How would the boot space in the following wagons - Mondeo, Mk4 Golf , Passat, Touran and Audi6 - compare with the boot space in my '96 Corolla wagon! I find the Corolla has ample boot space for us so am wanting to get something newer with a similar amount. Thanks :)
phillip.weston,
Apr 26, 10:30am
Mondeo, Touran and A6 would be larger, Golf and Passat would be similar in size to the Corolla. Though the Touran would have most of its space in width and height, but not necessarily length. I think the Mondeo would have the most room of the bunch, it really is a roomy car.
shelleigh,
Apr 26, 10:49am
It was so much easier when I'd already decided on an Escape lol Now after the advice from people on here with far more knowledge than I will ever have, I'm trying to decide between a Mk4 Golf or a Mondeo (because at heart I am a Ford girl) but the Touran appeals too. nzclover what are you liking the look and sound of so far!
thejazzpianoma,
Apr 26, 11:02am
I think its time you drove them all. None of those are a bad choice unless you got a 2.0 Mondeo with an Automatic Transmission. those are absolute pigs of things. You might not realise in a quick test drive in town but you will notice when driving up the ski fields! However in manual the 2.0 Mondeo is great. Its also likely O.K in auto with the bigger engine.
As a machine the Touran is light years ahead of the competition in terms of technology. However you are not necessarily going to see a massive benefit from the economy/power that brings considering the amount and type of running you are doing. They are a lovely car though.
Also. I meant to clarify the other night regarding the Golf. While you say you don't need a Turbo do bear in mind that the 2.0 Golf wagon will use almost exactly the same amount of fuel as the 1.8 Turbo version. Also, while you say you don't need a lot of power those 2.0 Golfs are pretty slow, the engine is not as advanced as the 1.6 twin cam that your Corolla would have had. By all means test the 2.0 and see if it has enough power for your purposes, if so great but if not the 1.8T would be a real cracker.
thejazzpianoma,
Apr 26, 11:13am
O.K so you are only doing about 7800km a year. That means that fuel economy is not really going to be a factor (within reason), it also means that you are not likely to get any real tangible advantage from the likes of the VW Touran Diesel vs the Petrol one.
To compare the most miserly Diesel to the more thirsty of the vehicles you are considering you would only be looking at a $500 a year difference in running costs, and thats before you consider the extra cost of registration on a diesel.
So unless your usage of the vehicle is likely to increase over the period of ownership I would suggest economy is not really something to get too hung up on.
Also, with such low annual km's getting something with very very low km's is not necessarily likely to gain you much.
If it was me, I would be looking for a really top example of a slightly older but well equiped and reliable vehicle around 10K. The reason being, depreciation is likely to be your biggest annual cost, if considering something at the high end of your budget it could cost you more per year than you pay in fuel.
I will do some projections on likely depreciation etc for you when my brain is a bit more awake but in general that is something to ponder. There is really no reason why a carefully chosen top example of a 10K ish car should cost you any more in maintenance etc over that time than a vehicle costing up around $17K.
If you prefer a dearer vehicle for other reasons like asthetics etc then by all means spend the coin but from an economic point of view its not likely to be the winner.
You may also want to ponder whether it worries you having the extra tied up in a vehicle , whether there is something better you could do with your money and/or whether getting a cheaper vehicle is an advantage because you can change sooner.
Also, we can look at it more closely when my brain is more switched on but the difference between keeping the car 5 years and 10 years may affect the depreciation quite a bit too. All will hopefully be clearer with some actual projected figures.
shelleigh,
Apr 26, 11:38am
I'm hoping to test drive a few in Dunedin later this week. The 1.8 turbo Golf would be a better choice than the 2.0 when I'm used to my peppy Corolla. And when they sound like they are still economical with a turbo that's even better :)
thejazzpianoma,
Apr 26, 12:05pm
Yes, plus the resale should be good if your vehicle needs change earlier than expected. I think drive both versions if you can, but just wanted to clarify what I was on about.
The pro's of the 2.0 are slightly cheaper cambelt changes and of course no turbo is one less thing to break. But realistically a well maintained one should not be giving you turbo trouble any time soon and a couple of hundred saved every 5 years on the camelt is not really much in return for the performance difference. So yeah, if you 2.0 lacking in umph the 1.8T may be just the ticket.
I am also quite partial to the 1.8T its a really top motor both from a reliability and a performance/economy standpoint. The Turbo isn't a big high pressure thing like on a boy racer car its pretty subtle and gives you push quite low down in the rev range which is great for dealing with big hills as well as extra go for passing.
Have fun testing them out!
thejazzpianoma,
Apr 26, 12:23pm
So long as its not ex-singapore that could be a really nice example of a seriously good wagon. The only drawback with the Volvo is parts can be a bit pricy as there its not much competition between Volvo parts importers, unlike VW.
However, realistically you are not likely to be buying much in the way of parts for one of those and when the timing belt comes due you can always order the bits online from FCP Groton and get a great price that way.
Sorry to add another option to the list but sw20 makes a great argument with that one!
That 2400cc 5 Cylinder engine is a real gem too.
nzclover,
Apr 26, 8:19pm
I may have been a bit light on the kms.I've always done at least 10000km per year in my cars and if we get one we really like, we may do more road trips!
