UKH

We’re looking at getting an economical 4x4 as a second car (budget around 6k - 7at a push ). There’s just the 2 of us but we live out in the sticks with the 1 car (mini countryman) and a motorbike between us. We’ve half a mile of (a choice of) 2 muddy pot holed tracks between us and a paved road. With recent weather a number of local roads (and one of the 2 access tracks) have been off limits to the mini due to flooding and snow/ice. Wife has also started a new job which requires her to drive away a lot more, leaving me only with the bike. Miserable and a bit sketchy in the winter. 
 

A Dacia Duster or Fiat panda 4x4 seem the obvious choice, though leaning towards the duster for the size. Would love a Jimny but running costs and tax are much higher so think I’ve written one of those off. Are there any other obvious choices I’m missing?

 Anyone have either of those cars and fancy chiming in with your experience. 

In reply to BattyMilk:

Reminds me of this clip:

youtube.com/watch?v=Ffbv0qg299M&

This guy's reviews are also worth a watch:

youtube.com/watch?v=2w24MxIX7DI&

In reply to Fraser:

less 100k vs 5k, and more summer tyres vs winter tyres.

In reply to BattyMilk:

Any 4x4 will have higher running and maintenance costs due to mechanical complexity, weight and generally poor aerodynamics.

Do you really need a 4x4 with diff locks for offroad, or just a normal 2WD car with decent ground clearance for the pot holes and maybe all-season tyres? That would cope with 99% of conditions (depending on your location) and if it's really bad the roads will be blocked by non 4x4s  anyway.

In reply to Ridge:

TBH the mini on summer tyres is fine for 99% of the time but if we’re getting a second car anyway, might as well get the other 1% covered if it costs a little bit more

In reply to Fraser:

That chap’s Duster review is the one that pointed me in the direction of the Duster. I I’d not heard of a Terrios before but will give them a look

In reply to BattyMilk:

Skoda Yeti? It might be a bit older than the Duster. I've been driven up a rough steep track in one and was impressed at its off-road capability.

I've got an Octavia Scout (pretty much the same running gear) which has 4x4 and higher ground clearance and it returns 55-60mpg on a run. There is always the potential for extra garage bills but all in so far it's been a very good car. 

If I only did very short journeys and needed 4x4 I'd think about the Panda, though last time I looked they seemed relatively expensive.

Edit: Ridge's point is worth considering though. 4x4 is only necessary if your track is slippery and/or often covered in snow. A 2wd Duster, Panda or Yeti with 4 season tyres might suffice.

In reply to BattyMilk:

As discussed on another recent thread, Suzuki Ignis would seem to be the obvious alternative to a 4x4 Panda

In reply to 65:

As above, 4x4 is not the magic bullet in snow. Winter tyres are. If snow is the motivation for a 4x4, it's a much better choice to get a car with high ground clearance and winter tyres. If it's mud/potholes, then yeah, a 4x4 is going to be better. With winter tyres for the snow.

In reply to BattyMilk:

If you're worried about flooding I'd suggest considering the position of the air intake on whatever you buy. 

In reply to spenser:

Always thought snorkels looked cool. I’ll take this as a green light

In reply to BattyMilk:

X trail.

Seriously. 

In reply to BattyMilk:

I'm not necessarily suggesting a snorkel, just suggesting you look at intake location. My old roomster apparently had its intake at the top of the engine bay so that may be the same for other skodas.

In reply to BattyMilk: as the usual answer on here to any car related question is Skoda Octavia estate , look at Octavia scouts . Hi ground clearance , very capable , above and beyond price tag and miles better value than the equivalent Audi all road . Very very practical . If you don’t want an estate , the yeti has already been mentioned , if they are anywhere as good as the scout then well  worth considering . I used  to live a couple of doors from Mr . Triathlon ( proper ) , he got  one and over the next few months almost all of his tri acolytes started showing up in them  . No reason to suggest that makes them good but worth considering. 

In reply to BattyMilk:

Yeti. Yeti. Yeti. 

In reply to BattyMilk:

Because of where we've lived for the past 30 years, until recently we've constantly had 2 full time 4x4s as a first and second car. Due to climate change, winters have become wetter and less snowy. This has meant that we've recently gone over to a FWD car fitted with all season winter/snow rated tyres and a part time, on demand 4x4 fitted with tarmac biased all terrain tyres, again winter rated. More on the merits and demerits of our choice in a moment.

