Menu
What's new
By:
Advanced search...

After some advice please?

S

shezza

Members
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Location
south wales
Car
audi a4 avant 2003
Hi All, firstly what a good forum spent most of the weekend on it learnt loads.

Anyways, I am looking to change my car in the next month or so i currently drive a Audi A4 avant on a 53 plate which in fairness has been a good reliable car however she is starting to show her age and i am in the market for a new car.
Being a bit OCD about my cars i like to research them before i go ahead an purchase new vehicles, initially i was going to try a 320d but after reading so many horror stories regarding turbos' DMF etc i decided to look around a bit.

At the moment i have 6k to spend possibly 7k if i trade in my Audi and my next car needs to last 4 years. I do approx 50 miles a week town and country roads but mostly 30-40 speed zones and a total of around 6k a year, i do however do 3 large journeys a year 1 to the north of England, 1 to the south of England and a trip to France So probably 20 % of my journeys are done on Motorways the other 80% local runs over the year.

The questions i have are :
- Would the 2.2 cdti be overkill for the amount of miles i do a year and would i be better looking at the 2.0 ivtec
- Anyone have real world figures regarding town driving with the 2.0i vtec ( sensible driving of course)
- Would you expect a diesel that has been looked after to run into the 80k dmf/turbos issues that other manufacturers seem plagues with?
- Would a 70k looked after petrol be a wise/ relaiable choice
- If i was to opt for the petrol , does it cruise nicely at higher speeds ( continent driving)
- Would it be wise for me to save some more pennies and get a 8th Gen?

Hope some of you guys can help here as the accord is top of my shopping list just want to make sure i know what i'm getting into too (excuse the pun)

Thanks for your time

Shezza
 
Hi mate, with that driving profile I would go for the 2.4 Accord

There's a massive difference in power between the two and barely much difference in economy. I'd avoid the diesel at 6k miles a year, it simply won't make sense.
 
Thanks Fahad, beginning to think i had done something wrong :(

After reading more last night the petrol option seems to make quite a bit of sense.

Did read the post last night regarding the accord you got for your brother for that cost and it got me thinking.
Quick look on autotrader last night and for 5k i could get a facelift cdti with say 100k part or FSH . all the recals done

so how does this sound
get the car + sort the clutch out (via good friend with inndy garage £800) + set of alloys + a trip to yours for stage 1 + egr off. Probably looking at 6.5 / 7k all in.

or spend the money on 2007/2008 2.0/2.4 petrol, by the way are the petrol engines as refined and smooth as people are saying on this forum?

Out of interest with a decent service history would a 50 -70k petrol unit be a safe option, looking to get a accord with all the extras so the miles on the clock may need to go up but only doing 6k miles a year it will even out over time.

Thanks for all your help mate really appreciated, anyone else have any thoughts on this?
(Fahad nice beemer by the way :) :) :) )

Shezza,
 
Both petrol and diesel cars are excellent, and yes the petrol engines really are that refined.. but so are the diesel units.

Either plan would work, but I still don't understand why you actually want to go for the diesel with that mileage? Unless you actually prefer the diesel (more torquey) engines than the high revving petrol.
 
A while back I took my 2.4 to an indy to get the front brakes done. The mechanic was driving it out of the workshop as I walked in. He didn't look under the bonnet, just got out the car and said to me "what's the engine in this, a V6?".
 
shezza said:
Hi All, firstly what a good forum spent most of the weekend on it learnt loads.

Anyways, I am looking to change my car in the next month or so i currently drive a Audi A4 avant on a 53 plate which in fairness has been a good reliable car however she is starting to show her age and i am in the market for a new car.
Being a bit OCD about my cars i like to research them before i go ahead an purchase new vehicles, initially i was going to try a 320d but after reading so many horror stories regarding turbos' DMF etc i decided to look around a bit.

