Despite what some say of an estate/wagon/shooting brake revival being on the horizon, we know that the very vehicle responsible for their decline is unlikely to be fazed. Demand for the SUV/crossover continues to rise in many parts of the world – even in traditionally estate-loving Europe. It is a hugely significant, not to mention profitable, market.

Whether you maintain the letters stand for ‘Compact Recreational Vehicle’ or ‘Comfortable Runabout Vehicle,’ the Honda CR-V is among the leaders, and the pioneers, of the high-rider brigade. With upwards of five million units sold worldwide since 1995, not only is it a success story; it’s a household name.

By now you know quite a bit about the fourth-gen car, including how well it’s been selling since its arrival on our shores in March. You’ve also read third-gen CR-V owner Anthony’s report on the 2.0 and 2.4 litre variants he sampled in Thailand.

And now here comes a dash of local flavour – Honda Malaysia recently organised a test drive of the smaller-engined SUV in Langkawi, which I had the pleasure of participating in. As Anthony has already covered the car in so much detail, my account will serve as an alternative view.

Since they say so much about first impressions, let’s start with the way it looks. The previous-gen’s split-level, double-grille face has made way for a neater single-piece, three-bar affair that eats into the slimmer headlamps on a slightly higher nose. An even cleaner alternative is a chrome-surround, honeycomb front grille from the Modulo accessories catalogue.

A big majority of the photos in the brochure are of the car’s rear-three quarters, and I can understand why. It is from this angle that you see clearly the pronounced body swage lines, the sharply-kinked C-pillar and how the tail lamps are carved to yield to that kink.

To appreciate all this kinky talk, consider the old car – its side windows simply descended into a soft curve at the base of the C-pillar, leaving an unresolved space at the roofline. The kink effectively balances it out by dividing this space evenly down the middle, while making the cab profile look longer. It’s altogether tauter, less bulbous and more athletic. Less soccer mom-ish, too – although only time can substantiate this claim.

The cockpit is more function than form – there’s no faulting the ergonomics (particularly the huge radio buttons) or the feel of the material and switchgear, but after the Cubist-futuristic dashboard designs we’ve come to associate with Hondas of late, this one looks a tad ordinary. Possibly the only unconventional element is the shape of the central vents, and even then it’s not what you’d call avant-garde, is it?

The five-inch i-MID screen, which is also the reverse camera display, is located in a deep, gaping recess in the middle of the dashboard. It looks a little lost in that cave. I suppose the recess goes some way towards eliminating screen glare; yet it can sometimes be tricky to read at a glance.

Where the CR-V really impresses is in the business of seat-folding; what Honda calls one motion-fold rear seats. Once you have the headrests retracted, simply yank a strap and stand back for a lesson in origami as the seat base lifts forward and the seat back bows flat – all in one graceful spring-loaded motion – giving you 1,146 litres of load space up to the window line.

Even better is the fact that you can fold the seats from the boot as well as from the rear doors – there’s a strap at the seat base and a handle in the boot. Add to this clever contraption an abundance of cubbyholes and useable interior space, and the practicality box gets a nice big tick, while rear air-con vents heighten passenger comfort.

Flick open the jack-knife key, twist it in the ignition and the 2.0 litre SOHC i-VTEC stirs into life. Just by the way it starts, you know it’s going to be a joyously free-revving unit – and it is. Thank goodness for that, because with peak figures of 155 PS and 190 Nm of torque arriving at 6,500 rpm and 4,300 rpm respectively, those revs are needed if some urgent progress is to be made.

Numbers tell the tale better for some, so here goes – the Honda CR-V 2.0 gets from 0-100 km/h in 12.7 seconds, en route towards a 183 km/h top speed. Just enough for the job, but don’t forget the 2.4 litre variant, with 190 PS at 7,000 rpm and 222 Nm at 4,300 rpm at its disposal, is due very soon.

The five-speeder’s gearchanges are not imperceptible but well damped, and the engine emits a clean, muted note that rises to a civilised crescendo as the revs pile up. Refinement at speed is above par as well, with 110 km/h corresponding to an inaudible 2,000 rpm and wind noise largely absent. Central to this are improved aerodynamics and a flat underfloor, cutting drag, Honda says, by eight percent over the previous car.

No complaints as far as ride comfort is concerned – although admittedly, Langkawi’s tarmac is absolute bliss when compared to the surface of Mars that is the Klang Valley’s, so it is very likely that the ‘best’ KL can throw at it could sway opinions one way or another. However, the suppleness of the suspension and its long travel should help its case a fair bit. Body roll is present, but well controlled.

Generally, it’s a very easy vehicle to drive, particularly about town, with all-round visibility being very good and the steering altering its weight adequately and seamlessly according to speed. Steering response is above average, and road surface feedback sufficiently isolated, but a little more feel would do no harm.

Other features include an ECON mode (influencing the throttle, gearbox and air-con), ‘Real Time 4WD’ that sends drive to the back wheels only when needed, cruise control, a foot-operated parking brake and a six-speaker audio system with USB. Safety-wise, there are four airbags, ABS, EBD, VSA, TCS and ISOFIX mounts.

Of course, the upcoming 2.4 litre variant should be more generously endowed – the Thai-market car gets leather seats, a two-DIN 6.1-inch colour touch-screen with Garmin navigation, shift paddles, 18-inch alloys, power seats, Bluetooth, HID headlamps and keyless entry and start, amongst others. We’re told it should cost around RM190k, but it remains to be seen how much of the Thai car’s equipment will carry over to our car. Not long to wait now!

All things considered, where the fourth-gen Honda CR-V is concerned, there really isn’t much to worry about. Whilst there are niggles in places, they are easily overlooked and do little to undermine an 18-year old tried-and-tested formula. Talk about practising what you preach; the Honda CR-V is a very comfortable runabout vehicle indeed.

The post DRIVEN: Fourth-gen Honda CR-V 2.0 in Langkawi appeared first on Paul Tan's Automotive News.

This story originally ran in Issue #2 of Driven+ Magazine. Download Driven+ Magazine from the iTunes App Store or Google Play Store.

Have you ever been to Coventry? If the answer is no, don’t fret – you’re not missing out on much.

If you have, you’d surprise me if you didn’t think it was mostly a sea of grey brutalist blandness. You’d surprise me even more if you told me you would visit again, and you’d actually frighten me if you said you wanted to live there.

Lest I bore you to sleep, I will not go into the history of the place and why it isn’t one of England’s prettier features. But what remains a great irony is the fact that this uninspiring city is still home to one of the most evocative and desirable names in the world of cars – Jaguar.

Like an E-Type on Coventry’s streets (okay, not quite), these big saloons stand out on our roads, their charisma shining through the dense forest of familiar Teutonic contemporaries. Because you simply don’t see as many of the former as you do the latter.

You know mainly why, but just put pricing and maintenance aside for a moment, and we’re left with the issue of engine size to consider. Jaguars, being traditionally big-engined (save perhaps for the X-Type, which was comparatively a-Ford-able), naturally command quite a sum in annual road tax, not to mention fuel bills.

Those in the money for one wouldn’t be too concerned about that, you say, but how about reaching out to more buyers? Add to that the global downsizing trend and the relentless quest for improved fuel economy and emissions, and so it happens that the XF and XJ now come with 2.0 Ti petrol units in Malaysia, the smallest engine to ever power both models.

And if you want something bigger (don’t we all?) but find the 5.0 supercharged V8 a bit of a stretch, both saloons can now be had with the new 3.0 supercharged V6. The XF gets the 2.2 Td diesel unit added to its range, and at the other end of the scale, the XKR-S enters the local scene in Coupe and Convertible forms.

What’s more, an eight-speed ZF auto gearbox is now standard across all models except for the XK, which carries on with the familiar six-speeder. As model range renewals go, then, you would agree that Sisma Auto’s is rather extensive.

To trumpet the new arrivals, the Jaguar distributor held a track day at Sepang a while back, which was attended by customers and members of the media alike. Available to try that day were the two new petrol powerplants, in the XF as well as the XJ – the oil burners unfortunately weren’t present.

Kicking the day off were the 3.0-litre engined saloons. With 335 hp and 450 Nm of torque at its disposal, the supercharged V6 delivers more go than you’ll need on the public roads, propelling both XF and XJ to 100 km/h in under six seconds and onwards to a limited top speed of 250 km/h.

Yes, believe it or not, the two weigh about the same at 1.66 tonnes or so, thanks to the bigger car’s lightweight all-aluminium architecture.

What’s impressive is the manner in which both cars gather speed. Make pedal meet metal and the needles climb rapidly in their dials, but you are not violently pushed back in your seat; rather, you are whooshed forward progressively but purposefully. But yes, they are pretty fast.

The powerplant is smooth, free-revving and provides a great soundtrack. The bass is taken care of by a contained, satisfying growl and the lead by the characteristic supercharger whine, encouraging you to push harder.

And when you do, both saloons oblige with crisp, sharp turn-in and good body control, even through the more steeply-cambered parts of Sepang’s North Circuit. Both are easy to drive quickly and hustle around corners, but the XJ deserves a special mention for hiding its bulk well, which is more than can be said for the rest of us. Gearchanges remain swift and hardly perceptible for most of the time.

Admittedly, I could detect little difference in performance between the XF and XJ where this engine is concerned, at least from the five short laps or so I spent with each. But now we come to their 2.0 Ti-engined brethren – there is more discrepancy here.

We didn’t get to take the XF 2.0 Ti out on the track; instead we chucked it round a makeshift slalom course in the car park grounds to assess its throttle response and handling. While the XF has always done well in the latter department, the experience was marred by rather significant bottom-end turbo lag.

It shouldn’t be as evident in day-to-day driving, especially when you’ve already got the revs up, but flooring it from rest results in up to a full second’s delay before push comes to shove, which gives you a reasonably good idea of how single-carriageway overtaking would be like.

Curiously, the problem isn’t as pronounced on the XJ 2.0 Ti – we’re told a different engine mapping contributes to this. And it shows – the luxury saloon has no qualms with sprinting off the line and throttle response is generally good, but its urgency recedes near the top end.

Unsurprisingly, it’s a quieter engine than the 3.0 SC V6, and manages to return a respectable quoted 8.9 litres of fuel per 100 km in the XF, and 9.3 in the XJ – not particularly far off, in fact, from the bigger engine’s 9.6 in both cars.

The big question is: does the 2.0 Ti feel underpowered? While it obviously doesn’t pack as much punch as the V6, you’d be nitpicking to deem it lacking – 237 hp and 340 Nm of twist get this big cat to 100 km/h in 7.5 seconds. In comparison, the XF takes 7.9 seconds to do the century sprint – although both max out at about 240 km/h.

Still, a short stint around the race track cannot make for a full assessment of the cars. That will have to wait till Sisma Auto releases the big cats for testing on public roads. But one thing’s for sure: in our market, Coventry is finally a few steps closer to its German rivals.

The post Jaguar Track Day Experience – big cats at Sepang appeared first on Paul Tan's Automotive News.

Compact SUVs have all of a sudden come into focus. The Renault Duster has been doing very well sales-wise globally, which has prompted many automakers to bring their own versions about.

The Ford EcoSport is Ford’s contender for the segment, and it was first launched in Brazil in 2003. The second-gen model was unveiled at the 2012 Delhi Auto Expo, and India will be one of the EcoSport’s global right-hand drive manufacturing bases. Thailand will be another, for the ASEAN region.

The EcoSport will feature 70% local (Indian) content (to be increased to 85% in the near future). Contrary to rumours, at this point of time there is no long wheelbase or seven-seater version of the EcoSport on the cards. A 4WD version will be launched in the future, but in this review we’re looking at the 2WD.

First glance at the Ford EcoSport and you immediately realise it is no longer than a hatchback – about a Hyundai i20′s length. It is under four metres long, without considering the length of the spare wheel, which makes the EcoSport really compact, and also conveniently puts it in a lower tax bracket in India.

Despite its small size, the SUV elements make the vehicle really stand out, like the body cladding which runs on the lower side of the car, tailgate-mounted spare wheel, smooth flowing lines on the hood which join the A-pillar and wrap around rear windscreen with an integrated spoiler above it. The biggest design highlight is the right rear tail light, which integrates the boot hatch opener.

The Ford EcoSport is based on the Fiesta platform, and thus the interiors are pretty similar. Thankfully, Ford has increased the wheelbase, which means the EcoSport is blessed with good amounts of interior room. The seats are very supportive, offering excellent back and thigh support.

The driver seat gets lumbar adjustment along with height adjustment, and the steering wheel is adjustable for both rake and reach – it also gets an integrated arm rest, which is not available for the front or rear seat passengers. The rear bench has two recline settings and the foot well is deep, which along with scooped front seatback yields better space at the rear. However, the rear seat is not wide enough, thus you should treat the EcoSport as strictly a four-seater.

Material and build quality of the EcoSport are average. Cost cutting is evident in quite a few places, like the use of single blade wiper instead of twin-blade ones, lack of an engine guard and engine cover, sub standard plastics at some places, etc.

However, the Indian-spec EcoSport as tested is feature loaded with the top-end Titanium option getting six airbags, ABS, EBD, Ford SYNC, steering-mounted audio controls, 16-inch wheels, leather seats, keyless entry, push-button start, climate control, etc. The automatic version gets ESP stability control and hill hold assist as well.

The boot of the EcoSport is small-ish at just 346 litres. The rear seats can be folded in 60:40 split to boost volume up to 705 litres (the company claims a washing machine can fit in there).

Three engines are offered on the Ford EcoSport in India. First is a 1.5 litre petrol Ti-VCT engine that produces 112 PS of power and 140 Nm of torque, paired to either a five-speed manual or a six-speed PowerShift automatic gearbox. For oil burner lovers, you have a 1.5 litre diesel engine producing 91 PS of power and 200 Nm of torque, mated to a five-speed manual gearbox.

However, the third engine is really the most exciting, which is the 1.0 litre EcoBoost petrol engine, producing 125 PS of power and 170 Nm of torque, mated to a five-speed manual gearbox. Performance numbers include a 0-100 km/h time of less than 11 seconds and a top speed of around 190 km/h.

The 2012 International Engine of The Year winner is a gem – the three-cylinder turbo mill is thoroughly refined throughout, and there are very little vibrations that only filter through the pedals post 4,500 rpm. There is some turbo lag below 1,600 rpm, but once past 2,000 rpm, the engine offers strong performance.

It doesn’t give a kick in the pants feel though, with power delivery being linear. The clutch is extremely light, and the gearshift is very positive. Overall, the EcoBoost engine offers thrilling performance, even with such a small displacement.

Ford engineers have given the EcoSport a 200 mm ground clearance along with a water wading capability of 550 mm. Handling of the car is crisp – despite the steering feeling a little too light at low speeds, it is decently weighed at higher speeds. Brakes are sharp, but there is a slight bit of nose dive under heavy braking.

Ride quality is good even at the rear and it’s only on very bad roads that the EcoSport feels harsh. Specially-developed tyres (MRF ZV2K and Goodyear Assurance) for the car reduce road noise and boost economy. Sadly, these tyres are very poor in terms of grip and tend to screech on hard braking and cornering.

The Ford EcoSport is a very good product, but could have been better. Cost cutting is evident in some places but hopefully the asking price will mask the negatives of this compact SUV. While the Renault Duster is bigger, the EcoSport is better equipped and funkier in terms of appearance. A change of tyres should result in drastically improved dynamics, as the chassis is simply brilliant.

As a vehicle, the EcoSport is a good proposition for the urban driver who is looking for a vehicle that’s easy to drive and manoeuvre, while at the same time offers a commanding driving position and good driving dynamics.

The post Ford EcoSport 1.0L EcoBoost: first impressions appeared first on Paul Tan's Automotive News.

Midi-SUVs are undergoing something of a renaissance. For the longest time, they were slightly over-glazed alternatives to MPVs. Practical, sensible and good for the rough logistics of moving stuff from A to B. but you definitely wouldn’t choose to go via ‘C’.

But now these mid-sized SUVs are moving more mainstream, as socially acceptable as a traditional car, and with far more kudos than mere, common sedans. Not that the fundamentals have changed: they’re still roomy and full of space to grow and stow your family and possessions. But they’re also in grave danger of being fashionable.

Check it out in a middle-class road near you: the large saloon tide is on the turn, and small to mid-size soft roaders are coming out to take their place. It seems people have finally cottoned on that – in a world of chronically overpriced cars, the practicality of an SUV boot is one of the few options that make any sort of financial sense.

Okay, so there were always some SUVs out there with prestige – Honda never lost the faith at the top end of the market. But for Subaru, with a brand new entry like the XV here, this is an unmarked and wholly unknown territory, especially in Malaysia. Can it kick it as a bona fide alternative to the market dominating CR-V? I find out in a press drive in Bali, Indonesia.

Subaru is never going to be accused of being a premium brand, at least not outside of Shinjuku. But, uniquely among the volume manufacturers, it has managed to make a decent success of the ‘large, stylish but not really executive’ segment with the Forester range. Which, appropriate to its mild success, has had its abilities filtered down to this young upstart.

Despite having a supreme leader in Toyota, a direct competitor to Honda, the Subaru XV takes a very different route to a common goal of making the ideal 150-ish horsepower 2.0 litre family SUV.

The CR-V uses the traditionally accepted route of an on-demand 4×4 drivetrain powered by a conventional inline-four engine mated to an automatic gearbox. Subaru on the other hand, has chosen to stick to its guns and offer a symmetrical permanent all-wheel drive system connected to a flat-four motor and a CVT transmission.

Dynamically they’re very different, but the closeness of the price tags (RM148,800 for the Honda CR-V, RM145,070 for the Subaru XV, both prices on-the-road with insurance), makes them competitors. The real question is whether the Subaru entry has the class to challenge the Honda in the want-in stakes.

As an aesthetic prospect, form follows function in the XV. Remembering of course, that the primary function of the XV treads the fine line of looking good while being able to shift stuff around. It makes a good hash of it, I’d say, looking far more promising in the metal than through pictures.

The Subaru XV is far more than a lifted-up conversion of a small hatchback, and the company is suitably disparaging about comments of it being a simple add-on variant of the latest Impreza. And fair-play to Subaru, for the XV gets unique SUV looks from the heavily bolstered bumper claddings and wheels. That’s a pretty large financial commitment for a company of Subaru’s modest size.

And it certainly looks decent enough; indeed, the consensus seemed to be that the proportions sit slightly easier on the eye than the slightly awkward hatchback, the dramatically increased ride height and plastic add-ons filling out the bottom of the car suitably.

Whereas the XV shies away from absolute beauty, up close it appears well hewn and purposeful. The standard 17-inch alloys for instance, manage to fill the arches far better than on its rivals. That’s got far more to do with the XV’s comparatively smaller overall size than design ingenuity, but what’s apparent to the public counts more than pedantic details.

It’s inside the new Subaru that it falls back from its premium aspirations, the very aspect that the CR-V is at its strongest. The materials are fine, and fit and finish is close to greatness, but it’s the fine details that betray Subaru’s apparent budget constraints. Some bits and pieces bear a close resemblance to the items the automaker used in the 90s, which are really jarring.

Dubious details aside though, the calm and reassuring soft-feel grey plastics are at least on par with the class best. The controls are all laid out super logically in the centre, with nicely tactile buttons and easy to comprehend displays.

The same goes for the seats. They are perfectly comfortable items and lumbar support is good despite their feature-less appearance. There’s more space inside than you’d imagine too, the roomy rear cabin especially being a nice surprise. It’s a nice enough place to be in, just that for pure showroom appeal, others with their more glitzy dashboards have got the XV beat.

The fact of the matter is, on first sight the XV doesn’t shout class of flair. Subaru people, even those in the design department, are charmingly up front about this. The company obsesses on the engineering detail while after-thoughting the visuals inside and out.

They also say that it’s changed slightly from the drab Subarus of old, and yes, compared to the outgoing Forester and last-gen Impreza, the XV is far cleaner and more authoritative in its design. But it’s no Kia Sportage outside, nor does it ever come close to the Mazda CX-5 inside.

Thankfully, if first impressions don’t excite much hope, the first few metres of driving impressions will, as you’ll feel good about how this rig is set up.

The horizontally-opposed flat-four 2.0 litre engine with its 150 hp and 196 Nm of torque doesn’t exactly set your heart on fire, and the acceleration on offer here is far from scintillating. The top-heavy power delivery, hefty kerb weight and tall CVT gear ratios don’t help either, and the XV feels surprisingly lumbering for an SUV.

It didn’t leave me wanting for a bigger engine though, although the thought of a turbocharged version did whet my appetite more than it should. It’s not a WRX, but it drives well. In part, this can be attributed to the great driver confidence it instils, of which more later, but it’s mostly a vindication of Subaru’s technical prowess.

The engine is so smooth that revving it doesn’t feel anywhere near as taxing as it does in other comparable rivals. Subaru is known for its manic blown engines perhaps more than anything else, but the ultra-smooth flat-four base is still a technical tour de force, and it works just as well on an SUV as it does elsewhere.

Which is excellent news, because in the XV, they’ve got it just right. Only the slight low-rev lethargy in the throttle response gives the game away. Well, that and the billowing thrum that’s not unlike the one heard in go-faster Subarus. Foot flat to the floor, the XV’s natural pace is fairly rapid if compared to, say, the CR-V’s languid power delivery.

Breaking further away from the conventional pack is the XV’s chassis set-up. It strays away from the class’ old-school way of shamelessly soft damping, wallowing out undulations and pitching good-naturedly around corners at squeaky angles. Which is not without its fun of course, in a ’70s cop show’ kind of way, but such an approach ultimately discourages press-on driving.

No, the XV has been tightened up considerably from the class norm. Low frequency oscillations often felt in similar vehicles over rough roads is now non-existent. Instead of floating over contours, the Subaru feels planted and willing to turn in and meet ‘n’ greet corners.

But the trade-off seems to be an entirely class-uncharacteristic high-frequency bumps, a constant niggling jittering, even over smooth road surfaces. It’s not particularly noticeable, concentrated somewhere between the buttocks and lower back, but once you have noticed it, it’s like a leaky tap: impossible to ignore.

Slight underdamping would be the prime suspect, maybe even the relative newness of my test car. But the 17-inch alloys might also be to blame, which would be a shame considering how good they look. Ride quality isn’t the XV’s best quality, though it is surely the most planted vehicle of its class I’ve encountered yet, and by a considerable margin.

Crests gets crushed, cambers filled, and corners taken with an impressive lack of drama thanks to the impeccable grip of the tyres. It’s not fun per se; there are no ragged-edge moments, and absolutely no throttle adjustability even at the limit. Safe and sound, then.

The control sets the scene for a fine performance in curves. All-wheel drive traction is there in spades, of course, but with it a feedback and delicious, subtle delicacy of control that delights. Simply put, no midi-SUV comes close to this kind of driver/car connection – the CX-5 edges the closest, but with a slightly aloof steering the gap is significant.

On the whole the Subaru XV is technically brilliant. It’s safe, dependable, well screwed together and practical. It’s not going to set your pulse racing like other Subarus will, but it’ll cheerfully adapt itself around different combinations of families and cargo. Apart from the imperfect ride and transmission, it’s the sort of car you could live with for some serious mileage.

It scored very highly on the objective front, in other words. But is it a car that you could imagine buying willingly over a similarly-priced Honda or even Mazda? That is a question only a buyer can answer. I for one would lean towards ‘yes’, though categorically I’d still prefer a CX-5 on my driveway.

Subaru is one of those manufacturers that does middle ground best. Full on Subarus – those fitted with 200 hp-plus high-output turbo engines – are chronically overpowered and sometimes unpleasant to drive. But it’s down in the mid-range that Subaru makes its bargains. This is the company’s best mainstream offering yet for a long, long time, but it does so without following the class conventions.

And that’s precisely the Subaru XV’s secret: its effective combination of disparate elements. It’s executive enough to be special, roomy enough to be practical, and Subaru enough to be different. That it provides a good steer is the biggest weapon in its artillery, but sadly that doesn’t feature in the XV’s ho-hum showroom appeal. It does to you and me, but not to those who’d put pen to paper and buy a car in this class.

So that’s it then. The XV is genuinely capable enough to play with the big boys. Had it arrived two years ago before Honda, Mazda, Kia and Hyundai all upped their SUV games significantly, it would have been fresh and contemporary too. As it didn’t, it isn’t, but it’s still worth considering if you want to be a little bit different.

The post DRIVEN: New Subaru XV 2.0i crossover tested in Bali appeared first on Paul Tan's Automotive News.

This luxury sedan comparison test originally ran in Issue #0 of Driven+ Magazine. Download Driven+ Magazine from the iTunes App Store or Google Play Store.

It isn’t hard to believe that the BMW 5 Series is a popular car – examples are all over the city. But the BMW is not the only car to live in this segment. Audi, Infiniti, Lexus, Mercedes and Jaguar are arguably the Bimmer’s closest rivals.

So we’ve gathered three of them – Audi A6, Infiniti M25 and the Lexus GS 250 – to see how they stack up against the car from Munich. A fair bit of warning: we have a lot to say so grab a cup of coffee, plant yourself in a comfortable spot and enjoy.

EXTERIOR

Chris says:

Here’s the truth: I find the looks of these cars dull. Surprising because I was sure the Audi A6 would be the best looking car of the lot when I picked it up a day earlier. Yet, here and now, together with the BMW 520i, Infiniti M25 and Lexus GS 250, all four cars look as exciting as suits in a suit store instead a scene from Reservoir Dogs. I’ll explain.

Every car here carries its own character but when assembled together, you’ll have a manufactured operatic pop band instead of something exciting like the Avengers. The signature grilles and DRLs make them somewhat similar to one another. And having a coupe-like silhouette encourages me to wonder if the basic frame comes from the same sheet of paper.

The 5 Series always had its dual grille and its lighted irises to carry its presence. The Audi A6’s single-frame hexagonal frame gets very intimidating especially with its sharp LED day-running lights, which I think is the best in the business. The GS 250 have moved away from the humdrum to bring in stylish athleticism into its shape. Even the oddly penned M25 establishes its own niche, appealing to those who prefer more curves than lines from a ruler; although I do think there’s too much going on.

But choose I must and the Audi and Lexus occupy either side of the coin. Both designs are as different as night and day, time to flip that coin.

The new GS 250 looks the most improved when compared to the previous generation; the spindle grille helps to put some fierceness in its face. It stands out only because the GS seem to embody a character that does not want to take itself seriously.

The Audi, on the other hand, takes itself too seriously. The single frame grille and the daytime running lights (an option for the 2.0T) makes the A6 put on an impassive face. Tour round its body and you’ll begin to notice that the lines are deliberate, no overtly flared bonnet or curve is out of place. Which ultimately bestows a cold and hard character on the car. For an executive saloon, it is not a bad thing.

Which I would choose? I’d stick to my original decision and go with the Audi. The A6 gives that on-road presence that none of the other cars give, which is why it has my vote.

Danny says:

The Infiniti M25 is a large car, and you won’t be underestimating its size with those muscular and shapely haunches, like the muscle dense limbs of predators. The effect is further enhanced by a bulging bonnet and huge, imposing grille.

The F10 won’t turn many heads, partly because it’s such a common sight, but also because BMW is done with polarising designs from the Chris Bangle era. Munich is more interested in the classic and elegant look these days, and I think they’ve succeeded here.

And then, we have the Audi and Lexus. The A6 is trademark Audi – there’s no way one would mistake it for any other marque, but it is likely that you’ll get the model wrong. Whether you view it as a larger A4 or a junior A8, the lines are neat and the car looks smart, although I think that the looks will be much less arresting without those piercing LED bars at both ends.

My favourite by a mile is the Lexus. In a complete U-turn from its soapbar-shaped predecessor, the new GS wears a sharp suit – think Stephan Winkelmann, not Japanese salaryman. Put the older GS beside this newer one and you wouldn’t believe both cars are from the same company. The change is good.

In my eyes, the GS is the recepient of the previous-gen E60 5-Series’ baton as the athlete in the class, in terms of looks at least. The blend of sharp lines and curves, with no excess fat, really does it for me, and the assertive new “spindle grille” dominated face tops off the new image nicely.

Anthony says:

It’s not that it’s overtly radical, but given the company here, the M25 is certainly different. I spent the most time with it, and though by the end of the comparo my indifference hadn’t turned to love, there was at least the element of appreciation for what Infiniti designers were trying to achieve – the term presence comes to mind.

Which is more than what can be said for the A6. It is stately, but on the whole plies safe ground, its mix of lines and flow clean, predictable but ultimately, boring. Yes, you can call it handsome, but it’s the sort of car you’d want to be in if you wanted to be seen, but not. Such is the conundrum.

As for the 5 Series, the F10 is also classifiable as authoritative, but its design flow has come along from the E60’s gilt-edged presentation. The result is something far more refined, which works for many, I suppose, because the F10 is simply flooding the roads. With that said, I still prefer the tauter rendition served by the E60. At its best, that one was simply menacing.

Finally, the Lexus, and here is a shape one can well learn to love. Given the last outing, which in simple terms can best be described as ambiguous – bloated, at that – in its interpretation of what a premium sedan should be, the new GS is a veritable panzer, arguably more Teutonic-looking than its German counterparts.

The overall definition is high, and it works for me – the lines and strokes hang together, with an organic feel to it all, even with the edges and kinks. Not everyone in the group thought it was the most eye-catching, but there you are, and that’s why Baskin-Robbins has 31 flavours. I’ll have a serving of Lexus, with some toppings, please.

INTERIOR

Chris says:

I hop into the A6 and I am quickly immersed in a sea of knobs and toggles, all backlit in a reddish glow, which I don’t mind one bit. Yes, it looks busy but the switches are arranged logically in the centre console and placed close to the driver. However, they are not as easy to use as you think.

Some of the knobs here have two functions and it needs a button press or two to make it switch from task to task. So you need to learn how to use the interior to make the most out of the car. And that daunts most people.

