2nd June 2007 - Pointless cars

Ramblings and thoughts from Neil
Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 7019
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 8:16 pm
Location: Nottingham, UK

2nd June 2007 - Pointless cars

Post by neil » Sat Jun 02, 2007 7:59 am

Ok, since my favorite car manufacturer has decided to not make a version of the e70 X5. It looks like we will be replacing our family car, which is currently a Renault Grand Espace 2.0T Privilege with another one.

We've been very happy with the Espace and whilst it's not an ALPINA or BMW it's worked out well for us.

This got me thinking about what engine and spec to go for. I have the 2.0-litre petrol and it's fast enough and economy is c. 26mpg. Charles has a 3.0-litre diesel and another of my friends has a 2.2-litre diesel.

Cue me going to Renaults website and checking out whats available.

Which gets me to the point of this blog entry - The Renault Grand Espace 3.5-litre petrol. Why do Renault make this car ?

Check for yourself here

It has a combined fuel economy of (wait for it) 12.2mpg :shock: . Or put another way 5mpg LESS than the new 5.0-litre V10 M5 !

We all know too that no car makes it's published figures, put the car dangerously close to single digit economy !

Seriously how can they justify the car ?

So what other pointless cars are there out there ? Name them and shame them

User avatar
Posts: 7837
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 2:44 am
Location: Oxford

Post by Charles » Sat Jun 02, 2007 12:45 pm

As you say we run the 3litre V6 diesel and, until I saw these figures, I have been disappointed with consumption. The brochures were shouting about mid to high 30's and we are rock steady at - wait for it - 29.7mpg!!!!!

To answer your question, you go for the 2.2 diesel because you are only hauling three around (not four - and mine are larger), and the emissions falls below the ridculously taxed level.

To answer your other question, the 3.5 petrol version is ridiculous becuase you can get the 3.0 V6 diesel chipped for not much money AND get the same (if not better) performance at far better economy.

Other pointless cars -

BMW 116d Sport - should be challenged under the Trade Descriptions Act
Teacher of Chemistry and driver of ALPINAs - not necessarily in that order ;)
B3S Touring (49/116) - been to the moon and now on the way back!
Renault Grand Espace - not mine but the wife's!

Posts: 658
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:32 am
Location: London

Post by hythe » Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:24 am

I'm still trying to figure out why there's a 535i in some markets and a 540i in others, each with c.300bhp.

Actually, I've no idea why the 4.0l V8 exists at all... The output's virtually the same as the early-90s M60, albeit with better economy and emissions.
2016 D3 #296
2012 Range Rover

2005 B5 Touring #007
1996 B8 4.6 Touring #014
2011 1M Coupe

Posts: 761
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:11 pm
Location: Brookwood, Surrey

Post by Grant » Tue Jun 19, 2007 9:07 am

Charles said:
BMW 116d Sport - should be challenged under the Trade Descriptions Act
I was going to say that about Smart cars! :? WTF is smart about them :lol: As for the Smart roadster, an obvious peice of attempted turd polishing!
Don't eat yellow snow.

Currently: D3 Saloon #254 Montego Blue & E46 SE Conv Mystic Blue

User avatar
Posts: 1418
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: Surrey, UK

Post by Petrolhead » Thu Jun 21, 2007 8:25 pm

To be honest, I can't really see much point in the X3.

If you want a big 4x4 for the school run (or if there's the remote chance you actually lived on a farm) you'd get the X5, if you lived somewhere else and didn't need the car to be big and imposing, you'd get a 3/5/7 series.

Now, if you lived on a farm you wouldn't get the X3 beacuse it quivers at the first sight of a bit of dust, and the X5 can actually do a bit of offroad. I stress a bit. The X3's not big enough to be imposing on the road. It doesn't handle/drive/perform as well as the 3/5/7 series. And to top it all off, it looks pretty damn ugly.

That's my view anywhoo :lol:
My Website!

"If you don't feel out of control, you're not driving fast enough." - Mario Andretti

Post Reply