Replacing IX35 with another SUV....be kind!

Banzai_Joe said:
OMG, you're happy with 38-40mpg?
Wow, no mate, I get about 46mpg from mine and considering other similar marques can do much better.....that's why I'm looking around.
Each to their own buddy but seriously a ford costing that much with that little mpg? No thanks, madness if you ask me.
Click to expand...


OMG a whole 6mile mpg better thats a massive difference isn't it :rolleyes:

And considering I came from a full 4x4 that did less than 20mpg yeah I am happy.

Its all local driving round towns and country roads etc no motorway or fast dual carriageway etc, so should be better on a longer run if/when I get the chance.

And are you talking about manual or auto as that makes a difference as well and as I asked petrol or diesel the diesel Kuga is much better on fuel than the Ecoboost petrol.

And when I was looking at others in the same marque they were all actually achieving nearly identical MPG and none are anywhere near the manufacturers quoted numbers including the PHEV Outlander.
 
Unless I'm mistaken you do just short of 7500 miles a year for work, and unless you do a lot of weekend driving let's say around 10000 annually. Why are you so concerned with squeezing an extra 4 or 5 MPG?
 
Well, this is why I started the thread, to get opinions and advice.
As a general rule of thumb a dealer once told me to take 10% off the combined mpg figure to get a more accurate figure of the vehicles performance.
Looking at the pug 3008 the 1.6 diesel auto has the same figures as the manual.

I do about 16000 miles pa.
 
Banzai_Joe said:
Well, this is why I started the thread, to get opinions and advice.
As a general rule of thumb a dealer once told me to take 10% off the combined mpg figure to get a more accurate figure of the vehicles performance.
Looking at the pug 3008 the 1.6 diesel auto has the same figures as the manual.

I do about 16000 miles pa.
Click to expand...

You're better either just googling or looking somewhere like the Honest John site for some other users economy experiences of the cars your interested in.

I would be surprised if any were significantly (more than a few mpg + -) different to what you're experiencing now. I'm not sure when the 3008 was last facelifted but the iteration that was around circa 2014 is really not a very pleasant car. I'd say the ix35 or its sister Sportage were significantly better as an all rounder.
 
Been on honestjohn and just about everywhere else i can think of.
I'm picking up a 2016 plate 3008 on saturday to test until monday, so i'll get 1st hand experience.
The salesman actually said to me [quietly mind] that he dorve the 1.6 auto, liked the comfort, quite impressed with the acceleration, but just thought it was a 'safe' car, nothing special. And he doesn't get commission if he doesn't sell me a car.
But yes, the MPG figures and the look of it appealed to me. I like the fact that the cabin is almost built around the driver.
Then.....i popped over to Mazda and the CX-3 really caught my eye. So i'll test drive that one too.

Regarding MPG, if i can get a car that does 10mpg more than my IX35, then that equates to 128miles per tank, that's pretty significant if you ask me.
Looking at the 3008, HR-V, CX-3, all claim to do 'about' 65mpg combined. If i take 10% off for BS value, that still gives about 60mpg. Again a lot more economy than the IX35, that's one less fill-up every month.

I'm not totally hung up on TCO, i just want a 'nicer' car .... It may cost more to buy but monthly spend can be offsite somewhat by fuel economy savings.
Hope that makes sense.
 
You need to take a lot more than 10% off. None of these cars do 60mpg.

I find all this obsessing around marginal fuel economy figures odd given how much money you are throwing away by financing Peugeots.

You may find this interesting. Seems Peugeot themselves have demonstrated the 3008 really does about 37mpg.

http://www.peugeotpress.co.uk/release-1502.htm
 
Banzai_Joe said:
OMG, you're happy with 38-40mpg?
Wow, no mate, I get about 46mpg from mine and considering other similar marques can do much better.....that's why I'm looking around.
Each to their own buddy but seriously a ford costing that much with that little mpg? No thanks, madness if you ask me.
Click to expand...

It absolutely baffles me why people place such a huge focus on MPG when it is negligible in most circumstances compared to depreciation and other costs

Assuming 10k miles per year (7.8k commute):

46 MPG - £90.47 per month
38 MPG - £109.52 per month

That's £19.05 difference per month.

So in short you are thinking of chopping in an almost new car halfway through your PCP agreement having lost thousands in depreciation to do the same thing again on a £25k car you class paying an extra £19 per month as madness? Take a minute to work out how much you have lost in depreciation on the IX35, divide it by how many months you have had it and compare it to the above.

