I recently took the Q7 for a drive and although it's a good, sturdy and solid drive, I feel it's a bit over-rated...seems to be a common thread for me on experiencing the drive...No doubt it's a good vehicle and all that sort of thing but I cannot escape whether it's truly a good buy. Also it is disappointingly small inside for such a large vehicle. I expected more versatility...I have yet to drive the Merc GL or ML, or any others, but somehow feel I may be better served by something other than the Q7. Who knows?
Maybe a look at the more practicle range like the Landcruiser, Mitsubishi Shogun (although not a premium brand may be more versatile?) or similar?
I'm looking for a versatile, all-round, family vehicle which has high seating and space that a 4x4 would usually offer, but still have a premium feel or status with some level of performance. Some mild off-roading (green laning) would be good but I don't need any major towing capability. A mini bus (MPV) is not really an option, but a consideration against over-priced, over-rated 4x4s that will not be used to their true potential.
I would appreciate any opinions on cars, comparisons and encourage constructive debate on the points I made, both for and against. Useful and Passionate perspectives appreciated.
Best,
K
Edited by kgps on 27/09/2012 at 00:52
|
|
You don't mention a price?! Do you really need such a big vehicle? Why do you want high seating, as you put it? Height = lower fuel consumption and greater weight.
The Mondeo estate is obviously the best large mainline car around (read the reviews), and the 5 Series estate if you want branding.
Japanese cars top all the reliability charts, so there's the Toyota Avensis, the Honda Accord etc. But you might prefer the Rav 4, which is now larger than the first edition 15 years ago.
But the best answer might be an MPV, such as a Galaxy or Espace. If price is no restriction, the top of the range models are pretty luxurious too. Absolutely vast inside, car-like comfort on main roads. Only no good of you think you're Jensen Button on B roads, but who does if you're carrying the family?
Finally, if it's your thing, have a look at the new, larger Merc B-Class, it nearly does it for me.
|
|
Given your requirements I'd pick a Nissan Murano or a Lexus RX400. The Land Rover Discovery III and IV are by far the best cars in the class (especially as a practical family car) but you're taking a gamble with reliability - some are great, some are nightmares.
The Mazda CX7 is a left-field option, well equipped and fairly practical but not a luxury vehicle, they perform very well in 2.3 turbo form - they feel like a jacked up performance saloon to drive.
The Land Rover Freelander II is pretty reliable by Land Rover standards and the 3.2 6 cylinder version performs very well and has stacks of standard kit - it's quite rare though as most people buy the 2.2.
|
The Land Rover Discovery III and IV are by far the best cars in the class (especially as a practical family car) but you're taking a gamble with reliability - some are great, some are nightmares.
That may be an understatement. The Disco III just came dead last in the Warranty Direct reliability report due to frequent and outrageously expensive axle / suspension claims.
|
|
That may be an understatement. The Disco III just came dead last in the Warranty Direct reliability report due to frequent and outrageously expensive axle / suspension claims.
I'm not surprised, but sadly some of the cost is due to the poorly trained spanner monkeys not understanding the cars and just replacing parts until the fault goes away - yes dealers included. The suspension system is not too costly to fix if you understand what you're doing and only replace what's needed! An aftermarket air strut is about £250 and takes under two hours to fit - hardly bank-breaking costs, Or a dealer will replace worn out compressors continously without diagnosing the leaky air-strut which is burning them out.
The real issue is other systems on the car uses the same canbus, so a fault in a completely unrelated system can throw up spurious EAS fault message and lock the suspension out. Dealers often start replacing suspension parts when there's nothing wrong with them only for the fault to re-appear - an expert would do more thorough diagnostics and pin-point the actual problem. Similar issue with BMW 7 Series which Disco IIIs and MK3 Ranger Rovers share their on-board electronic systems with.
Shame really, becase the Disco III and IVs are absolute world-beaters if you get a good one. Truly brilliant cars to own - 'til they go wrong!
|
|
I have just re-read the OP's post. If you take green laning out of the equation he is crying out for a decent MPV with a good engine/gearbox combo for great performance and economy. Assuming a requirement for a large interior, I would ignore the nonsense about 'brand' and simply get a Galaxy with the petrol turbo engine and twin clutch autobox. If thats too big then look at the S-Max.
