Expert answer

Hi Gerry,

You've picked three difficult cars to choose between. Obviously, both the Hyundai and Kia are essentially the same car beneath the skin, and both come with temptingly low prices and long, long warranties. The SEAT's three-year warranty looks a bit brief in comparison, but then you are buying into a car with excellent reliability and high quality, so there's that.

You've also got an odd combination of relatively high mileage, but in an urban location, which suggests that you won't be working up enough speed to generate exhaust heat to keep a diesel particulate filter (DPF) clean. With all that in mind, I think your best best might be a Leon 1.2 TSI petrol. It's a cracking engine, nearly as good as a diesel on fuel economy, but with no nasty surprises waiting in the exhaust. Both the Hyundai and Kia are excellent cars, but both are best experienced as diesels.

Expert answer

Hi Mark,

Right, obviously it's always a bit of a scare when you slip on the road and damage your car, and it's natural for the reaction to be "I'd better get a 4x4." Hang on though, because there are 4x4s and 4x4s... First off, the Tuscon. According to the official figures, the 2.0-litre diesel 4x4 Tuscon does 39mpg while the 2.0-litre petrol model does 35mpg. We'd bet that you'll struggle to match those figures on the road and will instead get around 30mpg on average. Also, 4x4 Tuscons are a little tricky to track down in Ireland.

So, as an alternative, why not consider a Skoda Octavia 4x4? You know you like the car, the all-wheel drive system is just as good at finding traction as any big SUV's and the lower, lighter body means you won't pay as heavy a fuel consumption penalty. We've found one for sale on Carzone for just over €10k, so they're not even too expensive.

Worth a look, at any rate.

Expert answer

Hi Dan,

Of all the ones you've mentioned there, I'd actually have a long, hard look at the Volkswagen Jetta. True, it's not the most exciting car of all, but with the 1.6 TDI diesel engine coupled to the DSG automatic gearbox, you should be able to squeeze terrific fuel economy out of it: 55mpg should be easily do-able, perhaps even the sunny side of 60mpg. It's sweeter to drive than you'd think too, really comfy and built like a tank.

What do you think?

Expert answer

Hi Emmet,

Yes and no. Yes, they're as reliable as any other Volkswagen Group product (which is to say, very), but no, not very economical - the weight and bulk of the roof mechanism banjaxes any chance you have of scoring decent fuel economy.

Expert answer

Hi Barry,

To be blunt, you're going to struggle to get a decent diesel engined car at that price level. There do seem to be one or two diesel Peugeot 307s or Renault Méganes around at that sort of money but we'd advise serious caution before purchase - neither have a great reputation for reliability. 

Unless you're covering mega-miles every week, you would probably be much, much better off getting a tidy 1.4 petrol hatchback, perhaps a circa 2002 Toyota Corolla? Really solid on the reliability front, excellent fuel economy and affordable motor tax. It would be a much better idea than going all out for diesel but ending up with a less reliable car.

What do you think?

Expert answer

Hi Eoin,

I hate to say it but an SUV may not be what you need. To get three kids in comfortably, you really need a car with three individual seats across the back and only the likes of the Land Rover Discovery or Toyota Land Cruiser have those - and they're big, heavy and expensive to run. 

 So you may need to look down the MPV route. Don't panic - it's not as bad as it sounds. Have a look for a nice Ford S-Max. Tonnes of room, extra seats in the (massive) boot and affordable running costs. 

That said, it depends on the age of your kids. If they're big enough to not need booster seats (or if only a couple of them still need one) that opens up your options a little. If you still fancy an SUV, try a Nissan X-Trail; spacious, reliable, good to drive.

Let us know what you go for

Expert answer

Hi Rory,

Both cars use dual clutch semi-automatic gearboxes, which are pretty slick-shifting, but Volkswagen's DSG transmission just edges it for smoothness and quickness. 

On the emissions front it's rather bad news I'm afraid. If you're buying 2008 model year cars then you're looking at emissions of 189g/km for the Mondeo 2.0 TDCi Powershift and 175g/km for the Passat 2.0 TDI DSG. That means tax of €750 a year.

It gets a bit better if you can spool forward to 2010 when the Passat's emissions drop to 158g/km so that means a tax bill of €570 a year. 

Just for reference, the Mondeo 2.0 diesel auto gets an official 39mpg while the 2010 Passat with DSG gets 47mpg.

To be honest, if you can live without an automatic gearbox you would be better to go for the 1.6-litre diesel versions of either car. Both have decent performance and much better economy and emissions. For instance, a 1.6 BlueMotion Technologies Passat gets 62mpg and has emissions of just 118g/km so tax of €200 a year.

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 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.