looks very tidy, and low kms too. decent price for an 11 year old car too i would say
phillip.weston,
Apr 25, 6:45pm
2.0L is underpowered and no more economical than 2.5 or even a 3.0 version. Even though it has low kms it is a Jap import rather than NZ-new, and that shape isn't particularly outstanding at anything. It's basically a heavy facelift of the earlier 1995 model and its level of equipment and (lack of) safety features falls behind the competition.
brummoi,
Apr 25, 6:48pm
Oh dear! Thanks for the advice
phillip.weston,
Apr 25, 7:27pm
looks like it perhaps has been messed with a boy racer. The 406 is a nice car, I had a '97 2.0 auto with 140k on the clock and it drove very well (I would say nicer than the Cefiro above), but it had a few little niggly electrical faults and I dare say it that the build quality isn't that great. It's a bonus that the one there has leather interior which is higher quality than the cloth interior which starts to fall apart (ie lifts away from the door cards). The 2.0 engine goes just 'ok' and is no powerhouse but returns reasonable economy. It is a smaller car than the Cefiro so keep that in mind if you're looking for a larger mid-sized vehicle. Also if I were spending upwards of $5000 on a 406 I would look for a facelift 2000 onwards model, and try get a 2.1 HDI diesel for outstanding low running costs.
brummoi,
Apr 25, 7:42pm
Thanks again, Phillip. The boy-racer bit could be a worry although it doesn't seem like a BR car! Do you mean the tacky gearknob! I don't know what the reflector reference is about but is this also a tacky BR add-on! I'm in no immediate rush to buy so will probably hold fire and see what else comes up. I hadn't really considered a diesel but maybe I need to get over that
cuda.340,
Apr 25, 7:49pm
2.0 litre auto's always seem sluggish to me. i bought my wife a 2.5 cefiro like the first car, it drives real well but the car in your aution is severely overpriced.
brummoi,
Apr 25, 7:54pm
I've got a 1.8 auto at the moment and it is definitely sluggish for overtaking and the like. My pref would be a 2.5 but wifey is convinced that anything over 2.0 will be super expensive to run which is kind of annoying as the wisdom here seems to be that this isn't the case and you get a better car for you $$$
phillip.weston,
Apr 25, 7:55pm
yeah the gear knob and the alloy wheels put me off, it even looks lowered too. It is also a jap import also as opposed to NZ-new. 2.1 HDI is almost as quick as the 2.0 petrol, perhaps just as quick if the 2.1 HDI is 5 speed manual. Bear in mind the 406 isn't really a 'set and forget' car, it will need extra maintenance at some point in its life, but if you actually see driving as enjoyment rather than a necesity then perhaps the 406 will be a good choice.
thejazzpianoma,
Apr 25, 8:01pm
CC rating dosn't necessarily translate into a certain amount of economy at all, or power output for that matter. Its not the 1930's, engine technology varies a lot across the board, and thats before you consider weight, transmissions, drag etc.
You are doing the right thing thinking outside the box though and on the right track to finding something thats excellent value for money.
What sort of running are you doing and how many km's a week! I take it you are looking for something medium-largish!
What are your other considerations i.e safety, ability to tow etc!
mazzyz,
Apr 25, 8:02pm
#9 - Many people are under the impression that a larger engine is a gas guzzler. If you have 2 engines for the same 1.5Tonne car, 1 is a 2ltr the other a 3ltr. The larger engine doesn't need to work as hard to move the car weight, using less fuel and the smaller engine has to work harder to move the same weight using more fuel to do so. As long as there is not a huge difference in engine size, the slightly larger engine will be cheaper to run generally. *Ducks for cover as the neysayers flock in to disagree*
thejazzpianoma,
Apr 25, 8:12pm
Sounds good but it really is a lot more complicated than that. (goes to find you hiding for cover!) However the end result is often correct. You do however need to weigh each make/model up carefully as what is true for one is not true for another.
