Archives for category: Comparison

Comparo – Mazda CX-5 vs Kia Sportage

August 24, 2012 //
0

Here’s two of the class-leading, customer-focused and segment-winning diesel SUVs in a showroom battle. NEIL DOWLING referees.

MAZDA CX-5 MAXX SPORT
Price: $39,040
Star: 4
VALUE: The CX-5’s pricing fits the market and 1400 sales a month shows Mazda has got it right. The Maxx Sport is the best deal, though CX-5s start at $27,800 for a 2WD petrol (there’s no diesel 2WD yet) and climb to $46,200 for the diesel Grand Touring. Rivals are numerous and hungry but Mazda’s strong name and the Maxx Sport’s standard gear – sat-nav, rear camera, keyless entry/start and fuel-cheating stop-start system – keeps most at bay.
Star: 4
DESIGN: Mazda replicates the Mazda3 hatch shape and wins with a compact wagon with excellent cabin room. The grille could be a lot prettier but the rest of the shape is functionally attractive. Cabin treatment is a bit dark and gloomy but dash switchgear and instrumentation are spot on. But it is quite plasticy and that diminishes the presumed quality.
Star: 3.5
TECHNOLOGY: SkyActiv technology promises fuel efficiency and better driving dynamics and it works. There’s trade-off in the petrol CX-5 with doughy engine response but the 129kW/420Nm bi-turbocharged diesel is a more engaging performer that gets a commendable 5.7 L/100km. There’s also a six-speed auto and all-wheel drive.
Star: 4
SAFETY: This is a five-star wagon with all the necessary safety gear enhanced with a rear camera, tyre pressure monitor, six airbags, emergency-stop signal, stability control, brake assist and a hill holder. The spare is rated as a temporary but works like a full-size.
Star: 4
DRIVING: Diesel engine is lively compared with petrol CX-5 but doesn’t sparkle like the Sportage. Gearshifts are a bit bumpy – the quick lock-up saves fuel – and the stop-start system becomes annoying in traffic. Engine delivery is linear and strong and fuel economy is impressive. Ride comfort is good – the cloth seats feel more comfortable than leather – though there is some low-speed suspension thump. Handling is very good but the Sportage is more confident through the corners.
Star: 3.5
KIA SPORTAGE PLATINUM
Price: $39,720
Star: 4
VALUE: Platinum may be a bit opulent in spec but shows good value. Kia adds leather, sunroof, privacy glass and 18-inch alloys over the CX-5 but loses stop-start and a tyre pressure monitor. The five-year warranty is a big attraction as is Kia’s upcoming fixed service charges. Better value is the SLi version at $35,720 though budget motorists can opt for the 2WD petrol at $26,720.
Star: 4
DESIGN: This is one of the Sportage’s highlights. It’s distinctive narrow-profile side glass, abrupt tail and cling-wrapped grille make it look purposeful yet compact. It’s similar inside dimensions to the CX-5 but lifts the game with leather, an involving and interesting dash (though still in basic black) and excellent seat position. The heavy C-pillars hurt rear-side visibility.
Star: 4
TECHNOLOGY: Simple stuff here with a 135kW/392Nm single-turbo 2-litre diesel that’s up a bit on power but converse on torque compared with the CX-5. Performance is similar. The 7.5 L/100km is a good figure but Mazda has changed the benchmark. Kia has six-speed auto, all-wheel drive and 4WD Lock.
Star: 3.5
SAFETY: In line with the Mazda – a five-star crash rating, six airbags, stability control, rear camera, hill holder, brake assist and auto headlights and wipers – but adds rear park sensors. Doesn’t have the CX5’s tyre pressure monitor but has a fully-rated alloy spare wheel.
Star: 4
DRIVING: Diesel engine is more noticeable than Mazda at idle but quickly settles to be on par. Acceleration and pedal response feels more lively but side by side there wouldn’t be much in the performance differences. But the Kia steers better and feels more composed through corners. It feels more sporty and better planted on the road. Ride comfort is similar though tyre noise on coarse bitumen is slightly more noticeable than the Mazda – probably due to the 18-inch low-profile rubber.
Star: 4
VERDICT: Two things here – when did you last see a Japanese car priced lower than a similarly-equipped Korean car? It’s extremely difficult to find a winner here because it’s up to you. I prefer the Kia because it’s edgier styling, has more equipment and a long warranty, though the Mazda’s fuel economy is a big drawcard.

