A Sedan or a SUV?

bargainfinder on 21/11/2018 - 11:42
Last edited 21/11/2018 - 12:23 by 1 other user

I am in the market for a car. My budget is $20k-$25k. I just can't decide if I should get a sedan or an SUV. If a SUV, should I pay extra to get a 4WD?

I am looking at Camry, Rav4, Qashqai at the moment. Qashqai seems cheapest and have all the latest gadgets on the TI models.

What should I buy?

Edit: I am still single, planning to have family and kid in 2-3 years. Drive mostly on good road surface. I drive about 300-400km per week. Only going away about once a month. My budget would allow for a second hand car, not brand new. cheers

Poll Options

  • 227
    1.Sedan
  • 64
    2.SUV
Automotive Car

Comments

              • [Deactivated] on 26/11/2018 - 02:37

                @CMH: The 530d and X5 3.0d are directly comparable. They share the same floorpan for a start. They are aimed at the same market.

                ESC was created to mitigate the risk of roll over. It was developed by Mercedes hastily when their original A class (a hatchback) was found to be prone to roll over. It essentially mitigates yaw movements which precede a roll over. It reduces the risk of roll over significantly in SUVs. ESC absolutely reduces the risk of rollover, except in situations where force is applied to the car externally (like another car or object in a crash).

      • whooah1979 on 22/11/2018 - 08:47

        Bigger means harder to park.

        Suv may require a longer parking space, but they're easy to park non the less.

        • smartazz104 on 22/11/2018 - 23:52
          +2

          Suv may require a longer parking space, but they're easy to park non the less

          Judging by the number of "SUVs" I see parked badly I would say that doesn't seem to be the case.

          • Agret on 23/11/2018 - 00:49
            +6

            @smartazz104: They're not any harder to park it's just that SUVs are owned by people who don't enjoy driving so they half-ass the park

          • Antikythera on 23/11/2018 - 01:33
            +4

            @smartazz104: the easiest cars to park are the BMW becuase you can park in disabled and no standing zones.

      • [Deactivated] on 25/11/2018 - 10:50

        honestly if you're cornering that fast that rollover is a concern you probably shouldn't be on the road. i hate aggressive drivers and quite like it when i see them in a mangled wreck.

        you forgot to mention

        • ride quality

        because on poorly maintained roads it's night and day between longer and softer suspension systems and harder, shorter shocks on a small sedan.

        and most of your negatives aren't really 'negatives' per say, they just come with the territory.

  • TheBilly on 21/11/2018 - 22:28
    +6

    Everyone saying you don't need 4wd is being silly. Why buy an SUV and carry all the inefficiencies to do with it, such as rego costs, fuel consumption, size, maintenance and then not get the one item that will make it a complete package that ticks every single box. Nine times out of ten you can negotiate a good enough price on a 4wd version that will cost nothing if anything extra over a 2wd version. The difference will be small enough to be warranted. Similarly, what if you came across a situation where you would like to try a 4wd experience and your then sitting there slapping your head going why didnt I just spend $500 more on the $20,000 I was going to spend.

    I made this mistake on my car. I sat there and thought like these other turkeys that are saying dont get 4wd and said, well I dont "need" an automatic. I can drive everywhere in Australia with a manual. Why would I spend the extra $500 …. A few years later I'm sitting here wondering why I didnt just spend the $500 and get an auto to make my life better.

    Go for the maximum features within your budget so you dont regret it. You are only going to spend $25k once or twice in your life.

    • [Deactivated] on 21/11/2018 - 22:46
      +1

      The thing is though, all of those soft-roaders don't actually have significantly more off-road ability than a 2wd vehicle. If you're not getting AT LEAST some ground clearance, and ideally some uprated suspension/locking diffs along with your AWD you're not really going to be much more capable, and you are just going to be lugging around an extra few hundred kgs of drivetrain for no reason.

      That's what I recommended a sedan. Only upside of an SUV over a sedan is the ride position and storage, and for a single person you just don't need that.

      • TheBilly on 22/11/2018 - 06:56
        +2

        I'm not comparing sedan to SUV. I'm saying if you get an SUV make it a 4wd otherwise you are wasting money.

        • [Deactivated] on 22/11/2018 - 07:45
          +1

          But I also just said that… if you're getting an SUV with 4wd, you are wasting your money because the 'additional capability' you get is going to be next to nothing if you have no ground clearance - a la Toyota Kluger or Mazda CX whatevers.

          • TheBilly on 22/11/2018 - 19:57

            @[Deactivated]: I have driven most of Australias most iconic 4wd tracks with a standard height Ute in 4wd. This ute mind you only has a few more MM clearance than a rav 4

          • [Deactivated] on 25/11/2018 - 00:37
            -2

            @[Deactivated]: but you don't need tons of ground clearance for some soft sand beach riding and groomed minor 4wd tracks do you?

            but you do need power to all wheels if you get a little stuck. and you shouldn't be getting stuck if deflating to the right pressures.

            why do i need a full blown 4wd when doing majority city driving and occasional fishing trips on the beach? to wank off to random strangers with their hiluxes?