I do 25k-30k miles per year and MPG is nowhere near top of my list of financial metrics as in reality the difference between one diesel saloon and another is a pittance compared to how much I lose on depreciation putting potentially 80-90k miles on a relatively new car over 3 years.
 
Last edited:
EEEK!!! :eek:
3008 1.6l BlueHDi 120 S&S BVM6 17'' VLRR tyres
6.1 / 46.34.1 / 68.82.0 / 22.5
Click to expand...
So, it really does about 46, nowhere near 68 ?????
Jesus, how can any manufacturer get away with that?

We all know they over-egg their figures, but to the extent of 30%, thats outgrageous.

Thanks Fox, that's been a real eyeopener.

So, do you think that the digital readings the car display are accurate or BS too? As i said my IX35 reports what look like an average of 46.8mpg.
 
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;29834339 said:
You need to take a lot more than 10% off. None of these cars do 60mpg.

I find all this obsessing around marginal fuel economy figures odd given how much money you are throwing away by financing Peugeots.

You may find this interesting. Seems Peugeot themselves have demonstrated the 3008 really does about 37mpg.

http://www.peugeotpress.co.uk/release-1502.htm
Click to expand...

Agreed. The MPG figures are bordering on meaningless now. I once had a Volvo S60 that could comfortably beat the quoted figure, I now have a car that has averaged 46MPG over the last 70k miles with lots of long journeys when the book figure is 58, so around 20% less.
 
They don't get way with anything - they submit the cars to a standardised lab test. Peugeot should be applauded for being brave enough to do this because it's the same for all manufacturers.
 
The onboard fuel computer readings are fairly accurate, but his (and everyone else's) point is that you're not going to gain anything by buying the same sort of car with the same sort of engine. It's a waste of time and money.

46MPG from yours for the mixed driving to work and back that you described in the OP sounds quite good really.
 
Banzai_Joe said:
EEEK!!! :eek:
So, it really does about 46, nowhere near 68 ?????
Jesus, how can any manufacturer get away with that?

We all know they over-egg their figures, but to the extent of 30%, thats outgrageous.

Thanks Fox, that's been a real eyeopener.

So, do you think that the digital readings the car display are accurate or BS too? As i said my IX35 reports what look like an average of 46.8mpg.
Click to expand...

It's a specific test that the car is put through and manufacturers design the cars around the test. It is not a real world MPG figure.

It's not uncommon for cars claiming 60-70MPG to in reality be in the 40s, in fact it's pretty normal.

I still come back to though, unless you are doing mega miles it shouldn't be your biggest concern when you are looking to spend twenty five thousand pounds!
 
Banzai_Joe said:
OMG, you're happy with 38-40mpg?
Wow, no mate, I get about 46mpg from mine and considering other similar marques can do much better.....that's why I'm looking around.
Each to their own buddy but seriously a ford costing that much with that little mpg? No thanks, madness if you ask me.
Click to expand...

Can't.Tell.If.Serious
 
Abyss,
yes i see your logic mate, thanks for the schooling :)
Thing is i know so many people who claim they get great mpg from their cars, and if figures were accurate then to most people this would be a big factor in deciding a car.
I had a vectra auto that did about 28mpg, it was utterly pocket-draining.

[Quote:]
Assuming 10k miles per year (7.8k commute):

46 MPG - £90.47 per month
38 MPG - £109.52 per month

That's £19.05 difference per month.[/quote]
I do about 1300 miles per month and spend approx £170 on fuel, each full tank takes me 525 miles (allegedly).
I struggle with hte maths sometimes, lol. :rolleyes:
 
Well, i dipped my toes in the petrolheads crocodile swamp and instead of getting chewed up and spat out, i got nibbled, schooled and allowed to live....for which i'm very grateful guys, thank you for all your input (so far)

If my original question had been;
"I'm bored with my IX35, so want another car, preferably an SUV for a similar price, what would you recommend?"
How would that fare?
I had to move my sons Seat saloon this morning, i swear i cold feel the gravel scrape my a$$ it was that low. Kind of reminded me why i like SUV's i guess. I do suffer from a bad back.
 
my currebt vw jetta on my commute to work says 57 mpg on the dash and when calculated brim to brim it is getting 43mpg. My old e90 320i was the most accurate and that was exactly 1.5mpg out showed 34.5 was getting 33.

take all the mpg claims with a pinch of salt and find a car that you like to drive instead

Alex
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom