What SUV upto £7k

[cj2013]

Having previously been tempted by a newer hybrid, I've changed my search a little and I'm now tempted to get something a bit older.

Requirements:
- Appeal: Not too plain or boring
- Interior: Nice interior with exec spec; heated seats essential (missed them in the last few cars)
- Frugality: Ideally mixed consumption of 35mpg or more. Anything that can get 50mpg on an eco long drive is a positive
- Boot space: 500L minimum, based on the current Zaff shed being near the minimum space we'd need
- VED: Nothing that gets near the £500 per year rate. Even if the economics work out against purchase cost, I couldn't abide it.

I don't really have it in me to list cars that I have ruled out, so I'm not really looking for a list of alternatives such as a plethora of Nissans or the like. It's more of a case of "why not" any of these, if anyone can help? I've added some of my thoughts, which might be unfounded, as I've only driven the XC60 and X5 in the past (but not owned).

E83 X3 3.0d example: https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201...
Pros: Decent engine/performance, pricing seems reasonable
Cons: Hit & miss on styling, most seem to say they have heated seats but can't see that it's the case from looking at the photos?

F25 X3 2.0d example: https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201...
Pros: Better economy & VED; Much better styling
Cons: Few in budget, heated seat issue again?

E53 X5 3.0d example: https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201...
Pros: Better styling than the X3, seem to have better spec, roomier
Cons: Older styling

XC60 D5 example: https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201...
Pros: Better looking and possibly more robust, very good load capacity
Cons: Have read about some of the more common failures, which could be expensive


They aren't necessarily the only options, and coming in under budget would be a bonus, but I would certainly like a more premium drive. A year or so ago, I had a ~2004 Maverick 3.0 V6 and drove a ~2005 X5 4.4; obviously it went like stink in comparison, but you could "feel" why it was a much more expensive vehicle from new, just from driving it a short distance. It felt like a very high quality machine. I'm not sure if much is lost in the diesel equivs though.

Same with the Volvos really - the XC90 is far too fugly for me to be drawn in by it, but the XC60 is a good looking and safe motor, with the D5 being a decent motor (although with some foibles). In that area, there is (for example) the drivE versions, but they seem to be a bit poverty spec - which from my experience of the C30 made a big difference to the feel of the car (the lower spec/ford engined versions felt awful in comparison).


The budget is the absolute ceiling. If I go above it, I'll be better to revert to the hybrid option as it'll offer economy. This lower budget is simply allowing me to use the rest of what I'd spend on other areas of life.

[cj2013]

ninjag said:

Honda CRV and Subaru Forester both tick all boxes, have big enough boots and will leave plenty of change. The Honda is nicer inside but the Subaru will be better off-road.

Edited by ninjag on Tuesday 6th November 20:57

I don't need to go off road, and having worked in a Subaru service environment I wouldn't touch anything they make with a bargepole.

I appreciate the reply, but those cars are the kind of thing I'd only consider if I'd had my soul sucked out. I'd go as far as saying that I hate Japanese cars.



Having since done a bit of research, though, it seems that the XC60 might be the only useful option - seems the BMWs have issues and poor economy.

[cj2013]

300bhp/ton said:

50mpg from an SUV. Suspect that might be optimistic.

Hypermiling and driving economically, it should be. We're not talking "expectations" from normal folk who think you can get it without trying, but more of a case of eco-driving.

[cj2013]

ZX10R NIN said:

Kia Sorento

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201...

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201...

Vauxhall Antara SE

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201...

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201...

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201...

Again, thanks for the reply, but no.

No chance I'd call an 11 year old Kia 'premium', nor worth £540 worth of VED. Nor the Vauxhall. I'd pretty much want something that felt significantly better than the old Zafira I've been shedding around in (which is what you'd get with an X5 or XC60, but with very little else of that age/bracket).


The only other type of thing I've been considering has been the 508 SW/RXH or something like a 2008 or DS5, based purely on the spec and quality of the interior, even if the exteriors and reliability might be questionable.

[cj2013]

ninjag said:

I didn't realise that of Subaru's, are they really that bad?

They're up there with me for cars that you'd only hear good things about, until you work at a dealer for them (like VW, for another).

