TOPIC:

One of the main drawback is that there is no 4x4 option and it will never be. I mean if I am buying SUV or crossover then I expect that kind of transmition. Otherwise I do not see any sense. It is better then to buy something like Scenic, Espace or so. And Peugeot has nothing here.

We don't all want 4x4's though, that not what SUVs are about. The extra ground clearance, ride height, the ability to get over ridiculous speed humps and the elevated driving position and ease of entry all come into play,and that's not even mentioning the increased load space. 

There was one point that struck me yesterday and it falls inline with what you said about 4x4. Why would a car that can be used off road have such ridiculously low profile tyres that get ruined in deep garavel etc. 45 ratio profile leaves the alloy very close to the "road" under those conditions. My car is 27months old now, not a mark on it apart from 1 alloy that I raked down a high kerb after just 2 weeks ownership, just didn't realise how exposed they are.
The 3008 has 55 profile tyres on it's 19" wheels and looks far better proportioned for an suv type vehicle in my opinion.

I guess they may have alienated possibly 5% of potential buyers by excluding 4X4 as a choice? but they will have done their research and savings in weight and economy over the whole range by not having standard 4x4 capable suspension etc throughout the whole range must have been a factor.

He he, either 45 either 55 are not suitable for off-road. And yes, it is much easier (even possible) to buy spare 17 inch set with 60 profile and narrower tyres then add 4x4 transmision. Skoda Karoq is equal to A Q7 or Koleos, to direc compare is Skoda Kodiaq or simmilar VAG clones. 
P3008 is more comparable with Scenic/Grand Scenic then to Kadjar, that is a fact. Otherwise, Opel/VX has a much nicer outer design than P. And also have all commands reachable only trough touch screen is tricky too.

turboted10 wrote:

We don't all want 4x4's though, that not what SUVs are about. The extra ground clearance, ride height, the ability to get over ridiculous speed humps and the elevated driving position and ease of entry all come into play,and that's not even mentioning the increased load space. 
...

The load space is not a factor in favour of the Kadjar, it is even less load space in the Kadjar than in a Megane Sports Tourer!

I totally agree with turboted10. Besides, the 4x4 is noisier, more expensive and with higher fuel consumption. I actually wanted a Scenic, but they're not sold in Eastern Europe (like Espace), so wanting a higher position, bigger clearance (for the snow in winter) and bigger trunk, went for the Kadjar.

1898 wrote:

turboted10 wrote:

We don't all want 4x4's though, that not what SUVs are about. The extra ground clearance, ride height, the ability to get over ridiculous speed humps and the elevated driving position and ease of entry all come into play,and that's not even mentioning the increased load space. 
...

The load space is not a factor in favour of the Kadjar, it is even less load space in the Kadjar than in a Megane Sports Tourer!

The space is bigger in the Kadjar I think, but only with a liter or two... The Megan's trunk is narrow and deep, while in the Kadjar I've manged to fit two bicycles inside (29"!!! and 26"), with no need to lower the seats and only disassembling their front tires and seats. I cant do that in a Megan  

Sorry... I tought you bought a car you want or like not because you short for something with valuer badge on bonnet...