Mazda: 19pts
Kia: 19.5pts

Tags , , , , ,
Categories Comparison

Comparo – Mercedes-Benz E200 vs BMW 520i

August 24, 2012 //
0

Don’t think small engines in big cars won’t pull the skin off rice pudding. Two Germans prove it works a treat. NEIL DOWLING compares

BMW 520i
Price: $77,900
Star: 3.5
VALUE: The cheapest of the fresh 5-Series range doesn’t skimp on fittings, picking up most of the kit of the $98,200 528i that has a similar drivetrain. At $77,900, the 520i is a five-seater with leather, wood, sat-nav, cruise and park sensors to whet the buyer’s appetite. You can go nuts by ticking option list boxes but restraint is wise. I like the no-cost option of removing the model badge from the boot, making it pretend to be a $115,600 535i.
Star: 4
DESIGN: A softening of the gruff, big-grille look of some BMW models sees the 5-Series return to its more delicate style of the 1980s when a low silhouette reinforced the company’s sporty prowess. The slim headlights and pronounced body crease on its flanks also make the 5-Series appear to be low and long. Inside it’s an exercise in housekeeping as cabin trim has been made neater, controls cleaner and the iDrive function management system a lot easier to use.
Star: 4
TECHNOLOGY: Mercedes, Audi and BMW lead the European push to maximise performance and economy by downsizing engine capacity. To motoring enthusiasts with warm blood in their veins, a 135kW/270Nm 2-litre engine in a 1.6-tonne car is as appealing as cold toast. But a twin-scroll turbocharger, valve management, clever electronics and eight cogs in the auto gearbox change everything. The 520i sprints 0-100km/h in 8.0 seconds and gets 6.4 L/100km. The rest of the package is brilliant – excellent handling with a sports flavour, good steering communication and to save fuel, a regenerative brake package and  a stop-start system.
Star: 3.5
SAFETY: All the good bits here with the maximum crash test rating, electronics for the stability, traction and brake control, park sensors front and back, eight airbags and tyre pressure alert. The run-flat tyres require no spare wheel, apparently.
Star: 4
DRIVING: Bigger-bore BMW’s have an instant acceleration rush off the mark that is a bit muted in the 520i. That’s to be expected. But it’s definitely no slouch and despite initial hesitation off the mark, maximum 270Nm of torque is cooking by 1200rpm and stays flat to 4500rpm. It’s not just the acceleration that brings smiles. The engine noise is unlike a four-cylinder unit, being crisp almost to the point of a bellow. The eight gears in the transmission pluck the torque at the right time and send it to the rear wheels while the lighter engine seems to make the front end more accurate through the corners. At all times, the BMW is smooth, almost effortless and so comfortable. You’d never know this is a 2-litre petrol four.
Star: 3.5

