My X3 diesel uses 9.5L/100 klms on average, this is mainly city driving, ie short trips and regular longish weekend trips. Apparently the Tiguan is more economical in use.
I also looked at the Kuga but just didn't quite like its look (that's very personal, of course). From the reviews, and if you're set on a smallish SUV (which I find useful for winter driving but not off-roading), I'd recommend either a BMW X3 or a VW Tiguan, depending on budget.
Don't get me wrong, I love the look of an SUV but the irony of these things are that they're actually more hazardous to drive in winter than a standard car despite having 4 wheel drive. I'm not talking about straight line driving rather I mean in the corners. An SUV has a higher center of gravity which in a corner causes the vehicle to lean heavier to the outside radius while turning inducing a slide much sooner than a car with a lower center of gravity would have. Nothing wrong with 4 wheel drive but on normal roads a low slung car such as a VW with 4motion or say a Subaru Impreza has a far better chance staying on the road than a high sitting SUV would ever have.
Are you sure about Audi's built quality and reliability?
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...ing_N.htm#Best
and this is the american ford!
http://www.which.co.uk/about-which/p...-motorists.jsp
http://www.newcarnet.co.uk/reliability_car_search.html
ok, ok, I googled up car reliability and there are many websites on this and I don't have time to look at all of them, but I have not seen one where Audi is in the top half of the list.
I wanted to buy an Audi A4 some years ago and thought that perhaps the reliability ranking is not that bad, but then, they only offered a 1 year guarantee (recently I hear that is has increased to 2 years, which is still shorter than many other makes). So I took my money elsewhere. Combination of poor reliability and short guarantee was a turn off for me.
Also, I never wanted to buy a brand new car because of the depreciation issue. But then I realized that most dealers offer discounts of 7% - 15% on new cars, I changed my mind. I was negotiating to buy a second hand VW Golf with about 3000km on it and the salesman remarked that he cannot give me a discount on a second hand car, only a new car. So I asked for the same car brand new and the price difference, with discount, was only about 3%. Now 3% for the 3000km is a no brainer. I bought the new car. The only issue was that I had to wait about 2 weeks for it to be delivered.
in the end it should all come down to you,
if the extra space a suv can give is a top priority then forget the comments about about handling etc...
if you like a spirited drive, then a suv wont do the trick.
fords are ok, but they do lose value quickly, as some one mentioned,
also i strongly believe they are not as reliable as japanese or the good Euro makes. not the year u bought it but 3,4,5 years down the track, but who knows you might change cars every year. so that wont matter
suv's are like a big sail on open roads so use more fuel, and also 4wd uses more fuel.
its hard to give you a good opinion without knowing more. it isnt a bad car, but there could be better and there might not be.
you need to work out whats more important to you then go with it.
research shows females more readily buy cars on looks, and men normally on power or make..funny and times are changing so either way good luck.
I wonder how many of the people commenting here have actually ever been in a Ford that was produced less than a decade ago.
I have, in what should be the worst: A focus coming out of their Chinese plant... and while it was a lot of plastic and not exactly my cup of tea when it comes to interior design, there were no rattles or obvious manufacturing problems. It was Fords vision of a "world car" and was completely good enough for me as a city car.
I had Japanese cars for a decade and yes, they are good quality. And yes, my dad made some very bad experiences with an Merc e-series in the past years. But to be fair: Reliability depends heavily on the usage. Toyotas score high not only because they are good, but because they are incredibly boring: Why is a BMW 3 series less reliable than an Avensis? I bet it comes down to a large extent to the driver...
I would not be afraid to buy a Ford, just because it is made in Germany
SUVs are on the other hand one of my favourite hate objects. When I was on my motorcycle yesterday, an Audi Q7 was next to me at the traffic light and I suddenly could only see black metal next to me... I really do not want to know what a crash with this monster looks like. A pedestrain or biker will not roll over the hood, but rather crash right into it. Why did Mercedes invent the crumple zone and the occupant cell? So that we all drive cars with a form factor of a piano? Ok, rant over.
And why? Have you owned one?
Personally I have had 3 Opel and never had any problems with them.
Cheap to run & Service.
I now have a 2005 Opel Vectra Caravan (Estate) with their newer generation Diesel engines (CDTI) and it's just a brilliant car. Excellent quality inside and out, with clever ,well thought-through details and gadgets.
