I want to go for second hand 50-60K done may be 2017-2018 model.
Nissan QASHQAI have pretty decent features.
I drive around 80-90 kms per day max.
had been a sedan user, need SUV for family.
need advise for OZbargainers
Need to be value of money and economical.
thanks mate.
But we want SUV.
Is it just the height you're after? I'd put something like a Subaru Forester above most of your list. Not as economical as some but very safe and class leading offroad performance.
you think an former sedan driver who is upgrading to an SUV for family reasons would be interested in off road performance and hence consider it above the others on his list which are just as safe and more economical?
makes sense.
@waterbottled: If they're actually intending to use it as an SUV, then yes. Get out and do some camping with the kids and other outdoory stuff. They said they need an SUV, not want an SUV in the OP so I assume they're after lifestyle options and want to do stuff they can't in the sedan.
EDIT: not judging, just trying to provide options that they may not have considered. If they want an SUV just for fashion and to do the grocery shop then that's fine too.
A Subaru Forester has terrible off-road performance, stop speaking shit. Ever since they introduced the CVT transmissions, Subarus have been useless off-road because the ECU dials back the power when it detects slip to preserve the transmission. They don’t work off-road.
@[Deactivated]: Stock 2019 Forester.
https://youtu.be/AkRtKqMlfHU?t=421
https://youtu.be/AkRtKqMlfHU?t=582
@whooah1979: Lol, she is literally onroad in both those videos. Driving on a dirt road is not off-roading. Any AWD car (or 2wd car) with raised ground clearance could do that.
@[Deactivated]: She was driving a stock Forester.
Any AWD car (or 2wd car) with raised ground clearance could do that.
I would like to see a raised Tesla Model S AWD do that Jeep trail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fNMFwnbECU
Mud, really?
@whooah1979: Only a complete moron would suggest a Tesla Model S could be used off-road. And you’re completely and ridiculously off topic.
@[Deactivated]: You were the one that wrote "Any AWD car (or 2wd car) with raised ground clearance could do that." The Tesla Model S does come with AWD, does it not?
@whooah1979: Obviously I'm referring to SUVs, not sedans. Something with 'raised ground clearance'. The point is that ever since Subaru switched to CVTs, they absolutely cannot go off-road. Ironically the Model S in your video, shows much more off-road prowess than the Forester in your videos.
@apsilon: Every car with a CVT will perform better, but none of those cars are designed to go offroad.
@[Deactivated]: Let me guess, you've got a Landcruiser or Patrol and it's not offroad unless it's heavily rutted or a rocky climb.
These SUV are marketed at outdoor lifestyles. Like it or not people do use them for light offroad travel to go camping, fishing, MTBing and a whole host of other activities. Sure they're not going to do the same tracks a lifted 4WD on 37" muddies is going to do but they are most certainly used offroad.
lol someone downvoted you for expressing your own preference for your own car in your own post HAHA.
Make the switch. You won’t regret it.
I'd recommend Mazda CX-5 Touring late 2018.
That should be good enough for you. Go for Diesel if you can.
I purchased CX-5 early 2018 Diesel and I don't regret a thing. My only complain is the active driving display feature for early 2018 comes in plastic flap. The late 2018 can project display to your windshield.
My dream is to own a Mazda CX-9 one day. I did a test drive with CX-9 2017 GT and it was a smooth and silent ride, nice interior, great arms and legs room.
obligatory wagon fanboy suggesting a wagon to an OP who only wants another certain type of car.
Same arguments pop up. Lower cog blah blah blah, ironically people want suvs for a higher ride and seating position.
A mate of mine had a head on in his Sportage a year or two back (other guys fault), the airbags didn't deploy, the seatbelts didn't lock and the steering column didn't collapse. Apparently not uncommon but DYOR.
We had a 2005 RAV 4, no problems, great car and resold well. I'm not taken with the looks of the new ones but each to their own on that score.
Can't comment on your other choices. Someone mentioned the Isuzu MUX the other day but I don;t know much about them.
the airbags didn't deploy
If your friend survived without (or with minimal) injury then the airbags made the right decision to not deploy. Same for the other things.