The "support" from Subaru (or, more accurately, IM Group) is appalling, and parts are a PITA to get hold of in comparison to other marques. What I basically learnt from 6 months in a Subaru environment was that they all seem to corrode in places they shouldn't (more underneath than visibly), break where they shouldn't, and offer very little value in terms of running costs (not that the owners seemed to suggest this, as they paid another £1200 for another annual service on a Subaru Popemobile).

I was surprised how easily the owners would spend £800+ on utter turds, with interiors like something you'd get in an Isuzu (another IM Group brand). I always thought I'd own an Impreza until I saw the reality of how the ownership seemed to go (no matter how good they sound).

ninjag said:

The CRV isn't the most fun car for sure although I wouldn't class Volvo as a hoot either but looking past the reliability issues I do like the XC60 and considered one myself when looking. I wanted petrol though and there weren't any near me. I also wanted a chain and not a belt.

Next time the 'family head' is going straight under the guillotine and it'll probably be something like the Cayenne Turbo. Sod it, what's the worst that can happen.....

I'm not necessarily looking for fun - since moving South I've lost my passion for driving - but more of comfort and refinement on long motorway jaunts. I would like to feel like I've spent the money on a much better product though, rather than changing just to get something newer/different.


I'd potentially have been tempted by a bigger thirsty petrol (X5 4.4 or Cayenne) if I didn't have the long jaunts so often, but I can't be doing with spending £200 on fuel every time we need to go 200 mile up the road and back.

[cj2013]

Mazda CX-7 comes under my "list of cars I didn't know existed".

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201...

Well priced and spec'd for the later diesels - just a shame even the extra-urban mpg doesn't crack 40.

[cj2013]

samj2014 said:

cj2013 said:

I don't need to go off road, and having worked in a Subaru service environment I wouldn't touch anything they make with a bargepole.

So what do you need an 'suv' for?

Because I'd like a Sporty-looking utility vehicle?

Would you rather I said that I'd like an estate car with more ground clearance and load height, like we're playing a game of Taboo and the chosen phrase is "SUV"?

(the majority of SUVs are branded "not suitable for off-road purposes" by their manufacturer)

ZX10R NIN said:

If you're considering a X5 then the Jeep Grand Cherokee is worth considering:

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201...

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201...

You'll see 30's with mixed driving which is the same as the X5 but they both weigh a lot.

Thanks - yeah I've considered it, but an old boss of mine had one and found parts very difficult to get hold of. Maybe things have changed, I don't know. I just can't say that I would feel overly enthralled by an American car, despite having looked at the Voyager/Cherokee/Compass types in the past.

ZX10R NIN said:

The Mazda is a good pick but the engine from that era wasn't the (they did improve it so it may be worth checking when the update came out) best when it came to reliability but apparently an oil flush every other service helps matters as does going for the latest one possible:

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201...

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201...

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201...

If you want to spend around 5.5k like the one you linked to, why not go for one with nearly half the mileage:

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201...

The link was just an example, to be honest. There seem to be lots of decent ones around, but with prices varying from £4.5k to £7k - for very little reason at all (not link to mileage, but just the whim of the seller).

nunpuncher said:

If you think Subaru's rust in places they shouldn't then wait until you experience Mazda rust.

It doesn't meet a lot of your requirements and the looks are a bit subjective but I cannot really see past the 3l petrol X3. Decent level of comfort and a nice smooth engine that is more economical than you would think (mid 30s with ease). I'd buy one over a 2l diesel every time.

I haven't seen any that look rusty yet - I'd assumed they follow the Ford trends, with the whole rustiness thing dying out in the mid 00's?

As for the X3, as previously mentioned, the spec just seems to be very rare in terms of the heated seats. I know it's not an issue to many, but it'll sow a seed of regret if I don't get something with them. The change is more of desire than requirement, so it's easier to not bother than to get something that isn't really what I want, if that makes sense?

SlowV6 said:

What is your annual mileage and how is that made up? Do you do mainly long runs or mainly short runs with a few long trips?

I don't think you will get 50mpg out of an SUV and one big (probably diesel related) bill will wipe out any cost savings over something NA petrol.

The commute is only between 10-20 miles per day (depends on which day and route I take), but as I'm in the South West, any trip out on the weekend/weekdays is to Bristol or Swindon, so a 40-60 mile round trip, and we regularly travel to the North West (400-500 miles round trip).

What made me want to change from the Maverick (3.0 petrol) was the concept that a trip to the cinema (Bristol) was £20+ in fuel, and a trip to the North West was £120 in fuel. I know it doesn't make a huge difference in the grand scheme of things, but the old Zafira barely scrapes 40mpg on the long runs, yet I'd like to think that it's possible to maintain somewhere near that economy, even if it is only for a dozen trips in a year (we might do more, but I used to get put off going too regularly, as I couldn't justify spending hundreds per month in just petrol).

dmsims said:

RX400h

SlowV6 said:

Another vote for the Lexus RX400H for me (unless your mileage is made up mainly of long runs in which case a diesel would be better)

Had looked at them - they're interesting in terms of the powertrain, but I can't quite get over the Ssangyong levels of styling (looks vaguely like an amphibious car).




At the moment I'm somewhere between the idea of an XC60 (ideally a decent spec FWD DRIVe), or the CX-7. The Mazda is especially interesting to me due to be uncommon and the pretty side of "interesting" in terms of the styling.

[cj2013]

dmsims said:

Every single car in this thread is at least a 2 paper bagger

Potentially!

I think the XC60 is a nice looking one, even more so when parked next to a '90

I would consider a Kuga, but only the Titanium X comes with the heated seats, and they are a silly premium.

[cj2013]

SlowV6 said:

With your budget you'll be in a leggy XC60 with either the Ford/PSA 2.0 diesel or the D5. You'd only want the D5 with the automatic and this means no chance of anything like 50mpg even on a run. Neither motors are very inspiring IMHO (have driven both although in different cars) but I would probably opt for the Ford/PSA engine with a manual if economy is the priority. XC60s are handsome inside and out and have a big boot, which is all good, but a bit meh to drive.

There seem to be quite a range of examples of the '60 about for comfortably under £7k, all with the 5 pot diesel, but it seems like you have to choose between the 'D5' (full power 'trim' variant) or the '2.4D' - the latter being better on fuel and VED, less power, but more potential with the economics. Only issues is that you tend to get them in a bit of 'meh' spec. So it's a case of "is a nicer interior worth the extra mpg hit and VED hike".

I had the D5 in a C30 and really liked the engine, especially the sound of the 5 pot. I wouldn't be too keen on having a Volvo paired with a non-Volvo engine or box though, as it tends to ruin the feel of the whole car quite a bit. It's a bit of a shame that I've driven countless 2014+ versions, but never bothered to assess whether I'd want a '60, as they were £30k+ at the time.

SlowV6 said:

I would be interested to hear your reports of a CX-7 vs XC60 test drive. You can get the CX-7 with the MPS petrol engine by the way!!

Yes, the earlier ones (pre 2009 I think?) were all petrol, and the later all diesel. The petrol is the top VED bracket.

It's easy to get put off by some of the potential failures (read a bit about the timing chain tensioner), but a lot of cars will have weak points - especially if they're neglected. Just need to do some more reading on them.

SlowV6 said:

You mentioned X3s with the 2.0d engine. This will likely be the N47 so be wary. An M57 would be miles better but you won't get the mpg.

Yes, it's safe to say I'm no longer considering the X3. Stats fib about the car it is, tbh.

SlowV6 said:

RX400H a bit old fashioned now and I get the amphibious car comment but they sure go well, are so quiet and refined, lovely inside with heated electric cow and if you find one with the Mark Levinson stereo that is superb. No diesel clatter either.

I know this would be the case with a lot of brands, but I feel like the 'turn around' after parking is an important factor, and one I just wouldn't get with a lot of cars.

SlowV6 said:

I think you need to drive some cars and report back. Good luck.

Yes, I think this is likely to be the case. Thanks for the input

[cj2013]

SlowV6 said:

RX400H a bit old fashioned now and I get the amphibious car comment but they sure go well, are so quiet and refined, lovely inside with heated electric cow and if you find one with the Mark Levinson stereo that is superb. No diesel clatter either.

As an update to this, I've come around to the idea of an RX400h now - just a case of finding one that is appropriately priced/spec'd (again, there seem to be some adventurous dealers out there).

Saw one on facebook that wasn't too far away, half decent price, but not quite the right colour/spec. Does make me wonder why people put stuff like this in the ads though:

ad said:

Very good condition
Really well cared for.

...when the last MOT suggests the opposite, and implies it's a money pit:

[cj2013]

dmsims said:

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201...

Unfortunately that's a good 200 miles away from me. I'm near Bath.

