88V8 wrote:Peugeot 205.
The 1.9 GTi is best, but all models are excellent small, that's properly small, cars.
V8
The original 205 gti was a fantastic drivers car but probably not the sort of thing the OP has in mind.
John
Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site
88V8 wrote:Peugeot 205.
The 1.9 GTi is best, but all models are excellent small, that's properly small, cars.
V8
Hey, people, I am looking for a small hatchback. Options I have are KIA RIO and Toyota Yaris.
Any other option that you people feel should be considered.
PrincessB wrote:5) Gearbox - Automatic or manual? If you prefer automatics, read reviews as they indicate that some automatic gearboxes are still a bit on the clunky side.
PrincessB wrote:I've tried to keep personal preference to a minimum but your post asked for opinions, on my radar would be:
Skoda Yeti - No larger than an old saloon car, plenty of practical space and a higher driving position.
Mazda MX-5 - The complete opposite but lots of fun for two.
Nissan Note - Very large boot space for the size of the car.
Suzuki Swift - Cheaper than a mini with the option of the sport model for a more thrilling experience.
A Mini - everyone else seems to have bought one and you've got lots of options for performance.
BT63 wrote:I had a Suzuki Swift Sport (2012-16 version) and although a great 'track car' and Sunday afternoon hooligan car, it was flawed for British road use:...……….
It was quite noisy and a lot of vibration (tiring for the driver).
On motorway journeys for some reason it was surprisingly thirsty (35mpg).
Tricky to drive on ice because of the sensitive accelerator and relatively powerful engine for a car that size (wheelspin).
bungeejumper wrote:Sounds like they've got the gear ratios too tight, or too low, so as to improve acceleration. That would be a pity - I've heard quite good things about the (normal spec) Swift in terms of reliability and value for money. Seems to be a popular student car around these parts.
BT63 wrote:Regarding Suzuki's 'reliability' and 'value for money', I would add that may be helped because Suzuki's designs are very basic (including no turbo until the latest 2017- model) and because Suzuki cars have a 9k service interval unlike the typical 20k service interval of most other manufacturers.
Value for money is good but if you look closely at a Suzuki you'll find much poorer tolerances in the fit of body panels and interior trim. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the poor fuel consumption of my ex-Swift Sport at motorway speeds was due to body panel mis-alignments adding drag.....
….So I wouldn't say Suzuki were any better built nor more reliable than other manufacturers with comparably simple designs. For example: while my Suzuki Swift Sport had several nagging issues, my wife's Viva has been 100% trouble-free in the 2.5yrs since she bought it.
Return to “Cars, Driving, Motorbikes or any Transport”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests