2011 Chevrolet Cruze 1.6 LT

This is the 2011 Chevrolet Cruze 1.6 LT I bought in 2012 to replace my 2004 Rover 45. It had done just 5000 miles when I got it, and was an 11 month old demonstrator. It had lost over a third of its value in the first year, and so was a classic case of wonderful car: terrible depreciation.

In black, it looked super, and was well specified with air conditioning, an AUX input for the stereo, cruise control, six airbags, ESP with EBD, ABS brakes, parking sensors and all kinds of other refinements. I missed the direct steering feel, the comfortable seats, the wood on the interior and adjustable lumbar support from the Rover 45 (and also the size, as the Cruze is a much bigger car), as it has electric power steering and no adjustable lumbar support, but in every other way it was better.

For some reason, General Motors, who own Chevrolet, took it up on themselves to remove the spare wheel, and so it only came with a tyre inflation kit. A space saver (not full size) spare wheel was £300, which I thought was ridiculous, and apparently it robs boot space too.

Apart from that, and slightly disappointing fuel economy (one of the reasons I eventually swapped her for a diesel version of the same car), she was better than the Rover in virtually every respect. The cruise control made her better on motorways, there was more rear legroom, a better stereo, a bigger boot and vastly superior switchgear and build quality.

Most of all, especially as she was so new, the reliability was vastly improved. I had virtually no problems with her at all, apart from the driveshaft oil seals failing (which is a common fault with all Cruzes, apparently, as my 2014 Turbo Diesel had the same problem) and it had a recall to have the brake hoses replaced. Apart from that (and some self inflicted damage I undertook in a car park in Hatfield in 2014), I would have kept her, but a friend of mine needed a car like mine, and so I sold her to him in 2015 eventually with just 37,000 miles on the clock.

I had paid around £9,000 for her originally, but I sold for for just over £4,000, which was a heinous loss. He also sold her for not much money when he got a company car, which is why these cars are absolute bargains these days!

The fuel economy and performance are merely average, and the steering is over-assisted, but for comfortable, well-equipped family transport that is reasonably stylish, a Chevy Cruze is pretty hard to beat... I hope to own another some day!

1998 Volkswagen Polo 1.4 CL

Let us take things right back to the start of my automotive history. This is a Volkswagen Polo 1.4 CL from the late 1990s (this is a 1999, and mine was a 1998), which was my first car.

My mother, my sister and I bought her from the local Volkswagen dealer in St. Cross, a very affluent area of Winchester, in May 2001. I had her before I passed my test, and took lessons from my mother in her. She even appeared in the school magazine, I think!

My sister and I passed our tests in quick succession in the autumn of 2001, and for four and half years afterwards, the Polo remained a faithful, yet uninspiring, companion. The build quality was a strange mixture of Volkswagen typical solidity and cheapness. For example, the Clarion stereo had a barely fitting face off front, which was very difficult to manipulate, the central locking kept sticking, the electric mirror motors sounded horrible, and the electric window switches were in the centre console so that they did not have to be modified from left to right hand drive, and felt really cheap and nasty. However, there was always a good amount of weight to the doors, the seats were very supportive and there was a general solidity to the way that the car drove.

With just 60 bhp, the Polo is not fast, but she was more difficult to stall than my driving school car (a Citroen Saxo), which is probably down to having much more torque, so she was easier to drive in traffic. The pedal box, however, was quite small, so it wasn't always comfortable for everyone. I think she got reasonable economy, but it was a long time ago now!

The handling was safe and predictable, which is excellent for younger drivers and the rear window was entirely vertical, so she was quite easy to park. In the end, despite giving my mother, my sister and I good service for four and half years, she just became a little dull for me, so she, along with another car, was sold to make way for a 2003 Seat Leon, which was more suitable for my needs. I sold her to an antique dealer for his wife, and by the time this happened, the central locking was very sticky and the radio barely worked, but he seemed pretty happy nevertheless. He knew Volkswagens, and he said it felt like a miniature version of his Passat. I couldn't have agreed more.

