I may finally "get" crossovers...

[white_goodman]

My wife and I have been at a stalemate for a while now over our next family vehicle. We both want to "downsize" from our full-size MPV but she wants a small SUV like a RAV4/CRV/CX5 and I can't think of anything more boring. I'm not opposed to an SUV but if I'm going to go down that route, would prefer to do it properly with something like a Touareg, X5, Disco, Range Rover, Grand Cherokee or XC90. She says that they're all too "big" and expensive to run and to be fair, she has a point, as well as being older and higher mileage for our budget. If we're going to "downsize", I would rather go down the mid-size hot hatch/sporty estate route but she has got used to sitting up a bit higher now and likes it and says that estates are a pain to park because of the length.

However, recently we were without a vehicle for a couple of weeks and ended up in a Vauxhall Mokka hire car! Now hear me out here, like a lot of PHers, I've not really seen the point of or been a fan of the humble FWD crossover. It's a bit like an automotive "wonderbra", in that it looks like it might be able to tackle rough terrain but can't and yet doesn't go or handle as well as its hatchback equivalent. For the record, personally, I would still rather drive a mid-size hot hatch/small sporty estate car but having lived with a crossover for a couple of weeks and done a few overnight trips and long journeys in that time, I can start to see the merits in one as a family vehicle.

Firstly, you have a higher driving position than in a hatchback and therefore better visibililty, secondly it was very comfortable and spacious. For the record we were in a Fiesta for a few days before the Mokka until I hit a pothole and punctured the tyre and bent the rim (oops) and despite not having a much bigger footprint than the Fiesta, it was significantly more spacious and had a much bigger boot. Thirdly, it drove surprisingly well. Not brilliantly or as fun as the Fiesta but acceptably for A-B family transport and it absorbed the bumpy roads really well too. Finally, it seemed fairly good value. This one was a top Elite trim and listed at 25k (the Fiesta, a Titanium that lists at 20k) and I wouldn't be surprised if you could actually pick up a new Mokka Elite for 20k after discount and it's fully loaded - leather, heated seats, nav etc.

Being a crossover and a Vauxhall one at that, I was expecting to hate this car but when the 2 weeks were done, it had begrudgingly earned my respect. I don't think that this is the actual car that I would buy, the Mokka looks a little dated inside now, the plastics are a little scratchy and there are similar vehicles that I like the styling of better but my wife and kids liked it and I'm not opposed to a similar kind of vehicle when in all honesty, I'm not going to be the one driving it most of the time. It could actually play out in my favour, as it could potentially be cheaper than the other family car options and I've had my eye on an Up GTi/Fiesta ST for a while (there may even be enough in the budget for a cheap, secondhand sports car too)!

So, we've been looking at small crossovers. New/nearly-new, petrol, manual gearbox, doesn't have to be fully loaded but a few luxuries would be nice and we don't really want to spend more than 20k. As chance would have it, my father may also be in the market for a similar kind of vehicle, as he's looking for a replacement for his 2015 C3 Picasso. He would probably prioritise fuel economy (but doesn't want diesel) and ride comfort, whereas performance and handling are probably a bit higher up our list of criteria.

The ones that we quite like the look of are the Peugeot 2008, Renault Captur, VW T-Cross/T-Roc, Audi Q2, Hyundai Kona, Mazda CX3, Suzuki Vitara, Nissan Qashqai. Not being that familiar with the new car market, especially the crossover one, we would both be very grateful for any recommendations you may have or insight with respect to the above vehicles.

[white_goodman]

A500leroy said:

had a look at the ford offerings?
maybe a stelvio? might be over budget tho.

Thanks. Yes, the Stelvio certainly appeals for that kind of vehicle but it will be well over 20k and I saw my first one the other day and it was a lot bigger than expected. As for the Fords, I really like the Fiesta and Focus but not such a fan of the Ecosport/Kuga/Edge.

[white_goodman]

A500leroy said:

you do know you can 'active' versions of the focus/fiesta ( also in estate versions), ie the normal version just jacked up 50mm or so higher.

Fair point but I'm guessing they don't offer any improvement in interior/boot space over the regular Fiesta/Focus (but do offer the higher driving position).

[white_goodman]

LuS1fer said:

The only assistance I can give you, besides that the Mokka looks like a blancmange and will earn you the undying contempt of anyone under 75, is that I recently went on holiday to Fuerteventura and decided to try an SUV.

Well, it was a Fiat Panda Cross, to be precise but I thought it would be ideal for the unmade roads of Fuerteventura and I have always liked Pandas, in the past.

The short version is that while it did offer better ground clearance, the 2WD was rubbish (far worse than a C3 I had last time), it handled worse and i found it uncomfortable. Perhaps as a 4x4, they make more sense but as a 2WD, I would not hesitate to buy the cheaper normal hatch and, being cheaper, get a better or faster model for the same price.

In variably, the hatch always looks better - look at the Ecosport - a brick on wheels.

I did notice that no-one would let me change lanes in the Mokka in slow-moving traffic. It was a Friday afternoon, so I just put it down to people being tired and grumpy but someone usually lets me in when I'm driving my MINI!