My friend survived with a LOT of injury especially when he hit the parts of the car that were supposed to be cushioned by the airbags.
Airbags are sacks that catch the gasses of an explosion. They cause serious injury.
Your friend survived a head on crash and had no serious injuries (otherwise you would have said so). The car worked correctly.
@This Guy: Do you people even read before replying?
"Your friend survived a head on crash and had no serious injuries (otherwise you would have said so)."
And literally the post above you, the one you were replying to.
"My friend survived with a LOT of injury."
Why do I bother to reply? Next time I'll just let the OP buy whatever they want regardless of how bad or dangerous that product might be. It beats having to put up with the Spanish inquisition over the most harmless of posts.
Do you people even read before replying?
Yes, hence I replied to what you wrote, instead of replying to what was implied. Generally if you imply something but don't state it, it is because the implied message is incorrect.
Serious injury is life changing. It commonly refers to life threatening injury too. Google any claim I make if you don't believe me.
A LOT of injury implies many injuries. A windscreen braking at speed causes a lot of minor cuts. A lot could mean anything. However,
Air bags can cause serious injury, life threatening injury and even death. If deployment of airbags can be avoided with crumple zones and a crash cell, then airbags should not be used.
You didn't even state it was high speed. I have had friends survive a high speed, head on crash (both traveling ~100km/h) in an 90's car with air bags deployed. Multiple broken limbs. Facial disfigurement (cuts and broken nose). Concussion. Memory loss. PTSD. Yes, the airbags saved their life but they still broke their leg on the fire wall and multiple friends were trapped until emergency services freed them. Air bags now deploy significantly faster (as they aren't designed to avoid injury to unbuckled occupants anymore). Injuries sustained from airbags now can be significantly worse.
I have also had friends who died in crashes at far lower speeds, before crash cells and crumple zones.
If you want to slander a product that saved your friends life, please bother to provide the full story if you don't want to be criticized.
If your friend survived without (or with minimal) injury then the airbags made the right decision to not deploy. Same for the other things.
^This.
It's amazing how many people "expect" the airbags should have deployed in a crash because they deem the crash to be severe enough. If you didn't die or weren't severely wounded (loss of limbs, multiple compound fractures, etc.), the crash is not severe enough for the airbags to deploy (from the computer's perspective). This was programmed in by incredibly talented automotive and software engineers, and they know a scientific thing or two about crash.
ffs. If the accident was severe enough to write off the car and yes, for him to sustain fractures then the bloody airbags should have gone off. Even if you were correct that doesn't explain why the seatbelts and other safety measures also failed . Everyone's an expert……
https://www.carcomplaints.com/news/2019/hyundai-kia-airbag-f…
April 30, 2019 — Hyundai and Kia airbag failures have caused a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges airbag control units manufactured by ZF-TRW are defective in the following vehicles. The lawsuit was filed just days after federal safety regulators announced they were investigating more than 12 million vehicles from multiple automakers, including Hyundai and Kia. In addition, both Hyundai and Kia have recalled vehicles because of airbag failures related to ZF-TRW airbag control units.
According to the lawsuit, the defect is found in the "application specific integrated circuit" (ASIC) which experiences electrical overstress generated in a crash. The airbags and seat belt pretensioners will fail to deploy, a problem the lawsuit alleges has existed since at least 2011.
The plaintiffs claim Hyundai and Kia knew about the defective ZF-TRW airbag control units in 2011 but allegedly chose to conceal that knowledge until 2018.
Now OK the Sportage isn't listed in that lot but I have no idea what model airbag they used in this particular vehicle so who knows? Either way, the failures mentioned in that link were exactly what my mate described.
How old was the Sportage?
About 2 or 3 years I think he said, can't remember if they bought it new or second hand but that's beside the point I guess.
Just curious, because the first few generations of Hyundai & Kias out here were horrendous quality.
They've really lifted their standards in the last few years. My wife couldn't be happier with her 2018 Sportage.
