MPV Sought £25k max

wgl2014

50Twuncle wrote: »

My present Suzuki Baleno auto is a 1.0 turbo and averages 50mpg

That sounds pretty good. My point though was that in a larger heavier car the engine works a lot harder in real life compared to the official tests and may not live up to the promised claims.

As an alternative thought..... I have seen some cars fitted with a towbar mounted hoist/ carrier that take mobility scooters. If you are happy with your Suzuki would that be an option?

50Twuncle

jimbo6977 wrote: »

Nissan e-nv200.

That's a van !!

50Twuncle

wgl2014 wrote: »

That sounds pretty good. My point though was that in a larger heavier car the engine works a lot harder in real life compared to the official tests and may not live up to the promised claims.

As an alternative thought..... I have seen some cars fitted with a towbar mounted hoist/ carrier that take mobility scooters. If you are happy with your Suzuki would that be an option?

Possible option yes thanks

[Deleted User]

Whats the difference between an MPV and an SUV apart from the words?

gabitzul

Left choice - Auris hybrid estate? Big enough, automatic (not torque conv. but known reliability).

jimbo6977

50Twuncle wrote: »

That's a van !!

It's also a 5 seat or 7 seat mpv and it's based on the same platform as any number of cars.

jimbo6977

Deleted_User wrote: »

Whats the difference between an MPV and an SUV apart from the words?

One looks like a brick, the other looks like a tank.

50Twuncle

gabitzul wrote: »

Left choice - Auris hybrid estate? Big enough, automatic (not torque conv. but known reliability).

I prefer torque convertor boxes - I have a fair bit of experience in driving various forms of auto box cars - from Honda (CVT) to VW (DSG) - even drove a tiptronic Porsche once and I much preferred a TC - it is also less problematic for long term reliability !
As for increased fuel consumption - doesn't necessarily ring true....
Depends on how it is driven.

System

50Twuncle wrote: »

I much preferred a TC - it is also less problematic for long term reliability !

The auto trucks I drive have got over 500,000 miles on and they seem to work just fine without having a torque converter.

As for increased fuel consumption - doesn't necessarily ring true....

Of course it does if you have a torque converter. You've got a massive lump of metal filled with hydraulic fluid attached to the crankshaft that needs more energy to get moving than a clutch does, energy that isn't being transmitted to the wheels. You then have attached to that engine a gearbox which as well as being larger also weighs much more than a manual gearbox which again means more energy is required to get the vehicle moving and keep its momentum.