First car : lease or buy?

[A0]

I'm hopefully going to be passing my test within a couple of months and looking to get a reasonably cheap car to start off with.
I don't have any particular preferences but it would need to be very reliable and comfortable for long periods of motorway driving - I'll be starting a job requiring 10k miles of driving or so per annum at the end of the summer.
Used cars seem to be very expensive indeed at the moment - my local dealer has a nine year old Skoda Fabia for £7500 in the lot!
I did find this remarkably good leasing offer on a new Vauxhall Corsa - it would work out at around £180 per month based on my requirements. In a way this does seem to be too good to be true though - has anybody had any good/bad experiences with leasing new cars?

Bit in bold - define "reasonably cheap".

That example of the Fabia is way over-priced, no two ways about it - a quick look on Autotrader shows other examples which are 2-3 years younger in the £7-8l price bracket.

That said, I wouldn't buy a Fabia and I certainly wouldn't buy a 7 year old VAG product regardless. Their reliability isn't that great.

I'd look at a Toyota Yaris, Hyundai i20 or Kia Rio - all 3 are much cheaper to buy, far more reliable than anything from the VAG stable and, importantly on a car which is ~5 years or older, a chain cam engine.

If you're not mechanically minded, basically it's the difference of how the camshaft (the thing that drives the pistons) is driven. Belt cams are just that, a rubber belt which needs replacement at set periods - because the bill isn't cheap (rarely less than £ 300) alot of owners neglect to do this. The belt will degrade over time and eventually may snap - when it snaps it tends to lead to a very expensive repair bill. Chain cams are just that - driven by a metal chain which ought to last the life of the car.

 

[DelW]

If you're not mechanically minded, basically it's the difference of how the camshaft (the thing that drives the pistons) is driven. Belt cams are just that, a rubber belt which needs replacement at set periods - because the bill isn't cheap (rarely less than £ 300) alot of owners neglect to do this. The belt will degrade over time and eventually may snap - when it snaps it tends to lead to a very expensive repair bill. Chain cams are just that - driven by a metal chain which ought to last the life of the car.

Just in case this confuses someone, I'd point out that the timing chain or belt drives the camshaft which operates the *valves* - not the pistons. Those are of course driven by combustion (and gas expansion) and in turn drive the crankshaft.

 

[A0]

Just in case this confuses someone, I'd point out that the timing chain or belt drives the camshaft which operates the *valves* - not the pistons. Those are of course driven by combustion (and gas expansion) and in turn drive the crankshaft.

Correct - typo on my part - the point stands though, that if a cambelt fails on most engines it results in a 4 figure repair bill (yes, I know there are some 'non interference' engines where a cambelt failure doesn't result in huge damage, but they're relatively few) - and therefore when buying a car with a belt cam, particularly when it's 5+ years old or 60,000 miles + you need to be careful to check whether the cambelt has been changed and if it hasn't walk away.

I've recounted before the experience of a former work colleague bought a Renault Megane from auction for an attractive price, which didn't have a complete service history - within a couple of months the cambelt failed landing him with a 4 figure repair bill which more than offset the saving of having bought a similar car with documented service history.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you're not mechanically minded, basically it's the difference of how the camshaft (the thing that drives the pistons) is driven. Belt cams are just that, a rubber belt which needs replacement at set periods - because the bill isn't cheap (rarely less than £ 300) alot of owners neglect to do this. The belt will degrade over time and eventually may snap - when it snaps it tends to lead to a very expensive repair bill. Chain cams are just that - driven by a metal chain which ought to last the life of the car.

I think I'd say that if an engine isn't chain cam (it's fairly easy to find out online) then unless the seller can provide a receipt from a proper garage that it was done, add £500 to the price in your mind and have it done immediately you collect the car and certainly before any long trip.

The question to ask is "When was the cambelt last replaced? Do you have a receipt?"

