Brigodee said:

The main trouble with PCP purchase is that you are effectively driving, and very carefully looking after someone else's car, and that someone else wrote the rules, but you are paying for it.

Click to expand...

You could argue that with any car, unless you plan to keep a car till the day you scrap it you’re always looking after it for the next person.

With PCP as I’ve already stated I paid mine off at the end of the deal and it’s now mine 100%, but I suspect I will still eventually do am I still just looking after it for the next person? Or am I looking after it so it keeps looking after me and doesn’t let me down.

Every payment you make on a PCP deal is a payment towards ownership, it’s a lease where you never own the car keep it for 5 years, give it back and you won’t have a penny to show for it

My last new car (actually a Merc Vito Mk1 van) was bought on HP. I was very glad of the 50% premiums return clause, because the thing was not well built and losing value like a lead balloon.

StevenRB45 said:

All cars lose money one way or another

Click to expand...

Not if you get something unfashionable when it's hit rock bottom...and wait

rmjbn1 said:

Not if you get something unfashionable when it's hit rock bottom...and wait

Click to expand...

I think I must be an oddball: I don't actually think about depreciation when I buy a car, I merely buy what I like, and consider the money to be spent, lol!

AndyRKett said:

You could argue that with any car, unless you plan to keep a car till the day you scrap it you’re always looking after it for the next person.

With PCP as I’ve already stated I paid mine off at the end of the deal and it’s now mine 100%, but I suspect I will still eventually do am I still just looking after it for the next person? Or am I looking after it so it keeps looking after me and doesn’t let me down.

Every payment you make on a PCP deal is a payment towards ownership, it’s a lease where you never own the car keep it for 5 years, give it back and you won’t have a penny to show for it

Click to expand...

For some reason, the app won't let me chop the last part of your comment out!

I must admit, I've never understood people who have that attitude towards car maintenance. I get my car serviced every year, and this year, due to its age, the cost was more than what the car is actually worth, but I don't see it as "looking after it for the next owner", I see it as keeping it well looked after so as to keep it good and serviceable for as long as possible.

rmjbn1 said:

Not if you get something unfashionable when it's hit rock bottom...and wait

Click to expand...

Aye store a worthless car for 10 years in the hope it will double in value...and when it does you've got 600 rather than 300 quid. But you've also paid to store it for 10 years.

Otherwise you're paying to keep it on the road....until it reaches a point where it's not fixable.

Obviously it is much cheaper to run old cars, even if they keep breaking because well new cars have a nasty tendency to halve in value in 3 years and keep losing money after that.

Having said that I don't get the whole buying or speccing a car specifically for a good resale value. I buy a car I like for me, if it's worth something at the far end that's a bonus...and well given the wifes previous car was purple and current is green and were both Citroen I think it's safe to say she doesn't consider the resale!

rmjbn1 said:

Not if you get something unfashionable when it's hit rock bottom...and wait

Click to expand...

Or the oporsite, there are some high end super cars that if you can afford them you can make a huge profit over the book price.
A few years back If memory serves me correctly the Porsche GT3 RS was sold for about £140k and then because of the waiting list you could sell it immediately for anything up to £300k

puntofan01 said:

I must admit, I've never understood people who have that attitude towards car maintenance. I get my car serviced every year, and this year, due to its age, the cost was more than what the car is actually worth, but I don't see it as "looking after it for the next owner", I see it as keeping it well looked after so as to keep it good and serviceable for as long as possible.

Click to expand...

I'm a bit confused what you mean here.

If you lease a car often the lease includes maintenance servicing and any minor repairs about all you have to pay for is tyres, the reason being is that the lease company want to be able to sell it again once you've finished with it.

StevenRB45 said:

Having said that I don't get the whole buying or speccing a car specifically for a good resale value. I buy a car I like for me, if it's worth something at the far end that's a bonus...and well given the wifes previous car was purple and current is green and were both Citroen I think it's safe to say she doesn't consider the resale!