            • [Deactivated] on 25/11/2018 - 12:04

              @[Deactivated]: Dude… good luck taking a Mazda CX3 on a beach, or even getting yourself out of the deep snow. Any 'groomed minor 4wd track' that you can take a Kona or CX3 or Kluger down, you could take a Camry down. I've done more in a Honda Jazz than most people could do in an AWD mini SUV!

              • [Deactivated] on 25/11/2018 - 17:30

                @[Deactivated]: i've taken a FWD on 'a beach' and i can still do on other beaches that don't have deep loose sand in SA. these are heavily trodden beaches and it's as good as driving on a compacted dirt road. you do realise not all beaches require dune bashing don't you?

                those that do have loose sand (eg. near murray mouth) don't always need tons of ground clearance. plenty of 4WDers get stuck because they simply don't deflate their tyres or get too close to shore after the tide has gone out and just sink.

                it doesn't snow around most of this country, and there aren't many people that need to get themselves out of deep snow in the whole of Australia. even in Europe AWD is sufficient. I didn't think we were discussing remote parts Russia or Alaska here.

                plenty of people buy full blown 4wd's to go places where an AWD will suffice. plenty spend 60k+ and it never hits dirt. but to say an AWD is rubbish is really ignorant. many have very capable systems and some are better than others.

                there's a level of status with the 4wd community that's just full of snobbery. my monster truck will crush you all!

    • Soothsayer on 27/11/2018 - 12:07

      Nine times out of ten you can negotiate a good enough price on a 4wd version that will cost nothing if anything extra over a 2wd version

      Bit of a false equivalency then, why wouldn't you also negotiate on the 2WD price/features if you would on the 4WD?

      Similarly, what if you came across a situation where you would like to try a 4wd experience

      OP has shown absolutely no intention of actually doing a 4WD experience, the only reason why it was mentioned is because OP thought 4WD = more power.

      I agree with your point when it comes to manual vs auto, moving up trim levels, etc. but in this case I don't think it applies.

    • Euphemistic on 22/11/2018 - 05:58
      +10

      You should probably discredit anyone who says you should discredit others who can’t tell the difference between ‘your’ and ‘you’re’ and yet can’t tell the difference between ‘and’ and ‘abs’.

      Oh, wait it’s probably just a typo.

      • TheBilly on 22/11/2018 - 06:57
        +5

        LOL burned the toasty

      • [Deactivated] on 22/11/2018 - 13:32
        -5

        There’s a clear difference between pressing b (next to n) on a phone keyboard and not knowing the difference between your and you’re.

    • h4zey on 22/11/2018 - 12:30
      +1

      i am intrigued on how you test drive a few abs? and more importantly, where can you buy them? i'm in desperate need for few abs.

      • Euphemistic on 22/11/2018 - 19:33
        +1

        I test drive the abs in my car by stomping in the brake pedal and seeing if a) no skidding b) vehicle stops quickly.

  • boccos on 22/11/2018 - 07:38
    -1

    Servicing costs can be much higher for an SUV.

  • DBBROS on 22/11/2018 - 11:01
    +3

    Do you need the extra ground clearance? if not go for the sedan. If boot space is what you need, get a wagon. Registration and running costs will be cheaper for sedans /hatchbacks/wagons and they also have better fuel economy when compared to SUV's. If you were to get an SUV get a 4WD. RAV4's and Xtrails are better than the previous gen qashqai's.

  • sjj89 on 22/11/2018 - 12:38
    +1

    Get a Forester

  • E4xtream on 22/11/2018 - 13:02

    Was in a similar position to OP a couple of months ago. Ended up with sedan. For me, the difference came down to fuel economy vs road type.

    I asked myself when would I ever go off road. The answer, less than twice in 5 years(do it once by mistake, learn from mistake). Then I asked myself if I like saving money. The answer, yes, so I can spend it all on Ozbargain.

    So buy yourself a 4-6 year old sedan. With that budget, you might even get 'luxury' vehicles if you're into that type of thing.

    Kindly.

    P.S. Still single though. OP how'd you do it?

  • Plug on 22/11/2018 - 13:08
    +9

    Get a wagon. Best of both worlds.

    • matthewperk on 22/11/2018 - 14:16
      +1

      came here to say this!

  • Bid Sniper on 22/11/2018 - 14:35
    +7

    went from a wagon to a sedan. Id prefer a wagon

    • Seraphin7 on 22/11/2018 - 17:28
      +3

      Yep, wagons are good.

      • [Deactivated] on 25/11/2018 - 00:40

        you can shag in the back too

  • huit on 22/11/2018 - 14:45
    +2

    So many have said wagon and I agree.

