These Features may also be of interest :
|
Notes on Jaguar and TATA |
|
Greece to Grease |
|
|
or you could check out these News Items : |
New Directions for Auto Suppliers: A Radical Industry Reconfiguration? |
|
An A-Z report of the debuts and premieres at the Geneva Motor Show |
|
PORTRAIT OF A STRUGGLING INDUSTRY |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Technical editor
MICHAEL SCARLETT, a former Car of the Year juror, returned to
Silverstone to observe the final selection process for 2006. Here he
examines the seven finalists, and ponders whether current voting
over-emphasises low pricing at the expense true overall excellence…
WHAT its 'owners' - in effect its international jury - call the Car
of the Year award, and some outsiders call the European Car of the
Year, has existed for 41 years. Established in 1964 by the Dutch
magazine Auto Visie and its chief Fred van der Vlugt, the first such
poll has since been widely copied by others, both in Britain and
elsewhere.
It now has 58 jurors from 22 countries, and my old friend Ray
Hutton, former editor of Autocar, was president.
Each juror is free to allot marks as he or she sees fit to eligible
new cars. 'New' is defined as a series-production car introduced and
on sale in at least five European countries in the year concerned.
Nowadays, the vote is taken in two stages. First each juror is
asked, without awarding marks, to choose the seven best from a list
of qualifying cars. The second ballot allows each juror a total of
25 points to apportion in order of merit over the shortlist of seven
most favoured cars.
It was with this final vote in mind that British jurors organised
our test day, based in the paddock of the Silverstone grand prix
circuit. Jurors and ex-jurors like me - one has to 'retire' at 65,
after which one may be appointed an honorary juror - drove examples
of each of the seven contenders on normal roads outside the circuit.
Around midday, an hour of driving on the Club Circuit provided the
opportunity to assess high-speed and high-cornering-rate behaviour -
impossible to test on public roads.
The 2006 Car of the Year medium to larger car contenders were
the BMW 3-series, Alfa Romeo 159, Volkswagen Passat and Mazda 5. The
smaller car group embraced the Toyota Yaris, Renault Clio, Toyota
Aygo, Citroën C1 and Peugeot 107, the latter three stablemates
counting as one car vote-wise. So here goes with my 'diary' of the
day.
zestful
As is my habit, I begin with the smallest and least powerful,
choosing the Toyota Aygo on the basis that it is the lead design of
the trio. Its steering is tolerable, with quite good response to a
change of helm, and not too vague or rubbery about the straight
ahead.
Considering the size of the car and its three-cylinder engine, the
Aygo's performance is quite zestful, provided one is prepared to rev
the engine appreciably. But here one begins to hit the Aygo's
deficiencies. The engine is noisy by contemporary small car
standards, rorty and near-snarling when revving hard and, worse, not
much quieter in the cruise.
This is compounded particularly on British surfaces by high road
noise, worsened by a resonance in the body. Another disappointment
which Britain's often pretty uneven roads show up is its ride, which
is relatively hard and prone to sideways roll-rocking. There is of
course a basic difficulty with any comparatively short wheelbase
(2,245mm/92in) in resisting pitch disturbance, which the Aygo does
not.
Even taking into account its 3,404mm/134in overall length - 11
per cent greater than the original 'real' Mini, which would
accommodate four adults tolerably - the Aygo is tight for space
behind the front seats, into which one's knees are pressed. Not very
impressive overall.
The other Toyota contender is the revised Yaris. First impression
upon getting into a five-door T3 is that lengthways adjustment of
the driving seat is only just enough for my 1.8m/6ft self, so anyone
taller would need to check before committing to this car. Before
anything else, I tried the rear seat where, as suspected, I found my
knees lightly brushing the seat back. In other words adequate space
for me anyway - at some expense to the driver - and good headroom.
Back in the driving seat, one cannot see any of the short nose from
inside, which demands practice in parking. This car is conspicuous
for only modest pulling power and, once on the move, the engine has
to be revved quite lustily to get any respectable urge. Steering is
somewhat rubbery about the straight ahead, adding to the impression
of rather more than usual understeer in faster corners. Though
lacking much 'feel' of what the front tyres are doing; it shows a
tolerable levels of response to any demand for rapid avoidance. Ride
proves nothing to write home about either - another example of short
wheelbase behaviour in its choppy, pitchy demeanour, degenerating
into a fussy, chattery motion over little high-frequency bumps.
Next comes the Renault Clio III in 77.7kW/103.5bhp 1.5 dCi
diesel three-door form. As I attended the international launch of
this car, I know that Renault have achieved a notable landmark in
the refinement of small car diesel noise. And this second experience
re-affirms what a pleasingly quiet car this is, by compression
ignition standards. You are aware that it is a diesel during cold
starts and to a lesser extent at tick-over; but it is most
impressive once warm, whether accelerating or cruising. All jurors
present agree this is the quietest small diesel so far.
|
Alfa 159
|
|
 |
BMW 330d
|
|
 |
Citroen C1
|
|
 |
Mazda 5
|
|
 |
Peugeot 107
|
|
 |
Renault Clio III
|
|
 |
Toyota Aygo
|
 |
Toyota Yaris
|
 |
VW Passat
|
Like other Renaults, Clio III has no 'ignition' key other than
an emergency one hidden in a device like a thick credit card.