[white_goodman]

Johnnytheboy said:

You only think you need a higher driving position because everyone else is driving taller vehicles around.

I think that's what she likes. You pull up at a junction/roundabout these days and a taller vehicle pulls up on your right obscuring your view. I can live with that compromise to drive something a bit more "fun" but I don't think she really wants to and I guess the kids prefer it too. I much preferred riding in the Previa and Discovery belonging to my friend's parents than my dad's ordinary cars as a kid to be fair. The Xsara Picasso that my dad owned later was lovely to be driven in but terrible to drive!

[white_goodman]

KomodoWagon said:

I think the packaging/space benefit compared to the equivalent car-style car varies, and can be non-existent, especially with the small ones. The boots tend to be small and upright; i.e. not a lot of depth. I looked at a CX-3 and a CX-5 recently; the CX-3 is actually a lovely thing in design terms (and I'm not generally a 'fat hatchback' fan) but I didn't think the space and layout was any different to a Mazda 2 and of course the CX-3 is more expensive. The 5 was better but the equivalent Mazda 6 Tourer still ran rings around it in terms of space, interior and value.

That said, friends of mine have a Kia Sportage and really like it; the boot fits their baby's travel system (that's what we're calling prams these days) depth-wise which is apparently a big deal. They also got a fantastic deal on leasing a new one direct from a Kia dealer. It's comfy and quiet and has a good sound system. Even then, though, I bet you'd get the same spec Ceed SW for less, and have as much space and better driving dynamics into the bargain.

Fair point, the CX3 and Kona look quite cool but also quite small and I doubt that they offer much more practicality over their hatchback equivalents. I would say that the Clio, 2008 and VWs/SEATs, all appear on face value to be more practical than their hatchback counterparts though? An estate should still be superior dynamically but 3 years in an MPV means that she has become used to the extra height but doesn't want the extra length of an estate car/MPV.

[white_goodman]

underphil said:

Not really true though is it?

Does a Tiguan have more legroom and bootspace than a Passat Estate?

Does a Kuga have more legroom and bootspace than a Mondeo Estate?

Does a CX5 have more legroom and bootspace than a Mazda 6 Estate?

Etc, etc

All of the estate options are loads cheaper too

That seems a little "unfair" of a comparison. Tiguan is Golf-based, Kuga Focus-based and CX5 based on the Mazda 3, so you're comparing with vehicles in the class above, which are also significantly longer. Are they more spacious than a Golf/Focus/Mazda 3 though? I would say yes. In fact, to me, the new Tiguan looks huge and I've mistaken one for a Touareg before now, so maybe it is more on a par with the Passat? The old Tiguan was smaller and essentially a "Golf" SUV but now you have the T-Roc as the smaller (Golf) SUV, with the T-Cross being based on the Polo etc...

[white_goodman]

rfn said:

No, it's smaller than a T-Roc. It's based on the Polo/Fabia/Ibiza.
The T-Cross is the VW equivalent but wasn't out when we got this. We thought the T-Roc was very expensive spec vs. spec.

Out of interest, has the centre rear seatbelt recall been resolved yet on the new Polo/Ibiza/Arona? All the seatbelts would get used occasionally.

[white_goodman]

rfn said:

I believe so - ours was done a couple of months back.

Thanks. That's good to know. I read about it on honestjohn and there didn't seem to be any resolution on there yet. I'll add the Arona to the shortlist, as it seems like pretty good value and looks a little sharper than the T-Cross IMHO.

[white_goodman]

caelite said:

Best of both worlds?

You know what, I don't actually mind the Juke, it dares to be different and the Nismo version has some decent power too. However, it is one of the older designs out there and perhaps a little dated inside? Probably the biggest issue though is that it is pretty cramped inside and the boot is pretty small.

[white_goodman]

Moonpie21 said:

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned as yet but my wife has a Jeep Renegade 1.4 limited and as a family car it is impressive:

- Reasonably priced
- Good specification (parking sensors, passable infotainment/satnav/bluetooth, panoramic roof, cruise, climate, pleather?)
- Boxy = good room inside for it's size (good space for 3 adults in the back with no roof-line issues, as per it's sister the 500x or Nissan cashcow)
- High comfy seating position (driven to Normandy, 330 milesish, didn't feel tired or beat up)
- Has a good degree of optionality so you can feel a little different (ours is yellow, but the green one with the stickers on might be fun for 5 mins)
- 1.4 turbo petrol is a pretty decent engine it gets it along OK and is quite frugal
- Manual gearbox is nice and not unpleasant to use (test drove an auto though so if thats what you want look elsewhere)
- The kid loves it as there are big windows he can see out of (4 years old, plus the pleather has proven remarkably resilient and wipe clean)

There isn't a lot of love for this car on here, but I have had a few "interesting" cars and I really don't mind driving it/almost enjoy it on certain occasions.

