Hi,
I'm considering purchasing a small-mid sized SUV. I'm a tall chap and would like a car that's easier to get in and out off. I'm not looking for anything flash. Something simple (so not a never ending list of gizmos) and robust (isn't known for failing or released with loads of design faults).
At present, I'm considering a T-Roc, Ateca, CX-30, Xceed (although not really raised), a Golf (again, not raised but smart). I would prefer it to be raised more than a standard hatchback but should a deal come up then I may forfeit the higher driving position. The car will be 2020 or later and it will likely be an automatic.
Can I ask for your opinion on these cars. Are any of these known for having problems, design faults? Is any more recommended over the others.
Thanks.
Avoiding the high spec cars is a good thing, not just because it saves you money, but they have less elctronic gadgets / systems to go wrong (which these days makes up a larger percentage of the faults), plus you're far more likely to get it shod on sensible medium profile tyres of the 16in kind which won't cost £150+ to replace and will give a much better ride without significant handling penalty. They also are less susceptible to damage and will last longer anyway.
You'll see from the reviews that some in particular fair much better for the driving experience in this regard, the XCeed in particular, where it is far smoother riding shod on sensible 16in tyres than 18in ones.
Problem generally is that people who buy such cars tend to really like them (having done their homework) and thus most of the ones on offer at main dealers and car supermarkets are of the 'Sport' upper models shod on low profile 18in rims. As a result, you may have to bide your time in order to get what you want.
I'd also be wary of travelling several hundred miles to get the model you want, as any faults inside the dealer warranty but outside the manufacturer's warranty will require the car to back to the selling dealer, not your local. This puts the KIA at a distinct advantage with its 7 year / 100,000 mile warranty over the others, all of which could be out of their manufacturer warranty or will be in a couple of months.
|
|
OP here.
Thank you all for your replies. I didn't expect so many responses - I wish I had been a little bit more thorough in my opening post.
Thanks for the heads-up on the VAG infotainment issues since 2020. Surprising for a company such as VAG to screw up on that. However, I would imagine a simple software update would correct the issue (whether visiting the dealership or OTA update if that can be done).
Noted for the VAG group to purchase pre-2020 (such as 2018). The problem is I like the 2021 Ateca and 2021 Golf (but these have infotainment issues).
I'll explain a little more now. I'm 6' 5" My Ford Focus has had all its design faults come to the surface which has cost a lot to put right - hence why I want something reliable.
I rented a Tucson for a week and it felt great. Big, robust, modern, high driving position, it felt great. The problem is the Tucson weighed so much and seemed to drink a lot of fuel. It was a hybrid as well. This has put me off bigger, heavier cars and I don't want to spend lots on the high fuel prices. So the likes of the Tucson, Sportage, Rav4, CX-5, are out of the window. This leads me to focus the smaller Karoq, Ateca, T-Roc, CX-30. I don't like the Suzuki's interior, and the CH-R looks awful on the outside (which is a shame as it should be a good car).
I would like an automatic but not if it shall cause grief after a few years. I do drive very sensibly too.
My preferred year range is 2020 and later.
Plain petrol engine but will consider hybrid. The rented Tucson was a hybrid and it weighed a lot which burned the fuel.
My budget is £20k.
My inclination is to purchase a 2021 car with 14k on the clock from a place like Motorpoint, or the like.
I have considered the MG HS (the smaller crossover). It looks nice inside and out, but I worry about the reliability of a Chinses car. No evidence to back this next statement up but I'm expecting to be made cheaply which will lead to lots of issues.
The more I think about the Xceed the more I don't think I'd get one as I'd rather get the standard car if going for a normal sized hatchback. The Xceed just looks bigger.
The car I will get will be the entry level/trim. Anything I get now will be so much more advanced that my 17 year old Focus.
This is why the Mazda seems nice. Good looking. Japanese technology. Standard technology, good automatic, no extra that can go wrong. But... but they come in 2L which will drink the fuel.
Just a little stuck. Your responses have certainly made me aware of other things now.
|
|
To reassure you about Mazda fuel economy - I know you have ruled out the CX-5 2-litre petrol on the basis that it's too big and thirsty, but with a light foot I can easily achieve 42 mpg plus in mixed local (non-rush-hour) traffic and a long journey averaging about 60 mph produces in excess of 45 mpg.
Obviously the smaller Mazdas with the 2-litre engine (which will be in a lower stage of tune) and a lighter body will do better.
