[Warlord.]

Peugeot 104 ZS2.

[Outcast]

Aston Martin Cygnet





j/k. as if our suggestions will really affect your (or your parents) decision for your first car.

[JBanton]

I would have said the Honda CR-X because it's a small car that's economical but still packs good performance for its size and cost. IIRC it has a mass of only 860Kg and has that famous B16A1 VTEC engine , they used to be really cheap ( <£500), now they're far too expensive because they seem to be getting ever-rarer unsurprisingly.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (JBanton @ Friday, May 18 2012, 20:06)

I would have said the Honda CR-X because it's a small car that's economical but still packs good performance for its size and cost. IIRC it has a mass of only 860Kg and has that famous B16A1 VTEC engine , they used to be really cheap ( <£500), now they're far too expensive because they seem to be getting ever-rarer unsurprisingly.

They're about Group 13 insurance (in the old-style groups), even for the non-VTEC. Which is roughly equivalent to a BMW 320i Sport, Mazda MX-5 or 1.8 TFSi Quattro A3. So, for a 17 year old, quite feasibly about £7k to insure.

[Ronnyboy]

Plus, you'll most likely never find one that doesn't have a bolt-on kit from Ebay or has had a "super awesome loud banging stereo" that will sounds worse then when the oversized tires lose their cheap tread.

[Lurch]

I think they're actually a nice choice for someone young in my area. Fairly cheap to insure here (but what isn't? haha). We never got V-tec ones so the most powerful is the 106 hp 1.6 Si. Have seen a few that are some seriously mean budget cone-dodgers. Not much that's that fun to drive here and will net you 35-40 mpg.




ricer stigma or not, I can't say I'd turn my nose up at one if I found a deal.

This post has been edited by Lurch on Friday, May 18 2012, 23:19

[Carlover325]

$7k to insure a CR-X? Ouch!

Full coverage insurance for me when I was 18 was only about $1600/year for my '99 Cherokee. I'm 23 now, and have a little more coverage than I did then, and it's down to $1200/year. I can only get liability on the '93 S10 since it's a salvage title, so it's about $540/year.

I hope you can find something you don't hate, but is also relatively low-cost to insure.

This post has been edited by Carlover325 on Friday, May 18 2012, 23:35

[JBanton]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, May 18 2012, 21:01)

QUOTE (JBanton @ Friday, May 18 2012, 20:06) I would have said the Honda CR-X because it's a small car that's economical but still packs good performance for its size and cost. IIRC it has a mass of only 860Kg and has that famous B16A1 VTEC engine , they used to be really cheap ( <£500), now they're far too expensive because they seem to be getting ever-rarer unsurprisingly. They're about Group 13 insurance (in the old-style groups), even for the non-VTEC. Which is roughly equivalent to a BMW 320i Sport, Mazda MX-5 or 1.8 TFSi Quattro A3. So, for a 17 year old, quite feasibly about £7k to insure.

Ouch, £7000? That definitely puts the CR-X out of the picture then.

[trip]

QUOTE (Lurch @ Wednesday, May 16 2012, 01:06)

I treat smaller older cars a if they were bikes. Drive them more carefully and make them louder so they hear you before they see you. There's a reason why my bug was straight piped with a stinger.

Ah man... I miss my Bug. It was my first car.

For your first car at 17, get whatever the f*ck is available in your price range. It really doesn't matter as long as it runs. Chances are you won't have it forever anyway.

[illegal_luggage]

I didn't even know a there was such thing as a Peugeot 104 until I saw that picture! Speaking of Pugs, 205's are quite nice but as soon as I quote a car with GTi, Si, XR2 or any other sporty acronym the insurance goes through the roof.

[Warlord.]

The 104, especially the ZS2 is a pretty good choice. Its old, yet looks awesome and is a pretty good performer.

[Daniel4]

QUOTE (leik oh em jeez! @ Tuesday, May 15 2012, 23:36)

QUOTE (Piperka @ Tuesday, May 15 2012, 18:21) If I were you I'd get something newer and more safe since you probably have a high chance of crashing, and you wouldn't want to get squashed into a cube. Quite the contrary. I'd get something older and bigger so it's easy to work on and has cheap parts since your fist car is likely to be a cheap pice of sh*t that's going to need a lot of work during your ownership of it. OR you can not make generalizations and just buy whatever suits you and is affordable.

Insurance, insurance, insurance. £,£,£.

Big cars cost a lot in insurance

[*MURDOC*]

Some cars though, I think that the cheaper costs of repair and upkeep can pretty much offset the higher insurance rates.

[epoxi]

QUOTE (*MURDOC* @ Wednesday, May 23 2012, 22:29)

Some cars though, I think that the cheaper costs of repair and upkeep can pretty much offset the higher insurance rates.

Not in the UK, on nearly all the cars mentioned in this topic, for a 17 year old, they will cost more to insure for one year than their value, tax and maintenance combined.

[*MURDOC*]

Did I specifically refer to any of the cars mentioned in this topic?

It was a general statement.

[leik oh em jeez!]

QUOTE (epoxi @ Wednesday, May 23 2012, 16:32)

QUOTE (*MURDOC* @ Wednesday, May 23 2012, 22:29) Some cars though, I think that the cheaper costs of repair and upkeep can pretty much offset the higher insurance rates. Not in the UK, on nearly all the cars mentioned in this topic, for a 17 year old, they will cost more to insure for one year than their value, tax and maintenance combined.

So if all the cars are that expensive to insure, why not just say f*ck it and buy the one that's cheapest and easiest to maintain and repair yourself?

I mean basically what I've heard so far is "No, don't buy that car, it's expensive to insure because of this and that." and then "No, being the opposite makes it expensive to insure too, as does being anywhere in the middle."

Basically what you're saying is that EVERY type of car in comparatively expensive. In reality, they all can't be comparatively expensive to each other. If one is more expensive, that means another has to be cheaper.

[*MURDOC*]

Just fet a f*cking bicycle or something.

[Meno]

These things aren't worth a damn and they're super fun and not even too expensive to drive. And you asked for old school eh?

And a first car is supposed to be RWD right!

Not gonna spam very much cars here as i've no idea what's on the streets of UK, but aren't old Cortinas pretty cheap and usual over there? they're cool and fun RWD too, also at least around here old BMWs, 190 MB's and Ford sierras are popular among teenagers

Feel free to call me an idiot if you mentioned at some point you don't want a RWD.

[illegal_luggage]

I wouldn't mind RWD but BMW's are expensive to insure and Sierra's are getting quite rare. It's not buying the car which is the problem, it's the insurance!

Also many old cars are ruined with tacky body kits and pointless upgrades
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/3895863.htm

[MikeWh]

To be fair when I had just passed at 17 I had a 1998 Vauxhall Astra 1.6L Petrol Estate, was cheaper for me than a 1.0L Corsa was!