2003 Seat Leon 1.4 S

One of the cars with the longest personal history I have (which is around seven or eight years) is a 2003 Seat Leon 1.4 S. After I bought it in 2006 with 33,000 miles on the clock, I kept it until 2009, and then sold it to a friend. He kept it three years, and then it was finally sold onto another friend in 2012, and I think it lasted (with well over 100,000 miles on the clock) for another two or three years.

The Mark I Seat Leon was based on the Mark IV Volkswagen Golf, which had the same platform as all these other cars:

-Skoda Octavia Mark 1
-Audi A3 Mark 1
-Seat Toledo Mark 2
-Volkswagen Bora
-Audi TT (yes, really)

It is not surprising, therefore, that there were certain common elements between all of them. My bottom of the range Leon 1.4 S had an engine from the Golf, the dashboard from the Audi A3 and air conditioning controls from the Octavia. It didn't quite handle like an Audi TT, though...

Rather like the car it replaced, a Volkswagen 1.4 Polo, there was a strange mixture of surprisingly poor materials in some places, but general Volkswagen group quality in others. I had numerous problems trying to get the rear wash wipe to co-operate, the lighting for the air conditioning control panel kept being intermittent, and the door pull was extremely cheap and nasty.

Later on in its life, the car acquired various 'battle scars', such as a missing bonnet badge (which was knocked out by a terrified badger), dents in both wings and scratches on the back (it was a little hard to park), and a CD got stuck in the stereo, but overall it did keep on going for quite a long time. The 75 bhp engine was a bit underpowered (bit of a theme going on here), so the car wasn't fast, but she did get around 40 mpg on average, and the fuel range was around 450-500 miles on a tank.

The handling was better than on the Golf, and the interior was tactile and smart (despite one or two poor quality bits of trim). It also looked more stylish than the slightly dumpy Mark VI Golf, especially with the tailgate release button doubling as the Seat badge. I believe that she has now been scrapped, but she certainly gave all three of us good service over a number of years, and you can pick up a decent Mark I Leon now for under £1,000.

2004 Rover 45 1.4 Club SE

Back with one of my favourite subjects today, which concerns the 2004 Rover 45 Club SE I had from 2009 to 2012. Sporting the same 1.4 litre K-series engine (designed in Britain, of course) as the Rover 214 I had immediately before this, she developed around 103 bhp.

The car was never exactly fast, but it had an urgency about the way in which the 16 Valve Twin Cam K-series. This engine was used in MG Rover cars right up until the bankrupcy of the company in April 2005, and a modified 1.8 litre version was used in the MG 6 model from the revived MG Motor UK from 2011 to 2014. As for the Rover 45, it had a complicated history and gestation period.

In 1992, Honda and the Rover Group (as they were at the time) were in a partnership which had been going on for over 10 years and had largely been quite successful. The joint venture Honda Concerto and Rover 200/400 (known as the R8) models had been well received, and the replacement for these would again be co-developed by both companies. However, before Rover had any say in what would happen, Honda launched their 1992 Domani saloon in Japan, and decreed that their joint venture product would have to be based upon it.

The dumpy little Civic-related saloon (which has exactly the same doors as the Rover 45) was quite inelegant, and proved a headache for the British designers. When the new Rover 400 hatchback appeared at the end of 1995, the press were singularly unimpressed with its drab styling and high prices (it was the same size as an Astra, but priced to compete with the Vectra), which was not a good start.

The saloon was better received, but when compared with the British built Honda Civic five door from their Swindon plant, the Rover looked embarrassingly expensive, despite the typical lashings of wood and chrome. Eventually, Rover reduced their prices, but damage had been done. BMW, new owners of Rover from early 1995, didn't much know what to do with all their Honda derived models, and so eventually reduced prices and lightly facelifted them, which did not do much to stem the tide of falling sales.

In March 2000, BMW sold Rover to a management buyout bid known as the Phoenix Consortium, having just facelifted the 400, which became known as the 45. It had some positive changes, and was priced directly against the Astra, where it always should have been. Some elements from the recently launched 75 were also incorporated into the new design, such as new seats and some nice new instrument dials.

By 2004, the Phoenix Consortium (aka MG Rover) had both MG and Rover models on sale, and had managed to somehow not go under, but when they wheeled out mildly facelifted versions of the Rover 25, 45 and 75 as well as the MG ZR, ZS and ZT (essentially three different cars with one sporty version each), the press and public were underwhelmed. It was all over less than a year later.

The 45 by this stage was still a decent car, but it suffered from a terrible image and was by now a very old design. My 2004 Mk2 version had the following equipment:

-Wood inserts
-Climate control
-Parking sensors
-Steering wheel mounted controls
-Traffic Master congestion early warning system (yes, really)
-Alloy wheels

This was not bad for a family car of its age, and the facelift smartened up the design considerably. Part of this was to revise the suspension settings more along the lines of the MG ZS, which meant that the handling was not bad at all. The car was comfortable, with a big boot, reasonable fuel economy, strangely handsome styling and a pretty stylish interior (also revised in 2004) with white dials and a bespoke dashboard. Sadly, it was not all positive.

I lost count of the maintenance bills I had to spend, but by the time I bought in 2009, it had already had a head gasket replacement, and needed even more work. I loved driving it, and the ambience, but it did break down several times and eventually the head gasket went again (along with the exhaust), and so she was put out to pasture for just £350 in 2012. For an eight year old car, which cost around £18,000 new, that was pretty poor depreciation.

2016 Renault Captur 0.9 tce

Last year, my lady wife and I went to Sheffield and the Peak District, and hired a car from Enterprise, who I have always found to be universally excellent. Having been upgraded from a Clio sized car to a small crossover in the shape of a Renault Captur (pictured), we set off in search of adventure in the rolling hills of Derbyshire.

We had not gone very far, however, when I discovered a problem with the 900cc turbo petrol engine in this particular car. It seemed permanently underpowered. I have driven little three cylinder turbocharged petrols like this before, and was singularly unimpressed with the acceleration. I thought nothing of the little green light marked 'Eco' on the dashboard, and carried on with the reduced power, slightly irritated that at every hill (and there are plenty of them in the Peak District), then car would do a very good impression of a milk float. There were other problems too.

The credit card shaped key was deeply annoying for some reason, there were no parking sensors or reversing camera, despite satellite navigation, a touch screen, Bluetooth and a whole 'Eco' display to tell me how good (or bad) my driving was. This is fine in some cars, but the Captur does not have the best rear visibility, and is quite wide. The build quality was also not particularly good, which is perfectly fine on a £7,500 Dacia Logan MCV, but not so good on a Captur which costs double that amount.

Overnight, I looked up some reviews online, and found out that I could de-activate the 'Eco' mode. The performance then returned, and the little three-cylinder turbo was far more spritely. If I owned one, I would definitely not use the 'Eco' mode for anything other than town driving. With these new performance capabilities, I searched for the cruise control activation switch, only to find it was buried at the bottom of the centre console, whereas the other controls for it were on the steering wheel. Very strange... Looking more into the 'Eco' mode display on the touch screen also revealed that the car was getting just 38 mpg on average, despite Renault's claims of 55-60 mpg.

As this was a hire car, I realise that it may have been driven a little more swiftly than usual, but as most people probably had not worked out the niceties of the 'Eco' mode, thus it had been on all the time, I imagine it was not as economical as one may have thought. Mind you, I did get a £15 rebate from Enterprise from having overfilled it at the end to put towards my next hire, so that was good.

In summary, particularly as my uncle and aunt own a Captur, I would not say it was a bad car at all. However, having recently driven some of the competition such as the Suzuki Vitara and particularly the wonderful Ssangyong Tivoli, it does come across as a little average.