Another interface that is not as user-friendly as it should be is Lexus’ Remote Touch Interface. It is improved than the one you can find on the CT200h, but it still far from goal. The joystick has more resistance built into it, so you know when it jumps from one option to the next. But the placement of the options on the screen is clumsy and there always is an extra push needed before something meaningful is done.

The best interface that I have used so far is the iDrive, which uses one knob that you can twist, push and tap to do all sorts of things. BMW has evolved its iDrive into something really special, intuitive and friendly. Let’s give credit where credit is due.

The multimedia interface of the M25 is nothing to shout about, but I do like what Infiniti did to the place. The cascade centre console is a refreshing change to the sheer cliff that you’ll find in almost all cars. There is much thought going into the choice of trim and colour, even the accompanying materials adds to the plushness of the interior. Somehow, I find it easy to live inside this car.

The seats are comfortable. But you don’t merely sit on it; you let your posterior be cradled instead. The rear offers plenty of room, especially the legroom and specifically the knee area. The backs of the front seats are carved out to make way for more real estate without affecting the comfort of the front seats so the knees of the rear passenger do not need to touch the front seat.

The Lexus is also quite comfortable to sit in, even at the back. The backrest has more tilt, which makes it feel like you’re sitting on a sofa. Surprisingly, it is both German makes that force you to sit a little more upright than usual. So it is not as comfortable as its interior design suggests.

So which do I like the best? Obviously it is the Infiniti M25. Although it is as over-designed as the exterior, the inside has a certain ambience that gives you a pleasant and relaxed feeling; much like how a five-star hotel effortlessly delivers.

Danny says:

The Infiniti boasts sumptuous materials and attention to detail absent from the pack. The semi-aniline leather is supple and inviting, the Japanese ash wood is infused with silver powder to “3D” the grain effect, the driver’s knee rests on soft padded leather on the centre tunnel, the classy analogue clock, the blend of colours and textures… you get the drift.

The swoopy cabin design is not to my personal taste, but it’s an interior that soothes and pampers well. The seating position feels higher than the other three cars, which adds to the relaxed, gliding feel. There are also ventilated (and heated) seats that work well in the current hot spell.

What’s not to like? The locally fitted colour screen is the poorest of the lot, looks cheap and doesn’t work particularly well. And the amusing sound it makes on startup belongs to a video game, not a luxury car.

The BMW is the polar opposite. No flair and drama, everything works in an austere but very efficient manner, almost like Chancellor Merkel’s preaching to the troubled Eurozone.

The two classic BMW dials, the no-frill displays, the AC controls (I like the individually adjustable fan speed) – they’re all straightforward to look at and to use. BMW’s iDrive, much criticised at birth, has evolved to be the benchmark control system; the longer you drive it, the more likely you’re going to not crave for more.

The Audi’s spaceship cockpit appeals to certain folks, but there’s too much going on for minimalist me. It irritates me that simple operations like adjusting the fan speed needs two separate actions: first, press the solo fan button hidden in that sea of red, then turn the dial, which also controls temperature.

Getting into the car at night, and without the luxury of time to settle and adapt, I just couldn’t find the instrument brightness adjuster quick enough to save my eyes. Attempting to navigate around the MMI on the fly takes a lot of grey matter, which saps quite a bit of attention, leaving less for the road ahead.

The Lexus fares better, but it’s not perfect. The mouse-like Remote Touch system is linked to a mega sized 12.3-inch screen with some cool graphics, but the user interface needs some tweaking. The “mouse” was too sensitive for me (every nudge of mine pushed it to the end) while a dedicated back button would be good, too.

That aside, I like what Lexus has done with the GS’ dashboard, blending a modern “techy feel” with elegance. Like the outer skin, there’s fresh thinking here, and no traditional “waterfall” style centre console to remind you of Toyota. There’s a good-looking small diameter steering wheel with shift paddles, too.

The seats and driving position, while cushy enough, are quite conducive for sporty driving. Even the rear seats get good side bolsters. The new GS is really living up to its billing as a new breed of Lexus.

Anthony says:

If you’re the type who values a sense of occasion in a cabin, then the Infiniti’s is the place to be. It’s the most old school fashion of the four in how everything is pitched, from elements to design, but it is undeniably plush.

Also high on the list is the level of attention to detail – witness the work on the ash wood inlays as well as the varied blend of surface textures on call. Design-wise, cosseting would best describe it, aided by the workings of the Bose sound system on call. Ah, but there’s one thing that spoils the whole sense of belonging, and that’s the incredibly tacky startup tune that chirps away when you turn on the ignition. Game console, anyone?

Old-school plush to space-age kitsch, that’s the jump you get stepping from the M25 into the A6’s interior, which continues to ply the “let’s put all the switch and function wares we possibly can into a cabin” route. Busy doesn’t begin to describe it, and that sea of red (never a favourite) doesn’t help matters.

In terms of quick engagement, you can either be overwhelmed by it (likely) or just ignore it all (quite impossible). I simply got irritated. If the operation aspects were simpler, perhaps it would be bearable, but items like the MMI continue to confound, and on the whole switchgear operation features redundancy like its going out of fashion.

Thankfully, the approach served up by the Lexus is less nefarious. There’s a quiet elegance about how everything is presented in the cabin, and of note is the refinement and level of thought that has gone into things, compared to the previous gen’s interior.

It’s not completely compelling, of course, and some elements need more work. The large 12.3-inch screen should rightly be a winner, but is flawed by lower resolution levels that take the edge off the size.

Likewise the Remote Touch system, which suffers some operational anomalies – chief among these is a lack of sensitivity correlation between controller and the accuracy of movement/placement on screen. Still, there’s plenty to like, the seats, driving position and smoothness of switchgear operation being items of note. The rear seats aren’t too shabby either.

In terms of overall balance, however, the BMW seems to have gotten its act settled the best. Not the prettiest – there will be those who will argue that it’s all rather ascetic looks-wise, but much of it has to do with familiarity, for us at least. Yes, alright, it’s a bit bland, the cabin, missing the frills and fancy found in the other machines in the test, but less is more, when you get it right.

Hidden underneath that conservative veneer is a high pedigree of operational refinement, sensed more than seen – for example, the long-evolved iDrive makes its other competitors clumsy and awkward in comparison, and for driving position and overall in-cabin scope and tactility, the 520i is the one to beat in the group.

PERFORMANCE

Chris says:

Things get hairy from here. But before I can properly let loose, I have to say that I did all of my driving with the sportiest drive setting that the car can give.

I’ll start by crossing out the Infiniti from the list. Not to say that it is absolutely rubbish, it is not. Its ride is supple and absorbs the bumps all too well, almost like driving on foam mattresses. Have not done that before? Then let me tell you that it will be one of the most comfortable rides you’ll ever have. And unfortunately, the car also handles as if it is driving on foam mattresses.

You see, the steering does not feel right. Its weight is adjusted according to speed, which is good. But while it feels heavy, there isn’t much feedback coming from the wheel; which is bad. It is also not quite quick and not as precise when compared to the rest of the pack.

And then, there’s the power (or lack thereof) to contend with. While the Infiniti gets a nice-sounding 2.5-litre V6 lump, the engine only squeezes out 218hp and 252Nm, which is good for a century sprint of 8.5 seconds. The numbers does not translate well to real-world speed; it feels lagged.

A seven-speed automatic is mated to the powerplant but it does not feel snappy nor does it shifts thought the gears quickly. It takes a while before the M25 build any sort of respectable speed. So if it is performance you are looking for, then you should look to the other cars. With that said, the M25 is a car that you’d want if you do most of your driving at a sedate pace.

The A6 is the second car to be crossed from my list. Not because it is rubbish – far from it – but the Lexus and BMW feels much better to drive. The difference here is the Audi’s front-wheel drive format; the rest are rear-wheel driven.

So, the A6 can get understeery at times, especially when you try attacking the apexes at higher speeds. Quattro this is not, but if you take time to learn the car’s intricacies, you’ll find the Audi’s handling very agreeable.

Power is derived from a 2.0-litre TFSI force-induced engine. While it only generates 180hp, the powerplant churns out 320Nm of torque between 1,500 and 3,900rpm. It really makes the A6 feel quicker than its 0 – 100km/h time suggests; 8.3 seconds is recorded on the time sheets. And it is good to a top speed of 226km/h.

Here’s a shocker: the A6 sports a CVT gearbox that gives you eight pseudo-gears. There are two things that usually come with a CVT, which are the droning of the gearbox and the lag in acceleration. Both are delightfully absent in the A6.

It makes cruising the highway a comfortable experience. The lag in acceleration is still there, but barely noticeable. In fact, switch over to manual mode and all discrimination disappears. The shift is immediate and the power is transferred to the wheels quickly. All in all, Audi has done a good job in making the CVT feel very un-CVT.

The A6 comes with drive select, which lets the driver tune the setting of the engine, gearshifts and suspension. Even with dynamic-mode selected, which makes the car a little tighter and sportier, the Audi falls short of being excellent. As I said earlier, the Lexus and the BMW has this one in the bag. But which is better?

Numbers first. The GS250 has a 2.5-litre V6 that produces 206hp and 253Nm. Its 0-100km/h is clocked at 8.8 seconds and has a top speed of 230km/h. A six-speed automatic is mated to the engine.

The 520i gets a turbocharged 2.0-litre that generates 184hp and 270Nm of torque. The BMW goes to 100km/h from zero in eight seconds flat and hits a top speed of 226km/h. It has an eight-speed auto that transmits energy to the rear wheels.

Head-to-head, the GS has more power but less torque than the 5 Series. Yet, it is the German car that reaches the 100km/h mark earlier than the Japanese. It translates almost accurately in reality too. The eight-speed auto of the Bimmer is relentless. The upshifts are smooth and precise, exactly hitting all the sweet spots so it loses no time at all.

The lack of two forward ratios in the Lexus is telling; the GS takes a few tenths longer to hit its optimum shift points. While it is decent on the straights and downhill, the Lexus somewhat struggles on inclines. It is slow to kick down a cog to summon the power it needs – the manual mode clears up all the confusion.

Things aren’t as clear-cut on roads that are more twisted than a David Fincher movie. In equal doses, both cars follow the road well. The steering on both cars is very point-and-shoot; aim where you want to go and accelerate, and the car will do the rest. Both rarely put a foot wrong too, although the GS arrives on the limit of its grip easier than the 520i.

To split hairs, the BMW is slightly more refined than the GS when it comes to handling. With refinement comes predictability, so you know what the 5 Series will do in any given situation. It is fun for a whole 15 minutes before I start realise that the brake-cut apex-accelerate out of the corners become one glorified wash-rinse-repeat. I start to wish I were behind the wheel of the Lexus.

As I said earlier, the GS250’s handling isn’t refined. In fact, it has a tendency to oversteer with threats of breaking the rear grip. This makes the drive a little more on the edge; I have to be on the ball at all times ready to counter-steer. And for once I don’t mind that the Lexus is slower to come to power because it inspires one to think ahead more and hold the revs for the next corner or the next climb. I do admit that I am liking this car more.

Danny says:

The previous-gen GS had all the driving appeal of a Camry. This is different. The new GS is eager and willing to play curves! And as B roads go, the route we drove on was challenging: hairpin after hairpin, one side hill, one side cliff, most corners blind.

Turn in is sharp, and there’s a sense of lightweight and agility. Body roll is a non-issue and the steering is quick enough on zig-zag roads. I sense a lively tail, too, although this car’s VSC is swift and strict. The challenge was to drive as hard as possible without the annoying VSC threatening to “trim my lead” over the BMW nipping at my tail. Also, if they have dialled in more steering feel, this would have been a great driving package. But I have steering paddles, and they are being put to good use.

It is manual mode all the way, which is why I can’t tell you how well (or not) it works in the daily grind. But I can report that the paddles, which turn along with the steering, work well enough with fast shifts and a nice click. This V6 engine note is noteworthy, especially in the second half of the rev range. Artificially enhanced or not, it’s a sonorous voice that will elicit a chuckle or two as you ram home.

So yes, it’s a new kind of Lexus. But as much fun that was, I know deep down that the BMW has its measure in the driving department. The F10′s innocent sheep’s clothing hides a chassis that is truly talented. Body control is fantastic in Sport mode and the steering is sublime in this company. Compared to the Lexus, I could power out of corners quicker.

And that drivetrain is faultless. Eight speeds might sound like a lot of ratios to get lost into, but it never happens. The turboed inline-four’s brutal efficiency at both ends – performance and fuel consumption – means I don’t miss the inline-six of old.

The F10 also does the mundane very well. Cruising comfort is good and a press of the selector sends it into Comfort+ mode, where the active dampers do their best to send your occupants into slumber. Through the years, entry-level Fives were great but slow cars. This 520i is simply a great car.

Jumping from the BMW into the Infiniti is like being thrown an axe after hours of working with a scalpel. I approached the M the same way I did with the 520i, and it turned out to be a bad idea. It took just two corners to exhibit really slow steering, plenty of drivetrain lag and bulk that’s hard to mask.

It sounds horrible but it’s not. The Infiniti just isn’t meant for days like this, preferring long highway cruises and urban use, where its soothing character and brilliant ride comfort come into play. Earlier, I was tasked to collect the car from downtown KL, and the accompanying mad traffic jam and long highway crawl back home became irrelevant.

What about the Audi? Well, there’s nothing outstanding here and I almost don’t recall how it drives. Maybe I do – it feels like a Volkswagen, and I mean it as a compliment. The 2.0 TFSI is its usual self, which is good, and Audi’s CVT gearbox doesn’t annoy – also good. Ride comfort is another plus.

In the A4, there’s not one Audi Drive Select setting that I’m comfortable with (ride is fine in Comfort, but steering is too light; steering has better weight in Sport, but ride becomes crashy), but better balance can be found here. Fast enough, too.

Anthony says:

It’s with the Infiniti that I chug along for most of the uphill sections of the route. Underneath the visceral exterior is very much a gentle soul, meant to amble rather than storm along. Comfort levels are high; it offered the plushest ride, by far the most compliant of the four, and on a highway and cruising along at speed, this isn’t a bad thing.

Get into close-quarter terrain, however, and it offers a less picturesque take. On windy, twisty tarmac, steering effort is needed to get the bulk going and pointing where you want it to. In the end, easing off eased the strain, but you’ll still get a good arm workout with this one.

Of course, the route isn’t something like what an M25 is likely to encounter everyday. In far more familiar landscapes (read: city), its refined, relaxed character and simple, unfettered charm (silly start-up chime aside) would be just the thing its buyer is looking for.

Going from the inherent laziness of the Infiniti’s boat-like steering to the sharp immediacy of the BMW meant that stabbing the throttle and putting quick input to the wheel almost meant a turn for the worse, quite literally. Nothing uncatchable, but breathtaking all the same.

The Munich kid is the sharpest and most agile offering by far, already even without Sport mode engaged. It responds to input in the usual BMW fashion – controlled, precise, unflappable. You do things that you wouldn’t dream of in something like the M25, and so in the end I did the ‘drop back, stop and charge up’ act to the convoy repeatedly, because it was just joy doing so.

However, if you choose to be civil about it, the car does that bit ably as well. Ride compliance and overall comfort levels bows to the Infiniti, but the Comfort+ damper setting makes for a rather benign beast, aided by the smoothness of the eight-speeder tranny. In terms of versatility, the BMW offers the widest spectrum of shades – good for a giggle when spanked, and thoroughly business-like when restrained.

I take the Audi down the hill, keeping company with the Infiniti. Unable to get past it on the narrow stretch, I settle down to fuss over the switchgear, and keep noticing the suspension. It’s undoubtedly the firmest of the four, especially at low-level speeds, and though speeding things up improves compliancy (not at the expense of handling), there’s always a detached feeling to everything.

Surprisingly, the steering, which is lifeless off-centre in terms of feel and devoid of any real weight, has good accuracy and speed, and the rest of the bulk follows suit when pressed. The Audi tracks well, and short of the tightest, twistiest bits, accomplishes movement in an even-tempered manner, with great poise at that.

It does so, however, in completely unemotional fashion – cold, even if it’s capable, that’s what I felt about it as I walked away. Plus points are its engine, ever the showpiece, and a rather silky gearbox.

The Lexus is infinitely more fun to drive. Energetic, with a brisk, light nature, there’s a frisky quality to its disposition when asked to bomb along. The steering feel could be better. And that gearbox could do with some more work in terms of transitions, but the chassis is lively and eager, and it shows.

For sure, it has higher thresholds than the previous GS, revealed by taking it into – metaphorical – places where the last incarnation would have waved the white flag in abject terror. The VSC is still overtly intrusive though, and the car never feels unbridled because of that. Still, doubtless that anyone would buy a Lexus to go mental with it.

CONCLUSION

Chris says:

I still favour the Audi A6. Personally, I think it is best looking car here. I am also all for the complexity of the A6’s human interface and the multi-function buttons; it discourages all to play with my settings. The downside is its power and handling, which is easily cured by having the bigger 3.0 litre version instead.

However, I have to give my win to the Lexus. Despite the fact that I would like to introduce its Remote Touch Interface to a hammer, the rest of the car ticks all the right criteria. I especially like how this GS handles in spite of the fact that it lacks straight-line speed or its gears sometimes struggles to find the right ratio.

Danny says:

I really enjoyed being a part of this shootout, for it pitched many different, sometimes opposing, characters and philosophies together. There is no superior luxury car to rule the rest, for each has its strengths. To me, the BMW 520i is the best car to drive here, and it’s also very good as a comfortable, efficient luxury cruiser.

But the eye opener of the test for me was the Lexus. This is not just a new GS, but a new kind of Lexus. It looks the part as a sporty exec, and is beginning to drive the part as well. Not perfect yet, but with this quantum leap, they’re heading in the right direction. Good job Lexus!

Anthony says:

The Infiniti, and to a lesser extent the Audi, are inherently left field, for those who want to serve notice of intent, but in a less in-your-face manner. Or for that matter, for those who want to be different. My choice boils down to the Lexus and BMW. The Lexus is still not quite the finished article, but the newfound approach – both in shape and character – struck a chord with me.

Nonetheless, the marker invariably gets placed on the 520i. In terms of kit and mod cons, it’s missing bits here and there compared to the other three, and the shape is a bit too generic for my liking. All the necessary bits that matter are there, however, and its wide-ranging spectrum offers it the most balanced view of the world, at least from a driver’s perspective, and in the end, this rubric is still the one to beat.

Lexus GS 250

BMW 520i

Audi A6

Infiniti M25

The post Four-way luxury sedan comparison – Audi A6 vs BMW 520i vs Infiniti M25 vs Lexus GS 250 appeared first on Paul Tan's Automotive News.

These are indeed exciting times for the car buyer. Auto manufacturers are coming up with interesting products, vehicles with good specifications, design and driving dynamics that well eclipse their predecessors.

As consumers, we have nothing but to gain from this. At this point of time, we get better looking cars with way better specifications for the same price tag, if compared to say half a decade ago. On top of that, we also now have more variety in terms of brands and models.

Certainly, the B-segment arena has become very boisterous. The introduction of a fun, good-looking B-segment hatch with above average specifications was kicked started by the Ford Fiesta in Malaysia. There’s also the likes of the recently-launched Kia Rio, another vehicle with a bag full of features.

The latest brand to join the mix is Peugeot with its 208, which is available locally in both five-door and three-door forms. At the time of writing, the price hadn’t yet been revealed, but stay tuned for it as the car is set to be launched later tonight.

So, if you’re in the market for a foreign, above average B-segment hatch and your budget is anywhere between RM80k to RM95k, the Peugeot 208 might be in your shopping list, but is it worth your consideration?

The Peugeot 208 is a very good looking car – it breathes the brand’s most updated design language as seen in the 508. Personally, the front end looks aggressive and sharp thanks to the large and wide grille, a bumper that has a protruding lower lip and of course those striking headlights.

And talking about the headlights, you get projectors with Peugeot’s LED Signature Lighting as standard. Fog lamps are also standard. The front area is pretty much the same for both the five-door and three-door, while the side profile is where things start to get different, due to the door configuration.

The wheels are also different, the five-door getting 16-inch two-tone “Helium” alloys while the three-door wears 17-inch two-tone alloys in an “Oxygen” design. The three-door can be further differentiated from its more practical sibling by the full-chrome side mirrors.

Both variants share the same rear look, except for a lower bumper designed to accommodate a visible single chrome tail pipe for the three-door. The five-door’s tailpipe is hidden in comparison. The highlight of the rear is definitely the tail lamps, which seem to have elements of the 508, with its stroke-ish design. The tail lamps have been given the LED treatment as well.

Available body colours for both models include Digital White, Platinum Black, Virtual Blue and my favourite, Rogue Red. There is also another colour called Passion Silver, which is only available for the five-door. Overall, the 208 scores well in the exterior looks department.

Inside, the car is dressed with plenty of modern design elements. You’ll see gloss black handles on the door cards, and this treatment follows through to the centre console and the instrument panel. You will also notice chrome elements in the car, at the side A/C vents and door handles.

However, I don’t really understand the slightly different chrome treatment given to the gear gaiter. Chrome treatment elsewhere looks and feels premium except for the one here, which looks a little aftermarket. Overall, the cabin feels roomy and it doesn’t feel cheap. There is a certain premium-ness to it, especially thanks to the overall design and the soft-touch dashboard. It is not as soft-touch as the 508, but it’s good.

The storage compartments are decent, with cup holders in front of the gear lever and other storage areas like the centre arm rest and in the door cards. There is also a compartment on the right side of the multi-function steering wheel, which is where you can place your Touch N’ Go and other access cards (for your condo or office parking). The glove box (with cooler) is a let down though, which is apparent in the 508 too. Not much space here. In terms of legroom, the 208 actually surprised me a little. With someone sitting comfortably in front, I had ample leg room in the rear of the five-door, which is the only model we got to test, and there are no issues with head clearance as well.

Switches and controls are well-positioned, no problems here, and tactility is good. The thing that I really love about the interior is the instrument panel – the wide look of the panel and the design of the RPM and speed clusters with an LCD display placed in between is pleasing to the eye. This design is apparently drawn by a superbike’s instrument panel. Also evident is a glow below the panel, part of the mood lighting effects of the 208, something which has started to trickle down the “vehicle chain.”

The other highlight of the 208′s interior is the touchscreen control unit, which Peugeot calls the Interactive HD Colour Touchscreen. The unit allows you to control different aspects such as all media functions including playlists from your FM, USB and Bluetooth streaming (no CDs here), communications via Bluetooth, where you can make and receive calls (this is also assisted with the controls on the steering wheel) and other vehicle functions and settings.

The screen is definitely large enough and is of course full colour, and as far as the design of the user interface is concerned, it looks decent. In terms of the control via the touchscreen, it’s also decent. Being so used to or rather, spoiled by the smoothness and sensitivity of Apple’s iPhone and iPad products, we do tend to expect anything that is “touchscreen” to perform as good.

In any case, I believe that the Interactive HD Colour Touchscreen is likely to get better and better (as long as Peugeot continues to develop it) and we might see a version that is closer to perfection in the next Peugeot vehicle or in the 208 facelift. All in all, a lovely, good-looking interior which is spacious enough for its segment and which feels premium, again for its segment.

Before I talk about the available interior specifications, I must compliment the Arkamys 3D audio system with its six speakers that is offered as standard. To music lovers out there who appreciate good sound quality like me, the audio system in the 208 will definitely meet your expectations, sound-wise. During the drive, we had music playing from a USB drive (given by the event organiser) as well as streamed via my iPhone 5′s Bluetooth, with good clarity right through.

Other interior features which are offered standard for both models include digital dual-zone air conditioning, sports steering wheel with controls and height/reach adjustability, semi-bucket front seats with six-way adjustment for both driver and passenger (yes, passenger as well), 60/40 foldable rear seats giving you 1,152 litres of boot space and a 12V power socket (two would have been better), among others.

In terms of difference between the five-door and the three-door, there only two major differences: combination of leather and fabric for the three-door while the five-door gets full fabric and a panaromic roof for the three-door. The glass roof also comes with mood lighting effect, a rather neat feature.

Safety features are identical on both models. They include six airbags, ABS with EBA and EBD, ESP with Anti Skid Regulator (ASR) and Dynamic Stability Control (DSC) which can be deactivated, hill-start, auto-hazard on de-acceleration and two ISOFIX anchorage points on the rear seats. There’s also a centralised electric child-lock switch, which means you don’t need to manually lock or unlock it at the rear door itself.

Other features include electric power steering, rear parking aid with audio and visual assistance, auto wipers and auto headlights and “follow me home” lights with remote function.

Meanwhile, the steering wheel is small, but somewhat nicely sized and yes, the rim is also thick enough. The overall feel of the steering wheel is good and sporty, though in terms of height adjustment some might find that the wheel is unable to be set as high as you’d want it to be.

At its highest point, it blocked my view of the instrument panel, which is something I don’t like. My first impression was not all that positive about the steering angle, but after a few kilometres, I got used to it – I was able to sit comfortably while being close enough to the controls, have a good view and most importantly, being able to control the steering wheel effectively.

Acceleration from the 1.6 litre four-pot with Dual Variable Valve Timing & Lift (VTi) is decent, with enough pulling power, not bad considering that the car was pretty much loaded up throughout the entire drive. The engine churns out 122 PS and 160 Nm of torque, enough juice to get about and handle long distance driving.

The 208 uses a four-speed auto box with Tiptronic and Sport Mode, which pretty much holds gears longer before switching. At first glance, the term “four-speed” might stick out like a sore thumb, but it was enough to serve the 208′s purpose. Yes, transmission performance could be better, it could be snappier during gear changes but performance is adequate.

At cruising speeds on the highway at 110 km/h, the engine runs at 3,000 rpm and wind noise was quite well suppressed. The 208 felt quite planted even at higher speeds – we managed 170 km/h with three occupants on board including myself. The suspension travel was pretty good as well, not too bumpy and not too soft, and this applies to the rear cabin too. In terms of overall ride, the 208 is quite a comfortable car. The seats offer good seating posture – there certainly wouldn’t be too much fatigue over long distances.

In terms of handling, I am impressed with the Pug, which has MacPherson struts up front with an anti-roll bar and a cross member axle at the back. I had the chance of pushing the 208 around some sharp bends and it delivered well, with good stability and predictability. I was having fun pushing the car, although slower traffic was a pain.

Bump absorption over road irregularities was also up to expectations. I managed to spend some time in slow traffic conditions and as expected, the 208 has no issues with slow manoeuvrability. The turning radius was up to expectations too.

In conclusion, the Peugeot 208 should definitely be in your shopping list if you’re looking for a car in this segment. The 208, like its highly competitive rivals, help raise the bar in terms of features offered to the car buyer. The 208 is a looker, has a beautiful cabin, drives well and comes with a lot of features.

It is versatile enough to be used as a practical Point A to B runabout but also has enough style to impress your fashion-conscious friends. For those who crave for more power, let’s just hope Nasim brings in the GTi!

The post DRIVEN: All-new Peugeot 208 VTi tested in Malaysia appeared first on Paul Tan's Automotive News.

Innovation. Otherwise known as a clever term for a clever idea. It’s also another word for the inability to stand still and be content with things. Which isn’t as bad as it sounds. This drive for invention – almost always meant to increase the size of the pie, if you’re a marketer – has seen many a smart or useful thing spring to life.

It’s when the pace of progress goes awry, perhaps through wanting to achieve growth too quickly – or persisting in opening more cards even though a whole slew has already been opened – that the tone gets a bit fuzzy. Sometimes it pays off, this inventiveness, other times questionably so.

Take the BMW 3 Series, for example. Sedan, coupe, convertible and estate, as well as the distant cousin called the X3. You’d think that it would be enough, that amidst all those variations – and sub-divisions within – that there’d be something in the 3er family mix to suit one’s taste. Apparently, that’s not the case.

For example, you could be looking at the F30 sedan but think it too small, and the estate a bit dowdy, and still too small. An X3 or F10 5er estate would be too big, because what you really want is a 3er-sized offering with more rear seating space or a larger cargo area to carry those pet panthers.

Well, here’s the car for you then, just the spot as envisioned by Munich. It’s called the BMW 3 Series Gran Turismo, an in-between sedan and estate sort that’s just what you’re looking for. So, okay, it doesn’t quite look like a Gran Turismo in the vein of old, but the type has got to be called something, and “estan” or “sedate” doesn’t sound quite as sexy as Gran Turismo, no?

You’d expect that attempting to come up with a mix that improves on interior space of the estate, retain as much of the performance balance of the sedan and look good enough to win hearts and minds while at that would be a tricky affair, and it is.

The precursor to this one, the larger 5 Series Gran Turismo, didn’t really cut it, in terms of sales at least. Not quite as spacious as expected, and not as keenly balanced as the F10 in disposition and poise, something about the vehicle stopped it from being wholeheartedly embraced by buyers. Might have been the rather laborious shape.

That hasn’t stopped BMW from trying once more, probably working on the adage that if you reinforce something long enough it’ll eventually become acceptable. For round two, it has tried to keep the looks from overpowering the rest of what it’s trying to achieve with the type. To be fair, the 3 GT, as we’ll call it to make things easier, does hang together more organically than the 5 GT, better integrated on the whole and less cumbersome looking as the latter.

Still, it does take some getting used to, the design penned by Page Beerman, especially when parked alongside its 3 Series sedan and touring siblings, which was the case during the presentation of the car at the international drive for it in Palermo, Sicily last month. The F30 sedan looks sharp, and the touring, despite the extended back, has a good flow-through feel about it.

The 3 GT’s increased length, ride height and raised rear haunches makes it gangly at points, especially from the side profile. It definitely needs some getting used to, even with time. In terms of size, the car – sitting on an extended wheelbase 3 Series sedan platform as seen on Chinese examples – is the biggest in the 3er family. As numbers go, it has a 110 mm longer wheelbase at 2,920 mm, is 200 mm longer than the Touring 3er and stands 81 mm taller.

Ah, but the loopy-looking kin of the family has more substance than its sleeker sisters, substance in this case being interior space – it feels spacious, the rear, with the perceptibly improved headroom aided by the increased height and 70 mm of additional rear legroom over its sedan and touring stable mates.