MERCEDES-BENZ E200

Price: $79,900
VALUE: Mercedes and BMW have been peeking over each other’s fence because almost item for item, these cars closely match up. Similarly, the E200 turbo-petrol enters the line-up at $79,900 with a higher spec model above and a diesel to the side. The Merc doesn’t share BMW’s leather but has its own leather-like material, has a 10-speaker audio (against six), Bluetooth, cruise control, trip computer, park sensors and sat-nav.
Star: 4
DESIGN: Young people in my family reckon the Merc is for older people but that’s an opinion not shared by a critical gaze over the E-Class. Yes, it’s a bit conservative but there is lots to like about its balance of tough lines with the odd gentle curve. It seems to appeal equally to men and women and the shape may retain its youthfulness in future years. Inside it’s spacious and carefully trimmed and looks bigger than the BMW (it’s actually 30mm shorter). The downside is the familiarisation needed for the controls – the gearshift column is on the right, there’s a foot park brake (BMW has an electric brake) and the combination indicator and wiper stalk can trip the novice.
Star: 3.5
TECHNOLOGY: Same deal as the BMW with a clever use of a small – this time shrunk even further to 1.8 litres – engine and a seven-speed automatic transmission that’s whipped hard to make it all happen. Output is 135kW/270Nm – OMG, that’s the same as the Beemer! Like the BMW, the Merc is rear drive and just as snappy with a 7.9sec time to 100km/h and 6.6 L/100km fuel average. The good news is attributed to the light 1615kg weight. The Merc gets a space-saver spare wheel.
Star: 3.5
SAFETY: A bit of one-upmanship is the addition of one airbag over the BMW – it’s for the driver’s knees – but everything else save the existence of a spare wheel is the same as the BMW. Little things like the heated mirrors should be seen as being important safety aids in winter mornings – both cars here have these.
Star: 4
DRIVING: Again, such as surprise that such verve can spring from a small engine and, even more amazing, delivered with barely any lag and with the aural maturity of a healthy six-cylinder unit. But instantly I’m aware that the Merc is made for a difference audience than the BMW. The ride is plusher and the engine response a bit restrained, while the gearshifter (on the right side – why?) isn’t conducive to manual operation. Controls need familiarisation because they deviate, perhaps unnecessarily, from the norm. There’s also a slower steering wheel ratio so the sum of its conservativeness creates a car that is less dynamic than its rival. But it shines for ride comfort and the badge on the grille still carries a lot of prestige.
Star: 3.5
VERDICT: On paper, these are practically twins. On the road they will appeal to quite different buyers. Both are very clever and definitive cars for the century’s second decade. I’d lean slight more to the BMW only because I prefer its driving feel.

BMW: 19pts
MERCEDES: 18.5pts

Tags , , , , ,
Categories Comparison

Comparo – Toyota 86 vs BMW 120i

August 24, 2012 //
0

There are 14 coupes that qualify as rivals for the Toyota 86. Only one gets close – but at a price. NEIL DOWLING referees

TOYOTA 86 GTS
Star: 4
PRICE: $35, 490
VALUE: Stunning. The $29,990 opener brought the house down and even hardened Toyota salesmen wept openly with joy. The entry-level GT gets cruise, limited slip diff (manual only), electric windows and mirrors, seven airbags, 16-inch alloys and Bluetooth with iPod/USB links. It’s the basis for a weekend track machine but for the rest of us, the $35,490 GTS is a better buy, adding sat-nav, LED daytime running lights, 17-inch alloys, sports seats and so on.
Star: 4
DESIGN: It looks good but isn’t startling, more an evolution of the 1990s Celica than a fresh sketch. No doubt it turns heads. The low, low seat and wide sill test body flexibility and, depending on your perspective, is either a big no-no or yes-yes for girls in short skirts. The boot is small though the useless rear seat can fold down as one piece, greatly boosting stowage. Dash treatment is simple tending to basic (but GTS is a winner) and seats are good, not terrific. Visibility is actually acceptable despite the knee-height driver position.
Star: 4
TECHNOLOGY: This is spelt with an “S” for Subaru, who supply all the running gear and stamp most of it with its name. The 2-litre engine is aspirated – no turbo yet and none planned from Toyota – but is enhanced with direct petrol injection, variable valve timing and a high compression ratio for a 147kW/205Nm output. The six-speed manual is from the Lexus IS – as is the six-speed auto – while the brakes and suspension are Subaru (MacPhersons at the front, double wishbones at the back) and the steering is electric-assist rack and pinion. Engine at the front – tucked up against the firewall so no chance of all-wheel drive – and drive at the rear. Simple.
Star: 3.5
SAFETY: Toyota assumes a five-star crash test rating. The coupe gets seven airbags, ABS brakes (four-wheel vented discs on GTS), brake assist, traction control and a three-mode switchable electronic stability control system. These modes are normal; Sport; and off though “off” comes back “on” over 50km/h. A space-saver spare is standard though the test car had a full-size spare that only intruded about 30mm above the boot floor.
Star: 4
DRIVING: It feels exactly like a sports coupe should – almost RX-7 in its wheel and pedal placement. The button start signals the entrance of Subaru and though the exhaust note has been worked, there’s no hiding the subtle off-beat note of a flat-four engine. A nice, short-throw gearshift with suitable notchy character, surprisingly positive electric steering and very good visibility – helped by pronounced humps over the front wheels – make the driver feel at ease. It can stumble off the mark if the revs aren’t sufficient and from there, the power flows smoothly to dip about 3000rpm then rise again at 5500rpm. From there to 7000rpm is the fun part. Yes, you initially think it needs more power but its agility through corners and its ability to react to your input make it such a sweet package you’d fear more front-end weight would wreck the dream. The GTS gets much better brakes – bigger discs with vented units at the back – and one more inch in the wheel diameter. It’s worth the extra cash.
STAR: 4.5
BMW 120i COUPE

