MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Looking to replace my 5 year old A6 with a soft roadery type thing... anyone own either of the above or have any opinions? Will be used for usual duties, communting, transporting sprogs and / or bikes.
The XC60 gets some great reviews as being best in class.
The Q5 gets good reviews BUT they say the handling is very firm.
I have a TT and its lease is up in October so I will be looking at the Q5 in that case 8)
Man, you're gonna get flamed for considering either on here.
Having experience of an XC90 & a Q7, i'd go for the Volvo.
XC60 and Q5 both pretty small internally compared to an A6 - depends if you need the space.
At least pretend to be considering a skoda.
Mates just got rid of his Q7 and is very pleased he did - he put 4 sets of front tryes on in 20k miles (£200 each as well). Obviously the Q5 might be better.
my BIL has had an XC60 since they came out and is very pleased with it.
Flamed? And rightly so. Completely unnecessary 'ladies who lunch' cars which are slightly vulgar, not as cars but the weapon of choice for the school run mum dropping her little angle at the local fee paying school.
Have you thought about an octavia.......
Can't for the life of me understand why anyone would buy a q5 over an a4 estate..
Some fantastic deals on XC90's.
slightly vulgar, not as cars but the weapon of choice for the school run mum dropping her little angle at the local fee paying school.
Why? She is giving her child [what she regards as] the best potection while on the road.
And giving your child [what you regard as] the best education you can is vulgar also?
[url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/some-smashing-news-and-car-advice-combined ]Much info on such cars here, in a thread of mine which provides evidence that such cars aren't always "Completely unnecessary 'ladies who lunch' cars which are slightly vulgar, not as cars but the weapon of choice for the school run mum dropping her little angle (SIC) at the local fee paying school. "[/url]
🙂
one of the car mags has a review this month on these two, the new BMW X3 (which came top) and the LR Freelander (which came bottom) IIRC. Check it out - I thumbed thru it the other day...
The q5 is tiny inside, I tried to sit in the back and failed. No leg room or headroom not tried th Volvo but it can't possibly worse.
They are Tory housewife cars. Millions of em in Guildford.
If I had my way everyone would be driving Wartburgs or FSOs.
Can't for the life of me understand why anyone would buy a q5 over an a4 estate..
Well ride height, visibility and ease of lifting small children in/out are some reasons I could think of.
ha thought this would get the skoda band going! yes great cars and I'm sure I'd get many years of reliable motoring... however the decision is between these two....not taken by the yeti!
Can't say that the wife ever struggled with a BMW estate. But I guess each to their own (thank god..).
My Octavia comment was tongue in cheek..
Same as above, new x5 was the winner, Freelander2 came last, I drive a freelander2 and to be fair, it's superb.
I don't think people 'struggle' but they just want to make their life easier (either really easier or just perceived). And sometimes people have their own opinions on what cars they like. Isn't that odd?
I think the X range needs updating - I think they are looking a bit dated now. And that new X1 (or whatever). Yack.
Still, it isn't as fugly as that new small Audi monstrosity.
MF - The oldest X model is the X5 (updated 2-3 years ago), which is the only good looking one imo. Doesn't look dated at all (again, imo).
The X3 has just been updated. Is getting very good reviews, but the looks are still questionable. The old one was ugly and crap.
Of course these are just IMOs but I just feel they are trying to keep the existing 'X Family' look and that is getting a bit past it.
New motta - XC60 or Q5?
When faced with difficult questions such as this I find I only have to ask myself -
"What would Clarkson do?"
Q5 owner here (flame away 😀 ).
I'm happy with mine, its not perfect but its been a pleasure so far. I've got the 3.0tdi auto, its fast: 0-60 in 6.5 (faster than a Cayenne diesel) and relatively economical: 38mpg. Its a firm ride but its a sporty drive and the two usually go hand in hand. Its as big as an estate in the back so plenty of room for carrying bikes.
I had a Tiguan before this which I really liked but the boot is only slightly bigger than a Golf so not good for bikes and it was a bit dull to drive in comparison.
Chap at work has a 2.0 diesel XC60, reckons it's excellent on fuel.
Audi Q5 looks nice. Surely a 3.0 engine is a bit OTT for such a car.
The Q7 seems to be the strap-on of choice for self employed plumbers & plasterers round here. 🙂
My sister in law just got a soft roader. They apparently 'needed the size' but then again estate cars aren't readily available in the US, which ime are always better for size.
The reason they needed the size was because they bought a huge pushchair for their new kid. If they didn't have a huge pushchair they'd have been able to get a significantly more economical car thereby saving themselves many thousands of dollars (they're not well off).
Can't get my head round that one...
I guess some people don't see that being 'better off' financially is as important as getting the 'right' things for their children (ie, what they think is the most suitable pushchair).
And of course there is the (often assumed) better safety of being in a higher car - and in the States I guess the higher driving position must be an important factor.