Only uses around 6-7 litres of diesel on motorways and 7-8 in cities. Considering its huge size it's pretty good. Plus it has a particle filter as standard which wasn't the norm in 2005 and certainly not with VW or BMW.
But it's still amusing to see the misconception that people have about Opel here in Switzerland. People actually ask me how I can drive these things. In Germany or UK they are popular cars because of good value for money.
To the Audi drivers, have fun paying Sfr 1000 for a simple service.
And as Jeremy Clarkson put it: "The cocks have shifted from driving Beamers to Audis"
Who told you this?
I have one and my services are quite cheap: I avoid AMAG and go to a good quality service company that is not officially Audi. So they do not have the Audi prices, but charge you the same price for the same part, no matter if you have a VW, Seat or Skoda with the same air filter... since parts are so common, they are not more expensive than you Opel ́s.
Might be true, but a lease car has to be serviced at the car brand's garage (i.e. AMAG) in order not to invalidate the guarantee/lease contract. Plus it's a mind thing I guess. Would you rather buy a second hand Audi that has a service history from a small unknown garage or from AMAG?
I know someone who has an AUDI A6 Estate and he paid close to 1k for his Service.
If thats the one you like then get it, nothing wrong with fords, have a look at the toyota landcruisers as well (maybe 2nd hand) the most reliable car we ever owned.
being a ford running cost should be quite low, parts etc should be cheap and easy to get hold of.
I had a lease (just paid my last month), no problem to service it where I want it. I regularly used an official Audi garage in Germany as well- they are not as crazily priced as AMAG (I think I somewhere already posted about the great pick-up and deliver Audi airport service in Stuttgart).
About the second hand price: My experience with AMAG was very bad, so I would not pay anything more for a car which was serviced there... but I am sure that many Swiss would. For some reason it seems to also add value to have a "Swiss delivered" car instead of an EU import. Looks like I am doing everything wrong and save a lot on the way...
Hi
I'm looking at this also.
I came to Switzerland intending to replace my RHD Honda CRV with the same LHD model however, finances dictate that I can not afford Honda CRV in this country.
I momentarily looked at the Kuga, but have had my head turned by a Mitsubishi Outlander on grounds of space in the boot for my 2 dogs and good reviews regarding road handling. The blurb claims to do an average of 35 mpg. (upto 40 on motorways). It also has the possibility of turning the boot into a further 2 seats if that is of use to you i.e. if you had relations visiting.
Whatcar.co.uk have good reviews, particularly the reader's reviews so you get a wider spread of opinion, which of course, is subjective.
Good luck in your search for your SUV.
Sx
Only the high end Kugas are 4x4, the cheap ones are all front wheel drive.
Not strictly true. I have a Jeep back home that can be driven in 2wd or 4wd on the street. There is no perceptible difference in fuel economy between driving it exclusively in either 2wd or 4wd.
The mechanical effort required to propel a heavier vehicle compared to a lighter vehicle is what increases fuel consumption.
Generally, for a vehicle that is available in 2wd and 4wd variants, the 4wd variant will be heavier due to the extra power transmission components. The 2wd Ford Kuga has better fuel economy than the 4wd Ford Kuga for this reason.
Libleulla, I can not help you with opinions about Kuga. I actually do not know a lot about cars
My husbands grandpa has Nissan Qashqay 4x4. He has a mountain cottage at the top of the ski slope and 4x4 car is the only way he can drives there. He had Landrovers before but now he switched to fancy Qashqai. For me, his old Landrovers were prettier.
Well, actually I just want to write down one interesting fact: "Kuga" means "plague" in Slovenian language It was a big debate in our country around this. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Kuga (last paragraph).
I think that car naming is a quite demanding task, but I like names more than just numbers instead of names, although, obviously, names can be meaningful some times.
I hope you and Congo will be satisfied with you new car.
It is not only the weight of the extra transmission, but the extra resistance of the components when working as well. I have a two wheel drive and the equivalent 4wd Audi consumes half a liter more per 100km (in the theoretical calculation). Does not sound much, and maybe that is why you will not really recognize it when you switch it on or off on your Jeep, but this sums up well to something over the years...
Avoiding the Schoineich and Buchegg tunnels maybe????
I think they should have looked in a dictionary.