

I have driven a Nissan Qashqai with a 1.2T.

 

It didn't work for me. It gave 1.6l 'like' of driving 90% of the time but the other 10% was awful. If it comes off the turbo there is no power at all and there was quite an old school amount of lag. That made getting out onto a busy roundabouts very scary. It would also suddenly run out of puff overtaking. MPG was also very far off the lab figures (36 Vs 48).

 

Other cars will differ however my view of small turbo engines in larger cars is jaded now.

[Ootohere]

NISSAN, now that is an awkward one,

Renault / Nissan/ Mitsubishi,  Build Japanese Cars in Britain and have a French / Japanese mixture..

 

Cars that can be picked up at a good price is a 'Fugly' Suzuki S-Cross with CVT or Auto and even AWD as a choice.

Worth giving one a road test.  Good build quality, flimsy for lightness does not mean crap, just nothing fancy, just stuff that works, is reliable and car is comfy.

 

 

 

Edited 28 August, 2019 by Roottootemoot

[shyVRS245]

New Vauxhalls are just rebodied French PSA Group vehicles these days. They ain't British or American anymore.

Edited 28 August, 2019 by shyVRS245
missing word

[mac11irl]

2 hours ago, shyVRS245 said:

New Vauxhalls are just rebodied French PSA Group vehicles these days. They ain't British or American anymore.

 

The diesels were italian (fiat) engines anyway... just GM badly modified (in my experience)

 

Small turbos in small cars - grand. But.. "theres no replacement for displacement" as the car get bigger and heavier.. ive driven a 1.0 ecoboost focus hatchback, for a few days as a hire car. It was grand, but the thoughts of it in anything bigger, even an estate???? Its why i dont even really understand mk2 superbs with 1.6 105bhp diesels. Its just too much car for the engine imo.

[shyVRS245]

Agree about the displacement. What was Ford in the USA thinking when they rubber stamped a 1.0 litre engine in the Mundano for European consumption.

[camelspyyder]

13 hours ago, skomaz said:

 

You my be right with some of that but my personal experience of the 1.0 Suzuki with mild hybrid is the opposite.  111bhp with 125lbft and an additional 50lbft from the hybrid element in something that only weighs 950kg certainly doesn't need to be rowed along on the gears and the low down torque is almost diesel like.

 

As for mpg the urban figure is 58mpg and I'm getting 51mpg to 54mpg over the last few thousand miles of stop start urban commute...

Quite a difference between a stand alone turbo 1.0 and a two engined hybrid, no? God knows how they got it down to the weight, but some Maruti built Suzuki's I've driven were surely made of economy baked bean tins

[Ootohere]

Indian built might well be.

Hungarian built is not Indian built though.   That is Central European, kind of not the same thing.

[skomaz]

Some fair points above - whilst I'm really pleased with my Swift I doubt I'd get the same driving experience in something bigger, or even in a different marque (even a fiesta, for example, is significantly heavier).

 

I did try the 1.0 non-hybrid as that was what I was originally considering - it was still nippy and agile with slightly less get-up-and-go, good torque from low revs and no noticeable lag as the turbo is so close to the block and exhaust ports.

 

However I changed to the Hybrid after some 'gentle persuading' from my wife.

 

I suppose I was just pushing back on the small turbos are rubbish comments - but there is truth in the fact that they need to be matched and suited to the rest of the vehicle...

 

As to the weight of the Swift - yes it's light but in terms of build quality it's equally a match for things like the Honda and is light years ahead of my Mk 8 and recent Fiesta and Insignia hire cars I've had the displeasure to drive and be in.

[TonyTonic]

We had a Astra J 1.4 N/A petrol from 2012 until this year and it was rock solid, other than yearly service, nothing. PLus you get lifetime warranty or up to 100k . Opels/Vauxhalls are a bit underrated in my opinion, they are good solid cars and reasonably priced.

 

How about a small MAzda 3 or CX-2 ? THey seem well specced decent cars.

Edited 5 September, 2019 by TonyTonic

[Aspman]

I've had a Mazda 3. Nice enough car. I had the 2.2 twin turbo. Nothing like as fast as that sounds it was 150hp but didn't feel it.

MPG was ok low to mid 50s. Spec was good and seemed well put together.

Quite a lot of road noise.

No spare by default and only tyre gunk no runflats but it does at least have a wheel well. In fact I've still got a spare wheel kit for it I could sell you.

Mate had a Mazda 6 and found reliability poor when it got to higher mileage (80+) and parts very expensive.

 

I didn't keep it long, I found it dull and was in a position to switch to the Beemer but I'd have been happy enough to hang onto the Mazda otherwise.

 

[mac11irl]

5 hours ago, Aspman said:

I've had a Mazda 3. Nice enough car. I had the 2.2 twin turbo. Nothing like as fast as that sounds it was 150hp but didn't feel it.

MPG was ok low to mid 50s. Spec was good and seemed well put together.

Quite a lot of road noise.

No spare by default and only tyre gunk no runflats but it does at least have a wheel well. In fact I've still got a spare wheel kit for it I could sell you.

Mate had a Mazda 6 and found reliability poor when it got to higher mileage (80+) and parts very expensive.

 

I didn't keep it long, I found it dull and was in a position to switch to the Beemer but I'd have been happy enough to hang onto the Mazda otherwise.

 

 

My FIL has had every iteration of the mazda 3 back through all the 323s aswell. 

Solid well built car. 

 

That reliability issue with the 6 is what put me off getting one and i got the insignia instead... we al know how that played out....