You also need to take the kind of running you are doing into account. What is true for the open road is not necessarily true for round town running.
brummoi,
Apr 25, 8:14pm
Points taken and understood about efficiency vs. cc rating. The type of driving we'll be doing is mostly around Wellington with a few trips up and down country. Towing isn't a biggie although would be handy now and again for a trailer to the dump and so on but just about any car could handle that, I imagine. Yep, am looking for something medium to largish in auto (wife again) as a family car. I'm not paranoid about safety but don't want a death trap either. Price range is around $5k
brummoi,
Apr 25, 8:27pm
The Fiat is interesting but a manual and 'her indoors' won't stand for that!
brummoi,
Apr 25, 8:46pm
thanks for all the tips. I have to go out now but will pick this up again later. The 2006 maxima is a bit more than I have to play with. Interesting that most of the cars being sold by that trader are high mileage.
phillip.weston,
Apr 25, 10:10pm
Side air bags, electronic brakeforce distribution and brake assist, traction control, active stability control, advanced crumple zones and extra regidity in key points of the chassis. All of which started to become standard in the early 2000's. As that A33 is a very mild facelift of the A32 chassis which originated in 1994, it isn't a safe car when you compare it against something like a 2001 Mondeo, 2002 Mazda 6, late 90s VW/Audi anything etc.
gunhand,
Apr 25, 10:31pm
Nothing wrong with a cefiro. Good honest car that will go well and be comfy doing it. Not alot goes wrong with them and has a cam chain instead of belt. As far as being a only a 2ltr unless your wanting to race everyone everywhere all the time it will be just fine. How fast do you need to go around town! And if your towing a 6x4 with a load of coal, wood or rubbish it will do it fine as well. Its a 2000 and for the money they want probably not bad. Down here you pay that or more for a 94 model. As for safety, sure it may not have all the wiz bang stuff of a newer car but still has dual airbags at least. We survived pre ABS and Side airbags. But if you find a car in same conditon with better safty features, same milage, later model and within your budget go for it. On a whole there a good car and at 89000kms a lot of life in it yet. I own a 94 as a hack and have done nothing to it apart from oil changes in the years ive had it. Mine had a hard life before I got it and it still runs fine at 190,000kms. Mine has abit of cam chain rattle on a cold morning but and trans jerks into 2nd abit till warm. Part from that it goes well. If you really need to cruise at140kph plus it will and its not "that slow" round town. Economy wise its ok to. Everything that should work works still on mine and as I said it had a hard life before i got it so that says something about them. If you can get it for a lower price even better.
vtecintegra,
Apr 25, 10:35pm
Sure the later designs are better, but a B5 A4 isn't going to be any better than an A33.
looking more carefully at the photo of the engine bay, it might actually be a V6 3L and not a 4-cyl 2L as stated in the auction. If so, that solves any questions about power, I imagine!
vtecintegra,
Apr 26, 12:54am
They were all V6 of the same family, came in 2, 2.5 and 3l versions
phillip.weston,
Apr 26, 1:35am
it's definitely a 2.0L, it says '2000' on the engine cover and the fact that it's the base model with hub caps suggest it's a 2.0L also.
thejazzpianoma,
Apr 26, 1:57am
Without wanting to get in the middle of it all. The vast majority of the C5 Audi's on the road are far safer than the NCAP test would indicate. The car that got sent to NCAP for frontal testing had a fault that caused the airbag to fire late. Audi changed their design so this could not happen again and made some other tweaks to greatly improve the weak areas shown up by the test. Those changes affect the vast majority of C5's on the road and even if you get one that hasn't been upgraded (would have to be a very early one) chances are it won't suffer the same fault in a crash anyway. In reality the C5 A6 is a phenomenally safe vehicle, well ahead of its time. You only have to look at the crash test videos to see that.
Now all of that said. The B5 A4 is an entirely different story. It has structural integrity and crumple zone issues. quite serious ones. Its really important to be aware of that because both the B5 A4 and C5 A6 came out at the same time, yet one is about the safest car on the road at that time and the other is only average for the time. 1997 really was only the beginning of the newer properly safe cars though, lots of extremes in safety going on. Its really important to check each make/model carefully and fully in that age group.
extrayda,
Apr 26, 2:02am
yup, I love my Cefiro, it's a great Wagon (97 Cruising G - haha). 2.5, 4 airbags etc. Agreed not as safe as something newer, but has been a great car for me so far. As said, no timing belt either - yes I know thats only an occasional thing, but at anything up to $1000 its a big portion of the cost. Not very fuel economical however.
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.