OT cars.

'Champ' wrote...>

"shed"

 

Because it's an estate car.

HTH.

 

Blimey. I didn't think they sold more than about 5, but 17 show up on
autotrader in the sub £1k bracket. Mostly about 10 years old with upwards
of 120k on the clock. Only 1 of the 17 is a diesel.

 

The diesel version should be avoided. It's not particularly economical
and can be troublesome.

 

The same could be said for Alfa Romeos, but you've bought a shit load
of those in your time.

 

Two, (or several), wrongs, don't make a right.

--
JackH

98 Honda VFR800FiW
03 VW Passat TDI Sport (Resting)
00 VW Golf 1.9 TDI SE Estate

 

The criteria is 'bulletproof', so a known to be unreliable car probably
doesn't fit the criteria....

Which is entirely unrelated to me buying Alfa Romeos, so I'd change your
bait if I were you.

 

Give over. That would mean Ace would have to start calling his car a
station wagon. You'd be driving a sedan...

 

about 30 minutes later, pizza

 

NO car is bulletproof, all have their quirks and faults. Volvo owners
are in the same league as BMW bike owners when it comes to
overexagerating the reliability and fuel consumption of their vehicles.

I've only known two Volvos to be almost perfectly reliable, and they
had the shitty Renault engines. My dad had a 340 1.4 which was 100%
reliable in 3 years and 150K miles, and then he traded that against a
340 1.7 which popped an oil pressure switch at 120K miles, then popped
the new one a week later. I fitted a third and that lasted til the car
was scrapped a year or so ago with 245K miles on the clock.

All the Volvo 7s and 9s I've known have had the same amount of problems
you get with any car - odd things going wrong here and there. They are
certainly not bullet proof but they are pretty good. I'd say the same
about Omegas, especially the ones with the BMW 2.5 engine, not perfect,
but generally good, and they drive a fucking sight better than the
Volvo tank.

 

One good thing about Volvos is that they're pretty simple technology, so
easy to fix if they do break....

One bad thing about the Omega is that it has the dubious honour of being
rated as less reliable than the Alfa 156.

 

My friend Wendy's has about 140K miles on it now, does a 40 mile round
trip every day and has been reliable in the 18 months she's owned it.
She'll be selling it to get somethng smaller now she's moving house
closer to work and two of her kids are moving out.

 

Alfa or Omega?

 

You and your damned fancy Greek language. It's not a Beta either

Omega Estate 2.5 diseasel on a Y plate. My housemate is likely buying
it. He only does about 3K miles a year, so reliability is not top of
the list, but having comfort and toys is, which it has.

 

(SteveH) wrote in :

It's rather academic really.

10 year old AC Delco electronics. 10 year old Magnetti Marelli electronics.

They will **** up. If you are lucky it will be something irrelevant like
the windscreen washer bottle water level sensor. On the other hand it could
be something that makes the car uneconomical to repair.

Prace bets.

 

Bosch, in the case of the Alfa, with a few bits by Nippon Denso, too.

The only bits that ever seem to go wrong on them are made by the Krauts.

 

Which just proves that all the reliability surveys can generally be
ignored.

The What Car? survey, at least, puts the Omega a few places below the
156 - as I recall, the JD Power Surveys say the same.

We have a 132k mile, 9 year old 156 on the drive that has never broken
down.

 

How do you know? You haven't even been driving for 9 years.

 

Just short of 11 years, actually.

Nothing untoward in the history and certainly nothing other than
consumables in the 4-ish years we've had it.

The point still stands, though, that the Omega is no more reliable than
a 156.

 

I'd have it paraded in the Vatican as a Holy Relic, if I were you.