Portuguese Petrol Head

Cabrio talk

2012-01-07T11:01:00.000-08:00

Hello car enthusiasts!

Today I will... discuss, let’s say, Convertible stuff. More specifically, I will try to make a couple of considerations regarding roof arrangements, as there are two dominant approaches these days: the trendy, practical folding steel roof and the classic fabric top. Which is best?

The classic convertibles and roadsters are visually recognized mainly because of the predominant black fabric roofs. It’s the cheapest, lightest, less complicated solution to cover the heads of open-air driving lovers.

As time passed by, their remarkable evolution went from a simple layer of fabric and a couple of steel tubes (pretty much like my Smart Roadster’s…), later with a plastic screen at the back for improved rear visibility and a gutter over the doors. Electric motors were introduced for added comfort, back in the Sixties (remember the movie ‘Bandits’, from 2001?), after multi-layer fabric tops making their appearances, perhaps the biggest and more relevant evolution in their lives. This way, a roof-up convertible could provide saloon-like levels of insulation, regarding both noise and heat, allowing all-weather use.

Plastic screens gave way to heated glass, a further milestone in the soft top road, as this meant no dark, sun-burned plastic and no steamed-up windows during winter. Even lightning-conductors have been added to some soft tops, and I can assure that, in some cases, the car’s rigidity is way improved with the roof up, a sign of a very strong structure (try the four-seater Audi A4 Cabriolet).
Their shapes also improved dramatically over the years. Of course, there always have been good and bad examples over time, with prestigious brands, like Rolls-Royce and Mercedes-Benz, never presenting the car scene with hideous arrangements, as a direct consequence of expensive developments.
Even so, who can classify an MGA, MG Midget or Triumph Spitfire as unappealing cars? I don’t, that’s for sure! These were cheap, simple cars focused on the driving joy, so their tops were correspondingly… unpretentious. Furthermore, as time passed by, even cheap roadsters, such as the 1989 Mazda MX-5, brought with them neat-looking soft tops.

However, the convertible world was about to be shaken up in the mid-Nineties.

The New Era
Back in the Summer of 1996, Mercedes-Benz surprised the world with its new baby roadster: the SLK. Internally known as the R170, the first generation SLK was an unexpected step from one of the most conservative car manufacturers at the time. The looks and, especially, the proportions were reminiscent from the Fifties three pointed star roadsters, but the gold touch was, definitely, the pioneer folding Vario roof, an hardtop which allowed a magnificent-looking roadster to become a dynamic sports-coupé.

Mercedes-Benz pointed out the versatility of the car as its pièce de resistance. You could have the charisma of a two-seater roadster with the practicality of a coupé, in other words, brilliant noise insulation, security and thermal efficiency.
Of course, the skeptics immediately questioned the roof’s reliability, and rightly so. For such a complex arrangement of hydraulic cylinders, hinges and plastic covers to be able to stand the test of time, especially given the known fact that Mercedes-Benz had started to save money on development (blame shareholders and a man called Jürgen Hubbert) was a tough task, to say the least.
Mercedes-Benz knew this, so the press release also highlighted that they had tested the system over 20 000 cycles, with absolutely no problem. Less exposed were the boot capacity figures, which at 348 litres (coupé configuration) was as good as its 145-litre in top-less condition was bad.
Finally, the tiny (for MB Standards) dimensions and relatively small-capacity engines allowed an empty weight ranging from 1270 to 1325 kg, so the comparatively high weight of the roof was unnoticed.
The advantages also included added rigidity in coupé-shape, even if the solid wheelbase already made a case of itself in roadster configuration. Maintenance-free metal, in place of fragile fabric, simple rubber joints and a heated glass window at the rear completed the row of attributes of this sensational concept.

The long-term reliability of the Vario-roof proved to be first-class, with very few cases of malfunctioning being reported, some of them being caused by improper use, such as opening or closing while parked with opposite wheels at different ground levels, which means a chassis subjected to torsion (seems common-sense, doesn’t it?).

The seed spreads…
Well, enough of time travel. The reason which made me write this post is other than some history-class-wannabe. You know, sometimes my eyes cross such ugly shapes that I just cannot avoid squeaking and moaning about what the hell were designers thinking of. This happens because many car manufacturers, while trying to be cutting edge, trendy, up to date or just stupid, tend to put a folding hardtop everywhere, from small hatchbacks to big family cars.

Of course, It’s always nice to have the safety of a hardtop if you leave the car parked, but if the car ends up looking like Shrek, who’s gonna buy it in the first place?
Apparently, many people. You see, watching the Mercedes SLK phenomenon while outside the party must have been tough. So, many car manufacturers started to plan copies of its roof concept, in an urge to present one of their own as fast as possible.
The result is plain to see: in 2000, Peugeot presented the 206 Coupé-Cabriolet, of which I show the following pictures.

Maybe it’s just me, but I’m convinced this side view just doesn’t work. Roof-down profile look is barely acceptable, the high and boxy back disconnected from the front. Peugeot tried to mend this by lifting the bonnet a little bit and by lowering the windscreen, which also needed to be stretched, in order for a shorter and smaller roof to be able to fit in the boot. So, they almost designed a saloon, in order for the boot to be able to accommodate the roof, and story tells that no hatchback-derived saloon works aesthetically (remember the Skoda Fabia Saloon?). Closing the roof worsens things a step further, as the roof looks like an egg. By the way: what the hell are those back ‘seats’ for? For an amputated child, perhaps? Unless the driver is 1,5 metres tall, no one can seat in the back…
Peugeot was the second car maker to offer a folding hardtop, but couldn’t still make a single one which looks good. What an impressive effort from the carmaker which gave the world so many beautiful cars, such as the 206 itself, still produced 13 years after being first launched. I’m sorry Peugeot, but your convertibles look like cars which were designed to be driven backwoods: an XS engine compartment and an XXL boot. The 307 CC looks like a Porsche 911 in reverse…

Their French rivals from Renault did a better job. They didn’t rush to make a 2+0,5 seater convertible from the Clio, instead took the bigger Mégane and successfully integrated a proper-looking folding hardtop on it. Roof up and it did look like a sleek coupé, roof down a classic convertible. That applies to both generation Mégane CC’s.

Volkswagen entered this world with their Eos, but it looks like they took inspiration from Peugeot. Of course, truth be told: it’s not as horrible as, say, a 307, but a Mégane CC looks way better…

Volvo and BMW did proper jobs, both with four-seaters first, which made their tasks amongst the harder. The 2007 3-Series Convertible and C70 are dynamic coupés and beautiful cabriolets, both proving that a big, folding metal roof can also look great.
The risk here is long-term reliability: for such big hardtops to be able to fit inside their boots, such complexity has been required that the original Mercedes SLK’s Vario roof looks like kid’s work. I’m utterly skeptic about them and their expensive rubber joints.

And that neatly brings me back to Mercedes-Benz.
Their second Vario-iteraction was the 2001 R230 SL, a faster, lighter evolution from the original concept. It also allowed to save more space in the boot, via a rear window that decouples from its frame. Aesthetically not as perfect as the original I think (too long windscreen), but still beautiful.

From there on, each new iteration looks neat, but a further milestone for Mercedes happened when they started designing the replacement for the 2003 A209 CLK: the return of the E-Class Convertible.
The inventor of the retractable hardtop roof thought that the winning concept should fit such an important reborn, and started developing a solution. However, a few time after the first prototypes hit the road for hard-weather testing (in 2008), they gave a second thought to the idea, and ended up trashing it. Did the big Vario roof not stand the cold weather tests as required? Did Mercedes realized that the production costs of such a solution would be too much high? Perhaps it has something to do with Karmann becoming bankrupt (it seems that Karmann was the magic hand behind the original Vario roof), so, some months later, E-Class Convertible prototypes started being spotted with soft-tops.

