Expert answer

Hi Teresa,

A 2008 Kia Sportage, with the 2.0 CRDi diesel engine, had official fuel consumption of 7.1 litres per 100km, or 39mpg. We’d expect one, now, to get around 30-35mpg in daily driving. As for choosing one over a Hyundai Tucson, well mechanically they’re identical, but we always slightly preferred the cleaner styling of that generation of Sportage. 

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 Caroline,

As discussed via email, the new Auris is more refined and a little more economical than the Mazda, as it has a 1.4-litre diesel engine to the Mazda's 1.6-litre unit.

However, as you've discovered, you're likely to get a better deal on trade-in with a Mazda dealer and that is likely to decide things.

By all means test drive both and shop around with different Toyota and Mazda dealers. By any normal measure both cars are incredibly fuel efficient.

Let us know how you get on.

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 there,

A rate of €570 per annum would put the car in Band D based on its emissions, which is 155- to 170g/km. Our initial investigations suggest that this car should have emissions of just 134g/km, which would put it in Band B2 for an annual tax bill of €280, however, that's for a newer car than you're talking about. The older one has emissions of 165g/km, which would indeed mean a €570 tax bill.

Hope that helps clear it up

Expert answer

Hi Fuad,

Hellish in both respects. The RX-8 is a terrific car, and was always one of our favourites, but they do suck fuel pretty badly. If you’re able to keep it above 25mpg on average, you’ll be doing well. Insurance is pricey because, even though the engine has a swept capacity of just 1.3 litres, it’s still a 190-230hp rear-drive sports car, and no insurer is going to be fooled by the engine capacity in this case. 

Expert answer

Hi Martin,

There were actually some significant mechanical changes for the Type-S, including wider-track rear suspension, an upgraded interior and a more aggressive body kit. That said, it’s still not THAT sporty, and a regular Civic is near enough as good to drive. The 2.2 diesel is an excellent engine, with good economy and very solid reliability. As for an ‘air energiser’ I’m guessing this is some kind of aftermarket add-on? Beware such things — they tend to promise much and deliver little, and usually aren’t worth the money. 

Expert answer

Hi Jim,

There's no doubt that the Range Rover Sport (like all big SUVs) are harder on their tyres and brakes than an average car. Parts aren't cheap either and fuel consumption, even on the diesel models, is relatively high - though again, normal for the class.

Early examples were the subject of three recalls concerning brakes, the transmission and rear seat belt buckle, but once the car you're looking at has had those things recitified there shouldn't be an issue. The Range Rover Sport has a below average reputation for reliability, but we know people with faultless examples as well, so perhaps some buyers have been unlucky. Issues seem to come mostly from the electrics and the suspension so check everything is in working order and best to have some form of warranty from the dealer.

If you need more detailed help please do get in touch.

Expert answer

Hi Sean,

Nice choice of cars to be thinking about. Before we look at the stats of the cars, the driving experience in the 3 Series vs. the Audi A4 is quite different - and will be the deciding point for many, so please do try to get a test drive in examples of both. That's the case whether you go for the older 3 Series Coupé or the newer saloon.

Personally, I prefer the way a 3 Series of this age drives in comparison to an A4. It's more 'dynamic' and engaging thanks to the rear-wheel drive layout. However, not everyone likes that and I've heard non-enthusiastic drivers call the feeling 'skittish'. There is no doubt that a front-engined, front-wheel drive car like the Audi A4 will find more traction on snow and ice than a rear-wheel drive BMW (assuming neither has winter tyres), but our climate is too mild for that to be a serious car-buying priority.

In terms of running costs, the early versions of the E90 BMW 320d saloon and Audi A4 2.0 TDI 140 are very close and, as you'll be buying a car registered before 2008 with that budget then tax will be the same, as it's based on the engine size. The E46 320Cd coupé is a little heavier on fuel, but not much.

The 320d saloon has the most powerful engine of these three, though there's not much in it really.

Both saloons are generally quite reliable, though we'd recommend getting full service histories and getting mileage checks with Cartell.ie as each car has its own known issues that crop up from time to time - like turbo issues on the BMW and burning oil in the Audi. The E46 coupé is also reliable, though it's built on older architecture so won't be as modern in general.

One final thing to bear in mind. While the S line Audi specification is highly tempting, it comes with firmer suspension, which may not be to everyone's taste. Test drive it before committing. Likewise an M Sport version of the BMW 320d, though you may not find many of those within budget.

Now, whether you should consider petrol instead of diesel is a whole other story. The decision really should come down to your average mileage. The diesel models will definitely be far more economical on a long run or commute, but not in town. Likewise, you can get lower capacity engines in the petrol cars bringing your annual tax bill down.

If you want to discuss the latter point in more detail come back to us and we'll go through options.

Hope this all helps

Expert answer

Hi David,

In general that's a good car to drive, well-equipped and highly reliable and economical. We found the 1.6-diesel engine a little loud and the car itself to emit a lot of road noise on the motorway, but they're not bad enough to be deal-breakers.

It's still too new for there to be meaningful reliability data, but in general Mazdas have a good reliability record. Ensure that it has been serviced according to the schedule and take it for as long a drive as you can.

Best of luck