2010 model challenger,they are approximately 10 k cheaper than a Santa Fe of the same year.
And in my opinion amuch better all round vehicle.
mugenb20b,
Mar 25, 3:54am
Really! Have you taken the SantaFe diesel for a drive!
The only advantage of a Challenger is its low range option.
wasser61,
Mar 25, 4:10am
To be quite blunt the Hyundai to 3 times the vehicle the Challenger trys to be. I have never driven a more lethargic, more awful vehicle than the Challenger. And that is saying something as I rate anything from Hyundai as cave dwelling material.
phillip.weston,
Mar 25, 5:26am
the way I see it they are two different vehicles. You should be comparing the Outlander to the Santa Fe. The Challenger is essentially a Triton ute with a wagon body style - much like what the Surf is to the Hilux, thus the Challenger employs a full ladder frame chassis and live axle suspension in the rear. The Santa Fe is more like a soft-roader with slightly better 4WD capabilities.
The diesel engines in the Santa Fe are probably better than the 2.5 offering in the Mitsubishi. If Mitsubishi continued to sell the 3.2 diesel in the Triton/Challenger it would probably be the better option.
If you wanted a larger 7 seater SUV in the Mitsubishi range, you would be looking at the Pajero which is much more expensive than the Santa Fe. The Outlander is the closest competitor in the Mitsubishi range to the Santa Fe.
stan202,
Mar 26, 12:54am
Ok bugger, looks like I will have to buy theSanta Fe . It's obviously the better vehicle.
phillip.weston,
Mar 26, 3:37am
you haven't told us what you would be using the vehicle for.
stan202,
Mar 26, 4:02am
60000km year mainly on tar seal. 5 % off road easy country ( swallow creeks farm paddocks. At times carrying big tall passengers for long distances in the back seats.
phillip.weston,
Mar 26, 4:06am
maybe the outlander 2.4 petrol! should be cheaper to buy than the diesel santa fe and can be run in 2WD mode on the road so would use less fuel and save tyre wear.
doctor_evil99,
Mar 26, 4:41am
Mitsi Challenger is a 4 door wagon of their Triton ute (it's based on Triton ute). It drives like a ute, tough as a ute
Santa Fe is a proper family SUV, it drive like a car but not as tough as aute
thejazzpianoma,
Mar 26, 2:33pm
Seriously 60'000km a year!
I would buy neither and get a Skoda Yeti. Assuming your 60'000km a year is correct you are going to be a couple of thousand dollars a year better off in fuel than either the Santa Fe or Challenger.
Then you also have a more comfortable vehicle for doing such serious milage with a better engine and transmission.
Drive the Yeti and your choice should be a really easy one.
BTW, if you are going to keep this vehicle for even just a few years its going to have some serious km's on it. I would have a lot more faith in the VW/Skoda engine doing big km's without trouble. Also with your running if you turn on the variable servicing system you may well find you are only needing 6 monthly servicing which is quite amazing for that kind of milage.
Thats going to be significantly less hassle and cost than the Mitsubishi or Hyundai which will need to be taken in for service every 3 months. (Correct me if I am wrong but I am pretty sure they are both 15'000km schedules with no computer monitored variable option)
thejazzpianoma,
Mar 26, 3:15pm
Here is another thought for you, if you were interested in the economics of the situation. I would suggest you consider asking whether you could special order a new 1.6 Eco Diesel Yeti.
You would be saving around $4000 a year in fuel over the Mitsi/Hyundai and likely still looking at a new price thats the same or cheaper than the secondhand price of the Mitsi/Hyundai.
Food for thought!
doctor_evil99,
Mar 26, 3:40pm
Just be aware that Hyundai spares are blimming expensive. much more than Honda.
stan202,
Mar 27, 5:11am
Ok, but how the hell am I going to fit two big buggers in the back seat of a Yeti ! My 4 year wouldn't even have enough leg room.
thejazzpianoma,
Mar 27, 5:19am
I take it you havn't yet sat in the back of one! I am not going to try and pretend they are a large vehicle , they are not, but they are not tiny by any means and the space is incredibly well utilised. They are designed to seat 2 proper adults in the rear comfortably. (3 is possible but not ideal).
The rear seats are also proper seats and a heck of a lot more comfortable than the funny flat ute thing in the Triton.
Leg room dosn't look much in the photo's but its a tall car with high seating so you don't need much leg room to get comfortable.
At the very least its worth taking the time to actually sit in one. Especially when it just offers so much more than the other two in every other aspect. Hang, if you could get a 1.6 Diesel just the fuel savings over the other two would come close to keeping up with depreciation over your likely period of ownership giving you effectively a free car!
stan202,
Mar 27, 5:22am
Ok, maybe the rear seats have fantastic comfort for rear passengers. I just read the review. They look just so tiny though . will be definitely checking out the Yeti.
thejazzpianoma,
Mar 27, 5:28am
BTW, Its not just me that says this. Most reviewers agree that rear passenger comfort is good even for good sized adults.
Until you sit in one its hard to grasp the concept because the rear seats are so tall and legroom looks so small, but the reality is quite different.
thejazzpianoma,
Mar 27, 5:29am
Snap! You posted as I did, yip you are getting the idea!
BTW, if you can drive both the 2.0 Diesel and the 1.2 Petrol.
thejazzpianoma,
Mar 27, 5:29am
Snap! You posted as I did, yip you are getting the idea!
BTW, if you can drive both the 2.0 Diesel and the 1.2 Petrol. The 2.0 Diesel has a HEAP of grunt but the 1.2 is surprisingly capable. Its a bit like the rear seat thing, on paper its easy to laugh at the 1.2 as a toy, but the reality is quite different.
The only advantage of the 1.2 is purchase price though, in terms of running costs its likely to be very similar depending on the sort of running you are doing.
r15,
Mar 27, 6:16am
good old jazz, always has a euro car to offer about 2 sizes smaller than what everyone else was talking about.
other things to consider- nissan murrano, toyota highlander, possibly even the more recent x-trail or rav4. the rav 4 diesel uses about 6l/100km in real world nz road driving.
thejazzpianoma,
Mar 27, 6:33am
Ahh, so just 50% more fuel, or $2000 a year more to run than a 1.6 Diesel Yeti then. Oh and 3 times the servicing. thats a service every other month vs 2 a year. (I would't have pointed this out but since you started it)
r15,
Mar 27, 6:39am
from the review above: 2012 SKODA YETI REVIEW
Vehicle style: Compact AWD Wagon Price: $37,990 Fuel economy (claimed): 6.7 l/100km Fuel economy (tested): not recorded
thejazzpianoma,
Mar 27, 6:44am
Yip thats right. they reviewed a 2.0 one!
As stated even the official figures show the Rav uses pretty much bang on 50% more fuel than a 1.6 Yeti.
thejazzpianoma,
Mar 27, 6:44am
Yip thats right. they reviewed a 2.0 one!
As stated even the official figures show the Rav uses pretty much bang on 50% more fuel than a 1.6 Yeti.
EDIT, Actually just double checked the official Toyota figures again, my original source was incorrect. So in fairness. looks like the Toyota will only use about 30% more fuel.
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.