Like you, I'm over 6ft and enjoy the ease of getting in and out of the CX-5. The seat is at about the same height off the ground as my posterior.
|
|
|
|
Before you get too obsessed with MPG, I'd suggest it's worth sitting down and doing the sums based on the mileage you actually cover annually. We all want the best economy but often, when it comes down to it, the cost of fuel is largely insignificant compared to tax, repairs, insurance, depreciation etc.
If you do think it's worth pursuing economy over everything else, have a look at the 'real MPG' figures on this site or recorded on Fuelly. The official figures all standardises to allow comparison, but won't give you the real picture on MPG.
It looks like the Tucson you drove (assuming it's the full hybrid) achieves about 50mpg. I can tell you that a 1.5 Karoq won't do that and will be in the low to mid 40s. I doubt the Mazda 2.0 would be much worse than that and it is a better thought of engine.
If you want the extra height but more economy, you could look at the small SUVs such as the Seat Arona and Skoda Kamiq, or indeed the Peugeot 2008 that John F suggested. Not sure if it's in budget, but the Toyota Yaris Cross would give you ride height, economy and reliability.
|
|
|
|
Note that the choice of 'auto' gearbox can make a big difference depending upon how the car has previously been used (which you'll likely not know - which is important) for a second hand car, and how you will be using it after buying the car.
Obviously if the service history is below the manufacturer's guidelines, then I wouldn't risk it for any car. If a car you're looking at physically looks like its done far more mileage than the odometer (e.g. very worn seats, steering wheel, tatty in general) and age, then again walk away - it could be that its been 'clocked' and/or the previous owner(s) have seriously scrimped on the maintenance and could've also driven it unsympathetically as well.
The type of driving pattern can make a big difference as to the longer term relaibility - dual clutch gearboxes will wear at least as quickly as a manual, sometimes more so, given some owners won't realise it and their driving style will cause it to wear more than a standard manual where they drive more sympathetically.
Some of them are better designed for robustness and are also more maintenance-friendly than others, although I think most makes that use them are now realising poor design in this regard will only hurt their profitability via big warranty claims and bad publicity.
As such, newer DCT-equipped cars are bet-ter than those from just 5 years ago. Still, I would personally shy away from a DCT (of any make of car) if I was going to be doing any reasonable amount of driving in an urban setting or on roads where there's regular heavy traffic.
For that type of driving, 'conventional' 'torque converter' (TC) gearboxes, and the better quality versions of the CVTs (i.e. those in Toyotas / Lexuses) are going to be far more reliable over the long term as they are far less adversely affected by that driving pattern (no clutch to slip).
Mazdas come with the TC auto box, and are smooth, but drink about 5-10 more fuel than any of the other types. Newer Kias/Hyundais will come with their version of a DCT, which has generally had less relaibility issues than (say) VAG or Ford with their quivalents.
Whilst I like Mazdas (I've owner a Mazda3 for >17 years) - the styling and the handling in particular, I though I would just sound a word of caution given a negative recent experience of another person who asked for advice and got a CX-30.
Mazda dealers in my view are rather hit and miss as regards after sales quality (why doing your homework to see which are good locally is vital before taking the plunge to buy), and like many modern cars, some of the newer, more tech-laden versions have seemingly (from accounts I've read) suffered from some electrical issues, but trying to get them fixed under warranty can be trying if the either dealer isn't a good one and/or Mazda UK (who IMHO don't have the best rep with owners) don't play ball. At least with a mid or lower spec version there's less to go wrong.
You're more likely to get a better experience from Toyota / Lexus, assuming you can afford the higher prices, though no make is considered really great value these days. KIA obviously have a long warranty, so that's also in their favour and certainly worth considering.
I bought my Mazda3 (mid spec 1.6 petrol) from Motorpoint back in 2006, but then it was tried and tested tech and I bought the car essentially brand new (only delivery miles - it was an unused RHD rental car imported from Cyprus) back when discounts were huge (mine cost me a little over £10k).
|
|
|
“ This is why the Mazda seems nice. Good looking. Japanese technology. Standard technology, good automatic, no extra that can go wrong. But... but they come in 2L which will drink the fuel.”