Click to expand...

I have always tried to buy the best spec model for what I want. That doesn't mean the absolute top of the range but I would now never by a car without aircon, and these days people want the best infotainment system that's going to work with their latest phone hence getting Car play in my golf in 2015 when at that time the only other car that had car play was the Ferrari California.

If you take the approach of "that will do" when buying a car, more often then not it will be worthless by the time you're done with it and worthless means you either have to scrap it or sell it for scrap money.

AndyRKett said:

I have always tried to buy the best spec model for what I want. That doesn't mean the absolute top of the range but I would now never by a car without aircon, and these days people want the best infotainment system that's going to work with their latest phone hence getting Car play in my golf in 2015 when at that time the only other car that had car play was the Ferrari California.

If you take the approach of "that will do" when buying a car, more often then not it will be worthless by the time you're done with it and worthless means you either have to scrap it or sell it for scrap money.

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about not buying a nice car, but it gets a bit much when people start avoiding certain colours, engines or models they would otherwise buy because of resale.

It depends on your approach I suppose. I remember a few years ago when we were speccing the DS3 we were looking at all the options. One of them was an Audi A1, a car which if you look out of the window comes in either White, Black or Gun metal. I couldn't believe the range of colours you could get, seem to recall there was 20-30 options by the time you dive into 'individual' colours.

However they are usually specced by the lease company for resale...so you never seem to see the interesting colours lest they struggle to find a buyer.

Obviously buying a crap car for the sake of it...no. But buying a dull car so it'll sell easier..seems an odd thing to do when you're committing to losing a chunk of money to save what will probably amount to maybe 5% of what you'd get for it at the other end because you bought a car you didn't want.

StevenRB45 said:

I'm not talking about not buying a nice car, but it gets a bit much when people start avoiding certain colours, engines or models they would otherwise buy because of resale.

It depends on your approach I suppose. I remember a few years ago when we were speccing the DS3 we were looking at all the options. One of them was an Audi A1, a car which if you look out of the window comes in either White, Black or Gun metal. I couldn't believe the range of colours you could get, seem to recall there was 20-30 options by the time you dive into 'individual' colours.

However they are usually specced by the lease company for resale...so you never seem to see the interesting colours lest they struggle to find a buyer.

Obviously buying a crap car for the sake of it...no. But buying a dull car so it'll sell easier..seems an odd thing to do when you're committing to losing a chunk of money to save what will probably amount to maybe 5% of what you'd get for it at the other end because you bought a car you didn't want.

Click to expand...

Did you replace the DS3 with the C3? (For your wife?)

SB1500 said:

Did you replace the DS3 with the C3? (For your wife?)

Click to expand...

That's probably over stating the amount of control I have over my wifes purchases. She bought it and has paid for it up to this point.

She saw the photos of the C3 when it was first released and decided she wanted one to replace her DS3 company car when it went back (tax rules had changed so it was going to be ridiculously expensive to stay in the scheme).

We had half an Idea that there would be a baby along before 3 years were up so a bigger boot and 5 door was needed

Personally I'd have had her in a Mazda 2 sport in the rare Purple colour but she fell in love with Almond green and white in the C3 without airbumps. Which Flair spec comes with so it was factory order to get one without (0 cost option at least).

My involvement was mainly in the spec, which is why it's on 16s not 17s (found the ride in the DS3 a bit hard) and it's also a petrol turbo when most are 82bhp puretech NA (we had a diesel DS3 but it did 40 to the gallon and with our usage never got warmed through). It's also why it's a flair as I didn't want the touch screen without climate control so you could press auto and leave screen alone. Also all the same spec the DS3 had so auto lights, wipers, cruise control etc.

So er...team effort she picked the car and had paid for 50% of it, I'm paying the other 50% shortly and specced it to avoid some of the bits that annoyed me on the DS3.