@Cheapo Moose: Cool, I suspect this kind of issue only get noticed when accidents occur. Also there was a class action on certain models resulting in a huge recall, at least in the U.S.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jensen/2017/04/07/after-years-o…
Did you not have a problem with the rav4 because you didn't have the same head on crash? Maybe its airbags wouldn't deploy either in the same situation.
Don't most of those top out at around $50k new?
new one is not an option.
its getting the best bang for your buck
My point is you can lower your budget.
50-60K done
I think he's talking about km's not the price, I could be wrong though.
Subaru XV S trim and keep $20k in change
has anyone got Rav4 Hybrid?
is it worth spending extra for hybrid version?
Its long waiting list now min 6 months
It worth it
Yes im getting 5.6L/100km
Hi Vince,
I’ve been considering the hybrid rav to replace my ‘13 X1.
I just don’t drive enough to justify the additional expense for the fuel efficiency . Are there any other benefits over the non-hybrid variants?
Extra torque, probably stronger resale value. And that indefinable smug feeling when you roll up with that blue badge.
160kw combined power.
All the suvs with 2 or 2.5l NA are very underpowered.
Only thing comes close is cx5 with 2.5L turbo that makes 170kw. But in a real life review it saw it use 11L/100km
Also if ur comparing to it to the normal Na Rav4 the hybrid in every variant does get little extras. Like led lights and etc its on the brochure
Yes im getting 5.6L/100km
My Getz and previous Barina got 5.4 and 5.1 L/100km country. Hybrid doesn't save that much it seems.
Your getz and Barina aren't the size of a RAV4…
@[Deactivated]: How?
Very easy to get hybrids that are roomier yet more economical than your old shitters, on combined cycle not just country.
You compared a Getz economy against a RAV4… Kinda dumb don't you think to even bother piping up about your shitters?
The mid size suv cx5 with 2.5L turbo uses 11L/100km
You cant compare with ur little tiny cars
Im not gonna fit my family in ur little Barina get crushed like a can of coke in an accident
and a SmartCar will get even less, but is it relevant at all to the discussion? Not at all.
@ColstonAUS: I prefer to save the money, and not get caught up in what's trendy or cool. A to B, and practicality are a cars' primary purpose to many people.
@[Deactivated]: That's fantastic and I'm happy for you, but talking about how good your fuel economy is on your small hatchbacks in a discussion about SUV's is rather pointless.
No Hyundai option (Santa Fe/Tucson)?? But Ford Escape is up there?
true. haven't heard much about Hyundai
Small Korean niche brand. Not very well known here in Australia. But if you want an alternative, the Hyundai Tucson isn't a bad option, and I've read that it gets decent reviews.
hyundai is the opposite of a small niche brand, in korea and in australia. unless ur being sarcastic.
QASHQAI is the smallest of the lot. You might want to check its got enough room for you, too small for our family of 4. Try the Xtrail for more room.
New 2019 Rav4 is nice but older version is a bit average.
Sportage is great value but feels cheap.
Ford Escape feels like an old and tired car.
I went the CX5. Still happy with my purchase a couple years down the track.
thanks Mate. after doing all the research and all. I feel CX5 is the winner.
Watch the chasingcars youtube review cx5 vs rav4 hyrbid. The cx-5 used 11L/100km
Also alot of suv comparisons on youtube the rav4 is the new winner
rav4 hybrid is not an option since its not available as 2017-2018 model.
brand new is 6 months wait.
@Ronthecrypto: Watch the chasingcars youtube review cx5 vs rav4 hyrbid. The cx-5 used 11L/100km
https://youtu.be/PQ75Hs_54Ho
Also alot of suv comparisons on youtube the rav4 is the new winner
Heres a few youtube reviews.
https://youtu.be/D4yswUSXg6s
10x SUV megatest
https://youtu.be/JIBf1ui4s2c
It's the best overall package but you pay more for it. I would have been happy with the Kia or Hyundai but the wife vetoed them as soon as she sat in them.
You did some reseach all by yourself ???????????????
I went and test drove one of the new hybrids… it was awesome, but the price was quite high.
Looked around, ended up with a 2018 Rav4 GX AWD. Came with some fruit standard, Sat Nav, Radar Cruise, Lane Departure, auto headlights, auto wipers. 32,000km, $28k (from a dealer)
Only had it a month, got it mainly for the wife to drive, but I'm happy with it.