It doesn’t, this isn’t the 1980’s, fuel economy isn’t directly linked to engine size. Most manufacturers went for smaller turbocharged engines but Mazda decided to go the other way to preserve longterm reliability. Real life economy on a 2.0 Mazda 3 compares very well with the Ford Focus 1.0 Ecoboom, Renault/Nissan 1.2 TCe (Totally c*** engine) or Peugeot 308 1.2 Purec*** but it doesn’t suffer the well documented failures these other designs are known for. Economy on the large Mazda 6 fitted with said 2.0 petrol can touch 50mpg on longer runs without the hassle of diesel related reliability woes. It doesn’t have to torque of a turbocharged engine though, it needs a few more revs to get going.
|
|
Is someone able to explain to me why the lighter (but older) Ford Focus 2006 1.6L petrol manual has a mpg of 44.8 but the much heavier (but newer) Mazda CX-5 2020 2.0L SE-L petrol has a mpg of 44.1. I don't understand it, clearly. I would have thought the heavier Mazda would be around lower 30s.
Also can anyone explain why Mazda have expectionally long bonnets?
Thanks.
|
Is someone able to explain to me why the lighter (but older) Ford Focus 2006 1.6L petrol manual has a mpg of 44.8 but the much heavier (but newer) Mazda CX-5 2020 2.0L SE-L petrol has a mpg of 44.1. I don't understand it, clearly. I would have thought the heavier Mazda would be around lower 30s.
Also can anyone explain why Mazda have expectionally long bonnets?
Thanks.
The Mazda has an extra 14 years' worth of technical experience behind it. The 'Skyactiv' engines use some clever jiggery-pokery to optimise efficiency.
www.topgear.com/car-reviews/mazda/skyactiv-x-5dr-m...e
Also, though generally very reliable, those Ford 1.6 engines seem quite thirsty.
As for the long bonnet, I'm sure Mazda would tell you something about a Japanese word meaning a particular natural phenomenon. I suppose it is in fact because Mazda use bigger engines than other manufacturers to avoid turbochargers.
Edited by Adampr on 20/10/2023 at 10:23
|
Is someone able to explain to me why the lighter (but older) Ford Focus 2006 1.6L petrol manual has a mpg of 44.8 but the much heavier (but newer) Mazda CX-5 2020 2.0L SE-L petrol has a mpg of 44.1. I don't understand it, clearly. I would have thought the heavier Mazda would be around lower 30s.
First, that is the manual version, the auto is rated at 42.8.
Also, those are the outdated and unrealistic NEDC figures (though that would also apply to your Focus), the more accurate WLTP figures say 36.7-38.7. In addition, "real MPG" figures from this website say 35.1 MPG.
Weight (within reason) is only a factor when accelerating. Once up to a cruise, aerodynamics are a much bigger factor, and of course the higher your cruising speed, the bigger the difference between good and bad aerodynamics. And yes, people will jump in saying that SUV's are inherently less aerodynamic because they are taller and bulkier. But it isn't as simple as that. I've looked into lists of cars showing the Cd figure and seen plenty of cars with a lower figure than I'd expect based on how they look. And I have also seen cars which look sleek, but don't have a very low Cd figure.
You also need to consider performance. Your Focus, according to this website, will do 0-62 in 11.9 seconds. The equivalent figure for the CX-5 2.0 seems to be around 10 seconds. So to match the acceleration of the Focus at 100%, the CX-5 would only be using around 80% of its available performance (therefore using less fuel).
As for the bonnet length, I wouldn't say they do have exceptionally long bonnets. The bonnets do appear to be a bit longer, but that is mostly to do with styling trickery such as pulling the base of the windscreen back, rather than fundamentally different proportions. Look at the length of the front overhang, and the distance between the leading edge of the front door and the rear edge of the front wing. Compare them to other cars which you feel have much shorter bonnets and you will see little, if any, difference. As to why Mazda want this look, it probably harks back to traditional "performance cars" having a long bonnet, implying a bigger and more powerful engine. It does have drawbacks though as they (Mazda's) tend not to be particularly spacious next to direct rivals.
Edited by badbusdriver on 20/10/2023 at 11:20
|
|
|
|
......leads me to focus the smaller Karoq, Ateca, T-Roc, CX-30.
I would like an automatic but not if it shall cause grief after a few years.
Very wise, especially if buying used. A good autobox protects the engine from both being needlessly over-revved and, worse, labouring in too high a gear. I'd never buy a manual.
My preferred year range is 2020 and later.
Plain petrol engine .......
My budget is £20k.
The car I will get will be the entry level/trim.
Why? You might be dissatisfied with the basic cheapness long after any price saving is forgotten. I think in the used market there is better VFM in a plusher car. 'Top of the range' cars are more likely to have the best materials and be made by the best employees. Here is a typical example of the car I mentioned in my last post (it's the new shape with the EAT8 box; we have one of the last of the old shape (2019) with the EAT6 box - which are cheaper than the new shape.
www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202310112869249?s...a
Anything I get now will be so much more advanced that my 17 year old Focus.