StevenRB45 said:

and it's also a petrol turbo when most are 82bhp puretech NA

Click to expand...

Good idea to go with the turbo.

I used an 82hp NA for just over a week, early this year and hated it. It seemed to have little power low down, but didn't develop anything significant as the revs rose. The 82 horses were well hidden. Just keeping up with normal traffic was hard work, made worse by vague steering and sloppy suspension. Like a small boat on a choppy sea, with a small engine working against the current.

Comfortable seats.

portland_bill said:

I used an 82hp NA for just over a week, early this year and hated it.

Click to expand...

I remember yeah.

If you like a well set up and engineered car..there's very little in a C3 for you

All the reviews say get the 82bhp in the midspec and then you get the best bits for cheap (i.e. the seats and the looks and the low speed ride across potholes)

But that totally ignores the fact that the moment you leave the city that leaves you with a car that you need to furiously stir an awful gearbox to make and maintain speed in. Also where momentum conservation is key but that doesn't encourage you to carry speed at all. It then goes on to remove the long distance motorway ability that is a nice feature of the more powerful one by getting you a 5th gear that isn't even as high as 4th in the turbo car.

Had a lovely real world demonstration other weekend, I was caught behind a dawdling Mondeo doing 45-50 in a national limit in perfect conditions. He was dawdling to an extent that another C3 appeared behind me and sat on my back bumper.

We came to a roundabout onto a major national limit road which starts with a 2-3 mile long hill and as a result has a crawler lane. So I waited for the crawler lane did 30-60 in third, block shift to 5th and set cruise to 60 and it just surfed up the hill on the torque at just over 2000 rpm, absolutely left Mondeo man.

Having completed my overtake of the Mondeo and a Fiesta that had dived in front of him at the roundabout I checked my mirrors to pull back in and noted with amusement that that about half a mile back the C3 that had been stuck up my chuff was creeping past the still dawdling Mondeo.

With the turbo it's a relaxed thing to drive (once you get used to all 3 pedals coming from different cars) because it has more torque than it has any right to need so you don't need to work the engine or the gearbox hard without it's very hard work indeed.

StevenRB45 said:

I remember yeah.

If you like a well set up and engineered car..there's very little in a C3 for you

All the reviews say get the 82bhp in the midspec and then you get the best bits for cheap (i.e. the seats and the looks and the low speed ride across potholes)

But that totally ignores the fact that the moment you leave the city that leaves you with a car that you need to furiously stir an awful gearbox to make and maintain speed in. Also where momentum conservation is key but that doesn't encourage you to carry speed at all. It then goes on to remove the long distance motorway ability that is a nice feature of the more powerful one by getting you a 5th gear that isn't even as high as 4th in the turbo car.

Had a lovely real world demonstration other weekend, I was caught behind a dawdling Mondeo doing 45-50 in a national limit in perfect conditions. He was dawdling to an extent that another C3 appeared behind me and sat on my back bumper.

We came to a roundabout onto a major national limit road which starts with a 2-3 mile long hill and as a result has a crawler lane. So I waited for the crawler lane did 30-60 in third, block shift to 5th and set cruise to 60 and it just surfed up the hill on the torque at just over 2000 rpm, absolutely left Mondeo man.

Having completed my overtake of the Mondeo and a Fiesta that had dived in front of him at the roundabout I checked my mirrors to pull back in and noted with amusement that that about half a mile back the C3 that had been stuck up my chuff was creeping past the still dawdling Mondeo.

With the turbo it's a relaxed thing to drive (once you get used to all 3 pedals coming from different cars) because it has more torque than it has any right to need so you don't need to work the engine or the gearbox hard without it's very hard work indeed.

Click to expand...

