Morris Minor Owners Club

rover 200 would be cheap good engine butbad build quality,any vw would be a good bet had a mk1 schorrico for years could not break it.or why not a saab 900 go for years built like a tank

Old Pug diesel gets my vote. Non turbo basic version. 205

Oh yes nearly forgot them. Damn fine, bulletproof cars that lasted well over ten years although that's getting closer to twenty now if there are any left still. You could be lucky and find a 'once a week to collect me giro' example. Even the petrol 1100's are quite zippy and give close to 50mpg. The roadholding is great but the handling will have you reaching for the sickbag

To be honest - you will be well advised to just consider going on the TRAIN if you only have £500 to invest in a car. For that kind of regular mileage - any car is going to cost you a fortune, and is bound to breakdown from time to time causing all sorts of heartache and expense - and late arrival at work.

jonathon wrote: I may well get slated for saying this but the Metro was an excellent small car v.cheap, useful donor car when finished with it.

Only for that last bit!

There's fewer and fewer early Metros left on the roads thanks to them being "donor cars", and the later ones will soon be following as they're in the banger age bracket at present.

Thankfully values for the early cars are creeping up, which is bad for buying but might be good for long term survival rates.

I do agree the Metro is an excellent small car though, and with small engines and potentially classic car insurance (my 89 is on such a policy) the running costs aren't too high. IMO they also offer better interior space and comfort over something like a similar age Fester, and drive quite nicely. Shame about the lack of fifth though, but economy spec models still return pretty good mpg

I'd have a Fiesta mk2/mk3 or Polo

Many people will question my 'Ford' logic but the way I see it they're perfect. Theres nothing on the whole car you can't replace with basic tools in an afternoon. They're like a Minor in that way. Theres also a lot less to break. Base models have next to no electrics and a basic 4 cyl indestructible engine. Rough and uncivilised but always reliable, spacious and practical. (stay away from the performance models of course, thrashed XR2s and 2is will be rubbish)

The Polo has all of these virtues too with the added bonus that it wont rust (unlike the Ford). Though I prefer the looks of the old Fords to the old 'Breadvan' polos.

...but as I said, the bread vans run forever
a

but as I said, the bread vans run forever

But the coupe's run forever and look faster

Never had one, but I imagine so
a

It's looking like a one horse race

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/ ... f=1&t=5155

Never noticed the 'underbraked' thing though
a

Years ago a neighbours gave me a 5 year old / B reg Polo as nobody wanted it in PX against a new car.
It had been severly vandalised with virtually every panel kicked in (third party insurance).
I had it for maybe 3-4 years and it was bullet proof.
Cheap parts and easy to fix.
Not the most economical car.
Mine was a 1100cc and they can suffer with symptoms of excessive crankcase pressure making you think the engine is knackered.
Actually all that needs changing is the breather on the bulkhead side of the block.
Pain to change and you must use a purpose made or bought tool otherwise you will crush the new one (they aren't cleanable).
I ended up using an engine crane to lift the engine off it's mounts whilst still leaving everything other then exhaust attached so I could tilt it forward for access - it's that bad.
The "tool" is still lying around if you need one at any time.
The only other problem is the battery tray can rust so it drips water onto your legs.
Very difficult to weld.
Mine wasn't too bad - just a couple of pin holes as I caught it fast so I fibreglassed on underside of dash and the cleaned / heavilly painted the underbonnet area.

I had a E reg Peugeot 205 diesel - hated the thing and glad when it finally died so could be scrapped even though still had a long MOT.
Nothing seriously wrong with the car but just boring in every way.
Bland interia, poor seats for distance driving, difficult access for even routine underbonnet servicing, nightmare of waterpipes (I think there are over 20 !), need to use old brake pad / shoes / wheel cylinders as pattern when buying new as there is no standard type, very heavy steering (no PAS) etc.
There again reliable, economical, used veg oil, reasonable handling so mine was probable a duff model as I think the later versions are a lot better.
I all fairness I took it to just under 300,000 miles (I had it from 225,000 miles - my fathers business car from new) and had little trouble.

Paul Humphries

Agree with everything you say Paul.

The MK 3 (1990 -) was just a reskin of the mk2 (which was a reskin of the Mk1 ). The Mk3 saw a couple of detail changes that waved goodbye to the two big bugbears of previous cars. First a servo was fitted. Audi at first declined to fit one (it was an Audi 50 at birth) then VW said it wouldn't fit. So a bloke called Brian Rickets proved them wrong, VW popped along one day and presto....The second change was fuel injection and bye bye troublesome Pierberg carb.
If the Polo had one shortcoming it was the flimsy front suspension. Keen driving on a rough road could really create some wierd handling as the weedy track control arms boinged around on the ends of the antiroll bar.
Incredibly enough there was a 113bhp supercharged monster which must have handled like a ballon full of water. But I'd still like one.