Something to ponder over...:-)
tinyurl.com/d3sro6g
|
Looks ok to me. 7995 gets you a nice one plus a couple of hundred quid for sat nav
I'd consider one next year
|
|
Or wait until one of the 1.5 Diesel's is 2 years old. They'll be a serious bargain by then.
|
My father in law took mildly early retirement in 1998. Never having previously owned a new car he decided that he would treat himself to one with some of the money he received in his severance package.
Much against strong advice from pretty much everyone except the "nice " chap at the Proton dealership he bought a then new Proton compact. A vile little car in almost every way but in his mind it was good simply because it was "new". We almost begged him to consider looking at a mildly second hand almost anything more mainstream and modern but he was seduced by the fact it was to be his first brand spanker which I guess is sort of understandable in some ways.
He didn't do any great mileage in it but he kept it beyond its warranty period when it began to let him down. When he sought to trade it in it was of course nigh on worthless. It now made no sense to do anything other than keep it despite the continuous repair bills and the frankly appalling driving experience.
It was in some ways a blessed relief when someone ran in to it when it was 10 years old and still with only 35k miles or so on it without any personal injuries to any parties. It was written off and he got something less than £900 as a payout.
We persuaded him to replace it with something a bit more pleasing and he settled on, with the help of my brother in law and I, a then not very used 2 year old Fiesta 1.4 Zetec.
He still has that and loves it. He still doesn't go much further than his weekly round trip to the golf club and a bit of local pottering but it has been utterly faultless and what's more he enjoys driving it. Something he now admits he could never say about his Proton.
It is, I guess understandable, that some folk will always prefer new and cheap to second hand and better at the same money but there are times when they might be wrong. It'll be interesting to see whether these Dacias are actually any good or whether they will ultimately disappoint.
I suspect that were I to be in the market for that size of car that I might suspect they were that price for more than one reason.
|
IIRC the previous small Dacia was based on the Renault Clio floorpan and mechanicals. Some people found them reliable - and so I guess that there is plenty of trade experience in repairing them:)
Whether this one is ALL Renault, (the 1.5dci engine is) time will tell Autocar say"Many parts are shared with the outgoing Renault Clio, but there's also technology from the 2013 model"
|
Not sure about 'five people and their luggage in comfort'. The taxis in Bucharest are mostly Dacia's bigger (but still, I think, Clio-based) Logan, and we opted to take two of them to our meeting rather than try to cram four passengers into one little car. Comfort don't en'er in'o it - it's a challenge to get the doors closed - although presumably we'll at least be able to find the seatbelt buckles in UK-spec cars.
Incidentally, if you want a swankier Logan in Romania, you can have one with a Renault badge instead of the Dacia one.
|
|
In 2012 no radio and no a/c IS Spartan.
Last edited by: Meldrew on Thu 25 Oct 12 at 12:50
|
>> In 2012 no radio and no a/c IS Spartan.
It says the wiring for the stereo and speakers is there. It could be cheaper to source your own to the spec you want.
No a/c - we've all become soft! My current car's the first I've had with a/c - I love it.
|
"When it comes to reliability, Dacia really excels. Every model is extensively tested, primarily so that they can cope with the tough terrain and weather extremes in far-flung destinations, from Colombia to Iran or soon, even the Scottish Highlands. They also make extensive use of proven and honed technology from within the Renault-Nissan Alliance to ensure cars are built to stand the test of time, with impressive results: Dacia finished second, just behind Audi and ahead of BMW, in Germany’s 2010 J.D. Power Customer Satisfaction survey".
~ www.honestjohn.co.uk/carbycar/dacia/sandero-2013/
|
|
I don't like the idea of pronouncing it as Dat-ch-a’, it'll always be a Dace-e-ah 2 me.
|
Which? has it down as a "Don't Buy"
The following is cribbed from Which?
Dacia Duster
Total score:
40%
Pros and cons
VERDICT: Cheap and fairly spacious, but let down by its safety performance.
Pro: Low list prices.Pro: Plenty of space in the boot.Pro: Decent performance from diesel engine.Con: Only three Euro NCAP stars, and stability control isn't standard.Con: Over-light steering feel.Con: Sparse equipment and some awkward controls.
Can Dacia's super-cheap Duster clean up in the SUV marketplace or is it a bit of an old rag?
What’s new?
