Advice on used SUV

portcrap

Hi,

I need some help please. I have about €6000 to spend on a SUV that I can use for commercial purposes. There are plenty out there but I am having difficulty finding one with the best fuel economy. I was hoping to get something that did minimum 50mpg. Am I deluded?

Thanks

PC:)

DIESEL TOM

portcrap wrote: »

I was hoping to get something that did minimum 50mpg. Am I deluded?

yes

portcrap

What are the best fuel efficient SUVs out there to consider then?

bazz26

50mpg SUV?

OP, SUVs are heavy, bulky and have the aerodynamics of a brick wall, 50mpg no chance. Early 30s is probably the best you will get.

Do you actually need 4wd? Would a van do the same job?

Zubeneschamali

portcrap wrote: »

What are the best fuel efficient SUVs out there to consider then?

Why do you think you need an SUV instead of a van or estate?

tin79

What are the commercial purposes exactly? Might you be better considering a car-van if you don't need to load lots of gear?

BMJD

Mazda CX-5 is rated at 54mpg, you won't find one for anywhere near 6k though

Subaru Forester diesel will do mid 40's, but again you won't find them near 6k

You might find a Nissan X-Trail or a Toyota Rav4 for your budget but it won't be doing more than 40mpg.

portcrap

Thanks for the replies!!

The SUV is more travelling long distances mainly. I will be transporting light goods and don't need all the space a van provides. Also I will be using it for business meetings, so it has to look the part. Functional and professional looking.

Anan1

portcrap wrote: »

Thanks for the replies!!

The SUV is more travelling long distances mainly. I will be transporting light goods and don't need all the space a van provides. Also I will be using it for business meetings, so it has to look the part. Functional and professional looking.

Would an estate do the job better?

portcrap

Anan1 wrote: »

Would an estate do the job better?

Maybe, but without wishing to offend anyone, estates don't sit too well with me looks wise....shallow I know

i have found a few SUVs: theres the freelander 2 - 2007 - 45MPG - Lexus RX Hybrid (though too expensive) Kia Sorento

veetwin

portcrap wrote: »

Maybe, but without wishing to offend anyone, estates don't sit too well with me looks wise....shallow I know

i have found a few SUVs: theres the freelander 2 - 2007 - 45MPG - Lexus RX Hybrid (though too expensive) Kia Sorento

None of those will come within an ass's roar of 45mpg

portcrap

veetwin wrote: »

None of those will come within an ass's roar of 45mpg

I stand corrected. Here are the specs for the freelander:

Land Rover Freelander 2 Diesel Sw 2.2 Td4 E S 5Dr 2006 - 2010 - 42.2MPG

okay so I am 3MPG out.

Are you saying this because the spec sheet isn't accurate?

Anan1

portcrap wrote: »

I stand corrected. Here are the specs for the freelander:

Land Rover Freelander 2 Diesel Sw 2.2 Td4 E S 5Dr 2006 - 2010 - 42.2MPG

okay so I am 3MPG out.

Are you saying this because the spec sheet isn't accurate?

Is that a combined figure?

portcrap

Anan1 wrote: »

Is that a combined figure?

Yep combined.

Anan1

portcrap wrote: »

Yep combined.

Sounds kinda far-fetched to me, TBH. I'd have guessed low thirties to be a good result.

portcrap

Anan1 wrote: »

Sounds kinda far-fetched to me, TBH. I'd have guessed low thirties to be a good result.

Yes, I suppose I am surprised myself, heres the link:

http://www.carsite.co.uk/car-data/land-rover/freelander/2009/4x4/mpg

Any other suggestions though?

veetwin

portcrap wrote: »

Are you saying this because the spec sheet isn't accurate?

Yes. All manufacturer's mpg claims are pretty much unachievable in the real world. 35mpg would be the real figure and that is with careful driving. You might see 45mpg on a steady 90kmph motorway drive but that's as close as you will get to it in the real world.

wexie

portcrap wrote: »

Are you saying this because the spec sheet isn't accurate?

No it's spot on probably....if you don't mind going everywhere at 80kmph, never carry any passengers or cargo and don't mind using eco <spits on floor> tires.....

Zubeneschamali

portcrap wrote: »

Any other suggestions though?

Buy a car.

biko

Even with crossovers like XC90 etc you won't see that kind of mpg for something below 6k (that I can think of). On a good day it'll be more like 30 motorway.

You can check various models on sites like www.fuelly.com

SleeperService

Gotta love the anti-estate sentiment in ireland. Any time im outside the country it looks like every second audi is an estate.