(The similarly sounding *fan* belt, technically actually an accessory belt that drives the alternator, is cheap to replace, don't worry about that)

 

[dgl]

Also going for something with less of a "cool" factor might help get something more affordable, the cheaper Suzuki's are known to be reliable and use timing chains also newer Micra's don't necessarily have "coolness" but are OK vehicles and have somewhat decent room inside for the size of vehicle, ours hasn't needed much doing to it in it's 9 years and it has done a few miles, some rust issues with the exhaust last service but it lives next to the sea so rust is to be expected.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Also going for something with less of a "cool" factor might help get something more affordable, the cheaper Suzuki's are known to be reliable and use timing chains also newer Micra's don't necessarily have "coolness" but are OK vehicles and have somewhat decent room inside for the size of vehicle, ours hasn't needed much doing to it in it's 9 years and it has done a few miles, some rust issues with the exhaust last service but it lives next to the sea so rust is to be expected.

The Vauxhall-ised version (Agila) of the Suzuki Wagon was a perfect first car for tall me. Group 2 insurance (group 1 for the 1.0l, I had the 1.2) and absolutely cavernous, also it could turn round and park on a pinhead. For a first car I can't really imagine having had anything better - it'd have been a Corsa or similar otherwise which is a very tight fit for me and all my outdoor gear. The Yaris estate is vaguely similar in concept.

 

[A0]

I think I'd say that if an engine isn't chain cam (it's fairly easy to find out online) then unless the seller can provide a receipt from a proper garage that it was done, add £500 to the price in your mind and have it done immediately you collect the car and certainly before any long trip.

But that sits uncomfortably with most people - if you're buying a car which is purporting to be 'well maintained' you don't expect an immediate maintenance bill of £ 500.

Ultimately it's poor engineering to use a belt for driving the cam - all it does is guarantee future work for the dealerships in changing them.

Much easier to buy Japanese or Korean virtually all of which are chain cam, much more reliable than the European brands and generally cheaper because the badge-snobs don't like far-Eastern cars.

 

[bspahh]

Most modern cars are pretty reliable, and even the least reliable brands will still work most of the time.

The problem with getting a used car, is the risk of getting one which has a problem, which will be expensive to fix. Lots of used cars will be fine, but its good to avoid the ones that have an existing problem.

My favourite way to do this is to get cars from people who have a good reason to sell it, and not that it is about to get you on first name terms with your local breakdown service.

I have owned 7 cars. Three were from relatives who had a good reason for selling, and were fine. The 2 cars which have given me more problems than the others put together were a 15 year old Mini from the classified ads, and a 3 year old one which I got from a second hand dealer. The price was good, but it needed a new automatic gearbox within 6 weeks.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have owned 7 cars. Three were from relatives who had a good reason for selling, and were fine. The 2 cars which have given me more problems than the others put together were a 15 year old Mini from the classified ads, and a 3 year old one which I got from a second hand dealer. The price was good, but I but it needed a new automatic gearbox within 6 weeks.

With that you raise an important point - unless you have to, do not buy an older automatic, particularly not a CVT. Stick with manual, and check the gears work smoothly when test-driving, as worn synchromesh is very expensive to replace and it can highlight a clutch problem.

Only reverse should "grind" (as it doesn't have synchromesh on most cars) - all forward gears should engage smoothly, without any noise and without excessive force when the engine is running and the vehicle moving*. If they don't, walk away.

* In some cars a gear occasionally won't easily go in when stationary but will if you lift the clutch and drop it again, this is when the "dog teeth" have lined up wrongly and isn't an issue.

 

[A0]

With that you raise an important point - unless you have to, do not buy an older automatic, particularly not a CVT. Stick with manual, and check the gears work smoothly when test-driving, as worn synchromesh is very expensive to replace and it can highlight a clutch problem.

Only reverse should "grind" (as it doesn't have synchromesh on most cars) - all forward gears should engage smoothly, without any noise and without excessive force when the engine is running and the vehicle moving*. If they don't, walk away.