    I own a 5-seat MPV, a Citroen C4 Picasso, if that doesn't ring a bell (think they've sold less than a 100 here before culling the line to just the 7-seat version), think Merc B-class or BMW 2-series Active Tourer, same class of cars but obviously minus the prestige badge. It's a dying category I grant you what with everyone going for SUVs, but certainly for the given size of the car it's the most spacious inside and the most practical.

    But MPVs and wagons both show how pointless softroaders/SUVs are - they are not that space efficient for their size, don't handle particularly well due to their height, and the weight penalty means they're worse on fuel.

    And if you are going to get a large SUV, may I suggest a people mover like an Odyssey or a Kia Carnival, unless you're hung up over what others think about the image, they drive like a normal car, aren't based on trucks or commercial vans (not suggesting most of the softroaders are) and are unbelievably versatile. And the Kia actually has a bit of go if you get the V6 petrol.

    HOWEVER, if I had to join the herd and get an SUV, in the ozbargainer spirit I'd get a Holden Equinox AWD, most powerful engine in the class, most spacious, and apparently it doesn't handle too badly according to the reviews and the AWD can be switched off to save fuel. And given they're not selling there's bargains to be had (you might cop it on resale though)

  • idonotknowwhy on 22/11/2018 - 14:54
    +1

    Slightly OT but these are legitimate questions:
    1. Other than subs on the boot, what does a sedan give you that a hatchback doesn't?

    1. Why do people say an SUV is easier to load kids into than a hatchback?
    • Tightpocket on 22/11/2018 - 15:33
      +2

      sedan typically have more headspace than hatchback and usually looks better (my personal opinion)

      SUV is easier because the heights is just right without having you to bend down and strap your kids in the car seat and generally the passenger doors can be open fully rather than 3/4 of the way.

      • idonotknowwhy on 22/11/2018 - 15:35
        +1

        Thanks for explaining :)
        I agree about sedans looking better.

    • Gdsamp on 22/11/2018 - 17:20

      Sedans offer a little more 'out of sight, out of mind' security when it comes to leaving things in the boot, especially if you forget to replace the hatchback's cargo cover etc. Also keeps luggage/cargo in a separate from the passenger area, could be useful for keeping out smells (e.g. carrying jerrycans, manure etc).

      And yeah as has been said, SUV offers advantage of being closer to the standing height of a person when loading kids into car seats. Also offers advantage of 'stepping into' the car rather than sitting down, but OP doesn't seem old enough for that to be a huge consideration

  • maverickjohn on 22/11/2018 - 15:14

    I upgraded from the Honda Civic 2016 sedan to a Renault koleos as we started a family. The petrol price jumped drastically. It’s not even a big SUV.
    So just consider ongoing costs when deciding .
    The boot space is ok it fits a pram etc. however limits room for shopping etc. still can have a few bags of groceries but it’s not as spacious as one may think. Camry has a large boot if I recall so pram and groceries should fit comfortably.

  • bennos on 22/11/2018 - 15:33
    +1

    As someone who has kids and drives a practical car, and seeing as you don't have have kids yet, get a fun car, V8 commodore maybe?

  • AutomationGuy on 22/11/2018 - 15:40

    Drive them and see what you like.

    I am a car enthusiast and would generally recommend against SUVs; they cost more money, are slower and use more fuel and are often more expensive to maintain.

    However, if you do want a SUV and you like tech the Qashqai TI is very hard to go past. I had a TI CVT (auto) one as a hire car a couple of weeks ago and it was a very premium feeling car. Everything just worked. Apart from not being very fast, it was hard to fault. One of the easiest cars to drive and park that I’ve driven. I just convinced a friend who was in the market for a SUV to buy a 2015 TI with 90k kms for $16k (manual). Hard to go past at that kind of price. Nice lower km ones around $18-20k commonly.

    • [Deactivated] on 25/11/2018 - 00:44

      you're a car enthusiast and you're recommending CVT? lol.

      please explain how SUVs are more expensive to maintain.

      use more fuel? sure they have bigger engines to pull the added weight over a tiny sedan.

      talk about safety? you missed that part.

      recommending a nissan/renault? they're horrendous. dated interior.

      • AutomationGuy on 25/11/2018 - 14:26

        Yes, CVTs are incredibly smooth and quiet. If your purpose is to be easy to drive, smooth and quiet then they do an incredibly good job. For the same reason that I respect the Corolla for its purpose too - it wasn’t designed to be fun, it was designed to be practical, reliable and easy to drive and it achieves all of those things. I would never buy a sporty car with a CVT, because that doesn’t suit the purpose of that car. (Btw I drive a manual, V6 Alfa Romeo coupe).

        AWD systems (where applicable), heavier duty components that are more expensive to replace if they fail. Google it.