2001 Vauxhall Corsa 1.0 Expression

The final post on this series about driving school cars is about another Vauxhall Corsa. This 2001 Corsa 1.0 Expression is identical to the one I learned to drive in towards the end of my learning career, except it has a different numberplate...

The 1.0 litre three cylinder Family 0 engine produces just over 60 bhp, but as the Corsa 'C' weighs so little, the car never seemed underpowered. The other amazing thing at the time was the electric power assisted steering, a real novelty on cars at the time. It meant that it lacked a bit of road feel, but it was really easy to park, and could be twirled with one little finger from lock to lock (although one would never do such things on a test).

The other revelation was the difference in interior quality between this and the older Corsa. These days, a Corsa 'C' interior seems quite tacky, but in 2001, it seemed high quality and well assembled. The ride and handling were probably OK (it was a while ago now), but the gearbox was typically vague with quite a long throw in the finest Vauxhall tradition.

I passed my test in the Saxo in September 2001, and have driven a fair few cars since...

1994 Vauxhall Corsa 1.4 GLS

Continuing with the driving school cars theme, this is a 1994 Vauxhall Corsa 1.4 GLS (ignore the SI badge on the back, as this refers to the type of engine, not the trim level). A very similar burgundy-coloured one was the other car I learned to drive in back in 2000-2001. My sister's driving instructor had two cars during the time we learned to drive with him, this one and a brand new Corsa later on (more of that in a future instalment).

In contrast to the Saxo that I also drove, the Corsa very substantial, and of a much higher quality. The dashboard was split, with the display set high up far above a unique fit radio (something very new at the time), and then the chunky heating and ventilation controls underneath. The power steering made light work of parking, and all round visibility was excellent.

Despite no standard driver's airbag (this was not the case until a facelift in 1996), the car was definitely safer than the Saxo. It was also faster, thanks to an amazing 82 bhp (as opposed to the 60 bhp from a 1.1 Saxo) from the 1.4 SI engine. (There was also a 60 bhp so called 'Hi-Torq' variant, but this was the more powerful one.) Amazingly, for such a relatively high-powered car, I don't recall it being fitted with a rev counter. The gearing was such that it accelerated fast, but reached 60 mph a bit too quickly, as it seemed to be far too noisy when cruising on the motorway at 70 mph in fifth gear (a trait shared with my housemate's 1.2 SXI Corsa from 2006).

The gearbox was, in truth, not very good (like many Vauxhall gearboxes of the era), but it seemed much better than the Saxo, and it was at least difficult to put it in the wrong gear. The handling probably was not as sharp as the Citroen, but it was hard to tell when one car lacked power steering, and one was so equipped. After around six years of use to teach people to drive, it was sold and another Corsa took its place. This was somewhat differently powered...

1996 Citroen Saxo 1.1 SX

Today sees a new series, looking at driving school cars. We start with the one I (mostly) learned to drive in myself, a 1996 Citroen Saxo 1.1 SX. This largely forgotten French supermini was hugely popular in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Let us look at why this may have been.

Launched to replace the venerable Citroen AX, and indeed sharing many components with it and the Peugeot 106 (Peugeot and Citroen have been the same company since 1974), the Saxo came out in 1996, which means the one I learned to drive in was a very early car, like the one pictured. It was a slightly different colour from this (more like a sandy gold shade), but otherwise identical. The engines were largely carried over from the AX and 106 too, which in this case meant a 1.1 litre TU series motor developing around 60 bhp. This may not sound like much, and by modern standards it is not, but with a kerb weight of around 850 kg, the performance was perfectly acceptable.

Acceptable performance it may have had, but refined it was not. Before being implemented in the 106, the Saxo's twin (many parts are identical), the TU engine series was also used in the Peugeot 205 from 1988, and actually was derived from an even earlier type of unit, the X-series, originally introduced in 1972. Thus, the Saxo always seemed a bit unrefined, particularly at speed. I was thankful that the driving school actually had not chosen the 954cc unit from the basic Saxo. The loss of an extra 150cc may not sound like a big difference, but having spoken to people who drove the 1 litre cars, they were pretty much unbearable.

