[Spencernj]

I am not convinced I would buy a new Ceed it seems far too expensive. Here in France a new Ceed Style 1.6 Diesel (similar to a UK 2) costs 22,000 euro. (At current exchange rate this make the French version slightly cheaper than a UK 2, as 22k euro is £17,741 against a UK price of £18,295.)

While its is a nice car for 19,000 euro I can get a top of the range Dacia Duster 4x4 Diesel Laurette model (The Duster is France's 5th best selling car) with a higher spec and Leather which is based in the same chassis and engine as a Nissan Juke but is a bigger car. For 2,000 euro less than the Kia I can get a similar spec Seat Leon or for the same price a higher spec Citroen C4. In my view the Seat and the Citroen are more desirable vehicles. Here in France Ceed at Active/2 level has gone up 5,000 euro (about 22%) from the new to the old and that's too much.

 

[Ceed3]

I have looked at the new Ceed SW in the showroom and was well impressed. It has risen in price from when we bought ours 2 1/2 years ago but the spec has increased substantially, we bought a "3" spec but if I bought today it would be a "2". OTR retail it would be about £1400 more than we paid in 2010 which is not a huge increase from old to new model. OK we would loose a few bits but we would gain quite a few as well, looks pretty even to me.

The alternatives would be the Focus, Astra, Golf, etc etc. They are all smaller and more expensive.

So its not cheap but it still looks like the best buy on paper.

But as always its not the price on the windscreen that matters, its the size of the cheque I need to write and how sharp the dealers pencil is.

 

[Spencernj]

I agree that cost to change is the real figure rather than the sticker price. One of the good things in the UK is dealer discount. In France that is generally none existent. On the upside depreciation is a *lot* lower making 2nd hand cars much dearer.

Sent from my ZTE-BLADE using AutoGuide App

 

[Knorac]

And in C4 and Leon is better engine

 

[seven7]

But as always its not the price on the windscreen that matters, its the size of the cheque I need to write and how sharp the dealers pencil is.

Correct. When we bought ours we looked at getting another Focus Estate since we had been satisfied with the existing one. Problem was it was a bit small in the back seats and the boot lacked space as well. We looked at getting a Mondeo Estate, huge we thought until we looked at the Ceed SW. The Ceed SW had as much luggage space as the Mondeo (way more than the Focus) plus more rear seat space than the Focus (not as much as the Mondeo which was limousine like but over the top in reality). The price of the Focus 1.6 TDCi Titanium was £2000 more than the Ceed SW 3 but the Ceed was better specced, had a 6 speed box and more power (it drove like it had for more than the 5bhp quoted). Ford was giving huge discounts of course but the price to swap was virtually the same, no contest. Just looked at Parkers and they are worth vitually the same as a trade in.

And in C4 and Leon is better engine

Disagree there I am afraid. The C4 engine is the same as the Focus, a good engine but the 1.6 CRDi in the Ceed is better. Had the Focus for 5 years thus have a direct comparison. With regards to the Seat the 1.6 diesel is a slug, an economical slug though, the 1.9 is a noisy slug but the 2.0 is a cracker, more expensive and in a totally different class (to be fair I drove them in the Skoda Octavia and not a Seat but they are identical).

 

[Spencernj]

Disagree there I am afraid. The C4 engine is the same as the Focus, a good engine but the 1.6 CRDi in the Ceed is better. Had the Focus for 5 years thus have a direct comparison. With regards to the Seat the 1.6 diesel is a slug, an economical slug though, the 1.9 is a noisy slug but the 2.0 is a cracker, more expensive and in a totally different class (to be fair I drove them in the Skoda Octavia and not a Seat but they are identical).

Agree on the Citroen engine the PSA/Ford diesels aren't bad but do seem to wear more than the Kia ones and get more rattly and noisy quite quickly. The VW Group engines in the Seat are bullet-proof though. When did you try one as VW revised their engines about two years ago and moved from the PD engine which used a low pressure common rail to a proper Common Rail version. The PD engine was noisy because of the cam actuated injectors.

 

[dubster]

Had a brand new Seat Altea with 1.6TDi engine for 2 weeks last month, initially felt more powerful than our 89hp 1.4 Pro, but actually it was about the same.
All the power was delivered between 1500 & 2200 RPM, thus it ran outta steam almost instantly, and outside that very small range it was utter pants.

Ok so it managed 48mpg over the 2 weeks on my country lane commute, which isn't bad but way off the quoted 56mpg urban consumption.

 

[Spencernj]

Had a brand new Seat Altea with 1.6TDi engine for 2 weeks last month, initially felt more powerful than our 89hp 1.4 Pro, but actually it was about the same.
All the power was delivered between 1500 & 2200 RPM, thus it ran outta steam almost instantly, and outside that very small range it was utter pants.

Ok so it managed 48mpg over the 2 weeks on my country lane commute, which isn't bad but way off the quoted 56mpg urban consumption.

Dubster was that your 1st Diesel? The power band issue is pretty typical of most diesel engines,even turbos. They are pretty useless above 3000. The opposite of modern small petrol engines which need a good rev. You get used to changing up early and using all the torque.

 

[seven7]

Agree on the Citroen engine the PSA/Ford diesels aren't bad but do seem to wear more than the Kia ones and get more rattly and noisy quite quickly. The VW Group engines in the Seat are bullet-proof though. When did you try one as VW revised their engines about two years ago and moved from the PD engine which used a low pressure common rail to a proper Common Rail version. The PD engine was noisy because of the cam actuated injectors.

We tried them about 2 1/2 years ago. The 1.6 and 2 litre were both common rail but not sure about the 1.9, cannot remember why we drove it to be honest, Noah had the same block as a back up motor in the Ark, fine back then but things have moved on a huge amount.

Dubster is spot on with his description of the power delivery, forgotten about that. Seem to remember it came in with a bang at about 1800 rpm and died instantly you reached 3500 rpm. Exactly like our old TDi in the 90's which was OK then but as I said above, things have moved on a lot.

STOP PRESS. Just remembered why we drove the 1.9 TDi, it was the same price as the 1.6 TDi which was dire, we hoped it would be somewhere between the 1.6 and 2.0, we were wrong.

Dubster was that your 1st Diesel? The power band issue is pretty typical of most diesel engines,even turbos. They are pretty useless above 3000. The opposite of modern small petrol engines which need a good rev. You get used to changing up early and using all the torque.

Disagree there. Our Ceed does not become useless at just above 3000 rpm. When you are overtaking it pulls well above 4000 rpm without the performance dropping off, the Focus was pretty much the same to be honest.

 

[Spencernj]

The 1.9 will definitely be the PD engine as will the 1.6 at that time. They weren't bad but the cam actuated injectors on the PD system made them noisy. The PD (Pompe Deuce I think it means) system was made by Bosch & fitted to these VW diesels about 2003/4 to meet emission standards and reduced the power of the engine and torque. They were better before. The PD engines were called Common Rail but weren't CR as we know it. It was never as good a system as proper electrical actuated injectors but was cheaper. It was dropped in 2010 again due to new emissions standards. You are right about the 2.0 its a cracking engine Jeep used the 140bhp version in the Patriot until recently. The post 2010 VW 1.6 is a different engine AFAIK.

Sent from my ZTE-BLADE using AutoGuide App

 

[seven7]

The 1.9 will definitely be the PD engine as will the 1.6 at that time.

Found the on-line brochure I downloaded when we looked in July 2010. Its dated January 2010 therefore the specs in it are relevant to the July cars we drove.

The 1.6 is described as "Common rail with DPF" the 1.9 as "PD Direct Fuel Injection" and the 2.0 as "Common Rail".

Sorry, but on this occasion you are definitely wrong.

 

[Spencernj]

Dont mind being wrong and yes I would seem to be on the 1.6 as you are right the PD engine does not support a DPF.

