What Car Question: Safe But Fully Loaded Estate/4x4

[sa_20v]

My cousin has between £18-25k to spend on a new/second-hand estate/4x4. He has a young (growing) family and is looking for something ultra safe, reliable and reasonably frugal (diesel?). However, the car should also have some mod-cons (iPod connector, air-con, heated seats), some luxury (leather interior), with reasonable handling and feel (he moans about his company car's handling every time I see him - he's a typical ex-VX220 owner!)

I've already sent him off to look at the Volvo V50 R-Design but he's concerned about steep depreciation. His biggest worry, with a small family, is spending a massive amount of money on a car which would be worth nothing in three years time.

I'm struggling to find any real solution and I'd really appreciate any suggestions the PH community might have.

[bobby_vimto]

How about a new Honda CRV ES ? (or the EX spec for something with a ton of toys)

[pmanson]

Mondeo Titanium X Sport (or whatever it is called)

Probably about £22k or so list but you would be able to get about 30% off that without much haggling

[RobM77]

pmanson said:

Mondeo Titanium X Sport (or whatever it is called)

Probably about £22k or so list but you would be able to get about 30% off that without much haggling

OP said:

he's concerned about steep depreciation. His biggest worry, with a small family, is spending a massive amount of money on a car which would be worth nothing in three years time.

Even with the big discount, won't a Mondeo lose money very quickly? The high discounts that Ford offer also give us an insight into the profit margins they operate at, and the secondhand market reflects that with very swift price adjustment. For further proof, looking at the fit, finish and drive and there's absolutely no way that a Fiesta should be more expensive than a Jazz or Yaris.

I've been looking for a cheap estate lately, and Volvos seem to be holding money rather than losing it; I doubt he could go far wrong with the OP's suggestion of a V70.

[morebeanz]

3 or 5 series Touring - smart, great handling and decent (but not huge) boot. Holds it's value reasonably well and economy can be managed through engine size and right foot...

If you don't mind front wheel drive from a handling perspective, the Saabs are a common weapon of choice round my way for growing families.

[pmanson]

RobM77 said:

Even with the big discount, won't a Mondeo lose money very quickly? The high discounts that Ford offer also give us an insight into the profit margins they operate at, and the secondhand market reflects that with very swift price adjustment. For further proof, looking at the fit, finish and drive and there's absolutely no way that a Fiesta should be more expensive than a Jazz or Yaris.

I've been looking for a cheap estate lately, and Volvos seem to be holding money rather than losing it; I doubt he could go far wrong with the OP's suggestion of a V70.

If you buy at the right price it shouldn't be too much of an issue.

The word on the grapevine is that the Ford pricing structure is about to change shortly. Their high RRP (then give massive discounts to everyone policy) is apparently affecting their fleet sales a lot due to the company tax being calculated on RRP.

So they are going to start dropping their prices a lot to make them more competitive, moving forward there will be hardly any room to get additional discounts.

[RobM77]

pmanson said:

RobM77 said:

Even with the big discount, won't a Mondeo lose money very quickly? The high discounts that Ford offer also give us an insight into the profit margins they operate at, and the secondhand market reflects that with very swift price adjustment. For further proof, looking at the fit, finish and drive and there's absolutely no way that a Fiesta should be more expensive than a Jazz or Yaris.

I've been looking for a cheap estate lately, and Volvos seem to be holding money rather than losing it; I doubt he could go far wrong with the OP's suggestion of a V70.

If you buy at the right price it shouldn't be too much of an issue.

The word on the grapevine is that the Ford pricing structure is about to change shortly. Their high RRP (then give massive discounts to everyone policy) is apparently affecting their fleet sales a lot due to the company tax being calculated on RRP.

So they are going to start dropping their prices a lot to make them more competitive, moving forward there will be hardly any room to get additional discounts.

It would make a lot more sense for private buyers too. Most people buying a car have only got time to test drive three or possibly four cars. If those people make a list of cars and the Ford is the most expensive on the list, then they're probably not going to bother looking at it. The discounts that Ford offer are well known to enthusiasts, but I doubt they're common knowledge. Most people would rather own a Honda or Toyota than a Ford, and being able to buy one cheaper is such an obvious choice that most people would go straight for it and ignore the Ford.

[nobodyknows]

nobody has mentioned the ubiquitous Audi A4?!!!

[HellDiver]

Octavia vRS or if he wants 4x4 AND estate, then how about an Octavia Scout?

[Bluebarge]

2 suggestions:
1. look at a 2nd hand v70, not a V 50, the V50 is based on the focus estate and is quite small in the back;
2. buy a nearly-new car that will last a few years (ie V70) and forget about changing it every 3 years - that way you don't have to worry about depreciation or the effect small children will have on the interior of your car and the resultant impact on resale value (crayons, ribena, dairylea cheese, chocolate all take their toll after a while); if he wants something nice in 3 years time, buy another car to supplement the sprogwagon.

