V8 engine history

August 24, 2012 //
0

Car lovers mistakenly claim the V8 as their own. NEIL DOWLING reports

IT was up in the air for over a decade before car makers recognised the performance benefits of the aircraft engine dubbed the V8.
The design – simply, V for its end-on plan shape and eight for the number of cylinders – was first patented in 1902 by French aircraft maker Leon Levavasseur and used in planes and speedboats from 1904.
Levavasseur’s engine layout was the result in creating a lightweight, compact yet powerful powerplant for his aircraft.
He named the engine Antoinette after the daughter of his financial backer and produced a range of units up to the 37kW V8 that weighed 86kg including cooling water – a power to weight ratio unmatched for 25 years.
Interest in the engine picked up after it pushed a plane to a new altitude record of 3600 feet in 1910 and was then used to power aircraft from French maker Voisin and Renault.
Though small numbers were transferred to limited edition and specialised sports cars, it wasn’t until 1914 that Cadillac became the first company to mass produce the automobile V8.
In its first year, the General Motors division of Cadillac sold 13,000 cars with the 5.4-litre L-head engines and subsequently became a predominant user of the V8 engine.
Another General Motors division, Oldsmobile, added a 4-litre V8 to its model range in 1916. Chevrolet, then an independent car maker, introduced a 4.7-litre V8 in 1917 but one year later dropped it from the range when the company was merged with GM. Chevrolet didn’t make another V8 until 1955.
Aircraft companies meanwhile continued to use the V8 with its biggest manufacturer being Hispano-Suiza. The Swiss-based company licensed its V8 single overhead cam aviation engines – with dual ignitions and in differing displacements for outputs from 112kW to 225kW – to companies in the UK, Spain, France, Italy and the US.
Almost 50,000 “Hisso” V8 engines were built during World War I and are claimed to have powered about half of all Allied military aircraft during that war.
In the 1920-1930 period there were V8s from car makers including Lincoln and Oakland – the latter, a division of GM, had a 63kW 4.1-litre engine – up to 1932 when the Oakland brand was discontinued and the V8 was used in cars from its sister company, Pontiac, but for only one year as Pontiac replaced it in 1933 with its smoother-running Silver-Streak straight eight.
Ford is credited as the first company to extensively use the V8.
It simply cancelled its six-cylinder programs, leap-frogging from its existing four-cylinder units straight to a range of V8s.
Ford’s “Flathead” V8 of 1932 powered almost all large Ford cars through to 1953 and was still being made until about 1970 by Ford licensees around the world.

Ignoring six-cylinder engines, at least for a few decades, worked well for Ford as the world entered a new era of personal freedom and increased wealth after World War II.
The more powerful V8 engine could fit into the engine bay once occupied by a six-cylinder engine and create cars that became a strong status symbol for its owners.
Car maker could also simplify production and offer the V8 as an optional upgrade to base models.
In Australia, the V8 engine has been made by Holden and Ford performance divisions – respectively Holden Racing Team and Holden Special Vehicles and Ford Performance Vehicles – since the late 1960s.
While Australian V8s were created mainly by using a US-made block then adding Australian heads, pistons and exhausts.
Exceptions were the small-block Holden V8 – the 4.2-litre 253, 5-litre 308/304 and 5.7-litre 350 – and the 1970 British Leyland alloy small-block V8 that, at 4.4-litres powered the Australian-made P76 sedan.
The Holden small-block was an all-Australian designed and manufactured cast-iron 90-degree pushrod overhead-valve engine, introduced in 1969 and ending life in 1999.
It was used , in a variety of Holden models including the Torana, Kingswood, Commodore and Monaro.
The only V8 engine now made in Australia is the 5-litre unit built by FPV for its Falcon-based range. It is the combination of US-sourced and locally manufactured parts.
Ford does not have a V8 in its Australian-made passenger-car Falcon range – a far cry from the 1970s when Ford was literally a powerhouse of V8 production.
Holden’s V8 comes complete from GM in Canada.
The US-made Cleveland V8 range ceased in the early 1970s and Australia imported the V8’s tooling to make a local version of the 351 and the Australia-only 302 Cleveland.
These Australian-built engines were also sold to De Tomaso for its Pantera and Longchamps models.
Ford ceased production of these V8s in 1982. The last Cleveland-powered Falcon was the XE range which comprised about 1400 of the 302s and 409 of the 351s.

Tags , ,
Categories feature

Eco-car choices

August 24, 2012 //
0

NEIL DOWLING

ENVIRONMENTALISTS may tell you the best way to commute is by walking or cycling … but where’s the fun in that?
Carefully choosing a car that is economical, comfortable, roomy, fits into your green aspirations and affordable isn’t easy. But whatever you choose, it beats walking to work in the rain and cycling under a red-hot Perth summer sun.
There are four basic choices:
1. Small conventionally-powered car (Mazda2, Ford Fiesta, Honda Jazz and so on) – cheap to buy, run and repair. There are no complex engines and that means you won’t frighten the mechanic or incur the financial wrath of new-age technology. They save fuel by being small capacity engines in aerodynamic cars with fuel-sipping technology such as low rolling resistance tyres, stop-start (where the engine automatically turns off at the traffic lights and restarts when required) and lightweight components.
2. Hybrids (Toyota Prius, Honda Civic Hybrid, Lexus) – clever technology that has survived a decade of use in Australia without any major problems. Toyota says it is yet to replace a battery in cars as old as 10 years. Hybrids join a petrol engine with an electric motor. The extra power of the motor means the petrol engine can be smaller, so uses less petrol.
3. Electric (Mitsubishi i-MiEV, and soon Nissan Leaf, Renault Fluence ZE, Holden Volt) – runs by plugging it into the power point overnight. Good for short distances (about 120km is the max), quiet, small and efficient. More models are coming and there are public charging points for cars that feel drained. Ecologically perfect if the electricity comes from sustainable sources (not in Perth).
4. Diesels (Volkswagen Golf, models from Ford, Holden, Kia, Hyundai, Citroen, Peugeot and so on) – these are inherently fuel miserly cars that can go amazing distances between refuelling. They are equally as efficient in manual and automatic transmission versions and also employ some tricks – such as stop-start systems, low-resistance tyres and aerodynamic aids – to further reduce fuel use.