Looking at the finished product, and I can only be happy with that! Just look and feel the charisma of this car. It has such finesse that I cannot even imagine it with a folding hardtop.

Where do we stand?
This my point: does any convertible really need a trendy, practical folding hardtop?
The answer is simple: no.
An open-top car, be it a sexy two-seater roadster or a classic four-seater cabriolet, is all about emotions. No one buys such a car looking for the best practicality, or performance, or value for money. Who mistakenly does, only does it once. These kind of cars are targeted to your heart, they are bought by people who admires them, who just don’t mind to make concessions regarding rationality. I can say all this because I am a roadster owner, and I will always be.
Such a feeling is enhanced if a proper roof is fitted, be it a soft top or a folding hard top.
But, more important, one which doesn’t look ridiculous.

Driven: Seat Ibiza Sport 130 (2004)

2011-12-30T14:35:00.000-08:00

Greetings everyone!

Today’s post is about another commercial vehicle, even if a very different approach from my Fiat Panda Van: the 2004 Seat Ibiza TDI Sport Van.

Back in 2002, when Seat renewed its biggest-selling model – you guessed it – the message it wanted to spread was simple: we’re a young, stylish brand focused on those of you who are dynamic, young (at heart, at least...) and uncompromised. It was this clear. So, they went to Alfa Romeo, borrowed Walter de Silva – at the time Alfa’s chief of design – took the Skoda Fabia’s new platform (launched one year before), added a couple of powerful engines from VW and had a success between hands.

I must recognize I like the look of it. Even today, the design is relatively up-to-date, despite the car having been sold in such great numbers and being a compact hatchback.
On the inside, it’s another story. Yes, the round dials and air vents look Italian (wonder why...), but everything else is purely German: definitely practical and well screwed together, but not particularly welcoming. Not even the ergonomics are that good – the steering wheel, albeit small, is very thin and the arm rests on the doors are placed far up front, so taller people end up not being able to rest their elbows.

Despite that, the centre console is slightly turned to the driver, so buttons are easily found and reachable. Also, the instrument cluster has everything one needs to know and there are plenty of storage spaces. Plastics are pretty mediocre, as every single one seems to have come right from some recycle bin. However, they are very well screwed together and reliability is first order: this particular unit has covered around 160k kilometres (100k miles) and nothing has gone wrong so far.
The driving position is amongst the best things on the Ibiza: there are so many, and wide, adjustments to the seat and the steering wheel that anyone, from Jyoti Amge to Helmut Köhl, can easily find a comfortable position. Personally, I find the lowest, almost stretched legs setup to be the more appealing. The seats are a bit hard, but still comfortable and offer great lateral support.

Any remains of ride comfort are however, gone the moment you start to move. OK, the ride is acceptable over very good tarmac, but pretty horrid everywhere else – I may even call it sadic over most urban-roads.

The payback for this hard suspension setup is good traction and some road holding abilities that seem to challenge physics.
Cornering speeds can be pretty high and it keeps being stick to the road if, during the process, a front tyre finds a hole. However, attention is needed while decelerating or even braking in the middle of a corner! The back end immediately steps out, the solution to keep it on track being to smash the accelerator.
Oh, and don’t worry if you’re in the wrong (high) gear. This 1.9 TDI has so much torque that, as long as it’s revving above 1700 rpm, there will certainly be enough torque available. If it’s above the 2000 rpm mark, there comes the traction control…

And here start the Ibiza Sport’s nonsense’s.
The acclaimed 1,9 TDI certainly has a punch that leaves little to be missed. In-gear performance is phenomenal, so overtaking is ridiculously easy. Also, its electric-like response to the throttle pedal makes it very appealing for an aggressive drive, a feeling that I never felt from any other turbocharged engine. But for a sports car to have a dieselness behavior bothers me. A sports car is about downshifts, thrashing it to the red line, allow the engine to rev freely. Rev the Ibiza to the 4500 rpm-limit and 1) it will lose most of its breath beyond 4k rpm and 2) you think you’re a thief on a 70’s movie - driving a Ford Transit while trying to escape from the police. Yes, it sounds that good...

But you may argue now that it just happens to be a fast commercial vehicle.
I’m sorry, but it’s just any good at this if your job implies moving goods – not that big, by the way – across big distances, in short periods of time, over very good roads. It has decent economy between 140-170 km/h (90-105 mph), noise insulation is pretty good and driving at night is no drama either, as lighting is good. If you have a pharmaceutical company, look no further – you found your delivery cars! However, it struggles to behave adequately doing anything else – it will be either too uncomfortable, nervous, hard to see out of and, most of all, rough.

I think that’s one of the reasons why mostly (very) young people buy it. The other one is that the Audi A3 is twice as expensive. Anyway kids: if you manage to stay alive while you own this car, don’t lose your faith… ;)

Verdict: the most uncompromised, stylish and perhaps fast commercial vehicle. As annoying and fascinating as a kid at puberty.

Vital data:

Engine and transmission:
1896 cc, inline-4 cylinder, 2 valves per cylinder (diesel)
130 PS (96 kW)/ 4000 rpm
310 Nm/ 1900 rpm
Red line: 4500 rpm
6-speed manual transmission

Dimensions and weights:
Length/ width/ height: 3,953/ 1,698/ 1,441 metres
Turning circle: 10,6 metres
Empty weight (icl. driver): 1150 kg
Boot: 900 litres app.
Fuel tank: 45 litres
Tires: 205/45 R16 Michelin Pilo Sport

Official performance:
Top speed: 207 km/h (129 mph)
0-100 km/h (0-62 mph): 9.4 seconds
Fuel consumption (urban/extra-urban/average): 6.6/ 4.1/ 5.0 l/100km (43/ 69/ 56 UK mpg)
CO2 emissions: 135 g/km

2000 rpm, 5th gear: 90 km/h (56 mph)
2000 rpm, 6th gear: 105 km/h (65 mph)

Main equipment: climate control, twin front and side airbags, radio with CD-player, trip computer, alloy wheels, ABS+ASR.
Portuguese price in 2004: 21 000€.

Driven: from new (June 2004); car left with 162 000 km (101 000 miles).

Rating: 15 out of 20

Driven: Mercedes-Benz SLK 200 (1999 R170)

2011-06-12T15:20:00.000-07:00

Driven: Mercedes-Benz SLK 200 (1999 R170)

Hey car freaks!

Today’s post regards my dream car. After spending a lot of time driving every kind of cars, I’m back at the wheel of something remotely special. Yes, for the first time since 2006, I’ve been back at the wheel of a Mercedes-Benz SLK! However, this is far from being my favourite amongst the range: it’s the non-facelift SLK 200, with an aspirated engine, and in a very basic specification, indeed.

I remember the first time I saw this model as if it has been yesterday.
Back in March 1997, a 15-year old kid was giving a quick look to a car magazine, when he was faced with this slim, brilliant-silver sporty body. He was everything but a car enthusiast, but the then-new SLK had a very profound effect on him. It was what can only be described as love at first sight! From there on, his passion for cars grew an awful lot, first concentrated on Mercedes-Benz (I must recognize that, for me, the vast majority of good Mercedes-Benzes ended by 2000-2004), afterwards expanded to the whole car universe.