        Even when they do not have bigger engines, the extra weight and windage (and sometimes AWD) makes the engines work harder and use more fuel. I don’t get what point you’re trying to make here?

        Having a SUV doesn’t automatically make a car safe. The mass of the car does make an impact, but given that SUVs are also more expensive than the hatches they are based off, spending that additional spend on a better designed hatch or sedan may leave you with a safer vehicle. Depending on what you hit, or what hits you, the height of that object could mean you are better off in a high car or a low one. There are far too many variables to just make a blanket statement either way.

        I will respect your opinion once you have actually driven the car I mentioned. It had quite a premium feeling interior that was quite nice. Also remember that I was recommending 2014-15 vehicles, and compared to other options at that price and age the interior and especially the tech is fantastic. The friend who just bought one also hated Nissan’s with a passion until I convinced them to actually drive this one and they were shocked and bought it straight away.

        • [Deactivated] on 25/11/2018 - 15:03

          dunno, there's not a lot of noise coming from the transmission anyway. i think it's got more to do with the engine matching with the CVT which can reduce revs and lower speeds and decibels. sure, every decibel counts but there's always a tradeoff. i've driven a few CVT cars and they've always been sluggish to start and poor throttle response. ie. floor it and it accelerate a WHOLE second later.

          i hate the delay in launch and lack of response, which is why i didn't think a car enthusiast would ever recommend one. they might be the future due to lower production costs but i've heard it costs just as much to replace when they fail (and they do fail).

          yes of course AWD systems are more expensive to repair or replace, but that's always a big 'if'. this isn't maintenance, it's either a warranty issue or just pure failure.

          most, if not all AWD cars are on demand, and don't actually activate until needed, so they are effectively 2WD. so the added weight is a penalty sure but i doubt the difference in fuel consumption is significant to make a real difference in your wallet.

          pretty much all cars are based off another, so it's kind of irrelevant to start talking about what is what with higher ride height. manufacturers prefer to just use a common platform and match engines with transmissions and drivetrains. there are obvious benefits to buying a lighter car on stilts than a different platform higher end 4WD. sometimes this is just proven reliability, other times it is safety features. as you say, there's far too many variables, but i know i'd rather crash in a SUV than a little hatchback. watch the news and look at the cars of people that don't survive hill crashes and those that do. otherwise feel free to drive a mini cooper.

          i wouldn't touch a nissan these days. and just because i haven't driven a specific car means jack. i very recently as last year sat in a nissan Qashqai and thought it sure as hell wasn't premium and that's pretty much a deal breaker. if you're not comfortable with sitting in the car a test drive is pointless. that said, honda crv looked more premium than anything in its class but again, CVT and turbo lag for a much higher price i didn't see worth the extra. it was however more roomier in the back and more boot space.

          second hand cars are always going to be cheaper. and i don't like buying them personally. 90k sounds like the time a lot of stuff needs to be replaced, shocks, pads, clutch etc. i do all that myself so it doesn't really bother me but those that don't want to learn/don't have the time it's adding to the cost of the car (might as well buy brand new and get the first 90k trouble free driving).

  • Cunning Linguist on 22/11/2018 - 16:59

    As some have already mentioned an AWD wagon is a nice compromise. I personally own a Subaru XV and live inner city. We got the car before having a child and a large dog and it has transitioned over to family life very smoothly.

    Fuel economy is impressively frugal for an AWD - I'm generally at about 8-9L/100Km for ultra urban inner city only driving and 6-7L/100km on road trips. It's been a great car to drive around town, easy to park but also feels comfortable, smooth and safe on long family road trips. It will handle the beach or a dirt track and you won't have any problems on wet turf on those soggy camping trips. Boot space is average but saying that we've always managed road trips comfortably without needing anything on the roof but that option is there for back up.

    Maintenance has been good and build quality is solid. 6 years on and no mechanical issues and everything still works.

    I've heard people complaining about power in Subarus but personally it's never anything I've ever had a problem with or noticed and we've had 5 adults with luggage on road trips in that car.

    If you are fussed about boot space then the Forrester is probably a better option especially if you want to travel with a portable fridge, but then of course it's a bigger car to lug around.

    Best thing to do is to short list a few models and test drive them and see what feels right

  • Gdsamp on 22/11/2018 - 17:27

    An AWD SUV/Wagon may be advantageous if you live in an area with snow/consistent crappy weather, conditions you're unlikely to be facing in an Australian city.
    But if 99.9% of your driving is on sealed roads, you're paying more for a car that will also cost more to keep on the road, and that you don't enjoy the benefits of on a regular basis.

    Budget of 20-30k puts you in good stead to pick up a late model Camry Hybrid (don't fret about buying an ex-government car, they'll likely have kept up with servicing etc). Tons of space, Reasonably well equipped (upper spec models get BSM, auto dimming high beams), Good fuel economy for a car of its size - my friend gets 5.6l in the city with some highway driving. There's an 8 year warranty on the batteries, but if you do decide to sell it'll hold its value extremely well since there'll be no shortage of people wanting to buy it for Uber/rideshare.