Heard the saying about running on the smell of an oily rag? Here’s the cars that can (almost) do just that. NEIL DOWLING reports

CAST off memories of the snail pace of smoke-belching diesel trucks or the lethargic acceleration of the old school bus.
Diesels are not what they were. The term – after inventor of the compression-ignition engine, Rudolf Diesel – applies to the type of engine and the type of fuel.
Such engines are noted for impressive torque (pulling power, hence the role in trucks) and low fuel consumption. Turbocharging, high-pressure injection of the fuel and smart electronics have overhauled the old image.
Today, you’re just as likely to get dragged off from the traffic lights by a diesel-engined car. Here’s just three of a growing range of diesel-engined passenger vehicles:
VOLKSWAGEN GOLF BLUEMOTION ($28,990): Golf can be played in a range of colours but to make it efficient, the best colour is blue.
In Volkswagen-speak, it’s BlueMotion, which is the in-house term for selected models tuned for maximum fuel economy and minimum emissions.
The Golf BlueMotion costs $28,990 – $1000 more than the Golf 77TDI that it replaced – but comes only with a manual gearbox. If that makes you sad, getting 3.8 L/100km will quickly put back your smile.
The BlueMotion is a feast of fuel-miser technology – low-rolling resistance tyres, a stop-start system, brake energy recuperation, slippery aerodynamics, tall gear ratios and a gearshift prompt indicator – are added to the 1.6-litre turbo-diesel Golf variant.
By comparison, the BlueMotion gets 3.8 L/100km while the old model recorded 4.9 L/100km. But it’s not just a boring eco-car to drive. The BlueMotion is a brisk performer with excellent handling and ride comfort.
It works as well in city traffic as it does lopping along a country road.
The pity is there is no automatic version, because it would make city motoring, surely BlueMotion’s heartland, more convenient.

HYUNDAI i30 ($23,590): This is a brand new, just out of the box model that replaces one of Australia’s top-selling small hatchbacks.
The German-designed hatchback sits on the same platform as its predecessor but is bigger where it counts, so that means increased cabin room for occupants and 11 per cent more luggage space.
But while it’s grown up a bit, the diesel engine has been made more economical. It gets an updated 1.6-litre turbo-diesel that Hyundai claims is capable of 4.5 L/100km as a six-speed manual and 5.6 L/100km when optioned with the six-speed automatic.
Key features include the Australian-tuned Flex Steer power steering which offers three driver-selected steering calibrations – normal, for the majority of drivers; comfort, that lightens steering feel for parking; and sport, which increases steering weight and feedback.

MAZDA CX-5 Maxx Sport ($39,040): These are selling like hotcakes because they are – at least in diesel form – very lively, economical and practical wagons.
There’s no doubt the CX-5’s success is due to it mimicing the appealing Mazda3 hatchback. But it’s a better vehicle than its sister thanks to smart engineering under the SkyActiv banner.
The technology covers body, engine, transmission, suspension and platform. In the CX-5 diesel’s case, it includes a fascinating bi-turbo four-cylinder diesel engine that when mated to a six-speed automatic, gets a mere 5.7 L/100km.
That makes it a class-leader in fuel economy, especially for an all-wheel drive. But it’s not the CX-5’s only trick. The SUV repeats the genre’s advantage of being very versatile and is compact enough to handle city traffic conditions.
It is also very comfortable and roomy – with excellent rear seat leg and head room – and though the cabin could be a bit more stylish, is clinical and simple to operate. The rear seats split (depending on the model, it’s 60/40 or 40/20/40) and fold flat so it’s a practical machine for carting luggage.
On the road the diesel version far exceeds the petrol-engine sibling in terms of performance. The diesel is more responsive and the substantial 420Nm of torque makes it scoff at carrying extra weight and is better suited to towing.

Hybrid isn’t necessarily a rose, but its fuel saving and environmental benefits can smell just as sweet. NEIL DOWLING reports.

SOME people get uncomfortable coming to grips with the term “hybrid” and its threat of grappling with a new tier of technology.
Don’t worry yourself – a hybrid car just uses two power sources and to you, the owner and driver, it requires almost no understanding.
Hybrids drive the same as a conventional car – perhaps a bit quieter and with a few strange and colourful dashboard lights – and can offer considerable fuel savings for inner city and suburban owners.
Just one statistic to contemplate before investing the extra money in a hybrid – it will take 11.5 years before the Honda Civic Hybrid’s fuel economy makes up for the $8000 premium over the petrol-only Civic. It’s just as long comparing the Prius with the Corolla. That said, among the hybrid choices are:
TOYOTA CAMRY HYBRID ($34,990): Clever Toyota has added the hybrid drive system to a car we all know. Driving a Camry Hybrid is no different from the normal automatic Camry and shares the same seven airbag, five-star crash rating and a full-size spare wheel.
The upsides are better fuel economy. Toyota claims 5.2 L/100km of standard petrol compared with 7.8 L/100km for the standard Camry. It’s also quieter and at $34,990, about $1500 more than a similarly-equipped petrol-only Camry.
But the Hybrid model can only tow 300kg and the boot is slightly smaller.
In addition to using one-third less fuel than the petrol Camry, it costs $130 for each of the five services for the first four years or 75,000km.
And as a final sweetener, the latest Camry Hybrid comes with very cheap 2.9 per cent finance and free 12-month comprehensive car insurance (valued at $833) until June 30.