Another bad area was interior quality. The dashboard was ugly and crude, with a haphazard and dated arrangement of switchgear, some of which was lifted straight from the later years of the Citroen AX, and looks REALLY dated now. The driving position was also terrible, with no seat height or steering wheel adjustment. The ultimate evidence of cost cutting, however, was electric window switches by the handbrake so that they did not need to be moved for left or right hand drive cars. At least there was a standard driver's airbag on all models, but with such a low kerb weight, the car never felt that substantial in comparison with a Corsa or Polo.

Light weight, however, did have some advantages. The Saxo (which always sounds like an uncomfortable combination of Paxo stuffing and Saxa salt in this country) was generally a basic car, and lower specification models, such as the 1.1 SX, did not even have power steering. I thus passed my test in a car without this mostly essential feature, and to this day am pleased that this was the case. The lack of any sort of hydraulic or mechanical assistance meant very good steering feel, which also complemented the Saxo's nimble chassis, a trait shared with the Peugeot 106. The handling was very good indeed, although the car did lean a lot in the bends.

The sportier Saxo VTR and VTS models were massively popular 15-20 years ago, as they were relatively powerful (between 90 and 120 bhp from a 1.6 litre engine), but had a low kerb weight. Citroen also did free insurance deals for young drivers, and Saxos are generally unsophisticated vehicles (even by late 1990s standards), so modifications were easy. It is therefore very, very hard to find a good condition unmodified Saxo these days, particularly one of the performance variants. That is if you genuinely want one...

Another annoying trait in the early models was a keypad immobiliser. I well remember having to punch in the code every time before starting the engine, which got very, very irritating, very, very quickly. Once stalled, there was a bit of grace to get the engine restarted before having to put the code in, but not much. I don't know how reliable the system was either.

The car was not the last word in quality, as I once had a driving lesson cancelled because the gear selector arm had fallen off. I know it was a learner car, but at just four and a half years old, it wasn't exactly impressive. The funniest memory I had was once the car had been sold on, it ended up at the local Citroen dealer in Winchester, and my mother and I drove past. I recognised it immediately, and it was being sold at some super inflated price. Little did they know....

Saxos are not exactly expensive these days, but with mediocre quality, poor reliability and less than impressive ergonomics, money for a cheap runaround can be better spent elsewhere.

2017 Ssangyong Tivoli 1.6 ELX Diesel

Today's little delight is the Ssangyong Tivoli ELX. Most people have never even heard of Ssangyong, let alone the Tivoli, but it is an extremely competitive entry in the so-called 'small crossover' or 'small SUV' market segment.

The one I had the pleasure of driving for just over 24 hours last year (Ssangyong were doing a free no obligation 48 hour test drive at the time) almost caused me to put a deposit down immediately. The top of the range ELX model (this one was a two wheel drive diesel with a six speed manual gearbox) had just about any type of equipment you could care to mention:

-Lane Keep Assistance
-Heated Seats
-Automatic dipping rear view mirror
-Full leather interior
-Three different steering modes
-Front and rear parking sensors
-Automatic lights
-Automatic wipers
-Lane Departure Warning
-7 inch touch screen satellite navigation
-Reversing camera
-Adaptive cruise control
-Dual Zone climate control
-Automatic folding mirrors

Doing the sums, I found out that a fully equipped one like this was available for a pretty ridiculous sum of money on a monthly finance deal, is economical, well put together, powerful and comfortable. Even the handling was impressive.

The fact that this car is considerable cheaper than something like a Suzuki Vitara, Renault Captur or Nissan Juke for seemingly no loss in quality is a massive credit to this relatively unknown South Korean brand. It has to be the most competitive entry in the sector that I have seen, and is more affordable than virtually all of them.