My brother in law lives in LA and has an Elise (in fact the very first one in the US apparently). He says it is utterly terrifying on the roads (because it is so low and other drivers don't even see it) so just races it now.
I guess some people don't see that being 'better off' financially is as important as getting the 'right' things for their children (ie, what they think is the most suitable pushchair).
Don't get involved in this MF.. you've got no idea.
Why don't I have any idea?
Cos you don't know the people involved or what their situation is.
Cos you don't know the people involved or what their situation is
I wasn't trying to say what your sister in law should do or not do. I was simply suggesting that people make decisions based on their circumstances. And your sister in law has made HER decision based on what SHE feels was best for her circumstances.
I can understand why you feel aggrieved though - after all she clearly didn't ask your permission first. 😉
Is it the perceived "safety factor" that makes drivers of these big types of car go closer to cyclists than any other vehicle (except white vans)?
Just wondering.
I think she made a mistake in her pushchair purchasing, which is all I am going to say.
Thanks for sticking up for someone you've no idea about. It's almost as if you are deliberately trying to annoy me 🙂
Is it the perceived "safety factor" that makes drivers of these big types of car go closer to cyclists than any other vehicle (except white vans)?
Probably - although many of them are actually less safe in many typical road accidents apparently (although I am sure someone will be along soon to prove me wrong).
I think she made a mistake in her pushchair purchasing, which is all I am going to say.
Well again, she *might* have bought the pushchair as she thought it was best for her baby. Not trying to annoy* you, just saying it as I see it.
*Well maybe just a little now I can see you are boiling along nicely 😉
She did think it best for her and her babes. I think she was wrong though 🙂 That's all I have to say however.
although many of them are actually less safe in many typical road accidents apparently
A US study of road fatalities vs car in which the people died showed no correlation between size of car and liklihood of death.
Some larger cars were near the low end, some small ones were too. Fewest deaths was VW Jetta IIRC.
Fair enough. So what behemoth did she get for babby? What Grand SUV of the pushchair world needed such a big car to transport it?
I do not know the make or model of pushchair.
That's all I have to say however.
See this? ^^^
Your sister's pushchair/car has clearly made you very mad Mr Grips. I think it is time for a lay down.
Fewest deaths was VW Jetta IIRC
Easily explained by virtue of the protective merits of trilby hats.
Your sister's pushchair/car has clearly made you very mad Mr Grips. I think it is time for a lay down.
It made me slighty mad. I can't decide if you have made me more or less mad.
[img] 
[/img]
A US study of road fatalities vs car in which the people died showed no correlation between size of car and liklihood of death.
If there was a crash between a Jetta and an XC90 I'd rather be in my XC90.
If there was a crash between a Jetta and an XC90 I'd rather be in my XC90.
I think it normally depends on the point of impact.
If there was a crash between a Jetta and an XC90 I'd rather be in my XC90.
However that's not the whole story. If we had a glancing collision and one of us hit a tree, for example, I'd rather be in the Jetta.
Even if it was the Jetta that hit the wall?
You know what I meant. If both hit a wall/tree the Jetta people would most likely be better off. Although in this case there might not be much in it.
If both hit a wall/tree the Jetta people would most likely be better off.
.....interesting. Why?
why's that then?
What did the study say about the correlation between vehicle size and injury of peds and cyclists?
.....interesting. Why?
Smaller car has less kinetic energy to dissipate. If built well then the smaller car will be as 'strong' but will have to do less work to protect its occupants, so to speak.
Comparing a small car with a big SUV there could be half as much energy.
Surely the people in the car the SUV hits are more likely to be injured - I seem to remember a 'stat' about it - something like 21 times more likely.
That sounds like rubbish to me.
There are more ways to die in a car accident than from hitting the other car tho, that's the point. Then again there's the avoidability too. Smaller cars can squeeze through smaller gaps for instance. That's why the survey I read was better because it simply related deaths to car (adjusted for mileage I think too) and thereby took into account all the factors.
Been looking into these myself, and the Volvo looks a good compromise.
The latest X3 seems to be the best in the class, apart from a) its an X3 b) its no looker c) it starts at £31k.
Leftfield - the new FWD Freelander from £22k.
If built well then the smaller car will be as 'strong' but will have to do less work to protect its occupants
That's the theory........ but I think a vehicles ability to absorb energy is also dependent upon what it's made of (i.e. a lighter steel construction cannot absorb as much energy as an identically designed vehicle constructed of heavier grade steel). Carbon fibre car would be the best of both worlds as it would have the strength of a heavy steel car but be very light.
There are a number of factors involved........ but I'd still rather be in the bigger car.
Smaller cars can squeeze through smaller gaps for instance.
Well yes....but in reality it wouldn't make any difference.
lighter steel construction cannot absorb as much energy as an identically designed vehicle constructed of heavier grade steel
Are smaller cars made of lighter grade steel? These days?
Well yes....but in reality it wouldn't make any difference.
