I'd trust the Honda to still be running well at 15 years, probably the Kia/Hyundai too, the others i suspect will possibly need more and costlier maintenance to keep them going, but thats only my opinion i might have it completely wrong.

Any of them could throw up a fault that costs a serious wedge to fix, all of them will have a better chance of lasting longer if you maintain meticulously, including keeping the underside clean and washing the salt off etc, greasing the brake pipes and servicing the brakes properly (few do), periodic brake fluid and all transmission fluids and cambelt (if fitted) changes, sensible long term care.

Thats a strange list to me.

None of them are good for 45mpg locally expect perhaps the cashcow.

The tig is virtually permanent 4wd, and the xc-60 will only return high 30's on a run.

But if you want long term reliability you should be looking at a car without a turbo and DPF.

Have a look at whatcar real mpg.

Can't criticise the Renault 1.5 for being unreliable or complicated. It has about half the moving parts of a modern petrol (and still much more efficient albeit noisy). It's a bit peaky in a cashcow, but adequate. People who have cashcows seem to like them-but it is no more capable than a hatchbacko n slippy terrain.

AFAIK the petrol/diesel break is still around 15,000 miles/year - it was coming down but the effect of low mileage on DPFs has kept it up.

Any of the modern Crossovers will give the extra ground clearance for wading as modern cars start to float as soon as the sills are in the water.

Unless you invest in two sets of tyres, summer/winter, just fit a decent set of All-Season, eg Pirelli Scorpion Verde All-Season M&S.

It's not easy to include average repair costs, which any new purchaser should - an individual historical analysis will be skewed either way by actual repair costs.

Anyone driving a petrol car may be put off with the fuel which is due possibly next year.

Called E10 it contains upto 10% ethanol, one side effect is reduced performance.

"I wouldn't rule out the Skoda Yeti Outdoor, I believe topgear tested it against the Range Rover and it outperformed it!"

Having got a Yeti I would ask what exactly would give anyone the belief that a Range Rover "outperforms" it. To be honest it' sounds like a bit of an ill informed generalization and to make reference to it sounds rather pointless.

To be sure I like my Yeti......but there's no way it compares to a RR....in any respect really!

It's smaller, much cheaper, comes from a different category of vehicle, doesn't have anything like the same degree off offroad or wading ability......I really can't see that mine would outperform mine in any way shape or form. Mine probably does a bit more to the gallon and costs a bit less to insure and takes up less room on the driveway and costs half as much to buy but I really wouldn't like to go head to head with it in any sort of performance tests.

Edited by KB. on 07/02/2014 at 16:10

I wouldn't rule out the Skoda Yeti Outdoor, I believe topgear tested it against the Range Rover and it outperformed it!

Don't be so ridiculous, the Range Rover has vastly more wheel articulation and much more ground clearance - it can also wade at practically double the Yeti's maximum depth - not in the same league - not even close. You might find one or two situations where the Yeti performs well thanks to the lower kerb weight or smaller size but these will be the exceptions - not the rule.