In this regard, the sedan feels decidedly tight in comparison, and the 520 litres of boot space gives it more 25 litres more cargo room than the touring, on top of the improvement in rear seat spaciousness. Folding down the rear seats gets you 1,600 litres of feline-carrying capability.

It’s also easier to get in and out of, courtesy of an increased crossover-level hip point height, which for both front and rear seating position is raised by 59 mm, almost identical to that of the X1 (which is eminently practical, but not exactly a looker either). The rest of the interior is familiar contemporary BMW territory, with only the perception of increased height – as per seating – the only thing reminding that you’re not in the sedan.

The tailgate configuration on this one isn’t like the hatch/boot lid of the 5 GT’s, the smaller car making do with a more conventional approach, but the two-piece parcel shelf, high-opening tail lid and large load aperture offers a very practical approach to cargo.

The larger segment of the two-piece parcel shelf opens with the tailgate, facilitating access to the load area, while the second segment remains on its railing, allowing smaller items to be left in place with the tailgate opened. Both shelves can be stored away under the load compartment floor for transporting bulkier cargo.

Elsewhere, there are four lash points as well as a variable attachment system with two rails integrated into the load compartment floor to secure items, and the rear seats – with backrests that can be adjusted through 15 stages and 19 degrees and brought into a vertical position if required to offer more cargo area volume – are 40:20:40 split/folding, with individual rear release levers.

During the drive, stowing a very large piece of luggage gave an idea of how much the car can stash away in the hold, an estimation being two such sized pieces and two medium sized bags comfortably. Volume-wise, it’s very close to the 5 GT, but the perception of working space feels better.

Elsewhere, an active rear spoiler makes its debut on the car, its job to provide both visual lightness and reduce lift at higher speeds. It can be manually deployed from the go, engaged through a button switch on the door. Pretty neat, but you’re not likely to notice for the most part.

Also new to the BMW 3 Series Gran Turismo are Air Breathers – located just rearwards of the front wheels, they’re meant to reduce drag around the wheel arches, and work in conjunction with the familiar Air Curtains.

Like the F30 sedan, the 3 GT features three equipment lines, these being Modern, Luxury and Sport, as well as an entry-level – or baseline – version. An optional M Sport package becomes available for the vehicle from July, but the pack dressed up the 335i Gran Turismo examples on call at the drive, along with a 320d GT in Modern line trim.

Aside from the 184 PS and 380 Nm 2.0 litre oil burner and the 335i’s 3.0 litre six-cylinder TwinPower Turbo unit (306 PS at 5,800 rpm and 400 Nm at 1,200 to 5,000 rpm), three other mills are available from point of launch, these coming in as the 328i GT and 320i GT petrol and 318d GT diesel variants. A six-speed manual is the standard transmission fitment for Europe, with an eight-speed auto the two-pedal alternative, both linked to Auto Start-Stop.

Wheel sizes start from 17-inches – and 225/45 tyres – as ex-factory fitment for the baseline specification, up an inch from that for the sedan and touring. The optional M Sport pack, besides lowering the car by 10 mm and adding dress up bits, a firmer spring/damper set-up and stiffer anti-roll bars, also upsizes the wheels to either 18- or 19-inch M alloys.

In Sicily, the Mineral Grey diesels were dressed up with star-spoke style 396 18-inch wheels, but still looked as if it needed more. The larger double-spoke 598 19-incher as seen on the Glacier Silver 335i with M Sport package, with 225/45 front and 255/40 rears, makes for far greater visual appeal, offering the 3 GT necessary muscle to tighten the otherwise lumpish profile.

As for being behind the wheel, there’s no escaping the fact that this isn’t a F30 sedan, no matter how you try to look at it. The 335i GT M Sport has pace, of that there’s no doubt, but in a straight line there’s none of the tracking composure of something like the 328i sedan, and while you can achieve a serious turn of speed with this one, there’ll be less inclination to do so.

Part of it is due to the nature of the steering, which has a very light, detached feel about it. Out on the Sicilian motorways, the lightness of the variable sport steering – fitted as standard on the 335i M Sport mules – at speed was noticeable, both in terms of on- and off-centre response and tactility.

Allied to a surprisingly quick reaction to input when in comfort mode, this meant that the keeping things straight and true required a bit of concentration and work at 200 km/h. Switching to Sport mode improved the overall behaviour of the steering, tightening the response, but then introduced a bumpier ride through the Adaptive M Sport suspension.

Out on slower B-road terrain, the car becomes much more agreeable, and can even be a barrel of fun if you like throwing things around. The extra mass and height means that it’s not as clean into the corners as the sedan, and provoking it to do the slip-sliding act is a much easier affair, lift-offs being particularly giggle-inducing.

Keeping it neat and tidy requires a slower approach to things, with the need to trim speed off more going into corners. Nonetheless, while decent when you attempt it clean, the dynamics are still very much blunted in light of the car’s disposition. Turn-in feels a bit jagged, and you’ll definitely sense the bulk of the 3 GT on follow-through.

On the whole, the 3 GT is inherently lazier attempting gymnastics, but that’s to be expected – it’s not that there’s a lack of mechanical grip, just that things are less responsive. In the end, the point is that you can’t have everything, and the tradeoff for cabin comfort and space is less focus and sharpness in behaviour.

A passing word on the diesel. My co-driver and I didn’t manage to try out the oil burner, having being given the keys to a 335i on both days, but a fellow Asean journalist who did so commented that its characteristics were – expectedly – less sharper in scope than the 335i.

In urban use, this may not be such a bad thing, especially for those not looking to do the dirty on a regular basis with the car. Even with the 335i, the indications are there – set the car in comfort and putter around town and it becomes evident that this is very much the terrain it’s happiest with, GT moniker not withstanding.

For the last part of the drive, I decided to try out the back seat to see how the view from the back would be, and it’s here that the 3 GT starts racking up the points. Not quite limousine territory, but the extra headroom and legroom ensures rear occupants will have little to complain about, especially if used to something like the 3er sedan, which feels pinched in comparison.

So, what this one is all about is providing space not found in the sedan and an alternative form of versatility to that issued by the touring. Approached as such, as a pseudo coupe-shaped people-mover, you’ll begin to see the logic behind the 3 Series Gran Turismo.

The issue, however, is not about the practicality offered by the car – there’s plenty of that. Aside from a higher entry price point (it’s more expensive than a similarly-spec’d touring equivalent), the contention most will have is in the way the package is presented, or shaped.

Those wanting the sleekness of a F30 sedan will likely never contemplate this one, and the touring aficionado, a rarity in our market, is going to look at this one as a bit of a Quasimodo, practicality aside. ‘Sedate’ is probably the wrong descriptor as a coined term here, because opinion will be sharply divided with the form – it’s either going to be ‘it’s funky and I like it’ or ‘gah, it’s ghastly’ territory, no two ways about it.

Still, something like the 3 GT may find great favour for those who consider space as a priority. In markets like China, the land of chauffeur-driven LWBs, this one might well hit the mark big – you get all the accomplishment of being seen in a BMW 3 Series, but with the added allure of being able to treat it as an entry-level limo of sorts, something that the sedan and touring forms can never accomplish. As for North America, the attempt at conquest through a smaller, more refined package continues.

Closer to home, BMW Malaysia is looking at the 3 Series Gran Turismo doing well, nowhere near the same numbers as the sedan, naturally, but in a workable count, taken as an alternative to those who want and can’t get their hands on a touring, find the sedan too small, or simply as a new frontier to be seen as different in. Will it work? Time will reveal if such innovation will prevail, or hit an insurmountable ceiling.

The post DRIVEN: BMW 3 Series Gran Turismo in Sicily appeared first on Paul Tan's Automotive News.

Honestly, what can be said of the Volkswagen Golf that hasn’t already been said a thousand times over? With seven model generations, over 29 million sold and numerous accolades conferred upon it, you know that this is about as significant as cars get.

In order to fully appreciate its significance, we have to go back forty years in time. Had the original Golf not happened, we might not have Volkswagen today; we therefore wouldn’t have the mighty VW Group with its impressive stable of marques, and the world’s second-largest carmaker would be someone else.

As Ford proved in the early days of motoring with the Model T, you can’t ride on just the one model’s wave of success forever. Sure enough, Beetle sales were falling by the early 1970s (after having been in production since the war ended), and the company needed something other than that rear-engined, air-cooled platform if it wanted to survive.

Thanks to Audi, VW got the platform it needed, resulting in the Volkswagen Golf of 1974. It wasn’t Wolfsburg’s first water-cooled, front-engined, FWD product – but it was given the arduous task of replacing the Beetle (and today we have both Golf and Beetle on sale). How has it done so far?

Well, the Beetle took 60 years to reach global sales of 21 million units. The Golf surpassed that number in half the time.

Of course, all this was happening in a different time and place, but still, if its ancestors are anything to go by, this must be quite a car. We now arrive at the Golf Mk7 1.4 TSI, which officially went on sale in Malaysia yesterday. You know the car, you know the price, and you know how it performed in Sardinia. Let’s see how lucky number seven fares on Malaysian soil.

The day after the preview party on Tuesday, Volkswagen Malaysia held a media drive for the Golf Mk7 to Georgetown, Penang, the route of which comprised long motorway blasts, twisty and hilly B-roads, as well as stop-and-go urban driving (not to mention the constant dealing with potholes, ruts and bumps we’re all too familiar with).

Everyone can be their own judge in terms of looks. I’d call the Golf Mk7 handsome, but unassumingly so. It doesn’t say very much to me and there are certainly more striking designs to be had in this segment, but then again, there are also people who prefer their cars mature and understated like this.

There are some interesting styling details though, even if you have to concentrate before you notice them. I particularly like the side-on view, which I think shows the car’s balanced proportions to its best advantage.

A kink in the C-pillar panel is a clear nod to the original Golf, and the fuel filler cap is shaped to emulate the angles (the Mk6’s is circular), emphasising that kink even further. The overall effect is one of restrained dynamism, and U-shaped LED DRL bars add presence.

Slimming the body are two swage lines, deeper and more pronounced than those on the Mk6, making the new car look sharper and tauter. Working to similar effect are more angular head and tail lamps, bumpers, wing mirrors and lower intake, as well as defined bonnet creases. You still wouldn’t mistake it for anything other than a Golf, would you?

So the new car may not look worlds apart from the previous Mk6 on the outside, but to VW, clearly it’s what’s inside that matters. The biggest change is an all-new MQB platform. It’s a flexible one – designed for transverse-mounted engine applications, its variable parameters include track width, wheelbase and overhangs both front and rear. Only the distance between the front axle and the bulkhead is fixed.

The EA211 1.4 TSI powerplant is also new, with 140 PS from 4,500 to 6,000 rpm and 250 Nm of torque from 1,500 to 3,500 rpm. This engine loses the supercharger from the previous EA111 twincharged unit, which developed 160 PS at 5,800 rpm and 240 Nm of torque from 1,750 to 4,500 rpm.

Granted, the new car is slower to 100 km/h than the one before by about half a second, but as you can see, although there’s 20 PS less where peak power is concerned, all 140 horses kick in a full 1,300 rpm earlier and are sustained over a 1,500 rpm band. Peak torque, up by 10 Nm, also enjoys a wider spread over the rev range, making the numbers, if anything, more accessible overall.

Also, the Golf Mk7 is longer, lower, wider and lighter than its predecessor, resulting in more all-round cabin and boot space, and better fuel economy. Add to that various other improvements here and there, and you can appreciate how, on paper at least, the new car is a little better than the old one in every area that matters.

Step inside and you’re greeted by a cockpit that’s arguably more function than form – but its minimalist appearance belies its well-thought out ergonomics. Buttons and switches are exactly where you’d expect to find them, and are within intuitive reach. No qualms where switchgear quality is concerned, either.

The centre stack, housing the 5.8-inch proximity sensor-equipped “Composition Media” colour touchscreen system (with swipe functionality) and dual-zone climate controls, is angled ever so slightly towards the driver. It’s not the cosiest place in the world to be in, but at any rate, it’s a lot cleaner than the Mk6’s dashboard. A case of less is more, then.

The steering wheel gets a flat bottom, revised buttons and a classy chrome surround around the hub. There’s an electronic parking brake with Auto Hold, and underneath both front seats are pull-out storage trays. Manual seat adjustment is the order of the day, and a sunglass storage compartment sits over your head. Another cubbyhole is located on the driver’s side, just under the headlamp switch – pull the handle to reveal.

The practicality doesn’t end there. There are two cupholders on the centre console and bottle holders in the door pockets. The rear armrest houses a storage ‘trough’ with two little detachable pieces that allow one to alter the size of the cupholder opening to fit the cup or bottle snugly. With the pieces set at the smallest openings (furthest from each other), the clever contraption can hold two cups and a mobile phone in between, for example.

Right, with all that out of the way, let’s get down to the drive. On the highway, the Golf Mk7 is suitably quiet and refined, with wind noise detectable only at speeds in excess of 140 km/h or so. At a constant 110 km/h in seventh gear, the engine spins at a low 2,000 rpm and is therefore aurally indiscernible, not to mention economical.

Venture further across the speedometer and the Golf remains sure-footed and stable, with minimal steering effort required to keep it on the straight and narrow. It has a reasonably high natural cruising speed too, which means you can amble along at a respectable rate with relaxed ease, for mile after mile.

Comfort levels are high at such speeds, thanks in part to the 205/55 R16s, but more of it due to the suspension, which at the back employs an independent multi-link setup. Bumps are absorbed well by relatively long spring travel; rebound can result in one or two body oscillations too many, particularly when going over nastier ridges, but only if you’re going very fast indeed.

A significant degree of fun is to be had in the twisties. With this TSI now bestowed with the XDS differential lock from its hot GTI sibling, the deliberate scrubbing of the inside wheel under hard cornering to induce a bit of schoolboy chuckle is harder than ever, if not nearly impossible. XDS brakes the inside wheel to curb understeer and improve traction, affording more confidence in the bends.

Also encouraging you are good brakes, meaty in feel and progressively linear in action. Steering is quick and direct – although a tad more high-speed feedback would be nice. Body roll isn’t absent, but it isn’t excessive either – at any rate, the Golf Mk7 can briskly sweep from turn to turn without drama, all the while maintaining its composure.

Demand Sport mode and things get markedly more immediate. Gears are stubbornly held on to for longer and engaged more urgently. The engine, which is pretty inaudible most of the time, now emits a thin, clean sporty note that’s still somewhat muted, even in the upper echelons of the rev range.

A reduction though it may be, let it be said that 140 PS is not to be scoffed at – the Golf Mk7 can carry a decent turn of speed, aided by the quick- and smooth-shifting seven-speed DSG. Initial lag is present at the lower end – most evident when moving off – but otherwise, the power is pretty usable in most conditions.

Now you arrive in town, and the inevitable stop at traffic lights cues the start-stop system. Some of you may be wondering if starting off again produces an unwelcome jerk – it does, only if you step on the throttle too soon after releasing the brakes, without allowing the DSG to engage the clutch first. But it’s really a second’s wait, at the most.

Even with non-start-stop-equipped VWs with DSG, for a smooth and jolt-free move-off, one waits for the car to creep forward before addressing the accelerator pedal, so this is no different. Engine vibration and shake at start-up and shut-off is not intrusive, but could be improved.

Oh, and if you’re wondering about traffic jams, the system can recognise erratic stop-go movements and will keep the engine running as necessary. In any case, during prolonged traffic light waits, the engine starts itself after a while anyway, to minimise load on the electrically-driven air-con compressor and other such ancillaries.

Visibility is good all round, and I found the steering at city speeds to be more communicative than on previous-gen VWs. Ruts and potholes were also sufficiently absorbed at these speeds. I even rode in the back for a while – due to a less-steeply raked shoulder line (and therefore window sill), there is a reasonable expanse of glass area to keep claustrophobia at bay. Contributing to the comfort are rear air-con vents and a decent amount of space at the back.

The “Composition Media” touchscreen unit is intuitive and easy to use (you’ve seen how the proximity sensor works, albeit in its larger 8.0-inch form). The smooth scrolling works well, but the animated page flips, although cool-looking, can be a little slow. However, the graphics are attractive and legibility during the day is good.

When all is said and done, the Volkswagen Golf Mk7 is more of an evolution than a revolution. At RM157,888, it will remain the aspiration of many young professionals, and is still a practical, refined, economical, quick and well-built offering in its segment.

It’s a choice you make more with your mind than your heart though, but then again, it is hard to argue with 29 million people.

The post DRIVEN: Volkswagen Golf Mk7 1.4 TSI in Malaysia appeared first on Paul Tan's Automotive News.

And so, ‘The Car’ has arrived. Not just the car, but the one, if you are to understand what the term suggests. Such flourish is usually dripping with self-aggrandisement, but you’ll forgive the best-selling European vehicle on the planet from shouting it, and shouting it a bit loud. Because when you’ve sold more than 29 million examples, you simply can.

Enter then ‘The Car’, or if you will, the Volkswagen Golf Mk7, ready to expand on the excellent ground gained by its short-lived predecessor, the Mk6.

The Typ 5G may have arrived on the scene only late last year, debuting in Berlin in September and then entering the market in November, but the latest iteration of a car humbly named after the Gulf Stream has already scored big, named as the European Car of The Year for 2013, the second Golf to bag the accolade. It’s in the running for the World Car of The Year award too, and might even win it.

So, it has to be something, and it is. It’s the sort of car that’s both a technological marvel and comprehensive all-rounder from a driving perspective – from an engineering point of view, it’s a veritable accomplishment, and as an offering, this is what everything else in its segment class must measure up against. The thing is, how much does it advance itself over the last one?

By more than a bit, actually. The Volkswagen Golf Mk7 may be a continuation of the process that began in 1974, but it’s a very significant reinterpretation of the form over the outgoing Golf. Where the Mk6 was pretty much a re-skin pressed into the equation by the slow-to-produce-and-thus-expensive-to-build Mk5, a lot of thought has gone into the Golf Mk7, and it shows up in many places.

Some of it is tucked away. The new underpinnings which it sits on, for example. It’s the first Volkswagen to utilise the new flexible MQB (Modularer Querbaukasten, or Modular Transverse Matrix in English) platform, which premiered originally on the third-generation Audi A3, and will sit on a whole slew of VW offerings to come about.

Others are more visible. For one, like just about everything else these days, there’s the size – the Golf Mk7 has gotten larger, now longer (4,255 mm) and wider (1,799 mm) by 56 mm and 13 mm respectively than its predecessor, but lower at 1,452 mm, a reduction of 28 mm over the Mk6. Wheelbase length has also increased, by 59 mm to 2,637 mm, with the front wheels now located 43 mm further forward.

The changes to the dimensions aren’t very obvious, nor is the Golf profile’s unmistakable presence. The overall resolution of the lines have changed though – the modulation of the surfaces have been restructured, and the shape now looks tauter, the depiction that bit more resilient and cleaner.

Supposedly, the C-pillar pays homage to the Golf Mk2 and Mk4, so there’s more than a hint of a nod to the past – I quite like the way it flows, that C-pillar. On the whole, lean would best describe the form to the eye, and the lines look far better resolved than on the Mk6. Athletic? Quite.

That new found physical disposition also shows up in terms of weight; the Golf Mk7 sheds 100 kg off the scales, the result of a number of weight reduction measures. A more liberal use of aluminium in suspension components takes off 26 kg, and the additional introduction of hot-formed 1,000 MPa ultra high-strength steel and tailored blanks within removes 23 kg off the body-in-white, with other elements (seats, air-conditioning) making it 37 kg in terms of superstructure weight savings.

The EA211 four-cylinder engine family – which includes the 1.2 litre in both 85 and 105 PS output tunes and the 75 PS 1.0 litre three-pot as seen in the Up! – is also lighter. For example, the new EA211 1.4 litre turbocharged mill loses the supercharger as seen on the equivalent EA111 mill, but tips the scales 22 kg less than the older twin-charger unit. In all, the new engine block is 45% lighter, and the crankshaft and connecting rods weigh 20% and 30% less than that previously.

Fat suitably trimmed off, the new car enters the ring at under 1,300 kg – at 1,184 kg in its 122 PS form, it weighs 89 kg less than the Mk6 equivalent, a number that returns it to Mk4 weight levels.

Inside, the Golf Mk7 benefits from the increased wheelbase length – the cabin gets a 14 mm increase length wise and there’s 15 mm more rear legroom. Shoulder room has also been upped by 31 mm to 1,420 mm and elbow room by 22 mm to 1,469 mm in front, and the rear gets almost similar improvements.

More numbers – boot size volume is 380 litres, an increase of 30 litres over the Mk6. The boot floor and aperture is now wider and the boot lip lower, making for easier loading of heavier or bulkier items. The Golf Mk7 also features a rear tow hook with a rather novel operation, but it’s unlikely to be specified on the Malaysian model. Not that we’re big into towing things anyway.

Elsewhere, design and ergonomics are up in the cabin, the dashboard looking a more modern and finely fitted affair compared to the familiar – and inherently boring – layout of the old, though familiar cues are still present. Changes include a centre console stack now angled towards the driver and the inclusion of an electronic parking brake (with an Auto Hold function), which offers increased stowage space on the console. On the whole, things are that bit tidier and the presentation, more polished.

The seats have also been redesigned for this one, and VW says they offer more optimal support and a higher level of comfort. As far as materials go, what was seen in the European test vehicles (all Highline versions) felt premium to both sight and touch, and the interior has a welcome feel to it – seat comfort was high, and the cabin feels an airier place than the Mk6’s.

Three model lines were introduced for the Golf Mk7 at point of its European launch, these being the base Trendline, Comfortline and range-topping Highline. Even in base form, equipment levels are high, and the options just cycle it up to a comprehensive level.

Standard global equipment includes seven airbags and ESC, the XDS transverse differential lock as found on the outgoing GTI, engine idle Stop/Start operation, brake energy recuperation and a multi-collision brake system.

Other available equipment for the car includes an optional adaptive cruise control with emergency brake function up to 30 km/h, lane assist, fatigue detection, traffic sign detection and ParkAssist. The Golf Mk7 can even be had with an overhead parking system with 360-degree graphics, like that found in the Touareg.

Specified kit also includes a touchscreen, with three sizes to choose from. The base level offering is a five-inch unit, but the 5.8-inch and eight-inch versions of the screen come with a proximity sensor, the first in a VW. In this case, the display mode shows a screen reduced to just the essentials, but as soon as the driver or passenger moves a finger near the screen, the system automatically switches from display mode to input mode, where elements that can be activated by touch are specially highlighted.

Responding to wiping and zooming gestures much like a smartphone, users can scroll through item lists or browse through them by employing such action. In use, as explored on the test mules in its Discover Pro radio-navigation form during the media drive in Sardinia, the Alpine-based system turned out to be a gem.

Refined and comprehensive (works everything from entertainment to customising the individual drive modes), this is a well thought out product. The intermediate system, the 5.8-inch Composition Media unit, is to be found on the Malaysian-spec Golf TSI, which means that there’s no navigation in the mix.

A fair bit of equipment naturally won’t be specified for the local Golf Mk7, and the optional Adaptive Chassis Control (DCC), the second-generation form of which makes its VW debut on the car, is one of them.

Going the DCC route lowers the chassis by 10 mm compared to a normal one, and specific adjustment dampers with its own spring and anti-roll tuning are also part of the parcel, the system adaptively controlling the damper valves and tailoring the setting of the damper characteristic to the mode chosen.

DCC still offers the three driving modes – Comfort, Normal and Sport – as well as Eco, which are selectable on the touchscreen as part of the Driving Profile Selection, with an additional Individual mode allowing the driver (or passenger, tee hee) to adjust steering, engine, dynamic bend lighting, ACC and air-conditioning operational values to taste, so to speak.

It’s all great fun – you can specify on the fly say, a steering with Normal values and keep the engine on Sport. Or if you decide to get wacky, dial the steering on Comfort and the engine on Sport, which my co-driver – who was at the wheel – didn’t find my particular choice of too amusing, given that he was on full pelt in the middle of some rather twisty terrain. The thing is, you can feel it at work.

Its omission certainly means that the car here will have a slightly different disposition, but even with DCC adding to the allure, which it certainly does, the Golf Mk7’s base dynamics are very good to begin with.

In fact, it’s the standout point of the car. Lively, nimble and agile are suitable descriptors for the way the car tackles tarmac (how much of it is the result of the DCC in tow, one wonders). The electric-assist steering is fast, yet nicely weighted and accurate, if a bit dull in feel. Meanwhile, the chassis responds to input cleanly and with great poise. Best of all, the ride never feels unruly, even though it firms up a fair degree in Sport mode and running on 17-inch wheels. In some ways, like that accomplished by the F30 BMW 3er over the old, the Golf Mk7 makes the Mk6 feel a bit ponderous, dynamics-wise.

It however does not make the outgoing car feel slow. The subtraction of 20 horses and the omission of the supercharger from the equation may have something to do with it – the EA 211 is a pretty free-revving and willing engine, and with 140 PS at 4,500 to 6,000 rpm and 250 Nm at 1,500 to 3,500 rpm the numbers sound like there’s decent enough poke. Indeed, with 10 Nm more, there should be no lack of pull coming off it compared to the 160 PS TwinCharger mill of the Mk6 TSI.

But there is, and it’ll be evident especially when attempting to belt along on straights, where the disposition of both engine and seven-speed DSG gearbox’s tallish ratios seem more attuned to a leisurely gallop than anything resembling frantic.

Of course, the argument to this is that this is a 1.4 TSI, not a GTI, and as an all-rounder there’s more than enough freeway pep to keep most users happy. I suppose this is the case, but the old one might have spoiled the crowd, you see, and a chassis as sharp as this one will invite the inevitable exploration to push.

Well, the suggestion is to do so on the corners, where the lack of grunt isn’t felt as much. It is here that the sense of lightness really makes the Golf Mk7 shine – it might even bring out the odd cheesy grin. Clean input obtains returns that flatter average drivers and rewards better ones. Set up nicely, turn-in is crisp and follow-through neat, and provoking doesn’t upset the equilibrium too much, with a fair amount of room to maneouvre out of in all but the silliest cases.

At a certain stop point on the route around Porto Cervo, I decided to do a quick return clip on what was a very good stretch of winding turns, alone. Ditching the co-driver – who remained to take photos of other examples – for the moment provided for an even better sense of agility (no small fella he, the Top Gear Malaysia editor) and precision. Yes, it’s a shade clinical, what’s being served from an emotional impact POV, but it isn’t completely devoid of life. Or short of fun; clean has its moments too.

So much so, the balance of the 1.4 TSI is preferable to that of the 2.0 TDI, which was the model running the return leg to the airport the next day. The EA 288 unit, modified from the current TDIs, offers 150 PS at 3,500-4,000 rpm and 320 Nm from 1,750 rpm through to 3,000 rpm, and exhibits all the pull expected of it.

Out on the open road, the oil burner makes short shrift of overtaking and handling the uphill bits, areas that expose the 1.4 TSI’s shortcomings. But once in the thick of returning radius country, it’s less free-spirited despite the oodles of torque at hand. Its nose heavy nature makes its petrol-based sibling significantly tidier and more entertaining around the bends.

More importantly, it shows just what has been accomplished in the case of the 1.4 TSI – an impeccable sense of balance and lightness of character. It is this that makes it winsome, enough that while it didn’t make my top five pick in the 2012 year-ender list, it sat sixth in my choice of ten. I tend to like cars with a strong emotional quotient (which usually reads old), but the Volkswagen Golf Mk7 baulks that thinking because its deft, light-footed disposition shines through its matter-of-fact nature.

Sacrificing punch for agility may not sound like a great idea, but the carrot dangled in the form of improved fuel efficiency and lower emissions cannot be ignored in this day and age. The lack of heft may be a source of contention for some, but it shouldn’t be for many. In any case, speed in a straight line isn’t everything, and it isn’t for this one in the larger scheme of things.

UPDATE:: The Volkswagen Golf 1.4 TSI made its Malaysian debut last night at a gala event, but the pricing and full specification of the sole variant – the 1.4 TSI – that marks the entry of ‘The Car’ into the Malaysian market was only released tonight – it goes for RM157,888, without insurance. Stay tuned for our drive report on the local variant soon.

The post DRIVEN: Volkswagen Golf Mk7 tested in Sardinia appeared first on Paul Tan's Automotive News.

With more than five million examples sold in the last 18 years, the Honda CR-V, that erstwhile comfortable runabout vehicle, has been every bit the success story, and in recent times very much the class-defining compact Japanese SUV act.

Not bad, considering that the first stab at it with the original RD1 from 1995 was a bit of a shot in the dark; rough around the edges, the company’s first own-designed sport utility wasn’t all that elegant, but it did provide an important stepping stone for the brand. The second one, also a RD but with a four suffix attached, was certainly a better fleshed-out offering, but the boxier design was still more utilitarian than pretty, lacking outright charm and grace.

The jigsaw finally fell into place with the RE, and it is with the outgoing third-gen machine that the CR-V name is defined in the eyes of the consumer. Here at last was the Honda compact SUV all grown up – more car-like in its driving feel and dynamics than its predecessors, with plenty of refinement and perceived value, the RE sold, and it sold well enough to see off the competition through the early days and into the facelift, which arrived in 2010.

With rivals’ offerings firming up, however, led by the likes of the Mazda CX-5, that hold has begun to wane, and the arrival of the fourth-generation RM is timely for the brand. The question is, does the fresh face have what it takes to remain the benchmark? Let’s find out.

The third-gen isn’t quite broken, but with tastes ever changing and the clamour for a fresh view always hovering about, reinvention has been necessary. As such, number four represents a change in outlook – the development concept has evolved from the ‘urban comfort driving’ of the outgoing CR-V to what the company tags as a ‘premium smart SUV’.

What this really translates to is a five-seater sport utility vehicle with MPV-esque/crossover leanings and even more car-like driving dynamics. Apparently, the pursuit of the perfect balance between a car and an SUV influenced every element of the development process, including the exterior styling.

Shape-wise, it’s not revolution, but the curvy rounded vessel has been replaced by a far tauter appearance, obviously inspired by the competition as well as demands of the day.