Thanks for reminding me. I actually drove one of these in Canada and quite liked it but then I see so few of them over here and the Jeep brand have so little visual presence that I keep forgetting about them! The only thing that nags me (and it's the same with Land Rover) is that being a Jeep, it feels like I should have 4x4, which might mean going for the diesel/auto box/higher trim level and the added expense/higher running costs that come with that. That's a little unfair, as in all other respects, the Renegade is totally fit for purpose but in my head, a Jeep should be able to tackle the Kalahari desert, whereas I don't really expect a Renault Captur to be able to!

Other suggestions? The GLA? Yeah, they look alright but I hadn't really looked as I didn't think that they would fall into budget. Toyota CH-R is a non-starter. I've actually had one as a rental, as my local Enterprise seems to run them as their default Focus-sized vehicle. I actually don't mind the looks and it drove really well but the crap visibility and very high rear window line made it feel very claustrophobic and even when I sat in the back, I was looking at the plastic door trim rather than out of the window, which is ridiculous for a car supposedly aimed at young families!

Edited by white_goodman on Friday 5th April 21:11

[white_goodman]

Fastdruid said:

Much though I would love to be able to own both Certified Enthusiast™ and daily workhorse automobiles... I don't have room, it costs a fkton more and I wouldn't get the use out of it to justify the expense. I don't always drive with the family in so

So I have one car that has to fulfil all roles. A fast estate.

I firmly accept is a compromise. It's not a sports car. It is far too heavy but it is still a decent steer and still decently fun to drive. While it would never be my *first* choice on getting to a nice fun road equally I'm not getting to them and groaning because I'm in something st. The estate is a compromise on the saloon or hatch but again it's an acceptable one, it adds a small amount of weight (~40Kg) and flex but not so much that you would notice unless driving it back to back with the hatch.

It is still noticeable how the increase in height and weight has affected the handling. The current one is ~200kg heaver and 12cm taller. Despite *far* stiffer suspension and less roll on a constant corner it resists changes of direction, rolling heavily, pushing the front wide and ultimately understeering.
In an ideal world I would rather lose that height and weight yet keep the performance.

The Rav4 I had as a hire when it was in once for bodywork after someone scraped it was even worse, it was horrendous, rolling like a boat and was horrible to drive. Not I have to say helped by the steering which was horribly inconsistent unless in "Sport" when it was just horrible.

A Mokka is 13cm taller still, an EcoSport 13.8cm, Kuga/Edge 19cm, but again my current car is undesirably tall, take the predecessor as a comparison and they're all 25-31cm taller!

I'm 100% with you there, which is why with the exception of a slightly small boot, my WRX Wagon is still the best all-round car that I have owned. However, when we started having children, my wife needed a bigger car and didn't like the WRX. We tried a bigger estate (C-Class), which she found too long and "tank-like", a "proper" SUV (older Grand Cherokee) which she liked but was unreliable and very expensive to run, then a regular Focus-sized hatchback (too small) and finally a full-size MPV (Grand Voyager), which was brilliant but now our kids are a bit older, we don't really need that much luggage space, it's a bit "boaty" to drive and not the cheapest thing to run. I like small, "sporty" cars anyway, so I really don't care what we get (happy wife, happy life)! A small crossover would keep her happy and no doubt be a more enjoyable drive and cheaper to run than the Voyager! I'm only going to drive it for the supermarket run and longer journeys (trips away etc) anyway. All my "pleasure" driving is done in my car anyway (currently a MINI Cooper) and I can chuck the kids in the back if necessary, just not much room for luggage/shopping etc! I don't really see the point of something like a RAV4 though, as it won't be as nice to drive as an X5/Touareg and yet will cost significantly more to run than a regular htachback, whereas something like a 2008/Captur/T-Roc etc won't really. Diesel also still seems to be the default choice in the larger SUV/crossover too and we would prefer to not go down that route from an environmental perspective.

[white_goodman]

Back to the OP, yeah, I quite like the Forester and it's more utilitarian and less "fashion"-led approach but it has gone more SUV and less "jacked-up" estate car than the first two generations. The problem with the Forester is that it's a class size up from most of the other vehicles under consideration and therefore spec-for-spec more expensive and you either have to go diesel (and a friend's wife got rid of hers fairly quickly because she hated the gearbox) or CVT if you want the XT (and generally I hate CVTs). Great AWD system though and had Subaru stuck with the Legacy Estate and Forester along the same lines as it used to be, they would have had a pretty captive customer in me, as I would have loved a Spec B or manual Forester XT to replace my WRX. Is the XV basically a "jacked-up" Impreza hatch i.e. no roomier. I could be wrong but I thought that I also read somewhere that it had a cheaper "Haldex"-type AWD setup?

I'm also a fan of the Yeti (very "Matro Rancho") and disappointed that Skoda didn't persevere with it. The newest would be 2 years old now though, so it would have to be lowish miles and I would prefer to seek out a 4x4 version. My wife's grandfather is in his 80s and generally buys a new car every 3 years but he's holding onto his 2014 Yeti, as it's the "best car he has ever had" and he doesn't like what they have replaced it with as much.