1999 Vauxhall Vectra LS 1.8 petrol
Summary:
Nowhere near as bad as they say
Faults:
Rough idle, passenger electric window failed, ABS sensor, plus all the usual consumables for mileage. All were reasonable on pricing to repair and I made sure the car had its oil changes on time.
General Comments:
This Vectra I had a while ago was a decent car. Nothing special, that is for sure, but I remember reading a lot of negativity in the motoring press at the time, but I took a test drive and didn't find the car bad, so I bought it used in 2004 and it turned out to be pretty good and lasted me 7 years before I got bored with it.
1.8 LS is pretty basic and nothing exciting to drive, but since it is a 1999 car, I believe this was the updated new improved version of the 1995 car. Handled OK, moved fast enough and was economical. Good looking car also.
Traded it back in 2011 and it was still going strong with over 120K on it, engine never missed a beat.
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes
Review Date: 18th December, 2022
11th Jun 2010, 17:04
Why would you even compare the Vectra 140 to a Civic Type R in the review to start with though? It seems like an unnecessary dig (a common thing on this site with people always trying to compare their cars to the CTR - I guess it is that big of a bench mark?).
The Civic is what it is, and I don't get why people try to bash it. If you buy one, you know it doesn't have the low end punch of a turbo car, but you buy it for other reasons (of which there are many: such as the noise, having in effect two engines to choose from day to day, and ultra reliability etc etc).
As for the 140 Vectra, I have no doubt it is a perfectly competent car and may well have more low end torque than a Civic Type R, but at the end of the day, the two cars are nothing alike and making the comparison only sets you up for comments like this. It's not even a hatchback, let alone a hot hatch... the same criticism goes to Civic Type R owners comparing their cars to BMW 3 series.