HONDA CIVIC HYBRID ($35,990): The latest Civic is a big jump from the average build quality of its predecessor. It now looks less budget class, is up on quality and just feels a far better car to drive.
It uses two power sources – a petrol engine and an electric motor – but unlike the Toyota Camry (and Prius) which can separate the two whenever needed, in the Civic Hybrid they stay working together.
This is technically simpler but doesn’t equal the Toyota Prius’ miserly fuel consumption. The Civic Hybrid gets 4.4 L/100km against the Prius at 3.9 L/100km.
The new Civic Hybrid is more spacious than the old model and gets smaller batteries so the boot is bigger. But the rear seats don’t fold down to increase luggage space.
It gets a five-star crash rating, electronic stability and traction control, brake assist and six airbags but has a space-saver spare.
LEXUS RX450h Prestige ($89,788): The hybrid Lexus SUV comes in three models, Prestige, Sports ($96,787) and Sports Luxury ($108,900) but all share the same hybrid drive of a 3.5-litre V6 petrol engine mated to an electric motor. It’s claimed to get an average of 6.4 L/100km, a smidge more than a Ford Fiesta with a manual gearbox.
The two can separate so can drive the SUV independently or together.
It’s not a cheap carriage – making one wonder about the financial need to save on fuel costs – but rewards the owner with top-end features, depending on the model chosen.
The Sports Luxury delivers one of the car industry’s best audios – from Mark Levinson – and cossets the front-seat occupants in heated and ventilated perforated leather seats, adaptive cruise control, head-up display of speed, satellite navigation, automatic xenon headlamps with cornering function, rain-sensing wipers, front and rear parking sensors with camera and so on.
It has several safety systems to prevent a crash and minimise human damage, such as a pre-collision system, 10 airbags and lots of words joined together to create meaningless acronyms that make serious attempts at keeping occupants free of injury.
The Lexus is beautifully built, has a brilliant customer-care program in Perth, has a four-year warranty and is an SUV that is eerily quiet, effortless in performance and as comfortable as your favourite loungechair.

 
Don’t dismiss petrol cars as they may just just as economical in your case. NEIL DOWLING reports
BUYERS seeking economy cars may steer away from conventional petrol engines but in fact they can be more cost-effective than some alternative-fuelled cars.
The general rule of thumb is that motorists travelling less than 30,000km a year are probably better off with a petrol car than a diesel.
Not everyone fits this mold, however, as country drivers may tend to diesel because of its fuel economy and especially the extra distance between refuelling.
City folk who only use their cars for commuting may see the better fuel consumption of diesels as being attractive, however they must factor in the extra price to buy the diesel car and the extra cost of the fuel.
So here’s three petrol-fuelled vehicles that may make more sense than going alternative:
FIAT 500 TWINAIR ($22,990): A small car with inbuilt Italian passion, new-age technology and a price around $20,000 should be a winner.
But Australians have been slow to embrace the Fiat 500 in the wake of a relentless procession of Korean and Japanese rivals. Now the 500 has a new engine – and it’s a 875cc two-cylinder turbocharged petrol unit – that claims a tiny 3.6 L/100km consumption. Even the version with an automated gearbox gets 3.9 L/100km.
This new engine slashes CO2 emissions by more than 30 per cent, emitting just 90 grams of CO2 per kilometre. Fiat said it makes the TwinAir produce less CO2 than any production petrol engine.
Of course, it’s not particularly quick and owners who push the car hard won’t get anywhere near the claimed fuel consumption.
Compared with Fiat’s top-selling 1.2-litre petrol engine in Europe, the TwinAir has 23 per cent more power yet 15 per cent lower emissions and fuel consumption. Performance is comparable with the 1.4-litre non-turbo version.
Because it’s good at cruising, you may consider the convertible version.
Recent changes to Fiat’s distribution in Australia will see the price of the TwinAir fall below $20,000. But that hasn’t happened just yet.
FORD FIESTA: (from $16,990): These are really well made, affordable and zippy. Though you can pay down around $17,000, the Zetec ($20,990) offers a bit more comfort, more features and doesn’t look like a renter.
Fiesta is made in Thailand (as with the Mazda2) and is big on value. The Zetec gets sports suspension, 16-inch alloys, cruise control, sports seats and is one of the few small cars with USB and iPod audio integration.
The 1.6-litre engine is a delight to drive as a manual but the six-speed dual-clutch auto is definitely worth the extra $2000.
Ford claims 6.1 L/100km for both the auto and manual – showing the efficiency of the auto – with similar performance.
Typical of the small-car class, the Fiesta’s cabin is noted by its hard plastic but it’s well executed. It provides a sporty driving position and the seats are comfortable, if a bit narrow.
In the unlike column are the lack of a spare wheel – it’s an option – and the tiny audio buttons.
KIA OPTIMA (from $30,490): The head-turning Optima – along with the Mazda6, Honda Euro and Holden Cruze – bridges the gap between needing cabin room but wanting a relatively economical powerplant.
The 2.4-litre engine has sufficient grunt and is a smooth rider and though the Optima’s is a family-size car, has a commendable fuel consumption of 7.9 L/100km. Then there’s its value for money.
Even in the entry-level Si ($30,490) version it gets a six-speed automatic gearbox, reverse park sensors with camera, all the top safety features, automatic headlights, fog lights, height adjustable driver’s seat, split-fold rear seats, electric folding and heater mirrors, cruise control and USB/iPod with Bluetooth.
It’s a very attractive machine that looks like its priced more than you paid. People who want to do exactly that – pay extra – can fork out $6500 more for the Platinum version that adds leather seats, 18-inch wheels, a premium sound system, sunroof and heated and ventilated front seats.