  • Cunning Linguist on 22/11/2018 - 18:06

    I've seen a few people comment that you'll be paying significantly more for running an SUV/AWD. I can't really comment for large SUVs, but I certainly haven't seen that with my XV. Fuel is frugal , insurance was actually cheaper than the Lancer I owned before and on road registration and servicing was fairly comparable. About the only cost that was higher is for replacing tyres, but on the flip side the heavier threaded tyres also last way longer.

  • jno on 22/11/2018 - 19:26
    +1

    99% of people that own SUVs dont need a SUV please stick with a sedan. Dont be one of those people, the same people that crawl over a speed hump even those their ride height is bigger than my car.

    • whooah1979 on 22/11/2018 - 19:29

      Why do you dislike motorists that drive SUV?

      • jno on 22/11/2018 - 19:30
        +7

        I just see them buying them because everyone else buys them. You fit the same amount of people in a sedan, takes up less space and blocks the entire view of the road in front. The worst owners are the ones that dont even take them even remotely off road..

        Maybe im just getting cranky with age lol

        • whooah1979 on 22/11/2018 - 20:57

          You fit the same amount of people in a sedan

          Which sedan may legally seat 6 or 7 passengers plus a driver?

          • jno on 22/11/2018 - 22:02
            +2

            @whooah1979: Lol theres people that barely have the 7 seaters suvs lets be honest mate every single suv i see on the road are 5 seaters

            Its the small sized suv are the overhyped bunch that are everywhere

            • whooah1979 on 23/11/2018 - 01:52

              @jno: The small or 5 seat SUV doesn't have the height to block the view. Those that may block are Kluger, Patrol, Pajero, Pathfinder, Prado, RRS, LL, Jeep GC, Ranger, Hilux, LCV, MPV, MUV, etc.

          • jacross on 23/11/2018 - 20:39
            +1

            @whooah1979: Vans are much better for transporting a footy team if that is what your life has become.

      • BobLim on 22/11/2018 - 21:19
        +1

        Primarily because their aggregated purchasing decisions have destroyed the variety available in the wagon market here…

        For example, BMW Australia doesn't have any 6 cylinder wagons, despite a 340i xDrive wagon being an excellent choice for many people, probably including the OP, but isn't available here because they assume everyone will buy an X3 instead and take away the choice

        • whooah1979 on 23/11/2018 - 01:57

          340i xDrive wagon

          An xDrive is out of op's price range.

          My budget is $20k-$25k.

          • BobLim on 23/11/2018 - 02:21

            @whooah1979: Second hand I mean - there hasn't been one available for many years now.

            Circa 2012 335i sedans are available in this price range and it's just a pity about the wagon and xDrive

    • [Deactivated] on 25/11/2018 - 00:15
      -1

      nothing wrong with crawling over a speed hump. smash into them regularly enough and you're going to be up for expensive suspension repairs.

      • jno on 26/11/2018 - 07:45

        Crawling and going over a reasonable speed is a different matter no one said about smashing through them. Dont know about you but my cars suspension isnt made of cheese…

  • This Guy on 22/11/2018 - 20:26
    -1

    Buy a brand new sedan.

    A brand new KIA Cerato Sport Plus Sedan is $26,190 driveaway or $26,690 w/ blind spot monitor and rear cross traffic alert. It is better equiped than a Qashqai Ti (N-Tec is almost identical and a fair bit cheaper) plus has enough room to put a rear facing baby seat behind the passenger with the front passanger seat around half way back and a normal recline (rare!). A 7 year unlimited km warranty means a 6 year old cerato will hold it's value and this is the new shape with a proven engine/gearbox so your not going to be hit with old shape tax for some time or reliability problems.

    New Cerato Sedan $24,990 Drive Away vs 12 month old Qashqai N-Tec $26,990 plus transfers.

    Cerato Pros:
    More room (longer boot and cabin)
    More room for rear facing baby seat (front passenger seat far less compromised with rear facing baby seat)
    More power
    Better driving position
    6 years 11 months unlimited km warranty
    Proven gearbox
    Lower depreciation
    Better AEB and adaptive cruse control system
    Braked torque vectoring (Series 2 Qashqai's have it too, but due to their higher centre of gravity it's more of a traction control than a torque vector)
    Less road noise
    Apple Carplay and Android Auto
    10 years free map upgrades and live traffic
    Full size spare
    Full 'leather' seats (N-Tec has cloth insert)

    Qashqai Pros:
    Moon Roof
    Extremely easy access to boot
    Easier access for elderly (higher - it's an 'SUV')
    Better access to child seats (more height from seat to top of door opening)
    360 degree camera with steering assist parking
    Chassis control system (reduces vibrations on rutty roads by breaking individual wheels)
    Better rear suspension (to me they feel like the rear rides the same)
    Blind spot alert and rear cross traffic standard (not part of a $500 safety pack)

    There are a few differences between a series 1 Ti and a current model N-tec, but not much. There are more differences that I have left out so your sales person has something to tell you.