Pressing the button on the card locks the Clio, and upon returning
to the car with the card in a pocket, a touch on the door handle
lets one in - a great convenience in everyday use.
contentious
Engine tranquillity is near-matched by comparatively good
suppression of road noise - there is some, but it is not excessive.
Ride is relatively good too, in absorption of bumps and lateral
rocking as the suspension takes the worst out of such irregularities
over poor surfaces.
The electric-assisted power steering is the most contentious aspect
of the new Clio. Overall, it lacks feel and is somewhat dead. On
some new Clios more than others, there is a disconcerting variation
in assistance, with effort required increasing momentarily each side
of straight ahead. Clearly, Renault still has something to learn
about applying - or producing - electric assistance in place of
traditional hydraulic means to the same good standard.
Steering response is good, and the gearing - 2.8 turns lock to lock
for an 11.3m/37ft turning circle - is tolerably high. Road grip is
excellent thanks in part to a comparatively good standard of
handling balance - in other words it doesn't understeer too readily,
making it pleasing to drive on a winding road.
In this top specification diesel form, the Clio performed gloriously
zestfully, with power starting to appear around an indicated 1,600
r/min and rising to an exhilarating turbocharged feel from 2,500
r/min nearly all the way to a remarkably high-for-diesel close-on
5,000 r/min. So by diesel standards, it had a healthy spread of
power, which makes driving easier and more fun.
The car is endowed with a six-speed gearbox, and sixth is a real aid
to cruise economy at 77.6 km/h / 48.23 mph per 1,000 r/min. And,
even with such high gearing, the engine pulls the car very
acceptably once into its working rev range.
I confess to a particular interest in rear seat space in Clios, as I
did not agree with the first Clio winning Car of the Year in 1991.
This is because, as a small family-hatch that should have
comfortably accommodated four adults, it repeated the error of its
immediate predecessor, the Renault 5, in having cramped rear
accommodation. After 14 years in which to correct this, I remain a
little disappointed that the job hasn't been done quite well enough.
Though headroom is generous, room in the rear - once the head
restraint is raised out of the way of one's back - is only just
acceptable when applying my standard test of adjusting the driver's
seat for my height and then 'sitting behind myself', with my knees
rubbing the back of the front seat.
As in so many contemporary cars, rear view is somewhat restricted by
the size of the B-pillar, and the front head restraints also get in
the way. Nevertheless the new Clio in diesel form is overall the
sort of smaller car I would be very happy to live with.
The 1.6-litre gasoline Clio I try next has five more metric
horsepower but 37 per cent less peak torque. So of course it has to
be revved higher to match the top diesel's performance - which,
judged subjectively, it seems to do. I say 'seems' because, without
a stop watch, one can be deceived by engine noise, of which the
petrol Clio has quite a lot, certainly appreciably more than the
diesel.
As a petrol engine, it offers the driver an extra 1,000-odd r/min to
play with at the top end. 'Seems' recurs when checking performance
figures, which show identical 190km/h/118mph maximum speeds, but
0-100km/h times of 10.2sec for the petrol version and 11.1sec for
the diesel. So there isn't much in it.
promising
Next I turn to the Mazda5 - a 1.8 L MZR and three diesel
versions, all LHD and German-registered, presumably because the
diesel RHD versions are not due in the UK until early 2006. First
key question about any three-row-seating vehicle like this is: How
well does it accommodate seven passengers, and can all those seven
be full-grown adults?
Lacking six odd bods to oblige, I applied the next best test: my
usual 'sit-behind-myself' routine, in which the Mazda disappointed.
There is only just enough room in the middle row, while legroom and
headroom in the bench-like rearmost seat is hopelessly inadequate
for any adult - so it is strictly for 10-year-olds and smaller.
The Mazda is far more promising to drive however. It corners
surprisingly well for a fairly tall vehicle, rolling somewhat by
today's stiffly upright standards, and having a suspicion of
torque-steer at times in the otherwise pleasantly quite high-geared
steering. Engine and road noise are quite low - despite some typical
one-box-vehicle body boom.
Ride is tolerably good if not brilliant, with a hint of
not-quite-adequate damping, judging by the way some swoops appear to
be exaggerated in pitch, but the bump stops absorb heavy bumps
convincingly. Given the engine size versus the car's 1.44 tons
unladen weight, performance is tolerable one-up. Though one wonders
how well it would cope with a family plus holiday luggage, as it
demands revving to get anywhere when lightly laden. Overall, a
tolerably couth car in driving terms.
Volkswagen's latest Passat, in 2.0 FSI gasoline form, turns out to
be an excellent machine. I sample it first on the Club Circuit, on
which it is surprisingly good to drive, not understeering too much
at quite respectably high cornering speeds.
