# Price Is Important ....but



## ENY55V (Mar 17, 2006)

I went to see the new Chrysaler 300 C and for Â£28,000 - it is a LOT of car for the money.

However - having had (made a mistake) in the past with the SAAB 9000 and the ALFA 164 3.0 V6

I am not so sure if changing brand is such a good thing.

So -

for me it is important *BIG space (boot too) and speed*

who will be the runner up?

BMW 530

BMW 745

AUDI A8

VW Phaeton

C 300C

BMW 645

(there seems to be a new S Class)

or - any other suggestions, please?


----------



## Dave ME (May 7, 2005)

I had a Chrysler 300C as a hire car on holiday in the US last year, and I drive a (previous model) BMW 5 series at home. The Chrysler is a big car, it made my 5 seem small, and it was certainly well-equipped. However, build quality and interior quality were better on the BMW, and that's on a BMW that is over 6 years old with a good few miles on the clock. The driving experience was fine but kind of numb, more like steering a boat than being involved in driving a car - you knew logically that the steering wheel must be attached to the wheels but there wasn't any real sensation that would prove it to you. Very cool looking, though, got a few comments from Americans as we were driving around Arizona in it!


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

I dont think you can go far wrong with Beemers or Audi , the Chrysler will depreciate faster than you can say the word, if fact all cars in this 'class' have poor residuals but BMW and Audi will be better than the others...

Mt choice would be the 6 series on 20inch M-Tech rims







...In black....


----------



## oldfogey (Nov 29, 2005)

I agree, unless you want engine power plus gangsta looks more than anything else. If price is key, go for a pre-owned 5 or 7 series or an A8. Petrol or diesel depends more on mileage and price, I think. A V8 Audi A8 would be very tempting, as would a 530d if you don't need quite that amount of room.

Enjoy your search!


----------



## pg tips (May 16, 2003)

jasonm said:


> I dont think you can go far wrong with Beemers or Audi










I have met a few owners who would disagree


----------



## MarkF (Jul 5, 2003)

I would go for the Chrysler every time.









When I was a company man I had umpteen beemers and Audi's and I can't remember a thing about them, they came and went in a whirl of absolute blah. IMO most German cars have all the life designed out them and they are stupendously boring to look at. If you move up the range, a kit here and a bigger wheel there mean diddly squat to me, the car is still either ugly (BMW), boring (Merc) or both (Audi).









I rarely notice cars, but I have noticed the Chrysler, and because it is different, it'll do for me.









I would not expect it to be as well built as a BMW but so what? Why don't BMW drivers buy a Toyota, they are way better built! Not to mention having a way better image.









For me, it would be a major purchase, something to gain pleasure from, residuals would only be a small concern.


----------



## ENY55V (Mar 17, 2006)

mmmmmm............... very different opinions...









I tend to believe that the 300C could drive like a boat and after the SAAB 9000 - no thank you









So, while I think and agree with some that it looks "stunning" (there is a version with the Bentley grille) - I should really forget about the 300

BMW service, down here in London, is not as good as it used to be and after 2 BMWs and some 8 years driving in them, I fancy a change.

So the race is left with the A8 - but what about the VW Phaeton?

Audi A8 3 Litre or bigger? I can pick up a 3.0L for Â£29,000 (as new) - How will it compare with my 528?

A Phaeton 3.2 V6 at Â£24,000 seems better value for money and choice - or is it?

Both cars below 6,000 miles and not even 1 year old

WHICH ONE !?


----------



## foztex (Nov 6, 2005)

To digress slightly I would be interested to know why the Saab 9000 was so bad. My 9000 was the best car I ever had, I loved it. It had 350,000 KM on the clock when I got rid of it and that was on a petrol engine, the engine was still going strong but I was looking at having to replace drive shafts, wheel bearings and the clutch and decided it was more sensible to get a newer motor.

Foz


----------



## ENY55V (Mar 17, 2006)

foztex said:


> To digress slightly I would be interested to know why the Saab 9000 was so bad. My 9000 was the best car I ever had, I loved it. It had 350,000 KM on the clock when I got rid of it and that was on a petrol engine, the engine was still going strong but I was looking at having to replace drive shafts, wheel bearings and the clutch and decided it was more sensible to get a newer motor.
> 
> Foz


How does a service bill of Â£1,600 grab you!?









Brakes, oil, filters etc. etc. - the bill was a shock. Any way - one could say - live and learn and just carry on with it - and this what I did.

The car was nice and VERY spacious inside and in the boot. Some interior touches were also better than my previous BMW. We drove, one summer from London to Biarritz, Barcelona, Monaco, Florence, Rome, Venice, Basel and back to London. Good journey but - it was like driving a ..... boat - the car was too comfy and no zoomf what so ever.

Once back in UK, some 6 months later the car started having some problems (can't remember what, now) - but I remember the bill - around Â£2,500.

Basically I was glad to give it away. Nice looking car but no fun drive and far too costly to maintain.