Turning back to 2011, the privation of property of an SLK made me appreciate it on a different way. Starting with the lines, which I still find some of the best ones ever made. They’re the perfect balance between class, sportiness, elegance and function. Everything is there, yet nothing is too much (well, apart from this unit's undeserved chromium accents...). However, now I can see the substance underneath them. This car is an engineering masterpiece, a revolutionary concept that, soon afterwards, everyone followed. Nowadays, every car manufacturer has an electric folding hardtop somewhere in their range, but back in 1996 Mercedes-Benz had it working, not only in an engineering perspective, but also from an aesthetics one!

Inside, the rational design makes you feel at home with every single control. Oh, apart from the stick switch for dipped/high beams, blinkers and windscreen wipers: I don’t mind about the amount of functions it has, but it’s placed slightly too low. You may get familiar with that I think.
It’s very roomy, well built and still looks fine, but it’s also the place where the model’s age can be noticed the most. There is room to store everything one usually carries, plus some space behind both seats for something as a laptop, where it cannot be seen.
The driving position is sports-relaxed, despite the high seats (no adjustment). They are very supportive (this unit doesn’t have leather seats) and very comfortable, despite looking very hard at first. The truth is that, after a long drive, the body isn’t tired.

And that brings me to the dynamics.
Switching the engine on brought a somewhat loud and harsh engine note. With the roof up, the engine note is vastly reduced, which only confirms the great built quality. Even so, it’s a lot less sonorous than the post-facelift Kompressor engines, likely because of a different exhaust.

On the move, the long gear ratios are new for me – the Kompressor SLK 200 facelift has a 6-speed manual gearbox, with relatively short ratios – but, even so, the engine still feels decently responsive. The gearchange feels very mechanical, but the gear lever has a slightly long travel, something not very adequate for a sports car. The ratios are acceptable, but the transition from 2nd to 3rd should be shorter.
Unsurprisingly, the engine isn’t particularly refined (unlike the Kompressor unit), but one can tell it’s a good 4-cylinder. It allows sub-1500 rpm cruise in top gear without complaints (due to the big displacement), revs reasonably well but has a sound that only suits some tastes. Something harsh, lower-pitched, that almost allows you to count the engine’s revolutions.

Ride comfort is very good, but the soft suspension setup makes itself noticed while cornering fast, in form of noticeable body-roll. The steering is reasonably direct, but provides absolutely no feedback. Maybe these thoughts came to my mind because my current dynamics benchmark is my smart roadster, one of the very best cars on these subjects. It doesn’t feel very solid either, even with the roof up. The car doesn’t behave like it’s a single brick, something even the latest-generation VW Polo accomplishes with some aplomb.

The truth is that this car is far from a driver’s car. It’s quiet, provides good wind protection with the roof down and, above all, feels very mature. It doesn’t encourage you to drive aggressively at any moment, and on that point reminds me the Audi A4 Convertible. Somewhat of a shame that those stunning looks promise so much, but then fail to realize. Fortunately, the facelift revealed in January 2000, solved most of these criticisms, not compromising the grand-tourer abilities. It definitely added the much-needed spicy!

Verdict: somewhat of a pensioner supermodel. Great looks, but little emotions.

Vital data
Engine and transmission:
1998cc, inline-4 cylinder, 4 valves per cylinder (Otto)
136 PS (100 kW)/ 5500 rpm
190 Nm/ 3700-4500 rpm
Red line: 6200 rpm
5-speed manual transmission

Dimensions and weights:
Length/ width/ height: 3,995/ 1,715/ 1,284 metres
Turning circle: 10,58 metres
Empty weight (icl. driver): 1270 kg
Boot: 308/ 145 litres (roof up/ down)
Fuel tank: 53 litres
Tires: 205/55 R16 (front)/ 225/50 R16 (rear)

Official performance:
Top speed: 208 km/h (130 mph)
0-100 km/h (0-62 mph): 9.3 seconds
Fuel consumption (urban/extra-urban/average): 12.9/ 6.9/ 9.1 l/100km (22/ 41/ 31 UK mpg)
CO2 emissions: 217 g/km

Main equipment:
Twin front and side airbags, radio with CD-player, fog lights, alloy wheels, ABS+ASR (traction control).

Portuguese price in 1999: 42 500€.

3000 rpm, 5th gear: 114 km/h (71 mph)

Driven: approx. 100 km (62 miles); car left with approx. 74 500 km (46 560 miles).

Classification: 14 out of 20

Ownership report: smart roadster 60 kW (2007)

2011-01-02T11:50:00.000-08:00

Greetings, car enthusiasts!
I hope 2010 was a great year for all of you, and I wish you an even better 2011!

What I will post today is not a test-drive of some weekend rented car, nor a report of a big trip to the end of the world. No. Today I will report what it’s like to own a car, the very first car I’ve bought.

As I previously explained, when I first wrote about the roadster, this wasn’t the actual life-dream materializing. My biggest passion was the first-generation Mercedes-Benz SLK (R170) in facelift-shape but, in a succession of events, I ended up with my second-biggest passion, the smart roadster. Almost two years later, I can only be happy with that.

The little smart proved to be a lot more than just a fantastic-looking shape. It has such a strong personality that you just love or hate – it is impossible to talk about it in a cold way. From the experience I have so far, most people like to see it (you should see and listen to children!), then regret it for its lack of practicality and finally, after being driven on it, say it’s astonishing (apart from my mother, who hates it since she first sat in – she says it’s an expensive irrelevance…).

The driving experience, along with the looks, form the x-factor of the roadster.

First of all, the engine: it may lack ultimate power, but it’s so smooth, sounds so fantastic and feels so brisk you never get tired of it. Furthermore, it’s surprisingly economical. When I used the roadster daily, I got 4,5-4,7 L/100km – 60-63 UK mpg – week after week, with careful driving. Now that I only drive it a couple of days per month (I did 1,6k kilometres (1k miles) since 2009…), fuel consumption rose a bit, but still nothing relevant. It requires 98-RON petrol though.

Handling is better than what the short length may tend to suggest, because the wheelbase is stiff, relatively long and the wheels are exactly at the corners. However, it’s not quite perfect.
Push too hard on roundabouts and sharp corners and the front soon lets go, due to the lack of weight on the front axle. Of course, my Bridgestone’s great grip has long have gone – they’re dry by now, due to the lack of use and high operating temperatures – but they still manage to hold the road well on most circumstances.

However, what about perceived speed?
When I take the roadster to a narrow mountain road near my house, with no roof, the only similarity I find with the speed I think I travel with is the smile on my face! 60 km/h (40 mph) feels like warp speed, as your bottom sits on the road; the engine screams behind you; a tornado hits what’s left of your hair and you steer with such an accuracy you could design a Formula 1 engine using the car – my steering is not power assisted.

The roadster is, above anything else, fun. All it’s really interested in is make you smile, wherever you’re in the city being starred at, or alone on that fantastic mountain road. It doesn’t want to be taken too seriously, and it’s amazing it belongs to the Mercedes-Benz family.
Even so, you can tell it’s German, because it rides well (seriously), is reliable and so well engineered. Not an impressive quality product though, as all start to leak at some point of their lives (the real reason why smart stopped making it) and the interior is almost a cheap-looking plastic comedy.

It really is the recipe for the sports car of the future. It’s light, fun, cheap to own and environmentally-friendly.
I’m absolutely convinced it’s a future classic.

Verdict: still as thrilling as in the day I bought it.

Vital data:

Engine and transmission:
698 cc, inline-3 cylinder, 2 valves per cylinder, turbo (petrol)
60 kW (82 hp)/ 5250 rpm
110 Nm/ 2250-4500 rpm
Red line: 6000 rpm
6-speed sequential, automated manual transmission

Dimensions and weights:
Empty weight (incl. driver): 865 kg
Boot: 59 (front) + 86 (rear) litres
Fuel tank: 35 litres (98-RON)
Tires: Bridgestone B340 185/55 R15

Official performance:
Top speed: 175 km/h (109 mph)
0-100 km/h (0-62 mph): 10,9 seconds
Fuel consumption (urban/extra-urban/average): 6,3/ 4,3/ 5,1 l/100km (45/ 66/ 55 UK mpg)

3000 rpm, 5th gear: 80 km/h (50 mph)
3000 rpm, 6th gear: 106 km/h (66 mph)
3500 rpm, 6th gear: 121 km/h (76 mph)

Main equipment: air conditioning, dual front and side airbags, ABS+BAS+ASR+ESP with hill start assist, radio with CD-player, electric and heated side-mirrors.

Owned: from March 2009 to date; actual mileage: 31 400km (19 600 miles).

Driven: Volkswagen Polo 1.2 (2010)

2010-07-30T14:24:00.000-07:00

Heloooooooooo!

The car model I’m reviewing in the next lines doesn’t bring back very pleasant memories: the VW Polo 1.2. Yes, once again, I lived with a 3-cylinder Polo for a couple of days.
Back in 2006, I spent a week with one of these things, and hated most of that time. Put simple, the old Polo was a poor product, living entirely on its badge.

This one though, is a little bit different.
The engine remains virtually unchanged, but thanks to a 5 PS power increase and 20 kg weight reduction, it feels a bit less lethargic.
The biggest change in the drivetrain though, is the gearbox. It feels a bit more precise, albeit as slow as before, and all gear ratios are way longer. Even so, this setup doesn’t compromise performance too much, comparing to the old one. The clutch, just as the accelerator and brake pedals, has a long travel.
Like the 1.2-litre 60PS engine in the Lancia Y, this one is also tuned for torque. Even so, it completely lacks the Fiat’s low-rev energy and refinement – it feels at home mid-range – but revs with less strain as well. You just have to ignore the (loud) noise it makes at high revs, like it’s going to break down in pieces…

On the road, the other main problem is noise insulation. I’m used to noisy cars, but this was a surprise on this car – one of the few good things about the old Polo. Wind noise is very loud, as well as tyre noise past 100 km/h (62 mph).

Maybe, I thought at the beginning, so much tyre noise translates into good grip, but I was completely wrong.
Climbing the Montserrat mountain confirmed what was already noticeable on roundabouts and tight corners: the tires soon let go, and while doing so, they scream a lot. Understeer sets in at a very early stage, and there’s nothing you can do about it than go slower. It doesn’t matter if the Dunlops are cold or warm – they’re rubbish all the time.
These, together with a soft suspension, compromise handling. The body rolls a lot in corners (not as much as the Panda’s, though) and dives while braking, so it never feels composed nor it inspires a lot of confidence. However, it is better than what the old Polo managed to get. Braking power is ok, but the pedal has a spongy feel.

Despite the soft-suspension setup, sometimes riding comfort is not very well accomplished, something noticeable especially on the motorway: sudden and strong tarmac irregularities are badly absorbed, but maybe the relatively low-profile tires (195/55 R15) are to blame. Even so, it rides acceptably on the city streets, mostly covered with low-intensity, high-frequency irregularities.

And here begin the Polo's qualities, starting with body rigidity. On this class, I had never came across such a stiff structure like the one on the Polo, something immediately noticeable when it starts to move: every single reaction feels like the output of a meeting with every single bit of the car, it reacts to the suspension, steering and brakes like if it was a single brick. That’s a nice feeling.

And that brings me to the main characteristic of this car: unlike the old Polo, the new one is a quality product. End of story.

On the exterior, body panels are aligned beyond reproach; the doors close with a solid clunk and the dashboard looks like a single rubber piece, where all the buttons have been sculpted. A shame it’s very hard, cheap plastic everywhere – not a single bit of soft rubber… Just like the Fiat Panda’s, the difference being the rubber-texture and (dark) colour, enough to make the Polo’s look great.
However, built quality is phenomenal and the design, albeit conservative, is elegant and fresh enough. A shame it’s so cramped at the back, especially in width, and that all the pedals are displaced far to the right.
Of course, the few extras this particular unit had helped a bit, as it had nice alloys, aircon and trip computer – standard equipment in most cars today. Economically-speaking, the Polo is very poor – it’s very expensive for what you get…

On the end, I ended up with mixed feelings about this car. The Polo was never a driver’s car, and for that reason alone I couldn’t buy one. The steering is always too light (even at speed), it lacks any sort of feel and the suspension is a hopeless compromise.
However, its inherent quality is very appealing, even for me – it’s expensive, but it also feels expensive, despite the poor interior materials. For that reason alone, I would not stop anyone from buying this car – at least with a bigger engine.

Verdict: a good-looking, underpowered city car that impresses for its real quality.

Vital data:

Engine and transmission:
1198 cc, inline-3 cylinder, 4 valves per cylinder (petrol)
70 PS (51 kW)/ 5400 rpm
112 Nm/ 3000 rpm
Red line: 6000 rpm
5-speed manual transmission

Dimensions and weights:
Length/ width/ height: 3,970/ 1,682/ 1,462 metres
Turning circle: 10,6 metres
Empty weight (icl. driver): 1067 kg
Boot: 280 litres
Fuel tank: 45 litres
Tyres: 195/55 R15 Dunlop SP Sport E1A

Official performance:
Top speed: 165 km/h (103 mph)
0-100 km/h (0-62 mph): 14.1 seconds
Fuel consumption (urban/extra-urban/average): 7.3/ 4.5/ 5.5 l/100km (39/ 63/ 51 UK mpg)
CO2 emissions: 128 g/km

3000 rpm, 4th gear: 96 - 88* km/h (60 - 55* mph)
3000 rpm, 5th gear: 116 - 106* km/h (72 - 66* mph)
*GPS-verified speeds

Main equipment: air conditioning, twin front and side airbags, radio with CD-player, trip computer, alloy wheels, foldable rear seats, ASR, hill-start assist.
Price in Spain: 13 500€.

Driven: June-July 2010 – 7 days, 968.7 km (605.4 miles), 6.4 l/100km (44 UK mpg); car left with 3 358 km (2099 miles).

Classification: 14 out of 20

Driven: Lancia Ypsilon 1.2 Argento (2008)

2010-06-10T03:32:00.000-07:00

Welcome back, petrolheads!

Today, I’m back to an Italian “playground”: the first Lancia I have ever driven – the small Y, or Ypsilon as they want us to call it.
First things first: this is a rented car, so despite being only 2 years old and having 38k kilometres (24k miles) on the clock, the paint is faded (too many automatic car washes) and the rear shock absorbers look to have had better days, as well.

I rented it as a courtesy car, as my roadster was receiving its 30k kilometre (19k miles) service. Being at a Mercedes-Benz shop, the least I could expect was a latest generation smart fortwo, a car I never drove. So, when I was given the keys to a Lancia Ypsilon, I was shocked. Really, that’s that kind of cars you never remember of, and when you do, you wish you hadn’t. Me, a 27 year bloke, driving that girlie thing?! Is this a joke? No, it isn’t. My Panda may also not be the most masculine car money can buy, but the Ypsilon is almost like a Nissan Micra – it’s a dress with four wheels.