I really don't know what I'm leaning towards now, but that Volvo did look nice too! Time to test drive for me too, I think. Thanks for all your advice. Will let you know what I think after I've driven them.
nzclover,
Apr 26, 8:38pm
Oh.BTW.totally not car related,but if you possibly could.pleasecvote for Zachary in this baby of the day comp.he's my wee darling and we really want to win :)
Just spoke to my mechanic. He said the VWs will cost more in the long run. he also said he had 3 late model Mondeos that he'd had to recondition motors on, so reckoned the Mazdas/Hondas were the best call,depending on the actual car of course.
thejazzpianoma,
Apr 26, 11:11pm
LOL, this is pretty funny. Don't buy a Mondeo buy a Mazda! I really do hope he was smiling and winking at the time because the Mazda's run the same engines as Mondeo's!
I am not kidding Ford and Mazda are in partnership (have been for decades when Ford started buying shares in Mazda around 1980). The engines in the Mazdas of the age group we are talking about are called MZR & AJ engines, which are re-badged Duratec engines. Duratec engines are what you find in Ford Mondeo's.
No offence to your mechanic (he is probably a nice guy) but in general the advice is pretty bad. Always be weary of blanket statements like "VW's will cost you more in the long run" they usually come from people who don't differentiate between old and new VW's and different models.
I would certainly not be taking any of that adviceinto account when making a buying decision knowing what you are considering etc if it were me.
thejazzpianoma,
Apr 26, 11:33pm
O.K well with that in mind then perhaps do start paying a little more attention to fuel consumption. For the kind of running you are doing the "combined running" economy rating should be reasonably accurate. In terms of getting something you like, that Volvo is looking like a really good proposition for the money. In terms of comfort the Volvo really is a lovely car to travel in, very relaxed driving (great for long trips) and very safe. Those 5 Cylinder Volvo engines are a really good proposition for something to keep long term. They are renowned for doing massive km's with just regular maintenance. They are also a good balance of power and economy. If I was looking at a car to keep for 10 years I would be really pleased if it had the Volvo 5 Cylinder in it. Because with thatVolvo you are actually getting a lot of car for the money it may well be worth justifying the bit of extra depreciation etc per year over a cheaper car as at least you are getting something for it.
thejazzpianoma,
Apr 27, 1:01am
I have set up a spreadsheet showing you the projected costs associated with buying some of the vehicles on the list.
It should give you a really good idea of how costs will likely break down and compare between the different vehicles and older and newer cars.
Not all cars are included (it takes me a while to do)so if you want to add some others added just let me know.
Make sure you scroll to the right so you can see all the columns. Also I have included the Fiat Multipla which is diesel and have included the RUC and extra registration costs with the fuel so you have a fair comparison.
I have increased your estimated km's to 10'000km a year to better reflect your comments above. This can easily be changed to 15'000km if need be.
You should quickly get the idea of what I mean about trying to keep to the lower end of your budget to keep costs down. Also, you will notice that keeping a car for 10 years as opposed to 5 is not necessarily going to save you much if any money. Especially when you consider that servicing costs are not included in the sheet and that costs may go up a bit as the vehicle gets older.
By the way the VW Golf Wagon mentioned in the chart looks to be very good buying and is located over here in Tauranga. Not sure if the Golf was too small for your purposes or not though, its very good buying though if you want to save some money and a very nice capable vehicle.
The chart is arranged in order of highest total cost of ownership to lowest total cost of ownership so just make sure you are looking at the correct Mazda when you make comparisons.
Just a note on that Mazda Atenza. That particular car is not a good buy for you for two reasons.
1. It has been modified (suspension). As a general rule of thumb for your purposes avoid modified vehicles, their owners often thrash them, resale can be poor, there can be drivability and reliability issues with modifications.
2. Its 4WD. Unless you are going to the snow regularly avoid 4WD. In general 4WD vehicles wear tyres quicker, cost more to run and the added complication of 4WD increases the chance of an expensive repair.
Just bear in mind that the chart is only so accurate. It will provide you with a good general picture of how things will likely pan out. All cars are treated equally so the general picture should remain fairly close but the actual results as a whole may vary a bit. Remember if you start doing more milage the more economical vehicles may move ranks.
When you take into account how nice that Volvo is as a car its actually looking really good. In fairness you could spend an extra $100 - $150 a year in maintenance over the Mazda/Honda because parts are dearer but when you consider its a more expensive vehicle new and is (in my opinion anyway)the nicest of the bunch to drive. Its looking pretty good.
thejazzpianoma,
Apr 27, 3:24am
In terms of practicality, reliability and cost of ownership its easy to see the Multipla is the clear winner.
Its not going to be as nice on a trip as say the Volvo but its still very pleasant to travel in.
It has quite an advantage over the others in a few areas, its by far the easiest to manoeuvre and park. Its definitely the cheapest to run and will get even cheaper the more km's you do and the more city driving you do.
It costs the least to buy, its the least likely to require an expensive repair and there is very little depreciation. Servicing is also going to be the cheapest as well.
The only real downsides are whether you like the looks, the lack of an automatic version and that you may have to wait a few weeks for a suitable one to come up. You shouldn't have to wait long though. There have been two that would have suited you down to the ground come up on trademe in the last month.
nzclover,
Apr 27, 7:19pm
Pity it's so ugly. I can't go there.
ginga4lyfe,
Apr 28, 12:29am
what about a Nissan Stagea!
phillip.weston,
Apr 28, 1:00am
Assuming you mean M35 shape! Thirsty, Neo Di engines give trouble with pinking, manifold clogging up, style is started to look a bit dated now, most come with horrible tan interior, boot space is deceptively small.
nzclover,
Jul 31, 3:18am
I ended up buying a Honda Accord Euro. Very happy with the car and all the extras that come with it!
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.