Looking for a three year old crossover - suggestions please

georgiac

We're looking to replace our 12 year old Citroen Picasso with something a bit newer.

Obviously we aren't "car" people and appearance or status isn't a consideration.

Our budget is between £7500 and £9500.

We like something like the Nissan Qashqai or the Suzuki S-Cross and wondered if anyone has any recommendations in that area.

I understand the Suzuki depriciates rapidly but that may be an advantage for us as we tend to buy second hand and hold onto cars for as long as possible.

thanks

System

Why do you need a crossover? The two you listed are smaller inside than something like a Mondeo, have worse fuel consumption and handling than a "normal" car too and given the options I doubt its going to do any offroading that any normal car isn't capable of. 4WD isn't a reason to buy one in this country because any benefit will apply to just a few days a year and the advantage be mostly negated by using winter tyres on a normal car.

bengalknights

Skoda Yeti,Toyota Rav4 and the Dacia Duster all come to mind for the age

facade

Tarambor wrote: »

Why do you need a crossover? The two you listed are smaller inside than something like a Mondeo, have worse fuel consumption and handling than a "normal" car too and given the options I doubt its going to do any offroading that any normal car isn't capable of. 4WD isn't a reason to buy one in this country because any benefit will apply to just a few days a year and the advantage be mostly negated by using winter tyres on a normal car.

I'm looking at these too, as most of them seem to be crippled by only having FWD (because 4wd added a couple of thousand to the price), the advantage seems to be in having a car with suspension that could reasonably cope with the "roads" ("pot holed rutted cart tracks" would be a better description, and then you get to the B roads and you can add "speed hump infested")

The duster is out, as although the poverty spec is £9495 (plus OTR costs and £150 for a spare wheel) adding a couple of foglights and a wireless bumps it up £1500, but the killer is a quick look at Honest John, and the litany of faults there makes my Nissan-Renault look well built. Yet second hand they only lose a couple of thousand at 3 years old.


The qashqai is a Nissan-Renault, and I wouldn't touch another unless it was free so I could walk away when it breaks

The suzuki looks a good buy if it is made in Japan, the Jimny outside has managed to last 16 years and 140,000 miles, although the Spanish built ones tended to fall apart quickly.

Not impressed with the Yeti.

Another one to consider would be the Vauxhall Mokka, which uses a fair few Suzuki parts- I hope Suzuki don't use any Vauxhall ones


Had a Mk 1 Rav4 and it was brilliant, wish I still had it
The MK2 was ok, any later and the transmission lost the centre diff and went for cheap on demand clutches.

You can get the Lexus version of the Rav4 relatively cheap if you go a bit older, they lose money hand over fist too.

Gloomendoom

Tarambor wrote: »

4WD isn't a reason to buy one in this country because any benefit will apply to just a few days a year and the advantage be mostly negated by using winter tyres on a normal car.

That's assuming the OP only uses their car on tarmac roads. Not everybody does.

takman

Tarambor wrote: »

Why do you need a crossover? The two you listed are smaller inside than something like a Mondeo, have worse fuel consumption and handling than a "normal" car too and given the options I doubt its going to do any offroading that any normal car isn't capable of. 4WD isn't a reason to buy one in this country because any benefit will apply to just a few days a year and the advantage be mostly negated by using winter tyres on a normal car.

The diesel Suzuki S-Cross claims it can do around 65 MPG and when I've driven one for a week in a mixture of driving I got 51 MPG and I wasn't driving with economy in mind, which is very decent for a 4WD. Plus it handles pretty similar to a "normal" car and definitely isn't like a typical "boaty"4X4.

In regards to the 4WD capability it sounds like you have never taken any car off of tarmac in your life. Many people need to go down dirt tracks and green lanes on a regular basis (especially where I live). A normal car could do this when it's dry but when it gets wet you don't stand a chance.

So a cross over is a good combination of fuel economy and still let's you get to where you need too.

JP1978

I have had a few crossover cars, all been good in their own right. Primarily used them for work (rough tracks, fields, winter access etc).

Many people like the crossover body as they are higher off the ground and as well as giving better visibility (all round vision and higher view), they can be easier to get into and offer a different driving position that suits some. They certainly suit me in that respect.

I had a Citroen C-Crosser for about 50,000 miles and had no issues at all - these are made by Mitsubishi and rebadged (There is a Peugeot version too). 2.2 TDI engine is a cracker - this is PSA's own, used in some Freelanders and Mondeos too I think. Very big inside, 7 seats and large boot (when last seats not used obviously).

Have a Yeti now - not the best looking car in the world but does everything I ask of it well - spacious, handles really well for a car of its height, good equipment (auto parking, AFS xenons, heated leather, cruise, satnav, etc).

georgiac

Thanks for the excellent replies. We live in a rural location with pretty poor roads and tracks but don't off-road as such. The main reason is the ride height and ease of entry/ exit of the car as partner has less mobility getting into a saloon.
Thanks