Tags , , , , ,
Categories feature

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

Test – Suzuki Swift Sport

August 24, 2012 //
0

Char-grilled hatchbacks are more fun than a stick and almost as cheap. NEIL DOWLING reports

CALL it masocism, call it fun. Some people get personal joy in wringing the neck of small engines in little hatchbacks.
Fortunately, since the 1970s kickstart of the Peugeot 205 GTI and Volkswagen Golf GTI, there’s still a string of car makers willing to pump out a line of cars once called hot hatches, now more like toasted on the grill.
Suzuki – like Daihatsu, Nissan and Toyota – has played the game before. Only one of these is still on the field.
Now, after a 12-month hiatus which saw off its six-year Swift Sport model, Suzuki is back with a new engine, a new look and a competitive mid-$20K price.
VALUE: Okay – so any lines blurred between a Polo GTI and a Swift Sport should be clarified immediately. The Swift Sport is a punchier version of the endearing Swift shopping trolley. It gets a bigger engine, bodykit, neat alloy wheels and lots of features inside. At $23,990 as a manual, its purity as a small hatch insists that it refuse any options. The auto – a CVT unit – is $2000 more. Value rates well with standard keyless entry and start, Bluetooth, cruise control, USB port for the six-speaker audio, bi-xenon headlights and sports seats with red stitching.
DESIGN: The Sport picks up the new body which looks like the old body shape, making its presence known with a yawning grille, bi-xenon headlights, side skirts, deep front spoiler and integrated roof spoiler. It sits 120mm longer than the old Sport but its rounded body still looks like the winner of a baking competition. But it defies its stumpy exterior with a roomy cabin for four adults. Seats are black cloth with red trim and are really comfortable and suppportive while the hard-plastic, satin-finish dash implies low-rent but actually looks good. The boot is tiny but the near-flat, fold-down rear seats create a versatile hauler.
TECHNOLOGY:The previous Sport exited Australia in January 2011 as a 92kW/148Nm 1.6-litre hatchback with one gearbox – a five-speed manual – within its distinctive snail-like shell. Now there’s a new engine based on the standard Swift’s 1.4-litre mill but with 100kW/160Nm – that’s a weight to power ratio of 10.6 kg/kW, making it outgun the old Swift GTi. Suzuki made the car bigger but shaved 30kg from the final weight, upping its zip factor while trimming fuel thirst back to 6.5 L/100km from 7.3 L/100km. Sport gets triple-synchromesh on frist and second gear cogs, firmer suspension, bigger 17-inch alloys and a tighter steering feel as part of its mechanical armament.
SAFETY: For a small car the Swift Sport packs an impressive safety kit. There’s a five-star crash rating, electronic stability control, seven airbags and all the electronic brake aids. The bi-xenon headlights make night driving some much easier but the lack of a spare wheel – there’s some aerosol goo and a compressor in the emty wheel well – limits the Swift’s range.
DRIVING: This can be an angry, hot and sweaty little car in the right hands. It has so much pluck that it will almost burst its little heart trying to please the driver. Yes, the Sport can be work – sometimes hard work – but the reward is letting it get under your skin and to drive it like it was an extension of your body. Big surprises are the willingness of the engine to run cleanly and eagerly to 7000rpm, the extra kick from the engine at 5500rpm, the almost hydraulic feel of the electric steering system and the ride comfort despite the low-profile 17-inch rubbers. The keyless start button, the encompassing driver’s seat, the small-diameter leather-bound steering wheel and the superbly bright headlights provide the theatre. Gee, it almost feels like an early Golf GTI. Almost.
VERDICT: A sparkling hatch for enthusiastic motorists divided between commuting and weekend fangs while being acutely aware of the need to retain their licence.

 

SUZUKI SWIFT SPORT
STARS 3.5
Price: $23,990
Warranty: 3 years/100,000km
Resale: 58 per cent
Service interval: 15,000km/12 months
Safety rating: Five star
Spare: aerosol repair kit
Engine: 1.6-litre 4-cyl petrol 100kW/160Nm
Transmission: 6-speed manual; FWD
Body: 3.9m (L); 1.7m (w); 1.5m (h)
Weight: 1060kg
Thirst: 6.5 1/100km; 98 RON; 153g/km Co2
Three Others to consider.

PEUGEOT 207 XT
Star: 3
PRICE: $22,990
ENGINE: 1.6-litre, 4-cyl petrol, 88kW/160Nm
TRANS: 5-spd manual, front drive
BODY: 5-door hatchback
THIRST: 6.1L/100km, 95 RON, CO2 141g/km
“Neat, petite but engine needs more zing. To be replaced soon by superior 208”ql

SKODA FABIA MONTE CARLO
Star: 3.5
PRICE: $21,990
ENGINE: 1.2-litre, 4-cyl turbo-petrol, 77kW/175Nm
TRANS: 5-speed manual, front drive
BODY: 5-door hatchback
THIRST: 7.9L/100km, 91 RON, CO2 185g/km
“Busy engine needs coaxing for maximum fun but guarantees smiles but forget frugal fuel consumption”ql
VOLKSWAGEN POLO GTI
Star: 4
PRICE: $28,990
ENGINE: 1.4-litre, 4-cyl turbo/supercharged, 132kW/250Nm
TRANS: 7-speed dual clutch, front drive
BODY: 5-door hatchback
THIRST: 6.1L/100km, 95 RON, CO2 142g/km
“Expensive in this company but shows evolution of hot hatch genre. Hard to beat”ql

Tags , , , ,
Categories car tests

Test – Hyundai Accent diesel

August 24, 2012 //
0

Baby diesels are fun, frugal and go a long way and Hyundai’s Accent fits the bill. Sometimes. NEIL DOWLING reports