----------



## Roger (May 17, 2003)

I may be wrong, but didnt Clarkson and his pals test the Chrysler recently?

Cant remember what it was up-against.....they slated the handling and build quality, but it came out on top (from memory)

EDIT.......think it was against a Jag and an Australian Vauxhall (Minaro??)

Roger


----------



## foztex (Nov 6, 2005)

ENY55V said:


> foztex said:
> 
> 
> > To digress slightly I would be interested to know why the Saab 9000 was so bad. My 9000 was the best car I ever had, I loved it. It had 350,000 KM on the clock when I got rid of it and that was on a petrol engine, the engine was still going strong but I was looking at having to replace drive shafts, wheel bearings and the clutch and decided it was more sensible to get a newer motor.
> ...


Yes I agree on the service front, I did all my own services but the times it had to go into a Saab garage it cost an arm and a leg. It is of course why I finally got rid of mine, for about double the estimate for the work and bits I got a great condition 4 year old Renault.

I would never say it was fun to drive. But then again a car that big could never be described as nimble. I had the 2.3s and it went like stink if you booted it, handling was pretty good as well. The thing I liked best was the confort, I could happily stay at licence keeping speeds on motorways as it was no hassle. Everything else ive had was either noisy, uncomfortable or too quick so you tended to blast on Mways to get to the next set of curves or your destination









Foz


----------



## JonF (Aug 26, 2005)

I'd steer well clear of the VW. I ran a high-spec VW passat a few years ago and it was a nightmare. It was unreliable, and the dealers were awful. They had a 100% failure rate - they never once managed to do the work right first time. When I complained to VW's 'Customer Service







Department' they didn't want to know. I'd never, ever buy anything from the VW group again.


----------



## oldfogey (Nov 29, 2005)

I haven't seen anyone who prefers a Phaeton to an A8, so you're left with price second-hand as its advantage, but it will still depreciate more than an A8 from its lower price. The 3-litre petrol and diesel engines both get good write-ups, but I've not driven either. Give them a try, there's no subsitute for a test drive!


----------



## pauluspaolo (Feb 24, 2003)

Get yourself an old Audi quattro coupe & save yourself thousands on purchase price and depreciation. My 1990 "G" reg cost me Â£1500 is fun to drive and still goes prety well. So far it's been reliable, build quality is great with hardly any rattles or squeaks from a 16 year old interior, all the electrical doodads still work, it's comfortable and will cruise all day and every day at the legal limit, the engine sounds phenomenal (straight 5 sounds like a V8) and the quattro running gear is as tough as old boots. Also they are galvanised so rust shouldn't be an issue (yet) on what are now quite old cars - it certainly isn't an issue (yet) on mine.

The value of these cars is now at rock bottom but they are begining to be seen as border line classics and I think (hope!!) the prices will start to rise when more people begin to appreciate just how good they are. What I paid is just about top whack for a standard quattro but the much faster S2's - same body shape as mine near as dammit and the original angular, old shape UR quattros - will cost you loads more (and they also cost a lot more to maintain). However these cars are turbocharged with well over 200bhp and they're knocking on the door of the 150mph club (how fast do you need to go?).

The only downside to mine is that I can't get over 25 to the gallon from it no matter how economically I try to drive. At 40mph in top gear it's only doing about 1500rpm (so not that much over tickover) so that should be as economical as it's going to get & yet I still only get 25mpg







! I park on the street, but have a clean license & full no claims bonus, and I've just been quoted Â£300 fully comprehensive which I don't think is bad at all (I paid a similar amount last year for third party fire & theft!). Then of course there's road tax which Mr Brown has said he's going to increase for big engined 4x4's - which I suppose is the category my car will fall into - even though it's absolutely nothing like a Jeep/Hummer/Shogun?Discovery at all







!!

Like my recent discussion with Andy about expensive watches I can't see where the car manufacturers get their prices from. 30,000 quid seems an awful lot to pay, to me, for what is basically just transport - even if I could afford it I'm not sure I'd pay it. The most I've ever paid for a car in over 20 years of driving is Â£1500 and I've enjoyed every one of them.

Sorry no offence meant at all. All the above is just my opinion (and I'm obviously biased because I like my quattro so much) - if you've got the dosh to spare then spend as you see fit. I'd get a new Audi given the choices you suggest (no surprise there then).


----------



## ENY55V (Mar 17, 2006)

JonF said:


> I'd steer well clear of the VW. I ran a high-spec VW passat a few years ago and it was a nightmare. It was unreliable, and the dealers were awful. They had a 100% failure rate - they never once managed to do the work right first time. When I complained to VW's 'Customer Service
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am EXTREMELY surprised by your comments. Everyone talks so well about VW in general as the best and most reliable cars around (even if I never have had one).

A few comments below are interesting, thank you, but I am looking for something very modern and with prices between Â£24 and Â£30k - it seems that I can buy a lot. I am used to Sat/nav and TV in the car and, should I buy the A8 or the Paheton at these sort of prices, I don't really (?????) think that there is much room left for depreciation (or is there) ???

