# SAFE car for a new baby



## bagoftricks (20 Nov 2006)

Ok guys. Well i have been married for six months and we decided to try and have a baby about a month ago. What do you 
know, she is know four weeks gone. 

So this raises the question of lots of things but I would like to ask you for advice on a car for my preganat wife that will keep her safe during her pregnancy and then keep my child safe when he is born. 

She currently drives a 03 3 dr 206 LX but i would not mind forking out another 10k on top to get her something really safe. 

Can you recommend anything in the 20k range, top end 25k that is a mini van or have a lot of interior space and children friendly?

Thanks for the help.

Bag


----------



## polo9n (20 Nov 2006)

get a jeep, a toyota Rav4.
or a mpv like VW Touran?


----------



## bagoftricks (20 Nov 2006)

How do Rav 4s and Tourans shape up in the safety ratings? Do you know a site where i could check out safety ratings?

Thanks for the advice, i will start looking these up.


----------



## polo9n (20 Nov 2006)

cbg.ie click on its review section

i do recommend VW Touran..as u know VW/German car is strong and safe
reliabble..well most of the time


----------



## tosullivan (20 Nov 2006)

Toyota Corolla Verso is 5 Star Euro NCAP Rating.  You should be able to pick up a '04 Luna next year for your €20k.

Then again, you'll only have 1 kid so you probably don't need to get something that big.  You sure you'll get €10k for the 206?


----------



## Eeek!!!! (20 Nov 2006)

bagoftricks said:


> Do you know a site where i could check out safety ratings?


 
As tosullivan mentioned, you'll find the NCAP ratings here (http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/introduction.php).


----------



## bagoftricks (20 Nov 2006)

You know you are probably right, i will probably only pick up about 8k for the 206. 

Thanks so much for the safety rating sites and the recommendation of the verso. I am really looking for a 5 star rating. There is nothing more important than my wifes and kids safety. I will be looking further into these for sure. 

Thanks again
Bag


----------



## june (20 Nov 2006)

as well as safety which you will find on ncap website, think comfort.
 little people need a nice air conditioning system ( we don't want them getting sick! ) Also as child will be rearward facing some cars have a sunshade that pulls up on the back window . my laguna has them on three windows but I'm not sure about other makes. look out for good boot size too.


----------



## slave1 (21 Nov 2006)

Have a scenic myself, results here http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/details.php?id1=7&id2=183, air con, built in sunshades on rear windows, very very child friendly car, highly recommend, you should be able to pick up a 2 year old for around €16k


----------



## polo9n (21 Nov 2006)

i think the Verso is a long wheel based vehicle.not a easy car to drive with ur have kids in back seat!
if u want safety..stick with German cars!


----------



## lissard (21 Nov 2006)

bagoftricks,

Congratulations on your forthcoming arrival. Here's my bit of advice as a father of 2.

Get something with a huge boot ( 500 litres should do it) - you'll have loads of baby related gear when child arrives. Prior to having a baby you have no idea just how much - ridiculous really.
Do not consider anything with less that a EuroNCAP 4 star safety rating. The EuroNCAP crash results are very interesting reading if you're interested in safety.
Look out for cars with ISOfix fittings in the back - the best crash results are for baby seats that have an ISOfix anchor.
Look to the future - if your family expands you might have to change the car a few times to get more space. Each trade costs €€€€s. If I had my time again I would have bought an MPV to start out with. Instead I did the following: Ford Focus (1 child) - > Mondeo (2 kids - big boot) -> S-MAX (kids + friends). I could have saved thousands by buying a bit smarter.
Anyhow there are loads of options out there - enjoy shopping.


----------



## RS2K (21 Nov 2006)

I've had a few (3) Focus C-Max's. 

For 2 adults and 2 kids they are pretty good.

Well built and the best drive in the class. Safe too.


----------



## gianni (21 Nov 2006)

> get a jeep, a toyota Rav4.
> or a mpv like VW Touran?


 
I didn't think that these bigger cars were any safer than standard saloon cars ? I'm nearly sure that I read an article in the Times a few months back with this info.... I'll see if I can dig it out...


----------



## Brianp (21 Nov 2006)

Also, check to see if air bags can be switched off if need be.


----------



## Staples (21 Nov 2006)

Be careful with SUVs.  Heard a startling story some time ago to the effect that as official "off-road" vehicles, they're not subject to the same stringent standards as road vehicles.   In other words, their safety is more reklated to their ability to go up hills rather than withstand a high speed impact.