* In some cars a gear occasionally won't easily go in when stationary but will if you lift the clutch and drop it again, this is when the "dog teeth" have lined up wrongly and isn't an issue.

BIB - why ?

There are some auto gearboxes which are notorious for problems - once again VAG's DSG boxes are known as particularly troublesome, especially if they've not been properly serviced.

But CVT autos are absolutely fine - it's a CVT in use in Priuses for example and there are no shortage of those around with rocketship mileages.

Autos are not inherently unreliable - quite the opposite, so unless you have a dislike of driving an auto, there's no reason to avoid them.

 

[Russel]

Could I suggest either a Peugeot 107/Citeron C1/Toyota Aygo?

All the same car behind the badge but I've just got rid of one, very nippy, reliable, excellent MPG and about the cheapest car you'll find to run and insure.

In 5 years of owning one, I put 80k on it and my only major expense outside of normal wear and tear was a clutch and that only cost me about £270, so relatively cheap as motoring repairs go!

 

[hst43102]

Bit in bold - define "reasonably cheap".

That example of the Fabia is way over-priced, no two ways about it - a quick look on Autotrader shows other examples which are 2-3 years younger in the £7-8l price bracket.

That said, I wouldn't buy a Fabia and I certainly wouldn't buy a 7 year old VAG product regardless. Their reliability isn't that great.

I'd look at a Toyota Yaris, Hyundai i20 or Kia Rio - all 3 are much cheaper to buy, far more reliable than anything from the VAG stable and, importantly on a car which is ~5 years or older, a chain cam engine.

If you're not mechanically minded, basically it's the difference of how the camshaft (the thing that drives the pistons) is driven. Belt cams are just that, a rubber belt which needs replacement at set periods - because the bill isn't cheap (rarely less than £ 300) alot of owners neglect to do this. The belt will degrade over time and eventually may snap - when it snaps it tends to lead to a very expensive repair bill. Chain cams are just that - driven by a metal chain which ought to last the life of the car.

Thanks for the useful advice - I'll certainly bear that in mind. Something like a Yaris or i20 as you described would probably be ideal, by reasonably priced I expect between £1500 and £4000 or so for a decent first car?

 

[A0]

Thanks for the useful advice - I'll certainly bear that in mind. Something like a Yaris or i20 as you described would probably be ideal, by reasonably priced I expect between £1500 and £4000 or so for a decent first car?

Sub £2k is banger money at the moment. You'll find the odd gem, but alot of dross.

£4k is better - look at £4k - £5k on the basis you might get a couple of hundred quid off.

Looking on Autotrader that'll get you a tidy 2014/2015 Hyundai i20 or a nice 2012/2013 Yaris with sensible miles and service history.

 

[Russel]

Thanks for the useful advice - I'll certainly bear that in mind. Something like a Yaris or i20 as you described would probably be ideal, by reasonably priced I expect between £1500 and £4000 or so for a decent first car?

I can vouch for the I20, I traded in the 107 I mentioned in my previous post for an I20 last September, it's a solid car, mine is a 2013 model with 50k on the clock, my only complaint is that compared to the Peugeot 107, the I20 is just, dull and characterless.

I do miss the loud unrefined engine and quirky personality of the 107. Also, knowing I could leave it anywhere and not worry or care about it was also very liberating.

 

[A0]

Could I suggest either a Peugeot 107/Citeron C1/Toyota Aygo?

All the same car behind the badge but I've just got rid of one, very nippy, reliable, excellent MPG and about the cheapest car you'll find to run and insure.

In 5 years of owning one, I put 80k on it and my only major expense outside of normal wear and tear was a clutch and that only cost me about £270, so relatively cheap as motoring repairs go!

The OP did state in their first post "I don't have any particular preferences but it would need to be very reliable and comfortable for long periods of motorway driving"

The C1/Aygo/107 and even the Hyundai i10 and Kia Picanto are much more city / town cars. They are capable of motorway journeys, but they are relatively small and their gearing means their engines tend to be having to run at fairly high revs at motorway speeds. Their short wheelbase also means they'll tend to bounce around more and their low weight means they are more easily buffeted by winds.

