Well there is the old adage that says the cheapest car you can own is the one in your driveway!
Technical My 62 TwinAir has broken ALREADY
- Thread starter MissGilly
- Start date
Currently reading:
Technical My 62 TwinAir has broken ALREADY
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2013
- Messages
- 1,537
- Points
- 276
It's amazing that something as small as a coil failure (coils and leads are always a semi consumable), sends people rushing to buying a new car. A new coil probably costs about the same as two tanks of petrol. Which incidentally, a Dacia will be using more of.
I've got a $15k (on top of what I've already spent) bill for another car and I'm still thinking of keeping it as it's still cheaper than replacement, once interest and depreciation are factored in.
The days of just changing consumables for the life of a vehicle are long over.
I've got a $15k (on top of what I've already spent) bill for another car and I'm still thinking of keeping it as it's still cheaper than replacement, once interest and depreciation are factored in.
The days of just changing consumables for the life of a vehicle are long over.
Bella500
New member
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2013
- Messages
- 151
- Points
- 30
I'm certainly learning all the time about the differences between this and my Toyotas
Yes, as we have mentioned before in other threads, we have a Corolla that is ten years old, bought new and never been serviced. Still has original brakes and rear tyres and has done over 100,000 km. Needs a top up of oil every 3000km or so and returns more than 500km on each fill up at the bowser.
Toyotas are bullet proof, in general, but often, dull as dishwater. Our new 500 is a delight to drive and faultless, unlike the dealer and FIAT Australia.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2014
- Messages
- 282
- Points
- 56
From what I have read and heard that us what toyota a uses to be like. Not so sure the new ones are as bullet proof.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2013
- Messages
- 1,537
- Points
- 276
There you go folks, Toyota's are death traps, they keep going and going so they never get checked by a mechanic. Stick with Fiat, much safer.
And I'm only half joking. Ten years and 100,000km on the tyres really is an accident waiting to happen, I certainly wouldn't drive it at highway speeds.
yes, putting your best tyres on the front and old tyres on the rear is a real bonehead move.
Yup.
Precisely because under heavy braking most of the weight shifts to the front.
Remember your school physics & the free body diagram of the forces acting on a block on a ramp? The frictional force is proportional to the component of weight acting perpendicular to the surface multiplied by the coefficient of friction. Under heavy braking, the weight on the rear is much reduced, and the maximum frictional force between the tyres and the road reduces in proportion - so you want the best possible coefficient of friction at the rear to prevent the rear losing grip before the front.
Although losing grip at either end isn't good, you've much more chance of staying in control if you lose the front than the rear.
An accident resulting from reduced braking is going to be at a lower speed and is going to involve dedicated crash strutctures than an accident involving losing the rear. Michelin and other tyre companies don't say it for a laugh....
Some tyre fitting places (Costco is certainly one) won't fit new tyres to the front only - if you need to replace just the fronts, they rotate the back ones forward and fit the new ones to the rear. AFAIK they don't charge extra for this .
.I never fail to be amazed by the lunatic economics that some people apply to this. I'm not making this up. Someeone my wife works with is getting rid of a perfectly good mark 4 Golf because it's costing too much to run.
This is based on it passing it's mot but needing 2 new tyres. So about £200:bang:
I know someone that sold a perfectly good 2 year old Hyundai Coupe because the brand new car they traded it in for was cheaper road tax. They loved the coupe but still went to a Kia C'eed and then sold the C'eed a year later because they hated it so much.