May be a shaggy dog story but there may be some validity to it.


----------



## lissard (21 Nov 2006)

gianni said:


> I didn't think that these bigger cars were any safer than standard saloon cars ? I'm nearly sure that I read an article in the Times a few months back with this info.... I'll see if I can dig it out...


 
In all the crash tests they only compare cars from the same class. In a head on collision the biggest factor at play is momentum (*mass* x velocity) so a bigger car always wins. I saw an interesting thing a few years ago when a Renault Espace was crashed into a Rover Discovery head on. The Espace sustained less damage which is not what you would have expected - think the video might be up on YouTube.


----------



## Samantha (21 Nov 2006)

I was watching top gear last week a repeat and they were showing the result of car crash with different cars and one of them was the land rover discovery which as the presenter told is bought a lot by family and he could not understand why since the car is only 3 star rating on safety. The renault espace is a 5 star rating and will always end up better than the discovery in a car crash


----------



## Gone Fishin' (21 Nov 2006)

Staples said:


> Be careful with SUVs.  Heard a startling story some time ago to the effect that as official "off-road" vehicles, they're not subject to the same stringent standards as road vehicles.   In other words, their safety is more reklated to their ability to go up hills rather than withstand a high speed impact.
> 
> May be a shaggy dog story but there may be some validity to it.



That was from the US where some SUV's are so big they are classed as trucks.

Small SUV's , like RAV, CRV are great for Moms and kids. No bending to lift junior into and out fo the car and great visibility for both Driver and passenger. Kids get very bored lookng at ditches, they love to see over the usual obstacles. 

Be aware that the NCAP star rating includes the damage to others as well as occupants and, as is as obvious as one's nose on your face, bigger cars will do more damage to whatever you hit.


Whatever happens, get your wife out of the small car into something safer. Small cars are very dangerous for occupants, regardless of their NCAP star rating.


----------



## bagoftricks (21 Nov 2006)

Guys and Girls 

You have been so kind to take time out of your days to lend me your advice from past experiences. I am totally gobsmacked by the number of people adding valuable advice and information. 

I would like to thank for being so kind. 

I will let you know what way i decide to go. 

All the best 
Bag


----------



## Taximan (21 Nov 2006)

I recommend the Scenic and if you intend to keep going go for the grand scenic. I have three little ones and the grand scenic is brilliant loads of room, very safe and reasonable on petrol. With one the grand scenic might be a bit big, but the smaller scenic is v.g for boot room driver position baby position and v.safe etc. stay away from saloons her back will be wrecked after the pregnancy so some sort of people carrier makes loading and unloading much easier.

Congratulations you are now entering the best phase of your life so far it certainly has been for me exhausting but great.


----------



## Gone Fishin' (21 Nov 2006)

One piece of advice w.r.t. Scenic. Make absolutely sure you speak to the previous owner as some of them can be problematic. When they are good they are very very good, when they are bad they are .............(You know the rest)

A very useful resource for used cars reviews is www.honestjohn.co.uk then choose the car by car breakdown, on the LH side. It contains a 100% impartial review of every car on the market, used and new. You will see what cars have been reliable and what cars not.


----------



## paddyd (21 Nov 2006)

my 2 cents.

I'm actually in the identical same position as the OP. New arrival, changing car etc etc.

My wife had a Clio. Great wee car.

We went for a new Focus in the end. 1.6 Zetec, 5 star NCAP, with ISOFix added.

Few things:
1. Re: the C-Max, Megane Scenic, Golf Plus, and their ilk. We tested the Focus C-max. They are just not worth the money. The ONLY thing that makes them safer is that they are heavier. This makes them a dog to drive.

2. I'm not convinced they have all that more room. Its just head-room. Dimension-wse, that are almost identical. How much difference does that make to a child? None. How much difference will that make to you? Probably very little

3. The ISOFix are a must in any car. Absolutely brilliant idea, and so simple to use.

4. Why look for a Jeep/minivan for your first child? Why not wait until you have 2!? and even then, I'd still go towards the bigger 4-door saloons rather thant he mini-vans or Aldi-SUV's (Rav-4, x-trail, sante-fe, honda cr-v, etc etc etc).

5. I would consider the Focus to be the smallest car I would have my wife use for the family transport; but that said, its a pretty big car (biggest in class by far, and most roomy). The hatchback is 6 inches longer than Megane or golf, which is a huge amount by any standard.

6. Excellent rear seat safety, with full length curtain airbags. 6 airbags in total.

7. Minivans, aldi-suv's and MPV's are completely different to drive than a car. There is little or no dirving experience, and the ride is like a boat. 