A slightly larger car (basically the next size up) will be far less tiring on such journeys. Agreed that they may be less 'characterful' - but that's really a secondary consideration.

 

[Russel]

The OP did state in their first post "I don't have any particular preferences but it would need to be very reliable and comfortable for long periods of motorway driving"

The C1/Aygo/107 and even the Hyundai i10 and Kia Picanto are much more city / town cars. They are capable of motorway journeys, but they are relatively small and their gearing means their engines tend to be having to run at fairly high revs at motorway speeds. Their short wheelbase also means they'll tend to bounce around more and their low weight means they are more easily buffeted by winds.

A slightly larger car (basically the next size up) will be far less tiring on such journeys. Agreed that they may be less 'characterful' - but that's really a secondary consideration.

I've done plenty of long motorway journeys in the 107 so know exactly how they handle. Yes, it is effected by wind to some extent but I never felt it was unsuitable for motorway driving.

I drove 200 miles down to Devon last year in the 107, fully loaded with a weeks worth of camping gear, 2 adults and a child, apart from the performance taking a slight hit from the extra weight, it was perfectly acceptable.

Have you actually owned or driven one?

 

[A0]

I've done plenty of long motorway journeys in the 107 so know exactly how they handle. Yes, it is effected by wind to some extent but I never felt it was unsuitable for motorway driving.

I drove 200 miles down to Devon last year in the 107, fully loaded with a weeks worth of camping gear, 2 adults and a child, apart from the performance taking a slight hit from the extra weight, it was perfectly acceptable.

Have you actually owned or driven one?

Not personally - but I know people who have.

I've also driven comparable cars - there is a difference between city cars and superminis in terms of capability and refinement.

To give one practical example a city car will have a small <200 litre boot, whereas your average supermini will be ~300 litres. The rear seats in most of the city cars are at best, children only unless you have a very short driver up front, whereas the average supermini can take 4 adults - I won't stretch the point to say 'in comfort' but certainly more practically. And the point about the engine at motorway speeds and ride due to wheelbase length are statements of fact.

 

[philthetube]

I would go for a minimum 1200cc engine, smaller ones tend to find high motorway mileages hard work.

You don't provide your age but when insuring it it is often worth putting an older person on the insurance as this can reduce premiums considerably.

 

[heart-of-wessex]

The Vauxhall-ised version (Agila) of the Suzuki Wagon was a perfect first car for tall me. Group 2 insurance (group 1 for the 1.0l, I had the 1.2) and absolutely cavernous, also it could turn round and park on a pinhead. For a first car I can't really imagine having had anything better - it'd have been a Corsa or similar otherwise which is a very tight fit for me and all my outdoor gear. The Yaris estate is vaguely similar in concept.

+1 for that! My first one was the Vauxhall Agila 1 litre, as you say Wagon is the same thing so no difference, I was 30 when I got this so starting off on the insurance ladder wasn't much of an issue, ok its not stylish or has kerb appeal but was still fun, could park in small gaps on street spaces where an estate car wouldn't fit, cheap for MOT, servicing etc and the mpg for a 1 litre was amazing.

Drove it from Wiltshire to Yorkshire once (stayed overnight) and only filled up with fuel once on the way back, and that only cost me £30-£35 or so. OK not designed for motorways but it'll do it, especially just keeping speed to 60mph

 

[dgl]

The only main difference between the Agila and the Wagon R+ is the engines and radio, 1.0 or 1.2L GM engine in the Agila and only the option of a 1.3L Suzuki engine on the Wagon R+ in the UK (and Europe?), radio in the Agila is a GM/Opel unit with a sperate display anf the Wagon R+ has a standard off the shelf single din Clarion radio.
Certainly decent cheap vehicles.

 

[L401CJF]

I bought a used 2015 1.3CDTI Corsa for £3k in 2021, took out a loan and paid for it in cash. 120000miles on the clock so was a bit hesitant. After going to view it and seeing its full dealer history etc it was better than expected! Over a year later it's been great, no issues, and is brilliant on fuel.

2 hour cruise up the M6 and the trip computer has more range than I set off with! Not brilliant for town runs of course but it just sips the fuel on the motorway!

My brother who's younger bought a 2.0 turbo diesel 2002 VW Golf for next to nothing. Over 250000 miles on the clock and it just keeps going! Unfortunately it suffers from typical age related issues as expected but its been surprisingly good.

 

[Bletchleyite]

+1 for that! My first one was the Vauxhall Agila 1 litre, as you say Wagon is the same thing so no difference, I was 30 when I got this so starting off on the insurance ladder wasn't much of an issue, ok its not stylish or has kerb appeal but was still fun, could park in small gaps on street spaces where an estate car wouldn't fit, cheap for MOT, servicing etc and the mpg for a 1 litre was amazing.

Drove it from Wiltshire to Yorkshire once (stayed overnight) and only filled up with fuel once on the way back, and that only cost me £30-£35 or so. OK not designed for motorways but it'll do it, especially just keeping speed to 60mph

It was probably about the most perfect city car possible, not that much longer than a Smart but hugely more practical. Cavernous with the back seats down.

 

[JohnMcL7]

I think you'll find that Diesel engines are more reliable because they're simpler?
Petrols have a lot of sensors to go wrong, as the air and fuel mix needs to be precise.
1L and 1.2L car can be expensive to insure as they're popular first cars so crashed a lot, and a lot of them are driven with little sympathy so you're more likely to end up with a lemon

20 years ago I'd agree with you but not now, emissions regulations have forced diesel engines to become increasingly complex to the point petrol engines are simpler. I used to be a big fan of diesel engines especially the old VW 1.9 TDI engines but the newer 2.0 TDI engine converted me to petrol as I had a number of problems with the diesel engine typical of modern diesels. All these additional systems diesels now require mean more parts, more electronics and if any of those fail the car is crippled and some of these parts are wear and tear as well. I wouldn't recommend a modern diesel unless needing to do large miles, I've had my current petrol car nearly three times longer than the last diesel and it's not had a single problem with its engine as I'd expect as it has no turbo, no EGR valves, no DMF, no DPF and no SCR.

 

[HOOVER29]

My sister once bought a VW polo 1.4 auto on my advice as she needed a reliable car for work.
She looked at a Ford & various similar sized cars but I said no go for the Polo.
It may be boring/dull/not fast but will be reliable if looked after

Had 9,000 miles & was up for £6,000.

It now has 96,000 miles & she’s owned it for 20 years next month.

Simple service every year at mot time.

No rust on it (X plate)

Just passed it’s mot again.
Just needed a bulb for the number plate.

Bonus is now it’s starting to go up in value.

 

[hst43102]

Hi everyone, just thought I'd reopen this thread to give an update.

I ended up taking the good advice many of you offered me and, as soon as I passed my test, found a thirteen year old 1.4 Fiesta with 110k miles for £2600, it was relatively cheap to insure and has been a wonderful car so far.

It's fairly good on fuel economy and very comfortably does motorway speeds, has plenty of space and I haven't had any major issues with it yet, I did have the brake pads replaced but that's been it for maintenance. The clutch will probably have to be changed at some point but hopefully not until the MOT.

Thank you all very very much for the advice, I really appreciate it and it's probably saved me a lot of money over leasing a new vehicle!

 

[A0]

Hi everyone, just thought I'd reopen this thread to give an update.

I ended up taking the good advice many of you offered me and, as soon as I passed my test, found a thirteen year old 1.4 Fiesta with 110k miles for £2600, it was relatively cheap to insure and has been a wonderful car so far.