[cj2013]

Watchman said:

I never understand this. I live in Worcs and have travelled to Leeds, Glasgow and Chelmsford to buy a car. For something I'm like to keep and live with for a few years, a day out of my life to pick up a car seems worthwhile.

To pick up a car you haven't seen or driven??? Sounds quite reckless.

I've got a young family and don't get that much time when I'm not in work, so driving a 400 mile round trip would be potentially a waste of a day, but even if the car turned out fine, I'd have to do it twice to then pick something up.


I learnt my lesson about driving long distances to view a few years back when I was considering an SLK320 as my "last car before I have a family". We drove a few hundred miles to view, and no more than 5 minutes away the trader wouldn't answer the phone and sent a text saying he "couldn't make it". I've also had experiences where you turn up to find the car isn't there or has sold, despite checking before travelling. I also once left work in Essex to travel to Northampton to view/buy a car, then travel back home to Wilts. Had issues with the car and yet I had no hope of returning to the trader to rectify, as they were a 2 and a half hour drive away.

A combination of this experience, and what time I have free, means I would rather wait until something turns up locally.

[cj2013]

Watchman said:

I do my research, speak to the seller and make the arrangements. I've not had one I've either failed to buy or subsequently regretted.

I'd say you're either buying new, or are very lucky.

Lucky in the fact that you're not having your time wasted by turning up to view cars that are in much worse condition than described, and lucky that you have someone willing to come take you there and come back if it doesn't turn out well. I've taken a train etc to buy cars before - leaves you with no choice other than to buy, though, in many circumstances.


Either way, I find it astounding that you "never understand" why someone wouldn't travel 200 miles to buy a 10 year old car without viewing/testing beforehand.

[cj2013]

Watchman said:

Maybe it's the "10 year old car" thing. I tend to target newer cars - typically half that age.

Nearer warranty and bit higher in price, marque dependent, and you have more security.


Look at this, for example - I must be finding all the dodgy listings, but I sure as hell wouldn't turn up expecting it to exist at the price shown

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/2010-10-Volvo-XC60-2-4-...




edit: Reported the listing as found the original car here - https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=ca...

Not sure what the benefit of these ads is, unless it's to prey on people who are so desperate for a bargain that they are prepared to buy without viewing

Edited by cj2013 on Saturday 10th November 22:34

[cj2013]

Pistonheader101 said:

Your budget is too low to realistically upgrade to a semi decent SUV.

[cj2013]

ninjag said:

I'm in a similar situation myself, time is valuable to me. Unfortunately, in Scotland cars always seem to be more expensive and often by several thousand. Damn annoying, so I've traveled down to just outside Manchester on two separate occasions to look at and buy a car after doing some research on the dealers.

First time I got lucky and the car was perfect, Honda Accord 7th Gen 2.4.

Second time was a different, it was a Kia Sorento and the AWD system was knackered, which I found out by getting stuck in the middle of nowhere during the terrible April rain and storms we had. £2k just for the part with the potential of the rest going bad so I could have been looking at over £6-7k in parts. To be fair I don't think the dealer would have known as there's no warning lights etc, you'd only know by either test the AWD system or potentially by getting underneath and trying to manually turn the propshaft. Fortunately, the local dealer was very ethical and gave me a full refund. I know I had the law behind me but he could still have made it very difficult and I gave him a glowing review accordingly.

But I don't think I'd travel again for a car unless it was something exotic or exceptional circumstances. I bought locally despite having to pay a few extra grand.

I generally find that whatever I'm looking for will have the following algorithm:

x = ( m / d )
    ----------
        d

where x = sale price, m = mileage, and d = distance away from me. No matter where I have lived

So far, I've found the Lake District/Cumbria to have some decent looking bargains. I'll never really be on a winner buying/living down south, mind.

[cj2013]

Watchman said:

That's really odd. I can't see what the benefit of that would be either.

I always call the dealer first anyway and discuss the car. I would assume during that conversation, the "error" in that listing would crop up.

Having said that, I never buy cars off eBay. There are a few dealerships I'd return to that I have bought from before, so I usually have a quick look at their sites and then Autotrader.

I have also bought successfully off a PH classified once before.

My past 4 cars have cost between £10K and £30K (the lower one was a lucky buy) and I expect a car to last me 5 years, so I'm looking for lowish miles, good condition and signs of sympathetic service history first.

