Best car to put a bike in?

For discussions about bikes and equipment.
peetee
Posts: 4565
Joined: 4 May 2010, 10:20pm
Location: Upon a lumpy, scarred granite massif.

Re: Best car to put a bike in?

Post by peetee »

andrewwillans49 wrote:Our bikes were 60 cm bikes. Full mudguards, mine had a rear rack and a front wheel Dynamo set up. 2 spade connectors, why assume our bikes were small? I'm 6'1", son is 6'3".
Proper audax set up

A similar scenario:
With the front wheel removed my 24” framed, SKS Longboard mudguard fitted road bike fits in my 2005 Polo with the back seats down. I am 6’ and don’t have to pull the driving seat forward.
It’s all about the shape of the space available. Years ago there were 2 Polos in the family; one square back, the other raked. Whilst the square back had more space inside it was a complete pain to load up because the tailgate was much closer to you and prevented you leaning in to place heavy or awkward items.
The older I get the more I’m inclined to act my shoe size, not my age.
Biospace
Posts: 3080
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: Best car to put a bike in?

Post by Biospace »

Hudson1984 wrote:
depends largely on budget. I mean I'd go Volvo every day of the week - by far the most comfortable thing to drive and with their hybrid engine (if it's in budget) it's a great cheap to run choice. We have an XC60 and love EVERY mile.

Personally, i'm going the VW T5 route for bike duties and then keeping the company car for the dull stuff. But all down to what you want to spend and what you really want it to do for you.



It does indeed depend on budget. In general, the more you spend, the smaller the knowledge base regarding the model - so there's more chance of landing stupid-sized repair bills - and the less you can afford to bail out if things do go really badly.

Of course some prefer to rent/buy a new car, which for a while has guaranteed running costs but it's usually the quickest way of throwing hard-earned income down the gutter. The feel-good factor is incredibly powerful.

Buying something decent quality and older always used to be the intelligent choice, after ten years of sales and millions of miles, the cars which last best are well known. Of course you still need your eyes open when buying, a vendor often tells you as much about how a purchase is likely to be as much as the car itself.

As the ICEv moves ever closer to the end of its life and the EV tipping point looms, they've grown more complex and more expensive to repair. As a rule, I'd avoid any diesel made after around 2009, many from well before if they've a DPF in the exhaust and you don't live on the motorway. Also those tiny petrol engines with turbos - they're over stressed.

If possible, make your next purchase an EV - they're almost all good. Otherwise, keep it as simple as possible. We did that six years ago when a late 90s (old style, boxy) V70 auto was purchased, it has done everything asked of it and more, returns 50mpg on a trip and 45 day to day, hasn't failed to work in over 90,000 miles and has needed a minimum of consumable bits - far less than most newer cars I know of. It cost seven hundred and something to buy.

Other cars I'd consider would be a Roomster or a Sharan, preferably both with the bomb-proof VW 1.9TDi engine. They're both robust, fairly simple and very economical. The amount of money spent buying a car is frequently no guide as to how good it will be!
Post Reply