The Dacia brand is an entirely new arrival in the UK for 2013 (although it did make a brief appearance on our shores in the 1980s). Originating in Romania, Dacia is owned by Renault, and is to the French brand what Skoda is to Volkswagen - in other words, a brand that offers cheap cars with no-nonsense specifications.
Spearheading Dacia's charge is the Duster. This family-orientated SUV is the size of a Nissan Qashqai, yet its prices are those of a supermini - or even lower, as the entry-level 1.6 petrol Duster in Access trim costs less than £9,000. Diesel models with plusher trim levels (Ambiance and Lauréate) start at £11,495.
You can choose between 4x4 and two-wheel drive versions; if you want 4x4, it'll cost you an extra £2,000. The Duster can be ordered through many Renault showrooms now, with deliveries beginning in early 2013.
What’s it up against?
This SUV is the size of a Nissan Qashqai, but perhaps its closest competitor is the Skoda Yeti. It may also draw fans from the budget MPV market (think cars like the Peugeot Partner Tepee), while its price might also tempt buyers who would only otherwise consider a smaller hatchback.
Why buy one?
Price is the big draw for the Duster. The entry-level price of just £8,995 is a real eyebrow-raiser, and although diesel models are pricier, they're still cheaper than rivals.
For the space offered inside, there's very little to touch the Duster at the price.
What’s its Achilles’ heel?
The Duster certainly doesn't feel sophisticated. It's clearly built down to a price in terms of finish and specification, and it's also not terribly sharp to drive.
More importantly, its three-star Euro NCAP crash test rating is very disappointing by current safety standards, and makes the Duster a Which? Don't Buy model. It's also a shame that electronic stability control (ESC) is only optional on diesel models, and not available at all on petrols.
Running costs
Those cheap list prices look mighty tempting, but beware of potentially steep depreciation and fuel consumption in the mid-40s for the diesel version.
Reliability record
Dacia is a newcomer to the UK market and so hasn't had a chance to prove itself in the Which? Car Survey. We'll be keeping a close eye on its progress.
Unless you absolutely can't spend more than the ultra-cheap 1.6 petrol model's £8,995 price, diesel is definitely the way to go. You can choose between two-wheel drive or 4x4, and in the latter form it's one of the cheapest all-wheel drive SUVs on sale in the UK.
|
>> Which? has it down as a "Don't Buy"
>>
>> The following is cribbed from Which?
>>
>> Dacia Duster
This thread is about the Sandero :)
|
Which basically says not to buy Duster due to NACP rating and lack of stabilty control thingy.
Neither of those things particularly interest me, if i intend a head on crash with i'll buy a Landcruiser, if after 40 years i can't keep the thing on the road without stabilty rubbish i'll hand me licence in at the nick now....a bit hot outside, open a window.
Sandero and Duster are the answer for a lot of people and possibly in Duster form for me in the future.
Not all of us wanted all this electronic rubbish that been forced on us in recent years...i too will be watching with interest to see how these Dacias stand up to use...that everso basic petrol Duster 4x4 bought for peanuts at 3 years and with an LPG tank in the spare wheel well would do us a treat.
|
Quite right gb. Duster looks like a very sensible buy, a quite decent motor at a bargain price.
Isn't the engine a bit small for LPG though? One would rather bite the bullet and get the diesel I wd think.
|
the Sandero still feels like a throwback to the 1980s in terms of styling and specification. An adjustable steering wheel would be nice, as would electric side mirrors, but as meeting a price is obviously important, these options aren’t available.
Switchgear – what there is of it – is mounted in the central fascia – though why the window controls are there, when there’s an obvious space on the door handles, is rather confusing. Probably price, again.
Another bugbear is the radio – an optional extra, with USB/ CD / MP3 and iPOD connection. In the 80s-feel Sandero it shines out. Literally. It is over-neoned, fiddly-to-operate, difficult to read, lacks RDS, and makes the most irritating bong-bong-bong if you leave the pull-off face attached when you exit the car.
Oh, look halfway down the Mail page at the red one - it has Renault badging. Sure that is a local picture from here.
Last edited by: Ian (Cape Town) on Thu 25 Oct 12 at 16:05
|
You're a motoring hack though aren't you Ian? Used to the best and latest of everything, picky-picky-picky. Most of those complaints of yours seem trivial to me. In any case lots of modern cars make annoying noises and have the controls in silly places.
I've got several dream cars. I bet they've all got annoying faults.
|
Yep, i'm a hack.
No, not used to the best of everything at all.