DIESEL small cars bring tears of joy to their penny-pinching, green-tinged owners but in reality any expected savings don’t stack up.
Spatially-challenged Europeans opt for baby diesel cars for parking and fuel cost reasons but Australians have no real need for these oily midgets.
Ignoring the cost of fuel and the extra price you’ll pay for a diesel car, I’d admit these cars are fun to drive and I love the huge distances between refills.
There’s also a solid range of diesel small cars that whet the appetite. But it’s not the car that’s the issue – it’s the fuel.
Hyundai presents its Accent oiler as an affordable and comfortable family small car that works an absolute treat in Paris or London. Here, at the very least, it gets a big E for Effort.
VALUE: Hyundai flags the Accent Active diesel manual as Australia’s most affordable diesel passenger car. It’s $19,590, a $2600 premium over its petrol sister. The lauded Dowling Index (I just made that up) shows that it takes nine years and eight months for the diesel to make up that $2600 – despite its better fuel economy – and after that will save only $270 a year in fuel costs (I didn’t make that up). You plan to own the Accent for 10 years? That aside, the car has a strong list of features and is particularly high on safety. The five-year warranty is brilliant.
DESIGN: Styling is neat, practical and has strong overtones of its designer scribbling from a Belge sidewalk cafe table drawing inspiration from the passing Euro cars. It’s surprisingly roomy, has a great dashboard layout – US researchers and publicists Wards just included it in the world’s 10 best car interiors – and trim and fabrics never feel low rent. The driving position is perfect – but rear vision is poor – and seats are comfortable and blessed with long cushions for better thigh support.
TECHNOLOGY: Nothing really stands out here but the engine is admired for its impressive 260Nm of torque at a low 1900rpm – better than its three main rivals. It gets four-wheel discs, while some competitors use drums at the rear, and electric-assist steering instead of the traditional engine-powered hydraulic assist that draws down fuel consumption. Obviously it’s a price issue but the diesel would look less like a fleet car if it had alloy wheels.
SAFETY: Like its sister models, the diesel version of the Accent has a five-star crash rating, six airbags, electronic stability control (Hyundai calls it Vehicle Stability Management), traction control and ABS brakes. It could do with front and-or rear park assist or better, a camera.
DRIVING: So conceptually I don’t think small diesels are as economical to own and run as a petrol-fuelled equivalent. But they are endearing critters. That long range is enticing. Go country and the Accent can run to 1100km between fill ups and even 800km is possible in the city. Diesels are different than petrols to drive, particularly in engine response, but the Accent’s high torque at low revs means it can be lugged along in a high gear making for less manual gear shifts. Bonus. Pick the sweet spot in the torque band (it’s about 2400rpm) and the Accent can quite swiftly exit out of corners. Miss that spot and the engine gasps. The suspension is good, not great because of some low-speed bump, while the steering is overly light. But it works really well in the confines of the city and suburbs.
VERDICT: Admirable but you’d be far in front with the petrol model. The Accent is one of my favourite little cars but as a diesel, it doesn’t cut it.
HYUNDAI ACCENT ACTIVE DIESEL
STARS 3
Price: $19,590
Warranty: 5 years/unlimited km
Resale: 56 per cent
Service interval: 15,000km/12 months
Safety rating: Five star
Spare: Full-size
Engine: 1.6-litre 4-cyl turbo-diesel 94kW/260Nm
Transmission: 6-speed manual; FWD
Body: 4.1m (L); 1.7m (w); 1.4m (h)
Weight: 1207kg
Thirst: 4.5 1/100km; 121g/km Co2
Three Others to consider.

CITROEN C3 SEDUCTION
Star: 3
PRICE: $24,990
ENGINE: 1.6-litre, 4-cyl turbo-diesel, 68kW/230Nm
TRANS: 5-spd manual, front drive
BODY: 5-door hatch
THIRST: 3.6L/100km, CO2 93g/km
“French macaroon is distilled essence of the definition of a car. Its simplicity makes it a winner but average build quality, chug-a-lug engine and poor resale chaff its potential”ql

FORD FIESTA ECONETIC
Star: 3.5
PRICE: $24,990
ENGINE: 1.6-litre, 4-cyl turbo-diesel, 66kW/200Nm
TRANS: 5-spd manual, front drive
BODY: 5-door hatch
THIRST: 3.7L/100km, CO2 98g/km
“Efficient and enjoyable Fiesta sipper is worth more than the scant attention paid by Australian motorists. They lose”ql
VOLKSWAGEN POLO 1.6TDI
Star: 3.5
PRICE: $21,490
ENGINE: 1.6-litre, 4-cyl turbo-diesel, 66kW/230Nm
TRANS: 5-spd manual, front drive
BODY: 5-door hatch
THIRST: 4.7L/100km, CO2 124g/km
“Hard to beat. Logical, affordable, simple and yet with more features than rivals, it only skips a beat with its thirstier engine. But like 4.7 L/100km is a problem?”ql

Tags , , , ,
Categories car tests

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

Test – Volkswagen Scirocco R

August 24, 2012 //
0

It may have been on the slowest boat from Germany but the Scirocco has been worth the wait. NEIL DOWLING reports

