Jump to content

Recommended Posts

In the US, MPV's are called minivans which, at least in the public psyche, are VERY different from SUVs. Minivans are only really for people with kids. Their very practicality makes them deeply uncool and they have a whiff of having 'given-up' about them...


Edited to fix typos

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In the US, MPV's are called minivans are at least

> in the public psyche are VERY different. Mini

> vans are for people with kids. Their very

> practicality makes them deeply uncool and they

> have a whiff of having 'given-up' about them...


And Pick-ups are for serial killers and red necks ;)

"In the US, MPV's are called minivans are at least in the public psyche are VERY different. Mini vans are for people with kids. Their very practicality makes them deeply uncool and they have a whiff of having 'given-up' about them..."



.....and this is the reason why SUV/crossovers have become so popular in the UK. MPVs took over the family car market (Citroen Picasso, Renault Scenic and of course Zafira) but they looked dull and worthy. The only body shape that keeps the high driving position and space but can be made more sexy is the SUV - QED. Plus, the Japanese manufacturers missed the boat in the MPV market and rather than trying to catch up decided to go different, and most already had bigger SUV ranges.

Yes--I know many people who need a minivan but don't want a minivan and end up getting an enormous off road vehicle instead that serves almost the same purpose.


Toyota tried to acknowledge and make fun of the uncool image of the minivan by launching an ad campaign in the US referring to their new model as 'Swagger Wagon'. It may come up on youtube if you google it. It highlighted the extra functionality of minivans for kids that most SUVs don't come with. I'm not sure how many people it convinced though!

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LondonMix Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > In the US, MPV's are called minivans are at

> least

> > in the public psyche are VERY different. Mini

> > vans are for people with kids. Their very

> > practicality makes them deeply uncool and they

> > have a whiff of having 'given-up' about them...

>

> And Pick-ups are for serial killers and red necks

> ;)


I also own a Pick-Up and a few white vans, and a fork lift


What kinda cutn am I

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jeremy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> > SUV with 7 seats.

>

> Ha. Even if it says MPV in the name ?

>

> Although to be fair I cant see it described as an

> MPV anywhere else. So and SUV it is.


I guess there may be some ambiguity in the case of the enormous 7 seat SUVs (Audi Q7, Volvo XC90, and the absolutely gigantic Merc GLS that one of the mums in our nursery rocks up in every morning). But generally... off-road styling = SUV.

For my parents (who do not live in London) the critical issue is the high driving/passenger position - with age and arthritis the low position of a normal car is very difficult to get in and out of. Perhaps along same lines, also greater visibility (even if at cost to visibility of others).
I am umming and ahhing about whether I want one. Really I want something economical, reliable, wi th enough space in it for camping holidays so I don't have to pile up half the luggage and equipment on the kids laps. It's between an estate and a SUV for me, but the question I cannot get past is how the hell does anyone afford one? They seem to start at around ?22,000, which on a combine s family income of about ?75k doesn't not seem possible when the mortgage sucks most of that out the bank!

ratty Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> how the hell does anyone afford one? They

> seem to start at around ?22,000, which on a

> combine s family income of about ?75k doesn't not seem possible


You don't need to buy new, ratty. I would have thought 10K or so should get you something pretty nice with reasonable mileage.

A lot of people buying new ones will go for the finance deals, which often come with a discount to the list price, but obviously you still pay a bit more overall.

Upfront payment, two or three years of monthly payments and a final payment. At the end of the three years the car should be worth a fair bit more than the final payment due and then you either pay the final part and keep the same car, or trade in the car as your upfront payment on a new one and continue with the monthly payments with a new car for another three years.


Some people on the other hand might just be lucky enough to be able to fork out ?30/40/50k - good luck to them.

Each to their own, Mick. Personally... I dislike financial obligation, and like owning things outright. So I go for ~3yr cars with low mileage that I can afford to buy in cash. No need to swap regularly unless personal situation changes (or you just like shiny new things)...


Can't imagine why anyone would buy a brand new car in cash, unless they were seriously loaded.

I know people who regularly lease brand new cars and always trade them in. They aren't loaded either. Their logic is with a new car, you can easily budget how much your transport costs are. With an old car, whatever you think you are saving upfront ends up coming as large unexpected expenses when things start to fail and its much harder to budget that way.


I don't have a car yet but when we get one (maybe next year) I think we'll use it so irregularly that an older car with low mileage is the way to go for us.

I had always been of the same view Jeremy but it worked for us at the time. The benefit is that as long as you can afford the upfront payment you are parting with 40% of the car price initially. In three years you have the option to pay off the finance (as we did) or return the car and take the amount by which the car value exceeds the outstanding finance.


You do own it outright, depending upon the financial product, its like a loan secured on the car, but the car is yours.


For us the car is now > 5 years old and we are likely to be keeping it another 4/5 until eldest child moves out and we don't need a seven seater anymore, so it has definitely worked out well. The car is still apparently worth 40% of what we paid for it (we buy any car...?). Had we bought a 3 year old version we would have had a lot of depreciation and likely service costs too


At the time we bought the new one, a 3 year old "approved" version was 65% !! of new list one's list price - I wasn't paying that. I'd rather pay less money for a down payment on a new one, with new car maufacturers warranty etc.


Also, you get to "build" the car yourself - You choose all the options that you want or don't want. Obviously you then have to wait 3 months for it to arrive.

I think Phlox has hit the nail on the head- it is the speed bumps- it's like driving on a dried up rutted dirt track- especially now we are down to 20mph everywhere. Also it's a safety issue- at least bull bars were banned....that's why when you are in a side road a 4 x 4 will aim at you and not give way- because the driver knows who will come off worst.
I was always worried about damaging the undercarriage of cars. Used to have an estate car, which when loaded was very low slung. It was longer than my current higher off the ground vehicle. If you live somewhere without so many speed bumps, then you might not see the need.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • If you're a fundraising intermediary, reporting promptly and accurately on how you've raised and spent funds seems quite important.
    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...