First surprise: as I walked around it to better understand what I was going to drive, I heard a little noise at the back – it was the engine, which was turned on! OK, I’m mostly used to noisy cars, and I had just left the noisiest of them all, but the Lancia is on a class of its own.
Getting in (enormous, heavy doors) feels familiar with the panda, as the (wrong) driving position is always too tall and you never manage to feel perfectly comfortable. The steering wheel, even at its lowest and most backwards position, is still far too much high and horizontal, so you end up feeling like a lorry driver. And what about headroom?! I almost felt lost inside it! Having the seat as low as possible – which translates to… high – there were at least 15 centimetres (10 inches) of air above me! A windscreen very far away, along with a flat-top dashboard and some fake-metal inserts on the doors, all contribute for an impressive sensation of space. Build quality is also good, as most of the materials used. I only noticed one small squeak, coming from the rear seat.
Also, the interior design is nothing bad either. Modern and certainly different from what we are used to in this class, it’s a pleasant place to be. Apart from the fact that I felt too small inside it (I’m only 1,77 metres tall), so, I was a bit like those women we (almost cannot) see driving big MPV’s, or SUV’s. Yes, women – I struggled to forget the idea that I was driving a girl’s car…

But fortunately I did. And something curious happened – the most time I drove it, the most I enjoyed it. I recalled the smart’s slogan “open your mind” a couple of times while driving it, because if you really open your heart and focus on the machine, you realize its strong character is genuinely charming.

The well-proven 1.2 suits the spirit of the Ypsilon just perfectly. To begin with, there is no vibration whatsoever. It’s an engine tuned for torque, which means it gets harsh (and noisy) past 4500 rpm. Mute at idle and very low revs, it shows all its strength between 2k and 4k rpm. Its power delivery, despite never very good, is extremely creamy. Given such sweetness, it’s easy to forgive the lack of horsepower.
Lancia engineers also know this, so they coupled the engine to a manual gearbox with such long ratios (see data) you really have to use torque. Truth be told, I never felt it dangerously slow, like the Polo 1.2 did. I even found it hard to believe the horrid official 0-100 km/h (0-62 mph) time. In the real world, the 60 PS 1.2-litre Ypsilon is noticeably faster than the 1.2-litre 65 PS VW Polo, and more economical too. My final fuel consumption average, after 141 kilometres (88 miles), was 5,6 l/100km (50 mpg). Not bad.

Comfort is good at the front, but at the rear potholes are too much noticeable, probably due to a faded rear suspension. That means that a trip on the motorway, or any open road with a good pavement, within the speed limits, is very well accomplished, due to the quiet behavior.

Amazingly, it doesn’t corner that bad, either. Cornering fast, on an imperfect surface, reveals little tendency to get out of the line you are following, and body movements are well controlled. Most of all it feels light, a point underlined when braking, as there is little dive. A shame the steering is not very informative. The gearbox, even not very fast, is sweet. Discreet is the better way to describe the behavior of every car command. After all, this is not a driver’s car, so all makes sense.

The impression I was left with is this: the Ypsilon is a quality product, designed for a client who wants looks and individuality above anything else, with some rationality along the way. A trendy car thought mostly for city commuting, something it does very well.

Verdict: a stylish approach for a cosmopolitan, slightly premium (female) buyer. An individuality statement with some real quality.

Vital data:

Engine and transmission:
1242 cc, inline-4 cylinder, 2 valves per cylinder (petrol)
60 PS (44 kW)/ 5000 rpm
102 Nm/ 2500 rpm
Red line: 6000 rpm
5-speed manual transmission

Dimensions and weights:
Length/ width/ height: 3,810/ 1,704/ 1,530 metres
Turning circle: 9,83 metres
Empty weight (excl. driver): 1020 kg
Boot: 215 litres
Fuel tank: 47 litres
Tires: 195/55 R15

Official performance:
Top speed: 153 km/h (96 mph)
0-100 km/h (0-62 mph): 16,8 seconds
Fuel consumption (urban/extra-urban/average): 7,7/ 5,0/ 6,0 l/100km (37/ 56/ 47 UK mpg)
CO2 emissions: 129 g/km

2750 rpm, 4th gear: 80 km/h (50 mph)
3000 rpm, 5th gear: 108 km/h (68 mph)

Driven: May 2010 – 2 days, 141km, 5,6 l/100km; car left with 37 989 km.

Main equipment: air conditioning, twin front and side airbags, radio with CD-player and USB-connectivity, trip computer, alloy wheels, fog lights.

Classification: 15 out of 20

Panda Tour 2010: through Europe with my (super)car

2010-05-15T15:37:00.001-07:00

Hello car enthusiasts!

Today’s post is a bit different from the usual drive-and-report business: in the next lines, I’ll report my thoughts along a big trip I made from the 6th to the 14th of April 2010.
The plan was this: I wanted to do a big drive, and to “justify” this, set a few landmarks to visit across West Europe – this would be my 2010 vacation. My wheels? Well, as I cannot even dream with something wrong to occur to my beloved roadster, I took my faithful everyday partner – the Panda. Only me and my Panda, on a 4000+ kilometre (2500+ mile) trip – now that’s a challenge! :D

Tags: Barcelona, Millau Viaduct, French Riviera, Monaco, Andorra.

Day 1 – Tuesday, April 6th – from Redondo (PT) to Lleida (ES) – roads: N373 (PT), E90 A5-A2-AP2 (ES)

After some last-hour arrangements, the trip began at 9:15 am (GMT), the Panda’s clock showing 47 737 kilometres (29.836 miles). First relevant fact: the Panda’s fuel consumption really rises with speed. Above 110 km/h (70 mph) it increased noticeably, but from 130 km/h (80 mph) on, it was a no-no. The problem was not just the cost: a fuel consumption above 7 l/100km (40 mpg) means a real autonomy below 500 km (310 miles) which, in such a long trip, is very annoying. So, an average of 120 km/h (75 mph) would be set.
The really big problem, though, was wind noise. Most of the distance was covered with strong front-wind, and despite my 120 km/h speed, it was really loud. By the end of day one, I had done approx. 950 km (590 miles) in less than 11 hours, with 3 stops, and had caught a monumental headache…

Day 2 – Wednesday, April 7th – Lleida

Not a lot to say on day two: it was very rainy, a bit cold and generally unpleasant. I had planned some photos of my Panda with Lleida’s Seu Vella as background, but gave up as traffic and weather were so terrible.

Day 3 – Thursday, April 8th – from Lleida to Barcelona, through Martorell (ES) – E90 A2

Following a late wake-up at Lleida’s Sant Agassi Youth Hostal – very good, by the way – the journey started towards Martorell’s Seat factory, were I met my friends and colleagues from T-Systems. After lunch, the short trip remaining towards Barcelona hasn’t got a lot of history. The A2 Autovía (a kind of motorway, although free and with corners) is only interesting before Martorell – beautiful landscapes, not that much traffic and plenty of nice corners, all contribute for a pleasant drive.

Day 4 – Friday, April 9th – from Barcelona to Montpellier (FR), through Millau (FR) – E15 AP7 (ES), E15 A9 (FR), E11 A75, D991, D999, D986 (not sure about the last 3)

I had barely slept that night. The Albergue Pere Tarrés really is not the ideal place for anyone in need of rest, but maybe Barcelona’s concept of rest is different from every where’s. It really is a magic city.
Despite that, I had an early start. I was dying to see the Millau Viaduct, the highest suspended bridge in the whole world, and entering France itself would be a milestone – the first time I would be there alone.