Why do people get so hung up on brand that they buy a totally wrong type of car for their requirements?
|
|
Yep, the S-MAX is fantastic - especially the top-end models - but I doubt if the Ford badge would fulfil the perceived prestege status the OP requires.
|
|
But I think Happy Blue is questioning (and if so I join him) the need for a prestige brand. Who actually notices that you have a 'prestige' car? - particularly as there are more BMW 3-series sold than Mondeos.
Since I've had Skodas more people have complimented me on my choice of car than ever happened when I had an Audi and a Mercedes.
If you drive something like a Galaxy or S-Max, the 'image' is that you've thought carefully about what you need for the family, and have gone for the car that meets your needs without wasting money. OK, a Ford loses its value faster, but then you didn't pay so much for it in the first place, and quite possibly made further savings by not buying it brand new..
|
|
I understand i think what the OP meant by premium feel though, comes with a solid hewn from granite feel of robustness and luxury without being spartan.
More expensive makes usually do this better, often sticking to really old fashioned materials, like real wood veneer around the dash and door cards.
Not everyone wants the standard acres of black plastic with imitation plastic aluminium look stuff clipped around the dials, boring to the nth degree.
Does anybody really think about image in a positive way when choosing a car, shirley thats for wannabe celebs wags and those with more money than sense, don't normal people buy what they need, fancy and can afford.
|
Does anybody really think about image in a positive way when choosing a car, shirley thats for wannabe celebs wags and those with more money than sense, don't normal people buy what they need, fancy and can afford.
Absolutely spot-on gordonbennet.
SWMBO has wanted a new car for quite a while now, but it changing it was not essential and there was nothing that she really took a shine to! The RR Evoque appeals to her, is not too big and we can afford one........bingo.
|
|
There is a difference though. Your wife saw a car she fancied, you can afford it, so you bought it. The OP is considering a whole raft of cars and one of his criteria is 'brand image'.
Surely 'brand image' is the least useful consideration for buying a car. You work out what you need from a car, your budget and then identifiy models which meet those requirements. Yes, some people really do find a Rolls Royce fits the bill, but for a large family car, to say it must have some brand image is crazy, when you end up buying a car thet does not actually do what you need and want it to do.
I too could buy a Q7, but find them distasteful in size and exterior design. Likewise the BMW X6, which we call drug dealers cars in our family. Hence the S-Max. When I finally downsize from that I may buy a car with a 'brand image' but only because I may fancy a nice rear wheel drive car with a multi-cylinder (6+) engine. If I decide I want something much smaller I may end up with a sub-supermini car. Do I care? No.
|
|
All cars have an image, mainly created by the producers, and supported by our own experiences, and predudices. VW, for just one example, produce conservatively styled Golfs [how the name fits their intended image!) devoid of bling with exterior styling usually several years "behind" the trailblazers. The colour schemes too avoid those pastels we middle class hate so much. So, even Happy Blue might buy one, thinking he's avoiding "image".
How a producer's product is perceived has to do with what market gap it seeks to fill and then the car is designed with that consumer gap in mind. A BMW X6 isn't designed to appeal to Happy Blue, and it shows in his family's wrinkled nose at the thought! Of course BMW could build HB the perfect car for his family should it wish (with almost identical underpinnings) but its strategy is to look elsewhere. The fact is there is a list a manufacturers which each of us would not buy from, and they create that list deliberately, not us. It is we snobby humans who use material goods to reinforce our self image.
What did Hyacynth Bucket have as their car - why, a small Rover of course!
|
|
You may be right about my preferences, but when I do choose a car it will be a vehicle that first and foremost meets my transport needs, then I look at budget, quality, reliability etc etc and finally will SWMBO wade in with the 'image' question. I can have anything other than a Skoda, but she is coming around.
BTW, whilst I wont have an X6 I see nothing wrong in an X5 as long as is it driven sensibly. Pity they dont make them with seven seats.....
Thats actually where premium brand makers fall down. They could make a fortune building premium MPVs without the nonsense of 4x4, but based upon their existing car range, just as the S-Max is a jacked up Mondeo. (and no, the Mercedes R-Class doesn't do it!)
|
|
|
