Which is actualy better.....?

[k11TZZ]

Up until a week ago i had a low mileage 2002 facelift micra. After years of owning classics i really grew to like the little thing, and now that its been written off Ive decided to get another micra and ive seen a 21000mile 1997 prefacelift that looks to be mint. Realy mint. My question is, would you press a prefacelift into a 40 mile a day trip to work and expect it to be as reliable or generaly as good as a facelift micra? I know there are differences, but im not too sure what they are or if they actualy make the cars that much better. Is there anything I should look out for? Any opintions or knowledge is greatfully received.

 

[karlj]

Mechanically they are almost the same, only difference the facelifts came with coil packs

 

[k11TZZ]

so instead these have carbs and points?

 

[karlj]

No they have a dizzy, only the k10 had a carb

 

[karlj]

CG10 (coil pack)

CG10 (dizzy)

 

[k11TZZ]

ahhhh i see, thanks for that. Im starting to look forward to looking at this little gem. just hope its not full of dents and scratches like the last one i looked at.

 

[MrMigs08]

Hmm reliability, i must do about 100 miles a night lowest when i'm out with a few lads around the area, (Alot)

Now we factor in the odd 6 hour trip and i've ended up with 8000 miles in 1 and a half months on a 1993 pre-facelift micra k11 (And the car still yawns at journeys like that, runs apserlutely beaut)

Your after a 1997 k11 with 21k miles, my advice is you fully check the underbody over for the car killer (RUUUUUUUUUUUUUST) and that if you proceed to buy it then i'd recommend carrying out a standard service to make sure shes up to scratch! (because its nice knowing what you run in your own car )

And dont worry, pre-facelift and facelift, there both still k11's (Pretty much shape for shape, parts for parts) minus security enhancements, you'l have no issues with a looked after pre-facy.

 

[k11TZZ]

cheers, ive been told it has a full service history with it and (i know pictures dont tell the full story) it looks showroom fresh. I shall be taking a torch with me to have a look everywhere i can, and if it is good it will soon be full of waxoil as i have afew cans of the stuff in the garage, both brush on and spray can. Every car ive ever bought gets a full service as soon as possable, and the one thats just been written off was a 60.000miler and had a service a month ago, so waste not want not! Im going to get the old bomb back off the insurance company so I can upgrade to doorpockets and stuff, and whatever else i think is worth it. Years ago i had minis, the first one was a shed, and when that went bang i got a timewarp 21000 miler. This feels like a big backwards step in a way, and i think i like it..

 

[k11TZZ]

Well, i went to have a look at it, got back in my car and drove off. I didnt even knock on his door as before I left I asked ''It is good and straight isnt it, not covered in scratches and dents''. ''no'' he said ''nothing at all its really clean''
When I got there i see there are countless places that have been touched up with a random shade of bronze/copper/orange, dints and dents everywhere and big scrapes on the corners of the bumpers. The add also said new tyres, but im not so sure.
Im really quite dissapointed as I went a fair way to view it and ive just wasted an afternoon when I REALLY need a car to get to work. Low mileage or not, it was either a sack of turd or I have my standards set farrrr too high.

 

[Jay101]

Hard luck.... Ive always gone by " If it sounds to good to be true, then it probably is"

 

[k11TZZ]

I was going to start a new thread but I figured that was pointless as this is all part of the quest in my search for a new micra.
Ive just been to see a low mileage Y reg 1.4. A little high on the asking price, but im not that bothered as i need another car like yesterday. What put me off is when I looked at the engine it looks different to a 1.0?? The airbox looks the same but something else tells me its a slightly different engine. Are the 1.4 the same? Are they as legenderaly reliable as the 1.0? Is there anything I should look out for or should I stick with what I know with the 1.0 (that said, I was rather impressed with the extra poke of the 1.4)

 

[Tchaaa]

If anything (even though they are practically identical) the prefacelift will have no renault input, whereas some of the later facelifts probably would have (just looked it up, renault-nissan started in 1999), so my money would be on the preface outdoing the facelift in terms of things not breaking. However that aside, they are pretty much the same car.

 

[k11TZZ]

Thanks Tchaaa, i think i may have confused things by changing topic halfway through the thread. The one im looking at now is a facelift 1.4, just wondering if they are the same engines as the 1.0, as they look slightly different, im not sure if its just the cam cover, or anything more substantial, and if it means they are any less reliable, otherwise ill stick with what I know, the 1.0.

 

[frank]

it just looks different because its a post 2000 coilpack engine

 

[k11TZZ]

My old black micra was a coilpacker, but something still seemed different. Come to think of it, im sure it didnt have anything cast in the camcover, like 'twin cam 16 valve'. I could be wrong, but something about it just seemed different. Or mabie im talking tosh. But if its the same engine as a 1.0, except its a 1.4, I think im going to go for it, it actualy drove like a new car, and I swear the suspention was stiffer??

opoligies if these seem like simple questions, im just being cautious before parting with my hard earned before i use it for the treck for work. Mind you, it looks like insurance could be a fair bit different.