At the moment i have 6k to spend possibly 7k if i trade in my Audi and my next car needs to last 4 years. I do approx 50 miles a week town and country roads but mostly 30-40 speed zones and a total of around 6k a year, i do however do 3 large journeys a year 1 to the north of England, 1 to the south of England and a trip to France So probably 20 % of my journeys are done on Motorways the other 80% local runs over the year.

The questions i have are :
- Would the 2.2 cdti be overkill for the amount of miles i do a year and would i be better looking at the 2.0 ivtec
- Anyone have real world figures regarding town driving with the 2.0i vtec ( sensible driving of course)
- Would you expect a diesel that has been looked after to run into the 80k dmf/turbos issues that other manufacturers seem plagues with?
- Would a 70k looked after petrol be a wise/ relaiable choice
- If i was to opt for the petrol , does it cruise nicely at higher speeds ( continent driving)
- Would it be wise for me to save some more pennies and get a 8th Gen?

Hope some of you guys can help here as the accord is top of my shopping list just want to make sure i know what i'm getting into too (excuse the pun)

Thanks for your time

Shezza
Click to expand...

as a diesel owner I would advise you to go for the 2.4 petrol.

the turbo will take a pounding with your short trips and diesels take alot longer to get to full opperational temp.

the 2.4 petrol is a honda petrol engine.. its pretty much bullet proof and no turbos etc to go wrong.

I love my diesel , but looking to move to petrol as I no longer do 100 miles commutes per day, and it only gets used for bigger trips... anything under 20 miles I use my wifes punto!
 
The Diesel takes a good 10 minutes to warm up and it only reaches it's optimum efficiency at this temp, so if you are low milage you'll never get the best from it. Go for the petrol

M
 
2.4 petrols are one of hondas best kept secrets.

your budget should get a very good late 7th gen or a new 8th gen.
 
Yep 2.4 mate the best engine Honda made I think
 
I've got to agree with the 'go for the 2.4' crowd!

I agree that the 4pot is just as smooth and creamy as my old V6 was. It's a really nice smooth refined engine.
 
I wouldnt think theres a massive difference between the 2.0 (155bhp) and the 2.4 (190bhp) as its only 35bhp. I cant really say for sure as ive only driven the 2.0 but ive never really felt it lacking in power. I think the 2.4 would really come in to its own on the motorway but thats mainly due to the 6th gear. The other thing ive noticed is that the 2.4 has a few more reliability issues like VSA module faults and bent drive shafts (only going off what ive read on here) but im guessing these issues are few and far between. I reckon as long as its petrol you cant go far wrong ;)
 
Mine's 10 years old and has got over 70K on it. It's had a few issues, but nothing earth shatteringly bad apart from the clutch and flywheel (but that's not the car's fault :blush: ). It feels almost as good as new and I can be a bit rough with it sometimes. It's a well built motor. Treat yourself buddy ;) .
 
Wilderman said:
I wouldnt think theres a massive difference between the 2.0 (155bhp) and the 2.4 (190bhp) as its only 35bhp. I cant really say for sure as ive only driven the 2.0 but ive never really felt it lacking in power. I think the 2.4 would really come in to its own on the motorway but thats mainly due to the 6th gear. The other thing ive noticed is that the 2.4 has a few more reliability issues like VSA module faults and bent drive shafts (only going off what ive read on here) but im guessing these issues are few and far between. I reckon as long as its petrol you cant go far wrong ;)
Click to expand...

Forget the paper figures, there is a massive difference between the K20 and K24.

And the K24 doesn't have any real VSA issues (you're thinking of the ICTDI).
 
Yeah, the only issues seem to be with the switch which I've done a how to fix for free guide in the DIY section.

Honestly, for the money and given mine's a ten year old car, I don't think many cars would hold up as well as mine does. It's truly lovely.
 