In answer to the OP:

Jimnys rot spectacularly and are noisy, uncomfortable and lack economy. I'd avoid, unless there's a compelling reason to get one.

Driven a Duster 4x4 both on and off road in Morocco on rocky roads, in bulldust, in snow as well as on sand. A hugely capable, comfortable and very impressive car despite being a part-time 4wd. If I didn't occasionally need to tow a 2.5 tonne trailer I'd seriously consider buying one.

Also driven a 4x4 Octavia in winter in both Norway and the Alps. Fitted with snow tyres, both cars went to places that cars shouldn't go and where FWD cars on snow tyres couldn't go.

We owned a Panda 4x4 for a few years. A great little car. Very capable and cheap to run. Great for up to 2 adults but otherwise a bit cramped. Small boot and both petrol and diesels are a bit noisy. Well worth considering though if size isn't an issue.

As others have said,  tyre choice does make a huge difference, especially in snow. But, over the years personal experience has  convinced me that a FWD car fitted with winter tyres is still vastly inferior to a 4wd. This winter we have twice failed to get home on snow covered roads in the FWD car fitted with winter treads, but the p/t 4wd (a Huyndai Santa Fe) has been 100% unstoppable in comparison.

I'm now convinced that an appropriately tyred part time all wheel drive car is the best option in winter. A fulltime 4x4 would be overkill. 

Friends have a variety of part time 4x4s,  such as Yeti,  Mitsubishi ASX, Suzuki sx4, Kia Sportage. All seem equally capable and may well be worth considering if in budget. 

HTH

Dave

In reply to BattyMilk:

Also consider older Honda HRV/CRV.
Both automatic 4wd as required and very good in the snow with a high ride clearance too. 

In reply to Ridge:

A 4x4 estate will have same aero dynamics as another estate car.  As for maintenance costs depends on reliability.   You could have a reliable 4x4 or a shit 2 x 4.

In reply to BattyMilk:

The 4x4 panda used to get good reviews. Some cross climates and you won’t need to change tyres between summer and winter 

In reply to BattyMilk:

Toyota Corolla with winter tyres as required.  My experience, and most of Norways, is that makes a lot more difference than 4WD

In reply to BattyMilk:

I know next to nothing about cars but I noticed in the recent Car Review supplement to Which? Magazine the Duster is given a Don’t Buy flag on account of its safety rating which is apparently 1* on the Euro tests.

In reply to BattyMilk:

I spend a bit of time out in the countryside and drive AWD's now, have done for some time and it kicks in pretty regularly for me.

Octavia scout 2l diesel, that was very good the AWD system in it works really well and used to get mid 50's to the gallon on the motorway, decent ground clearance but not the best. With winter tyres on it I never had a problem at all.

Old 04 plate 2l petrol crv, had mud and snows on that year round, the 4wd worked but wasn't the best as that had an odd system that the front wheels needed to spin to get the back wheels to engage drive, best I managed out of that was low 30's on a run but it was a shed. Ground clearance was actually slightly less than the Octavia even though the body sat higher.

Mk2 grand Vitara, and actual 4wd with a low ratio box and a little 1.6 petrol. I really liked it but it was tiny, loud and I had to get the gearbox reconditioned on it which wasn't cheap, they also rot like jimnies unfortunately, fuel economy was marginally better than the crv.

I've got a yeti now, same 4wd drive system as the Octavia which works well, ground clearance is about the same and I get high 40's out of it in a run if I'm gentle with the petrol engine.

I've heard good things about dusters but haven't driven one yet. Don't discount Freelander 2's it's the same 4wd as the yeti and the Octavia but no low ratio unfortunately.

As others have said tyres make all the difference though.

In reply to Dave Williams:

Cracking post and loads of great info . Thanks, Dave. Sounds like I’m at least barking up somewhat of the right tree

In reply to Brass Nipples:

Only if they're not jacked up like the Scout/Allroad. Afaik the standard non-Scout Octavia 4x4 is  a bit better on fuel on a high speed run, which doesn't surprise me. 

Though it sounds as if the OP needs ground clearance more than 4x4.

In reply to 65:

Also the drag in the 4wd system will put a dink in the fuel economy anyway, it's unfortunate but you just can't get around it really because there's more moving parts. There are a couple 4wd electric cars around now though.