NAMING your cars after winds can be as tricky as sailing into them.
Volkswagen claims the German word for the trade winds that charted early sail boats as the name for its family model, Passat.
But with 188kW and the attitude of a psychotic guard dog, a soft breeze wouldn’t wash over the two-door version of the hot Golf R.
That’s why the Scirocco – a hurricane-size wind that blows north from the Sahara into the Mediterranean – so suits Volkswagen’s coupe and explains that even Maserati was enamoured with the same wind by twice using using its Arabic name, Ghibli, for high-performance cars.
Even Errol Flynn’s first yacht filled its sails in the Pacific wearing the name spelt as Sirocco.
VALUE: I expected it to cost more. At $47,490 – and an extra $2500 for the six-speed DSG dual-clutch auto – it has the hot looks, bristling performance and thundering exhaust note to trounce coupes with double its price tag. The kit is expansive, starting with the eight-speaker audio with Bluetooth and iPod/USB connection, bi-xenon headlights and 19-inch alloys, heated seats and park sensors, and electronic adjustable suspension damping. There’s 345 nation-wide sales to June 1 this year, indicating it’s also pleasingly uncommon.
DESIGN: Even since I saw one – white with silver alloys and red brake calipers – rumbling through a narrow, cobblestone Berlin street five years ago, it has become one of my key yardstick cars. Its design is purposeful yet beautiful, feminine in parts with its sculptured hips and chamfered nose, while relaying undeniable strength. Inside, my love diminishes somewhat – not because it’s done badly but because I’ve seen all of it before in other Volkswagen products. It seats four adults – ensure they’re not to tall for the rear, however – and the boot is surprisingly deep (mainly because there’s no spare wheel).
TECHNOLOGY: The Scirocco arrives in Australia in one version only – the 188kW/330Nm wearing the R label. This is the white-hot version of our 155kW Golf GTI and uses the same direct-injection turbo-petrol engine as the $49,990 all-wheel drive Golf R. Scirocco deletes the AWD and saves 120kg over the Golf, but with a 0-100km/h of 6.2sec, still isn’t as quick as the grippy Golf’s 5.9sec sprint. Scirocco shares the Golf R’s extended electronic diff lock (XDL) that successfully improves traction and minimises understeer. It also has three-mode damper adjustment – normal, sport and comfort – and electric steering.
SAFETY: No crash rating for this car. It’s regarded as a limited production car – like all Porsches, for example – so doesn’t get to kiss the concrete wall. But given it’s based on the Golf, it should be seen as a “safe” car. Standard gear includes six airbags, electronic stability and traction control, tyre pressure monitors, heated mirrors, park sensors, bi-xenon headlights and a hill holder. There’s no spare wheel, just aerosol goo and a compressor.
DRIVING: Don’t expect that because it’s based on the Golf R that it feels like one. In fact, the Scirocco’s lower seating position amplifies its performance aggression and, combined with the tuned exhaust note – that burbles and grumbles, roars and screams in proportion to right-foot pressure – makes all the car’s dynamics come alive. It’s quick, though you find that halfway through the rev range. Under about 3000rpm it’s docile enough to go shopping. Hit the pedal hard and the acceleration is so instant it almost pulls its own clothes off. Handling is very, very good – more grip that you’d expect from a front-drive car thanks to electronics fiddling with the diff and the ABS system. Purists would prefer a mechanical system but our streets are not race tracks. The car’s suspension is best left in “comfort” mode for the city and suburbs, clicked to “sport” for country roads. Ride in sport is firm – you get kicked in the butt on rough roads – but keeps the car flat through the curves. Clearly, it’s a lot of fun.
VERDICT: Wonderful piece of art that works on so many levels. But two doors limit cabin accessibility making the five-door Golf R a worthy alternative.
   
VOLKSWAGEN SCIROCCO R
STARS 4
Price: $47,490
Warranty: 3 years/100,000 km
Resale: 55 per cent
Service interval: 15,000km/12 months
Safety rating: Five star
Spare: aerosol/compressor
Engine: 2-litre 4-cyl turbo-petrol 188kW/330Nm
Transmission: 6-speed manual; FWD
Body: 4.3m (L); 1.8m (w); 1.4m (h)
Weight: 1351kg
Thirst: 8.1 1/100km; 95RON; 189g/km Co2
Three Others to consider.

RENAULT MEGANE 250 SPORT
Star: 4
PRICE: $41,990
ENGINE: 2-litre, 4-cyl turbo-petrol, 184kW/340Nm
TRANS: 6-spd manual, front drive
BODY: 2-door hatch
THIRST: 8.7L/100km; 98RON; CO2 201g/km
“French powerehouse looks great, runs strong and hangs on beautifully to match the Scirocco in almost every department”ql

PEUGEOT RCZ
Star: 3.5
PRICE: $54,990
ENGINE: 1.6-litre, 4-cyl turbo-petrol, 147kW/275Nm
TRANS: 6-spd manual, front drive
BODY: 2-door hatch
THIRST: 6.9L/100km; 95RON; CO2 159g/km
“Striking looks, superb engine and practical features stumble over an awful driving position. It’s distinctive but overpriced in this company”ql
VOLVO C30 T5 R-DESIGN
Star: 4
PRICE: $43,490
ENGINE: 2.5-litre, 5-cyl turbo-petrol, 169kW/320Nm
TRANS: 6-spd manual, front drive
BODY: 2-door hatch
THIRST: 8.7L/100km; 95RON; CO2 208g/km
“Great looks, excellent comfort and a decent price should make this more popular. Not as rorty as the VW or Renault – but do you need that?”ql

Tags , , ,
Categories car tests

Test – Toyota Prius V

August 24, 2012 //
0

More people are invited inside to experience Toyota’s hybrid ambition. NEIL DOWLING tests the seven-seat Prius

