Expert answer

Hi Fergal,

This engine downsizing is prevalent and not just by Ford, and it has been made possible thanks to advances in engine technology, such as high pressure fuel injection and turbocharging.

A close look at what's offered by Ford Ireland reveals that the Mondeo 1.6 TDCi is the 115hp version, where as the Focus can be had with that and a cheaper 95hp unit. The raw data reveals that the 115hp Focus does the 0-100km/h sprint in 10.9 seconds - a second faster than the Mondeo with the same engine. Likewise, the Focus is more efficient with lower emissions and fuel consumption - though the differences are not as big as you might think.

Essentially, it boils down to the engine's torque output. This engine produces 270Nm from as low as 1,750rpm, which is more than enough to deal with a car the size of the Mondeo. Naturally a 2.0-litre diesel with the same technology will be more impressive again, but the 1.6 is just fine.

For the record, we find that Ford's 1.6-litre TDCi engine has a very narrow power band, but once you learn to keep the engine within that it never feels slow. Obviously, driven like that it won't come close to its official fuel economy figures.

Hope that all helps.

Expert answer

Hi Tommy,

First up, gearboxes: a six-speed gearbox in a given car usually means it is officially more economical than it would be if it had a five-speed gearbox, but that really will depend on the type of roads it's driven on and the driver's own style. It's not correct to say that a six-speed Renault, for example, is automatically more economical than a five-speed Ford though, as there are many more factors to consider. Best to look at the official combined consumption figures as a gauge - even though they're not usually achievable in the real world they are a good measure of one car against another.

A quick search on Carzone.ie reveals that your budget may get you into a 2009 Ford Focus 1.6 TDCi. There are plenty of different trim levels and 90- or 110hp derivatives available so take a close look at the specifications, history and mileage. Most of those are now in Band A4 with emissions of less than 120g/km and fuel consumption as low as 4.3 litres/100km (65.7mpg).

In terms of Golfs, it looks like you'd be lucky to get a 2008 version (the old one) for that same money, which means it'd have to be a 1.9- or 2.0-litre TDI engine. These cost more to tax (especially if you go pre-2008) and are a little less econonomical than the Focus above.

There don't seem to be many Renault Méganes fitting your description and budget, though a look elsewhere reveals that you may find a 2010 version at this price powered by the 1.5-litre dCi engine. This came in 86- and 110hp guises. The former is virtually as economical as the Focus and the latter only uses a little more fuel.

Finally, the Citroen C4: in terms of economy, the 2008 1.6 HDi 92hp engine is up there with the Focus etc, though there are more powerful versions available too.

In summary, if fuel economy is your priority then it's probably best to stay away from the older Golf, with its larger engine. The others are all very close and so it comes down to personal preference. We'd go for the Focus, not least because of the much wider choice of examples on the used market.

Come back to us if you need more assistance narrowing your search.

Expert answer

Hi Mossy,

Generally speaking, yes, Subarus tend to attract very loyal buyers who, once they try one, never go back and stick with the brand for years after. They are a little odd, compared to other models, so try one out before you decide. The flat-four engines are very smooth, but short on torque, and therefore you need to work them harder for the performance, which can hurt fuel economy. The interiors also look and feel very cheap. The big upsides though are reliability (Subarus, if looked after properly, simply don’t break) and the four-wheel-drive system, which is a major benefit on bad roads and in the winter.

Expert answer

Hi Martina,

At that budget your main choices, sticking with diesel for fuel economy reasons, are the Hyundai ix35, Kia Sportage, Mitsubishi ASX, Opel Mokka and Skoda Yeti.

We're assuming you don't need four-wheel drive (correct me if I'm wrong), as the front-wheel drive versions of each car are always the most economical.

Here's the most economical version of each:

- Hyundai ix35 1.7 diesel 2WD: 5.3 litres/100km (53.3mpg): from €26,495

- Kia Sportage 1.7 diesel 2WD: 5.3 litres/100km (53.3mpg): from €26,590

- Mitsubishi ASX 1.8 diesel: 5.7 litres/100km (49.6mpg): from €25,950

- Opel Mokka 1.7 diesel 2WD: 4.7 litres/100km (60.1mpg): from €24,695

- Skoda Yeti 1.6 TDI Greenline: 4.6 litres/100km (61.4mpg): from €25,320

We've left out smaller options as you specifically asked for mid-size.