The rakish silhouette is winsome upon first glance, especially the rear, ignoring that rear lamp assembly and the suggestion of Volvo XC 60 in it. The lower cab profile offers a more squat stance, and that front end is beefy, to say the least. Taken on its own, it’s not that noticeable, but park it next to the third-gen and you’ll see a higher nose and a pretty bulky face, led by an imposing three-bar grille.

Elsewhere, the side fenders are bolder, and a shark fin antenna streamlines things further. The CR-V gets new design alloys too, still 17-inch five spoke units, but now wider at 17×7 than the 17×6.5 previously, wrapped with 225/65 tyres.

Aerodynamic improvements abound, from optimised angles for the front bumper and rear end as well as rear spoiler to the inclusion of expanded under covers on the bottom of the car and sculptured wheel-arches.

The new CR-V looks leaner and more athletic, and in terms of measurements stretches the tape at 4,545 mm long and 1,685 mm tall. The dimensions don’t veer off too much from the outgoing RE, but I’m a bit puzzled to the height measurements; the third-gen is listed at 1,680 mm tall, and the new one is supposed to be 30 mm lower, which should actually make it 1,650 mm. The side-by-side pix here of both current and new CR-Vs taken during the Thai drive does visibly show up a height difference.

No change to the width from the outgoing model, which remains at 1,820 mm, or to the wheelbase’s 2,620 mm, but front and rear overhangs have been reduced by 10 mm and 15 mm respectively. Interior width has also been increased, with 75 mm more space to be had, door-to-door.

Other numbers, since we’re at that particular game. Ground clearance is 170 mm, while kerb weight is 1,540 kg (for the 2.0 litre). The seating position is now lowered by 30 mm, but offers the same eye-height viewpoint as the third-gen.

The steering diameter has been reduced by 10 mm to 370 mm, and in terms of boot capacity, there’s 589 litres of cargo space, extending to 1,648 litres with the rear seats folded down, good enough to get a couple of mountain bikes in.

Five colours are available for the Malaysian market – retained are Taffeta White, Crystal Black, Alabaster Silver, and Polished Metal, with a new shade called Twilight Blue replacing Urban Titanium in the palette. The blue in particular works well on the SUV.

So far, so good. Move inside, and the new interior looks sharp upon first glance. The new instrument cluster is easy on the eye, and traditionalists will like that the fuel and temp gauges are now back to analogue, sitting in their own space to the right of the large speedometer.

The dashboard now displays more angular lines, and a five-inch colour LCD intelligent-Multi Info Display (i-MID) sits top centre, and offers readouts of audio display, fuel consumption or an ‘analogue’ clock, also doubling up as a viewing screen for the rear camera that comes standard with the vehicle.

New items include an Econ function button and rear air-con vents in the centre console, a welcome addition, and the headlamps now come with a 15-seconds auto-off function if you forget to switch the beam off. The steering wheel audio/cruise control switches have been retained, but have been updated in layout shape.

Elsewhere, the rear seat head rests can now be folded in addition to height adjustment, and the rear 60:40 split seats are fully foldable in tumble-down fashion, accomplished in a single-motion through the pull of a lever.

The new CR-V will be available here in two engine variants, the familiar 2.0 litre form that’s being launched later today as well as in 2.4 litre guise, which will be introduced closer to mid-year. Differences include seat material – the 2.0 litre wears a new suede fabric design, while the 2.4 comes dressed in leather. Both are finished in black.

The 2.0 litre gets a standard CD/six-speaker audio system with reverse camera, while the 2.4 will come with an integrated two-DIN 6.1-inch colour QVGA (480 x 234 resolution) touchscreen with Garmin navigation and RDS.

The 2.4 also features more kit, naturally. There’s rain sensing wipers, paddle shifters, 18-inch five twin-spoke alloys, eight-way power seats, Bluetooth telephone connectivity, HID headlamps and fully keyless entry/push-start ignition. Meanwhile, the 2.0 litre continues to make do with a keyed ignition, but the key has been updated to a jack-knife design.

Doesn’t sound too bad, does it? After a while though, it isn’t as rosy as painted. Given that the vehicle’s fundamentals are utility and functionality, some design cues raise the question of whether form has taken precedence over function, and elsewhere, some areas look lacking or haven’t really been advanced from the third-gen.

The third-gen model is very familiar, simply because we happen to have one at home, a 2010 facelift version, and this was the CR-V utilised in our five SUV shootout in 2011. The other half loves its interior and the practicality it offers, none more so than with the void space between the centre console and fascia; great space for a handbag, shoes, even the odd small umbrella. Also great for a driver changeover from the passenger seat without having to be too unladylike, as observed on many an occasion.

Well, that unique layout is gone. The new CR-V goes the traditional route by joining up the console and fascia, and the redesign removes the space, as well as the two cupholders and flip panel/slide cover storage bins of the centre console. Replacing it is a single console offering three cupholders and a storage box/armrest.

You do get two 12V power receptacles (one tucked away in the storage box), and the USB connector has been relocated – from the flip-lid storage space on the dashboard on the passenger-side – to a more accessible location within the storage box, but the old system worked as well, if not better from a compartmentalisation point of view. Three cupholders seems like overkill, even for the thirsty, and that storage box isn’t all that big, really.

Most importantly, the sense of spaciousness and freedom around the knee area is gone with the arrival of the new centre console. I suppose if you’re attempting to introduce ‘more car-like driving’ as a selling point, then it makes sense to lay things out car-like as well, but I get the feeling many are going to miss that space.

Some other elements also don’t quite measure up under close scrutiny. The lack of Bluetooth telephony in this day and age is a noticeable omission, as are DRLs in the scheme of things, even if not having HIDs – for the 2.0 – is forgivable. Elsewhere, the new audio system panel looks less classy than before; where the old was elegant, especially lit up at night, the new one is much less so. Those big buttons don’t help any.

There’s also less of a sense of occasion than before. The new interior’s design and fresh layout masks it well enough, but vis-a-vis the third-gen the materials feel less premium to sight and touch. The door panel armrest shows it up best – where the old was clothed, the new has an expanse of bare plastic, and not the least textured at that. And that silver finish on the dash decorative strip and gear lever surround panel doesn’t look too hardy.

In defense of it all, the design of this CR-V came about during trying times, with the economic downturn of a few years back probably shaping prudence and conservative thought; witness the current ninth-gen Civic, with which the new CR-V shares common ground, as an example of this. The rest of the vehicle doesn’t cut back on things, but in terms of finish, the corner-cutting has become more noticeable in the face of toughened competition offering more in the way of kit and dress.

Still, aside from some questions asked about design cues and material choices, areas like safety and NVH haven’t been skimped on. Like the current CR-V, the fourth-gen comes with dual front and dual side airbags, making for four, as well as VSA, ABS and EBD, but the evolved VSA system now includes traction control and hill start assist.

The current vehicle didn’t come with Isofix points on the rear seats, but the new CR-V now has them, good news for those needing such mounts. In other areas, the centre rear passenger now gets a three-point seatbelt, and structural improvements include a stronger roof and supporting pillars.

As for NVH, the new CR-V feels decidedly quieter and more refined than its predecessor, something that was evident very quickly during the drive from Pattaya to Bangkok. Improved sound insulation and sound absorption materials find their way on to the firewall, floor, inside door panels and tailgate lid as well as inside the rear fenders, and a sound isolating lower seal has been added as well.

Three dB less than the third-gen in the 500Hz-5kHz region – coupled to improved absorption values across the range – might not sound like much, but in actual conditions is noticeable, translating to a more comfortable and quieter experience.

Another area of improvement is with takeup from standstill, the 2.0 litre mill from the Civic injecting some welcome pace off the line. With 155 PS at 6,500 rpm and 190 Nm at 4,300 rpm, there’s only a marginal increase in output, but the perkier character of the R20A lends the new CR-V a brighter nature and makes it feel less cumbersome.

The 2.4 K24A, meanwhile, feels decidedly lazier than the 2.0 in stop-start and low-speed conditions, but shines when given space and enough throttle input. The 190 PS at 7,000 rpm and 222 Nm at 4,300 rpm lump’s midband has a silkiness to it missing from the smaller displacement unit, and it retains its composure far better when pushed.

As for the five-speed automatic that both versions wear, nothing negative to report – it really doesn’t miss an extra cog, with clean operation and good transition aspects evident.

The McPherson strut front and multi-link rear suspension geometry remains unchanged, though it has been upgraded with a 10% increase in damper volume. The ride is perceptibly that bit firmer on the 2.0 litre over its predecessor, but is still supple, and aided by the improved NVH makes for an able long-hauler. I can’t visualise how the 2.4′s measures up against before, but it’s noticeably harder riding than the 2.0.

Given the strong emphasis on sedan-like driving characteristics and good driving performance, it’d have been interesting to put the CR-V to the test beyond the scope of highway running. A quick jaunt revealed the hint of a keen and agile nature, and you get the sense that its composure and thresholds improve on the third-gen’s by a fair bit. We’ll have more to report on this when the CR-V eventually comes in for review.

I’m undecided about the steering on this one, though. The switch to a motion adaptive EPS from the existing hydraulic power-assist system does offer a faster and lighter rack, which is great for town use.

It is however devoid of sensation when it comes to on-centre feel and gets twitchy when off-centre, and this vagueness takes some shine off the improved dynamic capabilities elsewhere. The existing hydraulic rack is so much better in terms of feel and communication, but most drivers won’t miss it, and will think the new, lighter offering to be a boon.

On the whole, the new CR-V takes what the old one did well, and improves on the things that count. Specification-wise, it does however feel a bit bare-boned in its 2.0 litre form, amplified all the more by the equipment list rattled off by some of its keenest rivals, which have also become far sharper looking tools.

So, you would think that the skies don’t look as clear for it as it did for the third-gen when it arrived on the scene, and the ability to remain the benchmark will be severely challenged by the likes of the CX-5 and, in the coming future, the Ford Kuga, with mastery of them no guarantee.

But that would be without taking into account the badge behind the vehicle and the legacy gained by the third-gen RE. Taken under such consideration, the fourth-gen should continue cementing the appeal with buyers quite nicely.

I have a perfect example of how this thought process is served, and it sits very close to home. Three years on, the other half is thinking of replacing her third-gen CR-V example, and I’ve been steering her to look at the possibility of exploring new avenues on the SUV path. Yet, when the time comes, I have more than a suspicion that its replacement will be its evolution, everything else be damned.

Such is the clout then, and so, prepare to welcome the once and future king.

The post DRIVEN: Honda CR-V fourth-gen tested in Thailand appeared first on Paul Tan's Automotive News.

Here’s a funny story: a few days before Euromobil launched the Audi A6 Hybrid, they called me to test it out for a couple of days. Unbeknownst to me, a dear old reader snapped a picture of yours truly driving the car and sent it to us claiming he had caught a registered A6 hybrid undergoing local tests.

Yes, it was being tested alright. By me. Got to love all you eagled-eyed readers. Thanks and keep them spyshots coming!

Back to the topic at hand, I’m sure you’ve all been wondering if the new tax-free Audi A6 Hybrid is worth all that money? How does it perform? It is any good? What are the drawbacks of a hybrid executive sedan? You’ll find comprehensive answers to all these questions and more right here.

The Audi and I went out early one morning and the roads were still empty and wet from the night. It was kind of a twilight drive, with the impressive full-LED headlamps on main beam, and the lovely instruments with its pin-sharp display lit by that eerie glow that the Germans love.

The engine fires, growls briefly, then settles in a sotto voce rhythm deep within the background that changes volume but not the tune with the position of the loud pedal. Loud here is rhetorical of course. When the hybrid system sees it fit, the engine would turn itself off, letting the battery take care of all the cabin ancillaries.

You can turn the engine on by prodding the throttle pedal, and at 1,500 rpm the combined powerplant already produces more twist action than the A6 3.0 TFSI engine can muster at the peak of its torque curve. You can’t really tell the immediate engine speed, as there is no rev-counter to speak of – the hybrid assist/charge dial shown instead.

In a pleasant, subdued, almost invisible way, this car is like a drug. Even when unleashed, with the whip high up in the air, it retains a perfect jacket and tie composure. By now we really are moving. The A6 is dancing with the road: first leading with firm hands, then gently pushing and pulling in perfect accordance with the course of the concrete parquet.

The car seldom puts a foot wrong. Turn-in is slow – sometimes frustratingly so – but once the nose has started moving towards the apex the Audi hugs the tarmac and clings to the blacktop before it will start scrambling ever so subtly for grip. Keep your foot down if you like, spin that inside wheel, but be prepared to wind off some lock quickly if you hit a rough bump mid-corner, because in an instant the tail will step out in a neat arc.

The throttle action is superb: linear and attentive, making take-off smooth and not at all jerky. Throughout the rev-range, the motor and the accelerator constantly communicate with each other, making it an absolute pleasure to cruise with.

And it’s quick. Real quick. There is already meat on the bone at low revs, but the main course begins at three-quarters into the pedal travel. And it lasts virtually relentlessly until you take your foot off. Amazingly, you almost never feel any upshifts, partly because the eight-speed automatic gearbox is so smooth, plus the fact that there isn’t a rev-meter to tell you the rpm has dropped.

Once the instant torque flows, there is not much that can stop it, and after a while the urge to free more and more revs becomes almost irresistible.

A good engine puts its stamp on a car and shapes its character. That’s exactly what the hybrid combo does to the A6. The petrol/electric powertrain is a joy to rev: smooth, potent and turbine like, it will spin freely without much mechanical or acoustic protest.

The response to the electronic throttle is prompt and progressive. The accelerator is neither laser sharp or supersonic fast but meaty, nicely weighted and beautifully communicative.

Too bad the chassis lets the engine down. It’s not all bad though. Its set-up is controlled and taut and yet its movements are supple, its muscles compliant, and its responses rarely harsh and never exaggerated. It’s just that it’s not much fun to drive through bends. Not at all, actually.

In all its rear-wheel drive rivals bar the mushy Infiniti M, you can play gung-ho by backing off in the middle of a corner tackled with aggression. In the A6 Hybrid, with all that torque coming through the front wheels, such brutal throttle manoeuvres upset the car’s balance too abruptly, the stability control kicking in sharply to control the loss of traction. A BMW 5-Series this is not.

Audi says we’ve entered a new era where it’s composure that counts, not bravery. Yes, you may enjoy a little power oversteer. But lurid tailslides are a thing of the past, apparently, at least as far its cool and not at all flamboyant clientele are concerned. Remember, it’s privileged business types they’re after, not driving enthusiasts looking for the next corner to terrorise.

Most of the time, this hybrid monster will handle in an impeccably neutral fashion. Going time warp fast is a surreal, almost sci-fi-like sensation that combines the unerring directional stability and a slot racer with the pulling power of a gas turbine – vroom, woosh and through, that kind of thing.

A more alert steering wouldn’t hurt, and the brakes are not in the league of the class bests, which at the moment is tied between the BMW 5-Series and Lexus’ latest GS. Worked hard, they sweat plenty of smelly black dust, but neither the stopping power nor feel is anywhere near as sensational as the engine. In fact, it barely keeps up with the mediocre chassis.

Speaking of the brakes, the kinetic energy recuperation system (the main source of recharging the battery) operates in an extremely intrusive manner, jumping into action at the slightest touch of the brake pedal. Slowing down in a smooth, imperceptible manner is a near impossible task, with the braking force actively changing even with constant pedal pressure.

Those who have experienced similar energy regeneration systems on Japanese hybrids will definitely know the disconcerting feeling. Only this time, with significantly more mass to haul down and a much more aggressive recharge regime in play, it’s even worse still. Remember this before you start screaming at your chauffeur for spilling your morning coffee.

It’s old news, but when it comes to drivability, you can’t have enough torque. The A6 Hybrid’s 480 Nm is quite clearly superior to the competition, beating even the most powerful petrol powered 5-Series, E-Class and GS sold here. It definitely beats the latter’s silky smooth but tardy V6 engine.

On paper, the BMW 535i edges the A6 hybrid, but on the road the blown straight-six is more highly strung, much rougher when pushed and definitely noisier than the ultra refined, if marginally slower Audi.

Having said that, this cheeky little hybrid is more than good enough to stand up in more exclusive company.

Measure your throttle input just right to avoid wheelspin, of which there will be plenty if you’re not careful, and the hybrid A6 will launch from a standstill to 100 km/h in 7.5 seconds, and rush on to a maximum speed of 240 km/h. A second quicker off the mark and you’re into Porsche Panamera V6 territory; 10 km/h more at the top end and you can dice with the BMW M3s of this world. It really is that close.

As detailed in our launch report, the A6 hybrid uses Audi’s venerable turbocharged direct injection 2.0 litre engine tuned to the state of 211 hp at 4,300 to 6,000 rpm and 350 Nm of torque from 1,500 to 4,200 rpm as its main power source. Providing motive assistance is a large electric motor with an output rating of 54 hp and 210 Nm. Working in tandem, the hybrid powerplant offers up a combined output of 245 hp and 480 Nm of torque. It certainly feels that quick, if not more.

Audi’s quattro all-wheel drive system is a non-qualifier here, as it wouldn’t have fit with the lithium-ion battery pack being housed just above the rear axles. Besides, the weight saving is appreciated too, as the power cells aren’t exactly light. With the electric motor, battery and its cooling peripherals in tow, the A6 hybrid weighs a full 230 kg more than a standard A6 with the same (detuned to 180 hp) engine.

Surely that affects performance and fuel economy, no? Not one bit as it’s now 0.8 seconds quicker to 100 km/h and is capable of going 14 km/h faster than before. Being a performance hybrid, it uses less fuel while going faster too; rated at 6.2 litres per 100 km in the combined cycle versus the standard 2.0’s 6.4 litres per 100 km.

The gains in fuel efficiency are more apparent in the real world than the figures portray, as the hybrid can operate in full EV mode with enough battery charge. Crawling through traffic or climbing up parking lots, in full comforts of air conditioning and stereo no less, uses no fuel at all.

The electric-only mode works at higher speeds too, and is capable of accelerating up to 100 km/h without turning the engine on. Achieving that feat requires a very subdued right foot though, but with enough practice you’ll be gliding on electric power more often than you’re aware of. The maximum range in EV mode is just three full kilometres, but driven sensibly, that’s more that enough to bring substantial fuel savings.

Simply lifting off the throttle while cruising turns off the engine and charges the battery. Gently feeding power, the hybrid system will then try to sustain that speed or even accelerate using just the electric motor. Everything works so seamlessly together that if you’re not paying close attention to the hybrid power display, you’d be completely oblivious to all the hard work it’s doing.

If that doesn’t float your boat, maybe you’ll appreciate the hybrid advantage when you go to overtake a slower vehicle. The mega-magnets assisting the turbo engine will whisk you past more quickly than you can say ‘Michael Faraday’.

It’s not all good news, however. Ironically enough, the single biggest drawback of the A6 hybrid is caused by the very thing that makes it great in the first place – its battery pack. As the A6 was not designed to carry a large battery pack in the first place, the lithium-ion power cells are placed in the boot, forming a large intrusion in the cargo floor.

The available space drops for being near-class leading 530 litres to just 375 litres – and an awkwardly shaped one at that. Mind you, that’s still not as bad as the Infiniti M35h, where the battery more than halves the available boot space.

As it is, the hump on the boot floor deems it completely unusable for plus-size bags or large baby strollers. That’s a big pity as the rest of the A6 is perfectly comfortable for a family of five. On the plus side, drive the A6 Hybrid for long enough and it will teach you and your family the benefits of packing light.

This remarkable entry-level A6 (price-wise, uniquely in Malaysia only) is worthy of a sportier, more performance-appropriate nameplate. But the marketing department decided there is more to gain by pushing the eco-friendly nature of the vehicle.

Why? Because sporty is uncouth and being green is now cool. At least the nomenclature stand out and details the car’s key innovation – its excellent hybrid powertrain which is unique and a rare asset in this price point.

Will all the available performance, the A6 hybrid is the perfect stealthmobile. The only visual cue apart from the discreet lettering on the boot and front fenders is a set of bespoke 18-inch alloy rims which are shod with relatively unassuming tyres (the same Bridgestone Turanzas fitted to the Toyota Camry, in fact).

It’s also unfortunate that the wheel design is directional, by right made to mimic the look of a spinning turbine. They are very aerodynamic and actively cut drag around them, but Audi seems to have forgotten that cars have two opposing sides. The right side of the A6 hybrid is exactly how Audi intended it to look – chic, modern and dynamic. Seen from the other side however, it looks like it’s reversing all the time. At high speed.

The wheels and badges apart, the high performance crackerjack looks as low profile as a humble A6 2.0 TFSI with its paltry 180 hp. Which is part of the fun, because nobody expects a dull German executive sedan to perform like the hybrid does. After all, this wolf in sheep’s clothing accelerates quicker than a BMW 320d and is faster through the gears than a Volkswagen Golf GTI!

Its in-gear pulling power is really something else, which is partly due to the electric motor’s instantaneous power delivery. Allowed to kick down a couple of gears, which you’ll hardly feel anyway, it will match the heart-thumping accelerative ferocity of more overtly sporting vehicles costing far more.

The main strength of the A6 Hybrid lies not with its dynamic flair, which is lacklustre at best, but with its well-honed surefootedness, the amazing degree of mechanical refinement, its speed, efficiency and best of all, an interior that is to die for. From the instrument cluster to the intricately detailed MMI controls, the cabin exudes class that none of its German rivals can match.

The aluminium trim see here is specific to the hybrid variant, as more traditional wood fittings would look out of place in a car that’s supposed to be adored by tree-huggers. A standard fit on the hybrid, the uber cool MMI Touch interface can be slightly clunky to use at first but you’ll soon get the hang of it, even if it’s better positioned for lefties in this right-hand drive configuration.

This upper-crust Audi also marks the return of the A6 as a Q-car – they’ve gone all glitzy and showboaty recently, haven’t they?

It not only looks like an undercover road rocket, but it also keeps its actions, acoustics and attitudes to a bare minimum. Put your foot down in a Mini Cooper S and the whole street will turn around and gape. Corner hard in a BMW 328i and the guy in the oncoming car will almost invariably back off. Rev a Renault Megane RS to the limiter and watch the pavement crackle. Press along in a VW Scirocco R and your passengers’ teeth are likely to rattle in sync with the potholes. You get the drift.

In the A6 hybrid, you will experience not one iota of this. The unassuming Audi simply goes where you point it with as much efficiency and as little drama as possible. There is no tyre squeal during take-off (unless you provoke it), no angry pops during gearchanges, no jarring suspension crunch down the railway crossing, no X-rated intake roar, not even excessive body roll when cornering at full pelt.

Wisecracks wearing bright polo-tees with the collar popped and garish sunglasses indoors may call this car boring but, believe me, they are missing the point. It may not provide the ultimate kick in terms of its fun factor, but when you want to go fast from A to B without attracting attention and without indulging in Senna-esque car control, this potent Audi is a seductive and complete tool.

It doesn’t have the raw driving appeal of the BMW 5-Series, the serenity of the Mercedes E-Class, or even a boot to match much smaller cars. But on the whole it is a commendably competent machine that oozes sophistication and quality inside and out. Not to mention the delicious combination of speed and efficiency.

Factor the price in and it becomes a deserved winner, even with all its flaws. Affordability is relative of course and no, at RM288,000 as tested (fitted with the optional comfort key and reverse camera) it’s not exactly cheap. But then again, it’s an Audi. Not a Volkswagen. The fact is, Audis are never cheap, nor should they be. Not here in Malaysia, and not anywhere else.

Try buying one outside of Malaysia and you’ll be paying A6 3.0 TFSI money for one. Here, taking full advantage of the tax break for hybrids with engines smaller than 2.0 litre, the A6 Hybrid is priced a considerable RM235,000 less than the flagship model (RM515,000 before options), even undercutting the base 2.0 TFSI model by RM65,000.

And that’s despite being far better specced than either of them. The fancy full-LED headlamps, while standard on the A6 hybrid, would cost RM13,000 extra on petrol-only variants. Satellite navigation and MMI Touch are both standard fit on the A6 hybrid only too.

Everything considered, the A6 hybrid is a premium product with suitably premium pricing, but that it undercuts all of its class rivals and even some from the class below makes it an absolute no-brainer for those shopping in this price bracket. Go on then, go check out the car’s boot space. Because that’s the only tangible reason I can think of to not buy the Audi A6 hybrid.

Read our launch report of the Audi A6 Hybrid.

The post DRIVEN: New Audi A6 Hybrid full test drive review – sure, it’s tax-free, but is it free of driving thrills too? appeared first on Paul Tan's Automotive News.

The new Mazda6 is such a seductively smooth machine that it could encourage a tattooed thug to sing along with Sade: “No need to ask, he’s a smooth operator… Smooth Operatoor.” And when that bare-knuckle bouncer opens up his tonsils while driving home in the pre-dawn light after a satisfyingly bloody night taking care of the club, there’ll be little to drown out his horribly missed notes and chainsaw-like tones.

For this car purrs as sweetly as the torch singer himself, at noise levels that would make a luxury brand proud. Turns out Mazda didn’t need the ill-fated Xedos/Eunos ‘premium’ line-up in the ‘90s to match up to the likes of Lexus in terms of refinement. The latest Mazda6 takes care of that.

At the risk of offending quite a few devotees of Malaysia’s present crop of quasi-luxurious large cars, allow me to pause and shout a “Hallelujah, it’s about bloody time!” at this point. Big D-segment cars have always offered comfort, interior space and decent style factor, but they’ve never before delivered these must-have class values with so much decorum.

The Mazda6 is the equivalent of a Neil Patrick Harris happily discussing the joys of fidelity and the meaning of life with the director in between takes, and doing so in the soothing tones of a seasoned newsreader, with not a hint of a cuss or stale cigarette smoke on his breath. It really is that couth.

It is the Mazda6’s fine drive that really makes its presence known when you drive one for the first time. But it’s the distinctive look of this fine-cut moving sculpture that creates the first impression. Instead of the chunkiness expected of a large D-segment car, this one offers visual finesse.

And when you see the car in natural light, there is no mistaking it for that of any other make. It’s proudly Japanese; very distinctively Mazda. Taking heavy cues from the recent CX-5 SUV while not straying too far away from the stunning Takeri concept, the Mazda6 is a wild, yet attractive compilation of complex curves and prominent lines that exudes class and demands presence. There are hints of the Sonata at the back, though that is more of a compliment for the Hyundai rather than a styling complaint.

The overall look won’t be to all tastes, but those present at the press drive gave it their full approval – and even the single dissenter had to applaud Mazda for going into emotive design territory where the likes of Camry and Accord currently fear to tread.

Inside, the Mazda6 looks and feels almost identical to the CX-5. Much of the switchgears are carried over and the overall shape and structure of the dashboard is a dead ringer to the SUV’s. That’s not such a bad thing quality-wise, though silently you’d wish for a more adventurous cabin to match the bold exterior. It’s packed full of kit (complete equipment list below) and the space available in the lavish cabin is par for the course in this vehicle class.

The CX-5 connection is not only skin deep, as the majority of the running gear is shared between the two models. The base 2.0 litre engine is identical to the one fitted in the SUV, as is the 6-speed automatic SkyActiv-Drive transmission. Power is rated at 151 bhp at 6,000 rpm, with peak torque of 200 Nm generated at a heady 4,000 rpm.

Moving up to the range-topping 2.5 litre variant gives you class leading 183 bhp and 250 Nm of torque at 5,700 rpm and 3,250 rpm respectively. That’s all mightily impressive, especially when you consider that Mazda engineers have had to effectively detune the engines to suit our fuel quality.

That said, the difference in engine outputs between Malaysia-borne cars and the equivalent European models are minimal. The 2.0 litre engine in fact gains 3 bhp over its European-spec cousin, though losing 10 Nm in the process. The larger and more advanced 2.5 litre SkyActiv-G engine sees a more significant drop in outputs, as compared to the quoted 190 bhp and 256 Nm of torque enjoyed elsewhere.

The relatively high rpm of the engines’ power peak gives real insight into the drivability of the Mazda6. Moving off from a standstill, the 6 appears to suffer from low-rev lethargy; much like the CX-5. It sure feels like it could use more low-end torque, and that applies to both engine variants. The 2.5 litre engine doesn’t feel particularly any stronger than the smaller motor. Not at low revs at least.

But, the ‘feel’ here is just an illusion to your senses. The Mazda6, in either guise, offers more than respectable performance. When called upon, that is.

You see, the SkyActiv-Drive gearbox is heavily tuned to promote fuel efficiency over performance. With long gears and pre-programmed fuel-friendly shift pattern, the drivetrain is designed to offer just enough accelerative force to get you going as efficiently as possible. Nothing more and nothing less. That’s why both the 2.0 and 2.5 litre variants feel more or less identical when driven sedately.

At a cruise, the gearbox would hug the top gear as soon as it can and would continue doing so for as long as it’s physically possible. It would so hesitantly drop a gear or two to accelerate smoothly yet positively, again adding to the illusion that it’s underpowered.

When questioned, a top Mazda brass directly involved in the 6’s powertrain development admitted as much, that he himself would have preferred a more reactive and shorter gears to enhance the perceived performance. Yet, Mazda’s company-wide uncompromising pursuit of efficiency dictated otherwise.

It’s only when you ask more from the engine through your heavy right foot that the gearbox opens up to unleash all the available power. Here, there’s no hiding the fact that the larger engine is in fact significantly more powerful. Mid-range thrust is commendable on both engines, though again it’s the 2.5 litre that stands out more, eeking out more of a smile on your face.

Out goes the ‘underpowered’ illusion, replaced by a solid awe of speed. That the Mazda6 will out accelerate all of its Japanese and Korean rivals is a no-brainer, given its class-leading outputs and lower weight (more on this later). The way it does so, however, is mighty impressive.

This is a car capable of smooth and effortless overtaking performance, yet one that also possesses a cone of silence. While the Mazda engineers have managed to extract more power and torque while keeping to its economical approach, the new car’s refinement is simply astounding.