The first surprise came from the French toll prices; despite wonderfully finished, French motorways are cheap compared to the Portuguese and Spanish ones, costing about 2/3 of the price. The downside were fuel prices, noticeably higher.
Driving through the A9 until Bessan, and then the A75 towards Millau, really was magic. It’s a privilege to drive in such amazing roads, and despite the fact that most of the time the road was straight (apart from some A75 stretches), the omnipresent surrounding natural beauty and fantastic-looking small villages contributed to an unforgettable drive.

And then, suddenly, the Millau Viaduct emerged in front of me.
From an on-site point of view – driving on it – it was nothing overwhelming. The slim pillars aren’t very high and, although clean and modern, the design is discreet. The see-through side barriers (to protect from the wind) revealed a small town way down – Millau – and that was the only clue to the incredible height of the place.
I then stopped at the Viaduct service area, as it was expectable to have a good view from the bridge. It did, and the second photo was made there. It still didn’t appear to be groundbreaking, but it was definitely very elegant. A bit of a disappointment, I remember to think, but maybe it was all a question of a wrong perspective. So, better to find a different point of view: let’s go under it and see how it looks like from there.

Passed Millau – a small city with little charm – and, finally, I found the adequate perspective to appreciate this engineering masterpiece. There even is a museum dedicated to the bridge, courtesy of Eiffel – yes, this bridge was built by the company which also built the Eiffel Tower – a fantastic place to take some fantastic photos and, if you like, buy some memorabilia.
From underneath this friendly giant, multiple thoughts cross your mind. You feel very small next to it, but at the same time, your soul feels as big as the pillars. This bridge is an incredible achieving; it’s a material proof of what we, Humans, can do when we try, when we pass our limits, our fears, our challenges. It was said it was impossible to be built, and despite that, there it is in front of you, shining along the clouds, its delicacy making it a natural part of the landscape. Every word is short to make that place justice. Every single person in the world should go there to see it.

Trip to Montpellier
Not having found a reasonably priced hotel room in Millau, I took my way to Montpellier, the closest Youth Hostal I had in my home-made list.
The first part of the road was a single-lane, uphill, curved stretch. A joy to drive, and what I discovered was that every single French I met drove like a maniac! Honestly, maybe because they were facing a (slower, not slow) foreign small car, their first thought must have been “let’s show this bloke how to drive”. When I saw a woman cornering an old Kangoo on its door mirrors, and shorter afterwards overtaking me as I was going backwoods, I felt sick. But at the same time, happy! I had never seen ordinary people driving so aggressively, and I just loved it!
Then a downpour came out of nothing, later plenty of sun again. There, even the weather is temperamental…
Then it was a stretch of motorway (I think a new one, I don’t recall the name of it) and soon I arrived at Montpellier. And that was a shock.
At first, it looked a regular Portuguese city, with plenty of traffic, some bad pavement and incoherent road signals. Then the GPS tried to drive me just to the historic centre, and I lost about one hour to figure out that it was just impossible to get to the Hostal by car.
As parking spaces were so scarce, and paid, I left the Panda far away from the Historic Centre, and went there on foot.
Montpellier is a very peculiar place. I had never seen so much youth in the same place, as I did that night. But, even so, I hated every minute on it.
First of all, the Hostal was a nightmare – very old, in bad shape, dirt, noisy and those bathrooms were so good I even lost the will to take a bath, left alone doing anything else. So, hardly paradise for someone who desperately needed to sleep.
Leaving the preserved, well illuminated and clean Historic Centre is like being in Barcelona and exiting on a door directly to a Brasilian favela. The city is dark, untidy and the common groups of blokes with not-so-good appearance never fail to arise a sensation of insecurity, a feeling exaggerated by the omnipresent police. Where the hell am I? Bagdad? It looks like. Then I found that the street where I had parked my Panda was pretty much horrid, as there was no traffic, it was very dark and the houses looked like bunkers ready for a war to begin. For you to see the scale of the problem, I even didn’t access the car in order for people not to notice its foreign number plate. Thankfully it’s very discreet.
That night, I barely slept (again), this time because of the car. All I kept thinking of was that the next morning I would find it burned…

Day 5 – Saturday, April 10th – from Montpellier to Nice (FR), through Monte Carlo – E80 A54-A8

The day started early, as I was dying to see if my Panda had survived the “Dark City”.
Fortunately it did, so the drive to Nice began at about 8 in the morning.
The first part of the journey wasn’t that good: too much traffic, a bit cold (imagine the Multijet clattering…) and around 20km (13 miles) of very sharp road pavement (designed to help traction on heavy rain, by the looks of things). Even before those 20 km of noisy hell ended, I was already thinking about giving up Monte Carlo, and going straight to Andorra. But boy, I’m glad I didn’t.
The cloudy and cold morning gave way to a gorgeous and warm sunny day, the perfect compliment for the fantastic landscape around the motorway, almost 300 km (190 miles) of another epic drive.
Arriving at Nice surrounds was a nice surprise – the French really respect and preserve Nature a lot, so you end up in a place where civilization embraces hills and trees in a wonderful way. However, when arriving at Nice centre, it soon became obvious that this places hates cars. Gradients are enormous, parking spaces are very scarce and, weirdly, the sight is not the beauty I had imagined it would be. A true letdown. I didn’t even bother to take photos…

Going to Monaco
So, before I lost a lot of time there, I drove off to Monte Carlo. After the massive Nice disappointment, I confess my expectations were low.
The road which gets there is a mix of open-air motorways and tunnels, mostly limited to 110 km/h (70 mph) due to the variable and steep gradients. After the last tunnel, I was in for a shock – all I saw was blue, a heaven-like mix of sky and sea! Then, it was a 90 km/h (56 mph) double-lane road surrounded by flowers, small trees and fantastic houses. There I saw the first majestic sight – a Rolls-Royce Phantom.
The downtown was in a bit of a disorder – preparing for the F1 Grand Prix had already began – but even that did nothing against the spirit of the city: extremely clean, warm, charming, beautiful and – wait for it – car friendly! Lots of parking spaces, wide streets and not that much traffic (and remember, it was a Saturday afternoon). I then parked the Panda on Rue Grimaldi (1€ - 45 minutes), one of the main streets, and went for a walk around the Marine first, and then on some of downtown’s streets. Took a couple of photos and went to the F1 hotel, near Nice (I could not afford to gamble on my rest one more night…).
Another fantastic day and, as the day before, one where a substantial part of the fun didn’t came from the driving experience alone. I definitely recommend a drive to Monte Carlo!

Day 6 – Sunday, April 11th – from Nice to Andorra la Vella – D6007, E80 A8-A54-A61, E09 A66-N20-N22, CG-2 (AND)

That morning, the weather was a bit sketchy. Being an early (8:30 am) Sunday morning, I drove almost alone towards Cannes.
The roads had no story: not particularly beautiful nor that smooth, there was nothing special about them. Perhaps the weather is partly to blame, but the inherent beauty every French motorway has about it hadn’t got the slightest parallel on the wonderland I had imagined. So, I ended up driving the D6007 road with absolutely no grin on my face. Antibes, La Californie, Palm Beach and even Cannes were a massive disappointment, too. Nothing special, like everyone says. I find Portugal's Marginal road, from Lisbon to Sintra, to be miles more impressive, as for beauty as for charisma and charm. And I’m far from being a nationalist…

So, in centre Cannes, I set up the GPS towards Andorra la Vella, and off we go.
With almost 700 km (440 miles) of road ahead, it would be interesting to drive across different landscapes, such as the French Riviera, the French Motorways and the Pyrenees mountains.
In the beginning, even the patchy weather did nothing to hide the marvelous motorway’s beauty, but after a while it got better. It really is a joy to drive there. First the E80 A8, then the A54, the miles passed by quickly, despite of an average speed under 130 km/h (80 mph). Of course, most of the time the wind was either absent or very weak, so the noise inside the Panda was perfectly tolerable. Interesting to find out, in these circumstances, that past 3000 rpm (130 km/h), the little Multijet gets itself very noticed, a sign it’s running hard. So, a real autonomy of just over 600 kilometres is all it can get.