ONE car passed me on the congested freeway this week and was distinguished not by its colour or brand, but its two occupants.
Single-occupant vehicles dominant the sad and lonely road to work each morning. So why are we obsessed with SUVs and other multi-seat wagons?
Perhaps it’s all in the letter “v” – the one denoting Toyota’s extended Prius that seats seven people and, says the company, stands for “versatility”.
The hybrid wagon is indeed versatile and correctly claims to be fuel efficient, quiet (mostly), roomy and as good for the planet as it is for Toyota’s bottom line. But will commuters become passengers?
VALUE: No contest here – this is very good value. The $35,990 single-spec Prius V gets a chocka-block list of goodies including head-up instrument display, sunshades on side windows, Bluetooth with a six-speaker iPod/USB audio, alloy wheels, climate airconditioning and a reversing camera. Prius V does everything its $52,490 Tarago sister will do but uses about half as much fuel. Capped price servicing is $130 each for up to six services in the first three years or 60,000km.
DESIGN: It’s sold as a ground-up design but clearly hasn’t stretched the designer’s abilities, ending up just like a longer version of a standard Prius despite not sharing one body panel. Getting three seat rows inside is achieved by a 180mm longer wheelbase, 135mm longer body, an extra 100mm in height and 30mm in width. There’s a decent boot even with three rows up. Toyota says actual cabin room is bigger than the 135mm body stretch implies, thanks to a new and relocated battery. Space-age dashboard design carries over, as does the Playstation gearshift toggle and – questioningly – the archaic foot-operated park brake. The cabin is muted in colour, sensible in design and very flexible, with a trio of flip-fold centre-row seats on runners plus rear seats that tuck into the cargo floor.
TECHNOLOGY: If you understand hybrids –  a petrol engine that automatically works with an electric motor – then this is a no brainer. It’s all Prius with a 1.8-litre engine and two motors, though the new bits include the more compact and lighter (saves 7kg over the old metal-hydride sparker) lithium-ion batteries for the first time in a Toyota. The bonnet is aluminium while other pressed parts are a mix of steel strengths, LED running lights and the head-up display (HUD) is standard while the electric motor will automatically counter any floating feeling in the body (read: car sickness). Regenerative braking is enhanced with electronics that smoothly sync it to the conventional brake system.
SAFETY: The V is likely to get a five-star rating, offering seven airbags, electronic aids and ISO-fix child restraint points in the centre row.
It also gets a reverse camera and whiplash-injury protection front seats and leg impact absorbing pads in the driver and front-passenger foot wells.
The electronically-controlled brake system that integrates the conventional brakes with the regenerative brakes is probably worth a mention, but the space-saver spare – in a wheel well capable of taking a full-size spare – is not.
DRIVING: There’s no mistaking this as a Prius, from the silent start-up to the late rumble as the engine steps in to the leisurely acceleration and the lifeless low-speed steering feel. But it doesn’t feel as big as, say, the Tarago, and actually can even feel nimble through the corners. As speed increases, steering feel returns so by 100km/h it’s nicely – if not artificially – weighted. The ride swings from comfy to weird, as the unusual torque-sensing ride control widgets counteract the boat-like body sway and pitch. It does it by applying subtle power or brake inputs to the wheels, hence the driver can feel a gentle – if not strange – push-pull tugging on the chassis. Power delivery is soft and occasionally drove me mad so I switched in the “Power” mode. And it was so much better I kept it on, knowing fuel consumption may suffer but that my dignity wouldn’t be questioned at the traffic lights.
VERDICT: A big green bus for big green families. Likeable but some rivals – the Citroen, for example – are more satisfying to drive.
TOYOTA PRIUS V
STARS 3.5
Price: $35,990
Warranty: 3 years/100,000 km
Resale: n/a
Service interval: 10,000km/6 months
Safety rating: Five star
Spare: Space-saver
Engine: 1.8-litre 4-cyl petrol/electric motor 100kW
Transmission: CVT automatic; FWD
Body: 4.6m (L); 1.8m (w); 1.6m (h)
Weight: 1565kg
Thirst: 4.4 1/100km; 95RON; 101g/km Co2
Three Others to consider.

CITROEN C4 PICASSO
Star: 4
PRICE: $39,990
ENGINE: 2-litre, 4-cyl turbo-diesel, 120kW/320Nm
TRANS: 6-spd auto, front drive
BODY: 5-door wagon
THIRST: 6.8L/100km; CO2 177g/km
“French hauler is practical and roomy and diesel offers pleasing performance with modest thirst”ql

HONDA ODYSSEY
Star: 3.5
PRICE: $37,100
ENGINE: 2.4-litre, 4-cyl petrol, 132kW/218Nm
TRANS: 5-spd auto, front drive
BODY: 5-door wagon
THIRST: 8.9L/100km; 95RON; CO2 212g/km
“Popular family hauler still rates well but rivals offer better economy”

KIA RONDO 7 SLi
Star: 3.5
PRICE: $31,390
ENGINE: 2-litre, 4-cyl petrol, 106kW/189Nm
TRANS: 4-spd auto, front drive
BODY: 5-door wagon
THIRST: 8.6L/100km; 91RON; CO2 206g/km
“Efficient, affordable and compact wagon can be a tight fit for seven and their luggage

Tags , , ,
Categories car tests

Test – Jeep Wrangler Sport

August 24, 2012 //
0

From war-torn Europe to politically-torn Canberra, Jeep battles generations of competitors. NEIL DOWLING reports