It's fairly good on fuel economy and very comfortably does motorway speeds, has plenty of space and I haven't had any major issues with it yet, I did have the brake pads replaced but that's been it for maintenance. The clutch will probably have to be changed at some point but hopefully not until the MOT.

Thank you all very very much for the advice, I really appreciate it and it's probably saved me a lot of money over leasing a new vehicle!

A sound choice - Fiestas are tough, generally reliable, cheap to fix and any garage can fix them.

Brake pads are consumables, like tyres and exhausts, nothing to worry about there.

Just a word on tyres though - under no circumstances buy cheap Chinese brand tyres - there are good budget tyres out there at normally a only a couple of pounds more, but with vastly better performance, brands like Nexen, Hankook or Kumho are much better than unknown Chinese brands. My Vauxhall Insignia has a couple of cheap Chinese tyres on (were fitted when I bought it) and I can truthfully say in 30 years of driving I've never before experienced such appalling tyres - fine in the dry, scary in the cold or wet. I could not recommend them under any circumstances and especially not to a new or inexperienced driver.

On the Fiesta just check to ensure the cambelt aka timing belt and water pump have been changed at the correct intervals.

 

[Speed43125]

Just a word on tyres though - under no circumstances buy cheap Chinese brand tyres - there are good budget tyres out there at normally a only a couple of pounds more, but with vastly better performance, brands like Nexen, Hankook or Kumho are much better than unknown Chinese brands. My Vauxhall Insignia has a couple of cheap Chinese tyres on (were fitted when I bought it) and I can truthfully say in 30 years of driving I've never before experienced such appalling tyres - fine in the dry, scary in the cold or wet. I could not recommend them under any circumstances and especially not to a new or inexperienced driver.

Would very much agree there. Driving an unfamiliar car in the wet with that sort of rubber on was rather scary the first time I pushed it.

Wet weather tyre performance is absolutely crucial in the UK.

 

[cactustwirly]

The OP might actually find that, as long as the body is solid, an older small normally-aspirated petrol-engined car with a 1 or 1.2l engine will be cheap to insure and to repair. Petrols are generally more reliable and cheaper to fix than diesels as they're simpler, but the most modern turbo petrols have more risk of issues because the small engines are more stressed.

Now isn't a great time to buy price-wise unfortunately, but you are I guess where you are.

I'm sure leasing would be fine in principle, but you would need to fix any and all scrapes etc before handing back, and this could be costly.

To be fair my first car was brand new, but there were far better deals going on brand new purchases (rather than leases) back in 2001 than there are now.

For that sort of mileage a diesel would be more cost effective. With the greater fuel efficiency and significantly lower tax of a diesel. They should be driving it enough to avoid issues with DPFs etc.

 

[A0]

For that sort of mileage a diesel would be more cost effective. With the greater fuel efficiency and significantly lower tax of a diesel. They should be driving it enough to avoid issues with DPFs etc.

Fuel economy is the only pro in the diesel v petrol debate.

Diesels are less reliable due to DPF's, Dual Mass Flywheel clutches and turbos - all of which give more problems. Also diesels have a higher list price, so cost more second hand.

For a first time driver with sub £4k to spend, petrol is absolutely the right choice.

 

[cactustwirly]

Fuel economy is the only pro in the diesel v petrol debate.

Diesels are less reliable due to DPF's, Dual Mass Flywheel clutches and turbos - all of which give more problems. Also diesels have a higher list price, so cost more second hand.

For a first time driver with sub £4k to spend, petrol is absolutely the right choice.

However if the OP is doing lots of miles then the fuel and tax savings will offset that.

Modern petrols have DMFs and Turbos, so I'm not sure they are that much better.

I have an almost 10 year old diesel that hasn't given me any problems like the ones you describe. It's £30 to tax and does 60mpg on a run so probably saves me at least £500-700 a year compared to an equivalent petrol.

Except usual servicing it has only needed an ABS sensor and I am getting the belts changed next month for £500.