I have to consider all aspects of the vehicles, and for something like the Sandero, build quality and practicality are important.
Unfortunately, it falls down on the former - and everyone I've spoke to who's driven them agrees - and while it is a practical vehicle for Africa, that's no excuse for the poor quality of finish and fittings.
They are very much 'Avis Fodder' cars, and even with a new example, the lack-of-QC shines through.
Which is sad, because it could be a very good 2CV or Renault 4 for the modern day.
|
>> Unfortunately, it falls down on the former - and everyone I've spoke to who's driven them agrees - and while it is a practical vehicle for Africa, that's no excuse for the poor quality of finish and fittings.
Haven't come across many cars whose finish and fittings aren't flimsy in places. My Cruiser for example has nice leather seats. But I saw something, a fly I thought, stuck to the top of the facia one day and carelessly scratched it off with my fingernail. Along with the svelte matt soft-look brown paint leaving a nasty shiny bit, quite small but highly visible, with peeling paint round the edges. Tchah!
If by 'practical for Africa' you mean that the body welds won't give way or the suspension break or wear out after a few thousand miles of mixed washboard gravel, stony river beds and smooth highways, then it's a decent motor in my book. Don't give a toss about bluetooth malarkey.
Gordonbennet makes the point about modern diesels having to have dpfs. One can only hope that the Dacias have the most primitive, trouble-free type or none at all. Similarly, perhaps it doeesn't have a dual mass flywheel. Damn refinement at all speeds anyway. All cars have a minimum-stress, minimum-clamour cruising gait, and most engines smooth out at very high revs for the heavy-footed among us.
Money talks.
|
>> Isn't the engine a bit small for LPG though? One would rather bite the bullet
>> and get the diesel I wd think.
Trouble is its bound to have a blasted DPF/DMF.
Really gone off modern Diesels, far too much to go wrong now.
|
|
No ESC. Really? When did we think one of those little engines was going to awaken an ESC system?
|
|
Which? have a real bee in their bonnet about ESP and the like, and rate their cars lower if it doesn't come as standard kit. And I'm glad it doesn't, it costs a fortune to fix if (when) it goes wrong and agree with GB, if I can't keep a car on the road without it, I shouldn't be on it in the first place. Hopefully, these systems can be turned off?
|
|
careful now, I was tarred and feathered on here when I had the temerity to suggest that the rush towards ESP was not required.
|
My car has ESP, (or whatever KIA call it), I have not provoked it into intervening in my driving, but one day I may get caught out and have to avoid some debris (or nutter) at speed on a wet motorway. I might just be glad it is fitted.
I am a brilliant driver, just not quite as good as Zero. :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sat 27 Oct 12 at 20:39
|
>> Which? have a real bee in their bonnet about ESP and the like, and rate
>> their cars lower if it doesn't come as standard kit. And I'm glad it doesn't,
>> it costs a fortune to fix if (when) it goes wrong and agree with GB,
>> if I can't keep a car on the road without it, I shouldn't be on
>> it in the first place. Hopefully, these systems can be turned off?
>>
But do they in practice go wrong? Mine's OK at 9 years/184,000 miles old. It's a red herring.
|
>> It's a red herring.
I tend to agree.
On the subject of spreading fear, with respect to DMFs, HJ says some very odd things about them. For example, that they protect 1st and 2nd gear from damage. How so? Is there some kind of electrical switch that changes the response of the flywheel as the gearbox moves out of 2nd gear? He also goes on about torque reaction - does anyone have a clue what he's on about? where's the basis in fact?
All the DMF is/does is to provide a mechanical low-pass filter for the torque betwen the engine and gearbox. Changes in torque which happen very quickly (vibrations) are filtered out by the DMF, while changes which happen more slowly, i.e., the mean torque which actually drives the vehicle, pass through unchanged and undiminished.
|
>> All the DMF is/does is to provide a mechanical low-pass filter for the torque betwen the engine and gearbox. Changes in torque which happen very quickly (vibrations) are filtered out by the DMF
The object being to improve the engine's perceived 'refinement' - relative absence of NVH - over the whole rev band instead of just at its own smoothest/quietest crankshaft speed/throttle opening.
DMF is an expensive piece of unnecessary fragile complexity for spoiled car-user markets. It isn't really practical. Better idea to have a refined engine in the first place or just a heavy flywheel. If you let your car run at its smoothest crankshaft speed you don't mimse and you don't guzzle fuel. So who needs a device to flatter bad drivers? Bad drivers, that's who.
|
But do they in practice go wrong? Mine's OK at 9 years......
