Restore My Faith In Galaxies!?

[ric220]

My '99 sharan 1.8t is getting beyond aged and I've decided to let her go. She's done 32k miles in 20 months (now 113k on the clock) and I've reached the point where I'm throwing money into a car I've fallen out of love with. Numerous electrical problems coupled with under bonnet sensors going pop every couple of months have worn me down, and I suspect the gearbox is dying. Brilliant engines though those vag 1 8t's! But, the space, versatility and handling are brilliant and so I naturally looked at similar sharan / galaxy options (sub £1000k). However Honest John states that their reliability record is abysmal and suggests I steer clear! Really? The alternatives are the laughably unreliable Voyager or the similarly useless Citroën c8 / Peugeot 807 (I've got a partner and 4 kids so it's gotta be big). So, my question is: does the galaxy / sharan platform have fundamental flaws or do I just need to choose the right engine? I know about the universal tailgate wiring issues etc but which engine is the most reliable? I'm hoping Honest John was reviewing the duffer and there's a peach of an engine out there!? I'd prefer auto but it's not essential. Thanks all.

[sasquartch]

All Galaxy Mk 2 models are now quite old - so if funds allow I'd go for the Mk 3 or S Max

 

A 99 car is now 16 years old so perhaps not suprising it's getting troublesome. Your comment about engine sensors is interesting - my experience with BMWs is that OEM stuff from the dealer of OEM make is fine, ebay cheap bits aren't.  Perhaps you've had a bad experience with inferior parts ?

 

My 2005 Galaxy was bought brand new and is now 10 years old with 95k and has been pretty fault free - only real failings have been driveshaft boots, drop links, heater fan resistor and the usual windscreen wiper linkage issues.

 

So no complaints at all.

 

Can't see any of the alternatives being much better, anything French is a lottery when they get old especially with electrics. I did look at a Toyota Previa when looking at Galaxys, seem very reliable but rather basic and van like to drive at least in diesel form

[ric220]

Thanks Sas. So in terms of reliability what would you suggest the ideal mk2 engine / gearbox combination is? I was thinking diesel manual? I'd prefer auto but hear a lot of horror stories...

[seatkid]

I naturally looked at similar sharan / galaxy options (sub £1000k).

 

 £1m? I think you could get a pretty good example...

 

for under a £1000, I think most examples will be riddled with at least one major or several minor problems. THe Shalaxy is such a "useful to have for all sorts of reasons car" that old examples are only disposed of when the owners are facing major expenditure.

 

As with any car under £1000, requires careful examination by someone with knowledge. Draw a list of faults - theres bound to be a few - and work out the total cost to fix. Is it worth it? the only source of a car that cheap that stands a chance of being ok is a private sale (beware traders working out of home)

 

Avoid autos like the plague - they invariably have a limited life and cant really be fixed without changing the entire box - expensive. 1.9tdi manual models are the best of the bunch. 90bhp (ahu or 1Z engines pre 2000) more reliable than the 110bhp afn  or later PD engines which have the sticky vane turbo.

 

You may get lucky but honestly for under £1000 your unlikely to get anything that doesnt need several hundred pounds of repairs and will probably be well over ten years old.

Edited April 20, 2015 by seatkid

[BrianH]

My '99 sharan 1.8t is getting beyond aged and I've decided to let her go. She's done 32k miles in 20 months (now 113k on the clock) and I've reached the point where I'm throwing money into a car I've fallen out of love with. Numerous electrical problems coupled with under bonnet sensors going pop every couple of months have worn me down, and I suspect the gearbox is dying. Brilliant engines though those vag 1 8t's! But, the space, versatility and handling are brilliant and so I naturally looked at similar sharan / galaxy options (sub £1000k). However Honest John states that their reliability record is abysmal and suggests I steer clear! Really? The alternatives are the laughably unreliable Voyager or the similarly useless Citroën c8 / Peugeot 807 (I've got a partner and 4 kids so it's gotta be big). So, my question is: does the galaxy / sharan platform have fundamental flaws or do I just need to choose the right engine? I know about the universal tailgate wiring issues etc but which engine is the most reliable? I'm hoping Honest John was reviewing the duffer and there's a peach of an engine out there!? I'd prefer auto but it's not essential. Thanks all.