    For $24,990 there is a silver brand new one in NSW and a white one in QLD. The NSW car was complied this month, so it is a fresh vehicle.

    Don't forget to budget for transfers if you buy second hand or out of state.

    • whooah1979 on 22/11/2018 - 20:52
      +6

      6 year old cerato will hold it's value

      A 6 year old Kia isn't going to hold its value. A 6 year old Corolla or RAV4 may, but not a Cerato.

      • This Guy on 23/11/2018 - 07:47
        -2

        In warranty there is almost no difference between a Cerato and a Corolla.

        2014 auto Cerato, 1 year of warranty. from $10k in auto. $10,500 for a Corolla.

        Brand new Corolla's usually have a price premium of around $5000. Cerato's hold their value better.

      • This Guy on 25/11/2018 - 09:59

        Carsales list of 2014 Cerato's, auto starting from $10k

        Carsales list of 2014 Corolla's, auto starting from $10,500

        $500 difference.

        Cerato auto, new from $18k

        Corolla auto, new from $23k

        Cerato depreciates ~$8000 in four years.

        Corolla depreciates ~$12,500 in four years, ~50% more.

        • whooah1979 on 25/11/2018 - 10:16

          Depreciation private price $14400 is 35.39%.
          Depreciation trade in price $11500 is 48.40%.
          https://www.redbook.com.au/cars/details/2016-kia-cerato-s-au…

          Valuation Prices
          Private Price Guide $12,600 - $14,400
          *Trade In Price Guide $9,700 - $11,500
          *Average Km 15,000 - 25,000
          *Price When New $22,290           Price Guide (EGC)

          Depreciation private price $15700 is 29.37%.
          Depreciation trade in price $13100 is 41.07%.
          https://www.redbook.com.au/cars/details/2016-toyota-corolla-…

          Valuation Prices
          Private Price Guide $13,900 - $15,700
          *Trade In Price Guide $11,300 - $13,100
          *Average Km 30,000 - 50,000
          *Price When New $22,230           Price Guide (EGC)

          • This Guy on 25/11/2018 - 12:05

            @whooah1979: I used 2014 as that's a Cerato with 1 year manufacturers warranty. My claim was a "6 year old cerato (purchased now/7 year warranty) will hold it's value". But let's use 2016 instead so they both have warranty.

            EGC is a made up number and misses ~$5,000 of on road costs. Drive away (D/A), when offered, is the most a retail customer can pay with out a dealership risking their franchise.

            2016 Cerato S Auto's were $19,990 D/A. 2018's are advertised from $18,000

            A private price of $14400 means it depreciated by $5,600 or 28%
            A trade in price of $11500 it depreciated by $8,500 or 43%

            2016 Corolla Ascent Auto's were ~$23,500 D/A. 2018's are advertised from $23,000

            A private price of $15700 means it depreciated by $7,800 or 33%
            A trade in price of $13100 it depreciated by $10,400 or 44%

            By your numbers the Cerato holds it's value better. But Redbook is just a guide. So:

            The 2016 Cerato S Auto was $19,990 D/A.

            High km examples are advertised for around $12,0000
            2 year high km depreciation is ~$8000, or 40%
            Average km examples are advertised for around ~$15,000
            2 year low km deprecation is ~$5,000, or $25%

            The 2016 Corolla Ascent Auto varied, but $23,500 D/A is fair.

            High km examples are advertised for around $15,000
            2 year depreciation is ~$8,500, or 36%
            Average km examples are advertised for ~$16,000
            2 year low km deprecation is ~$7,500, or 32%

            So yes, high km 2016 Cerato's have depreciated faster than a Corolla. There is more variation in the Cerato's value, but in the OP's case (300 to 400km/wk, 15,000 to 20,000km/yr) the Cerato holds it's value better.

            • whooah1979 on 25/11/2018 - 12:17

              @This Guy:

              I used 2014

              Depreciation private price $11200 is 49.75%.
              Depreciation trade in price $8600 is 61.41%.
              https://www.redbook.com.au/cars/details/2014-kia-cerato-s-au…

              Valuation Prices
              Private Price Guide $9,700 - $11,200
              *Trade In Price Guide $7,100 - $8,600
              *Average Km 45,000 - 75,000
              *Price When New $22,290               Price Guide (EGC)

              Depreciation private price $12300 is 44.69%.
              Depreciation trade in price $10100 is 54.58%.
              https://www.redbook.com.au/cars/details/2014-toyota-corolla-…