2016 Vauxhall Viva 1.0 SE

In late 2016, when I was looking for a car to replace my beloved 1996 Rover 216 SLI that was more modern, more reliable, and more suitable for my now lady wife to learn to drive in, I looked at a couple of models, one of which was the new Vauxhall Viva. This is a completely different car to the identically named one built at Ellesmere Port from 1963 to 1979, in fact this one is assembled in South Korea by the former Daewoo Motor Company (remember them?) and is largely the same as the Chevrolet Spark.

My parents owned a Vauxhall Viva in the 1970s, and it was an absolutely terrible car. The design had been updated by the time of the HC series Viva of 1971-9, but the underpinnings were still fundamentally the same, which meant a front engined rear-drive layout with leaf springs at the rear. The original HA Viva of 1963 had a 1.1 litre engine, which was subsequently enlarged to 1256cc for most models until the end of production in 1979. This made for sluggish performance (apart from in the sporty Magnum and Firenza variants) and "interesting" handling, amongst other characteristics....

My mother often tells me of how the Viva used to break down on a frequent basis, had uncomfortable seats and was rusting, even at just a few years old. Many people complain about British Leyland being the poster child of British built automotive incompetence in the 1970s, but Ford and Vauxhall were not necessarily much better. The technically unsophisticated Viva was particularly bad, especially compared to the Cavalier and, its front wheel drive replacement, the Astra.

Back in March, I had to take my previous car, a 2014 Chevrolet Cruze, in for some warranty work at the nearest Vauxhall dealership before the warranty expired. (Vauxhall and Chevrolet were once part of the same company until earlier this year, and Chevrolets were sold in Britain until 2015.) I asked for a courtesy car, and was given a 2016 Viva SE.

This little chap had a 1.0 litre three cylinder engine with 75 bhp, as all Vivas do (as well as the identical Opel Karl, sold on the continent), and a five speed manual gearbox. It wasn't very clean when I received it, so I will not be revealing the name of the dealer where I had the Chevy serviced....

My first impression was of a small light car with a tall body and relatively pleasant styling, albeit nothing exceptional. I spent around 28 hours with it, and came away glad that I had forgone the Viva over my lady wife's MG3. It is by no means a bad car, but it did highlight to me that the MG3 is, surprisingly if you read most of the reviews, even better.

Like most small three cylinder units, the engine needs a fairly heavy right foot to make decent progress, but does have a relatively pleasant sound. Being a very light car, it was easy to drive and park, and the gearbox and clutch were pleasant to use. The steering, like many cars these days, was much too light and devoid of feel, and could be made even lighter with a little city button on the dashboard. For many, this would be a good thing, but for the enthusiastic driver, not being able to place the car accurately on the road makes for a less than enjoyable experience. The MG3, with more power and a better chassis, is much better in this respect.

The build quality of the car was overall perfectly acceptable, but with hard scratchy plastics (the bugbear of many motoring writers) on many surfaces, very light doors and some cheap feeling switches, it was far more Daewoo than Vauxhall. At least the standard equipment is reasonable, with air conditioning (an optional extra) fitted to this particular model, along with foglights, lane departure warning, Bluetooth and the aformentioned dual mode power steering. The top of the range (not that there is a very broad one) does have satellite navigation, alloy wheels and more luxurious interior trim.

For a city car, the interior space is OK, although the boot is quite small, and the rear seats are a bit cramped. Similarly priced rivals such as the Dacia Sandero and MG3, however, offer more space and equipment for less money.

Where both the Dacia and MG fall down, though, is running costs. The Viva's 1.0 litre engine is extremely economical and falls in a low tax bracket. It is also very cheap to insure (although the Sandero and MG3 are not exactly expensive), and servicing costs are likely to be low. For a single person or couple living in a city, the Viva does make sense. However, those who regularly carry luggage or more people, and those who frequently venture beyond city limits are likely to find it dynamically unsatisfying. A Skoda Citygo, Volkswagen Up or Seat Mii remains the best choice in the city car class, with the Dacia Sandero and MG3 offering more space and equipment, but with compromises.