8. the Zetec has the brilliant chassis (also now used in the new volvo S40), sports suspension, and huge 17" 205(width) tyres, so the drive and ride is fantastic. 

Don't just consider safety alone when buying. Sure it should be no.1 on the list, but there is so much more to consider.


----------



## Gone Fishin' (21 Nov 2006)

With all due respect, you are writing from an obviously prejudiced point of view rather than an objective point of view. It is obvious you have no idea how the SUVs you mention, and the mini-MPVs, handle. The ride is nothing like a boat and none of them handle like a dog. 

Modern SUV and MPV are very practical cars and drive quite well. (I would contend they are pretty much all better to drive than most small cars, like Yaris, Clio, etc.)

The amount of times it is handy to have a van-like vehicle in the household will soon become apparent. While babies occupy little space, they have more baggage than any adult.


(And, since when was a FOCUS a "BIG" car?)


----------



## paddyd (21 Nov 2006)

Gone Fishin' said:


> (And, since when was a FOCUS a "BIG" car?)


 
please re-read. 'Big' for its class. In fact, I've said it was the "smallest car I'd have my wife transport the family in". Don't be so argumentative!

Personally, (and this was 2 weeks ago) i found a monumental difference between the Focus and the identical C-max. both 1.6. Couldn't believe it. Felt like I was driving a bus.

My point was that Mini-MPV's don't really offer much extra. The dimensions are the same. Its just height, which naturally makes for a disimprovement in the ride and drive. And its not often that you will stack things to the roof.


----------



## Gone Fishin' (21 Nov 2006)

The actual quote is


> its a pretty big car


----------



## slave1 (21 Nov 2006)

FYI, the new Scenic are 5* rated, have isofix and we have a 4, 3 and 3 month in the back no problem, 4 and 3 y/o's in fitted seats, new born in carry chair, you can turn off front airbag if she happens to be in the front, not a dog to handle at all, 1.4 litre, grand for around the town and we can fit the new borns pram and the shopping in the boot no problem, you would not think it to look at the car from the outside but it is a bit of a tardis


----------



## paddyd (21 Nov 2006)

have looked up the dimensions in the brochures:

Focus width: 170.6 inchdes
C-Max width: 170.9 inchdes

Focus length: 71.9 inchdes
C-Max length: 72.4 inchdes

The C-Max starts from €23.1k, the focus starts at €19.2k

Thats €4k for 0.5 inch extra in length, and (perhaps) 6 inches in height. Thats my point. Apologies if its laboured!

Also, Slave, you point is a good one; these are better suited to bigger families. I think the OP (and myself) only have 1. If we have another (in 2-4 years time perhaps), then we'd defo trade up again.


----------



## lissard (21 Nov 2006)

Paddyd,

You are right of course on the dimensions. Having owned a Focus I found it was definitely fine for parents + 1 child. The problem came when baby no. 2 arrived - there was simply no space in the boot for a double buggy and so on. The cabin was more than adequate - we changed car purely for the extra litres in the boot.  The other problem with saloons is fitting 3 across the back seat. Try getting an adult into the back of a car with 2 child seats in place - pretty tight - this is where an MPV comes into its own.


----------



## RS2K (21 Nov 2006)

This is getting silly.

A few facts -

SUV's handle and brake more poorly than other comparable cars. They are higher to provide clearance for off road work, & therefore have a much higher centre of gravity.

I've owned Focus hatchbacks, an estate, and C-Max's. The hatches handle best (the ST model is incredible) but have the smallest boot. The estate  has a big boot, but is only available as an LX model, with a relatively low spec. The C-Max is a good compromise. The flexible seating system is very clever. Kids sit a little higher which they like. In Activ spec. it's actually cheaper than a similarly engined Zetec hatch. All 3 types handle well, although I wouldn't chuck an MPV into corners too hard.

I've owned 7 Foci so far so would consider myself fairly knowledgeable on them.

If you want double buggies, and a lot of luggage, and 4 people on board, you need a bigger MPV. An S-Max or Galaxy or similar.

The compact 7 seaters will carry people but nothing else. The rear seats are inches from the back window on a Zafira for example.

HTH.


----------



## Staples (22 Nov 2006)

Gone Fishin' said:


> Kids get very bored lookng at ditches, they love to see over the usual obstacles.


 
Ah Bless.  That makes the increased levels of environmental damage and risk to other road users all worthwhile.