If I remember rightly the non scout 4x4 Octavia still sits higher than the normal versions just not as much as the scout. Or the old ones did at least

In reply to BattyMilk:

Nobody has mentioned the Vauxhall Mokka 4wd yet. And that’s a good thing because I absolutely hate my wife’s one. Gearbox, water pump, aircon and coolant reservoir are just some of the things that have been a problem. The 4wd system seems poor compared to previous cars we’ve owned like a Subaru Legacy and a Toyota RAV4.  Although to be fair the 4wd performance in snow is academic because chances are that the handbrake would have frozen on again before you could even set off. 

In reply to BattyMilk:

I live in the sticks, routinely drive farm tracks through out the year........my car 2wd Dacia Logan but with decent tyres.

Never had a problem - if its too bad for my car you are into proper 4x4 weather 

In reply to 65:

“Only diesels and hybrid models are available now, so all Mondeos are economical. When fitted with a manual gearbox, the entry-level 148bhp 2.0-litre EcoBlue diesel can achieve fuel economy of 54.3mpg “

My AWD Subaru Outback gets better economy than that. Sure you won’t get economy in the 60 / 70 mpg range of modern 2WD. But it’s not awful economy in mid 50s MPG for AWD with 8 inches of clearance.

In reply to BattyMilk:

RR Cullinan...?

In reply to captain paranoia:

I thought you had to be a Middle Eastern despot or Russian oligarch to own one of those. I may be setting but a snip at £250K.

On a serious note, Skoda Scout + winter tyres! Works for me in the Pyrenees in winter.

In reply to BattyMilk:

As an aside, what does 4x4 actually mean ?

In reply to GrahamD:

I'd assumed four wheels and all four are powered.

In reply to critter:

Double that when the repair bills start

I

In reply to bigbobbyking:

In the UK vehicle paper work 4x4 means all a vehicle of road speed where all 4 wheels are permanently and equally powered ...... Basically its limited Defenders /earlier RR, Unimogs and JCB fastrak

Selectable 2 / 4 wheel drive - Toyota etc are not 4x4 for legal classication

Car with 60:40 split or variable split are all wheel drive not 4x4

In reply to BattyMilk:

How about an expensive luxury 4WD?

Hear me out, there's logic to this.

I've got a 2006 Lexus RX400H Hybrid. It's a mid-level luxury car.

But because of its complicated hybrid system, it will do 40mpg on a run, and 30mpg around town. This is despite being a 3.3L V6 petrol with two electric motors. One front, one at the back. The motorway mpg might not be anything to write home about, but around town it's fantastic considering it's got plenty of power, run on electric at low speed and isn't a fumy diesel.

You can pick them up from £3k up. £6k will get you a very nice one.

So you might be worried about maintenance. I've had mine for six years and the only thing that has broke on it is the switch for the rear fog lights. Despite putting 40,000 miles on it, I've not even had to change the brake pads due to regen braking. I've always driven old cars as I do my own work on them, but never experienced anything as reliable as thins thing.

Tax is a little high at £300 granted, but other than this I can't see the benefit of something like a newer Dacia when you could have the luxury, comfort, reliability, performance and really good urban performance from an older Lexus.

In reply to BattyMilk:

Don't most of the modern light/car derived 4x4s have open diffs and I suppose as a follow up, does that matter for occasional rough use if the traction control can fiddle the brakes to control the torque flow?

Anyway, here's another vote for mud and snow tyres on a cheap lightweight car. I used to do a fair bit of night/navigational rallying involving a fair bit of off-road and winter conditions. I and almost everyone else ran small 2wd, M&S tyres* and usually a sump guard and small suspension lift (because we weren't exactly slowing down for the rough bits!). They're rubbish (hilarious) on tarmac but a night and day improvement off-road.

*Usually a little taller than stock fitment

jk

In reply to jkarran:

Pretty much.

I find with open diffs, you have to put your foot down a bit more to get the TC to kick in and give you that four wheel traction.

I've never actually driven a car with all three locking diffs, but I expect you can plod along slowly.

I've done a lot of overlanding in Mongolia, and you really want to drive like your car is made out of glass. I felt open diffs let you down a bit here as you need to be a bit more aggressive when things get tough.

For occasional use, open diffs and TC is more than adequate.