The Teves debacle is the prime example. The scary thing is that the cost of repair can run into 4 figures.
|
>>over the whole rev band instead of just at its own smoothest/quietest crankshaft speed/throttle opening.
Where on Earth have you got this idea from?
...smoothest crankshaft speed?
|
It's not an 'idea'. It's an observation. Haven't you noticed it N_C? More marked of course in some engines than others. Less marked in more 'refined' engines.
If that isn't why manufacturers fit DMFs, what is the reason? Please enlighten me.
|
Percetions from the driving seat aren't to be trusted in the diagnostic sense. Any perceived reduction in noise or vibration can be happening anywhere in the source - path - receiver system. So, for example, if there is a mechanical anti-resonance in the mechanical path between the engine mounting and cabin, the engine might sound and feel like it's quieter, but, in reality, the level of mechanical vibration at the engine itself might be substantially unchanged.
As for DMFs, rather than thinking in terms of troublesome engine speeds, think more in terms of smoothing the power production cycle.
If you imagine a single cylinder 4 stroke engine, it would have a torque vs time graph which would be negative for 3 of the strokes, and then positive for the power stroke [if it were a forced induction engine, there might be a small positive torque during induction]. It's only the mean of this varying torque characteristic which pushes the vehicle forwards, but, it's the peak of the curve which generates the noise and vibration, and for which you need to size the components further down the powertrain.
Obviously, this torque characteristic can be smoothed by adding more cylinders.
This issue of the peak of the torque vs time charateristic being problematic has been brought into focus by the increase in power obtained in direct injected turbocharged diesel engines of the last decade or so. Prior to that, there was an issue of diesel knock, but with the indirect injected engines of the 80's and early 90's the specific power ratings of the engines were low enough for this not to be a big problem.
I think that DMFs are getting better - what we have seen is largely a teething problem.
|
>> I think that DMFs are getting better - what we have seen is largely a
>> teething problem.
What were are seeing is a change in users perceptions. They expect cars to last 150-250k without recourse to changing major mechanical parts. Indeed quite a few people get that.
Not the same as 30 - 40 years ago ( and most of our memories go back that far) when changing major mechanical parts (pistons, camshafts, gears in gearboxes, distributers etc etc) was common place to keep the damn things running.
Can you imagine the outcry now if ford brought out an engine that lunched its camshaft every 60k miles?
Its as much the cheapness of second hand cars that makes them uneconomical to fix, as it is the cost of fixing them.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 28 Oct 12 at 12:28
|
>> the outcry now if ford brought out an engine that lunched its camshaft every 60k miles?
Nothing by supercar standards. The Ferrari 275 GTB4, precursor of the Daytona, was reliable and fast provided you remembered to change its four camshafts every 6,000 miles, Derek Bell airily observed (he had a free one from Ferrari).
I take N_C's point about the unreliability of perception from the driving seat of crankshaft vibration periods which can of course be exaggerated or damped by other factors including the transmission. Nevertheless it is my general experience that cars driven at their least fussy-sounding speed tend to run economically and fairly briskly. I fancied I could feel torsional vibration periods coming in and out in cars I have driven with relatively 'whippy' three-bearing crankshafts, and in a straight eight Buick I drove many years ago. No doubt I was deluded.
|
>> Its as much the cheapness of second hand cars that makes them uneconomical to fix,
>> as it is the cost of fixing them.
>>
Equally, it can be argued it is the cost of fixing second hand cars that makes them cheap...
|
>> Equally, it can be argued it is the cost of fixing second hand cars that
>> makes them cheap...
The bit i can't understand is why despite their being many reports of seriously expensive problems that some cars continue to be recommended as good used buys, thinking of Focus and Mondeo Diesels (the drive of which underwhelm) but there are many more overrated cars around.
I also can't get round why people insist on finding the most complicated used version full of electronic rubbish of questionable use, the sort of version that appeals to me is the one often ridiculed as poverty spec...well poverty spec suits me when its not filled with junk that can't go wrong, i like leather and wood decent engines and real autos but haven't yet got that senile that can't manage to switch me own lights and wipers on when necessary and i can still read a map and i'll buy a cheap satnav when i go gaga, and so far opening or closing a window isn't beyond wit either.
|
>> I also can't get round why people insist on finding the most complicated used version
>> full of electronic rubbish of questionable use,
They need to build cars for the playstation generation and people who like electronic toys, and a different set of cars for people like you and me, who want big simple engines, strong drivetrains, and more of the budget spent on important things like properly supportive multi adjustable seats instead of electronic handbrakes and sat nav (it's outdated after a few years anyway).
|
>>Can you imagine the outcry now if ford brought out an engine that lunched its camshaft every 60k miles?
