Skoda Karoq - Will a bike fit in the back?

alanparsons wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

alanparsons wrote:

I have got a Ferrari 348 an Audi Q7 and a Smart.
The only car I cannot get a bike in is the Ferrari, do have to take both wheels off to get it in the Smart though.
Hope that helps.

is this you?
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms ... -Ff3QgugRM:

No Magnum had a 308.
I have this:-

https://auto.ferrari.com/en_EN/sports-c ... s/348-gtb/

And no moustache.

I could probably cope with that. Plus you could use a seasucker rack with it.

Bonzo Banana wrote:

Apologies if I've missed the point or my point has already been raised but I've skimmed the thread and was just going to say there are some very good deals on estate cars currrently, SUV's are the trend but a decent estate car can be cheaper to run, cheaper to buy, more reliable, better load space for bikes and you can more easily mount them to the roof rack when you want to without having to use a ladder. Skoda Superb, Ford Mondeo or maybe if you want the best reliability and lowest running costs one of the Japanese options. Obviously many more luxurious options too. If you are considering secondhand the depreciation is much worse on an estate car nowadays it seems so something a couple of years old with a long transferable warranty can be a fantastic deal. Bikes are long and thin as are estate car load areas.

Correct. But estate cars are bad for old people disables people, 5 year olds and liberal democrats, you bastard.

Not sure how relevant any of this is to the op question ?

alanparsons wrote:

thegreatdivide wrote:

alanparsons wrote:

And no moustache.

There goes your kudos. Sucks to be you.

I did grow a moustache for Movember a few years back, kept on being called Magnum!
Must be some Kudos in that.

Grow it back. You know you want to.

Can we hear more from the working classes over their warped justification for humungous polluting SUVs

I was told they like sitting high up so appeared superior to other plebs

Bonzo Banana wrote:

cougie wrote:

Why would an estate car be more reliable than an SUV ?

It's only the average comparison so as estate cars tend to be available at lower prices they often have simpler designs with less gadgets, more basic engine options, SUV's tend to be higher up models with greater complexity. Of course you'll find SUV's that are much more reliable than estate cars but as an average estate cars tend to be much more reliable.


https://www.reliabilityindex.com/reliability/search/10

https://www.reliabilityindex.com/reliability/search/20

Considering most manufacturers share engine models across the whole range, the reliability comment is unfounded. The Skoda Superb, whilst being an excellent example of an estate car and probably the best bang for buck in that vehicle type, shares its engines with the rest of the Volkswagen stable other than Porsche and Bugatti. Cheaper doesn't necessarily mean better either when it comes to engines. Someone buying an SUV or high performance car, isn't interested in fuel economy as a priority. If they were, they wouldn't be looking at those vehicles. Driving long distances or hauling heavy loads, nothing yet is as economical or efficient as a big diesel. My Touareg may be restricted to 245bhp, but its the torque that I wanted giving me power under load and at legal speeds.

The current emissions testing protocol has been proven to be testing in the wrong areas. Testing at a steady 56mph is irrelevant when those speeds are usually in rural areas on semi restricted and unrestricted A roads with no pedestrians around. Where it matters is at idling engine revolutions when vehicles are stuck at junctions and traffic lights, which tends to be in built up areas with lots of pedestrians around. Older engine cars including diesels, have been proven to be more efficient in this range than newer cat 5E and 6 vehicles.

Well it turns out it is the ultimate cycle friendly car!!
https://www.bikeradar.com/news/skoda-karoq-velo/