Arriving at the Pyrenees
The landscape changed abruptly nearing the Pyrenees. A bit less trees, long green fields, gorgeous small towns perfectly integrated in the nature, it was a magic drive. Then, the wonderful mountains appeared. The N20 road enters a valley where some fantastic-looking small towns are. Great pavement, plenty of corners, it’s an astonishing drive. And then, the road starts climbing the mountain. With very steep gradients, very slow corners and an astonishing view, it’s hard to go any fast. But, at some point, I started “racing” a VW Golf IV TDI 110 PS. And the truth is that, despite rarely going faster than 50 km/h, the pleasure of driving the little Panda really got into an all new level! Another second-gear corner, thrash it, 3rd gear, brake, downshift again. This happened during about 20km, until eventually the mountains were covered in snow and the Andorra Aduana was reached. A quick glimpse back down, and the road just run almost looks unreal, being so small, curved and beautiful. A true wonder, a really epic drive!
Andorra is more of the same, with most of the roads looking like narrow kart-circuits in the middle of the nature. Gradients are the rule, rather than the exception, and that, together with sharp corners, proved to be a great receipt for the Panda to excel. Its gearbox doesn’t appreciate changing gears down very fast, but it never complained in such hard conditions. Impressive.
That night would be passed by in a Youth Hostel near La Comella, around 5km outside Andorra la Vella. Another great day!

Day 7 – Monday, April 12th – Andorra – local roads

I spent the day thrashing the Panda on the hills, and I even went for the snow. I had never ever seen proper snow in my life, so a drive to the ski lanes had to be. I took the CG-3 road pass La massana, Les Salines and El Serrat, with plenty of second-gear corners, and I have to say it was (yet) another piece of amazing road to drive! As always, the Panda soldiered on like a true hero, the only complaining occasionally coming from the tyres and the omnipresent body-roll, not something that bothers me by now, as I got used to it… This all happened even when it started to snow, the skinny tyres taking care of business amazingly well – I rarely got a hint of understeer, despite the abuse.
On these circumstances, I must admit that fuel consumption rises noticeably, but distances here are always short, made to look bigger because of the low average speeds attained. Diesel fuel prices were almost 20% lower than the, already low, Spanish ones.

Apart from the driving, Andorra la Vella has plenty of shops, and I was said that prices of many goods are low. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find out which ones as everything just looked like a lot of money to me. Or maybe I have no notion of prices, as I hate shopping…

Day 8 – Tuesday, April 13th – from Andorra to Lleida – CG-1, C-14 (ES), C-26, C-13

This day I went back to the ski lanes, as the weather was a lot better. Gone was the freezing cold and the cloudy skies, the sunshine giving a completely different perspective of that place. The day before it was almost dramatic, now it was just quiet and peaceful.
After lunch, I took the road Spain – I would sleep in Lleida, in order to ready myself for another cross-Spain drive. From Andorra to my hometown of Redondo would just be far too much.
The C-14, C-26 and C-13 is another great road. Single-laned, surrounded by mountains at first, then crossing long valleys, not heavy on traffic (perfect if you love overtaking, as it is my case ;) ), it reminds me once again that Catalonia really has some of the best driving roads I’ve ever knew. Some people that say fun is only guaranteed on a twisty road. I agree up to a certain point, but driving pleasure is not only about pushing you and your machine to the limits on corners, and this road is another proof of that. Without a fantastic scenario, a nice weather and a proper music, an unforgettable driving experience cannot be fully accomplished, and this road is a material proof for this statement.

Day 9 – Wednesday, April 14th – from Lleida to Redondo – E90 A2-A5, N373

The last trip day was cloudy and even rainy at times. Nevertheless, I decided to take a stretch of single-laned road in order to avoid the AP2 expensive toll, as I thought it would be a short blast. However, pack almost 80 km of unknown road with drizzle and a lot of lorries and the result is… fantastic! Once again, the Panda shined more than the sun had done in Monte Carlo: with a freak like me at the wheel, its Multijet thrust showed drivers of lorries and far more superior cars how well a Panda can dance! The sequence -2500 rpm – pedal to the metal – up to fifth – hard on the brakes – downshift to fourth- was repeated time after time, an entertaining sequence that turned an otherwise dreadful-looking drive onto an unforgettable experience.

Verdict

I couldn’t have possibly imagined what a big challenge this trip would turn out to be, and maybe that was what made it so memorable.

Spain is… Spain – it's still the country I identify myself the most with. It has great roads, landscapes, food and “joie de vivre”, the full mix of important values for me.

France is a mix. I don’t appreciate their towns, their food and most people’s personality, left alone the massive disappointment the French Riviera was. But, regarding the driving experience alone, it’s on a class of its own. It has the greatest motorways and one of the most astonishing constructions on Earth – the beautiful Millau Viaduct.

Monte Carlo is definitely another must-visit place. Its beauty, sophistication and delicacy embraces visitors in such a way you want to stay there for a month. But, for the wealth of your wallet, better to stay only a couple of hours…

Andorra is Nature-freaks paradise: is has the most dramatic and phenomenal landscapes and roads. Also, locals are friendly, food is close to the Spanish one (I love it) and life there is not expensive.

The last words are, of course, dedicated to the hero of this trip: my Panda.
Honestly, I never thought it would be this good. It handled brilliantly very long journeys; it was a cute and honest sight in Monte Carlo; it took care of both Andorra’s hard mountain roads and Montpellier’s night. It’s astonishingly good at its limits, all kind of them, and in every place it was just right.
As time passes by, I love it more and more. I cannot believe I own such special and amazing cars, as are the smart roadster and Fiat Panda.

Cheers!

Trip statistics
Distance covered: 4155 km (2597 miles)
Average fuel consumption: 5,24 L/100km (53,9 mpg)
Average diesel fuel price: 1,102 €/L
Tolls: 123,06 €
Diesel fuel: 239,77 €

Latest acquisition: Fiat Panda Van Multijet (2005)

2010-02-21T03:00:00.000-08:00

Hello car enthusiasts!

Today’s post regards my latest acquisition: the Fiat Panda, with a diesel engine, in commercial finish.

I will go past another background to this model, as I already made it when I reviewed my cousin’s Panda 4x4 Climbing Multijet. I always appreciated this car, but truth be told, what inspired me to go for the Panda was the (nice) surprise I had with the 4x4.

Having decided that the roadster is not suited to my daily life, but more of a weekend toy which will be a future classic (I am sure!), back in last Summer I went back to my parents Rover 200 and stored the smart.
But, as petrol prices started to rise so sharply, added to the fact that the Rover’s K-Series is getting thirstier (13 years old and 179k kilometres – 112k miles…) and as it is not really mine (well, at home nobody likes it very much, apart from me), I started thinking of an alternative. The specs? Second-hand, cheap, small, economical, distinctive and light. Let’s go hunting!

The cars immediately considered were the twins from the PSA-Toyota union: Toyota Aygo and Citroen C1 (107 out, too expensive and more common); the Volkswagen Lupo TDI 3L and, of course, the Panda. The first two with a petrol 1.0 and the last ones being oil burners (the Panda’s petrol’s are, at least, reliable, unlike the VW’s).

