Showing posts with label Compact. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Compact. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

2014 Mercedes-Benz A45 AMG





2014 Mercedes-Benz A45 AMG

Mercedes class meets Porsche dynamics.

We ease out of the pit lane and onto the track. At this point, the car sounds like most of its four-cylinder Mercedes siblings—emitting a rather undistinguished, but not unpleasant, moggy purr. But as Moers dips deeper into the throttle and the 2.0-liter engine revs higher on the approach to the first right turn, the sound segues into a powerful rort. The car has come alive. It storms out of the turn, pulling strongly and without any of the torque steer you’d expect if this were a powerful front-drive car, but AMG wisely chose an AWD configuration for the A45. Body control is excellent; roll, pitch, and dive are virtually nonexistent as the AMG prototype charges around the track. The balance and the lack of torque steer are certainly helped by the fact that the A45 prototype shuttles its prodigious power to all four wheels, one of several forthcoming AMG products that will do so. On this car, the power distribution between the two axles is handled by an electronically activated multiplate clutch. Sending an estimated 353 hp and 332 lb-ft of torque to just the front axle would have been, uh, unwise.
To squeeze this much power out of a 2.0-liter four-cylinder, AMG equips it with a high-pressure turbocharger pumping a race-car-like 26 psi of boost. Special bearings and solid pistons handle high internal pressures akin to those found in a diesel engine. Moers claims this souped-up 2.0-liter is as durable as any other AMG engine, undergoing the same rigorous testing regimen as any other Mercedes product. The A45 we’re in hits more than 124 mph at Hockenheim without any apparent stress.

Like the SLS AMG, a seven-speed AMG Speedshift MCT dual-clutch gearbox is used to handle the enormous power and torque of the A45 AMG engine. (We’re fairly sure they are different part numbers.) As is current AMG fashion, the A45 comes with the so-called AMG Drive Unit that enables the selection of different driving modes. In Normal mode, gearchanges are smooth and seamless; selecting Sport or Sport Plus mode noticeably quickens the swaps. In Sport Plus, it delivers competition-grade downshifts and simultaneously performs matched-rev throttle blips to keep the car composed during serious driving. Aside from the stability benefits, the blip-throttle sounds are entertaining. And for spectacular NHRA-like full acceleration from a stop, the A45 AMG is equipped with launch control.The A45 AMG is the most powerful series production car powered by a 2.0-liter engine. Its specific power output is roughly 173 hp per liter, topping even the Porsche 911 GT2 RS (172.2 hp per liter). That’s a record for roadgoing cars, according to Moers.
Back at the Hockenheim track, Moers is tossing the compact Mercedes A45 AMG through tight corners, demonstrating its sharp steering, crisp throttle response, and neutral balance even at very high cornering speeds. Hard braking, turning the car into the corner, and downshifting all at the same time do nothing to upset the car—or Moers’s smile, for that matter. The A45 is the smallest car ever tuned to an AMG fare-thee-well.

We’ll find out if M-B’s gamble pays off next August when the A45, the most powerful A-class ever, hits European markets. U.S. customers, however, won’t get the chance to buy one. But don’t fret: Mercedes will offer this same high-performance AWD 2.0-liter turbo package to American buyers for about $50,000 via the new CLA45 AMG, a swoopynew sedan that debuts a few months later. We can’t wait.Is there a market for another compact monster like this? Mercedes thinks so and is targeting customers who are currently driving an Audi RS3 or a BMW 1-series M. The way the company’s marketing people see it, this fresh-looking performance car with Mercedes styling and design details could be a winner. In Germany, the equivalent of $64,000 is a lot of money for a Mercedes A-class, but we see it as fair for a compact car that delivers Porsche-like dynamics.

2013 Audi S3





It's an S3 with an extra pair of doors. So forgive us for starting at the boring end, because, although we'd like to talk about the 296bhp at the front of the car, we must first discuss luggage space. Of which there is 380 litres with the seats up, or 1,200 when they're down. That's 15 litres more than the three-door S3, or about the volume of your average water-cooler bottle. More importantly, it's 20 litres more than its main rival - the BMW 135i, also in five-door flavour.
If these were the three-door versions, we'd care less. They're hot hatches, so fast comes first. But the only reason you may choose five portals on a car like this is because - despite your fast inclinations - you genuinely need the extra room and accessibility, whether it's for stuff in the boot or humans on the back seats. For the same reason it's also worth knowing that the Sportback has a 35mm longer wheelbase, boosting rear legroom. And those few millimetres and litres may mean the difference between nine shopping bags or 10. Or squeezing children through a tiny gap versus throwing them in through a wide open door.
Thankfully, the added usefulness changes nothing about the way the S3 goes. One minute, you're here; the next, you're there... probably early, and with a slight gap in your memory. Because once the turbo breathes out and the quattro hooks up, your only job is to watch the world smudge by. The S tronic 'box boshes through gears with staggering hunger, and the four-wheel drive sorts out any slippage. And before you know it, you're checking your mirror, wondering if the law noticed.
Of course, you may wish to contribute more to the driving experience. So if the Audi's aloofness troubles you, there's always the RWD - but similarly plain-looking - BMW. It's within 0.1 seconds of the Audi to 62mph, and it too will go on to 155mph. And when fitted with an automatic gearbox, it's only 45 quid more than the Sportback. Which is probably what you'll save by filling fewer shopping bags. Alternatively, how about a Ford Focus ST Estate? Yes, it's about 50bhp down but the 1,502-litre boot is enormous, and it's over six thousand pounds cheaper. But the four rings exert a powerful pull, and the Sportback's added practicality is another string to the S3's bow. It's fast and secure and for most buyers, that might just be enough.
Dan Read
The numbers
1984cc, 4cyl petrol, 4WD, 296bhp, 280lb ft, 40.9mpg, 159g/km CO2, 0-62mph in 5.0secs, 155mph, 1445kg, £32,740
The verdict
Audi's superhatch gets roomier and more practical. Fast and flattering to the driver, but still oddly cold.