Yes, it's memories of that sort of problem which makes me view modern cars as being extremely reliable. I think those with a rose tinted rear view mirror might be forgetting just how bad cars were when compared with modern ones.
I also cannot imagine that DMFs will remain problematic - the designs will be improved to provide reliability which matches the rest of the car. At the same time as the designs are made more reliable, they'll also be made cheaper, and easier to make. That's what I meant by my teething problem comment.
When the rate of change of vehicle technology we're going through is considered, it's no massive surprise that there is the odd facet of the new technology which is causing some temporary problems.
|
>> Yes, it's memories of that sort of problem which makes me view modern cars as
>> being extremely reliable. I think those with a rose tinted rear view mirror might be
>> forgetting just how bad cars were when compared with modern ones.
I have to agree, and disagree NC.
Yes, cars ARE more reliable on the whole, today than back then.
BUT, they are much more likely to have a very expensive repair required, when they do go wrong.
Sierra clutch, gearbox out, 1.5 hours
Mondeo Mk1 + 2 engine and subframe out, at least a day to do properly...
Alternator on older cars, 1/2 hour.
A and B class Merc engine out.....
Thats where the biggest problems lie....
|
Yes difficulty of fitting and complication are the big problem, as highlighted in the Bentley thread where a pipe i believe for a Phaeton cost £14 and £1400 to fit.
Things have gone too far, mundane cars are seeing similar eye watering labour intensive costs.
I suppose much depends on how you buy your cars, new and sold before warranty expires it doesn't really matter if its a money pit...you'd think it would as in theory they should be wopthless once out of warranty and to people like me they are...maybe people still have too much money (or addicted to permanet debt) and don't look at purchases as long term even if used out of warranty.
|
|
Not every is worried about the same things. How far do you go? Some people like the new things that are available on cars without permantly worrying that they will go bang.
|
>> Alternator on older cars, 1/2 hour.
>> A and B class Merc engine out.....
which is where i said you need to choose your second hand car with care
|
>>
>> >> Alternator on older cars, 1/2 hour.
>> >> A and B class Merc engine out.....
>>
>> which is where i said you need to choose your second hand car with care
>>
Yes, but the choice is narrowing.....
All cars are becoming more complex, and so harder, and more expensive to repair.
Technology takes time to filter down, but look how many cars now use CANBUS.. A fault there can take hours to diagnose by skilled technicians on a new/current car.
place that car/fault 10 years in the future.......
|
10 years more experience you mean? That'l do me.
There is no way that an A class was ever made fixable. It was a terrible terrible con trick.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 28 Oct 12 at 14:55
|
>> 10 years more experience you mean? That'l do me.
Except, it isn't 10 years more experience...
Its 10 years wear and tear, its 10 years more development, meaning a tech in 2022 will scratch his head as much as one does today, when given a car with points and a carb to work on.
Or it ends up being 'repaired' by someone without a clue, and or the correct tools.
The biggest problem is, that the collective 'we' ie car owners, AND garage owners, are now dealing with cutting edge technology, but not wishing to pay for the skills that go with it.
Would you be willing to fly on an A320 that had been repaired by 'Fred in the shed'?
But how many cars, now with similar technology are 'repaired' in that fashion?
I have a number of friends, that trained as car techs, and are now working in the aerospace sector......
>> There is no way that an A class was ever made fixable. It was a
>> terrible terrible con trick.
>>
There we do agree.
But.... many were sold, many now need fixing - and many are being scrapped for want of a small repair........
Last edited by: swiss tony on Sun 28 Oct 12 at 15:58
|
I really do quite like the look and idea of this car. The base model is too basic for me, but if I needed something bigger than the Panda and I wanted something brand new this would be high up on my list. It depends what it is like to drive though, I passed my test in a MK3 Clio it was not a bad car, but the 1.2 16v was heavily under powered for a car of that mass.
It also depends on the discounts on offer, if there are no discounts then the price is too similar to a Hyundai i20 when compare spec to spec.
|
Dacia-Renault - Britain's cheapest new car... - mikeyb