The SkyActiv-G engines never utters anything more than the most endearing and cultured snarl, even under full throttle tests. And even the 2.5 litre variant with its rubber-band 225/45 R19 tyres offer no more than a hushed, near-silent drive while comfort levels are kept wonderfully elevated. High speed cruisers would love this car, eating highway miles without eating into their physical energy.

Fuel consumption continues to be Mazda’s forte. The CX-5 might have performed well in my earlier tests, and is by far and away the most economical SUV in its class, but my anecdotal road-test evidence suggests the new Mazda6 will do even better. Cruising at mean traffic speeds on the open road can result in consumption falling to a small car-like 13 km per litre. And that’s on a barely run in car with less than 1,000 km on the clock.

Mazda claims class-leading 17.4 and 15.6 km per litre fuel consumption figures for the 2.0 and 2.5 litre models respectively, measured in the Japanese-standard JC08 Mode Test Cycle – currently the best figure of all comparable Japanese sedans.

You can thank Mazda’s raft of SkyActiv technology, encompassing the engine, transmission, chassis and body ancillaries for the headlining figures. Designed from the ground up with absolute efficiency in mind, the Mazda6 is said to be up to 30% lighter than a conventional vehicle of the same capability and size. 30%. That’s a saving of over 400 kg!

Aside from effective acceleration, stopping and fuel use, the Mazda6’s dynamic ability is the main contributor of its additional substance, with big dividends in terms of steering precision and ride quality. There’s a distinct solidity and sophistication about the outer borders of the performance envelope of the 6’s chassis that is rare for a large Japanese car.

The Mazda somehow combines compliant long-travel suspension with tenacious grip levels. The steering wheel exhibits sharper turn-in quality than its flex-ier rivals, and delivers a greater sensation of front-tyre traction. The Mazda6’s cornering ability is inevitably defined by understeer, which is only to be expected in a big front-driven car.

The big surprise is the cornering speed this supple-suspended car can achieve before the push threatens to nudge the nose wide, and the manner in which the finely calibrated traction control system (standard across the range) jumps into action to keep the car on track. With a squeal of protest from the front tyres, the Mazda6 simply carries on railing round the bend.

Turn the traction control off, and the results will be a slower drive off the corner as the pilot needs to ease the throttle to quell the understeer. The lift produces sudden weight transfer, yet the 6’s tied-down rear end acts like a storm anchor to steady the ship, and keeps the driver’s heart rate below the redline.

Representing a lustrum of progress over the previous Mazda6, the new car makes the packaging of six airbags and a bevy of active and passive safety systems across the range. Other notable standard equipment includes leather seats, multimedia system with Bluetooth connectivity, Tribos surface protective system (paint, alloys, glass, interior upholstery), powered front seats, push start button, auto headlights and wipers, cruise control, dual-zone climate control, and Mazda i-stop (automatic engine start/stop function said to improve fuel economy by 5%).

The range-topping 2.5 litre model adds auto-levelling bi-xenon lights with DRL, 19-inch wheels over the standard 17s, steering wheel mounted paddle shifters, sunroof, integrated TomTom satellite navigation, 11-speaker Bose premium sound system, keyless entry, and the clever i-ELOOP regenerative braking system.

Not listed on the official spec sheet but present and tested on the 2.5 litre models are the comprehensive i-ACTIVSENSE active safety features. Among others, this includes the Smart City Brake Support, which brakes the car automatically to prevent or limit the damage of low-speed impacts between 4 and 30 km/h.

As reported earlier, estimated prices have been officially released by Bermaz, pegging the 2.0 litre SkyActiv model at RM159,440.20 and the 2.5 litre SkyActiv sedan and Touring (not present at the press event) at RM187,659.30 and RM191,763.30 respectively (all prices on the road, with insurance).

The final pricing will determine the Mazda6’s impact on the Malaysian market, but we’ve been tipped to expect no real surprises at the car’s official debut in March. The new model is a far better car than the model it replaces, and first impressions suggest that it has what it takes to redefine the value that has made Japanese large sedans so popular in this country.

This complete and competent big car could not have come at a better time for Mazda and Bermaz. But with so much of a car company’s position being the result of perceived thinking, don’t just take my word for it. Experience it for yourself and post your comments here.

The post DRIVEN: New Mazda6 sedan to Bukit Tinggi and back appeared first on Paul Tan's Automotive News.

Some cars stick in the mind long after the fact. This one happens to be one of them, but for another reason, which I’ll get to later. But first, say hello to the third-generation Kia Rio hatch, which will be making its official debut later tonight.

The B-segment offering has been spotted enough times, on the road as well as at the COTY2U Autoshow 2012, and its premiere tonight is also no surprise, the fact being made known last week. It’s also known that the UB, which was unveiled in Geneva in 2011, will make its way here in five-door hatch form.

It has grown in terms of size – the new Rio measures in at 4,045 mm long, an increase of 20 mm over the previous gen. It’s also wider at 1,720 mm, up by 25 mm, and the wheelbase has been increased by 70 mm to 2,570 mm. The only reduction is with height, by 15 mm over the older car, at 1,470 mm. As for boot space, there’s 288 litres available for storage.

Powering the Rio is a 1.4 litre MPI Gamma mill, and the DOHC with CVVT unit is good for 109 PS at 6,300 rpm and 137 Nm at 4,200 rpm. The G4FA is paired to a four-speed automatic, replete with what Kia calls a ‘manumatic’ manual shift function.

It’ll be available in two trim levels, the EX and SX, and common to both is a good spread of kit. Standard equipment includes LED daytime running lights, electric folding wing mirrors with LED side repeaters, static bending lights, tilt/telescopic steering as well as an Akarmys-enhanced six-speaker audio system with MP3 and aux.

There’s also Bluetooth connectivity, a leather-wrapped steering with audio controls, a rear spoiler, alloy pedals, 60:40 split folding rear seats and rear fog lamps. Elsewhere, the car features disc brakes all-around and EPS.

As for safety, the Rio is certainly comprehensively equipped, with Isofix mountings, six airbags (front, front side, front/rear curtain), electronic stability control, ABS/EBD, TCS, brake assist and Vehicle Stability Management (VSM) on the list.

Befitting its higher specification, the SX adds on front fog lamps, a sunroof, a Supervision cluster instrument panel, full auto air-conditioner with an integrated cluster ioniser as well as a Smart Key system with push-start ignition, the EX making do with a standard keyed ignition. The SX also gets five-spoke 17-inch alloys with 205/45 series tyres, while the EX is clad with five twin-spoke 16-inch units and 195/55 rubbers.

Ahead of the car’s launch, there was a preview drive for it two weeks ago. A simple enough outing, involving a day drive out to the Golden Palm Tree Resort in Sepang and back. At this juncture, I have to apologise for the rather small batch of photos (none of the engine and rear seat), as well as limited driving notes about the car, but we’ll get to the reason why this is so in a bit.

Nothing much to add as far as looks go, except to say that the UB is a pretty sharp looker in the metal; Kia is aiming its sights at the likes of the Ford Fiesta and Suzuki Swift with this one, and in its SX guise, the Rio should win many new friends based on its flash. It’s certainly eye-catching, especially with those 17-inchers and clad in Electronic Blue.

The cheer continues on to the interior. The layout of the dash bears Teutonic styling hints, which will appeal to those into such fashion, and the plastics are good to the sight, if a little less so to the touch.

Still, the contact points are very well done, the feel of the steering, switchgear and gearshift adding a sense of premium to things. The rear is an acceptably comfortable place to be in; despite reduced leg and shoulder room than previously, space perception is good, aided by improved headroom (45 mm up) and additional distance between first and second row seats. The seats themselves could be a bit firmer though.

On to the driving dynamics. In this regard, the Rio doesn’t veer too much away from its ilk, but what’s on should be good enough for most buyers. Korean cars aren’t really renowned for their outright handling in base form, and so when pushed, the Rio’s suspension shows up its soft legs, all the more evident as a rear seat passenger.

Nonetheless, the assisting electronics keep things honest – I only managed to provoke the car once inside a turn, and the Rio kept its composure ably enough, and it even felt impressive doing so. Driven in more sedate fashion, the car does very well.

Pace-wise, the Gamma mill isn’t racy, and lags a little off the blocks, but once it gets going the response picks up. It also sounds zingy when pushed, but otherwise noise and vibration levels on the whole are good. The ride is a bit on the firm side with the 17s, but not jarring. Presumably, the EX and its 16s would be better in this regard, but I never got to it, because a golf buggy put paid to everything.

Ah yes, a golf buggy. Arriving at the resort and lunch, the cars were being lined up, so I decided to take the opportunity to take more photos. As I was snapping away, a combination of ill-luck saw one of the resort’s buggies accelerating into me, the driver blissfully unaware that my bulk was in his path. The photo just above was taken seconds before the eventful event.

I’ll save the details of that fateful encounter for another time and place, but the short of it is that having a buggy run you down and then push you along isn’t a very pleasant experience, as you can probably surmise. That poleaxe job pretty much ended the drive for me, as well as for my camera. The term ‘suffering for your art’ has never sounded more apt. Thankfully, it didn’t turn out to be ‘dying’.

Hopefully, we’ll have a more thorough look at the car sometime soon, and issue a more complete report on it. I might even be the one to have that go, you never know. I mean, the Rio and I are interminably intertwined – I’ll certainly never forget her or that day. In any case, I’m a sucker for punishment. That I’m heading out the door after this to cover the launch says it all.

The post DRIVEN: Kia Rio 1.4 SX – third-gen UB previewed appeared first on Paul Tan's Automotive News.

To say that the Volkswagen Sharan is spacious does not really give you the full picture of the interior. The amount of glass – forward, rearward, sides and even on top – lets in plenty of light that in turn makes the interior feel airy. Which is much like a properly designed living room, that’s if living rooms had forward-facing seats and four wheels. And the amount of glass in here also gives ample view of the world outside which is handy when manoeuvring this rather large MPV.

Yet, the Sharan does not look humongous from the outside. Volkswagen has done an impeccable job of fitting all that space in a tight package. The Sharan has the squinty headlamps of current generation Volkswagen cars and its roofline tapers ever so slightly at the rear. The Sharan measures 4,854 mm in length, 1,904 mm in width and 1,720 mm in height. It is not until you park it side by side with a Vellfire that you realise the Sharan is slightly longer and broader but not taller, and without sacrificing any headroom.

OK, back inside. The People’s Car people mover can accommodate up to seven adults, and I do mean seven L-sized adults, seated in a two-three-two formation. Notably the furniture consists of individual seats and not the usual park bench. The individual seats also bring their own set of advantages, more on that later. There’s also an optional special headrest that turns the seat into a child seat.

Another thing to highlight is the third row seats – they’re far from useless. Usually, one has to practically assume a foetal position just to fit into the last row. In the Sharan, well, it is still claustrophobic at the back but the legroom isn’t as cramped as you’d think. Still, best used for short distances.

With all seven seats up, the Sharan only yields a piteous boot space. Take down the rear two seats and you’ll earn a more respectable space of 885 litres. Fold the middle and last row, which packs flat, and you’ll extend the cargo hold to 2,430 litres.

Is it easy to fold down the seats? Well, the rear takes a bit more effort than the middle seats. You need to release the seat base first, which is inside, before moving to the boot to pull down the backrest. Honestly, it is quite a hassle.

The real magic here is found in the individual seats that allow you to fold just one seat instead of mashing down an entire bench. This also means that you have more freedom of carrying more things without needing to cull the number of passengers you can take with you. Besides the large space, there are also 33 other places within the MPV in which you can stash your bits and bobs.

With the Sharan fully loaded, the next concern would be power. With a normal load of four people and the weekend’s travel bags/shopping, the Sharan can still be a rapid big thing. Not that it is light, mind; the MPV’s unladen weight is 1,838 kg. Yet, for the 2.0 litre TSI, it is not a big ask.

The turbocharged lump produces 200 PS at 5,100 rpm, so there’s plenty of mid- to top-end speed to be had. The engine also gives out 280 Nm of torque between 1,700 to 5,000 rpm, which gives it plenty of acceleration across the torque band. 0-100 km/h is accomplished in a claimed 8.3 seconds. Far-fetched? Maybe, but mash the accelerator pedal and you’ll squash all doubt that the Sharan is a sloth.

At high speeds, the Sharan feels stable and assured, and not easily swayed by cross winds or the rippling road. The ride is more rigid than the rest of the MPV crop, which are usually of Japanese origin. Still, the chassis is able to shake off all but the deepest bumps and holes.

The rigid suspension also bestows the Sharan with high levels of agility compared to its rivals. Body roll has been dialled back and you’d have to purposefully throw the MPV into a corner to get it to roll. A slight steering input is all the MPV needs to change directions quickly and accurately, even if the steering feels numb.

The test Sharan came armed with the Tech pack that, for RM24,000 more, includes the Adaptive Chassis Control that allows you to soften or harden the suspension to your liking. The difference between Comfort, Normal and Sport is miniscule at best and trying to tell them apart is like trying to differentiate which cup of coffee is mixed with white, brown or artificial sugar.

Ah, but that’s not the only thing you’re getting for RM24,000. The Sharan with Tech pack (RM269,888 nett) also gets a 300 W eight-speaker Dynaudio sound system, keyless start and entry and Lane Assist, which is VW’s lane departure warning system.

If you don’t want to spend more, no problem. The base Sharan (RM245,888 nett) already has plenty, such as all the important safety aids you need – traction control and anti-slip among others – and plenty of airbags for emergency cushioning for all three rows. The standard spec MPV is also fitted with Park Assist, which automatically works the steering while you work the gear lever and pedals when slotting the Sharan into a parking space.

So it does not have a DVD player and a 12-inch LCD to go with it, but in terms of everything else, it is hard to fault this MPV. With the Sharan, you’ll own a quality MPV that is not only easy to drive and relatively comfortable, but also has the potential to be the family’s favourite vehicle.

The post Volkswagen Sharan 2.0 TSI Test Drive Review appeared first on Paul Tan's Automotive News.

I understand if you can’t tell the difference but trust me when I say that this is the all-wheel drive Porsche 911 Carrera launched sometime back in August. That’s right, this isn’t the rear-wheel drive car – it is the one that runs with all paws on the ground.

Unconvinced? When I first set eyes on it in Austria, where the media drive was held, I thought the same. The most obvious visual cue is the tail light ribbon that runs east to west, bridging the gap between the skinny tail lights. And if your eyes are acute enough, you’ll also note that the all-wheel drive 911 adds 22 mm to the wheel arches and 10 mm to the tyres. Which effectively increases the rear track width of the Carrera 4 by 42 mm and 36 mm on the Carrera 4S.

The bodywork has also been reworked albeit ever so slightly. From the side, it’s the black recessed sill panels that make the difference. The nose, especially in the air intakes, now wears sleeker lateral screens.

Open the doors and you’ll find there isn’t much to differentiate between the RWD and the AWD models. It’s all the same – wrapped in skin and accentuated with metal, with plenty of options to customise your 911. Importantly, every car that rolls out of Zuffenhausen will smell of luxury.

The only major difference, and this one is mainly for the tech geeks, is the graphics that display in real-time where the Porsche Traction Management (PTM) is sending the torque to. By the way, PTM is Porsche’s way of saying four-wheel drive, much like how xDrive is to BMW and 4Matic is to Mercedes-Benz.

Another new gizmo, if you can call it that, is the optional Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) with Porsche Active Safe (PAS). In a nutshell, the 911 can now stop and start itself in traffic with the ACC. While the PAS uses the front radar to alert the driver of impending collisions with light and sound, and full braking if the driver’s reaction time is slower than a snail. This has to be part of Porsche’s customer retention programme.

Let’s get back to the PTM. Situation normal, the 911 sends 99 percent of torque to the rear axle and down to the back wheels, which makes the car drive like its two-wheel drive counterpart. Hit a patch of black ice, or an oily-wet road (which is more relevant to us), and the multi-plate clutch sends the twist into places where traction is needed the most.

And it accomplishes the transfer so smooth and quick that by the time you suck in your breath, and hope you don’t become part of the landscape, the car would have already done the math. The computer will graze the brakes on some wheels and pass the torque to the other wheels to keep the car honest to the electromechanical steering. In very extreme situations, the 911 becomes 100% front-wheel driven.

Safety aspects aside, the PTM also gives the 911 the ability to carry more speed into the bends. It lets you brake a little later and power out of the corner a little earlier. This also means that you can be braver and a little faster, especially when you throw the car around the narrow and twisting roads that connect one remote village to another. The nose does not twitch unlike the rear-wheel drive counterpart, which makes it easier to drive closer to the limits. Unexpected hints of understeer do creep up now and then, but only if you deliberately unsettle the car.

Don’t be fooled though. This is still a 911 and the engine is still at the back. So let this be a fair bit of warning: drive it like an overzealous monkey and you will exit the corner tail first and tucked between your legs in spite of the car’s best efforts. The ‘slow in, fast, out’ philosophy is still very much applicable – it is still a Porsche and must be treated as such.

Two engines are offered – you know them – the flat-six in 3.4 litre and 3.8 litre guises. The 3.4 litre gives out 350 hp and 390 Nm; the 3.8 litre has 400 hp and 440 Nm on tap. In both cases, the engine deletes the 50 kg weight penalty incurred by the all-wheel drive system.

Both engines can be paired with the seven-speed manual or the PDK. The PDK is, without a doubt, faster than the manual clocking in a 0-100 km/h time of 4.3 seconds. Although the seven-speeder is slower by 0.2 seconds and lacks the rapid-fire shifting that only a well-oiled machine can achieve. Yet, I’d go for the stick shifter; there’s an unexplainable fizzy-buzzy sensation every time I move through all seven forward ratios.

Perhaps, here’s another reason to go with the manual – double declutching. It piggybacks with the Sport Chrono Package (which shaves off 0.2 seconds more from the century sprint time) and not available with the PDK. Downshift and the engine blips and the exhaust brurp-brurps, and the acceleration seconds after is explosive. Did I also mention it makes you feel like a driving hero? Double declutching: it does great things to the ego.

You can have the Carrera 4 and 4S in coupe and cabriolet body styles. The cabrio has a soft top that, when closed, retains a shape similar to the coupe, which also lets the cabrio retain the coupe’s aerodynamic benefits. One more thing: having the top down is the best way to listen to the glorious noise the boxer makes.

It is speedy too, the roof, taking only 13 seconds to fold or unfold. And since it’s a soft top, which means you don’t need to stop and put it up, the roof is operable up to speeds of 50 km/h.

So, this new iteration of the 911 Carrera is easier to handle and safer to drive. However, as the PTM takes away some of the nervousness, it also takes away some of the brilliance that made the 911 Carrera great. A contradiction, I know, but take nothing away the fact that the Porsche 911 Carrera 4 and 4S remain great cars to drive.

The post DRIVEN: Porsche 911 Carrera 4 and 4S sampled in the wine region of Lower Austria appeared first on Paul Tan's Automotive News.

Where MINI is concerned, variety is clearly the spice of life. Since the distinctive Hatch’s introduction over a decade ago, Cabrio, Clubman, Countryman, Coupe and Roadster bodystyles have been added to result in a model range comparable in diversity to Malaysian cuisine.

And that’s before you consider the derivatives – the One, One D, Cooper, Cooper S, Cooper D and Cooper SD – that are offered (some if not all and depending on market) on each model. Even before you add John Cooper Works, electric and special edition versions to the list, it’s clear that it would be understating it to say that MINI buyers are spoilt for choice.

The company’s success in the 21st century can be attributed to this vast range. Sure, there are traditional enthusiasts who swear by the Issigonis original and believe this seemingly never-ending model expansion pushes the brand further away from its core values by calling a car that isn’t a Mini a MINI.

And that’s just it. Can you imagine if the company went down the Model T route and stuck solely with the Hatch, without innovating any further? In this age of instant gratification and five-second attention spans, the youth of the world would quickly get bored. And yes, MINIs are primarily aimed at the youth market, who practically live and breathe ‘new.’

Just when you thought they’d exhausted all possible variations on the MINI theme, the company proves us wrong (again!) with the new MINI Paceman. You saw this one coming – from its introduction as a concept at the 2011 Detroit show and its production go-ahead, to official ‘spy shots‘ and its first public appearance as a production car at this year’s Paris show.

And it’s finally out – recently MINI held the international launch of the Paceman in the beautiful island of Mallorca in Spain, which offered visiting members of the media from many countries a chance to get to know the car, the brand and the men and women behind it better.

Four versions of the MINI Paceman launch in Europe – the 122 hp Cooper, 184 hp Cooper S, 112 hp Cooper D and 143 hp Cooper SD, with ALL4-equipped variants available and a John Cooper Works-tuned version - pictures and details of which recently emerged.

That morning we were welcomed by a fleet of Cooper S Pacemans standing at attention in the Palma Mallorca airport car park, which we were to drive to Puro Beach via a scenic route that took us through long motorways, country roads that swept through sleepy villages and a real spaghetti of curves and corners that snaked up a mountain – and down again. Before we began the drive, I had a good look around the vehicle.

Billed as “the first Sports Activity Coupe in the premium small and compact segment,” the Paceman is, in essence, a three-door version of the Countryman. If both cars were entered for a beauty pageant in which I was the judge, the newcomer would bring home the tiara before we even got to the questions part. I think the Paceman looks altogether more dynamic and purposeful, and certainly less ungainly than the Countryman, which has five doors.

It achieves this dynamism via a tapering roofline and a shoulder line that’s angled rather sharply upwards, so the car appears to be sitting on its haunches, poised to pounce. Roof and shoulder line almost meet at the back, but don’t – thanks to blacked-out B- and C-pillars, the roof appears to be suspended in mid-air – the ‘floating roof’ effect. That rear-three quarter view is particularly pleasing to the eye, too.

The funky, cheeky character associated with MINI is brought out through those bug-eye headlamps, white roof and door mirror caps (these can also be had in body colour or black), and those new rear lamps, which are designed to emulate the shape of the headlamps and are MINI’s first horizontal tail lamps.

The Paceman and Countryman share the same platform and therefore the same 2.6 metre wheelbase. However, the former is very slightly longer overall than the latter – which is unusual given that it has fewer doors – but since every panel aft of its A-pillar is new, the rear may have been extended a bit to give rear occupants more space.

The new car sits 20 mm lower on a suspension tuned more towards sportiness. Also new are those rear lamps; they’re designed to emulate those at the front, and you see the ‘PACEMAN’ nameplate at the back? This is the first MINI to sport a model nameplate.

The interior is recognisably MINI save for a few changes. The window switches, which used to be on the row of toggles below the climate controls, have been moved to the doors, which I find more ergonomic to operate (the latest Countryman gets this update too).

Unlike the Countryman though, the Paceman’s strictly a four-seater – a thin transmission tunnel-like console runs across the length of the cabin, separating the two individual back seats. This console houses an aircraft-style handbrake and a unique sunglass case up front, and cupholders at the back.

The central speedometer on this car had the infotainment system screen integrated within it, and while undoubtedly in the right place for optimal viewing, somewhat takes away the charm that the fully analogue speedo had. But I can’t think of anywhere else to place the screen anyway.

It isn’t a touchscreen; you control the system by means of a tiny knob by the gear lever. I find this iDrive style a little fiddly to operate – it’s all too easy to overshoot your intended selection – but I’m sure it just takes a bit of getting used to. In some cases, the screen disappears off the edge of the circle, presumably because the iDrive system was designed for rectangular screens and the circle isn’t wide enough.

But you would want to know most about how it drives. You can think of the Paceman as a midway point between the Hatch and the Countryman. It rides softer than the Hatch and isn’t quite as agile, but is flatter and more planted through the twisty stuff than the Countryman. The same ‘halfway’ compromise can be applied to the way it gathers speed, which again isn’t surprising when you compare its 1.3 tonne kerb weight to the Hatch’s 1.1 and Countryman’s 1.4.

Still, this Cooper S version is capable of reaching very high speeds with ease. When pedal meets metal, the overboost kicks in to give you 260 Nm of torque between 1,700 and 4,500 rpm – a 20 Nm increase. From rest, the Cooper S Paceman is capable of hitting 100 km/h in a quoted 7.5 seconds, whereupon it will continue towards a 217 km/h top speed.

Factor a quick, communicative steering with good feel and effective brakes into the equation and you have a recipe for unbridled fun, as well as the confidence to have that fun. Yes, the trademark ‘go-kart feel’ is still there, most of it down to that direct steering and a really well-sorted chassis.

The weather that day was perfect for a drive. The sun certainly didn’t hold back its rays, which glistened and reflected off the sea as it ebbed and flowed – much in the same manner with which we tackled the mountain curves, although we were somewhat more urgent than the gentle waves of the Mediterranean.

The Paceman took it all in its stride, the body remaining composed and unflustered as we swung the car left and right. There is a good, solid feel to everything that few small cars can offer. Lift off the throttle with Sport mode activated and a tiny bit of fuel is squirted into the exhaust to create backfire on the overrun, psychologically preparing you for the hairpin ahead. It’s also pretty exciting and sounds great.

The turbocharged 1.6 litre four-cylinder itself is actually pretty muted otherwise; you can hear its rising, sporty note and the accompanying whistle of the blower at higher revs, but quite a lot of the soundtrack is isolated from the cabin. Like in other MINIs, the six-speed manual is notchy in operation – although I tend to prefer a softer, more fluidic shift action, its spring bias is not overly heavy and gear changes can be effected swiftly.

The car we drove was not equipped with ALL4, but the high levels of grip already afforded by those 205/55 R17s made us question if the car even needed four wheel-drive if it wasn’t going to see much off-road action. We know of Range Rovers which never leave the tarmac, let alone a MINI. Whatever it is, you’d have to be carrying quite a significant amount of speed into a corner before you make the front tyres squeal, which of course is then kept in check by the traction control system.

Now, the Countryman was arguably the biggest departure from the MINI ethos among its siblings. What can be said of the Paceman? If anything, I feel it’s a truer MINI as it’s comparatively funkier and more youthful, since it has fewer doors and fewer seats. When all is said and done though, if it’s fun you’re after, the Paceman does deliver, in the way it looks as well as the way it drives.

We can quite confidently expect the Cooper S variant to be introduced in Malaysia, but it remains to be seen if other versions will be added to the line-up. The Cooper S Hatch costs RM240k; the Cooper S Countryman RM286k, so speculatively we’re looking at a price tag of around RM270-280k when the MINI Paceman hits our shores sometime next year.

The post DRIVEN: The new MINI Paceman in Mallorca, Spain appeared first on Paul Tan's Automotive News.

The next throw of the dice in the B-segment class will take place on November 29th, when Naza Quest debuts the Chevrolet Sonic into the ever-burgeoning scene. The car, which is built in GM’s Rayong plant, will arrive in both five-door hatch and four-door sedan forms, as reported earlier.

The successor to the Aveo will only be available in a single trim level here, this being the range-topping LTZ, and this means that there’s only a six-speed auto transmission for the car in both body-style versions, complete with gearknob-located Driver Shift Control manual selection.

At the heart of it all is a 1.4 litre Ecotec VVT four-cylinder mill, with 100 hp at 6,000 rpm and 130 Nm of twist at 4,000 rpm. Not huge numbers, but Naza Quest is confident that the cars will take on the competition in terms of pep.

The 4.4 metre-long sedan is targeting the likes of the Toyota Vios, Honda City and the booted-versions of the Ford Fiesta and Mazda2, while the 4.04 metre-long hatch is aimed at conquering sales from the Honda Jazz as well as the Fiesta and Mazda2 hatches. There was no mention of the recently-launched Nissan Almera, but that one is definitely in the game.

Novelties include a number of motorcycle-derived design cues, including an exposed round design headlamp array as well as an instrument cluster readout that screams digital. A quick aside on the headlamp; it’s novel, but looks to be a polish trap in the long run. Chevy is also touting an Euro-ride tuning for the Sonic’s front Macpherson, rear torsion beam suspension.

Features include 60:40 split fold-down rear seats, tilt-adjustable steering, a six-speaker single CD/MP3 audio system with USB connectability and six speakers. Plenty of storage spaces and cubby holes, and in terms of rear cargo space, there’s 468 litres for the sedan and 253 for the hatch.

Going the LTZ route has the interior dressed up in grey/black Breva-pattern seats and a grey/Dark Titanium dashboard, and the LTZ also sports five twin-spoke 16-inch alloys wrapped with 205/55 series rubbers.

Safety kit is made up of ABS, EBD and brake assist as well as ISOFIX points, and the LTZ trim means that the Sonic comes with dual airbags. In Thailand, five colours are listed, these being Royal Grey, Switchblade Silver, Summit White, Oceanic Blue and Black Sapphire, which should also be the colour palette available here.

Pricing hasn’t been announced, but at the media preview for it and the Orlando MPV held at the Litar Elite Gokart Speedway, the indicator was that the Sonic is expected to roll in at about RM82,000, which would bring it closer to the RM85,000 mark in a drive-off state.

The preview was brief, and consisted of basic acceleration, handling and wet braking efficency tests, and given the kilometre of tarmac travelled per session round – and there were two for each run, marshalled – you’ll perhaps not take my musings as being definitive about it.

Still, there were some rather interesting bits revealed. Now, as far as segment offerings go, the Sonic should be able to dice it with what’s out there, but besting them (individually or collectively) may be another thing altogether.

At the pre-session briefing, mention was made of the Sonic’s interior noise levels, and how better it happens to be in this regard than its competitors. Well, under heavy acceleration, there’s a high degree of engine noise being transmitted into the cabin – I’d put that down to the raucous nature of the Ecotec mill; while willing, it’s zingy when worked hard.

That’s not the point about the noise and vibration levels though, which is I think is par for the course (arguably, not better than the Fiesta’s, even from that short sampling time), but putting all that good work into more refined body sealing and expansion acoustic baffles as well as a three-layer dash insulation and under-body acoustic deadeners sounds rather redundant when you don’t get things right mechanically to begin with.

In this case, a distinct, very noticeable whine, which continued to pitch and drone along merrily as I made my way around the go-kart track – I finally placed it, coming from whenever the steering travelled anywhere off-centre. Which was about 90% of the time.