So what's the deal with Citroen's petrols? They don't strike me as very good. I get the impression they, like VAG (and probably any big EU HQ'd car company) have spend the past two decades heavily investing in their diesel technology - as it was the way forward I suppose until recently. The diesels seem to be fine, with a lot of taxi drivers favouring some of the 2000s Citroen / Peugeots... but I'm a member of a DS3 group on Facebook and I can't say the models with the petrols seem to be ageing very well... especially the 'THP' high performance model...

SB1500 said:

So what's the deal with Citroen's petrols? They don't strike me as very good. I get the impression they, like VAG (and probably any big EU HQ'd car company) have spend the past two decades heavily investing in their diesel technology - as it was the way forward I suppose until recently. The diesels seem to be fine, with a lot of taxi drivers favouring some of the 2000s Citroen / Peugeots... but I'm a member of a DS3 group on Facebook and I can't say the models with the petrols seem to be ageing very well... especially the 'THP' high performance model...

Click to expand...

When we specced our DS3 there were 2 "safe" options 1.6 none turbo petrol and diesel. Diesels have a nasty habit of popping in later life if there's any lack of maintenance but early life they are both about as reliable as each other.

THP engines were a joint venture with BMW and are same engine as the Mini Cooper S. Boiled down to an old Peugeot TU block with a direct injection head with Vanos and timing chain from BMW.

Early ones are terrible...in America the MINI was subject to class action suit as a result. Small rundown of the issues as per most recent BMW engines plastic Timing guides disintegrated leading to the death rattle and timing chain failure (later ones have uprated guides). Again as per every recent BMW they suffer inlet coking due to the direct injection. Higher powered ones also suffered from High pressure fuel pump issues as well just for the craic.

You then got the "racing" which also destroyed bottom ends as the pistons weren't up to the job, later ones have forged pistons.

Bmw sacked it off, PSA refined it and they are mostly fixed now although still suffer inlet valve coking.

Puretech came out in 2014 and is entirely different and built with what they learned on the THP. So it has a timing belt run in oil not a chain (some early ones had belt issues but that was fixed around 2015). Also while still DI it uses the injectors and VVT to clean the backs of the inlet valves by holding them open in the line of the injectors to wash the backs of them with fuel. No reports of any fuel pump issues either, only reported issues is a few have died when a spark plug broke and fell into a piston.

StevenRB45 said:

Puretech came out in 2014 and is entirely different and built with what they learned on the THP. So it has a timing belt run in oil not a chain (some early ones had belt issues but that was fixed around 2015). Also while still DI it uses the injectors and VVT to clean the backs of the inlet valves by holding them open in the line of the injectors to wash the backs of them with fuel. No reports of any fuel pump issues either, only reported issues is a few have died when a spark plug broke and fell into a piston.

Click to expand...

Was the timing belt problem like the one I hear Ford had with theirs where small fibres would shed from the belt and travel round in the sump oil until they clogged up the pickup screen? I believe that is no longer a problem with them either so probably sorted by the belt manufacturers?

Like the sound of the VVT and injectors being used to "wash" down the back of the valve heads though.

Pugglt Auld Jock said:

Was the timing belt problem like the one I hear Ford had with theirs where small fibres would shed from the belt and travel round in the sump oil until they clogged up the pickup screen? I believe that is no longer a problem with them either so probably sorted by the belt manufacturers?

Click to expand...

From what I read some early Pug 308s with it had been found to have "crumbling" timing belts which makes it sound like the rubber was breaking up. Same end result though blocked oil screen in the sump before the actual belt let go.

Don't know about you guys but a timing belt running in oil just sounds so "wrong" doesn't it. Don't know if I could be happy owning one?

My understanding of the concept is they are made of a compound designed to be run in oil. As a result they stay supple and resist wear for significantly longer than a belt running dry in the atmosphere.

Whether it works long term...I guess I'll find out! Believe VW are using similar given they said the timing belt will last the life of the car at the release of the 1.0 TSI.