In reply to BattyMilk:

The octavia scouts as mentioned might be a good option for steep slippery climbs and moderately rough tracks, but if it's really ground clearance you want for bigger ruts and potholes etc then it might not really be what you want. I think each generation of octavia scout has had slightly less ground clearance than the one before, and it's only a little better than a normal car. A dacia duster gets you 210mm ground clearance which is a bit more handy. Or one of the various VW group suvs like an ateca / karoq / tiguan (Tbf probably only the tiguan due to age), all of which have better ground clearance than the scout (but slightly less than the duster). Although they are a bit more pricy, so ones in budget will be a few years older & higher mileage. 

A subaru forester / xv / outback have good ground clearance and AWD too, might be worth thinking about too - although they're significantly more expensive than a duster, would have to get an older example to fit in budget I think. 

In reply:

My job takes me down farm tracks and across fields on a regular basis. I have a small van and generally have no problems getting where I need to be. 

Most of the people I work with use various 4x4s. Aside from seriously muddy stuff and places where clearance is an issue, I can go anywhere they can. 

The difference is that my van clunks and rattles horribly on bad ground (and catches the odd rock) while their trucks are silent in comparison, despite them going at twice my speed. I seem to go through a lot of steering and suspension components too. As a result I tend to hop in someone else's vehicle or walk instead of driving my van. 

I've never owned a 4x4 so can't say for sure but it seems to me that if you're doing a lot of driving on rough ground, while a fwd car with decent tyres may get you there, it's not going to last as long. 

I might be wrong about that, would be curious to hear others' experiences. 

In reply to EdS:

Is there really a legal distinction? Not sure how it would be determined/applied since I'm pretty sure for the last two vehicles I've imported the extensive DVLA form only asked how many driven wheels (possibly axles actually) there are (which I took to be maximum). So '4wd or 2 axles' for my Jeep (which was functionally RWD unless low range is selected with the centre diff automatically locked up) and '2wd or 1 axle' for my Leaf which is FWD. There was as best I recall no section on the form for diff-types, diff-control, or F/R torque split or any of that jazz.

4WD, AWD, 4x4, X-drive, Quattro, 4MATIC etc are marketing terms from which little meaning can be sensibly extracted other than that 4 wheels can be driven at least some of the time.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

This is my understanding. Along with no consistency between manufacturers. So call it whatever you like. I wasn't aware of a legal definition, nor can i understand why there would be. 

In reply to BattyMilk:

We have two cars, rear wheel drive, with shallow, wide tyres.  Deeply unsuitable in snow.  However, we live on a hill that holds snow and ice and is never gritted, and both cope admirably with winter tyres.  

Given a choice and with mobility, economy and reliability in mind, I'd go with a Toyota Yaris with winter tyres and a pair of chains in case you really have a lot of snow.  Decent enough ground clearance, comfortable, well balanced.    Winter tyres are a one off hit and a cost to swap them over each year, but thereafter your tyres last twice as long....Chains cost one tank of fuel.  

In reply to nniff:

Yep, I had a RWD car which with winter tyres was better in snow than the various 4x4 pickups I drove with work which had road or semi-offroad tyres.

OP: I don't think anyone has mentioned a Nissan Quashqai. Afaik Nissans have a good reputation for reliability and there are millions of them around so I'd guess they'd be very cheap to buy. Fit appropriate tyres and you'll be sorted.

In reply to 65:

When it comes to snow and ice I would say tyres are all that really matter in my opinion.

Yes, you're more likely to get going with a 4WD when compared to a 2WD with like for like tyres, however, when it comes to stopping the extra grip 4WD gives you setting off isn't going to save you.

In reply to montyjohn:

Yes, there does seem to be an assumption that 4WD magically increases the friction coefficient between tyres and ice.

In reply to jkarran:

There is actually a standard, SAE J1952 which says they are all AWD then sudivided into three categories (permanent, driver selected or automatic/on demand) which then get eight subcategories as well to cover all the ways to achieve some kind of AWD.

In Germany (and the EU presumably) there's nothing in ones papers about the subject, back when there were different rules on winter tyre fitment it was assumed the police would know what the car had from it's model. There is apparently a code to tell the MOT guys before they fling it in the rolling road for obvious reasons.