----------



## Gone Fishin' (22 Nov 2006)

Staples said:


> Ah Bless.  That makes the increased levels of environmental damage and risk to other road users all worthwhile.



"The increased levels of environmental damage?" Negligible, and most modern SUVs are a hell of a lot cleaner than a 10 year old Corolla. Are you petitioning to remove them? I doubt it.

"........... and risk to other road users?" This is 100% poppycock and one of the few, tiresome, statements the anti-SUV brigade come out with time and time again. There is no increased risk to road users. The risk is the same as any other car.

Do you object to Artic trucks? Ford Transits? Rigid trucks? Busses? All these carry more risk to both the environment and other road users but how come the tree-huggers don't mention them? It's all because of inverted snobbery. SUVs carry all the pique from the ill-informed, all those jealous of others' possesions. If SUVs were banned, the same objectors would find something else to moan about.


Me? I love my SUV. It's reliable, safe and economical.


----------



## Gone Fishin' (22 Nov 2006)

I'll debate this issue with anybody but I've yet to see any rational well thought out arguments from the SUV opponents.


----------



## paddyd (22 Nov 2006)

Gone Fishin' said:


> I'll debate this issue with anybody but I've yet to see any rational well thought out arguments from the SUV opponents.


 
which SUV is it?

Personally, I have no problem with City Jeeps or SUV's. I think its the whole 'Ah but they pedestrians don't have a chance if hit by one' arguement that people like to wheel out; and I have to agree with you there; while it might be true, its poppycock when compared to being like by a bus truck or whatever.

also, for the tree huggers, most of the City Jeeps and SUV's ar enow diesels, and probably do the same mpg as any 1.8 or 2.0 petrol.

please note the distinction between City Jeeps and SUV's. SUV is an americam term for a luxury automatic jeep, Nagicators, X5s, M-Class merc, Cayenne, VW Tuareg etc.
City Jeeps are all 2L petrol jeeps, most with 2 and 4 wheel drive options. CR-V, X-trail, Rav-4, turacan, etc.


----------



## Gone Fishin' (22 Nov 2006)

I have an Xtrail, 2.2 diesel, 40mpg and a plastic front. It's comparable with any car.


----------



## paddyd (23 Nov 2006)

Gone Fishin' said:


> I have an Xtrail, 2.2 diesel, 40mpg and a plastic front. It's comparable with any car.


 
out of the big list of potential jeeps, that would be my choice I have to say. 

As regards the plastic front, the NCAP test relates to hitting a predestrian at the front (obviously), but a Jeep will hit them above waist height and will push them forward, whereas a car will hit them above knee height, and throw them over the car (which is safer, in a less-hurtful sort of way!). 

This is a debate that will go on and on.

I heard Ray D'Arcy giving out yards to some SUV-supporting fella yesterday; infact he was a little OTT I thought. Ban all SUV's immediately, etc etc.


----------



## Bootdog (23 Nov 2006)

Gone Fishin';321243
"........... and risk to other road users?" This is 100% poppycock and one of the few said:
			
		

> Are you seriously making out that an SUV is equivalent to (say) a small car, if they both crashed side on into an average car? Are you really saying that the larger, heavier, SUV with greater ground clearance would not do more damage?
> 
> If so, you might find this interesting:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_86RuYXoJA
> ...


----------



## Gone Fishin' (23 Nov 2006)

Bootdog said:


> Are you seriously making out that an SUV is equivalent to (say) a small car, if they both crashed side on into an average car? Are you really saying that the larger, heavier, SUV with greater ground clearance would not do more damage?
> 
> If so, you might find this interesting:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_86RuYXoJA
> ...



With all due respect that is a ridiculous argument. Who, of us, can choose who is going to hit us? There are so many cars of different sizes, why pick on an SUV and a small car? You will rarely get an accident like Monaghan's recent accident, where 2 identical cars crashed into each other.

Using this logic why not ban all large cars as they might hit something smaller than themselves. What about our Minister for Environment's choice of car? 2.125 tonnes of Lexus. (The same as a Rav 4, but heavier than a BMW X5). If he hits a Yaris then God help the Yaris.

What about Bertie Ahern's car? 2.475 tonnes. Heavier than a lot of SUV's, and, given the speed it is driven at, possibly the most dangerous car in the State?

What about all the Vans and trucks? Heavier, less stable and a hell of a lot more dangerous than any SUV, but one never hears any opposition to their presence on the roads? (Despite they being in a hell of a lot more accidents than any SUV)

When I buy a car I consider the safety of me and my occupants first. Others, second.