 

My petrol ford engined 97 2.0 is upto 190k now, so its capable of a fair thrashing over its lifespan, its also suprisingly easier to do some jobs on it than the Mondeo I've also got (the clutch being one of them). Haven't had any sensor problems with mine just a fair number of electrical issues (all the usual ones it seems). I've generally found HJ seems to slate certain vehicles with no real basis for doing so anyway and what you've mentioned doesn't seem to mention anything specific.

[Bigjeeze]

I have 2 Galaxies both from new. A MK1 1997 - very  old now - has 150K on the clock. I have had to replace one wheel bearing, The Cat , 2 roll restrictors, the gear change cables, a couple of lower wishbone bushes and the alternator. Apart from service items, discs , pads etc. it is entirely original . It has never had any electric problems and has the original MAF sensor. It is in daily use and apart from looking it's age will probably keep going for a while longer yet.

 

My 2001 MK2 has 219K on the clock , has had a new clutch at 138k an alternator, two replacement drive shaft extensions and a pair of drive shafts. I have also had a water pump, a rear calliper, an new exhaust and various small items. I have not had any electrical problems at all, I still have the original MAF and the car is going well. So I would consider buying a 10 year old MK2 but would perhaps look for a good example.

 

Honest John may be honest but he doesn't speak for all of us.

[ric220]

Many thanks all! You've restored some of my confidence! Seat Kid - I've had lots of experience of buying older cars and there's a heck of a lot of older motors out there with tens of thousands of miles left in them. I was simply wanting to get people's views on what engine and gearbox combination is the most reliable. I'm guessing diesel manual? Thanks again.

[marinabrid]

we had mk1 tdi 110 manual for 10 years and was great,  only sold as it was 15 and sold it while it had some worth,   the wife liked autos and tan leather so we saw a 70,000 mile 1 owner 2.8 auto    after reading the horror stories of auto box  i wondered if it was a gamble  but as the car was immaculate  we took a chance,   in the 12 months we've had it  its fabulous   a far smoother refined car more than the mk 1   the auto box seems as smooth as silk   but also we do only 700 miles year    so maybe my milage on autobox won't be as the more normal driver, 

the only bad thing with 2.8 is the poor mpg     around 20 to 27 according to the computer on the dash, once again not really relevant to my low miles  but someone driving a 2.8 every day would need deep pockets,      so think its if you find a nice one and test it    then as with any  its a bit of a gamble. in the 10years of the mk1   i had no issues with door wiring       this one though i have had to repair both front doors wiring to fix the electric windows and a coil pack to fix a lumpy tick over.  its a pleasant change though in winter to get in a car and its warm in a few mins   rather than the tdi   when it had to drive a long way and have the booster working to get heat. 

[BrianH]

 

My '99 sharan 1.8t is getting beyond aged and I've decided to let her go. She's done 32k miles in 20 months (now 113k on the clock) and I've reached the point where I'm throwing money into a car I've fallen out of love with. Numerous electrical problems coupled with under bonnet sensors going pop every couple of months have worn me down, and I suspect the gearbox is dying. Brilliant engines though those vag 1 8t's! But, the space, versatility and handling are brilliant and so I naturally looked at similar sharan / galaxy options (sub £1000k). However Honest John states that their reliability record is abysmal and suggests I steer clear! Really? The alternatives are the laughably unreliable Voyager or the similarly useless Citroën c8 / Peugeot 807 (I've got a partner and 4 kids so it's gotta be big). So, my question is: does the galaxy / sharan platform have fundamental flaws or do I just need to choose the right engine? I know about the universal tailgate wiring issues etc but which engine is the most reliable? I'm hoping Honest John was reviewing the duffer and there's a peach of an engine out there!? I'd prefer auto but it's not essential. Thanks all.

 

My petrol ford engined 97 2.0 is upto 190k now, so its capable of a fair thrashing over its lifespan, its also suprisingly easier to do some jobs on it than the Mondeo I've also got (the clutch being one of them). Haven't had any sensor problems with mine just a fair number of electrical issues (all the usual ones it seems). I've generally found HJ seems to slate certain vehicles with no real basis for doing so anyway and what you've mentioned doesn't seem to mention anything specific.

 

 

To give you a better idea - new clutch, brake pads and discs all round, front drop links, the entire exhaust except for the manifold (it rotted away in many places and was beyond saving). Brought it with wiring issues (tailgate and drivers door mainly - windows, central locking, rear screen heater etc all randomly  worked) a broken clock spring (airbag) and relay 30 issues. other than that its been routine service for the most part (it has a couple of slight issues, but nothing too major except for the master cylinder (finding the correct one at the time was a problem). Its done around 65k over that time so can't really complain!

[sasquartch]

As stated in my earlier post I've no complaints about my Galaxy in the 10 years Ive owned it from new.

 

The 115 manual is probably the best bet for reliability - the 130 and 150 models have a DMF which might well need replacing when it gets old and isn't particularly cheap.

 

I'll probably sell mine in a couple of years - I reckon it's still worth a couple of grand even now with 94k and full history / one owner from new - however the body has lots of dings and minor scrapes.

 

I'd reckon a grand won't get you anything too nice - although there must be lots of people like me out there who have owned from new and will sell as their families have grown up and no longer need a MPV. So look around :-)

[ric220]

Thanks all. So just to be clear, the diesel is likely to be more reliable than the petrol 2.3? And what's the view on manual v auto? Thanks again.

[BrianH]

Unless theres a good reason for having the auto box the manual would be the choice for most people. Given that your having issues with your auto box (in your other post) that probabbly tells you alot anyway!. Its rare to see many problems on here that catch people out with the 2.3 petrol, the diesel ones seem more common, but both are usually fixable.

 

The older ones will probabbly have suffered from years of abuse though, particually the interior (speaker panels seem to be broken on alot i've seen).

 

I'd personally in your position investigate the gearbox issue a bit more anyway, if its been getting gradually worse it could be related to the fluid rather than anything major.

[ric220]

Thanks again Brian. I was just hoping I'd been unlucky with my sharan gearbox! There's other electrical issues, a hesitating when starting and accelerating, rumbling wheel bearings etc which mean it's time for a change. There's certainly a lot of 2.3s out there with less than 100k miles. I'll see what I can get for the sharan which will dictate my budget to some extent. Thanks

[ric220]

Ps yes the speaker covers in Galaxies / Sharans are made of the most brittle plastic known to man! The indicator stalks (certainly in the sharan) feel like they were made by Proton on a bad day too..

[BrianH]

Alot of the 2.3 ones will be shunned to some degree to perceived fuel consumption, this may or may not matter to you, depends how much you use the car really!. The stalks in both should be identical on the same spec. The 2.0 doesn't manage too badly for what it is economy wise.

 

And yes brittle isn't the half of it - the only one somewhat intact in mine is the drivers one.

[seatkid]

Don't forget that 2.0L and 2.3L petrol Ford Galaxies have Ford engines and gearboxes. VW petrol (2.0L) and SEAT(1.8L/2.0L) petrol variants have VW engines and gearboxes.

 

All V6 2.8L variants by by VW.

 

All diesels are by VW with Mk1 manual gearboxes by Ford and Mk2 manual gearboxes by VW, and autogearboxes by Jatco which although Japanese is borderline rated in this application hence the short life particularly if its had caravan pulling duty.

[viperclive]

I have a Mk1 2.3 Ghia X with LPG conversion, the engine has done 251,000 miles and still goes on strong. Apart from usual wear out items I've had no problems with the engine,with lpg at 60p a litre every time I top up my lpg tank (£25) I've saved £25ish.