[300bhp/ton]

sa_20v said:

My cousin has between £18-25k to spend on a new/second-hand estate/4x4. He has a young (growing) family and is looking for something ultra safe, reliable and reasonably frugal (diesel?). However, the car should also have some mod-cons (iPod connector, air-con, heated seats), some luxury (leather interior), with reasonable handling and feel (he moans about his company car's handling every time I see him - he's a typical ex-VX220 owner!)

I've already sent him off to look at the Volvo V50 R-Design but he's concerned about steep depreciation. His biggest worry, with a small family, is spending a massive amount of money on a car which would be worth nothing in three years time.

I'm struggling to find any real solution and I'd really appreciate any suggestions the PH community might have.

I say in for a penny, in for a pound. No 4x4 will handle like a sports car, so why delude yourself?? Just buy a proper off roader and be done with it, and enjoy it for being a Tonka toy!

So look at Defender 110's and the new Jeep Wrangler Unlimited.

IMO they both make great family wagons, we had one when I was growing up, as did a lot of my friends/family






Interestingly the Department for Transport (DfT) also rates 4x4's and particularly the Defender very highly for safe vehicles.

[Bullett]

HellDiver said:

Octavia vRS or if he wants 4x4 AND estate, then how about an Octavia Scout?

+1 - I have the petrol and for a family hatch it's an excellent car and that's coming from a Cayman. The boot even on the normal one is huge, so much so I didn't get an Estate and we have had a couple of family holidays with the whole family and go everything in the boot. My mate with an A4 estate had to use a roofbox as well!

Only problem is badge snobbery.

[colonel c]

300bhp/ton said:

Interestingly the Department for Transport (DfT) also rates 4x4's and particularly the Defender very highly for safe vehicles........

Please correct me if I'm mistaken but I think those figures are out of date by about ten years. However I don't think there has been a similar survey done since.

[300bhp/ton]

colonel c said:

300bhp/ton said:

Interestingly the Department for Transport (DfT) also rates 4x4's and particularly the Defender very highly for safe vehicles........

Please correct me if I'm mistaken but I think those figures are out of date by about ten years. However I don't think there has been a similar survey done since.

Don't know the exact origin of the stats used, but the mag above is May this year. 10 years would seem a little too far back I'd have thought though?

Just checked the article and it says the survey was conducted from 2000-2004, and I'd presume there would have been a lead time after that while they were analyzed and then published. So not this year recent, but still highly relevant for most cars on the roads today I'd have thought.

[Flintstone]

Same here. Pretty sure the last I heard they were deemed to be more dangerous, fewer/less efficient crumple zones and the like not to mention what they do to other vehicles and pedestrians.

[RobM77]

300bhp/ton said:

So look at Defender 110's and the new Jeep Wrangler Unlimited.

Interestingly the Department for Transport (DfT) also rates 4x4's and particularly the Defender very highly for safe vehicles.

We've discussed this on another thread recently Given that you and I are both sceptical of other things that the government tell us, such as the speed kills message and of the extent of man made global warming, I'd be cautious about accepting their figures on how safe an off-roader is. May I remind you of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjnBpruer8g

And bear in mind that the Jaguar X Type car they had in the test (which may also be on You Tube - I can't use it at work so can't post a link), got up to over 100mph in the swerve test and just spun once and stopped within their "motorway".

Someone missed it on the other thread (mistakenly highlighting how strong the RR's roof was ), but the Range Rover in the clip above had a full multi-point roll cage, bucket seat and 6 point harness for the driver. I've seen a Land Rover roll over in real life and the roof completely collapsed, ending up level with the scuttle; I shouldn't imagine a RR would be much better.

Land Rovers are great cars for mud plugging etc, and you may have fond memories of them, but there is absolutely no way I'd want to transport a family in one on a regular basis, when there are far more able vehicles out there from a refinement and safety point of view.

Nevertheless, I'm sure there are plenty of accidents where you are safer in an off roader than in a car; the government statistics must come from somewhere! However, I'd suggest that it's extremely selfish to protect your family in a big heavy off-roader when the family you hit in a Ford Focus would be wiped out in an instant (see the other Fifth Gear clip of a Shogun slicing straight through a Honda Civic). Of course, if you really do need the full off road capability then you have no choice, just as a courier has no choice to driven a transit van, then it's fair enough (although I'd suggest that an X3 or similar makes a far better multi-purpose car for road and mud). I'd be hard pushed to recommend a Defender or even an X3 over a Volvo V70 or Passat estate as a family car though if all it's going to do is ferry a family around on tarmac roads, if not just from a cost point of view.

[300bhp/ton]

RobM77 said:

300bhp/ton said:

So look at Defender 110's and the new Jeep Wrangler Unlimited.

Interestingly the Department for Transport (DfT) also rates 4x4's and particularly the Defender very highly for safe vehicles.

We've discussed this on another thread recently Given that you and I are both sceptical of other things that the government tell us, such as the speed kills message and of the extent of man made global warming, I'd be cautious about accepting their figures on how safe an off-roader is. May I remind you of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjnBpruer8g

And bear in mind that the Jaguar X Type car they had in the test (which may also be on You Tube - I can't use it at work so can't post a link), got up to over 100mph in the swerve test and just spun once and stopped within their "motorway".