I would consider combody buying a Yaris to be reckless with the safety of their own health and that of their occupants.

Unfortunately accidents will happen and if people have not taken appropriate measures to protect themselves it's unfortunate.

If somebody, through their driving, causes harm to others then they deserve the full rigours of the Law, REGARDLESS of what they are driving.

To me all the anti-SUV hysteria is ill informed and ridiculous. Blaming the car when it's obvious the venom is being directed at the drivers, and their perceived social status, is pathetic.

There are a hell of a lot more dangerous drivers in non-SUVs than in SUVs, but that is conveniently ignored too.

So what if you see a BMW X5 in the Supermarket car park. Rest content that the owner has just contributed e50,000 in tax for the education of your children.


----------



## Bootdog (24 Nov 2006)

You completely missed my point and ignored my question. I can't choose who hits me, but YOU can choose what you hit someone with. If you choose an SUV you are also choosing to do more damage and injury to the person you hit. This creates a greater risk to those people than if you chose a lighter car, or a car with same weight and lower centre of gravity.

About the govt. cars, don't cars almost always stop quicker than SUVs due to stiffer suspension and generally lower profile tyres on cars? Would your x-trail outbrake a Primera or a Micra?

Re the trucks - one of the aims of the biggest civil engineering project ever undertaken in the state was to get trucks off the quays ... but don't get me started on the Port Tunnel.

"When I buy a car I consider the safety of me and my occupants first. Others, second."
Thats fair enough (thats why I never bought the likes of a Yaris), but I would still never consider an SUV. You also might find this interesting : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIKu1UDoa6s

Haven't seen much anti-SUV hysteria myself recently (you must be getting a lot of stick over it ???  ), maybe its more in the UK... and I wouldn't attach any particular social status to them either.

I might actually agree with you on there being less dangerous drivers in SUVs - boy racers / enthusiastic-drivers-who-don't-like-to-see-themselves-as-boy-racers don't generally go for them (would that be because they don't handle so well I wonder?).


----------



## NHG (24 Nov 2006)

Once again we seem to have strayed from the question that bagoftricks originally asked!


----------



## Kluivert (24 Nov 2006)

Why does eveyone go buy a SUV or Jeep. Buying a big feck ass york like that for two people, that makes sense. 

Big is better. 

Traditionally Renault have the safest NCAP ratings. 

Although the cars can go wrong. 

My recommendations: 

Skoda Octavia 
Honda Civic (new)
Opel Astra.
Ford Focus.
Toyota Corrolla. 

I picked these cars due to fuel ecomony and booth size and interior equipment.


----------



## RS2K (24 Nov 2006)

Indeed.


----------



## Gone Fishin' (25 Nov 2006)

Bootdog said:


> You completely missed my point and ignored my question...................
> 
> ................



Your question was as follows



> Are you seriously making out that an SUV is equivalent to (say) a small car, if they both crashed side on into an average car? Are you really saying that the larger, heavier, SUV with greater ground clearance would not do more damage?



I know the Laws of Physics and I am not doubting them. It's obvious a heavier vehicle will have more momentum and will cause greater damage. However the same argument can be thrown at the driver of every car that is involved in an impact with a smaller car.

I will pick my vehicle with my own, and my passengers', interests of primary concern. Self preservation is paramount.

I know this is a tangent, but isn't that half the fun of Internet forums.

Going back to the original query, I would not consider any of the following to be a "safe" car for today's driving conditions


> Skoda Octavia
> Honda Civic (new)
> Opel Astra.
> Ford Focus.
> Toyota Corrolla.



Go for something big and safe.


----------



## ClubMan (26 Nov 2006)

bagoftricks said:


> So this raises the question of lots of things but I would like to ask you for advice on a car for my preganat wife that will keep her safe during her pregnancy and then keep my child safe when he is born.


Why not just drive carefully/cautiously to reduce the risk of accident?


----------



## Upstihaggity (30 Nov 2006)

ClubMan said:


> Why not just drive carefully/cautiously to reduce the risk of accident?


 
Sure, that's part of it -but a fairly simplistic answer to the original question.
One can only attempt to *reduce* the risk of an accident by they themselves driving carefully;
something I'm fairly sure the OP has every intention of driving *carefully/cautiously* given his concern for his pregnant wife and unborn child evident by his asking the question in the first place.
Unfortunately, one cannot fully be responsible or even hope to prevent some fool from crashing into your car due to *their* careless driving.


----------



## polaris (30 Nov 2006)

Gone Fishin' said:


> Go for something big and safe.