And the PD was killed off mid 2010 anyway due to Euro V emission standards.

I believe the CRD 1.6 is just a small version of the 2.0 and should be decent not driven one myself only a 2.0.

I only happen to know a little about these engines as Jeep used VW diesels until 2010 when they. swapped to using Mercedes

Sent from my ZTE-BLADE using AutoGuide App

 

[seven7]

I believe the CRD 1.6 is just a small version of the 2.0 and should be decent not driven one myself only a 2.0.

Its certainly is not decent, its a slug. Both myself and Dubster have driven it and agree.

 

[Ace Demon]

Disagree there. Our Ceed does not become useless at just above 3000 rpm. When you are overtaking it pulls well above 4000 rpm without the performance dropping off, the Focus was pretty much the same to be honest.

Same here. I get the impression that the pedal response has been given a deliberate feel to encourage a change up when driving gently- no point using 3000rpm when 2000rpm will do. Easy to do throttle-less engine and, in principle, the same algorithm that controls an autobox.

Press the pedal hard, it delivers just fine.

 

[Spencernj]

Its certainly is not decent, its a slug. Both myself and Dubster have driven it and agree.

Then again I would not get the Seat anyway as I think they have gone off the boil compared to a few years ago. The Mark II Toledo/Original Leon was a great car but the latest models have gone a bit style over substance to me. (we had a 1.9 Altea in the family of a while after a two MkII Toledo's didn't like it much).

I was just using them as an example of the price range that Kia is now in is quite populated with reasonable cars and that Kia's USP was price -v- quality but the new Ceed seems a little "me-too" in price and spec and is not the "steal" the old one was. When I got the Kia which was only meant to be a stop-gap car I looked at the equivalent "Eco" Focus and Golf but could not justify the extra for them making the Kia a no-brainer if you could get over the badge snobbery. Now it would be more difficult.

Seems Honest John thinks the same as he says "Hyundai, Kia and Skoda have focussed more on value rather than list price, moved upmarket and got increasingly more expensive"

 

[skidlid]

Forget the old days when Kia's were cheap, cheerful cars with dated dynamics and pretty dreadful interiors, they were pretty reliable though.

Kia now want to play with the mainstream manufacturers and that means cars that compete head on. The old Ceed was a match for the Focus and from what I have seen the new one is even better.

Forget the ticket price, that's where the negotiations start. If the ticket price was final I would never have bought the last 2 Fords, managed about 25% off those to bring them down to a realistic price.

A new Focus Zetec 1.6 TDCi estate is virtually £20000. Its probably is not as well equipped if you looked closely at the spec sheet as the Ceed "2", for starters cruise control is £250 extra on the Focus. Its only 115 bhp against the Ceeds 128 bhp although the torque figures are similar.

The current price of the Ceed CRDi "2" SW is £18545, thats about £1700 less than the Focus after you add the Cruise option.

As noted in an earlier post its the £££'s difference top change that matters and not the brochure price but since the Ceed is bigger with a better dealer backup (trust me, Ford is not good when you need help) my money would still be on the Ceed even it it was about the same price. Our Ceed actually cost us about the same as the Focus we looked at but the Ceed was a way better car and we have had no regrets so far.

Most people don't want cheap, they want a product that does the job they want done. Providing the overall Ceed package is as good as the competitors it will sell.

If you want cheap buy a Dacia.

 

[dubster]

Spencer, I've not had any other diesels long-ish term, only driven diesel company cars for a day or two (Astra and a 5 series BMW auto - which also felt gutless tbh).

Wasn't impressed with the engine in the Altea but the car itself was pretty good, handled well, had a nice cockpit & reasonable stereo.

I certainly won't buy anything new again, but will gladly go back to a pro_cee'd when the current Astra dies.

Agreed their prices have jumped up a lot, but they're great value & spec for the money compared to ford/vauxhall/etc.

Am really interested to see the next pro_ in the flesh though. Not keen on the current 5 door cee'd and not sure the pro looks different enough from it, apart from 2 less doors