Just a little stuck.
Sorry to hear about your Focus problems. Our Mk1 estate was exemplary - the only costly attention needed from when we got it at 29,000 miles to when it was sc***ped at 21yrs old and over 160,000miles was a replacement fuel pump and coil pack. I intend our modern (top of the range) Pug 2008 to last at least as long.
|
A good autobox protects the engine from both being needlessly over-revved and, worse, labouring in too high a gear
Which is something any driver should be able to manage with a manual box. Been driving manuals for 49 years now and whilst the Skoda is an auto and the Toyota on order is an auto its not because we need to protect the engine, its because arthritis is not making manuals any easier (especially for the wife).
Having said that the Caterham is a manual and I will just have to suffer when I drive that if (and when) my issues get worse.
One other thing, auto's I drove in my youth would needlessly rev engines when you kicked down to overtake, far more than dropping a gear, older CVT's in Toyotas were even worse. The DSG in the Superb is magic, only drops when absolutely needed and to get it to rev hard you have to absolutely floor the right pedal which in the real world is simply not needed. Newer CVT's are way better but personally give me a DSG any day (except for perhaps in town).
|
This has put me off bigger, heavier cars and I don't want to spend lots on the high fuel prices. So the likes of the Tucson, Sportage, Rav4, CX-5, are out of the window.
To put that into perspective, my Kia Sportage Hybrid gives better fuel economy compared to previous Kia Ceed petrol auto I had.
|
|
|
One other thing, auto's I drove in my youth would needlessly rev engines when you kicked down to overtake, far more than dropping a gear, older CVT's in Toyotas were even worse. The DSG in the Superb is magic, only drops when absolutely needed and to get it to rev hard you have to absolutely floor the right pedal which in the real world is simply not needed. Newer CVT's are way better but personally give me a DSG any day (except for perhaps in town).
Surely that was because the car in question had a n/a petrol rather than simply because it was a CVT?. If there isn't a lot of torque, and what torque there is happens at 4k rpm+, then high revs are unavoidable if you want maximum acceleration. If anything else happens with a different type of auto box hooked up to a similar n/a engine, they are simply not doing their job.
Your Superb has both a turbo engine and an electric motor, so obviously high revs are not needed.
|
Surely that was because the car in question had a n/a petrol rather than simply because it was a CVT
Fully aware they did not have turbo but that was no excuse for the engine revs flaring whenever you simply twitched your big toe on your right foot. The Auris hybrid we had as a pool car was truly dreadful, the only car worse was the Civic 1.8. Compared to both my Leon was brilliant (it was brilliant compared to most cars) and its MPG was a match for the supposedly superior Auris which required you to drive at 55 mph drafting a HGV to get decent mpg results.
|
The Auris hybrid we had as a pool car was truly dreadful, the only car worse was the Civic 1.8. Compared to both my Leon was brilliant (it was brilliant compared to most cars) and its MPG was a match for the supposedly superior Auris which required you to drive at 55 mph drafting a HGV to get decent mpg results.
AFAIK the only area in which the Auris has been claimed to be superior than most rivals is reliability, particularly long term.
As for economy, on the Real MPG section of this website, the average listed for the Auris hybrid is 54.7. Highest average figure listed for a Leon 1.4TSI is 46.4.
|
As for economy, on the Real MPG section of this website, the average listed for the Auris hybrid is 54.7. Highest average figure listed for a Leon 1.4TSI is 46.4.
My only comparison for the Auris was on the longer drives I did in it. On a longer drive I could manage just over 50 mpg easily in the Leon simply by driving normally at the limit. Drive like that in the Auris and it would do just about the same but by reducing your speed to 55 mph I was told the mpg improved greatly (but it would in any car).
As an overall average the Auris would without doubt do better than the Leon due to the Hybrid bit being better in town. But as we all know HJ's Real MPG figures are not scientifically measured, some owners probably simply use the normally inaccurate dash, some will put figures down for a particularly good one off trip. The figures I have submitted to Real MPG's are calculated over long distances.
It will be interesting to see how much better the Yaris is than the Fabia, suppose I could say the Fabia does over 60 mpg which it did on one 80 mile round trip last week.
|
|
|
|
Edited by badbusdriver on 20/10/2023 at 14:38
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