A Cash Cow? Research Nissan CVT, the belt that gives on giving.
Forester? Eyesight is a must for me now
The XV is more in this size range, Forester is bigger I think?
Nah, Forester is a CX5/RAV4 competitor. XV is CX3/CHR competitor
CX5 has a really small boot. But need to know what sort of family you have
family of 3 with 1.5 year little Dude. SUVs are more comfortable and spacious as compared to sedans or hatch
This is simply not true. Sit in the back of a Mazda 3 and a CX 5. No practical difference.
This. Have a 3, relative has a CX-5, slightly more room internally.
Compare that with say a Mazda 6.
Hyundai Tucson (petrol) for sure. I had the rav4 as a rental for a few week and it drives very nice but the look in and out is a negative (gps is painfull)
7 seat like a santa fe and use as a 5 seater, bucket loads more boot space than a just a 5 seat SUV
I agree the choices you give are all pretty cramped for a family car. Not much bigger than a hatch inside.
I think the marketers have got us all convinced these little SUV style vehicles are nice and big inside when they are just a jacked up hatchback.
Having did that I much prefer strapping kids in the back of a jacked up hatchback. Being tall, smaller cars can be quite awkward to reach into with either reaching hands in with head outside or stooping in and having your face in where your arms need to be.
The missus has a Hyundai Highlander: plenty of space , engine is quiet and smooth and it doesn't look or feel like a people-mover, even when I have half of my kids' soccer/ footy team in there with me.
has anyone had any experience with MG GS mid-sized SUV?
It's Chinese. Don't do it. They still have a fair way to go before they rival the Koreans, let alone the Japanese, when it comes to car manufacturing
Also a fairly gutless engine from memory for a mid sized suv.
I think most SUV's are totally impractical for families. Majority have bugger all luggage space compared to a sedan.
I think most SUV's are totally impractical for families. Majority have bugger all luggage space compared to a sedan
How so? As an example, a Sorento with the third row down has about 600L whilst a Camry has about 520L. Also, the Sorento gives the flexibility of 2 extra seats if needed (when boot isn't loaded) and the height is better for buckling in kids.
Price is a consideration though of course.
very true, we pay extra price for SUV for the comfort
SUV’s are not more comfortable.
I can fit like 3 75cm luggage plus a handful of carry ons on my 04' escape. And that's only 4.4m long compact suv.
OP - with 3 kids, I think you should perhaps look at 7 seater SUVs as well like Sorento, Santa Fe, Outlander, CX-9, Kluger, etc
family of 3 includes 1 kid
family of 3 with 1.5 year little Dude.
OP only has 1 kid
Ah sorry, I read it as 3 kids!
OP you may also want to think about resale value. The RAV4 holds up very well in this regards. Others not so much.
thanks mate. I am gonna start hunting and will choose among rav4 and cx5
What actual budget are you looking around?
20-25K. min year 2017. plenty of stock with 50-70k kms done
Ex-rentals yeah
Obviously with that budget I can't recommend the new RAV4 Hybrid, though would be perfect for your needs (awesome fuel economy, more room on the backseat than the previous model, more features etc). $40k starting price though
Just be mindful that many of the cars of that vintage had shit warranties compared to now. Toyota and Subaru changed to 5yrs in 2019, previously was 3yrs, so a 2017 RAV4 has warranty until next year. Mazda's warranty changed in August 2018 to 5yrs, everything else before was 3yrs. Honda went to 5yrs July 2018. Nissan of course would have 3 years.
And then you've got capped price servicing on new, or newer cars. Most manufacturers have a large service at the 4yr mark or so, or approx 60,000kms. Check manufacturer websites for service costs, even on used cars.
If you need an SUV for family, just for the extra cabin space maybe also consider a wagon, like a Mazda 6, Subaru Outback, Skoda Octavia etc.
Pros. for a wagon are a lower centre of gravity so they handle better, are less likely to roll in an ancient and slightly more aerodynamic. They may also be cheaper, although I'm not 100% sure.