Used Ssangyong Rexton 4x4 2003 - 2013 review

The real attraction of the Rexton is that it gives you a lot of car for the money, with something like Land Rover Discovery space for Freelander money.

Up front, the dash is well laid out, and the basically sound driving position gives a commanding view. Head and legroom are fine, although reach adjustment on the steering wheel would help taller drivers make themselves more comfortable. In the back, there's plenty of room for passengers, if not quite as much as in some rivals. The boot, too, is a good size, although it's not terribly wide, but it does house two extra fold-away seats on some models, which turn the Rexton into a seven-seater.

That's all very well - and, what's more, the Rexton is a fine off-roader - but the trouble starts once you drive on-road. The ride never really settles, there's too much body roll in bends and the slow-witted steering makes parking awkward.

Compared to most other 4x4s of the same size, the Rexton is a bargain. Cars like the Discovery or Jeep Grand Cherokee are far more expensive to buy, and the only other big 4x4 that comes close to matching the Rexton's price is the Kia Sorento. However, even that looks dear in comparison.

Of the Rexton's three engines, by far the most fuel-efficient is the 2.7-litre diesel, which returns 32.9mpg. Although that's pretty good for such a big car, it's not as good as a diesel Sorento. The 2.9 gets just 30.4mpg, or a woeful 25.0mpg with the automatic gearbox, while the 3.2 petrol can't even return 20mpg.

In terms of insurance, the Rexton is dearer than the Sorento, but cheaper than other mainstream rivals of a similar size.

Sadly, we don't have maintenance costs for the Rexton, but given that the engines are sourced from Mercedes, we see no reason why they should be overly expensive to service.

Originally, the Rexton came with petrol and diesel engines, but the 3.2-litre petrol was reserved for the top trim, making it too expensive for a supposedly budget car. It was also the worst model for fuel economy and insurance, so there's little surprise it was dropped in early 2006.

At the same time, the company dropped the 2.9-litre diesel, which is the easiest model to find on the used market and the cheapest. It's our recommendation as a used buy, but primarily because of its price.

The 2.7-litre diesel that joined the range in late 2004 (54-plate onwards), and became the only engine in the range from early 2006, is stronger and more fuel-efficient, but is too much more expensive than the 2.9.

Trim-wise, stick to the most basic models, as the whole range is well equipped.