Predictably on normal roads, it impresses even more. In particular
its ride copes with the at-times severe bumpiness and unevenness of
the test route better than any of the other six candidates. There is
only a little roll-rock. Over two specific tests, it does very well
in bottoming, thanks to what must be good bump stops. Though what I
call 'topping' - 'jounce' in motor industry jargon - does generate
some suspension clatter.
Overall one is wonderfully isolated from the general bumpiness of
much of the road. Almost total lack of feel is the price paid in the
steering, itself remarkably well insulated for a front-drive car.
However the majority of Passat customers will not care tuppence
about this, valuing the car's - and the steering's - equanimity
above all.
The engine pulls well, and is smooth and pleasant-sounding.
Red-lined at 6,500 r/min, it will actually rev to its limiter at an
indicated 7,000 r/min. A generally very decent car, which I could
live with happily as general family transport, the Passat offers
good headroom and the roomiest rear accommodation of the group.
As is also my custom, I save the two higher-performing larger cars -
the Alfa Romeo 159, and BMW 3-series - for last. Understandably, the
fastest car at the Silverstone test is Alfa's 159 3.2-litre JTS Q4 -
for four-wheel-drive - with 147 kW/197 bhp to propel an unladen
weight of 1.7 tons. All lesser 159s are front-drive, with between 88
kW/118 bhp and 147 kW/197 bhp to dispose of.
A very impressive performer with sheer go, the 3.2 engine does its
stuff with a splendid V6 cry. Steering is wonderfully responsive and
rapid, thanks to high - 2.4 turns lock-to -lock - gearing. This is
accompanied by excellent traction and grip, though ultimately
extreme cornering on the circuit induced understeer.
juddering
Back on the road, the only disappointment is ride, juddering
perceptibly and making rather a mockery of the performance by
restricting where it can be used. The car bottoms badly with a
worrying mechanical bang as if something under engine or gearbox is
scraping the road. I watched anxiously in the mirror for a trail of
oil - and in the instrument panel for a warning light. As one other
of our party admits that he had had the same experience before me,
my bang is at least the second. Yet nothing untoward results.
Finally, time limits me to sampling the 330D version of BMW's
3-series. Though not at all as refined as Jaguar's S-type diesel, it
is one of the best examples of what good performers modern direct
injection turbo-diesels are. One should be accustomed to this by
now. But I still find myself reflecting that in earlier times I
would have laughed at anyone telling me I would thoroughly enjoy
driving a diesel car.
Most powerful of the 3-series whether petrol or diesel, the 3-litre
turbo-diesel delivers 170 kW/229 bhp at 4,000 r/min and no less than
500N.m/369 lb ft of torque between 1,750 and 3,000 r/min to propel a
1.58-ton car. And it certainly provides a lovely spread of diesel
urge up to 4,750 r/min, if quite audibly when accelerating. However,
this sound is pleasant, adding to the enjoyment of the acceleration
this remarkably quick machine affords.
It rides pretty well, despite those very low profile tyres, and road
noise is not at all serious. Apart from relatively mild disturbances
in the ride itself, this car only hints at indifferent surfaces and
bumps through perceptible, if small, steering wheel rotation from
side to side - admittedly at high speeds over poor roads.
In contrast to the first 3-series, the current model provided good
knee room in the back, though foot space under the front seats is a
little confined. Overall a very pleasing car that I personally would
love to own. The BMW has to be my personal overall winner.
Criteria for the award include value for money, though not pure
price. And, in its earlier days right up to 1990 when the Citroën XM
won, Car of the Year did not automatically dismiss larger or more
expensive cars.
Earlier winners - including the Rover 2000 (1964), NSU Ro80 (1968),
Mercedes-Benz 450S (1974), Rover 3500 (1977), Porsche 928 (1978),
Audi 100 (1983) and even the Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow coming second
to the Renault 16 in 1966 - supported this supposition. The value
for money criterion meant exactly that: an expensive car had merit
equal to any if it was good, and as such represented excellent
value, often enhanced by a higher percentage re-sale price later in
its life.
However, of late, COTY has risked becoming 'Smaller Car of the Year'
in reality, because too many of its jurors now seem to base their
verdicts largely on price - a pity in my humble opinion.
As predicted by many, the Renault Clio did take this prestigious
award, which it deserves to in several respects, if not in as many
as I believe the BMW does.
Car of the year revealed
ANNOUNCING the Renault Clio as 'Car of the Year' for 2006, Steve
Cropley, COTY juror and Autocar magazine editor-in-chief, said: "It
has been a very tough contest this year and the Renault Clio won by
just four points, leaving the Volkswagen Passat a very close second.
"The jurors were impressed by Renault's change in philosophy with
the latest Clio, which has brought much-improved refinement and trim
quality to the car, along with improved road presence and rear cabin
space."
Completely independent of the organising committee with regard
selection of eligible cars and voting, each juror had 25 points to
apportion to at least five of the seven cars on the short-list. The
final scores were:
Renault Clio
256
Volkswagen Passat
251
Alfa Romeo 159
212
BMW 3-series
203
Mazda5
198
Citroen C1/ Peugeot 107/ Toyota Aygo
187
Toyota Yaris
143
|
|
|
|
| |
| No Comments entered as yet, why not be the first? |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