Someone missed it on the other thread (mistakenly highlighting how strong the RR's roof was ), but the Range Rover in the clip above had a full multi-point roll cage, bucket seat and 6 point harness for the driver. I've seen a Land Rover roll over in real life and the roof completely collapsed, ending up level with the scuttle; I shouldn't imagine a RR would be much better.

Land Rovers are great cars for mud plugging etc, and you may have fond memories of them, but there is absolutely no way I'd want to transport a family in one on a regular basis, when there are far more able vehicles out there from a refinement and safety point of view.

Nevertheless, I'm sure there are plenty of accidents where you are safer in an off roader than in a car; the government statistics must come from somewhere! However, I'd suggest that it's extremely selfish to protect your family in a big heavy off-roader when the family you hit in a Ford Focus would be wiped out in an instant (see the other Fifth Gear clip of a Shogun slicing straight through a Honda Civic). Of course, if you really do need the full off road capability then you have no choice, just as a courier has no choice to driven a transit van, then it's fair enough (although I'd suggest that an X3 or similar makes a far better multi-purpose car for road and mud). I'd be hard pushed to recommend a Defender or even an X3 over a Volvo V70 or Passat estate as a family car though if all it's going to do is ferry a family around on tarmac roads, if not just from a cost point of view.

Rob, think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

[RobM77]

300bhp/ton said:

RobM77 said:

300bhp/ton said:

So look at Defender 110's and the new Jeep Wrangler Unlimited.

Interestingly the Department for Transport (DfT) also rates 4x4's and particularly the Defender very highly for safe vehicles.

We've discussed this on another thread recently Given that you and I are both sceptical of other things that the government tell us, such as the speed kills message and of the extent of man made global warming, I'd be cautious about accepting their figures on how safe an off-roader is. May I remind you of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjnBpruer8g

And bear in mind that the Jaguar X Type car they had in the test (which may also be on You Tube - I can't use it at work so can't post a link), got up to over 100mph in the swerve test and just spun once and stopped within their "motorway".

Someone missed it on the other thread (mistakenly highlighting how strong the RR's roof was ), but the Range Rover in the clip above had a full multi-point roll cage, bucket seat and 6 point harness for the driver. I've seen a Land Rover roll over in real life and the roof completely collapsed, ending up level with the scuttle; I shouldn't imagine a RR would be much better.

Land Rovers are great cars for mud plugging etc, and you may have fond memories of them, but there is absolutely no way I'd want to transport a family in one on a regular basis, when there are far more able vehicles out there from a refinement and safety point of view.

Nevertheless, I'm sure there are plenty of accidents where you are safer in an off roader than in a car; the government statistics must come from somewhere! However, I'd suggest that it's extremely selfish to protect your family in a big heavy off-roader when the family you hit in a Ford Focus would be wiped out in an instant (see the other Fifth Gear clip of a Shogun slicing straight through a Honda Civic). Of course, if you really do need the full off road capability then you have no choice, just as a courier has no choice to driven a transit van, then it's fair enough (although I'd suggest that an X3 or similar makes a far better multi-purpose car for road and mud). I'd be hard pushed to recommend a Defender or even an X3 over a Volvo V70 or Passat estate as a family car though if all it's going to do is ferry a family around on tarmac roads, if not just from a cost point of view.

Rob, think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Fair enough.

The video doesn't lie though. If you change direction quickly at 40mph in a Range Rover (or Land Rover one can assume) you're going for a very dramatic barrel roll, whereas in a car the tyres might just squeal a bit.

[alock]

300bhp/ton said:

colonel c said:

300bhp/ton said:

Interestingly the Department for Transport (DfT) also rates 4x4's and particularly the Defender very highly for safe vehicles........

Please correct me if I'm mistaken but I think those figures are out of date by about ten years. However I don't think there has been a similar survey done since.

Don't know the exact origin of the stats used, but the mag above is May this year. 10 years would seem a little too far back I'd have thought though?

Just checked the article and it says the survey was conducted from 2000-2004, and I'd presume there would have been a lead time after that while they were analyzed and then published. So not this year recent, but still highly relevant for most cars on the roads today I'd have thought.

Dft study said said:

...and gives no information on whether or not specific makes of car have different risks of being involved in an accident.

I read this as saying there is no differentiation between cars that typically crash at <30mph and those that crash at 70mph.

Statistics also start at around 1990. Have a think about how manufacturers like Renault have changed their safety since then. I would rather be in a 1990 Defender to a 1990 Renault. I would rather be in a 2006+ Renault than a 2006+ Defender.

[colonel c]

I'm guessing those figures came about because they were based on real world accidents and not controlled tests like those devised by Euro Kneecap or what ever. So given that most accidents are relatively slow speed shunts I think that drivers of Defenders and other large 4x4 are likely to come off relatively unsaved. Hi speed crashes might tell a different tail given the relative stiffness of some 4x4s compered to an energy dissipating design on modern cars.