Buying new car

[markus.balu1 10]

Hi thinking of buying corrado 2.0 16v but first I would like to know few things about them....is it really that heavy on petrol ???is there any major problem wit them if the are any????? Is the parts expensive??? Is it reliable??? And is it good and nice car to drive???? Thanx

[Andy-H 0]

Hi,

Mine returns about 35 - 37 mpg when I'm on the commute but I need to sort my fuelling as it's running rich at the mo. My previous one used to be over 40mpg most of the time. Most engine components are reasonably cheap to replace, it's the bodywork that can be expensive for panels. Make sure you get one that has been well maintained, I bought one that had been in storage for a couple of years and it has given me headaches. I use mine daily and now I have sorted the issues, it's as reliable as any other car. They're great cars to drive :)

[seanl82 23]

As above. Many parts are obsolete so getting hard to find, and those parts can be expensive if you manage to find someone selling new old stock.

 

http://wiki.the-corrado.net/the_corrado_buying_guide_checklist.html

[markus.balu1 10]

Thanx guys 40 mpg that is not bad at all I just to have ford focuc 1.4 16v zetec and that was something like 35mpg

[kdub 10]

Most of the corrados will return 30plus mpg. The 8 and 16v should be 35 plus.

 

Just remember this is a modern classic and things do go wrong and you have to do a lot of searching sometimes to find the best solution to the problem.

 

Just concentrate on a rust free car that has been cared for. We'll worth the extra few hundred to have a sorted car from a careful corrado owner than a worn out boy racer one. So do your homework and don't be afraid to travel for the right car.

[markus.balu1 10]

Thanx just wondering which engine is better 2.0 16v or 1.8 16v????

[seanl82 23]

2.0 bottom end with a 1.8 head! It's a good mod to gain some power. In all honesty, there are pros and cons to both. I test drove a 2.0 and was a bit disappointed with the performance, so opted for the 1.8. They both produce exactly the same figures in terms of performance, but I felt the 1.8 was a bit more responsive and had better pull up the revs. That said, the 1.8 is the older early style, which uses k-jet fuel delivery which can be a bit temperamental, and there is very little in the way of general diagnostics. The early style does have its benefits though. Parts seem to be less expensive than on the later cars, and they are very basic so easy to work on yourself.

[markus.balu1 10]

Is the k-jet better???

[seanl82 23]

Not really no. It's a pretty primitive fuel injection system, very fiddly and difficult to set up correctly. Not many places now have any experience with it, so go in ham fisted and make matters worse. If it's running ok to begin with, leave it alone. Too many people start fiddling with the mixture screw and balls it up. The cars are at the age now where the fuelling system has started breaking down. Injectors get clogged, seals are brittle, and too much air is introduced which causes rough running. This is where people start fiddling and creating more problems. If you want reliability, go 2.0 and if you want more power, cams from the 1.8 will give you plenty extra.

[Andy-H 0]

2.0 bottom end with a 1.8 head! It's a good mod to gain some power.

 

This is how mine is. It's a noticeable difference to my old 2.0 16v. Along with some cams, the 50mm inlet, a pipercross panel filter, Jetex stainless exhaust complete with 4 branch and it's a little flyer :)