              Valuation Prices
              Private Price Guide $10,600 - $12,300
              *Trade In Price Guide $8,400 - $10,100
              *Average Km 60,000 - 100,000
              *Price When New $22,240               Price Guide (EGC)

            • whooah1979 on 25/11/2018 - 12:30

              @This Guy:

              2016 Cerato S Auto's were $19,990 D/A. 2018's are advertised from $18,000(carsales.com.au)

              https://www.redbook.com.au/cars/details/2018-kia-cerato-s-au…

              Valuation Prices
              Private Price Guide $14,800 - $16,600
              *Trade In Price Guide $11,600 - $13,400
              *Price When New $22,290               Price Guide (EGC)

              2016 Corolla Ascent Auto's were ~$23,500 D/A. 2018's are advertised from $23,000(carsales.com.au)

              https://www.redbook.com.au/cars/details/2018-toyota-corolla-…

              Valuation Prices
              Private Price Guide $17,600 - $19,600
              *Trade In Price Guide $14,500 - $16,500
              *Price When New $23,490               Price Guide (EGC)

              • [Deactivated] on 25/11/2018 - 12:33

                @whooah1979: Redbook doesn't mean shit. That's just estimations. Carsales prices are much better guides (although you should be able to pick it up for less than the advertised price).

                • whooah1979 on 25/11/2018 - 12:35

                  @[Deactivated]:

                  Redbook doesn't mean shit. That's just estimations. Carsales prices are much better guides

                  Carsales is also a price guide. We've purchased about a dozen vehicles over the years and never paid or sold at the price listed on Carsales.

                  • [Deactivated] on 25/11/2018 - 12:38

                    @whooah1979: Hence my above statement. It's certainly more accurate than Redbook.

                    • whooah1979 on 25/11/2018 - 12:47

                      @[Deactivated]: Redbook mine sales data from a number of databases. Their data should in theory be more accurate than a single source. A source which John and Jane may list their tin box for an unrealistic asking price.

                      • [Deactivated] on 25/11/2018 - 12:50

                        @whooah1979: Redbook data just isn't accurate. Car dealers do not use it as an example.

  • [Deactivated] on 22/11/2018 - 23:20
    +1

    " I am still single, planning to have family and kid in 2-3 years" … You better get cracking.

    You need to (traditionally):

    Find someone to date (6 months)
    Propose an engagement (1-2 years)
    Get Married (1 year)
    Try for Kids (6 months)
    Get her pregnant (9 months)
    Then baby…

    Or you know - knock some chick up.

    • CMH on 22/11/2018 - 23:36
      +2

      knock some chick up.

      +1 most economical way to do it.

      This is OzBargain after all.

      • newjerseydamo on 23/11/2018 - 05:31

        Except that's not economical at all.
        Having a kid that is.

    • Briefcase Mong on 23/11/2018 - 15:38

      username checks out

  • TimApple on 23/11/2018 - 09:54

    Sedans can also fit kids inside. As a kid I got driven with my parents everywhere with my brother with a sedan.

  • afah0447 on 23/11/2018 - 14:25
    +3

    The big car manufacturers (esp. Ford) are trying to get Australia to go down the same road as the US by marketing (ie telling us to buy) big SUVs and utes.

    They are terrible on fuel economy, over-sized for roads other than highways, awful for the environment and dangerous for pedestrians.
    None of the above considerations matter in the US as: 1)fuel is cheap; 2)the roads over there are much wider that here in Australia; 3)they really don’t give a stuff about the environment;and 4)they don’t care about pedestrians nearly as much as they care about motorists and their interests.

    Buy a small car and get: 1)Better fuel economy; 2)Cheaper insurance; 3)Cheaper tyres and servicing costs; 4)Easier to park; 5)Easier to drive around narrow big city streets; 6)Less likely to hit cyclists as your vehicle is physically smaller and you’re better able to judge distance; and 7)Better for the environment.

  • Cunning Linguist on 23/11/2018 - 15:21

    How many kids do you want to have and do you have/plan to get a dog? Serious question

    You can make do with a sedan with one child but as soon as you add another kid or a dog I think you'd be mad to go with a sedan. I mean sure it would be possible but infinitely less practical. If you have a dog you'll want to chuck it in the back when your kid is <1 yo (You won't want it on the seat next to him/her). You can't put your dog in the boot of a sedan - well you could but you'd be a jerk.

    If you plan on more than one kid a sedan is a brave choice - you could manage with a sedan but trust me you'll be wishing you had a wagon van or SUV. Prams, porta cots, high chairs, fold up play pens etc take up a tonne of room if you're planning any sort of family getaway or camping trip. On everyday use the height of an SUV to get your child in and out of the car is heaven on your back. Don't forget you still need to pack that pram and have room for the groceries.

    Practicality of SUV is just as much about it's size then being a 4wd (better yet get a 2wd SUV) - that's a huge positive and not a negative like people are pointing out. There's a reason cars like Klugers are incredibly popular family cars and most people I know with one upgraded to it after having kids, not before, because they are simply just more practical.