Seweryn

SleeperService wrote: »

Gotta love the anti-estate sentiment in ireland. Any time im outside the country it looks like every second audi is an estate.

Yep, that's the norm in Europe (estate = twice the car for same money). In Ireland things go different way though. And I heard a lot of stories from people that would never buy an estate. Some reasons were questionable, some laughable.

portcrap

Seweryn wrote: »

Yep, that's the norm in Europe (estate = twice the car for same money). In Ireland things go different way though. And I heard a lot of stories from people that would never buy an estate. Some reasons were questionable, some laughable.

Okay a bit off topic, but come on seriously. No-one can say aesthetics don't play a part in a car buyers decision making. Of course it does!! And although people may find other excuses not to buy an estate, the fact is they are brute ugly. Why anyone would drive one is beyond me.

bazz26

Most 4x4s are hardly oil paintings either but if you feel one will improve your business's image then you will have to put up with the poorer fuel economy that comes with them.

mfceiling

portcrap wrote: »

Okay a bit off topic, but come on seriously. No-one can say aesthetics don't play a part in a car buyers decision making. Of course it does!! And although people may find other excuses not to buy an estate, the fact is they are brute ugly. Why anyone would drive one is beyond me.

Yeah all estates are brute ugly alright...

Cienciano

portcrap wrote: »

Thanks for the replies!!

The SUV is more travelling long distances mainly. I will be transporting light goods and don't need all the space a van provides. Also I will be using it for business meetings, so it has to look the part. Functional and professional looking.

TBH, if 2 salesmen pulled up outside my place of work, one in an SUV that never went off road, and someone in an estate or company van, straight away I'd be thinking the van/estate guys are ahead of you.

Seweryn

portcrap wrote: »

And although people may find other excuses not to buy an estate, the fact is they are brute ugly. Why anyone would drive one is beyond me.

If you find an equivalent SUV more aesthetically attractive than a proper estate then it is beyond me where your sense of aesthetics comes from :eek:

Cienciano wrote: »

TBH, if 2 salesmen pulled up outside my place of work, one in an SUV that never went off road, and someone in an estate or company van, straight away I'd be thinking the van/estate guys are ahead of you.

Exactly. You could imagine that a van / estate salesman drives a vehicle that was made for purpose, so his solutions should be equally purpose-made.

SleeperService

Cienciano wrote: »

TBH, if 2 salesmen pulled up outside my place of work, one in an SUV that never went off road, and someone in an estate or company van, straight away I'd be thinking the van/estate guys are ahead of you.

Ah now, if the system is still as loose as it was regarding commercial/private then a nice commercial suv could be had. Just unlikely to see 50mpg in one.

As a Joe PAYE id have a bit of good ol begrudgery for someone paying so little tax compared to my own, but hey don't hate the player... Hate the stupid irish car tax system...

bbam

I have a 2.2 xtrail for the last two years. It's been doing 37-38 mpg in mixed driving.
Towing it about 30-32 mpg.

I pull a trailer most weeks.
I think if there is enough space in an estate then there are some cracking looking estates out there.
And not being mean, but if your trying to project a successful image through your vehicle, don't turn up in one that costs €6k. Go and lease something that will look the part, the lease payments will be tax efficient too.

portcrap

bbam wrote: »

I have a 2.2 xtrail for the last two years. It's been doing 37-38 mpg in mixed driving.
Towing it about 30-32 mpg.

I pull a trailer most weeks.
I think if there is enough space in an estate then there are some cracking looking estates out there.
And not being mean, but if your trying to project a successful image through your vehicle, don't turn up in one that costs €6k. Go and lease something that will look the part, the lease payments will be tax efficient too.

In fairness all good points. Actually the two images of the estates above are not too bad (never thought I would think that).

Okay so the 50mpg SUV dream is dead. I will have to alter my expectations. The lease idea is good, never considered that TBH.

colm_mcm

Surely if 50mpg is the dream, then spending your diesel money on monthly payments can't make sense?

GeneralDisorder

mfceiling wrote: »

Yeah all estates are brute ugly alright...

I have to agree, I think all audi's look better in avant S-line spec.

gallag

mfceiling wrote: »

Yeah all estates are brute ugly alright...

I wouldn't say they are ugly, just not as nice as the saloon models.



Vs

portcrap

Could a VW Golf with the back seats removed be classed as a commercial and thus subject to the same tax provisions ?

colm_mcm

VW do/did a Golf van.