Age is secondary these days as cars don't rust like they used to. Having said that, spec is usually dictated by age - the newer ones having the better satnavs and lighting but I know which cars I'm after and what year the various spec-items came into play so I'll start there.

Someone suggested £7K is too low for an SUV. I am partly in agreement but it depends whether you expect to buy and not have to spend again for x-years. If you can get an "honest" car with known faults that you're prepared to get around to over the next few months, I reckon you could buy well. As I mentioned on page 1, I sold a good ML for £7K. It had some faults which I was honest about. None stopped the car from starting and driving but one should be looked at before Winter (preheat plugs - probably only 1 - or maybe battery), another was an intermittent turbo issue which would cost £1000 for an exchange and could be left until the intermittent issue became more regular.

Other than that, it was mint, and really strong. No knocks anywhere and perfect wheels.

You can also get newer cars that cost twice as much as older ones, but have half the spec. In terms of the '60 and RX400h, both can (and do) come with Sat Nav and all the gubbins. The RX has a much more dated interior, but they are cars which are 10 years old, but the only real difference is that they don't necessarily have an arbitrary tablet glued to the centre console.

In terms of engines, the reality is (due to the way the european emissions work), an older one is likely to be a more reliable car than a newer one, as diesels and petrols become more fragile with each new emissions tech that comes in.

Low miles, for me, is not an appeal. That's pretty much based on experience though, as the high-miler Volvo owners tended to rely on their cars more and, as such, looked after them more. The low-milers didn't, and so were more reluctant to get time-based maintenance done because "it has only done x miles" (which includes belts, cracking tyres and so on). For example, buying a D5-engined Volvo that has done under 100 is not guaranteed to have had the more expensive routine maintenance done, such as the timing belt & water pump (6y/108k). If you buy one at 130k/7 years old, chances are you're picking up a motor that's just run in and has passed the big bills - the equivalent feeling of rolling past Mayfair and Park Lane on a Monopoly Board and passing 'Go'.

I do find it out-of-touch that someone could think that you can't buy a used SUV for £7k. It sounds like something you'd expect from someone who would pay a handyman to change a light bulb. I've bought and owned reliable SUVs for £600. Perhaps the plausibility of reliability is intrinsically linked to a person's ability to maintain a car beyond an annual service?

[cj2013]

Watchman said:

Ah, but there are different types of owners. I *know* that you can buy an SUV for £7K but the question thereafter is what are your expectations in regard to running it. If you treat a car as an on-going project (as I do) and expect to keep it healthy with regular/appropriate maintenance and parts then you won't be disappointed. But we all work with people who expect to do nothing to their cars except pour fuel into it every so often. It sounds like you're a "project car" type of person, as am I. You'll be fine with an SUV. Get one with a V6 diesel. They're great - I've had 2 so far.

I'm just a bit disappointed that there is no caveat /elaboration involved in such a statement, though - e.g. "If you can't do basic maintenance, you'll find a lease cheaper", which could be very true. If, however a person is capable of pretty much rebuilding a car from component parts, £7k is plenty.

The only exceptions to that rule are some of the more problematic luxury cars, like VWs, which have horrific issues with gearboxes and mechatronics, or engine-out style designs - things which require specialist tools, knowledge and more than just driveway space.

The D5 is generally a decent lump, so I'm swaying towards that on a '60. I still have one eye on the RX400h, but the insurance is surprisingly high (quotes equated to around £600pa, when nearly everything I have insured and got quotes on is nearer £300) and there appear to be issues with adapting the stereo to modern standards (aux in/bluetooth). I'm also not going to rule out the CX-7 if one appears locally and temptingly priced.

[cj2013]

ZX10R NIN said:

Or there's a nice XC90 but it's a bit over budget.

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201...

You can get them much cheaper, but they're in the same category as other "luxury" cars - not so cheap to maintain or run

[cj2013]

To add a bit of closure to this....


I picked up a 2006 RX400h. Eventually felt it was the sensible choice, and fitted both my ideas of getting a Hybrid (for something different) and getting something more 'executive' with plenty of spec.

Wasn't in a rush driving back, and so drove steadily with 34psi on each corner:




Didn't think it was too bad at all! About 80% motorway. Obviously would need to throw some fuel back in to get a more accurate figure.

Went through the usual congestion and roadworks, with 40/50/60mph limits, which obviously made the mpg a bit more achievable.