Friday, March 15, 2013

2014 BMW M4 sheds some camouflage for latest test run


Last time we saw the upcoming BMW M4 out testing, it was heavily clad with camouflage and decidedly homely looking (as most early development mules are). But in this latest set of photos, the M3 coupe successor has started to come into its own skin, and we're seeing a shape more closely akin to that of a rendering we brought you a few months back.

Unsurprisingly, the M4 coupe looks very similar to the 4 Series Concept that BMW debuted at the Detroit Auto Show earlier this year. And while non-M version of the 4er will likely look a bit more sedate, these spy shots clearly show an aggressive front fascia, large wheels and the usual quad-exhaust rounding out the rear end.

Naturally, the M3 sedan will launch before this M4 coupe (and convertible), and powertrain details are still unclear as of this writing. We understand that the current M3's naturally aspirated V8 will be axed in favor of some sort of turbocharged six-cylinder engine, and we've heard plenty of rumors as to what, exactly, it might be, but we have yet to hear any official confirmation.

The 4 Series will launch later this year as a 2014 model, and we expect the M4 to follow suit about one year later as a 2015 model.

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

2013 BMW 3 series wagon



Fanboys, rejoice! A leaked document has revealed BMW's plans to sell a diesel-powered version of its latest 3-Series wagon in the United States.

Although diesels and wagons remain relatively low on shoppers' must-have lists in the U.S., BMW has decided to combine both attributes into one vehicle for the 2014 model year. Starting in July, BMW will begin assembling the 2014 328d wagon for the United States market.
It remains unknown if the 328d wagon will be available with a stick, but, according to Automobile, the sports hauler will offer the stability of BMW's xDrive all-wheel drive system.

Power for the 328d wagon is expected to be provided by BMW's latest 2.0L four-cylinder turbodiesel. That lump should be good for about 220 horsepower and a stout 330 lb-ft of torque.

No pricing information has yet been revealed, but the 328d wagon should carry a base price of about $40,000, with the all-wheel drive option sure to tack on another few grand.

Monday, March 11, 2013

2013 Audi A1 and A3 get new engine




Audi has introduced a 60mpg CoD petrol engine to the A1 and A3 ranges

Audi has added an efficient new 1.4-litre Cylinder on Demand engine to the A1 and A3 line-ups. This new engine can shut down two of its four cylinders on light throttle loads to improve fuel consumption.
The 138bhp 1.4-litre TFSI CoD starts from £16,740 in the A1, offering fuel economy of 60.1mpg and CO2 emissions of 109g/km. Impressively, acceleration from 0-62mph takes just 7.9 seconds.
The A1 Sportback boasts the same figures as the three-door, and if you order S line or Black Edition  models fuel economy stands at 57.6mpg, while CO2 emissions increase to 113g/km. All A1 CoD models come with a seven-speed dual-clutch gearbox but a six-speed manual will be made available later this year.
Meanwhile, the A3 CoD variants start from £20,055, which is £850 more than the existing 1.4 TFSI with 120bhp. The CoD A3s all come with a six-speed manual gearbox and claimed fuel economy of 60.1mpg. The three-door A3 can sprint from 0-62mph in 8.3 seconds, while the Sportback manages it in 8.4 seconds.
For comparison, the standard 120bhp 1.4 TFSI in the A3 allows for 0-62mph in 9.3 seconds, and boasts fuel consumption of 54.3mpg with CO2 emissions of 120g/km.
The A1 and A3 1.4 TFSI CoD models are available to order now.

Friday, February 15, 2013

2013 Mercedes-Benz A-Class 45 AMG









Full story on the 355bhp Mercedes A45 AMG, which will cost £36k when order books open in March

Mercedes has revealed the A45 AMG, a 355bhp hot hatch with the punch to beat a Porsche 911 away from the lights, but for half the price.
Unlike all the other AMG models, which currently use either a V8 or V12, the new A45 AMG has a four-cylinder 2.0-litre turbo. The 355bhp engine boasts the highest horsepower-per-litre figure of any production car, and is hand-built by AMG.
The car also features a new AMG 4Matic four-wheel-drive system and a seven-speed automatic transmission, and rockets from 0-62mph in just 4.6 seconds. That’s half a second quicker than the manual BMW M135i hatchback and only a tenth slower than the C63 AMG.
But while the performance may be a match for the 6.3-litre V8 C-Class, AMG models are just as much about noise as they are acceleration. A turbocharged four-cylinder isn’t naturally the most tuneful of engines, but Mercedes has fitted an AMG sports exhaust to help create some aural drama.
The A45 AMG also comes with new sports suspension and speed-sensitive AMG steering to help improve handling, and the ESP system can be switched between three modes: On, Sport and Off. There’s a Curve Dynamic Assist mode, too, which can brake individual wheels to reduce understeer.
AMG’s new trademark two-bar grille is one tweak differentiating the A45 from a standard A-Class. There’s also a chunky bodykit, a rear diffuser, some lightweight alloys and two chrome-plated exhausts. The interior gets sports seats finished in faux-leather, with red stitching. There are red seatbelts, too, and red highlights on all the air vents.
Mercedes will also offer a range of styling and performance upgrades. Among them is an aerodynamics package with a large rear spoiler and a bigger front splitter. There’s firmer AMG Performance suspension, too.
Despite the supercar-rivalling performance, Mercedes claims impressive economy of 40.9mpg and CO2 emissions of 161g/km – that’s a huge improvement on the 23.5mpg and 280g/km of CO2 claimed by the C63 AMG.
The A45 AMG will be available to order shortly after it’s unveiled at the Geneva Motor Show at the beginning of March, and should cost around £36,000.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

2014 Tesla Model X detailed On Detroit motor show



The Tesla Model X will have the lowest centre of gravity of any SUV on sale when it goes on sale next year, its makers announced today at the Detroit motor show.

The prototype on display is the current evolution of the Model X, and features its latest dual electric motor set-up to allow the four-wheel drive system to apportion power where there is most traction. Visual changes from the previous model shown are minor, including new wheels and a new paint finish.

The low centre of gravity is made possible by the Model X's floor mounted battery pack, and Tesla says it helps counter the extra weight of the batteries and ensure the car, which can accelerate from 0-60mpb in less than five seconds, retains sporty characteristics.

The seven-seater's unusual 'falcon doors' are also set to make production. Lifting up and away from the car's body, they are designed to give adults enough room to stand while they reach into the car.

The Model X's future in Europe hangs in the balance, as Tesla is debating whether or not its size makes it too big for European tastes. If it does make it to the UK, right-hand-drive conversion means it is unlikely to appear before 2015 — even if this is possible.

Tesla says it will be priced competitively against other premium SUVs.

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

2013 Ford B-Max specs





Just occasionally, it’s okay to get excited about doors. When Mercedes-Benz launched the world’s first supercar in 1954 its doors were so swooned over that the car became known not as the 300SL, but the Gullwing. And when the doors of the first Lamborghini Countach swung forward or those of the BMW Z1 sank into its sills, so too did we get excited about doors. But on an MPV? Not until now.

So it’s okay to get excited by the doors of the Fiesta-based Ford B-Max. We thought the rear-hinged back doors of the Vauxhall Meriva were quite clever, but these are in a different league. The fronts open conventionally, the rears slide like those of a van.

But between them? Only fresh air. Half of each B-pillar is incorporated into each door, providing an unprecedented 1.5-metre-wide aperture when the doors are open and all the requisite structural integrity and side impact protection when closed. They provide access to a spacious and smart cabin with a well designed and attractive driving environment.

And this is just where the good news starts. You can see for yourself good the B-Max looks, but you’ll need to go for a test drive to see how well it rides and handles. It’s a little softer than the Fiesta to reflect its more family-orientated role in life but it’s still a sharp-steering, accurate and enjoyable car to fire down the road and comes with a clearly superior ride to the Fiesta.

It has two great engines, too: Ford’s super-frugal 96bhp 1.6 TDCi diesel motor, which gives the B-Max 70mpg potential and emissions of just 104g/km, or its all-new 118bhp 1.0-litre turbocharged three-cylinder petrol engine, upon whose ultra-talented head awards continue to rain. How good is it? A 1.6 Citroën C3 Picasso has the same output and returns 40.9mpg. The B-Max claims 57.7mpg.

Now, though, for those who still remember turntables, there should be the sound of a stylus being dragged across the surface of the record, for here the hitherto sweet song of the B-Max abruptly ends.

Ford has done two things to the B-Max that seriously harm its case. First is to provide the car with a conventional rear seat. It folds of course, but unlike those of its rivals, it neither slides nor reclines so you cannot trade boot space for leg room or vice versa according to what you’re carrying. In a small MPV, that’s a proper limitation.

The second problem is easier to fix. While the high-output 1.0-litre petrol and 1.6-litre diesel engines are world class, Ford has cynically only made them available on the top grade Titanium specification. To add insult to injury both the lower spec 98bhp 1.0-litre and 74bhp 1.5-litre diesel actually use more fuel than their range-topping brethren while offering performance that’s poor for the petrol model and pitiful to the tune of a 16.5sec 0-62mph time for the diesel.

If Ford made its best engines available in the Zetec spec that most customers will choose, that would leave the fixed rear seat as its only serious failing. Left as it stands most customers will quickly realise how good their B-Max is without ever realising just how outstandingly great it could have been with a little more understanding from Ford.

Thursday, December 27, 2012

2013 Volvo V40 review





The Volvo V40’s lineage can be traced back through the 1995 Mitsubishi-related car of the same name, via the DAF-built 440/460 of the late 1980s and the 340/360 cars of the late 1970s, and even as far as the PV51 of 1936 — Volvo’s first attempt at a more affordable but practical car.

Its maker’s world-beating reputation for safety is backed up by a number of innovations, such as the safety cage (1944), the three-point seatbelt (1959) and the side impact airbag (1994). But innovation doesn't automatically lead to a easy time for car makers.After a concerning time, stability has returned at Volvo. The pain of several years without profit, of sales volumes up to 30 per cent down on the firm’s pre-financial-crisis height, have largely come to an end.

Production is climbing from 2007 levels, and with new owner Zhejiang Geely Holding Group committed to doubling the company’s sales by 2020, there looks to be a brighter future for Sweden’s one remaining global car brand than many dared hope for three years ago.

Having said that, the subject of this road test will need to pull its weight if the 800,000-unit sales target is to be reached. The new V40 isn’t just a replacement for the S40 and V50; it’s also a concerted effort to break into one of the most important segments of the whole European car market. If it succeeds, it will be the most important new Volvo in 20 years.

But that ‘if’ is a very large one. This is Gothenburg’s attempt to do ‘compact premium’ well enough to tempt Europe’s fleet drivers out their Audi A3s, Volkswagen Golfs and BMW 1-series. Mission statements don’t get much tougher.Volvo has arrived at a five-door format for the V40 by trial and error. It previously thought the S40 four-door saloon was the answer. Later, it looked to the three-door-only C30. Now it seems to have adopted segment convention for a 4.4m family hatch, but only with the begrudging reluctance you’d expect of a company used to going its own way.

With an underbody made of hot-formed and boron alloy steel, the V40 is slightly larger than the Audi A3 Sportback and BMW 1-series – although an overall height of less than 1.45m gives it a more sleek, sporting profile than, say, the VW Golf.Like every other Volvo for decades, the V40 has a transversely mounted engine, providing more passenger space and better crash deformation than a longitudinal one. Four-cylinder and five-cylinder turbo petrol and diesel units are offered, almost all with lightweight aluminium construction and all driving the front wheels only.

A model expected to play a sizeable role in the V40’s UK sales mix is the is a mid-range 148bhp D3 turbodiesel. Its 1984cc capacity looks fairly unremarkable, but its five oversquare cylinders are a departure from the norm. Despite the extra mechanical complexity, the engine is rated at a very competitive 114g/km of CO2 and a combined 65.7mpg. The cleanest engine in the V40 line-up - the 4cyl 114bhp 1.6-litre D2 oil-burner - achieves a claimed 78.5mpg and emissions of 94g/km CO2. Buyers can also choose between a 148bhp 1.6-litre petrol T3 (52.3mpg, 125g/km CO2), as well as a 175bhp D4 (65.7mpg, 137g/km CO2) and range-topping 1.6-litre T4 petrol. It delivers 178bhp, achieves 51.4mpg and emits 140g/km CO2.

Suspension is by MacPherson struts at the front and multi-links at the rear. A sports pack is optional, lowering the ride height by 10mm and increasing the spring and damper rates. Our car was so equipped.

But it’s the V40’s active safety systems that really set it apart from the class. It’s the first car in the world with an underbonnet pedestrian airbag, and it comes with Volvo’s City Safety low-speed crash avoidance system as standard. Spend £1850 on the Driver Support Pack and you’ll also get a car with a full-speed collision warning and crash avoidance system, as well as pedestrian detection, lane departure warning, blindspot monitoring, road sign information and driver alertness monitoring systems. Seven airbags also feature.If you’re drawn to the V40 by Volvo’s reputation for practical, comfortable transport, you’ll probably be quietly impressed by what you find. That it doesn’t lead the class on space is perhaps a slight shame, but it’s not a major surprise, given the car’s average outward dimensions.

The V40 offers passenger accommodation levels and usable boot space that’s as generous as the most practical hatchbacks in most dimensions, but no better.But the air of simplicity and unpretentiousness that characterises the cabin is much more appealing than its sheer size. This is a car entirely devoted to everyday use. The driver’s seat is mounted a little higher than we’d like, but it’s where it is to grant excellent all-round visibility.

The outer rear seats are mounted slightly further inboard than the hatchback norm, providing a better view forwards and more shoulder and elbow room for occupants three and four. The fifth seat is slightly compromised, but how often do you actually carry five?

In the front, the primary ergonomics are excellent and the materials solid but entirely unostentatious. Liquid crystal instruments provide excellent legibility in any light. And although we’re not sure about the usefulness of the ‘eco guide’ economy meter, which simply reminds you how much throttle you’re using most of the time, the set-up reeks of good sense.

We like the full-length optional glass roof and practical touches like the drained ice scraper recess in the driver’s door. We also like the generous cupholders. This is unquestionably one of the most usable hatchbacks on the road.If all diesel engines were created equal and could be measured solely on their figures, the 148bhp variant found in the Volvo V40 D3 would appear to be perfectly suited to the 21st century business of propelling a hatchback around promptly and economically.

A sub-9.0sec 0-60mph time and a 45.9mpg overall economy figure attest to that. The five-cylinder unit likes to warble but, at 68dB at 70mph, it is not intrusive or unpleasant.  But there are issues, chiefly with the way the V40 delivers its power. The D3 may develop all of its 258lb ft of torque at just 1500rpm, but it idles at 720rpm and the six-speed manual gearbox has a habit of repeatedly stumbling on the 780rpm of lethargy in between. Typically, this occurs when ambling slowly around residential street corners in second or third gear.

An impatient driver (or, indeed, anyone concerned with forward motion) will attempt to remedy the chronic lag with a more aggressive stab of the throttle, leading to a sudden rush of energy as the engine – or, more precisely, its turbocharger – catches up with your intentions. Spend too much time turning in and out of tight junctions and the D3’s driving experience comes worryingly close to tiresome.

Moreover, the other diesels seem afflicted by similar traits; the 325lb ft of the D4 we also tried recently arrives in a great stampede between 1750rpm and 2750rpm. Its gear ratios compounded the problem, often dropping the engine into its frustratingly unresponsive zone below 1500rpm. The 114bhp D2 model is also a reluctant performer at low revs.

The D3 is much improved once it has been unfurled out of town. Peak torque is tapped out by 2750rpm, but more often than not you’ll have been pulled promptly beyond the national speed limit before needing to sidle into the in-line five’s reverberant high revs. It’s a strong performer on the motorway, too, where a long sixth gear chimes perfectly with all the available tug at cruising speeds. Just don’t try merging in top; 30-50mph takes an agonising 20.9sec.

A pair of 1596cc turbocharged fours comprise the petrol engine line-up. The D3 develops 148bhp at 5700rpm and 177lb ft from 1600-4000rpm, while the 178bhp D4 sees the same amount of torque stretching to 5000rpm. The results are a 0-62mph time of 8.8 and 7.7sec respectively, while top speeds are 130 and 140mph.One would think that building a hatchback on the carcass of Ford’s perennially well honed Focus should practically guarantee a degree of dynamic finesse. But the last time Volvo’s engineers were left to tinker with a Ford hatchback platform (one they helped to develop), it turned into the decidedly lumpy C30.

This time around, it’s clear within half a mile that Gothenburg’s chassis tuners have fettled a far finer product. The V40’s electric power steering (shared with Ford, but retuned) moves through a slippery, wrinkle-free arc with persuasive ease. Opt for the variable system and there are three settings from which to choose, although none makes the car’s rack particularly communicative.

Nevertheless, the weight and speed are precisely where you’d expect them to be, and that’s generally enough for a five-door family hatch. Through a familiar, synthesised haze, it also has just enough directness to provide a modicum of agility when covering ground quickly.

The V40 has been set up too sympathetically to make this seem wilfully sporty, but there’s sufficient enthusiasm on turn-in and adequate grip through medium-fast bends to make the Volvo feel obliging where previous models would merely have tolerated attempts to push on.

If that all sounds faintly reminiscent of Ford’s default state of tune, then that’s high praise for a firm that usually favours a stately and pragmatic attitude to handling. The ride comfort, graced with Volvo’s own spring and damper settings, is on the same page, too, but our test car suffered from the addition of the sports pack, which includes 17-inch wheels and a 10mm lower ride height.

Consequently, there’s a ponderousness in the way the D3 ebbs and flows. Although quietness, refinement and a competitive sense of comfort are all readily apparent, the hatchback’s wheels have a tendency to react to undulations with a heavy-handed studiousness, as if continuous contact with the ground were of greater consequence than the pliable harmony that defines the best in class.

Hopefully, this problem can be rectified by 16-inch rims, as standard on ES and SE models. Our first impression of a lower-powered, smaller-wheeled D2 on non-UK roads was that it drove fractionally better than the equivalent Focus.Whichever way you look at it, the case for the Volvo V40 is strong here. Opt for the entry-level D2 and you’ll pay lower benefit-in-kind company car tax than on any 1-series or A3 Sportback.

Our D3 SE Lux Nav test car occupies an equally strong position. Add its equipment tally to the equivalent A3 Sportback (Bluetooth, climate control, cruise control, keyless go, leather upholstery, 17-inch alloy wheels and active bi-xenon headlights) and the price will exceed £29k. The difference that makes to the 40 per cent income tax fleet user is worth just under £200 a year.Economy is competitive, albeit not outstanding in the case of the D3. Our test car averaged 45.9mpg over our test, and its touring economy result (51.7mpg) was acceptable. It’s good enough, just, to prevent you from questioning the wisdom of putting a five-cylinder engine in a car like this.

The D4 model, which has a slug more power, matches the D3's official figure of 65.7mpg and 114g/km, but choosing the Geartronic automatic version of either model causes those numbers to look far less favourable.

More fiscally sensible is the D2, which is the only diesel to pack a more conventional four-cylinder configuration. Its 1560cc unit returns an official figure of 78.5mpg on the combined cycle, and emissions of 94g/km.

The turbocharged petrol engines both record 50mpg-plus on the combined cycle, and emissions of 125 and 129g/km are comparable with the D3 and D4 models.
GoodPractical, unpretentious cabinRobust and easy to useGood value for money
BadUncharacteristically firm rideThrottle response at low engine revsStylish, practical, economical, refined, even classy… so much of the job here is done. Prick the surface and the V40 still bleeds the blue and yellow of Volvo’s idiosyncratic personality.

The D3’s interior is well conceived and at the premium end of durable. It canters to a five-pot bassline, hustles along with unswerving dependability and is as safe as the Riksbanken.To the faithful, then, the V40 will push all the right buttons. But for the atypical Audi and BMW buyer, already distracted by a modish new Mercedes A-class, it’s tricky to argue that Volvo has provided enough of a reason to contemplate a switch of allegiance.

Especially since the Sport pack, a likely popular addition for that demographic, trims some of the much-needed absorbent fat from the hatchback’s figure.

Nevertheless, jettison that option, ignore the occasional lack of vigour and the V40 certainly rewards closer inspection.

2013 Peugeot 208 review





The 205. The 306. Two reasons, you could argue, to pity Peugeot today and why the 208 has so much to live up to. With hits like that in its back catalogue, is it any wonder that its latest chart entries fail to scale the same giddy heights? Those heights aren’t necessarily defined by sales, but by lasting affection and identity.

In other words, by what they mean to enthusiasts.When was the last time that a Peugeot gave you ‘the drive of your life’, as one of the French car maker’s advertising tag lines once promised?

Our guess would be the late 1990s, when Peugeot seemingly handed Ford the right to make the most entertaining ‘normal’ cars in Europe and gave us instead the 1007, 206 and 307. The Peugeot 207, it’s fair to say, was even worse than the 206.

Recently, Peugeot has had better times. So here we are, with a replacement for the 207, on the back of some moderately entertaining, engaging family cars that show genuine promise.

If the 208 can recapture a little of the original spirit, this could be Peugeot’s best small car for a generation. We’ll see.
Despite a fresh face, name and engine line-up, the 208 is not quite as new as Peugeot would have us believe. Beneath the styling garnish resides the same PF1 platform that underpinned the 207 – hence the shared 2538mm wheelbase and the familiar MacPherson strut front and rear torsion beam suspension layout.

Nevertheless, Peugeot insists that much time and effort has been spent on improving ‘architectural performance’ and its stated goal of producing a car smaller on the outside yet larger on the inside than its predecessor should be the aim of every supermini maker.The most significant benefactor of the development process is the 208’s kerb weight, which, with the same 1.4 HDi engine as the 207, is now said to weigh 110kg less. Peugeot claims the entry-level model, with the three-cylinder petrol engine tested here, clocks in at just 975kg. Our scales recorded a fleshier 1080kg, but if you consider that the 1.4 Sport we tested in 2006 was just shy of 1150kg, it’s clear that some progress has been made.

Much of it can be attributed to the use of leaner materials, including high-strength steel panels and aluminium components, but the all-new three-pot engine alone is 21kg lighter than the four-cylinder unit it replaces.

The 67bhp and 81bhp versions form the virgin bedrock on which the rest of the carried-over range sits. Mated to a five-speed manual gearbox, it provides the 208 with a sub-100g/km starting point.

The car around it has shrunk (marginally) into its rehashed silhouette. The 207’s bloated front overhang has been reduced by 60mm and the rear tucks in by another 10mm. In spite of the reduction in length, Peugeot says it has freed up an extra 50mm of legroom for rear passengers by optimising the design and installing slimmer seat backs. There is plentiful room in the Peugeot 208 for four adults. Indeed, it is comfortably commodious by class standards. Even putting three people in the back works, as long as they’re not too large and demanding.

The front seat is widely adjustable. The boot is fine by class standards, too, and the rear seats split and fold adequately. It is even a relatively interestingly designed cabin. At a cursory glance, all is okay.The problem is that there are about a dozen superminis whose interiors are ‘okay’. There is nothing inherently wrong with that of a Seat Ibiza or a Fiat Punto, but you wouldn’t find us recommending them on the strength of them (or much else, in their case). And so it goes here.

The 208’s cabin is fine, but if you look deeper you’ll find that it has notable failings, too. The glovebox is pitiful, and if you want to use a cupholder you’ll effectively have to reach behind you.

Other features fall into the ‘good idea, but…’ category. The diddy steering wheel beneath the dials is a novel idea, but set it up for smaller drivers or those who like a low-slung driving position and you’ll remember why every other major manufacturer suggests reading dials through the wheel.

And although the new, ‘floating’ communications, audio and navigation screen on the centre console looks slick, try browsing through radio stations while you’re moving at moderate speed or on a bumpy road and you’ll crave six little preset buttons on the dashboard.

With a little finessing here and there, it all could have been so much better, living up to the promise that its design suggests it will have.

As it is, a Volkswagen Polo’s cabin feels of higher perceived quality. A Honda Jazz’s is considerably more versatile. A Ford Fiesta’s matches it for design and, mostly, material quality, while being easier to work. The 208 is left, in this company, being moderately acceptable.If the Peugeot's advertised weight reduction for the 208 has led you to hope for big strides in its performance, this won’t make easy reading. At best, the 1.2 VTi’s performance is ordinary – mediocre, even. At worst, in some ways it’s downright sub-standard compared with most other superminis of the same capacity and price.

That it takes a full 1.5sec longer than a 1.2-litre Suzuki Swift to crack a standing quarter mile, isn’t a massive condemnation, the Suzuki being one of the class’s dynamic over-performers. Owners of the 208 may not seem the type to be concerned by flat-out acceleration, but when the motive force on offer is as limited as in this car, they should be.More serious is the lack of refinement and flexibility displayed by the engine, which is electronically restrained from a standstill when you open the throttle wide and delivers its torque in an uneven and fairly raucous way through much of the rev range.

Worse still, whether you’re bumbling along in traffic or out on your own between the hedges, the 208 isn’t a particularly easy or pleasant car to interact with. Our test car had a troublesome clutch pedal with too much dead travel and a baggy manual gearchange; similar issues have dogged diesel models we've tested, Add a small but detectable dose of driveline shunt and the impression is of a car that feels imprecise and underdeveloped.

As for fuel efficiency, we’ve tested several petrol-powered hatches of the same size as the 208, some with bigger engines, that have returned better than its 40.9mpg as an average, but this is still a decent result. In the more gentle driving that owners are likely to give it, you should expect to see the good side of 45mpg.

In urban driving of the 91bhp e-HDI, we achieved more than 55mpg. Having said this, that version also cost nearly £18,000 (the cheapest diesel is just over £14k), which is a lot to pay for a 10mpg improvement.

Also in the 208 range is an efficient 1.0 variant (which provides a claimed 65.7mpg and CO2 emissions of 99g/km), plus five diesels, ranging from 67bhp to 113bhp, some of which are equipped with Peugeot’s frugal ‘micro-hybrid’ technology.

Four variants will be equipped with stop-start and the most efficient 67bhp 1.4-litre oilburner will return 83.1mpg and 87g/km. This engine delivers decent pep if you mine its mid-ranges.

Wet conditions skewed the results of our braking tests slightly, with the 208 stopping more quickly on MIRA’s grippier wet surface facility than on its dry handling circuit. The former result, at least, is what we’d expect of a good new supermini in 2012.It’s a particular pity that the pedal weights and shunt of the Peugeot 208 should afflict it so, because if you could look beyond the fact that its awkward drivetrain makes progress tiring, you’d find that the rest of the driving experience is far from unpleasant.

Again, sadly, you’ll note that we’re not saying it’s outstanding; a Fiesta has nothing to fear. At least, though, the stodge and heft that afflicted the 207 has, by and large, been banished to history.The 208 continues, to some extent, the promising themes set out by Peugeot’s other ‘08’ models and the RCZ. It rides very well for the most part. It steers relatively accurately – albeit in an overly light fashion that’s largely devoid of feel.

Its refinement is relatively strong, too; one of the most pleasing aspects of the new 208 is that it has been made much lighter than its predecessor without giving much away when it comes to cabin noise.

Is it fun, though? Does it feel agile? Not particularly. It would seem to us that Peugeot, put simply, doesn’t think this sort of thing is important any more. We would find a Fiesta, Mazda 2 or Swift more entertaining to drive. Even a Polo, noted for its maturity rather than its brio, is a preferable steer.

All of that is fine, as long as the car you are offering is easy to rub along with. The Vauxhall Corsa and Honda Jazz, for example, are just such cars. Crucially, though, all of the aforementioned and more are easier to drive than the Peugeot because of their driveline compliance.Subjectively, the 208 lags behind its mainstream competition by a significant distance. But thanks mainly to the three-cylinder engine, Peugeot has a statistical foundation on which to plant its price flag.

Although painfully slow – 62mph requires a 15.9sec wait – the entry-level 67bhp 1.0 VTi Access 3dr model has its nose tucked under both the 100g/km road tax threshold and a £10k price.

Doubtless, the showroom sales staff will point out to bargain hunters that even the value-added Korean manufacturers fail to match that attractive combination.

However, with the colour touchscreen gone and electric front windows listed as a comfort feature, the spec verges on destitute and is therefore unlikely to be popular in the UK.

With the 81bhp 1.2-litre version of the engine and higher-grade Active trim, our test car courts mid-range respectability, but its £13k price lands it among superior offerings from virtually all of Peugeot’s major rivals.

Lower-than-average emissions keep the 208 superficially competitive, but as superminis are rarely run as company cars and all VED bands below 130g/km are comparatively cheap, there’s a definite limit to this advantage. All diesels are road tax exempt, but then as are many of its rivals’ oil-burners.You’d be right to think that we expected more from the 208. We have no quarrel with Peugeot’s retention and update of an earlier platform because, as we’ve said many times before, architecture is so sophisticated that it’s quite possible to build a class leader upon proven technology.

However, in the 208’s case, too many failings seem to have been carried over, and a few of the new features – such as the novel interior touches, which we would have loved to report as being successful – don’t feel polished enough.It’s a theme that you could apply to all aspects of the 208; it lacks the class, verve and completeness of the best cars in this sector.

There’s an awful lot of highly capable superminis out there, and there are just too few compelling reasons to look at a 208 among them, which is why it fails to even make it into our top five list.

2013 Mazda CX-5 review


      

       Mazda CX-5 review


Though it may appear to be a fairly conventional new compact crossover SUV in the now well established mould of the Nissan Qashqai, the Mazda CX-5 has a deeper meaning for Mazda.
It is intended as a technological boat-rocker, a model which, thus far, best defines the Third Way the manufacturer has been plotting since it announced its long-term ‘Sustainable Zoom-Zoom’ vision back in 2007.That policy shift manifested itself as SkyActiv Technology – an engineering solution for Mazda’s own pledge which stated that it would work to find a 30 per cent improvement in the average fuel economy of its 2008 range by 2015.
The bold and interesting part of a fairly industry-standard plan is that, to begin with, the firm has opted not to leap on the expensive and complicated hybrid bandwagon, but instead refine and gently rethink the conventional internal combustion blueprint.
This review will endeavour to find out if Mazda has succeeded – not only in its self-proclaimed task, but also in delivering a product well rounded enough to thrive in a segment populated by high achievers.
Innovative design and engineering are at the heart of Mazda’s SkyActiv strategy. It is an all-encompassing label applied to fuel and weight-saving improvements made to the chassis, body, engines and transmissions of not just the CX-5, but an entire future range.
If that weren’t enough, the CX-5’s exterior has been shaped using Mazda’s latest ‘Kodo – soul of motion’ design language, which introduces a wide-mouth grille that will doubtless characterise the firm’s family face for some time to come.As is becoming the norm, the CX-5's steering rack is electrically assistedMazda claims the CX-5 is one of the most aerodynamic compact SUVs around, with a drag coefficient of 0.33.
Underpinning the CX-5 is a clean-sheet, scaleable platform which, thanks to the increased use of high-tensile steel, is stiffer and lighter than the brand’s previous architecture.
The suspension is divided between MacPherson struts up front and a multi-link arrangement at the back. The latter has been mounted higher than usual to improve damper efficiency. As is becoming the norm in this class and others, the steering rack is an electrically assisted system.
The real beneficiaries of the SkyActiv R&D budget are the powertrains. Along with two heavily revised transmissions (a smaller, lighter six-speed manual and a tweaked six-speed automatic), the engine line-up is refreshingly simple and fiendishly clever: there’s one 163bhp 2.0-litre petrol and one 2.2-litre diesel unit split into 148bhp and 173bhp variants.
Despite their differing capacities, they share a basic structure (allowing them to be built alongside one another) and, remarkably, the same compression ratio.
The upshot of Mazda’s meticulous attention to detail is simple: a class-leading combination of power and economy. The 148bhp version tested will serve up 280lb ft of torque from 1800rpm, achieve 61.4mpg combined and emit just 119g/km of CO2. 
The petrol CX-5 is only available with the manual transmission and front-wheel drive, with the lower-powered diesel the cheapest way into an automatic CX-5. For a 4WD auto, the 173bhp diesel is necessary.
For all of Mazda’s mechanical endeavours, the CX-5 would stand no chance of success if its interior were not up to the critical small family standard. Plenty of equipment and respectable build quality help it to pass muster, but fairly unimaginative architecture and less-than-brilliant materials mean the car is in danger of appearing cheaper than its price tag says it ought to.
The prevailing sight from the driver’s seat, save a clear and sensibly laid-out instrument cluster, is the streamlined swathe of dashboard that tapers over a set-back multimedia centre. The sat-nav and its touchscreen functions well enough, even if the menu system and the unit itself, look a little old-fashioned.
All too often, when faced with a new four-cylinder diesel engine and a reputable set of manufacturer’s economy figures, we’ve been underwhelmed by the experience on the ground. The Mazda CX-5 emphatically does not fall into that category.
It is a measure of the 2.2-litre diesel’s performance that for a moment it appears briefly in the same sentence as the mighty 2.0-litre lump that helps to make the latest BMW 3-series a five-star car.
The engine's turbo-heavy tug is lusty and assertive
There are three factors to highlight: outright speed, refinement and frugality. Our test car’s 9.4sec time to 60mph suggests it is no slouch, but what sets the CX-5 apart is its tractability and genuine sense of verve on the move. The turbo-heavy tug is lusty and assertive, and while its peak twist fades away, a healthy power band sees the engine into high revs with little reduction in enthusiasm.
The result is a fine set of figures. Not only does the CX-5 outperform the equivalent Kia Sportage across the board (50-70mph in sixth in 9.7sec compared with 12.2sec for the Kia is a standout figure), but within the confines of our one-mile straight it also pulled from beneath 20mph in fourth and up to 100mph without requiring a gearchange.
First-rate flexibility is delivered hand in hand with strong mechanical refinement. The typical diesel hubbub has not been eradicated, but that low compression ratio figure helps to ensure a laudable drop in vibrations. Even at low revs there’s little judder from the drivetrain.