OWNING a Jeep marks you as a steel-edged, fearless and go-anywhere person that only lacks the stipulation of dressing in fatigues and legitimately killing people.
It’s a warhorse that has been inbred over generations to become domesticated enough to share your garage with a Hyundai. In 2012, it gets even more civilised to the point where your body no longer aches on the way to work.
Yes, Jeep’s getting soft. But consider that the advancement from a raw military short wheelbase soft-top to a compliant civilian short wheelbase soft-top has taken 71 years.
The Wrangler grips firmly to its history in more ways that its workable simplicity. The passenger’s grab handle is embossed with 1941 – the year of the first generic Jeep – designed to fill the soul with tear-jerking memories of the heroes of war, the battles that claimed lives and the heartwrenching fears of the people left at home. Honestly, you feel like rising in the seat to salute a flag. Any flag.
But this isn’t about war from an American perspective just as the Volkswagen Beetle doesn’t rekindle memories of Germany’s battle – this is about the war of car sales and how Jeep’s parents, Fiat-Chrysler, aim to rebuild the brand by merging ideas from the US and Europe. Just like 1941.
The Wrangler short wheelbase is pretty much what it has been for decades. There is a longer wheelbase model called Ultimate, of course, but that fights in a different campaign.
The shorty is very much a niche model. There’s no direct rival that combines its a roof-off ability with its ladder chassis and low-range gearbox, its two doors and diesel or petrol versions.
Sure, you could put it up against the Mercedes G-Wagon G350 but that’s only a diesel and won’t open your wallet until you reach $161,680 – almost five times the Wrangler’s price.
The Toyota FJ Cruiser is the only real rival but even that lacks the ability of the Jeep to be partially disassembled, creating a new toy by quickly removing the roof, the doors and folding the windscreen flat on the bonnet.
The Land Rover Defender 90 is simply hard work. You have to be a fanatical aficionado of the marque, own a farm and dedicate the 90 to chasing sheep, or have a curious and possibly indictable addiction to lethargic, alloy-clad and Lego-shaped British vehicles.
VALUE: There’s an alleged cult status with Jeep and that plays on the psychology of buyers. Jeep successfully – and in fact irrefutable – claims it’s a tough brand and that attracts people who want to be seen as tough. Even men. For $34,000 for the automatic version, it affordably meets this macho image. I think it’s well priced and is very good at its job of being a remarkable weekend fun machine in the dirt. But I’d baulk at recommended it for people who just want the image because the Jeep comes with compromises. It’s not as comfortable, as well equipped or possibly – though Jeep is advancing in leaps and bounds – as well built as an Asian SUV. Also, it works better as a hardtop. The standard flappy vinyl will do your head in on the freeway and transmits cold more efficiently than a Kelvinator. So you need to spend an extra $2500 – quite reasonable, actually – for the hardtop (that also comes with the soft top) and pick up sidesteps and six-speaker audio.
DESIGN: It’s 1941 but with a choice of colours. Okay, so there’s a bit of softening and things are more civilised, the tyre-wheel package is imposing and inside, the dashboard is almost impressive. Despite its short wheelbase status, it will comfortably seat four adults and a little bit of luggage, though this is better suited to a single or a couple, maybe with a dog. Hard plastic is used in the cabin but it’s well designed. Switchgear is generally good but needs familiarisation – the remote audio controls on the underside of the steering wheel are brilliant – while the lack of a left-foot rest is annoying and there’s still some effort to climb over the sill to get out of the car.
TECHNOLOGY: I will confirm there have been a few changes since 1941. The engine is Chrysler’s latest 3.6-litre V6 petrol (a turbo-diesel is optional) and it’s damn good. It pumps 209kW/347Nm and though peak power isn’t hit until 6350rpm, the V6 is no slouch in its willingness to rev. But it’s thirsty. The engine drives the rear wheels through a manual-select two-speed transfer case that offers 4WD High and 4WD Low. There’s no diff lock (it’s optional) but the drivetrain will electronically control traction. Suspension is ultra-simple live axles front and back which sound crude but actually are very effective. The steering is recirculating ball and while not as taut as the rack and pinion design, is on par with new-age electric-assist systems.
SAFETY: This isn’t brilliant but that’s the territory of open-top 4WDs. There’s two airbags, electronic stability and traction control, and things like a full-size spare wheel and heated side mirrors. Other features are aimed at enhancing its off-road ability, such as rollover control, hill-start assist and hill descent control. Crash rating? No, it’s not tested.
DRIVING: It’s better than you think. The hardtop is mandatory for anything but warm weather for aside from retaining cabin warmth, it’s reasonably quiet. The engine purrs at idle, responds quickly and gets noisy only towards the fun area in the tacho. It’s punchier than the old 3.8-litre and claims to be more economical. Jeep says 11.6 L/100km and I scored 12.8 L/100km. The auto box is smoother than I remember previous Jeeps. Don’t even think of the manual unless you also considered buying a Defender 90. The driver’s footwell is cramped (even on the auto) and the lack of a rest for the left foot makes the driver feel untethered – an impression magnified by the seats that are flat and provide little lateral support. Ride is generally good but the short wheelbase hits road and track undulations and creates unpleasant pitching. That said, handling – once you get used to the tall steering ratio – is good and much better than the now-obsolete front and rear live axle layout suggests. In the dirt it’s almost unstoppable, though sand work needs tyres deflated. Hardcore owners would pay about $10,000 for the Rubicon pack that has a disconnect feature for the rollbars and diff locks.
VERDICT: City-based commuters and pretenders are kidding themselves if they think this is a dual-purpose vehicle. But as a weekend warrior, it’s almost untouchable. Best as a second car, though.

JEEP WRANGLER SPORT
STARS 3.5
Price: $34,000
Warranty: 3 years/100,000 km roadside assist
Resale: 51%
Service interval: 12,000km/12 months
Safety rating: n/a
Spare: Full-size
Engine: 3.6-litre V6 petrol 209kW/347Nm
Transmission: 5-spd auto, 2-spd 4WD transfer; part-time 4WD
Body: 4.2m (L); 1.9m (w); 1.9m (h)
Weight: 1752kg
Thirst: 11.6 1/100km; 95RON; 263g/km Co2
Three Others to consider.

LAND ROVER DEFENDER 90
Star: 2
PRICE: $44,990
ENGINE: 2.2-litre, 4-cyl turbo-diesel, 90kW/360Nm
TRANS: 6-spd manual, 2-spd transfer; 4WD
BODY: 2-door wagon
THIRST: 9.9L/100km; CO2 266g/km
“Farm workhorse. If you don’t own a farm, forget this vehicle”ql

TOYOTA FJ CRUISER
Star: 4
PRICE: $46,490
ENGINE: 4-litre, V6 petrol, 200kW/380Nm
TRANS: 5-spd auto, 2-spd transfer; 4WD
BODY: 2-door wagon
THIRST: 11.4L/100km; 95RON; CO2 267g/km
“Prado-based styling exercise is comfortable on road and competent in the dirt. Like the Jeep, it drinks like a fish”

TOYOTA 70-SERIES WAGON
Star: 3
PRICE: $59,440
ENGINE: 4.5-litre, V8 turbo-diesel, 151kW/430Nm
TRANS: 5-spd manual, 2-spd transfer; 4WD
BODY: 5-door wagon
THIRST: 11.9L/100km; CO2 313g/km
“Workhorse for masochists who have too much money to be seen in a Defender”

Tags , , ,
Categories car tests

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
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »