Which people carrier to buy/avoid for around £4-5k

JimmyTheWig

What's WTS mean?

Certainly don't need anything pretty. I'll just look at my wife if I want to see something pretty.

Rolandtheroadie

I'm a big fan of the Grand Voyager too, but re-reading your original post, you seem to be getting on fine with 4 kids and a smaller type MPV. If thats fine for you, I'd stick to that size.

We got the Grand Voyager as we wanted 7 (6 would have done)real seats and luggage capacity as our twins travel system was massive and only just fitted into my Mondeo boot.

It's been even better than that because even the ones before stow and go can have the seats easily removed giving you a van sized space if required.

In 2 years of ownership (2002 CRD LTD) I've done the timing belt (it snapped, my own fault), front discs and pads, anti-roll bar tie pin, handbrake cable and a brake pipe.

Gear boxes can play up, you would spot that on a test drive.

Flyboy152

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Hi,

We're looking to replace our VW Sharan (S reg). It's got to the point where we're spending out too much on repairs.
Need another people carrier as we've got 4 children.

We've got about £5000 to spend, though it would be nice if it came in under this. (If push came to shove we could probably go to £6k if that really made the difference.)

Would much rather buy from a reputable dealer than private, though I understand that we'd be paying more this way. But at least there's some comeback with a dealer if it all goes wrong.

We've been perfectly happy with the Sharan, so would be happy to have another one or go for the Galaxy or Alhambra (sp?). We could, presumably, keep our existing integrated seats if we got one of those, which would be handy. But aren't really fussed. We've been looking online at the Zafira and the Grand Scenic, both of which look good.

Is there anything anyone would suggest?
Anything anyone would warn us away from?
Anything to watch out for when we go looking?


Thanks,

Jim

Avoid the Chrysler Voyager like the plague. They were declared by N-CAP as the least safest car they had ever tested.

For a smallish seven seater, I'd say take a look at the Renault Grand Scenic.

mealone

Another Chrysler GV fan here, they have loads of space including a decent sized boot and 7 real seats, they are good on the juice and last forever with a good level of trim as standard, my current one is four years old has 50k on the clock, I regret selling my '05 ltd XS which I bought a few months after registration and sold 2 1/2 years ago with 20k on the clock thinking it was thirsty, that was till I got a citroen grand picasso which did much worse mpg even though the car itself was much, much smaller.

Flyboy152

scotsman4th wrote: »

I'm a big fan of the Grand Voyager too, but re-reading your original post, you seem to be getting on fine with 4 kids and a smaller type MPV. If thats fine for you, I'd stick to that size.

We got the Grand Voyager as we wanted 7 (6 would have done)real seats and luggage capacity as our twins travel system was massive and only just fitted into my Mondeo boot.

It's been even better than that because even the ones before stow and go can have the seats easily removed giving you a van sized space if required.

In 2 years of ownership (2002 CRD LTD) I've done the timing belt (it snapped, my own fault), front discs and pads, anti-roll bar tie pin, handbrake cable and a brake pipe.

Gear boxes can play up, you would spot that on a test drive.

Just to put you at ease the next time you get into your car.

http://www.euroncap.com/Player.aspx?nk=014f16ba-8cca-4abd-899b-7d05f1caba44

Flyboy152

mealone wrote: »

Another Chrysler GV fan here, they have loads of space including a decent sized boot and 7 real seats, they are good on the juice and last forever with a good level of trim as standard, my current one is four years old has 50k on the clock, I regret selling my '05 ltd XS which I bought a few months after registration and sold 2 1/2 years ago with 20k on the clock thinking it was thirsty, that was till I got a citroen grand picasso which did much worse mpg even though the car itself was much, much smaller.

http://www.euroncap.com/tests/chrysler_voyager_2007/277.aspx

Front impact
The Voyager scored enough points overall to be awarded a three-star adult occupant rating. However, its performance in the frontal impact did not meet the minimum level for that rating and the car was awarded two stars. The driver's chest struck the steering wheel and distorted its rim and the chest compression measured by the dummy indicated an unacceptably high risk of serious or fatal injury. As a result, the final star in the adult occupant rating is struck-through. Several structures in the dashboard presented a potential hazard to the driver's knees; the dummy recorded high femur compressions and the protection offered to this body region was rated as poor. The passenger compartment became unstable during the test. The footwell of the vehicle ruptured during the impact and rearward movement of the accelerator pedal was 288mm. This, combined with dummy readings which indicated a high risk of injury to the tibia, resulted in a 'poor' rating for protection of the lower legs, feet and ankles.

Side impact
In the pole test, the curtain airbag did not deploy as intended, becoming trapped between the dummy's head and the B-pillar

Rolandtheroadie

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Just to put you at ease the next time you get into your car.

http://www.euroncap.com/Player.aspx?nk=014f16ba-8cca-4abd-899b-7d05f1caba44

LMAO, a couple of other threads I'd let you climb down with your dignity intact when you spouted a load of rubbish (and was proved wrong), and I know the voyager doesnt do well in Ncap for pedestrians or drivers (my kids would be fine though, thats all that matters;))

But come on, why link to a 1999 crash test when you've clearly quoted me as saying i've a 2002.

pitkin2020

Flyboy do you walk around wrapped in cotton wool by any chance??

Whilst I appreciate safety has to be taken into consideration its part of the overall picture when buying a car. If it was everyones main concern then surely everyone would be driving volvos or not driving at all. You have made your point about the NCAP ratings so why keep going on about it?

Flyboy152

scotsman4th wrote: »

LMAO, a couple of other threads I'd let you climb down with your dignity intact when you spouted a load of rubbish (and was proved wrong), and I know the voyager doesnt do well in Ncap for pedestrians or drivers (my kids would be fine though, thats all that matters;))

But come on, why link to a 1999 crash test when you've clearly quoted me as saying i've a 2002.

You didn't look at the 2007 crash test then?

Flyboy152

pitkin2020 wrote: »

Flyboy do you walk around wrapped in cotton wool by any chance??

No, but I take calculated and considered risks.

Whilst I appreciate safety has to be taken into consideration its part of the overall picture when buying a car. If it was everyones main concern then surely everyone would be driving volvos or not driving at all. You have made your point about the NCAP ratings so why keep going on about it?

Safety should always be the first consideration when buying a car. Why on Earth would any sensible person, knowing that the car is unsafe, buy something that has a higher degree of risk that is unnecessary?