An early drive of a CX-5 fitted with the optional automatic gearbox showed it to be a competent performer. It was alert and quick, with little responsiveness having been sacrificed for the luxury of not changing gear yourself.Finally, there’s the economy. We banked 54.7mpg on a strict touring run – inevitably short of the official 61.4mpg. But when you consider that the 320d managed ‘only’ 56.8mpg in a slippery saloon silhouette, it’s not hard to see why the SkyActiv lump has  been earning some serious plaudits. 
This effectiveness of the 148bhp diesel questions the costlier 173bhp version, as the performance gain isn’t great. However, the 2.0-litre petrol engine makes a viable case for private owners, emitting just 139 g/km and returning 47mpg.  Although Mazda’s marketing department would have you believe otherwise, the thrust of the SkyActiv agenda is on making efficiency gains rather than helping you to corner its new CX-5 like Kamui Kobayashi.
Shaving weight and increasing rigidity are undeniably of benefit to a car’s dynamics, but the CX-5 nevertheless sticks with credibly competent rather than invigorating.Shaving weight and increasing rigidity are of benefit to the car's dynamics
Chiefly, that’s because the model remains a high-sided SUV with all the usual trade-offs and, while it may have been built with one eye on the kerb weight, so has most of the competition. Our benchmarked Sportage may have been on the block back in 2010, but our scales revealed that, even with four-wheel drive, it was only 60kg heavier than the Mazda.
Doubtless that kind of poundage is hard-won in the longer CX-5, but it’s not enough to make the car feel any lighter than most of its mainstream rivals. Instead, confident roadholding, dutiful steering and adequate body control keep the Mazda fluid and predictable at speed.
That’s as much as can be expected, and perhaps more than has been proffered by Mazda on the comfort front. Unfairly handicapped by bigger 19-inch wheels that come as standard with our test car’s Sport Nav trim, the CX-5 tends to range unhappily on its suspension as though it’s searching for a mislaid equilibrium.
Find a particularly smooth section of asphalt and it will settle down, suggesting that either it would benefit from two more inches of compliance in the tyre profile (our guess) or that it has been poorly tuned for the UK’s pitted bitumen. Either way, the car in our hands was more generally passable than outright praiseworthy.
There are two lines to draw here. Behind one are the Mazda's admirable running costs. As we’ve mentioned, the CX-5 is capable of deeply commendable economy and its CO2 emissions are remarkable for the segment.
The Skoda Yeti 1.6 TDI Greenline is the only car able to trade toe to toe with the Mazda on this footing, but it offers nothing like the same performance. On the other hand, an entry-level Yeti Greenline costs nearly £10,000 less.
Petrols are cheaper, but they’re unlikely to be popular
Hamstrung by the strength of the yen, Mazda has slapped a £22,995 starting price on the diesels. This gets you SE-L spec, which features nearly every conceivable extra bar sat-nav; you must fork out extra for the SE-L Nav for that. Sport offers those controversial 19-inch wheels and leather upholstery over the two other models.
Unfortunately, £23k  makes it slightly more expensive than an entry-level Volkswagen Tiguan 2.0 TDI BlueMotion. No, that model doesn’t measure up on emissions, economy or equipment, but it’s better looking, far more pleasant inside and comes with a formidable VW badge attached.
There’s also the Kia Sportage. The Korean SUV is our beaten benchmark for part of this test, but it’s also eye-catching and capable of matching 
the CX-5’s kit list for far less.
Perhaps it was inevitable that as Mazda’s technological thrust is not overtly revolutionary, neither is the CX-5 as its result.
The new SUV is a worthy addition to the segment shortlist, but it is not revelatory enough to better the models against which it is pitted.
All-new CX-5 bristles with worthy technology but scrimps on the charm
What Mazda has produced is a very fine diesel engine. Efficient four-cylinder units may well have become the tip of the industry’s spear, but there are few – possibly none in the mainstream – that equal the SkyActiv unit’s broad range of capabilities.
Were it mated to a classier interior, more engaging chassis or plusher ride, the CX-5 might be more deserving not only of class honours but also of its price tag.
As it is, Mazda has produced a spacious, well equipped crossover that goes faster and farther and pollutes less than the opposition.
For some, that will be more than enough to justify compromises made elsewhere in the CX-5 package.
Namesort icon0-62mphTop speedCO2MPGPrice
Mazda CX-5
2.0 SE-L 5dr Estate
9.2secs124mph139g/km47.1mpg£21,220
Mazda CX-5
2.0 SE-L Nav 5dr Estate
9.2secs124mph139g/km47.1mpg£21,620
Mazda CX-5
2.0 Sport 5dr Estate
9.2secs124mph139g/km47.1mpg£23,420
Mazda CX-5
2.0 Sport Nav 5dr Estate
9.2secs124mph139g/km47.1mpg£23,820
Mazda CX-5
2.2d SE-L 5dr Auto Estate
10secs123mph139g/km53.3mpg£24,120
Mazda CX-5
2.2d SE-L 5dr AWD Auto Estate
10.2secs121mph144g/km51.4mpg£25,705
Mazda CX-5
2.2d SE-L 5dr AWD Estate
9.4secs122mph136g/km54.3mpg£24,520
Mazda CX-5
2.2d SE-L 5dr Estate
9.2secs126mph119g/km61.4mpg£22,940
Mazda CX-5
2.2d SE-L Nav 5dr Auto Estate
10secs123mph139g/km53.3mpg£24,520
Mazda CX-5
2.2d SE-L Nav 5dr AWD Auto Estate
10.2secs121mph144g/km51.4mpg£26,105
Mazda CX-5
2.2d SE-L Nav 5dr AWD Estate
9.4secs122mph136g/km54.3mpg£24,920
Mazda CX-5
2.2d SE-L Nav 5dr Estate
9.2secs126mph119g/km61.4mpg£23,340
Mazda CX-5
2.2d Sport 5dr Estate
9.2secs126mph119g/km61.4mpg£25,140
Mazda CX-5
2.2d Sport Nav 5dr Estate
9.2secs126mph119g/km61.4mpg£25,540
Mazda CX-5
2.2d [175] Sport 5dr AWD Auto Estate
9.4secs127mph144g/km51.4mpg£28,205
Mazda CX-5
2.2d [175] Sport 5dr AWD Estate
8.8secs129mph136g/km54.3mpg£27,020
Mazda CX-5
2.2d [175] Sport Nav 5dr AWD Auto Estate
9.4secs127mph144g/km51.4mpg£28,605
Mazda CX-5
2.2d [175] Sport Nav 5dr AWD Estate
8.8secs129mph136g/km54.3mpg£27,420