Forum menu
I've heard these are quite economical... anyone got one?
How reliable are they?
We are looking at a 2007 model. We had a Ford Galaxy Ghia 2.3 petrol a while ago, which had the build quality of a stack of Jenga bricks. It was utter sh1te with all sorts of bits falling off it.
Is the VW better?
I swapped company cars a few years ago with a colleague who had a Alhambra and we spent 3 weeks in the Dordogne. I was impressed with the Seat and almost bought one the next time I was renewing my car.
Cheaper than some of the others and build quality seemed OK, it was 2 years old when we used it.
That was the 1.9TDI and performance and economy I recall were OK.
Just a thought!
They are normally the most economical of the people carriers, but they (were) built along the same line as the older Galaxy, they have issues with the air conditioning system failing very quickly, but apart from that there isn't much else to say about them. The SEAT Alhambra normally comes in cheaper and better specced than the VW.
They're the same thing aren't they? All built in Spain - the only difference being how good the dealers are.
I've got one (02 manual version). They're ok - we had the air condition fixed when we bought it by the garage (it would've been about a grand if we'd paid for it)
make sure its got the correct tyres - it needs special reinforced ones (dunlop or michilin) - other cheaper ones just fall apart.
Its not bad to drive for a bus - ours does about 42-44 mpg on a motorway run at about 80.
had an 02 galaxy 1.9tdi 115 same as above 42mpg mway at 80-85
55mpg if drop to steady 50
air con is a design fault - needs the heat exchanger ( i think) replacing approx every 18months - so find out if has been done and factor in - its the only reason i got rid of ours
have a look on honestjohns.
i had a 99 one, i really liked it but the air con was a real issue (in that sense i was sold a lemon) and i spent over 1k and it still did'nt work for more than a few months.
mine had about 110k on the clock when i sold it, there were also a few rattles and the like developing that were going to cost some money to sort. but for overall build quality it was head and shoulders above the kia i have now.
for driving it was superb esp on mortorways, arm rests down and latte in the cup holders and you are off! with all rear seats out it is cavernous and can easily be camped in with a couple of bikes.
mpg was very good (i had the onboard computer to play with), easily 40mpg+ . and for what its worth shell fuel gave the best mileage, so much so that i used to wait for shell stations to fill up. tesco was the worst.
there is also a common fault with the air mass meter (or whatever its called). i would be driving along and suddenly for no apparent reason the car would lose all top end as the turbo would stop, it meant pulling over and stopping the car for a few mins then it would be right.
Thats strange regarding your Kia, I have an 03 plate Sedona SE 2.9 diesel (not the most economical of the people carriers) but its been brilliant, we've done 70,000 miles in it since we bought it and all we've done is service it, there are no creaks and groans and its totally reliable.
Its main faults are its barge like driving and its poor fuel economy, you can thank Ford for the VW driving properly as they were the ones who insisted on the Sharan/Galaxy range being a good drive.
IMO try and find a 2.0 tdi 140. the 1.9 is a bit slow. Trust me you wont regret it. I am getting 50 mpg in my 2.0tdi 140 passat. 700miles + from a full tank costing £73 (only works out at about 10p per mile) and it's alot faster and more responsive that the 1.9