As commented above some of the open diff solutions can be a bit challenging, on my Foresters to get it to engage at standstill you rev the guts out of it with the back wheels spinning then after a second or two it hooks up and launches you forwards. I've also had some American junk which just reduced the power until there was enough grip for all the wheels, stuck on a rocky hill it just went to tickover so no progress would be made, absolute garbage (as was the rest of the car).

In reply to montyjohn:

Exactly. Traction to get moving is not a great idea if you can't turn or stop, a notion which I don't think has occurred to a lot of 4x4 drivers.

In reply to montyjohn:

Is four-wheel engine braking not still an advantage?

In reply to Luke90:

I guess, a very small one.

You are that little bit less likely to lock up with the engine braking applied to additional wheels, but to be honest, most drivers, and I include myself, over brake through panic on ice. 

I then quickly let off and try again more gently.

Maybe the engine braking help get the second pump right. But I would guess the benefit is marginal.

Worth noting, I drive an automatic, so on ice, you can lock up all four wheels, and the torque converted will happily slip now that the engine revs have dropped.

Maybe you'd get more benefit in a manual.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

Snow is  quite a specific use case though.

Narrow smaller tyres that cut into snow of the Panda versus big and wide of the modern Landrover that spin and polish over the top. Which is why a 2CV (which I really don't like and it pains me to sing their praises) even though being 2 wheel drive will outperform them both in soft snow

(but a "real" LR - Defender with narrow wheels will beat all of them)

In reply to BattyMilk:

I'll add another vote for the Yeti.  Used to have one, which my wife then pinched off me.  Now thinking of getting another.

T.

In reply to BattyMilk:

Webuyanycar the mini.

Get the Panda (I can vouch for it and the Italian police force use them for an off-road vehicle) or a Duster if it's better. Whichever the wife prefers.

Get a 2CV. Does the mpg, does potholes, does snow and ice as pp said. Most fun I've ever had in a car. Get rubbing strakes for the roofline as they improve cornering. Alternatively a short wheelbase Defender; not much fun but plenty of style.

In reply to BattyMilk:

I had a small grand vitara for a few years, it was inefficient but this might not matter for a second car and I picked it up very cheap. Can vouch for the 4WD on it, it managed the Chevin in the snow repeatedly during the beast from the east. Obviously if you're doing loads of long motorway runs it would be rubbish but for short journeys I'd have one again. 

In reply to CantClimbTom:

You say that. I've owned a 2014 defender for four or five years for work. It's got narrow mud terrains on it. And in even vaguely compacted snow it's utterly useless! So much so I'm thinking of changing to an all terrain. Even for the tiny amount of snow we get here.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

Even with the centre difflock engaged?

In reply to montyjohn:

Getting going is alright. More the stopping that is dangerous. Whatever you do, it's (significantly) worse than a hatchback with winters. Tyres are Goodyear wrangler MT in 235/85/r16. They're mud terrain tyres. I specifically chose them because I've often got to drive in mud, wet fields and woodland.

I have since learned mud terrains in the cold are known to be terrible in anything but deep snow. I guess after a quick look at the large, uncut tread blocks it's unsurprising.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

In my experience, for snow and ice, tyre choice and driving style can be far more important than the vehicle choice.

In reply to BattyMilk:

Seem to be a trend from other posters here. In your position I’d buy a normal-ish vehicle and a set of winter tyres (and wheels for them). 2wd and tyres that actually work in snow & ice will do better than 4wd on tyres whose compound hardens in the cold, unless you’re going to be delivering animal fodder to 750m.

In reply to CantClimbTom:

Not without diff locks it won't, I got stuck on a flat grassy field (wrong tyres) in a LR. Ended up winching it out by hand

LR aka 1X4

In reply to BattyMilk:

I grew up on such a lane well before cars had traction control and 4x4. You will find I think that your money is much better spent on a few bags of hardcore and gravel. Fill the potholes and just accept that on snowy days this country grinds to a halt. 

Buying a big car for the 1percent of journeys will as many people have said above just end up costing more and driving up emissions.

In reply to artif:

With the center locked it's at least 2X4, and I think all defenders built in the last 10  years have traction control bringing you up to sort of 4x4.

Or for older cars, a bit of light braking helps as the spinning wheel(s) will receive more "drag" from the braking than the stationary wheel so it gets a bit of extra torque. I've had mixed results from this technique however.