The Skoda Yeti turns out to be the most economical of that lot and for us it would be between that and the Kia Sportage.

Best thing to do is go and test drive as many alternatives as you like the look of as it will come down to personal preference.

Let us know how you get on and come back to us if you need anything else.

Expert answer

Hi Daniel,

Sorry to hear about the Scirocco - that 2.0 TDI version is great.

A quick browse of Carzone.ie with your budget and needs in mind brought up a few interesting options:

- Audi A3 2.0 TDI 140 - in Sport or S Line guises for maximum style - loads around
- BMW 118d M Sport - quite rare, but great to drive
- BMW 320d Coupé - you'd have to go pre-2008 with your budget, but current style at least
- Honda Civic Type S - 2.2 diesel is great and post-2008 is taxed according to emissions
- MINI Cooper D - loads around in all different colours at your budget

I've picked out the cars I reckon you'll like and I've left out things like the Volkswagen Golf and regular Ford Focus (among others).

What do you think?

Come back to us and let us know if we're on the right track.

Expert answer

Hi Juls,

The official fuel consumotion of the E90 BMW 316i is 5.9 litres/100km - or 48mpg in old money. This model actually received a mid-life update during 2008, but the upgrades were cosmetic and had no effect on fuel economy.

We hope this helps

Expert answer

Hi Christopher,

First things first: go for automatic. The fuel economy won't be as good, but there are far more on the market and the manual version retains the foot-operated parking brake, which is madness. It should return about 35mpg.

In general it's a reliable car, though check all electrics and if the gearbox is jerky walk away. Also listen out for suspension knocks. Insist on a full service history or find a car that has it.

Hope that all helps.

Expert answer

Hi Kieran,

Nice position to be in! We're a little puzzled at the shortlist, but each to their own. I'm sure you know that the Beetle won't be a patch on the Boxster in terms of driving thrills and the Porsche trumps the SLK on that front too.

However, if your priorities are ease of repair, etc. then the Beetle seems to be the obvious choice, as there are loads of Volkswagen dealers around and a new car won't need much doing to it anyway.

Saying that, the Mercedes and Porsche are quite reliable and you have a choice of Mercedes-Benz service centres. While there are no official Porsche service outlets in Cork that we know of, as resale value is not of importance to you I'd suggest you get the number of a recommended mechanic. They'll do just as good a job with a more personal service. Get in touch if you need help on that.

Personally, I'd have the Boxster. Though of course I can understand the lure of the new car. The SLK is a distant third place.

Let us know how you decide - and if you need anything else.

Expert answer

Hi Justin,

It's not surprising to hear that the car won't go off-road - few do!

In terms of safety, the 2005 Volvo trumps the Discovery with a better Euro NCAP crash test rating.

The Volvo has a marginally better reliability record too, though most Discovery problems (affecting electrics and software) seem to apply to individual cars. Saying that it's worth ensuring its air suspension is in perfect working order. On the XC90 the injectors can play up, and they're expensive to repair, so get suspicious if the car doesn't start quickly.

Evidence points to the Volvo having the lower running costs too, with slightly better fuel economy and of course lower annual road tax due to the smaller engine. Maintenance will be costly enough in both cases, as could be insurance.

In cold hard facts it looks like the Volvo wins this battle Justin, but we'd not be put off the Discovery so easily - it's a great all-rounder as well.

Let us know how you get on.

Expert answer

Hi Rory,

I don't have a strong opinion for or against the idea. I can see merit in the technology, but also major hurdles and potential issues. First, some good points:

• Potential to significantly reduce collisions caused by careless or distracted drivers
• Big gains in efficiency and fuel economy - on average
• Long-term could be used to transport people that cannot drive
• Could help ease congestion, especially on motorway networks
• Could eliminate drink-driving once and for all!

Some negatives:

• We all know that computer systems are far from infallible
• If something goes wrong, who is responsible? Legal minefield
• Would breed a whole generation that may never learn to drive for themselves
• I love driving and would hate for that choice to be taken away from us

We already have aspects of this technology in our cars right now, with things like Volvo's City Safe system (it can brake the car with full force if it detects a pedestrian in the car's path and the driver does not react) and Honda's Lane Keep Assist (where the car gently steers itself back on course if it thinks you're distracted) and it's likely they'll become more commonplace. Self-driving in really slow traffic may be next, though at all times a sober, responsible driver will have to be behind the wheel.

Fully autonomous cars are a long way off.

What are your thoughts?