What a month. Multipla has just passed 120K and I've just spent nearly a grand on it. £350 for MoT, four new tyres and as the MoT only replaced the things that were worn I've just bought the following, new discs, pads, drums, shoes, rear wheel cylinders, ARB bushes, 1 drop link & 1 track rod end. I had to get the garage to do the wheel cylinders as they wouldn't budge and so I had new brake pipes and hand brake cable too. Phew!

Most of my mates think I'm chucking good money after bad but it's cheaper than buying a new car. Besides I wouldn't have a Multipla then would I! I went to look at a Honda FRV and despite the fact it looks much more well made it's not as big inside.

No point to this post other than to say it's strange how you get attached to cars!

For the sake of argument - if you did have the FRV instead, how much would the equivalent pile of bits have cost you?

Some would argue that the Honda wouldn't need those parts in the first place, but I think that's rubbish. Most of the items you list are consumables that are just as likely to need replacement as on any other car. Parts for the Multi are at least cheap, though it must be said that the quality of many of them is dubious.

First thing I noticed was the £1000 spent on repairs, then digging the detail noticed that it was mostly consumables, tyres, brakes etc, how can that be throwing money after bad?, thats just normal servicing, I assume the car hasn't been serviced properly in the past, hence a big bill later on.
No matter, congratulations to you, still very cheap motoring, most newer cars depreciate @1500-2000 pounds a year, plus add servicing costs too keep the newer cars value up, ie the all important FSH, its all in the math...
Personally I also would have preferred a Honda FRV also, but put off by the high prices, and less spacious interiors, the biggest problem is what else can you buy that has all the space and flexibility for the money, dunno mate.
Mine is at 90k now and going strong, touch wood, but later I intend to get an auto Tiguan. I've driven one and it does drive nicely, but you'd never think it had such a small boot opening and capacity compared to the multi, for its size, plus it seems more cramped, ie comfy , but more enclosed, with less glass area, safety perhaps?, but then its really just an elevated Golf, and I've had a few of those too, ramble, ramble...

Honda FRV / Fiat Multipla head-to-head:

Length: Honda 4285mm; Fiat 3994mm (i.e. Fiat is about 11.5" shorter)

Wheelbase: Honda 2680mm; Fiat 2666mm (i.e. only about 1/2" less)

Luggage capacity, seats up/back row out: Honda 439/1,049 litres; Fiat 450/1,900 litres (then look at the difference in the length of the cars!)

Width, inc./exc. mirrors: Honda 2,113/1,795mm; Fiat 2,094/1,870mm

Full size seats: Honda = 4; Fiat = 6. If you don't believe me, try sitting 3 full-grown adults across an FRV, then do the same in the Multipla and ask them which they prefer. Why do you think Honda don't show 3 adults across front or back in any of the natty little cartoons in their launch press release?:

http://hondakarma.com/threads/honda-fr-v-press-release-2005.4243/live?page=1

The Honda is better built and (in the case of the diesel at least) has the nicer engine - as long as it doesn't get an oil leak - but if you are comparing them because they both have 6 seats, the Fiat is a far better package. Also, take a tape measure to the boot openings and you'll see what I mean.

As for fun-to-drive: The Fiat is under-powered, but it feels more direct and alive. The Honda is numb, anaesthetised by comparison.