[BrianH]

Out of interest what sort of milage do you get out of that tankful? I get around 200 miles out of a fill on my 2.0 of around 47l which isn't as much as the other car i've got manages, but i wouldn't really expect it to be as the Galaxy is bigger and heavier.

[sparky Paul]

Just my two penn'orth...

 

The 2.3 Ford engine is totally bombproof if serviced correctly, and gives fewer problems in general than the diesel. The 2.3 is also great to drive. Prices are also lower and there are plenty of good low mileage examples about, so you can be choosy.

 

On the downside, ours averages around 30mpg, the answer is a LPG conversion which puts the fuel costs on par with the diesel.

 

The 2.0 litre petrol has to work hard in the big body, and fuel economy is no better than the 2.3.

 

 

Mk1 manual gearboxes by Ford and Mk2 manual gearboxes by VW, and autogearboxes by Jatco which although Japanese is borderline rated in this application hence the short life particularly if its had caravan pulling duty.

 

The exception to this is the mk.2 2.3 petrol, which carried over the 5 speed Ford VTX75 gearbox from the mk.1.

[sparky Paul]

Out of interest what sort of milage do you get out of that tankful? I get around 200 miles out of a fill on my 2.0 of around 47l which isn't as much as the other car i've got manages, but i wouldn't really expect it to be as the Galaxy is bigger and heavier.

 

I don't know what sort of driving that is, but that doesn't sound good...

 

Ours eats about £40 a week doing mixed driving, so that would be approx 36L... and it does 230+ miles on that.

Edited April 26, 2015 by sparky Paul

[BrianH]

 

Out of interest what sort of milage do you get out of that tankful? I get around 200 miles out of a fill on my 2.0 of around 47l which isn't as much as the other car i've got manages, but i wouldn't really expect it to be as the Galaxy is bigger and heavier.

 

I don't know what sort of driving that is, but that doesn't sound good...

 

Ours eats about £40 a week doing mixed driving, so that would be approx 36L... and it does 230+ miles on that.

 

Long distance mix of motorway and a roads, and sitting in traffic (I use it for work, I work all over the place mainly in the south/southeast/east area, though occasionaly elsewhere, including London on a far too regular basis).

 

Bear in mind this is 47l at 57.9p not 111.9p though. (47l costing £27.12) its reckoned you lost about 20% of the mpg vs the petrol figure, but since its far cheaper its still a saving.

 

I've long been of the opinion that the 2.0 is underpowered at best (to get 70mph on the motorway in 5th I'm going at around 3200rpm on the flat on petrol or gas). As you say it is heavy anyway, I think i'd go for a 2.3 given the choice now if a good one came up.

[viperclive]

If Im careful 170 around town and about 200 when I head up north on the motorways, I do a lot of mileage so i covered the cost of the conversion within the first year, been reaping the benefits since and I've had her 6 years.

[BrianH]

If Im careful 170 around town and about 200 when I head up north on the motorways, I do a lot of mileage so i covered the cost of the conversion within the first year, been reaping the benefits since and I've had her 6 years.

 

Not too much of a difference really between the two it sounds like then, though the general consensus is the 2.3 is the nicer of the two to drive. Cheers

[sparky Paul]

Bear in mind this is 47l at 57.9p not 111.9p though. (47l costing £27.12) its reckoned you lost about 20% of the mpg vs the petrol figure, but since its far cheaper its still a saving.

 

Ah, on LPG... I missed that bit. That explains the discrepancy - 20% loss is about right.

[BrianH]

 

Bear in mind this is 47l at 57.9p not 111.9p though. (47l costing £27.12) its reckoned you lost about 20% of the mpg vs the petrol figure, but since its far cheaper its still a saving.

 

Ah, on LPG... I missed that bit. That explains the discrepancy - 20% loss is about right.

 

 

Yeah i probabbly should have worded my post a bit more clearly!. Incidently it looks like relay 30 on mine has started to act up on mine again, not bad for a 2nd hand one to have done 60,000 miles though. Got the other one i took out in the car as a spare having soldered it after discovering what was wrong with it in the first place anyway!