Well the stats I saw would tend to suggest that it does.
but I'd still rather be in the bigger car
You think the stats are wrong?
Smaller cars can squeeze through smaller gaps for instance.
Yeah but smaller cars can fall down holes - you didn't think about THAT did you?
Are smaller cars made of lighter grade steel? These days?
Generally, cheaper cars are lighter. If a bodyshell is lighter then it must be the grade of steel, no?
Well the stats I saw would tend to suggest that it does.
Our XC90 is about 5" wider than our Golf - this does not make me think "I can fit through that gap" when I'm in the Golf
You think the stats are wrong?
You can make stats prove pretty much anything can't you, so they're probably neither right or wrong.
If a lighter is safer (ignoring carbon fibre) shouldn't we be driving around in kitchen foil cars? Also what about the height of the vehicle - does this make a difference?
I should add I know nothing about this and I'm merely filling in time rather than scanning some pretty painful files. 😀
[i]Its a firm ride but its a sporty drive and the two usually go hand in hand.[/i]
In the eyes of a Marketing Exec, yes...
this does not make me think "I can fit through that gap" when I'm in the Golf
Snot what I am saying. I am saying that when some nutter overtakes towards you and runs out of road, those 5" might mean the difference between a hit and a miss. I've certainly been in situations where I was very glad I didn't have another 5 inches to look after. Even in my Passat I find myself having to take much more care on the windies because of its width.
If a lighter is safer (ignoring carbon fibre) shouldn't we be driving around in kitchen foil cars?
That's also not what I am saying. I am saying that whilst bigger cars have more metal in them they also have to deal with more energy in a crash, and this along with other disadvantages does not necessarily mean you are safer.
It strikes me as the safest thing to do is just to keep clear of Jetta and XC90 drivers.
That's also not what I am saying. I am saying that whilst bigger cars have more metal in them they also have to deal with more energy in a crash, and this along with other disadvantages does not necessarily mean you are safer.
There are just so many variables it is pretty much futile arguing one way or the other. For example, going back to your 'tree' scenario - a smaller, lighter car might crash into the tree and hurt the occupants more than someone in, say, a 44 ton lorry which would plough straight through it like a damp fart and finally come to a nice and controlled stop somewhere three fields down the road.
Theres some really sloppy physics being talked above.
Firstly if you hit an imovable object then the mass of the car does not matter. What does matter is the rate of deceleration felt by the occupants, and this is a factor of crumple zone.
Most injuries are caused by sudden deceleration of occupants (basically hitting stuff in the car or by seatbelts causing internal injuries.)
Many small cars have good crumple zones to allow protection against imovable objects. Larger cars have the advantage that they have more space to allow for crumple zone, and also due to the increase in mass the list of what is classed as "immovable" becomes much shorter!
I would much rather be in an XC90 in a head on or side impact crash than just about ANY other car. Have a look at crash tests on youtube to convince yourself.
Theres some really sloppy physics being talked above.
Firstly if you hit an imovable object then the mass of the car does not matter.
Lol 🙂
A big car could weigh two and a half times a small one. It does NOT have two and a half times more crumple zone!
There are just so many variables it is pretty much futile arguing one way or the other.
Right. So the best thing we could do is maybe look at deaths against type of car adjusted for mileage.......
CHB, would you rather you or your kids were run over by an XC90 or a small car?
RichP - but that means considering OTHER people when you buy your car. That's ridiculous!
Molgrips: it doesn't need 2 and a half times the crumple zone.
The mass of the car is not relevant if hitting a solid object. What matters is the rate of deceleration. If you hit a wall at 30mph and the car has 3 foot of crumple zone that is designed to take into account the weight of the car then it will put the same stresses onto the occupant in the crash as a car half the weight but with an equally balanced crumple zone.
RichPenny: Very very good point. I would much rather my kids be hit by a small car. I would also rather that everyone drove small light cars as that way everyone would be "equal" in a crash. However I balance this up against the fact that my sister in laws brother had a crash 20 years ago near Scarborough head on due to a blind dip in the road. He was in a fiat panda, the other driver in a vauxhall cavelier. The vauxhall driver walked away from the accident. My Sisters in laws brother now has more titanium in him than my bike! Like it or not big cars are safer in a crash, and though its a selfish view to take, people will want to protect their nearest and dearest. Sometimes that means that in a crash the other party comes out worse than you. Fair? No.
Right. So the best thing we could do is maybe look at deaths against type of car adjusted for mileage.......
Well no because the type of car attracts a type of driver so deaths may be driver related (ie speed, attitude to risk etc) rather than the actual protection the car offers.
for anyone that is still intersted.........I ordered an XC60!
Good choice! What spec?
2.4 D5 SE Lux Premuim ........with 4-C Chassis.. bit of a mouthful!
for anyone that is still interested
I think this thread stopped being about you a long time ago 🙂
(Nice car BTW)
Oh. A Ford copy made by a Chinese company. Sweet. Or something. If I gave a shit.