Expert answer

Hi Kieran,

Tread carefully. On the upside, the 407 is still slick to look at and terrific to drive. On the downside, the diesel engines can give troubles (turbos, exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) valves and injectors) so any diesel 407 that idles lumpily or doesn't accelerate cleanly is to be avoided. In spite of the myriad buttons in the cabin, and some cheap plastics, it's actually pretty well built inside, so any uneven panel fit or loud rattles could be a sign of accident damage. Watch also for rounded-off security bolts on the alloy wheels - many a 407 owner got over-enthusiastic with the wheel brace when faced with a flat. Make absolutely sure that it comes with a full and complete service history.

Expert answer

Hi Roy,

The Passat is a good, solid car that with just a few points to check. Some of the early 2.0-litre TDI engines had some fragility in the turbo and injector departments, so have any of those cars checked carefully. The 1.6 FSI petrol engine is pretty solid but bear in mind that in a car of the Passat's size, it will have been thrashed pretty hard to keep up with traffic. Have a close look and listen to the suspension for any noises or clonks, and make sure the power steering feels consistent and precise as that system can give trouble too. 

Expert answer

Hi Mary,

Short answer, no. The CR-V is one of the most roomy and spacious SUVs around. In fact it makes you wonder quite if other car makers realise that the U in SUV stands for Utility...

The X3 is a typical BMW product - handsome, slick and terrific to drive, but there have been reports of troubles with the turbocharger on the older 2.0 diesel engines and the interior is surprisingly tight, especially if you're carrying kids - it's all but impossible to get three child seats across the back row. 

Why not check out the new CR-V instead? It's a really solid product, just as spacious as ever. Or, if you want a change of brand, have a good long look at the Hyundai Santa Fe - cracking car, that.

What do you think?

Expert answer

Hi Jacinta,

Essentially the old 1.9 TDI Pump Düse engine is just a bit less sophisticated than the newer, cleaner 1.6 TDI common rail engine. That said it's still pretty economical and while you could potentially get 60mpg from the 1.6 you should pretty easily get low-fifties-mpg from the 1.9.

Expert answer

Hi Ger,

To be honest, I would just avoid that generation of Rio at all costs. They're not especially reliable (engines, suspension and ventilation systems all give trouble) and the 1.3-litre petrol engine is quite underpowered, meaning you have to thrash it hard to keep up with the flow of traffic, which wrecks the fuel economy. On top of which the cabin is small, narrow and made of some staggeringly cheap and nasty plastic and they're basically awful to drive.

That generation of Rio was really the last of the truly bad Kias, before the company started to make some really good cars. Go, if you can, for a second generation Rio, made from 2006 onwards in both hatchback and saloon form. They're much more reliable, quite nice to drive and decently economical.

Hope that helps

Expert answer

Hi Jim,

How long is a piece of string? Sorry, but it is actually a tricky question to answer because it kind of involves asking 'which Range Rover?' That is to say that Land Rover's build quality, while it has consistently been improving over the past decade, can still be a touch variable. Many Range Rovers will get through big mileages with no trouble, while others simply won't.

The good news is (and I'm talking about post-2002 models here) that generally Range Rover unreliability has gone from trouble with major items such as brakes and suspension to minor niggles involving electrical components. Basically, if you're buying a Rangie make sure all the buttons work as they should and then budget a substantial amount of money to fix them when they don't. Engines, gearboxes and other bits are generally fine as long as the car has been serviced fully and has history to back that up. You won't get the flawless reliability that you'd get from a Toyota Land Cruiser for instance, but Rangies are certainly more solid than some of the rumours would have it.

Expert answer

Hi Jason,

Perhaps predictably, the DS5 has been a slow seller for Citroen, primarily because as soon as you put the words 'French' and 'premium' into the same sentence, most buyers tend to look for the exit. We are very, very wedded to our German premium cars in this country. 

The DS5 isn't a bad car at all, but to be honest, neither is it a very good one. It looks absolutely stunning, inside and out and as a piece of automotive sculpture, it's hard to beat. It comes with some excellent diesel engines too and generally its build quality and reliability seems to be up with the best.

The problem comes when you actually drive it and realise that it has steel girders for suspension. It rides terribly, clonking and clattering over bumps in a way that should be utterly alien to any French luxury car. A BMW 5 Series on 20-inch wheels rides better than this... Then there's the problem that the cabin is actually quite cramped, even in the front. It's a car we want to love, but there are just too many fundamental issues with it for us to do so.

Read our full road test of the Citroen DS5 here

Expert answer

Hi David,

Diesel particulate filter issues are common to all modern diesel engines and it's basically down to how the car is driven. It's part of why diesels aren't suitable for low mileage, short-hop drivers. 

The Mazda issue appears to be down to the fact that the diesel particulate filter warning light double-jobs as a warning light for other exhaust and emissions issues, meaning that fixing or replacing the filter might not be the whole story. Essentially, if you've got this problem, it's best sorted by a trained and informed Mazda mechanic, as they can interrogate the engine's computer in detail.

Expert answer

Hi Tanya,

Actually, both cars have exactly the same engine - BMW's long-serving 3.0-litre straight-six diesel. The first generation X5 is little short of excellent, with terrific handling and a gorgeous, comfortable cabin. Reliability isn't the best though. The engines have occasional problems with fuel injectors and developing cracks in the inlet manifold, while steering and suspension are also prone to damage and wear. X5s are also notorious for chewing through tyres at a ferocious rate. The engine's air mass sensor can also fail, leading to poor acceleration although you'll spot that easily enough on a test drive.

Basically, it's worth getting any potential purchase checked over by the AA for any faults, and just ignore anything that doesn't come with a full service history. Oh, and it's better to go for the 2004 one - that should have the newer six-speed automatic gearbox (ignore manuals - they'll be worth much less come trade-in time) that improves fuel economy to just over 30mpg.

Expert answer

Hi Michael,

Well, it kind of depends on the car. If you mean something along the lines of a Hyundai i10 or even a Peugeot 208 (ok, so that one's a 1.2 but still...) then the answer is not much. Fuel economy should work out at around 50mpg depending on how you drive; emissions should be under 120g/km; and insurance should be dirt cheap.

If you're talking about an older model, the waters are a bit muddier. Smaller engines generally mean lower running costs but there are cars out there with underpowered smaller engines, and you have to spend so much time ragging them to keep up with the flow of traffic that your fuel consumption goes through the roof.