It seems still A8 against Paheton but what about engine size?


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

Ive had VWs as company cars for the past 5 years, Bora, Passat, Bora...Im hard on my cars and do 50k a year and I have very little to complain about with my VWs.....

I want a Passat Estate next ( I think the new one is A6 based)


----------



## oldfogey (Nov 29, 2005)

jasonm said:


> Ive had VWs as company cars for the past 5 years, Bora, Passat, Bora...Im hard on my cars and do 50k a year and I have very little to complain about with my VWs.....
> 
> I want a Passat Estate next ( I think the new one is A6 based)


Nope. it's the same chassis as the Golf, quite different.


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

Yeah sorry, its pretty much A6 _size_ now ( but not based on)


----------



## JonF (Aug 26, 2005)

Surprised by my comments about the VW? Well, in just over 18 months of ownership I had the following problems

Air con broke down four times

Drivers window motor broke

Track rods needed to be changed because of premature wear of ends, and they are integrated into the rods (stupid bloody design)

Turbo stopped working, just as I was overtaking a van and trailer

Battery use was ridiculous. Despite haveing a 80a/h battery, and only being used for journeys longer than 30 miles the first battery only lasted 10k. The dealer didn't think this was excessive, and would not replace it under warranty. Â£80 bill.

ECU had to be reset twice. Neither time could the diagnostics computer find why.

All this in thirty thousand miles, in a car that was maintained at the local main dealer.







A bit of a shame, as the recent Tdi engines are fantastic.

I could forgive at least some of this, and might have put it down as a 'friday afternoon car' but what really pi55ed me off was the fact that the dealer and VW just didn't give a ****. I know VWs have a reasonable reputation, but I wouldn't have one. Also, if you look at the large reliability surveys such as JD Power and Which, they usually put VW in the bottom half for reliability, and slag off the dealers.


----------



## in_denial (Aug 3, 2005)

oldfogey said:


> jasonm said:
> 
> 
> > Ive had VWs as company cars for the past 5 years, Bora, Passat, Bora...Im hard on my cars and do 50k a year and I have very little to complain about with my VWs.....
> ...


Don't think so - Golf = A3 = Beetle = TT = Skoda Something , Passat = A4 = Skoda SomethingElse; the VW bodies tend to be roomier than the Audis on the same chassis.

-- Tim


----------



## oldfogey (Nov 29, 2005)

Sorry, in_denial, that was true of the last set of VW group cars, not the current set. Audi have their own platforms now for the A4/A6/A8, though not the A3 / Golf MkV. The latest Passat is a stretched MkV Golf, which as usual is shared with the Skoda Octavia and Seat versions.


----------



## ENY55V (Mar 17, 2006)

if you look at the large reliability surveys such as JD Power and Which, they usually put VW in the bottom half for reliability, and slag off the dealers.


----------



## pauluspaolo (Feb 24, 2003)

> WHAT IS AUDI like for service (costs), please?


I'd hazard a guess at "not cheap" for main dealer servicing - they are well built &, supposedly, reliable though









I was speaking to one small back street garage (who had to send my dad's Mercedes to the main dealer, at Â£80/hour, when it ate it's ECU) and they said that they saw a lot of modern & supposedly reliable VW's/Audi's/Skoda's/Mercedes/Toyotas/Nissans etc (he said that Honda's were the cars that he saw least of) because they just weren't built that well anymore. The manufacturers are expected to use smaller engines (for economy & environmental reasons) but these same smaller engines are still expected to offer decent performance (because that's what the driver wants - who wants a dead slow car?), so the manufacturers are forced to use more lightweight components to keep the weight of the car down. Unfortunately these lightweight components just don't last when compared to sturdier heavier components. Clutches, gearboxes & differentials all seem to wear out quicker (on VW's especially he said) & often when the warranty had just expired. I suppose a clutch could be said to be a wear item (i.e. one that has to be replaced in due course anyway - like brake pads) but gearboxes & differentials are expected to last some time & be reliable.

Someone at work was involved in a road accident & got some dosh by way of compensation. "Great" he thought "I can afford a new car" so went out & bought himself a VW Passat Tdi not too long ago (it's a couple of years old I think & has full VW service history). It's now at the main dealers needing a new turbo & sundry other bits & pieces - a new turbo alone cost Â£600 from VW and the labour costs involved must be horrendous as I can't see it being a simple 2 hour job to fit it.

The more complicated cars get, the more there will be to go wrong with them & the more expensive they will be to fix. Cars breakdown - it's a fact of life (PG wouldn't have a job otherwise







) - & I doubt that any car is 100% reliable.


----------



## pg tips (May 16, 2003)

my local Audi dealer rates are Â£75ph VW Â£65. Turbos seem to be a weak and expensive link on a lot of cars esp oil burners these days. EGR valves are another

I bought the wife a Honda because of the reliability and guess what, it's developed a fault, my EOBD won't pick up whats wrong so it's got to go back to the dealers, bloody typical!


----------