 

So if we all take your advice and get cars as big as yours, what will you do then?


----------



## Gone Fishin' (30 Nov 2006)

I'm perfectly happy with my car, which is far from big.

 I chose it based on what I want, not what others wanted or on what others think. 

Why do you ask?


----------



## RS2K (1 Dec 2006)

Gone Fishin' said:


> I'm perfectly happy with my car, *which is far from big.*



X- Trail is now "far from big". I see.


----------



## Gone Fishin' (1 Dec 2006)

Don't you agree? 

It's about the size of a Picasso or Scenic, and that's not big, by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## johndoe64 (1 Dec 2006)

A guy in a yaris rear ended me about a month ago, his front end was smashed in, leaking fluids everywhere, not a scratch on mine. (Toyota Land Cruiser Comm) tow bar and rear mounted wheel did all the damage.

I'd say he did about 4K-5K damage to his motor.


----------



## RS2K (1 Dec 2006)

Gone Fishin' said:


> Don't you agree?
> 
> It's about the size of a Picasso or Scenic, and that's not big, by any stretch of the imagination.



No I don't agree. 

I must sort out a fews stats. to either prove my theory (or blow it apart).


----------



## Gone Fishin' (2 Dec 2006)

From carzone.ie

Picasso (1.6 Diesel)


> overall length (mm): 4,276, overall length (inches): 168.3, overall width (mm): 1,751, overall width (inches): 68.9, overall height (mm): 1,637, overall height (inches): 64.4,




Xtrail 2.2dCi


> overall length (mm): 4,455, overall length (inches): 175.4, overall width (mm): 1,765, overall width (inches): 69.5, overall height (mm): 1,750, overall height (inches): 68.9,



So Xtrail is 7 inches longer, 0.6 inches wider and 4.5 inches taller. Not a lot, and nothing significant.

Let's look at Grand Scenic?


> overall length (mm): 4,493, overall length (inches): 176.9, overall width (mm): 1,810, overall width (inches): 71.3, overall height (mm): 1,636, overall height (inches): 64.4,



Hey, it's longer than Xtrail (not by much), it's wider too (not by much) and, coincidentally, not, (2 French cars) it's the same height as the Picasso.


----------



## rabbit (3 Dec 2006)

johndoe64 said:


> A guy in a yaris rear ended me about a month ago, his front end was smashed in, leaking fluids everywhere, not a scratch on mine. (Toyota Land Cruiser Comm) tow bar and rear mounted wheel did all the damage.
> 
> I'd say he did about 4K-5K damage to his motor.


 
A crumple zone makes a car safer for the occupants.   If there was no crumple zone, the sudden decelleration would be much more severe.


----------



## RS2K (6 Dec 2006)

I had a look at a XTrail today. It's not huge inside.

I can't see the point having one if you don't go off road regularly. It handles and brakes worse than a comparable car. It's also heavier so less fuel efficient.

Each to their own I suppose.


----------



## MOB (7 Dec 2006)

"I can't see the point having one if you don't go off road regularly."

Towing.


----------



## Gone Fishin' (7 Dec 2006)

RS2K said:


> I had a look at a XTrail today. It's not huge inside.
> 
> ......................



As I said.



RS2K said:


> ....................
> 
> I can't see the point having one if you don't go off road regularly. It handles and brakes worse than a comparable car. It's also heavier so less fuel efficient.
> 
> Each to their own I suppose.



Given the state of Ireland's roads it's a hell of a lot better on the rough stuff than any saloon car. I find it great.

I have the 4WD version, the only one worth having. Four Wheel drive is a huge benefit for traction and grip and of enormous help when towing something.

Less fuel efficient? In case anybody hasn't noticed, it's litres per week that costs money, not litres/00km. A 4wd Xtrail will return 38mpg, by the way. Fuel is only one factor in the cost of a car, depreciation to biggest. BTW the annual road tax, at e722, is ridiculous, equal to the cost of 6000 miles of driving.

Other favourable attributes are the driving position, relatively high, and safe, and the general performance of the car.

w.r.t. the handling? The onus is on the driver of this vehicle, and all vehicles, to drive safely and within the limits of the car. It's amazing how many people blame the car (usually an SUV) for it's handling deficiencies, and not the driver for recognising the limits of his vehicle.

I'd have an Xtrail over a Primera (closest Nissan product, in size) any day of the week. In fact I'd never drive a Primera, I think they are absolutely dreadful.

Each to their own, I suppose!


----------

