Quote Ajw71="Ajw71"...
3. Initial cost - There is a claim fee and a hearing fee (£200 approx)'"
... but you get those back if you win
Quote Ajw71="Ajw71"...4. You may need to instruct a solicitor at further cost unless you know how to conduct litigation;
'"
Not at all, the small claims track is specifically designed to discourage legal representation, and even if you turn up with a lawyer, he or she may find the judge gives them short shrift and just takes the case over.
Quote Ajw71="Ajw71"...6.You are highly unlikely to be awarded the car at the lower price - you have a duty to mitigate your loss which means you can't sit on your hands for six months bemoaning the fact they didn't sell you the car. You need to actively source another car and your claim would then be for the difference in price, not £1300. '"
But there isn't "a car" that exists which could "be awarded". By the date of any hearing the dealers will probably have turned over their stock many times. There's no chance that they would somehow "keep" the more expensive model and see what happens!
I actually think it is a case where specific performance could actually be the best remedy. The judgment would be I think that the defendants do provide the claimant with a 2.0L model within the spec at the contract price or alternatively pay him compo based on their own calculation of the loss: it is THEY who have conveniently taken a position that a 2.0L equivalent bought from them costs £X. If that is the case, and if the OP is happy to accept their assessment, then the value of his loss is simply the difference. That is based on the likelihood that being such a big dealership they would very likely have, or be able to easily get, another of the model he wanted.
If the OP did actually mitigate his loss as you say, then wouldn't he have achieved something which the dealer says is impossible, i.e. buying a 2.0L equivalent at a lower price than that quoted? It would make them look even more stupid.