Given that the Sonic mules were unregistered examples, and didn’t seem to have much wear on them, it’s likely an anomaly. Still, less than reassuring, sonically (no pun intended) at least. The steering itself is a bit lifeless, though there’s at least decent progression and adequate heft on the turn.

As for handling, the car felt alright enough going around the course, soft-ish in its focus and predictable in its scope, with the hatch that bit livelier in feel, as expected.

The terrain offered little avenue to explore further, so I’ll defer judgement on whether its Euro-tuned suspension gives the Sonic mastery over the class-leading Fiesta’s. My guess is probably not.

Pace-wise, the 1.4 litre unit isn’t going to shame the likes of the Ford either, which has close to an additional 20 ponies, but the Sonic felt acceptably fast hauling four on board – in this regard, the car looks to be targeting other rivals on the list. Brake efficiency is also what you’d expect, the car coming up cleanly and without fuss when stomped.

In terms of build quality, it’s pretty tight though (well, mechanical whine notwithstanding), and the cabin feels a decent place to be in – I remained unconvinced by the location of the shift-knob gear toggle selector, however. It doesn’t push my buttons on the third-gen Focus, and it doesn’t here either.

On the whole, the Sonic joins a segment blustering with competitive offerings, and it’ll be intriguing to see just how it shapes – and adds – up in the market.

Some brief notes on the Orlando, which was supposed to have arrived in the second-half of last year. According to Naza Quest, the seven-seater is expected to be priced in the RM120-RM140k region, and is due to be finally launched here next month.

The Korean-made MPV’s rear third takes some getting used to visually, but I rather like how it looks. Inside, the cabin feels spacious from the second row perspective – I didn’t get to the last row, but two others did, and reported ample room for rear occupants.

As is already well-known, it sits on the same platform as the Cruze, and shares much of what’s on the sedan, build-wise, including the 1.8 litre mill. I didn’t have a favourable impression of the Cruze when I drove it years back, but this one proved far more pleasant.

The Orlando went about the course in happy enough fashion, even with a second stint behind the wheel with six on board stretching things. Certainly not pacy, but not completely breathless either, and there’s a fair bit to like in its dynamics and movement. We should find out more about it and the Sonic twins in due course; as for the Trailblazer SUV, word is that one will only be launched early next year.

The post DRIVEN: Chevrolet Sonic LTZ sedan and hatchback previewed – Orlando MPV also given a short spin appeared first on Paul Tan's Automotive News.

The big news in the local motoring scene last week was the launch of the Nissan Almera and its RM66,800 starting price. When that was announced at the event last Tuesday, a series of gasps were audible even within that big hall, followed by applause – it caught many of us off guard.

Not only, then, is this an important car for Nissan; the competitive pricing alone is enough to make the Nissan Almera a serious contender in the B-segment, already the domain of rivals Toyota Vios and Honda City.

The said segment is a significant one – according to Edaran Tan Chong Motor, it accounts for more than 38% of the Malaysian car market, with between 18,000 and 19,000 cars sold per month. If Nissan is to achieve its sales target of 10,000 units for the first three months, there is little room for error – the Nissan Almera is a car it has to get right.

With more than half a million already sold globally, it makes a pretty strong case for itself from the start. Still, there’s nothing like actually driving it to get some real-world answers, and this was fulfilled for a group of members of the media in a recent test drive to Melaka, where not only did we stretch the Nissan Almera’s legs, we stretched ours too at the back. There’s enough room for that, you bet.

The media drive fleet was made up of Nissan Almera V- and VL-spec cars – the highest and likely to be the better-selling two out of the four variants on offer, which made the test drive all the more relevant. I drove the V to Melaka and the VL on the return trip, and although they’re obviously no different to drive, there is considerable variation particularly in interior trim and equipment.

As standard, both have front fog lamps, black door pillar garnish, variable intermittent wipers, twin airbags, seven-spoke alloys and remote boot release differentiating them from the lower E grade. The range-topping VL adds on keyless entry (called Intelligent Key) and push start, automatic air-con and Fine Vision Meter with multi information display in its instrument panel. V starts from RM76,800; VL from RM79,800.

You can be the judge in terms of looks. I find the Nissan Almera’s styling understated, to say the least. Then again, there are people who prefer their cars this way. Personally, I like the look of the Impul bodykit, along with rear spoiler – it lends a certain degree of subtle aggression to an otherwise sedately styled sedan.

Step inside and you are greeted by a simple cockpit that’s arguably more function than form. Material quality is par for a car in this price range, but switches, knobs and controls in general do have a relative solidness in their operation, although obviously quite some way from premium in outright physical feel. No complaints as far as driver ergonomics are concerned – controls are where they should be and fall intuitively to hand.

The day began with an eco drive segment – we were to drive from ETCM’s Southgate showroom to Port Dickson as ‘normally’ as possible, with air-con on and without coasting or turning the engine off, while keeping between 80 and 110 km/h on the highway. This was managed without fuss, save for the occasional wait at traffic lights and the erratic morning traffic that threatened to worsen our consumption figures.

I drove the Nissan Almera in a relaxed manner during this stint, venturing beyond half throttle only once or twice. I found the electrically-assisted power steering perhaps a little too light for me at low speeds, but this is arguably a matter of individual preference. In any case, it isn’t devoid of feel – feedback from road surface undulations is well communicated to the driver, while directness and accuracy is above average.

The Nissan Almera does feel quite solid to drive and well put together, despite its affordability. Instrumental to that is a pliant, well-damped ride and sufficiently muted engine sound levels at low revs. The cabin also refused to emit any rattles, creaks or squeaks even when going through nasty ridges or potholes.

At the end of the 90 km eco drive, we brimmed the cars’ tanks and worked out our results. My car used 4.87 litres of petrol, which translates to an average of 18.5 km per litre, beating the quoted 14.9 for the automatic transmission variant by quite a margin.

Out of the thirteen Nissan Almeras in the media drive convoy (all of them automatic), the best achieved fuel consumption on that run was a staggering 24.8 km per litre, and the worst was 14.5, which is quite remarkable considering each car had three people on board, plus bags and other equipment in the boot. The average for all thirteen cars was taken to be 16.6 km per litre.

Sitting in the back of the Nissan Almera, I can report that the much-touted 636 mm of legroom is a real boon especially when travelling long distances, and the seat base is angled just so to provide good thigh support. Nissan claims best-in-class cabin space; most of it must be down to that legroom because head and elbow room are skimped on somewhat.

Now I’m not overly tall, but my head hits the tapered roofline if I lean back in my seat. Also, if two regular-sized adults were seated on the rear bench, the person in the middle would find it a real squeeze unless he or she were relatively small in stature. I also noted the absence of door and seat back pockets for the rear passengers.

Soon it was time to hit the open road. Free of eco constraints this time, we engaged the cars in a spirited drive down some scenic and winding rural roads. With 102 PS and 139 Nm of torque from the 1.5 litre HR15DE four-pot, acceleration from a standstill is just short of brisk, and one learns to carry more speed into the corners to save having to bury the throttle getting out of them. The engine note turns a little harsh beyond 3,000 rpm, but it isn’t excessively loud.

Kickdown on the four-speed automatic is quick enough for most overtaking situations, and thanks to an engine that spins pretty freely, the Nissan Almera reaches its 4,000 rpm power band fast. Gear changes are leisurely at best, but for the most part smooth and imperceptible. Steering feel weights up nicely with speed, too, and grip and body control levels are acceptable.

The brakes, although a seemingly outdated front-disc, rear-drum affair, provide more than enough stopping power for a one-tonne car such as this. There is no sudden bite; instead pedal action is predictable and progressively linear, making gradual application and release easier.

At the further end of the speedometer, the Nissan Almera is moderately refined. Wind noise is present, but the car does not fidget excessively and not a lot of steering effort is required to keep it on track. You wouldn’t want to do such speeds for a sustained time, though.

Both the V- and VL-spec Nissan Almeras I drove were equipped with the multimedia navigation system, a RM2,800 option. The in-house developed unit (by TC Auto Tooling) brings together a rear view camera display, DVD, iPod, USB and Bluetooth.

Legibility during the day is fairly good, although most would need to select the brightest setting. The six-inch screen is responsive to the touch, and system response is adequately quick. There’s also a split-screen feature that shows navigation on one side and radio on the other.

Has Nissan got the Nissan Almera right? To properly answer that question we would have to line it up side-by-side against its main rivals, but from the drive alone it is clear that the newest B-segmenter to hit town is attractively packaged. Its strong points are its simplicity, frugality, that rear leg space as well as an extensive catalogue of add-ons.

The basic RM66,800 Nissan Almera may be, well, basic, but it’s still good to know there’s an offering in this segment for that money, and at any rate, you can always spec it up with only what you need – a familiar business model that often makes sense. In these times of economic uncertainty, the Nissan Almera may be just what Nissan needs in our market.

The post DRIVEN: Nissan Almera 1.5 CVTC, to Melaka and back appeared first on Paul Tan's Automotive News.

The wonderful world of cars means that there is a vehicle for pretty much any purpose you can think of, and the sheer variety of that world means that there are as many jacks of all trades as there are masters of one.

In the case of go anywhere-ability, it’s often difficult to avoid mentioning the Toyota Hilux. Since its introduction in the late-1960s, the venerable pickup has built a reputation over the years for ruggedness, reliability and durability in some of the toughest conditions. On a recent media drive of the latest incarnation in the range, it was clear that what we subjected it to was merely child’s play for the tough truck.

It’s not a new generation, so what’s all the occasion? The answer lies under the bonnet – the 2.5G variant has joined its 3.0G sibling in getting Intercooler Variable Nozzle Turbo (VNT) technology added to its 2KD-FTV common rail turbodiesel unit, pushing output numbers up to 144 PS at 3,400 rpm and 343 Nm from 1,600 to 2,800 rpm.

This is an increase of 42 PS and 83 Nm over the non-VNT car, while that peak torque is available over a wider rev range. The updated engine is also now to be found in the Fortuner 2.5G.

The VNT optimises the flow of exhaust gases into the turbine according to demand conditions by altering the opening angle of the vanes – at low revs the vane opening is narrow, increasing exhaust flow and pressure so the turbine spins faster, improving low end torque.

Apart from the intercooler, which cools intake air temperature for better combustion and therefore more power, there’s also a fuel cooler which lowers the temperature of the return fuel to the fuel tank, maintaining its viscosity and preserving the reliability of the fuel system.

No exterior changes, save the addition of a new bonnet scoop to help channel better air flow to the top-mounted intercooler; the item was previously seen only on the 3.0 litre version. The interior remains simple and functional, the only change being a new two-DIN audio system that offers Bluetooth, USB and Aux connectivity and MP3/iPod compatibility, with six speakers as standard. These are also to be found on the Fortuner.

There’s the option of going with a DVD-Audio Video Navigation (AVN) system with the 2.5G variant, which adds GPS as well as a reverse camera on a large 6.1-inch colour monitor.

In a time when steering wheels are becoming increasingly festooned with buttons and switches, it is refreshing to see one devoid of any in the Hilux 2.5G, adding to its functional, largely mechanical nature. Also worth a mention is the fact that a limited-slip differential comes as standard, distributing power more effectively between the two rear wheels in low traction conditions.

Our 380 km drive took us from Shah Alam to Belum Forest Reserve in Pulau Banding, Perak through a mix of highway and trunk roads. We also had the opportunity, en route, to take the updated Hilux away from the tarmac to tackle an off-road trail that snaked up a 670 metre high hill. Coupled with occasional rain and light and heavy traffic, you might agree that as far as preview drives go, this one was pretty thorough.

For the sake of comparison, UMW Toyota Motor also brought a fleet of non-VNT cars along. Having driven both, I can report that the performance increase is evident, most so when overtaking.

Naturally, the VNT car pulls more strongly from lower revs, confirming the higher torque figure, but also at the top end of the rev range, the older car runs out of puff sooner while the VNT car continues to build up speed – useful for short bursts of acceleration. I was definitely more confident of executing safe and swift overtakes in the latter.

There didn’t seem to be any change in the engine note or its sound levels – clearly audible but not excessive, and the turbo emits its characterful whistle. Power delivery remains for the most part smooth and purposeful.

While the two-DIN touchscreen system responds well and adequately quickly to one’s fingertips, the screen isn’t very bright, and the glare from the sun can make the interface quite difficult to read.

Naturally, brake pedal feel is not the same as that on a regular car. While the brakes themselves are as effective as any in hauling the 1.9-tonne vehicle to an assertive stop, the long-travel pedal requires quite a bit of effort before the bite comes – just takes a bit of getting used to.

As befits a big 4X4 like this one, the steering is low-geared so that it doesn’t wobble excessively when you hit the rough stuff, but it isn’t so vague as to compromise accuracy.

The VNT Hiluxes among the convoy were fitted with all-terrain Bridgestone Duelers for the off-road bit later in the day, which on the initial highway blast naturally yielded quite a bit of tyre roar, and while grip levels on tarmac were reduced slightly, they didn’t ruin the ride comfort much, which has to be said is not as choppy as you might expect at speed.

Then it was time to engage low range on the chain-driven transfer case and take it off road, and the Hilux was now truly in its element. In the rocky, narrow climb up a hill to a turn-around spot, the surface undulations did little to disturb its body composure and balance, and the increased torque meant that it was capable of creeping up very steep gradients at very low revs, which brings a rather satisfying sensation.

To summarise and conclude, the already versatile Hilux has definitely received a long-awaited and welcome improvement in the form of the added Intercooler VNT to its 2.5 litre engine – the increased power and torque makes the vehicle more useable in all situations and restores an element of parity with contemporary competitors.

As for pricing, the Hilux Double Cab 2.5G Intercooler VNT costs RM94,988 for the manual and RM99,988 for the automatic, while the Double Cab 2.5 Standard manual is priced at RM86,788.

Completing the five model Hilux range are the 2.5 single-cab manual gearbox version at RM76,288 and the top-of-the-range double-cab 3.0G, which goes for RM107,267. These prices are OTR for individual private registration with insurance, for Peninsular Malaysia.

Colours available for the Double Cab 2.5G and 2.5 STD are Dark Steel Mica, Silver Metallic, Medium Silver Metallic and White. The 3.0G has the same shade palette, but drops Medium Silver Metallic to make it three colours, while the 2.5 single cab only comes in white.

The pricing for the Fortuner variants are as such – the 2.5G automatic goes for RM171,288, while the dressed-up 2.5G TRD Sportivo version is priced at RM174,772. Those wanting to go the petrol route still have the 2.7V to pick, and that one goes for RM179,007; opting for the 2.7V TRD Sportivo brings the sum up to RM182,465.

The post DRIVEN: Toyota Hilux 2.5 Intercooler VNT launched – we test it out on a trip to Belum Forest Reserve appeared first on Paul Tan's Automotive News.

The Toyota Camry is a car “enthusiasts” love to hate. It’s an uncle car, big and boring, overpriced and underspecced, they say. Rubbish, some might add. For an online reviewer to say that it’s decent would be akin to running across a firing line. Online? Without the scrutiny of active feedback from you, dear readers, papers and car mags can get away with almost anything.

Anyway, we believe there’s a car for everyone, and one that’s not to your personal taste doesn’t make it a bad car. After drving this XV50 Camry 2.5V for few days, not only am I quite fond of it, I now fully understand why the Camry is such a popular car, the default big sedan that racks up sales Koreans dream about in our part of the world.

First, let’s get some niggles out of the way. There’s no Vehicle Stability Control (VSC) available, even on our range topping RM180,900 2.5V. This is either very stingy or a big oversight on Toyota’s part, especially when the previous Camry had it. Needs to be rectified for the facelift, if not sooner.

Looks wise, I prefer the quiet elegance of the previous model (pre-facelift was even smoother) than the sharper “more dynamic” lines of this Camry. Could be just me, but it looks a little forced. Perhaps they wanted to incorporate “more Lexus” into the image, but those who prioritise eye-catching design won’t be looking this way, not with the Sonata and Optima in town.

The chiselled new face, dominated by that huge chromed grille, is bolder but a bit fussy, and those LED strips below the fog lamps can’t be anything but an afterthought. There’s more adventure then you’d expect from Toyota’s designers though – there’s an arc that rises from the headlamps, diving down to meet the rising belt line for a signature character stroke.

Another unique cue is the way the car’s sides don’t meld into the front and rear surfaces, and are instead “cut off” quite severely. Toyota calls this “aero corner design” and it helps simplify air flow, aiding aerodynamics along with the discreet “aero stabilising fin” behind the wing mirrors and under-floor covers.

Moving inside, I like the simplicity of this new dashboard. Same amount of functions, via less buttons – a completely opposite approach from the Honda Accord.

Another plus point for me is the rich meter panel, now incorporating a fuel-consumption section (needle for average FC, light bar for instantaneous) and a two-tier trip meter. When the latter shows average FC and range, I rarely need to jog it via the steering buttons. And like most new cars, an ECO light is included to coach your right foot.

It has to be said though that the more spartan feel (“feel” because there are no less functions than before) and plain black plastic on the centre stack do little to add to the impression of luxury, something that the previous car did better. Points are clawed back with the stitched dashboard, stereo knobs with fine cut surfacing and a richly-lined handphone slot below the AC panel.

If wood is a must, then they’ve done all they can to make the cabin look “younger” compared to the previous Camry and the Nissan Teana. The black-beige colour combo is right for me, especially in a car like this. The lighter hue provides an expansive feel, while the contrasting black (dashboard, steering, door caps) adds dynamism. Better than the Teana’s different shades of beige theme, I think.

Let’s not forget the Camry specials. Things like a powered rear blind, manual rear window blinds and shoulder switches give the Camry a touch of limo appeal. The latter is located on the side of the front passenger seat, allowing the driver to adjust that seat electrically without bending over and stretching. Ferrying the family over the weekend, I used it often.

Speaking of limo appeal, rear occupants can really sit back and relax, like a boss. Besides the features above, the Camry’s front passenger headrest can be folded down for a better view.

The rear bench seating position is good (base not too low, seat back angle not too reclined) and there’s plenty of knee and legroom, more than before thanks to reshaped front seat backs and centre console, which houses air vents. The Camry’s exterior dimensions, 2,775 mm wheelbase included, are unchanged, but packaging has been improved to realise better cabin space.

Kit wise, our 2.5V came with niceties like HID projectors (across the range), eight-way powered seats with electric lumbar for the driver, touch-screen DVD-AVN system with USB, AUX, Bluetooth and reverse camera, front and side airbags, plus keyless entry with push start button.

Good stuff, but for the money, I would have liked an anti-glare rear view mirror (current one is a thin, cheap looking unit) and wing mirrors that auto fold along with the keyless entry. There’s also no auto headlamps and wipers.

Much has been said about the rise of the Koreans, who are doing a great job, but this new Camry is proof (or rather reminder) that Toyota really knows how to make a big sedan work. No edgy design or fancy glass roof here, just a very comfortable and effortless cruiser.

The 2AR-FE 2.5-litre engine (Dual VVTi, 181 PS, 231 Nm) is very well insulated and smooth revving, and the way it picks up speed with that strong mid range is impressive.

Same goes for the silky six-speed auto gearbox, which is a good balance between smoothness and speed – changing gears is not so sharp till you feel it, but it does not overlap and slur its way around either. Judgement and perception is very good, which is why I never felt the need to use manual mode.

There’s a slickness and effortlessness to this drivetrain that’s missing in say, a Hyundai Sonata, which is more rough around the edges, and the hushed way the Camry goes about its business should appeal to more in this segment than charismatic nemesis Honda Accord.

The Camry is a smooth operator, which is why I was surprised at the higher than expected vibration at idle, which isn’t in character. Could be an isolated case, but even if not, I reckon that it’s not something that many would notice, only because we’re serial testers.

Some might say that the Camry has always been smooth. True, but it has never been this competent when hustled. The big Toyota is still not a driver’s car, or even as nice to drive hard down a B-road than an Accord, but it doesn’t feel as uncomfortable as before should you insist.

The steering has surprising weight to it, too. Not much feel, but its precision and weight alone makes the Camry a sharper tool than before. Trunk road driving is not a nightmare as many keen drivers would expect – tyres squeal very early on, and there’s quite a bit of roll, but body control is decent.

Ride comfort is good, and the primary high-speed ride isn’t disconcertingly floaty. Road and wind noise are very well insulated, adding to the XV50′s mile munching cruiser appeal. The Camry has always been a smooth operator, but this time around, the dynamics have caught up a little.

Living with it for a few days, I can understand why the Camry is so popular with the conservative buyer. It’s not the most exciting player around (far from it), there are spec (too low) and price (too high) issues, and there’s that image problem with younger folks; but Toyota understands what the bulk of D-segment buyers want, and executes the plan well, on the 2.5V at least.

Of course, there’s also the strong resale value and service network the brand commands, things that are high up the priority list of many car buyers.

I’m pleasantly surprised. The uncle never had it this good.

Paul says: The Camry does well in matters that the target buyer wants and can perceive. But everyone thinks bad things only happen to the next guy, and the lack of demand of stability control even in this RM150k-RM200k segment (and hence the removal of this feature in all variants of the Camry for whatever reasons) shows how alarmingly uneducated Malaysian buyers are about safety features.

If you really want a Camry, perhaps you can look for a low mileage last generation model with VSC and some warranty left. You can look for used Toyota Camry XV40 on oto.my.

The post DRIVEN: Toyota Camry 2.5V Test Drive Report appeared first on Paul Tan's Automotive News.

A car company that builds incredibly good diesel cars that are both really fast and really fuel efficient goes ahead and builds a hybrid car with a big engine. This is the BMW ActiveHybrid 3, which features the second-generation BMW hybrid system, and we’ve driven it in Munich.

The BMW ActiveHybrid 3 is essentially built on the F30 335i. Like the 335i, you can have it in either Modern Line, Sport Line or Luxury Line trim, though for the Malaysian-spec – when it is eventually launched – we’ll have to see what Cyberjaya has decided what we’ll be getting.

In terms of exterior differences, other than the unique blue colour you see here (which you don’t have to take, btw), various ActiveHybrid 3 badges around the car as well as funky looking aerodynamic ‘Streamline” wheels (which you also don’t have to take in Europe, but probably have to in Malaysia), there’s not much else to differentiate it from a regular 335i.

Some car manufacturers like Nissan and Toyota use a blue-tinged variation of their marque logo, but that’s probably against the holy grail of BMW CI guidelines, or perhaps there’s already enough blue on the propeller badge to begin with.

Two exhaust pipes on both sides of the rear bumper proudly exhibit the car’s sporty intentions – BMW has made no attempt to hide the fact that this car does produce emissions! And the exhaust tone is pretty bassy as well – in fact, I heard more of the exhaust tone than the engine while driving this car, something that I’m undecided as to whether I like or not.

As for the interior, it’s pretty much stock standard F30, except for a few badges here and there and additional customised displays to show the status of the hybrid system on both the Black Panel instrument cluster and the iDrive display.

Other than that, there’s really not much to tell you that you’re sitting in a hybrid. And for those who like to be reminded everyday that they’re driving something that can run on EV mode, it might be a negative point. For those who like their cars to make a statement, there might not be enough hybrid-ness about the way this car looks and drives to satisfy.

If you think about it from a positive note, it’s a good problem to have, really, that the switch between pure electric and combustion engine drive is so smooth that if you don’t pay attention to the hybrid displays and the RPM meter, you won’t really know what’s going on. The motor is integrated seamlessly into the car.

Yes, the motor. BMW’s second generation ActiveHybrid technology is standardised across all hybrid models, to simplify things and reduce cost as well. This is why the new 7-Series facelift has its engine downgraded from a V8 to an inline-6. The same engine, motor and gearbox package you get in the ActiveHybrid 3, you’ll also get in the 5 and the 7.

You start with a BMW TwinPower Turbo 6 cylinder single twin-scroll turbo engine from the 335i, the N55B30 producing 306 hp at 5,800 rpm and 400 Nm between 1,200 and 5,000 rpm. Then you add an electric motor that outputs 55 hp and its full torque of 210 Nm from standstill. It’s not as simple as 306 + 55 however – total system output is rated at 340 hp.

The new 55 hp electric motor can propel the car on its own at speeds up to 75 km/h, and as far as four kilometres if you keep an average speed of about 35 km/h. It’s installed in the housing of the eight-speed automatic transmission, sandwiched between the engine and the transmission.

The electric motor is powered by a 317V high-voltage circuit that’s supplied by a lithium-ion battery installed in a special high strength housing, positioned between the wheel arches in the boot. This battery consists of a total of 96 cells of the A123 iron phosphate type, which is said to be safer, with a downside of not being the most powerful on the market.

The battery, which BMW engineered themselves, has an effective energy capacity of 675 Wh. BMW engineered the hybrid system to use only 50% of battery capacity, so the lifespan of the battery can be extended, which is claimed to last “the life of the vehicle.” The car also has a conventional 14V circuit to power everything else.

This high-voltage circuit also powers a special electrical air-conditioning system that’s necessary for it to function with the combustion engine turned off, as a regular air- conditioning system depends on the engine crankshaft for power. The air-conditioning can be activated remotely via the diamond button on the BMW key fob, which normally turns on the headlamps on a regular F30.

Switching to electric air-conditioning allows the start-stop system to shut the engine down in far more situations than a normal BMW with a start-stop system. For example, the system can completely shut off and decouple the engine from the gearbox while coasting at speeds of up to 160 km/h in ECO PRO mode.

The battery has affected the weight balance of the car by a wee bit – it’s now a 49.8:50.2 front to rear weight balance. Despite the higher 340 hp total system output, BMW says one would probably feel the same performance as a 335i because of an additional 135 kg of weight. In terms of dynamics, you’ll probably feel the extra weight in situations like braking into a corner, but at the same time this will be compensated by a slightly stronger acceleration, thanks to the electric motor providing some torque boost.

Boot space is reduced because of the battery, but only by a small margin. It now measures about 390 litres, which is a reduction of 90 litres compared to a regular F30. In fact, you’ll hardly notice that it’s there, as all that’s changed is that the ActiveHybrid 3′s boot floor is now completely level, compared to the normal F30 which has a boot floor that slopes downwards from the seat back towards the rear. The total difference in height at the rear of the boot is about 50 mm.

In terms of safety, BMW says it is safe – crash tests did not reveal any issues and the company has even tried crashing the battery separately from the car, and there weren’t any problems. It’s obvious that the F30 was engineered from the very beginning to be able to carry a hybrid power train, given its seamless integration into the car.

So, what’s the point of all this, really? BMW claims a double digit percentage improvement in fuel economy over a 335i. The car is rated to consume just 5.9 litres per 100 km and output 139g of CO2/km in the EU test cycle. We set out to see if we could achieve those numbers.

In our real world test drive in the outskirts of Munich, we observed average fuel consumption of between 7.8 litres per 100 km to 12.1 litres per 100 km. The hybrid power train performed best during moderate traffic, where there was plenty of stop and go and with most of the go only hitting speeds of 60 km/h tops.

In this driving pattern, which reminded me a lot of my commute to work from Bukit Jelutong to Petaling Jaya, I observed that from the various displays that the car would run on EV mode most of the time, as long as you feathered the throttle and drove reasonably fuel efficient. The stop and go sections allowed the battery to recharge, so more EV travel would be possible.

The hybrid power train curiously did not perform very well in heavy stop and go traffic, which reminded me of Friday afternoon jams back home, nor did it do very good in open roads. These situations caused the average fuel consumption swelled to well over 10 litres per 100 km, and it was hard to get the car to run on EV mode.

For the latter, it’s generally known that hybrids don’t do very well on highways because of the lack of opportunity for brake energy regeneration. It’s also probably something to do with the high speeds required to be maintained, to avoid annoying people on the highways in Germany.

As mentioned earlier, transition between the various modes was completely seamless. You can hear the six-cylinder engine restart, but you sure can’t feel it. No jerks, no vibration, no excessive crank time, nothing. It just comes alive, does its job, and when it isn’t needed, goes back to sleep. And the only way you could tell other than the iDrive and instrument cluster displays is the exhaust note that comes in when the engine is running.

Smoothness aside, coming from someone who used to drive an F10 520d for nearly two years and whose company fleet now includes a wicked red F30 320d, the fuel consumption figures I managed to get weren’t exactly impressive. The 520d averaged about 7.5 litres per 100 km with mixed driving (including hard driving), and only had to be refueled twice a month. And this was the model without the ECO PRO mode!

Harvinder’s F30 320d now does nearly 900 km from RM100 of fuel. And it’s violently fast in Sports mode, a real joy to drive at night when the roads are clear. So, unlike hybrids from a different segment like the Toyota Prius, which can easily do south of 5 litres per 100 km on average, what was the big deal about the BMW ActiveHybrid 3?

I suppose the formula used is completely different here than cars like the Prius. Efforts to make a Prius fuel efficient goes all the way, down to using an Atkinson cycle engine. The ActiveHybrid 3 was obviously designed first as a performance BMW with a powerful turbocharged engine, and a hybrid as a secondary consideration. It was built to take advantage of certain incentives that governments around the world give to hybrid cars. And it’s for people who completely insist on avoiding diesel engines.

Everything that you’ll love about a normal 3-Series can be found in the ActiveHybrid 3. It drives pretty much like a 335i on public roads. The efforts of trying to squeeze out better fuel efficiency via the integration of the hybrid system probably won’t be felt except by the most sensitive of drivers, and the limit of the dynamic capabilities of the car will probably remain out of reach by most average drivers. Not everyone who buys a 3-Series has the skill to push it to the limits of traction and handling, but what they are looking for is the sporty driving experience that they will get regardless.

We stopped by BMW’s four-cylinder headquarters in Munich to meet up with the project leader for the ActiveHybrid 3 before embarking on our test drive journey. I asked him what were the criteria that BMW looked at before deciding to build an ActiveHybrid model out of an existing car, and he explained that there were various reasons.

Firstly, an ActiveHybrid model has to be one that can be accepted worldwide. This means you’re not likely to see a wagon-bodied ActiveHybrid, as those only work in Europe. You also probably won’t see a diesel ActiveHybrid, for the same reasons.

Why not an ActiveHybrid system built around the N20 family 2.0 litre four cylinder petrol TwinPower Turbo engine then, as Audi and Volkswagen did with their 2.0 litre TFSI? The reasoning given was that there wasn’t enough of an incentive to slap on an electric motor on a small engine, as the benefits are amplified the larger of a displacement you go. A small engine is already more efficient, and the minimal improvements by going the hybrid path wouldn’t justify the additional costs involved.

It’s clear that BMW and Audi engineers come from two completely different engineering schools – they had a disagreement in the press over cylinder deactivation technology recently as well.

There’s also the case of getting the engine to restart smoothly – apparently, it’s easier to do this on the six-cylinder, as we observed from the fantastic results, but it couldn’t be done on a four-cylinder. I concur on this – I tried out the X3 xDrive20i recently and wasn’t really impressed with auto start-stop system.

And the most important reason why ActiveHybrid 3 cars exist is to adapt to the changing regulations in most developed countries. In some countries, the tax system is making cars like the 335i very expensive to buy and own, so an ActiveHybrid 3′s ability to deliver better results on driving cycle tests can make the car more affordable to own, hence displacing the 335i as the top-of-the-line performance F30.

Unfortunately, there’s no major incentive here in Malaysia to get an ActiveHybrid 3 over a 335i, unless you like the idea of owning a hybrid and enjoying the occasional EV mode drive as a lifestyle choice. But there’s no financial incentive to be had here – if you want to spend less on fuel, get a diesel.

It would make some financial sense to buy one if the ActiveHybrid 3 enjoyed some import and excise tax relief in Malaysia. Then, it can be priced at a more reasonable price tag than the current stratospheric price tag of the 335i, which puts a giant gap between it and the 328i.

The Malaysian government’s hybrid tax breaks, however, only apply to hybrid cars with engines smaller than 2.0 litres in displacement, so without these incentives the ActiveHybrid 3 with its 3.0 litre engine won’t end up being more affordable than a 335i – it’s likely to cost more!

From what we have been informed, BMW Malaysia is appealing for incentives, but there is nothing positive to announce so far. If no tax breaks are successfully negotiated, we are told that BMW Malaysia will go ahead and launch both the F30 ActiveHybrid 3 and the F10 ActiveHybrid 5 anyway, at whatever price they will have to price it at. It will probably serve as a showcase of BMW technology at the showrooms, like a halo model.

Now, if there are some tax breaks given and the ActiveHybrid 3 ends up being priced within the first half of the huge RM200k gap between the 328i and the 335i, then that’s a completely different story! If that happens, we’ll be looking at six-cylinder power being reasonably affordable in the F30 range again. Which is really the whole point of the ActiveHybrid 3 existing in other countries as well. That would be a nice thing to happen, wouldn’t it?

Look after the jump for a big gallery of the ActiveHybrid 3.

The post BMW ActiveHybrid 3 test drive review – is it just a 335i with an electric motor, or more? appeared first on Paul Tan's Automotive News.

They say you should never judge a book by its cover. They say looks aren’t everything. They say beauty is only skin deep. They say it’s what’s inside that counts. They say a lot of things, but when I saw for myself the Hyundai MD Elantra up close I forgot about all that for a moment.

This is a product of Hyundai’s ‘Fluidic Sculpture’ design language, and it shows – everything seems to flow. The headlamps sweep back towards a shoulder line that gently kinks at the C-pillar, creating a leaf-shaped glass area. A waistline starts from the front wheel arch, marks the position of the outside door handles and finally punctuates the tail lamps. The waistline is so pronounced it creates ‘hips.’

Look at it side-on and you notice the headlamps and tail lamps are of about the same shape and surface area. Its short overhangs are about the same length too – the rear is only 100 mm longer than the front – and with a roofline that bridges bonnet and boot in a constant parabolic curve, this is a car of very balanced proportions.

And who could miss that front end? Some might call it fussy, but the way the bonnet lines meet at the grille and then form a hexagon around the triple-slatted lower intake, you have to say, is pretty original. It’s a handsome car that manages to stand out without being offensive. Oh, and it’s locally-assembled, which is why you see an Inokom badge on the nose.

Hyundai is on a roll with the MD Elantra, especially in the US where it is the recipient of numerous awards and accolades including 2012 North American Car of the Year. They’re no longer strangers to the Malaysian market either, and their global confidence is growing, which shows in the Elantra’s bold styling. Of course, how the styling will hold up in the years to come is a different matter, but for now, looks-wise, it’s a big tick in my box.

The fluidity continues inside, with dashboard and door pulls being particularly swoopy (even the steering wheel spokes, to an extent). It’s interesting at best, but there’s a downside – due to the adventurous shapes, the central air-con vents have had to be relegated to small areas on either side of the centre console, which is a bit awkward-looking.

That is not to say air-con performance suffers, for the cooling system features double-pipe plumbing, which Hyundai says “results in faster cooling and less load on the air-con compressor.” Indeed, no complaints as far as air conditioning is concerned – cabin temperatures are brought down to comfortable levels very quickly, and maintained even on the hottest of days.

In terms of fit and finish, it has to be said that while everything’s put together very well, the perceived quality of the materials used do lag somewhat behind its main rivals. I say ‘perceived’ because I have no doubt they’ll hold up to many years of abuse, but they do not feel so. Buttons and switches are all in the right places, but again, there’s still a plasticky lightness in their operation. Think of the buttons on a calculator. But hey, they do the job.

Practicality and space? Oh yes. Cubbyholes are in abundance (including an overhead compartment for you to put your sunglasses), and they’ve clearly been cleverly thought out, for all are within easy reach and don’t require much of a stretch. There’s even a shopping bag hook on the centre console, and I counted eight cupholders in total – surely a record for this segment. The cabin has an airy feel, helped by the sunroof and the fact that it really is quite spacious inside.

You’re looking at 420 litres of luggage space; open the really light boot lid and pull the two catch release knobs to fold the back seats down and obviously you get a lot more. With the rear bench folded, the centre seat belt is in the way. Try as I did, I couldn’t find a way to get rid of it. It’s a safety thing, of course. But if I had a really wide cabinet to transport, I might have to saw it in half first.

The MD Elantra is offered here in four variants: 1.6MT Standard, 1.6AT Standard, 1.6AT High Spec and 1.8AT Premium, with prices starting from RM88,888, OTR with insurance. Standard kit for all include ABS with EBD, auxiliary, USB and iPod functionality, electric power steering, leather seats, two airbags, fog lamps and automatic headlamps.

My test car was the 1.8AT Premium, which costs RM114,888. Exclusive to it are 17-inch alloys (the other variants get 16s), a tilt-and-slide sunroof, Nappa leather seats, Audio Visual Navigator, dual-zone automatic air-con, automatic wipers, power driver’s seat and cruise control. It also has keyless entry and start (only the Standard manual doesn’t get this), ESP with VSM and aluminium pedals (the High Spec gets these too). That’s a lot of kit, I’m sure you’ll agree.

The Premium is also the only Elantra variant that gets the Nu-series 1.8 litre powerplant. Featuring Dual Continuously Variable Valve Timing, the twin-cam engine develops 150 PS at 6,500 rpm and 178 Nm of torque at 4,700 rpm – 30 PS and 21 Nm more than the 1.6 litre unit found in the lower-spec Elantras. It’s a free-revving thing; imperceptibly quiet at idle and capable of delivering a fair amount of go on demand. Put it this way – as far as power is concerned, the average Elantra buyer is not going to be left wanting.

However at engine speeds exceeding 3,000 rpm or so, its note turns rather harsh and unpleasant, and the escalating volume intrudes into the cabin. This can happen quite often, as there’s not much torque on tap and the six-speed automatic has to change down a cog or two, relying on revs to pull the Elantra up steeper gradients.

I took it to Ipoh and back one day, averaging about 110 km/h on the highway. Ride comfort at speed is very good, and wind noise is kept well at bay. Pull out to overtake, though, and there’s the engine noise again. The steering is perhaps a little over-assisted at speed, which doesn’t inspire much confidence in its slight lack of feel.

At the end of the day however, it was a very relaxed and comfortable drive, helped by the supple Nappa leather seats (not like the hard stuff you get from the Germans). Over the 400 km jaunt, I used 28.8 litres of petrol, which translates to an average fuel consumption of 7.2 litres per 100 km for that journey.

If you feel like a spot of sporty driving however, you may be left underwhelmed, for the Elantra does not feel dynamic. A big part of it is down to the numb steering, but also because the body tends to roll quite a bit through fast, tight turns, especially when you change direction even only moderately quickly.

Gear changes in manual mode aren’t particularly quick either. Sudden changes in road camber can also unsettle the chassis, but then again for a car weighing only 1.2 tonnes or so, it is acceptable. Really, this isn’t a sports car, doesn’t pretend to be one and there’s nothing wrong with that.

Perhaps what you’d most like to know about is how it drives day-to-day, around town. Well, now you’re thankful for the light steering as it really makes a difference when you’re trying to get out of tight spots. The rear window is actually quite small, which impedes visibility slightly, but there’s always the reverse camera. Gear changes are largely seamless, except for low speeds when you may encounter a jerk or two; nothing alarming though.

I liked the brakes; they’re effective, have good pedal feel and are linear in operation. Generally, it’s an easy car to drive, and it goes about its business in a fuss-free fashion. I’d say it’s more at home within the city than going out of it. To emphasise the point, it has an ‘ECO’ indicator that pops up in the instrument panel when you’re going easy on the right pedal.

The Audio Visual Navigation system is a touch-screen affair that brings together entertainment, voice-guided GPS, Bluetooth and the aforementioned reverse camera. It has to be said that the system’s response is slow and isn’t very touch-sensitive. The screen is difficult to read in daylight even on its brightest setting, and the graphical user interface does not make it look like a premium product. The GPS once took nearly 20 seconds to calculate my route, and I was stationary at the time!

To sum up, the Hyundai MD Elantra is a worthy buy if value for money, practicality and stand-out looks – its strongest assets – are what you’re after. It’s easy to drive and does everything expected of it. Hyundai even throws in a generous five-year or 300,000 km warranty. For a second opinion (or rather, a first opinion), do read Danny’s account of his test drive in the Elantra’s home country.

And there you have it – an entire review of a Korean car without any ‘Gangnam Style’ references. Have a great Sunday, for that rhymes with Hyundai – right, Hyundai North America?

The post Hyundai Elantra MD 1.8 Premium test drive review appeared first on Paul Tan's Automotive News.

Picture this: You are making a trek through the forest, where all around you is a sense of serenity and tranquility. Wandering through it, you begin to appreciate the delicate ecosystem around you and the tumultuous activity that is happening all around you, unseen.

You pause and surrender to your heightened, more visceral senses, and notice the many layers that build up the forest ecosystem. All around are plants and animals, big and small, in a constant fight for survival and then you realise – while nature provides us with the means to live, humans are the only creatures that can decide the fate of the ecosystem.

Living in our concrete jungles, many of us seldom, if ever, make trips back to mother nature, and as a result, we rarely see the impact that urbanisation is having on our planet’s health.

Case in point is our utter reliance on cars to get around in a city like Kuala Lumpur. Fact is our public transport, while much improved, isn’t connected enough so that we can easily get by without owning your own transportation. But many studies have shown that cars are easily one of the largest contributors to the decline of a planet’s health. So how can one be more responsible for our vehicle, particularly its impact on the environment?

I had an opportunity to take a “walk in the woods” in the city a little while back, as I was chosen to be a Nissan Leaf Ambassador for six weeks. For those 42 green days, I had a lot of time to reflect on the collective impact of cranking up our conventional vehicles to go about our business on a daily basis.

So, here are my thoughts based on those 1,800 hours of giving back to mother nature. This is an ownership experience story and not strictly a car review, as there are already many write-ups about the Leaf which can be found right here in this blog. Thus, I will concentrate on relating what it’s like to live with an electric vehicle (EV) as my everyday car and being a proud “green” citizen.

Back to my earlier point – we have little choice but to use cars to get us from place to place. So, for an EV to fit the bill, it too should be able to provide us with the same utility, as normal cars should. Did the Leaf manage to do this for me? The answer is a resounding yes! A caveat applies however, as EVs are not going to be ideal for everyone. If your daily commute exceeds 100 km or if you currently stay in an apartment style dwelling, then EVs will probably not work for you.

During the time I spent driving around and talking about the Leaf, it became very apparent that almost everybody had questions about the car. The most asked question was related to range. Funnily enough, many remarked that they wouldn’t be able to go to Ipoh because of the range limitation – what, suddenly, everybody living in KL was from Ipoh?

Anyway, how far the Leaf could and would go was a major issue and admittedly, it was foremost on my mind at the beginning. Truth be told, if all you do is potter within the city limits, a 100 to 120 km range between charging is going to be sufficient 99% of the time. So I would argue that the Leaf doesn’t have a problem with the range, as much as it has a problem with people’s perceptions or fears.

In this regard, the Ambassador program is a bit of a masterstroke for Edaran Tan Chong Motor. By allowing the Leaf to be field tested by independent third party users over an extended time, it has stories and examples that prove that the Leaf can fit into the lifestyles of most city dwellers in Malaysia.

For instance, one of the first batch of Ambassadors had to endure two to three hours of traffic jams commuting to and from work every day. Happily, he never ran out of juice at all. While he had his doubts at the start, he now extols the Leaf for its frugal use of power when it is stationary. In fact, stop/go traffic helps regenerate the battery power.

All throughout this six-week trial, the Leaf Ambassadors kept in touch and shared stories about our usage of the car. It became apparent that the more we used the Leaf, the more confident we were with its range and the more we trusted the on-board computer/diagnostic system. The diagnostic system calculates car’s range every 500 meters of use, taking into consideration a whole bunch of parameters such as driving speed and battery power.

Towards the end of my trial, I left home from Section 6 in Petaling Jaya to pick my son up in Saujana with only 36 km of range indicated. I then proceeded to my office in Bangsar, where the charger was located and made it with less than 10 km left of battery power. If this had happened when I first got the Leaf, I would have been incredibly stressed the whole way. This time, I trusted that the Leaf would make it, and it did.

Coming back to that walk in the forest. The best thing about the six weeks was that I did not directly burn any fossil fuels at all. It felt right and good to know that I was contributing much less to the destruction of nature. While the marketing folk might want us to believe that the Leaf has ZERO emissions, truth is almost all of the electricity we use is produced by the burning of fuel, which means that until ALL the electricity we consume comes from renewable energy sources, we will have to take ZERO with a pinch of salt.

In Malaysia, our electricity comes from two main sources. The burning of coal and natural gas and hydroelectricity, which means that no matter what the brochure says, there is still going to be emissions somewhere.

Still; electrical power plants are far more efficient in extracting the energy from the fuel it burns. Coal & Natural Gas electrical plants convert 40% of thermal energy into electricity, and hydroelectric plants have an efficacy rating of 95%. On the other hand, modern petrol engines have a maximum thermal efficiency of between 25 to 30%, which means you are getting only 30% of your money’s worth for useful motion. The rest is rejected heat loss through your exhaust and radiation. What I am getting at is that the generation of electricity is a far more efficient use of natural resources than our petrol cars.

Go to a basement car park and feel the amount of heat trapped in there and you get an idea how much heat is being generated by our cars. Our cities will be a whole lot more pleasant place if there are less emissions – both gasses as well as heat. The Leaf is remarkably cool in the truest sense of the word.

The efficiency also positively impacts your wallet. In those six weeks, I travelled a total of 1,785 km and consumed 361.4 kilowatts (kWh) of electricity. Using the highest TNB tariff bracket for domestic homes, which is 45.4 sen per kWh, I spent RM164.08. How much would you have to spend on petrol for your own car to cover 1,700 km? I reckon this is probably the most important factoid for most readers. After six weeks, the proof is in the pudding. Yes, you can save a significant amount of money.

There is much more to the Leaf though than simply being energy efficient and saving money. It is also a pretty decent car.

Driving the Leaf is best described as uncomplicated. I cannot stress how simple the car is to use and how innocuous the whole experience is. The Leaf will never be a driver’s car, and it certainly wasn’t designed that way. Tuned for a luxurious ride as opposed to taut handling, the Nissan engineers have certainly achieved what they set out to do. The car wafts around in glorious comfort. This is the closest you will ever get to a Rolls-Royce type experience in a family hatchback. The smooth acceleration coupled with the comfortable suspension system delivers this magical ride.

The soft suspension falls apart once the Leaf goes beyond 80 km/h in anything but a straight line. Once the road starts getting curvy, the Leaf starts to lose composure very quickly. Is the Leaf a dull drive then? Not entirely.

The Leaf still can put a grin on your face. It is the traffic light drag king! Having all 280 newton metres (nm) of torque available to you from zero revs per minute, the Leaf sprints away from just about any car at most standing starts. Petrol engine car drivers will have to be really committed to beat the Leaf’s lag-less “press and go” abilities. Before any normal car can even start slipping their clutches, the Leaf is already several car lengths ahead. I never tired with playing this game, and neither did others. Once, I let a Porsche owner have a spin and even he was very impressed with the acceleration.

Still, you would not want to drive like that all the time, as there are penalties to having a heavy foot. Spirited runs sap the battery very quickly, as does maintaining high speeds in excess of 100 km/h.

What then on the top speed? I managed to get the Leaf beyond its advertised 140 km/h top speed easily though, and I was told that the car could easily hit 160 km/h. I believe them! Let’s just say that the car wasn’t designed for speed, and accept it for what it is. Yet, I believe most regular drivers will be perfectly happy with what the Leaf can offer.

I used the Leaf as my ONLY vehicle in the entire six weeks, as I would have my normal petrol engine car. I ferried friends and family around, went all the way to Shah Alam to pick up a racing bicycle, which I must add, fit into the back passenger’s foot well easily. We also managed to do some Hari Raya open house visiting. In short, the Leaf fit right into my everyday lifestyle, and I didn’t have to change my habits to suit the car, except for planning my trips a bit more carefully.

There are a few little niggles that if given the chance, I’d sort out with the Leaf. The LED headlights are sufficiently bright and are highly energy efficient, but the high beam is weedy. It probably is a Japanese thing, but they should really install a louder horn. The tiny honk is just too polite to get any real notice. I would also have Nissan spec more utility into the Leaf, such as hooks for hanging plastic bags or bungee cords in the boot. I bought some lunch one day, and I ended up carrying the plastic bags full of hot soupy noodles in one hand while driving because to avoid having its contents spilled.

Another thing I would improve is to add a backlight for the door lock/unlock button. For some reason, the rest of the buttons on the door panel have lights, except for that one. Try unlocking the door for someone at night and you will understand why it should be lit! The brakes could also be a little more positive, as they are quite spongy and the stopping power is not great.

All said though, these are small and insignificant issues that if, and when, addressed, would make the Leaf even easier to live with. The final thing on my wish list is a shorter recharge time. Not the DC quick-charger but an improvement to the standard ‘trickle’ charger, which will almost halve the charging time – I have heard that this is on its way.

To be sure, EVs in Malaysia will take a lot more effort to market than hybrids, and the authorities must do their part to make this happen. The adoption of EVs will probably also take a lot longer than the hybrids, as perceptions need to be changed before the public will be able to feel comfortable enough to buy them. The cost of these vehicles will also certainly be a hindrance, as they would cost more than hybrids in other markets.

At the very least, EVs like the Leaf will have a fighting chance if authorities continue to “green” extend tax exemptions when the cars make it to market. Greenies such as I all have our fingers crossed that these tax breaks continue. Priced within means, I will almost certainly buy an EV such as the Leaf.

When my period as Ambassador was over, I felt a tinge of sadness at having to give up the Leaf. I had grown really fond of it, both as a car as well as a lifestyle. Being a little more merciful to the environment resonates well with me. Until I do become a true EV owner, I suppose I’ll have to plan more actual walks in the forest!

The post Nissan Leaf Test Drive Review: six weeks with an EV appeared first on Paul Tan's Automotive News.

Bentley is one of those legendary manufacturers which manages to appeal to two extremes of the age spectrum – the young, hip, trendy urbanites and the older, discerning, traditional nobility. Think Soho and Sandringham, or Bangsar and Bukit Tunku, if you like. It’s trickier than you think, for you’re talking about a whole generation gap spanning several decades. How do you pander to both tastes, without losing the loyalty of either?

Of course, prominent figures of Hollywood, MTV and the Premier League have collectively helped to put the marque on the map for the younger generation, although so few of the young can ever afford these cars. Those who can are right up there with royalty, the landed gentry and the old rich, and just as important where the market is concerned, because the two share a common factor – money. Lots and lots of it.

The Crewe crew recognises this, and has duly responded. Its Continental series, comprising the GT, GTC and four-door Flying Spur, is the entry-level range, targeted towards the younger clientele. Unsurprisingly, it’s also the better seller, and set to be even more so now with the introduction of the new twin-turbocharged 4.0 litre V8 that joins the familiar 6.0 litre W12 on the powerplant menu. For once, you can have a choice of engines for your Conti.

At the same time, Bentley has stayed true to its more traditional customer base with its Mulsanne, still powered by the venerable 6.75 (‘the six and three-quarter’) litre V8. This engine and variations of it have served numerous Rolls-Royce and Bentley models since 1968, slowly evolving over the years.

In conjunction with the recent opening of the World of Bentley exhibition at Pavilion KL a while back, some members of the press got the golden opportunity for a test drive; accompanied, of course, by some of the Bentley staff. We were to drive from Pavilion to Cyberview Lodge in Cyberjaya, and then swap cars for the return journey. I sampled the jaw-dropping, top-dropping Continental GTC, powered by the new V8, as well as the stunning Mulsanne flagship, in an attempt to ascertain the extent of success of Bentley’s traditional/modern compromise.

Or the extent of excess, more like. Approaching them in the metal gives you a sense of just how majestic the two cars are to behold. There’s that huge grille and lashings of chrome trim – to say you’re aware of their presence is a big understatement. If anything, Bentley’s new quad-headlamp design (two bigger ones and two smaller), first seen on the facelifted Continental GT, actually draws attention to the bigger headlamps, making the cars look even more imposing.

Their sheer size is something else. The GTC measures nearly two metres wide and 4.8 metres from head to tail. The Mulsanne is about as wide but stretches over 5.5 metres long.

With regards to the interior, both cars are quite similar. As you’d expect, a sea of polished wood and sumptuous leather greets you. There is meticulous detail in the stitching along the dashboards, centre consoles and the inside rim of their steering wheels. Such nice places to be in; like sitting in a quiet, comfortable corner in the pub.

‘Bulls-eyes’ stare at you from behind the veneer – yes, that’s what Bentley calls its signature air-conditioning vents. The airflow apertures are controlled by what appears to be elaborate coat hooks – push in to close, pull out to open. Cue another Bentley colloquialism: ‘organ stops.’ It’s a surprisingly ergonomic method, as opposed to the common scroll wheel you’ll find in most cars, although in our kind of climate we’re more likely to have them fully open all the time anyway.

The dashboard in both cars extend a good distance away from the rakish windscreens, and the thick door panels and centre console enclose you in – some might call it claustrophobic, but I think more on the cosy side. The Mulsanne has an altogether more airy cabin, but then it’s a bigger car, with considerably less sporting intentions. This particular GTC had especially bright-coloured wood trim, which I didn’t think was very contemporary or sporting, seeing as this is the ‘young’ Bentley, but clearly there is no accounting for taste. In any case, customisation options are endless. I’m sure one could replace those wood slabs with lashings of carbon fibre, if one desired.

I kept an eye out for traces of Volkswagen in both cars, but try as I did, interior stalks and switchgear were of a quality so high that they could only have been handcrafted by people who knew what they were doing.

Both cars are driven through an eight-speed automatic with steering wheel paddles – although on the GTC I found them rather awkwardly placed as they protruded from the column rather than being mounted behind the wheel as in the less-sporting Mulsanne (ironically). It would’ve been alright if they were close to the wheel, but they were a little bit of a stretch for my fingers. This also makes changing gear in mid-corner inconvenient.

Right, enough of beating around the suspension bush. How are the two cars like to drive? Around town, you’re constantly aware of their immense size, but not their bulk – steering is relatively light at low speeds and very precise. Both seem to glide over potholes and bumps effortlessly – this is despite the GTC’s low-profile tyres. The eight-speed gearbox’s changes are almost imperceptible, with the only indication of a shift being the slight plunge of the rev counter needle and the gear number on the instrument panel display.

You were going to ask about cylinder deactivation and how apparent the transition is from four to eight cylinders? What cylinder deactivation?

There’s always a sense that you’re driving something very special, emphasised of course by the thousands of stares you get from pedestrians and other motorists. Once you’ve gotten over the initial stage-fright, you settle down quickly, helped by the fact that both cars are really quite easy and comfortable to drive.

The fact that all-round visibility is good works to the same effect. They don’t feel at all highly strung, when you consider the fact that they’re 300 km/h cars. Where most supercars would be fragile, nervy and straining at the leash, these two just keep quiet, calm and genteel until you give their long-travel accelerator pedals a good prod.

And when you do, you finally see for yourself the difference between the GTC and the Mulsanne. Both have about 500 hp at their disposal, but the former’s acceleration is that little bit more immediate, more brutal, but far from savage. Its exhaust note is also raspier, albeit still somewhat muted. The Mulsanne’s nose pitches and dives more under hard acceleration and braking, but all the same, the rate at which both cars gather speed is nothing short of impressive. The way they gather speed tells you they were designed to transport their occupants in serene comfort, across many miles, in very, very little time indeed.

Step into the Mulsanne from the GTC and you instantly turn from brash Monaco playboy to Old Etonian gentleman. This is a Bentley of the old school. With that Flying B mascot punctuating the edge of that mile-long bonnet, I found myself subconsciously conducting this motor-carriage with more dignity and aplomb. I found this the best way to enjoy the Mulsanne, rather than caning it like a hooligan. After all, it was so stately and whisper-quiet I just wanted to waft along.

In fact, while the GTC is certainly more dynamic than its bigger brother; turning in sharper and sooner (due to its smaller, lighter engine in the nose), both are not what you’d call agile. But maybe that’s because you get so used to the comfort, once it unsettles ever so slightly, you do notice it, even though grip levels are high and body roll is minimal. The Mulsanne tips the scales at nearly 2.6 tonnes, the GTC nearly 2.5 – they’re probably still the best-handling ocean liners around.

Brakes require a bit of a shove and pedal travel is long, but once you get used to the extra effort needed you find you can moderate the amount of braking more easily. They are by no means ineffective – stamp on them and you come to a straight, controlled, reassuring halt.

Where refinement is concerned, you simply cannot fault a Bentley. Wind noise is almost non-existent, and this is despite the GTC having a soft top. Both cars are planted and assuring at speed. As a result, you really don’t feel you’re going all that fast at all. Until you notice you’re passing other cars far too easily, glance at the speedo and get the shock of your life. It’s like being sealed off from the outside world – much like the very people who own such cars, really.

I only spent a couple of hours or so with the cars, so regrettably I didn’t manage to play very much with the in-car gadgets, enjoy top-down motoring in the GTC (it was raining when I drove it) or ride in the back of the Mulsanne.

Nevertheless, I’ll conclude as simply as I can: one is a modern Bentley, and one is a traditional Bentley, but both are undoubtedly Bentleys through and through. They are thoroughly refined and polished products. Remember, the company is 93 years old, and I think that says it all.

How much? RM1.7 million for the Continental GTC and RM2.4 million for the Mulsanne? Erm… I’m sorry, I haven’t got any change.

The post Bridging the generation gap: Bentley Continental GTC V8 and Mulsanne taken for a highway spin! appeared first on Paul Tan's Automotive News.

Since there’s only a half-handful of you who’ll read till the end, there’s something you need to know first. This is not a preview test drive, but a preview of a preview. Think of this a sampler, like the sliver of fried chicken ball promoters push at you as you walk through an aisle of a supermarket.

The reason I’m bringing this up is that the Nissan Almera was tested on Nissan’s test track at its assembly plant in Serendah. It’s a 1.5 km track that features various road conditions – long stretches, a skid pad and speed bumps to simulate roads you drive on every day. Since it is short though, there were plenty things about the car I couldn’t catch, which makes this preview not quite complete.

A point to note here is that all Almeras – all Nissan vehicles built in this plant, in fact – are tested on this track before delivery to customers. The test drivers will try to pick up a few things like unusual noises, suspension and power issues, to name a few, things which will mar the experience of owning a Nissan car.

Before I start telling you about how the car feels, let me brief you on what I gathered from the product presentation. Firstly, the Almera is built on a new ‘V’ platform, which stands for – and I’m not making this up – versatile. Secondly, Nissan says that this car easily passes the ECE R94 and ECE R95 regulations. In case you don’t know, the R94 and R95 are front and side collision test regulations.

Third, the Almera will be powered by the HR15DE engine, a 1,498 cc, four-cylinder DOHC with CVTC unit that produces 102 PS at 6,000 rpm and 139 Nm at 4,000 rpm for numbers. The two choices of transmission available are, depending on trim, a five-speed manual and a four-speed automatic. What!

Nissan says the four A/T is new. When compared with the old four-speed slushbox, the new one is 11% more compact (43 mm shorter), 15% lighter (by 10 kg), has 32% lower friction and 12% less parts. The gearbox and engine transmission are said to give a fuel economy of 14.9 km/l in a combined cycle (or roughly about 6.7 l/100km).

At the moment, the Almera will come in three trims – E, V and VL. Here’s what I know about the three grades, which I am told is not complete. Between now and launch day, things might be taken away or added. But if you want to walk into a Nissan dealership tomorrow (order books open on September 6), read on.

Buyers of the E grade will get to choose between the manual and automatic gearbox. Features include a standard key fob with panic alarm, 15-inch steel rims with wheel covers, standard combi-meter with trip computer and a single airbag. Yes, a single airbag.

According to Nissan, the reason why this grade has only one airbag is due the chassis’ rigidity, which is enough to withstand front and side collision. The E is also meant to be the lowest grade, hence the omission of the front passenger airbag also means saving a few more Ringgit.