Star: 3
Price: $47,400
VALUE: This is one of the cheapest BMWs on the market and it’s still more than $10,000 over the 86. It’s not precisely a rival for the Toyota, but its sports-bred suspension, two-door coupe design, six-cog gearbox and front engine-rear drive layout with an aspirated 2-litre engine make it a natch. Standard fare is similar but Toyota gives you more. The 120i has Bluetooth with iPod/USB connectivity, 17-inch alloys, leather upholstery and auto aircon. The slightly more potent 125i is $55,600 and has a six-cylinder engine.
Star: 3
DESIGN: There’s a lot more room in this compared with the 86 and the boot puts it firmly in the family-friendly class. It clearly follows the BMW design theme but lacks any visual impression of sportiness – but the muscular 1M nails it – which almost dilutes the car to near-invisible status on the road. But the dash design is simple and reflects quality components while the seating and access to the rear rate well for this type of vehicle.
Star: 3.5
TECHNOLOGY: The drivetrain balances technology with the need to keep emissions low. BMW is a master at high-efficiency and this little 2-litre reflects top-notch engineering with a 115kW/200Nm output achieved at comparatively low revs – 3600rpm for the torque compared with the 86’s 205Nm at 6400rpm – to claim a 7.9 L/100km average. The suspension is multi-link, the brakes are four-wheel vented discs and the steering is hydraulic while the tyres are run flat units (no spare needed).
Star: 3.5
SAFETY: This is a five-star crash tested coupe with six airbags, all the modern electronic aids – brake assist, stability and traction control, corner braking and brake emergency display that flashes the brake lights in a panic stop – and automatic wipers, rear park sensors and a tyre pressure sensor.
Star: 4
DRIVING: The 120i coupe shows all the ingredients of being in the same classroom as the 86 but it’s not the case. The 120i is quietly sitting up and paying attention at the front of the class while the 86 is raising hell at the back of the room. You sit on the BMW seats and it feels more like a sedan with two doors rather than a coupe. The engine is keen and will run to 100km/h in a respectable 8.6 seconds (7.6 seconds for the 86) so can induce a smile. It’s forte is corners. That rear-drive and front engine combo with an active ESC system make it quite lively and very predictable through the bends. The ride comfort was expected to be softer than the 86 yet is about on par, only rutted bitumen showing up the 86. It’s a good coupe, not a great coupe and will be bought more for its sporty assumption and its badge rather than its performance potential.
Star: 3.5
VERDICT: I don’t care if I have to be lifted in and out of the 86 – it’s the one to have. End of story.
86: 20pts
BMW: 17.5pts

Tags , , , , , ,
Categories Comparison