Wilderman said:
I wouldnt think theres a massive difference between the 2.0 (155bhp) and the 2.4 (190bhp) as its only 35bhp. I cant really say for sure as ive only driven the 2.0 but ive never really felt it lacking in power. I think the 2.4 would really come in to its own on the motorway but thats mainly due to the 6th gear. The other thing ive noticed is that the 2.4 has a few more reliability issues like VSA module faults and bent drive shafts (only going off what ive read on here) but im guessing these issues are few and far between. I reckon as long as its petrol you cant go far wrong ;)
Click to expand...


35bhp is quite a lot dude...

when you up the ante the extra horses do cost £££. look at the mondeo st220, it has over 3 litres to get 220bhp.

VSA faults are not common on k24s, drive shafts yes but even if it needs a drive shaft its not end of the road, i would much rather a k24 accord with a bust drive shaft than any french car.

I was going to add any French car than had nothing wrong, but it doesn't sound right....
 
this is my k24, 2004 model and going like a train.. was considering getting a facelift but will keep this, might do a CAI soon.


8625142992_3074db63a0_c.jpg


8625139388_2ac543af36_c.jpg


8624030427_f49a115088_c.jpg


8625132120_86b6bab887_c.jpg
 
Good looking wheels there mate love the understated classy looks. Lovely simple lines
 
My dad has the 2.0 (Semi Auto) but the 2.4 I have is much nicer and noticably more powerful. My MPG ranges from 29 mixed driving to from work to 34MPG on the motorway
 
the all important damper adjust. half way or more than firm enough..any more and its bone shaking on roads, for track or tarmac it would be ok though.

8714424309_fcd33d5c3a_c.jpg
 
Definately go for the 2.4 if you are only doing 6k a year. I've owned two 7th Gen 2.4s, one 8th Gen 2.4 and am currently driving an 8th gen 2.2iDtec. The 2.4 is a very very smooth engine and is much nicer and easier to drive than the diesel. With the diesel you have to keep the rpm above 2000 if you value your dmf and need some decent power, this does mean a fair bit of gear changing! About town doing 30mph in the diesel means 3rd gear or 4th tops. The 2.4 engine has lots of low down pull, you can stick it in 6th from as little as 20mpg and just use the torque all day long, a lot less gear changes.
I'm getting about 38mpg for my idtec, in the 2.4 it was 32mpg. If I could I would swap my diesel back for a 2.4, I do about 12000 miles a year and although fuel and tax slighly cheaper the peace of mind with not having to worry about DPF/DMF/Clutch on the 2.4 and the cheaper less frequent services swing it for me, let alone the pure joy and ease of the 2.4!
 
Not knocking your personal experience of both cars, but listening to your description, it really sounds like something is wrong with your diesel - especially if you think the 2.4 has more low down torque than the diesel :lol:
 
Put a 2.4 in 6th gear at 20mph and it will pull away nicely, put a 2.2 in sixth gear at 20mph and it will struggle to do anything and probably stall!
Yes the diesel has more torque, but I found the 2.4 to have much more usable torque with a much bigger spread.
When doing 30 about town in my diesel I'm juggling between 3rd and 4th gear, when I had my 2.4 I could just put it in 6th and relax :) But that's the nature of diesels I guess, big torque but in a short rev range from between 2-4k
 
Petrols are far better than diesels around town and everyone knows that. Diesels come into their own on long runs, repetitive long runs at that.

Some people buy diesels without knowing anything about the differences they have over petrol and end up losing out, rather than actually saving anything.
 
Completely agree, hence why I definately recommend a 2.4 for the OP doing 6k a year.

Even with my 12k a year and 50/50 motorway driving I'd prefer the 2.4, big shame they are so rare in 8th gen!
 
nuts to buy a diesel on 6k a year.

I am sure diesels are a great car but only if you do stellar milage, even 12k a year is not enough for a diesel.

I have my k24A3 over a year and use it for city driving all the time, has not caused a blip of trouble, and this is for short runs daily. With the odd trip down country roads at the weekend for some vtec goodness.
 
i rather the k24 goodness than an extra few hundred miles any day of the week, but maybe thats just me.
 
Save a little more and buy 8th gen petrol in the right trim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top