Frankly, this has got us scratching our heads, as even Perodua has decided to equip all of its cars with dual airbags. Even the latest Toyota Vios update has made dual airbags standard across all models, including the most affordable J model.

Airbags have little to do with how rigid a chassis is – their purpose is to cushion occupants during a crash as well as provide protection to occupants, so that said bodies don’t hit interior objects such as the steering wheel or a window. As a comparison, the Almera just introduced in Australia – which has the same engine tune and transmission options – features VSC and six airbags across the range, to comply with Australian safety regulations.

The V grade (automatic only) will come with dual airbags, 15-inch alloy wheels, self-illuminated combi-trip meter with trip computer, additional interior luxury trim (silver/chrome decoration) and fog lamps. As for the VL, it also comes in four-speed automatic form only, and adds on intelligent key with trunk release and panic alarm, push-start button, auto aircon with LCD display and illuminated steering audio controls.

Safety-wise, all grades come standard with ABS, EBD, Brake Assist and 3×3 ISOFIX child seat mounts.

I started the Almera test in the back seat. Off the mark, I noticed that it has plenty of legroom. Nissan says that this car’s legroom measures 636 mm, which is best-in-class. I can tell you that the space is more than the usual B-segment fare, but you’ll really need to sit in and feel it for yourself.

The Almera could do better with more shoulder room though. A third seat belt in the rear bench suggests that the Almera can sit three at the back. As is, put two adults inside and there’s only enough space for a very skinny or a very small person in the middle. But in any case this is how it is for all cars in the B segment, so if your requirements call for more width, get a C segment car – which in Nissan’s case is the Sylphy.

The ride was comfortable, the suspension absorbing whatever the test track threw at it. I went through a few rough bits – pebbled road, roads with large stones and uneven surfaces, just to name some. Through every road condition, the Almera made the grade with flying colours. What’s more, the cabin was devoid of any rattling or juddering noises that would suggest poor build quality.

Then, it was my turn at the wheel, and the first thing I noticed was the smoothness of the four-speed automatic. Changes between gears were unnoticeable and it felt as if I was driving a CVT-equipped vehicle instead. Since there was not enough tarmac to get the car past 110 km/h, I could not tell if the four-speeder has what it takes for long range cruises.

Acceleration was respectable as well. The car was loaded with four fully-grown adults and the Almera had enough fire in its belly to shove off from zero without trouble. At this point, I was impressed by this narrow-but-long car.

There was not a lot of feedback from the steering, but this isn’t an enthusiast’s car, so steering comfort should be paramount. In spite of the lack of feel, the Almera tracks well with the road. The steering doesn’t need a lot of input to get it to turn, and going around the skidpad doing figure-8s, the car’s steering was accurate and immediate.

The test was far too short and ended far too quickly. In total, I had done only 1.5 km in five minutes, and there was only so much I could squeeze out from such a limited time.

See, I told you this is a preview of a preview. But there is a media drive as well as an official launch that will happen later. We’ll get the lowdown on what the Almera is all about when that time arrives.

The post Nissan Almera previewed: a short drive on a test track appeared first on Paul Tan's Automotive News.

Electric cars used to be a far off vision of the future. But, as it turns out, the future is already here! Did you know that Volkswagen has got an electric car out of the oven, and ready for production? Want one? Sorry. Really, really, pretty-please want one? Nope. Not even if you’re stinking rich? Not even. As this pristine white Golf sits in front of you, you cannot actually buy it just yet.

But if you can be but a wee bit patient, in about one-and-a-half years, theoretically you will be able to buy a production electric Golf (complete with the somewhat torturous Blue-E-Motion name), but it will be on the next-generation Golf, based on the all-new version of the preternaturally popular hatchback, riding on the new chassis that will also underpin a bewildering array of Volkswagen, Seat, Skoda and Audi models in the future.

The only external changes compared to a petrol or diesel Golf are the absence of an exhaust system and the positioning of electric charger points behind the usual filter flap and behind the VW roundel on the front of the car. Boot capacity has been reduced from 350 litres to 238 litres, but seating capacity is unchanged for five people. The same as the combustion engine version, the Golf Blue-E-Motion is 4,199 mm in length and 1,786 mm wide.

The Mk VI Blue-E-Motion Golf tested here has been built as a seriously limited production run, merely to demonstrate Volkswagen’s commitment to battery motoring and to give at least a sneak preview of what the production electric Golf will be like. A fleet of five-door, five-seat concept is already on the road in Germany and undergoing extensive testing. These test cars are fitted with an electric motor that delivers maximum power of 85 kW and a continuous power output of 50 kW with maximum torque of 270 Nm for a top speed of 135 km/h.

Read the full scoop on the electric Golf after the jump.

The VW Golf Blue-E-Motion, which we managed to experience on the streets of Wolfsburg, Germany back in March, is fitted with a lithium-ion battery that currently gives the Golf a range of around 150 km. But VW expects this range will be significantly increased by the time the Blue-E-Motion Golf goes into production. We are however unable to furnish you with any details concerning battery charging performance, since the VW technicians on hand were not too receptive about answering queries about how long it takes for the car to be fully juiced up.

Open the door, compress the seat cushion and the Blue-E-Motion feels and looks as standard as any other Golf – quietly stylish, beautifully built, reassuring in its familiarity. The only clue that this Golf is not like other Golfs is the rev counter, which has been replaced by a dial showing whether you’re drawing power from the batteries or scavenging it from the regenerative braking system, and which also shows, in percentage terms, how much of the electric motor’s power you are deploying – rather like Rolls-Royce’s Power Reserve gauge but in reverse order.

All the usual Golf accoutrements of electric windows, mirrors etc are here, including – perhaps surprisingly, in view of the potential electrical power drain – a heated windscreen and heated seats. The Sat-Nav screen also shows battery levels, and in future versions, is expected to give warnings if a chosen destination is beyond the car’s driving range. The battery management system allows the car’s battery status to be checked using a smartphone app while you are in your office or having breakfast. The Golf’s lithium-ion batteries are kept at optimal working temperature by a secondary cooling system.

Twist the key in the conventional ignition slot, wait for the bing-bong, and off you go. As you pull away the first thing that strikes you is that there is low, muted engine noise. Huh? Surely electric cars are supposed to float silently away? Not the Golf, which artificially generates a soft, engine-like hum, a gently rumbly one, which is designed to warn unsuspecting pedestrians of your approach.

Electric motors deliver all their torque from zero revs, so the Golf Blue-E-Motion surges away with alacrity and with an eerie silence and smoothness. After that, noise from tyres and wind rush is sufficient. With 115 hp from the electric motor under the bonnet and 270 Nm of torque available from the moment you mash the “throttle” pedal, the Golf feels instantly at home sliding into traffic and its 0-100 km/h time of 11.8 seconds is more or less a match for other cars on the streets of Wolfsburg. The expected electric-car trick of huge torquey thrust from zero revs is there, but so is the sense of breathlessness once above 80-90 km/h. The Blue-E-Motion maxes out at a limited 135km/h, but as the acceleration tails off at higher speeds, it’ll take you a while to get there.

While most of us may think of an electric car’s lithium-ion battery as being one complete unit, that’s not the case in the Blue-E-Motion. In the concept car, the battery consists of 30 modules containing a total of 180 lithium-ion cells and the modules are distributed throughout the vehicle in places where the vehicle’s design leaves empty spaces. These places include under the rear bench seat, in the centre tunnel or under the floor of the boot… but not in the space set aside for luggage.

Range, always a thorny issue with electric cars, is 150km on a single charge, 10km short of what Nissan claims for its rival Leaf. But then, this Golf is not the production Golf, and Volkswagen’s engineers claim that the on-sale version will have a 160 km range and hint, tantalisingly, that it may even hit a very useful 200 km. That’s because, although the electric motor and batteries will be more or less unchanged for production, the physical chassis will be lighter than the current Golf’s, giving the batteries less work to do.

Displays on the dashboard allow the driver to see how much energy is being demanded by the “electric pedal” at any given moment on the kW gauge (replaces the classic tachometer); drivers strive to keep the kW reading as low as possible practically intuitively. A range indicator is also integrated in this round instrument. The speedometer, located on the right side as usual, integrates another small gauge that provides information on the battery charge state.

A great feature is the display of regeneration intensity in the multifunction display between the kW instrument and the speedometer. In battery regeneration, the driver has the option of pre-setting the braking energy recovery strategy over four stages (D to D3) via the automatic gearshift lever or gearshift paddles on the steering wheel.

In the lowest stage (D), the car “sails” as soon as the driver’s foot leaves the pedal – now the Golf Blue-E-Motion moves with very low drag; it is only “slowed” by the rolling resistance of the tyres and air resistance. In the D3 stage, or B for braking, on the other hand, the maximum amount of kinetic energy is recovered and fed to the battery. In addition, the electrical energy consumption of the automatic climate control unit and its blower can be called up in the multifunction display.

Different driving profiles control comfort, dynamics and range. In addition, an active driving profile can be set; this lets the driver select priorities in advance: between maximum range, maximum comfort and maximum dynamics. The selected profile then pre-configures the power of the electric motor, air conditioning control, maximum speed and battery regeneration strategy. Thus, the Golf Blue-E-Motion offers the three profiles Normal, Comfort+ and Range+. In the Comfort+ profile, the full 85 kW of power is available; in this mode, the Golf Blue-E-Motion can attain the specified top speed.

When the driver activates the Normal mode, power is reduced to 65 kW and top speed is lowered to 115 km/h. In the Range+ mode the engine controller limits power to 50 kW and the vehicle is limited to a maximum speed of 105 km/h. At the same time, the air conditioning system is completely deactivated. The selected profile is shown in the multifunction display.

The Golf Blue-E-Motion is charged via a plug connector behind the folding VW logo on the radiator grille. A pictogram of a plug connector in the multifunction display indicates that the charging cable is correctly inserted and locked. During active charging an LED also flashes in the charge state indicator, and the charge level shown in the indicator is continually updated.

On the road, the Golf Blue-E-Motion is mega easy to drive and if you put the Golf’s drive selector lever in ‘B’ for maximum regenerative braking you can drive the car with one foot and only one pedal, as the ‘engine braking’ is so strong immediately after you take your foot off the accelerator. If you have driven another Golf before, the Blue-E-Motion feels remarkably similar, with safe and predictable handling despite the extra 205 kg weight of the lithium-ion batteries and necessary energy converters. But this, however, makes the car slightly less keen to change direction. However, spring rates are stiffer to cope with the extra weight, so the car does manage to feel quite sporty still.

With the exception of a slightly firmer ride, comfort is just like a normal Golf, with standard seats that are even heated (quite necessary in Europe). The instrument dials though are different – next to the speedometer is a dial which shows how the car’s power is being used. Two smaller dials show how much charge is left in the 26.5 kilowatt-hours batteries and what range this allows.

Obviously, there is the usual electric car benefit of zero pollution at point of use – though maybe not where the electrical power is generated. Apart from that, greenies will also be pleased to note that Volkswagen says it is close to attaining a 95% recyclability level for its cars through manufacturing processes at its latest facilities. Life cycle carbon emissions for a typical electric car are around 100 g CO2/km based on the current German electricity mix.

The post Electric Volkswagen Golf Blue-E-Motion prototype – a preview test drive in Wolfsburg, Germany appeared first on Paul Tan's Automotive News.

Cars used to be simple things. Some were big, some were fast, some were cheap. It was easy. You buy a big Mercedes, or a fast Ferrari or a cheap something else.

But consumers get more demanding and competition gets stiffer. So we now ask for space, luxury, speed, safety and looks all in an affordable package.

Sometimes, it all works out. Ever since Volkswagen started doing business properly in Malaysia this century, the Golf GTI has become a benchmark. Its dimensions and simple lines are handsome and understated, it goes straight and around bends in a manner that astounds for a hatchback that offers comfortable seating for five. And it all came for around RM200k, a lot less than much slower European cars.

Other times, you end up with the Passat “Comfort Coupe” R-Line. It’s more beautiful than the Golf with a seductive boot lip and direct-from-the-sketchbook lines, it’s faster even than the Golf R, doing the century sprint in 5.6s, a tenth of a second quicker, and is, well, bigger.

However, it costs nearly twice as much at RM373,888. And has only four seats. And empties your fuel tank as if it came with a hole.

Not that this makes it a bad car. Heavens, no. It was enjoyable to drive, nice to look at and very comfortable to sit in. Continue reading after the break for our take on the V6-powered Passat CC R-Line.

If the Golf GTI is for the sensible family guy who still wants the option of making quick progress, then the CC R-line is for the guy who wants to make even quicker progress and is rich enough to consider a stylish status car. But not so rich he will go all out for a premium brand and he also doesn’t have a family of five or more. I don’t know how many people that amounts to.

Volkswagen UK has suggested it will sell only 100 V6 CCs in a year. In Malaysia, the car may actually do better relative to the total industry volume. For reasons stated above, it has merits which may convince you to plumb for it over a Golf. And because it’s smaller and cheaper than other German four-door coupes (or, if you want to be technical, a four-door sedan with a sloping roof), it will draw the eye of someone who doesn’t want to spend upwards of RM700,000 on a car.

The BMW 6 Series Gran Coupe and Mercedes CLS both cost twice as much as the CC R and in fact, the VW costs about the same as BMW’s two-door 325i coupe, which is about the same size but only beats the entry-level CC for pace.

But this is the R-line with the 3.6-litre V6, and not the entry-level variant with an engine half the size. The 300 PS six-shooter is an endlessly pleasing animal to prod, with peak torque of 350 Nm arriving at 2,400 rpm, decent for a naturally-aspirated plant.

The Adaptive Chassis Control offers a pliant ride in Comfort but in Sport, well, handling improves, but not so much as to actually compensate for the loss in composure when going over the stuff that passes off as ‘road’ in parts of the Klang Valley.

All that tinkering is a bit moot, though. The problem is that the car feels big and lumbering. Even though it is pleasingly, both in terms of looks and drivability – 55 mm closer to the ground than the standard Passat, the car doesn’t quite shrink around you when you drop the six-speed DSG to S.

The throttle response becomes sharper, but you’re all too aware of the car’s size, turning the car into a jagged sabre instead of a flying epee. Of course, the VW Rs are not as engineered as BMW’s Ms, but it was still disappointing to drive the top of the line model but still have to curb your enthusiasm.

Still, in every sense except the lack of a fifth seat, the CC is an improvement on the regular Passat, kudos to Volkswagen on that. This range-topper also comes with all-wheel-drive, panoramic tilting glass roof and keyless entry/start (a must-have in these days of ‘perceived’ crime) on top of standard features which include the very useful auto-hold funtion so you don’t have to keep your foot on the brakes at stops.

But unless you really need four-wheel drive, and really need the, admittedly, very fast and very thirsty V6 (which gave less than 500 km from a 70-litre tank), then the 1.8 turbo is more than adequate and comes at a more attainable RM225,888.

The R-line on the other hand, well, is faster, but not as fast as the Merc or BMW four-door coupes. Smaller and more affordable though but not as practical as the Golf. The only bit it might be the outright winner in is looks, but even that’s subjective.

This is, in isolation, a very good car. It’s just that VW makes other very good cars which meet a certain market segment and given recent pricing revamps, at better value (for example, the regular Passat comes at RM170,888 now).

These criticisms though, might all be a bit unfair. We’ve come to place very high standards for VW to make cars that make sense while ignoring some completely rubbish ideas from others. Post-Scirocco, VW’s actively telling drivers now that it can be as stylish as it has been functional all this while.

Given that the VW group includes the even more stylish Audi stable, we’re pretty much going into saturation here. The CC’s presence in Malaysia, especially the R-line, is pretty much an indicator that the automotive market has come to a point where choices are as much emotional as practical (gone are the days of only buying Toyotas and Mercs because of resale value).

So while cars are no longer simple things, the buyer’s choice still is. If you like it, buy it. With the CC R, this holds true, especially if you have the ability to ignore what the guy next door is driving.

The post Volkswagen Passat CC R-Line 3.6L Test Drive Review appeared first on Paul Tan's Automotive News.

The compact premium sedan segment is an interesting one. In the segment, there used to be three main players – the Audi A4, Mercedes-Benz C-Class and BMW 3-Series, but they’ve recently been joined by Audi’s stable-mate Volkswagen as well with the Passat CC, and competition, which has always been keen, has been getting more intense.

Comparisons between what car to buy in this segment has always been pretty interesting too, because of the significantly different timing of new model model launches in this segment. The difference in model launch times are more apparent because of the longer seven-year model life-cycles.

So there was a time when the B8 looked so modern and big compared to an aging E90 3-Series, but now the tables have been turned and BMW has the brand new F30, while the Audi A4 B8 that was first unveiled in August 2007 soldiers on, having just been given a facelift earlier this year.

The B8 played a huge part in starting the daytime running light craze in Malaysia and helped paved the way for a surge in Audi popularity here with the grey importers. It had the spirit of Tony Stark’s cool car, but in a practical sedan form, not to mention far more affordable than an actual R8.

Exterior cosmetic changes include a reworked bumper, which features new look angled air inlets and fog lights, restyled headlamps as well as a redesigned grille and bonnet, fringed by updated LED daytime running lights. The LED daytime running lights represent the second-generation in Audi’s DRL design. When Audi’s DRL first made its debut, it was merely a series of individual LEDs arranged in a line or whatever shape that the designers picked for that particular model.

While immensely popular, I felt this was a pretty lazy way of implementing DRL. After all, anyone could simply line individual LEDs in a row, and this technique had already been used in tail lamps for a really long time. Audi daytime running lights then evolved, and what you get now is basically like a solid tube of light, which to me is a sleeker and more mature implementation that takes more effort. It’s also far less glaring than the individual LEDs of the last generation of Audi daytime running lights.

Audi’s implementation is also a bar above its competitors because there’s minimal ‘leakage’ of light along the light tube – the lighting is consistent. Certain car manufacturers that have also implemented light tubes have light leaking from the source, which leads to an inconsistent look, much brighter at the light source and fading away to more subtle lighting further away from it.

At the back, the tail lamps reflect the shape of the headlights and the bumper, and the diffuser insert has also been redesigned to give the A4 a wider look. All in all, the A4 looks a lot more grown up now, which also causes it to look tamer than the pre-facelift model, especially in this version without the RM25,000 S-Line exterior package. If anything, it looks like a mini A6.

Inside, revisions to the refined interior include new choices of trim material and colour schemes. There’s a new paddle shift steering wheel design as well, one that feels very good in the hands. Audi Drive Select is now controlled by a single button that cycles between modes – Efficiency, Comfort, Auto and Dynamic. On the whole, there are a lot of subtle changes that uplift the interior’s ambience and perceived quality, and the interior still feels up to date.

The model on test here is the baseline 1.8 litre TFSI model, which uses a Multitronic CVT gearbox that drives the front wheels. The price tag starts at RM235,000, but the car we took out is from a batch which includes uprated Milano leather trim. The usual price for the Milano upgrade is RM8,500.

The kit list is good – six airbags, ESP, ISOFIX points, electric seats including electric lumbar support for both front seats, paddle shifts, three-zone air conditioning, an electric rear blind, xenon plus headlamps with LED DRL, Audi Symphony radio with a 6-CD changer, a six-channel 180 watt amp and 10 speakers, Bluetooth handsfree, Audi Drive Select, light sensor, rain sensor, cruise control.

If you think what’s changed on the outside is not much, you’ll be glad to hear that there’s significant changes under the hood. The Audi A4 is one of the first cars to get a motor from the third generation of the EA888 engine family.

This new 1.8 litre TFSI engine gains Audi’s Valvelift system to refine the torque curve, and an additional exhaust camshaft adjuster has been integrated. Other technical changes include a reduced main bearing diameter, balancer shafts that are in part roller bearing mounted, an optimised pressured oil circuit including a revised control oil pump as well as a weight optimised crank shaft to help reduce weight.

The third-generation EA888 1.8 litre TFSI engine also gains a completely new cylinder head that now features an integrated exhaust manifold and a water-cooled exhaust gas recirculation system fully integrated into the turbocharger. Because the engine’s exhaust gases flow through a water-cooled manifold, exhaust gas temperatures are about 158 degrees cooler by the time they reach the turbo.

The engine block itself is now casted from the conventional flat pouring to upright pouring. The block is so optimised that block wall thickness is as low as 3mm, while similiar engines can have a minimum wall thickness of about double that figure.

There is also a dual fuel injection system which allows the engine management system to switch between FSI direct injection and port MPI injection as needed. The ability to use MPI injection when necessary should ensure the valves are kept clean, as the fuel injected by the MPI injectors will help wash over the valves. Direct injectors inject directly into the combustion chamber, so the valves do not benefit from the cleaning properties of fuel.

The result is a 1.8 litre that makes 170 peak horsepower from as low as 3,800 rpm all the way up to 6,200 rpm. It’s a 10 hp bump over the old 1.8 litre. That’s an incredibly low RPM to achieve peak horsepower, which speaks of the whole package’s efficiency. Of course, there’s definitely some room for aftermarket tuning here to unleash more horsepower.

Peak torque is 320 Nm from 1,400 rpm to 3,700 rpm, which is a significant bump over the outgoing 1.8 litre’s 250 Nm – there’s only a 30 Nm gap between the 1.8 and 2.0 engines now.

However, you don’t really feel it during the driving, as Audi has used the engine’s new versatile powerband and increased torque for a more optimised CVT shift programming – the engine now keeps its revs lower for better fuel efficiency. Cruising along at 100 km/h has the rev needle pointed at below 1,500 rpm.

When all you want to do is just amble along smoothly, the CVT gearbox performs like just any other CVT, keeping the revs locked at the sweet spot of efficiency, thanks to the virtually unlimited ratio span. It feels a little weird if you haven’t driven a car with a CVT gearbox before – there’s never a real gearshift for you to perceive. And even with this being one of the best of CVTs, it somehow isn’t able to fully eliminate the rubber band effect that you get on take off.

Nudge the gear lever downwards and you can switch the gearbox into S mode, which I assume means Sports mode. It could also mean Stepped mode – this is where the CVT gearbox locks itself into eight virtual gear ratios, so you can feel it shifting along.

The feeling still isn’t really the same though. There’s no ‘kick,’ and there’s a lack of raw mechanical feel to it. I’d much prefer if Audi just gets rid of the Multitronic CVT gearbox altogether and equips its front-wheel drive models with the S Tronic gearbox that the higher end Quattro models get.

More efficiency measures include the aforementioned Efficiency mode in Audi Drive Select. In Efficiency mode, the air conditioning compressor works minimally, and gearshifts are kept to as minimum as possible. There’s also an auto start/stop system, which while just two years ago was almost non-existent in Malaysia now seems to be a feature that’s standard now across all models in this segment.

The Audi A4 is smoother when restarting than some other models, which tends to jerk forward. The A4 rocks a little when the engine restarts, but at least it doesn’t surge forward, perhaps because of the CVT on hand as opposed to a regular automatic. Last but not least, the power steering system is now powered by an electric motor instead of being driven off the crank.

The result – an average rated fuel economy of just 5.8 litres per 100 km compared to the pre-facelift model’s 7.4 litres per 100 km rating. You typically won’t be able to get paper ratings in real world, but I’m guessing the large margin of difference in even the average ratings mean the A4 has made great strides in efficiency.

I only had the car for two days and a night during the weekday, so I only travelled about 80 km in total. The average economy was about 9.5 litre per 100 km on mixed driving, with bouts of spirited driving thrown in between efficient highway runs.

The Comfort and Dynamic modes of Audi Drive Select switches the throttle, gearbox, suspension and steering mappings – the idea is to give the A4 two different personalities, according to your intended driving style. The suspension is a little firm even in Comfort setting, and I found the steering wheel to be way too light for my liking in Comfort.

Switching to Dynamic mode made the steering wheel heavier, but the suspension became too firm. I would say an acceptable sweet spot would be the steering of Dynamic, but the suspension of Comfort.

Highway stability is very good, and the car tackles corners in a pretty planted manner. While the A4 is technically competent, when it comes to the more subjective side of ‘handling’ an F30 still slices it better at feedback while on the twisties.

All in all, the update to the Audi A4 is welcome, and the car doesn’t feel too outdated next to the F30. What I don’t like about the A4 is the suspension setup that feels like firm and firmer instead of comfort and dynamic, a steering that’s too light, CVT gearboxes in general, the low screen resolution of the MMI screen that feels even more low res when you compare it to the higher resolution multi-info display screen in front of you, the cumbersome manner in which you have to adjust the aircond blower speed (press a button to toggle between temp and fan, then turn a knob) and the inability to use a generic iPod cable instead of having to purchase a special cable to hook it up to the sound system.

Things that stand out about the A4 is the high perceived interior material and build quality, a smooth turbo engine that’s very quiet thanks to pretty good NVH proofing in general, one of the better auto start stop systems, and good looks. In general, there’s nothing about the interior that makes you complain and say “aiyah, Audi is cost cutting” and that’s a very good thing, rare in fact, in this day and age.

The post Audi A4 1.8 TFSI review: the B8 gets more efficient appeared first on Paul Tan's Automotive News.

You get what you pay for, goes the truism. In the wonderful world of NAP and import taxes, excise duties and APs, this only holds true if you believe increases in things like quality, luxury and performance should cost exponentially more. If not, there is no justifying the gajillions one will have to shell out for Bentleys, Ferraris and Lamborghinis.

It’s even more crucial when it comes to compact cars, for example, the Volkswagen Polo. If you’re in the market for a B-segment hatchback, what are you really looking for besides a reliable box on wheels that can ferry yourself and possibly an average-sized family around in about a 50 km radius with the occasional balik kampung or glutton’s jaunt further afield? If you’re looking for a pocket rocket, by all means the various GT, GTi, GTI or Sports versions of numerous models justify premium prices.

But a 1.2 litre Polo at RM113,888? There isn’t even really the badge snobbery since, well, it’s still the People’s Car and it’s not quite got the special draw of, say, a MINI. That said, there are also question marks over the Honda Jazz, which comes in at just under six figures. But that’s one for another test driver.

The benchmark for a small hatchback has to be Perodua’s Myvi, which moves over 8,000 units a month for the national carmaker. A 1.5 litre version, which kicks in at about 103 PS, or two less than the Polo’s turbocharged plant, has several trims which average at about RM55,000.

So is the Polo worth two Myvis? Let’s start with the fact it looks better and has a VW badge in the front. However, if you really wanted to show off, and insist on a VW, there’s always the Scirocco.

Look after the jump for our full scoop on the Polo 1.2 TSI.

Aesthetic and intangible qualities aside, the next obvious talking point is the powertrain and here, there is no comparison. The 1.2 TSI dishes out its 175 Nm of torque from as low as 1,550 rpm while the Myvi gets you 136 at 4,400. The TSI is also paired with the very pleasing seven-speed DSG that ensures quick shifts to the right ratio all the time.

Well, except when you put pedal to metal. This never used to happen in the old Golf GTI, but maybe the robotic monkey in the DSG isn’t quite as conversant with the 1.2 as it is with the 2.0 turbo plant. When you’re looking for that sudden burst of power, the DSG seems a bit surprised and takes awhile to figure out the three or four-step downshift it needs to make. That said, once it gets there, overtaking in city traffic is a breeze.

The Polo is well-planted and leans no more than any other sporty hatch (bar those kitted to cause spinal hernia after each speed bump) when making hard turns. Coupled with its diminutive size, it is hardly flustered when weaving devilishly through the mess of slow cars on the right lane and fast lorries on the left and motorbikes in the middle of everything.

And this is where the Polo wins points for being special. Its USP is pretty much that while it can make quick progress on all roads, it makes no real sacrifice in terms of comfort. The ride is fine despite not showing the classic wobble of so many small cars that try to mask the ‘rich character’ of our roads, while the front seats secure a mid-sized body very snugly.

Despite having more torque in reserve than, say, a 1.8 litre Toyota Altis, the small TSI manages to push the 1,126kg car along at roughly 10 km per litre in the city without any real effort at saving fuel. On the other hand, the 14-plus km per litre claimed by VW might only be achieved by driving with the same delicacy used in eye surgery.

But no such grace is needed when fiddling about in the cabin. Much of the controls for the stereo, air-con, lights and wipers are the hardy basic VW stuff without too much electronic hoopla. Yes, this means it’s from the cost effective parts bin but once again, it befits the sort of car we’re looking at buying here.

As expected, the fit and finish is all up to VW standards and maybe it’s the smaller dimensions of the car, but the standard RCD 310 stereo booms with a vibrant intensity. Speaking of smaller dimensions, one aspect where the Polo is clearly beaten by a Myvi is cabin room. But that’s to be expected in a design by Daihatsu, which has dedicated its life to creating cars in the image of Doraemon’s pocket.

The Polo also comes with plenty of safety ‘features’ (read: European base-standard safety requirements) such as electronic stability, anti-slip regulator, anti-lock brakes, etc which are only partially matched by ‘premium’ variants of local makes.

And so, we come to the cop-out … er, conclusion. It’s hard to quantify things like looks, badge snobbery and even safety features (which only count if you ever get yourself into a hairy situation). But aside from that, what the Polo offers is a very easy drive. I can see why a rich man might buy this for his daughter who just needs a small car to go about on her day-to-days. It is probably the best city runaround car, surpassing even the Fiesta – which has gained quite a following here but of course, only costs three-quarters of the Polo.

It would probably be instructive to line these three cars up and look at the comparison to figure out how much your motoring soul values each particular feature. In the end though, it’ll probably boil down to this – no family will have a Polo as its first car, but many will buy two or more Myvis.

Unfortunate then, that despite growing competition in the local market, something like an entry-level Polo is still only a reasonable purchase for the top five percent income bracket. Not that it is out of reach of those who earn less. It’s just not sensible. A terrifyingly strange thing to say about the People’s Car.

Footnote: The Polo TSI reviewed here is the upgraded spec model compared to the model we first wrote about in October 2011. You can probably immediately notice the exterior differences – this car carries better looking alloy wheels.