    Again I would stress it's all possible with a sedan, but why make life harder for yourself.

    Put it this way I have never met a family with an SUV that would rather have a sedan but come across plenty of families with a sedan wanting to upgrade to an SUV.

  • AMLagonda on 23/11/2018 - 18:30
    +2

    If your "Planning" on having children in 2-3 years time then buy a car that "You" want now and worry about the childrens mode of transport when the time comes!

    This should have no part in the decision at all.

    • Euphemistic on 23/11/2018 - 18:35
      +4

      This. By the time you’ve got around to a second child the car will be old enough to replace with something that suits your lifestyle at that point. For one child, anything with back doors is suitable.

  • bozbargain on 23/11/2018 - 20:24
    +3

    Why do people immediately want a bigger car when they’re (thinking of) starting a family? You can easily fit 2 kids of on the backseat of any compact car, only when they reach adolescence of when you’re having a 3rd it becomes a bit of a squash.

  • jacross on 23/11/2018 - 20:37
    +1

    Get a wagon. Space benefits plus it's not terrible to drive.

  • DiscoJango on 23/11/2018 - 21:40

    ford f250 america fawk yeh

    • pegaxs on 24/11/2018 - 10:17
      +2

      Or one of those Dodge Rams. With all the cringe worthy ads on YouTube with cashed up bogans trying to appeal to other cashed up bogans. “Eats utes for breakfast” as well as fuel, insurance, rego, parking spaces, turning circles, traffic lanes, etc etc…

      • DiscoJango on 24/11/2018 - 10:55

        i just got downvoted by a prius driver

  • mlburnian on 23/11/2018 - 21:51

    Don't believe the naysayers, if corner hugging performance is not important to you, get a wagon or SUV. The boot dimensions make it far more useful than a sedan even if the volume is similar. Comes in very handy, especially if you will have prams etc

    • jacross on 24/11/2018 - 07:10
      +4

      A wagon is great to drive. Heaps better than an SUV. Don't lump them together.

      • Euphemistic on 24/11/2018 - 09:40
        +1

        Yes. Modern wagons aren’t that different from sedans, just have a little more weight from the extra roof/glass up the back. They aren’t like the good old live axle wagons of yesteryear.

      • mlburnian on 26/11/2018 - 17:35

        I did say if handling is not important. Wagons are great but not many choices since no one buys them

        • jacross on 27/11/2018 - 09:26

          Yes which is exactly my issue. If handling is important, but you need space, get a wagon. Because they handle quite well, and very very well compared to SUVs. On the subject of handling, wagons and SUVs must not be lumped together.

          …Oh and now I realise how much of a crazy zealot I'm being, haha.

          They've definitely shrunk as an option though, which was kind of a blessing in a way. I had enough issues when I was researching last year. I think if I had've researched SUVs I would have killed myself. CX-3, CX-5, CX-7, CX…49 etc.

          When it came time to try and find a used version of what I wanted though…well it ended up in a trip interstate.

  • Jackson on 23/11/2018 - 22:46

    We are a weird bunch on here, the results of this survey prove it. Why isnt there a slew of sedans being developed instead of SUVs otherwise?

    • CMH on 23/11/2018 - 23:28

      Because SUVs make them more money

    • whooah1979 on 24/11/2018 - 07:31

      the results of this survey prove it

      About ~40% of those that voted 1sedan either did it by mistake or aren't telling the truth.

      https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/new-vehicle-sale…
      https://www.canstar.com.au/car-loans/top-10-selling-cars/
      https://www.ft.com/content/a073e48e-f107-11e7-b220-857e26d1a…

      • DarkOz on 24/11/2018 - 07:49
        +3

        You forgot the result from this survey are from OzBargainers.

        The one thing we know is value. SUVs are ripoffs and anyone who voted for SUVs should hand in their OzBargain licence.

        • whooah1979 on 24/11/2018 - 08:29

          Ozb are a mixed bunch ranging from unemployment pensioners to millionaires. They buy anything from 50c lighting cables to $500 headphones and $5000 timepieces. Many of them may own an suv or 2 because it suits their lifestyle.

          • [Deactivated] on 25/11/2018 - 00:57

            @whooah1979: you forgot hoarding eneloops and upgrading sony wh-1000xm2 to sony wh-1000xm3 headphones just because

    • DarkOz on 24/11/2018 - 07:47
      +1

      It was previously reported that SUVs sell for ~$10k more than the equivalent sedans. Car manufacturers love to sell SUVs and it's not hard to see why.

  • Daabido on 23/11/2018 - 23:03
    +1

    People who are contemplating having children should be forced to watch this;

    https://youtu.be/uFQfylQ2Jgg

    At first they will think it was a funny comedian, then they will have children and realise it is a documentary.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join