I'd prefer a proper chain...as in one not engineered by a European manufacturer. One in the Mazda is proven many times over to be good for the life of the car with nothing but the right oil changed regularly but apparently the parasitic loss is 30% more. Also most recent European manufacturer attempts at a chain lasted slightly less time than a belt but cost 4x as much to replace.

We're hedging our bets in all honesty, extended manufacturer warranty is 199 quid from Citroen so we've bought that for another year.

StevenRB45 said:

Believe VW are using similar given they said the timing belt will last the life of the car at the release of the 1.0 TSI.

Click to expand...

Nope! it's a normal, exterior belt. My Ibiza has that engine EA211 family with mine being the CHZB version. The recommendation appears to be for inspection at 55,000 miles with subsequent inspections at 20,000 mile intervals - no actual recommendation other than change when worn! I really, REALLY don't like that as, in my experience, inspecting a timing belt is a pretty useless exercise. They tend to either look absolutely fine or you find yourself taking the covers off, wishing you'd changed it at the manufacturer's recommended time, because it's all gone, expensively, BANG! After consultation with our local VAG independent, I've decided to do mine at 5 years/50,000 miles (whichever comes first - which for mine will be 5 years). For the first time in many years I'll not be doing it myself. I'm going to let the chaps at AVW do it - who I trust implicitly to do a good job - I've decided that it's fun messing about with the older cars but this new one is just so damned complicated I'm going to leave the complicated stuff to them what knows! Still going to do servicing though.

Interestingly, perhaps? the water pump on this engine is mounted on the cylinder head on the opposite end of the engine to the timing belt and driven with a little mini synchronous (toothed) belt from one of the cams - exhaust I think? Because the water pump is not part of the timing power train it's not detailed for changing with the timing belt. I'll definitely get them to do this mini belt and I'll be happy to let them advise on whether to renew the pump at the same time. Another interesting "feature" of this engine is that the cam pulleys are not round!!!! they are slightly triangular with rounded off corners! This apparently reduces loading on the belt and is some of the reason why they were talking about the belt being a "for life" fitment when it was first introduced to the press. Whilst the 50,000 mile inspection with subsequent inspections every 20,000 miles is I think the "official" recommendation I believe most of the dealers are recommending 5 years/50,000 miles as does my Indy. Maybe they are just all of a nervous disposition? It's the possible failure of the idlers more than anything else which concerns me.

She also has an electric water pump which continues to run after the engine is stopped and I believe this is so that the oil doesn't "fry" in the turbo when stop/start is operating. The turbo on this engine is water cooled. Probably of incidental benefit too if you turn the engine of after "hot" running - like if you pull into a motorway services and don't let the engine idle for a few minutes to dissipate heat in the turbo and keep lubricant circulating round the spindle - which is generally acknowledged to be very bad for turbo life.

I'm 50/50 on it in some ways I love the absolute geekery of the lengths they have gone to engineering wise.

20 years ago if you wrote about the engine in a Seat or Citroen you'd struggle to find much in the way of anything particularly clever nevermind enough where you could write several hundred words on it!

The Citroën adds an electric oil pump to the electric water pump as well so both can be controlled independently of what the engine is doing, during stop start operation for example.

However I have no desire to work on one ever.... even compared to my 9 year old car it's so much more advanced. Not just engine wise either, electrically it's full canbus system to the point even the wipers are not directly wired. So if you leave the wiper stalk in the on position and switch the car off they park themselves. Not ground breaking...but they also don't restart on firing the car back up unless you move the stalk again. So unlike mine where the switch completes a circuit all the switch is doing is sending a command to the body control computer which then activates the wipers.

Rather than the old school little switch in the back doors to do childlocks you press a button on the dash and it activates part of deadlock system to disconnect the rear door handles electronically instead.

Loads of other little things as well where it's clear that most of what the car is very much controlled by fairly complex computers.

I imagine this is all reasonably standard stuff on most cars now but I would not want to fault find an electrical issue! Nevermind anything under the bonnet..