The C1/ Aygo went out for their prices; the VW because it’s too old, vulgar and all the examples I found had too much use. Having found a 4 year old commercial Panda Diesel with 40k kilometres (25k miles), well preserved and with black paint (I prefer the yellow paint, though), the choice was made. A two-seater is all I need right now!

First impressions: compared to the 4x4’s, the engine is much more responsive! On the road, even despite slightly longer gear ratios, it felt brisk and refined. But body movements soon felt less controlled, as in roundabouts, when accelerating or braking. Amazing, I thought, because the 4x4 is sitting higher.
Another letdown was the brake pedal feel – while the 4x4’s felt just perfect (brake disks all round), this felt as bad as the smart’s: spongy, with a lot of dead travel. Otherwise, apart from being a two-seater with a giant boot (about 650 litres, with a square shape, good cover and even better presentation), it was similar.

As I write this review, the car has covered around 4k kilometres, or 2.5k miles, so I can be more precise about it.

Built construction is astonishing, as I had already discovered; not a single squeak nor rattle from the hard, cheap-looking plastics.
Equipment level is a mix of Active and Dynamic: it has no glove box cover, only driver front airbag, the seat’s fabric reminds a blue, cold wet surface and the radiator grill has no chrome finish (Active details); on the other hand, roof bars, trip computer, rev-counter and remote central locking come from the Dynamic line. Resuming: it has all the basic kit, no more or less. Mine adds a very efficient manual air conditioning and a not so impressive radio with cd-player (both at a cost).

Storage compartments are abundant and well positioned, the door bins being the larger, the centre console ones small but handy.
Room is great in height but limited in length (I would say 1,85 metres is the recommended maximum driver height) and width. Even so, two average adults fit well, not disturbing each other. Not even when changing gear, as the gear lever is high in the centre console. Even so, plenty of glass make it feel very spacious and airy – a comfortable place to be in.

Together, all that glass, a high driving position (no seat height-ajustment) and the absence of proper lateral support from the seats, mean small confidence in corners. Add to that tires with a sidewall as tall as the Petronas Towers, short distance between axles and a soft suspension and the result is truly scary body roll. If one is brave enough to push it to the limits (as it is my case, of course… even if it took some time to! :P), it is amazing how much grip such narrow tires can manage to get. It may corner on its doors, but boy, does it stick to the road! For comparison: in the dry, on a roundabout just outside my work place, I achieved just over 60 km/h with the smart. With the Panda, I already got to 55 km/h! I was almost sat on the passenger’s seat, but that’s another story…
Predictably, in the wet, it loses traction at an early stage.
The advantage is, of course, ride comfort. It is not perfect (I have the tires over-inflated), but perfectly at Rover’s levels.

To the end, I left, on purpose, the engine appreciation.
For a start, just a reminder: I really hate oil burners, and, in certain conditions, this car reminds me why.

Every day I drive to my job, on a 2 x 6,5 kilometre-long (4 miles) journey. Starting at 6:50am, mostly cold days at this time (some days even frozen windows), the engine note after switching it on is… well, like a tractor. Very noisy, and with plenty of vibration, it’s as unrefined as only a diesel engine can be. Then there’s the high compression, which means that, when changing from 1st to 2nd gear, your head rolls forwards and backwards. You may say, “why do you rev the engine past 2k rpm in first gear, you ass?!” The answer is turbo lag: this little 1.2 is so turbo-dependant that it’s almost unable to accelerate the car below 1500 rpm (Fiat claims maximum 145 Nm at that point – yeah right…). Only from 1500 rpm to 2000 rpm it starts to wake up…
So, I arrive at my job with a headache from hell and thinking to myself “what the hell were you thinking of?!”

But, eventually, the week is over, and I do my long (150+ km – 95 miles) run back to my hometown, mostly on B-roads.

On the open road though, it’s very good, indeed. OK, turbo lag is still there, but with short gear ratios and a quick gearbox, it’s easy to keep the engine mid-range all the time. The engine, by this time warm, shuts up almost completely, and shows its progressive nature. However, it loses all its breath from 4000 rpm on.
But the party piece is mid-range performance: it has such a punch between 2500 and 3500 rpm that I already managed to lose traction in 4th gear (!) two times, on road joints, at 70 km/h (45 mph), while flooring it! So, overtaking is an easy task below 120 km/h (75 mph) – from there on, the not-very-good aerodynamics dictate a slower acceleration. Even so, I managed to see 185 km/h – 115 mph – on the speedo in two different occasions, while going slightly downhill…
Noise comes mostly from tyre roll – weirdly, given such narrow tires – and grows a lot at speed, as it does fuel consumption.
Average fuel consumption? I am far from being an average driver, but bearing in mind I floor it many times on these long trips and I do a lot of cold starts during the week, 4,3 l/100km – 65 UK mpg – seem like a pretty nice figure. While cruising at 100 km/h (62 mph), it burns around 10% less than that…
That’s what I try to recall when I am driving it in the city and getting mad with its dieselness…

Verdict: designed for the city, this impressively built, cheap, practical and economical small car really feels at home on the open road.

Vital data:

Engine and transmission:
1248 cc, inline-4 cylinder, 4 valves per cylinder, turbo (diesel)
70 hp (51 kW)/ 4000 rpm
145 Nm/ 1500 rpm
Red line: 5000 rpm
5-speed manual transmission

Dimensions and weights:
Length/ width/ height: 3538/ 1589/ 1578* mm
Empty weight (excl. driver): 1020 kg
Boot: 650 litres
Fuel tank: 35 litres
Tires: 155/80 R13 Continental Eco-Contact
* with roof bars

Official performance:
Top speed: 160 km/h (100 mph)
0-100 km/h (0-62 mph): 13 seconds
Fuel consumption (urban/extra-urban/average): 5,4/ 3,7/ 4,3 l/100km (52/ 76/ 65 UK mpg)
CO2 emissions: 114 g/km

2000 rpm, 5th gear: 84 km/h (53 mph)
2400 rpm, 5th gear: 100 km/h (62 mph)

Driven: From November to date

Main equipment: air conditioning, driver front airbag, radio with CD-player, trip computer.

Classification: 16 out of 20

Driven: Fiat Panda 4x4 Multijet

2009-09-26T02:42:00.000-07:00

Driven: Fiat Panda 4x4 Multijet Climbing (2006)

Gretings, petrol heads!

Today I’m going to report my test drive of a car I like since it was first launched, back in 2003: the Fiat Panda. I immediately connected with its cuteness and honest simplicity; it’s a basic car which does not pretend to be more than that. It has charisma. I cannot avoid smiling when I see one of these things, especially in yellow. I actually prefer it to the 500, for me the latest fashion-victim…
Even so, some bits did not appeal to me. For a start, the tall interior centre console is not pretty, it looks like a concrete block fell through the windscreen. Petrol engines were also weak, the less bad being the ooooooold 1.2-litre 44 kW/ 60 PS (even Fiat recognized its fuel consumption is lower than its hopeless 1.1 brother’s…).
Another option was the 4x4 variant, with slightly modified bodywork, a simple four-wheel-drive system and taller suspension. It added genuine off-road ability with almost the same road performance of the front-wheel-drive versions, but the party-piece was, definitely, the younger looks.
The engine range saw a big improvement with the Diesel 1.3-litre Multijet. With more torque and only marginally heavier, together with a close-ratio gearbox, performance is decent most of the time, especially noticeable in road-use, along with very low fuel consumption.
So, when my cousin called me and asked what I thought of a used Diesel Panda 4x4, I immediately told him to go for it. As an urban commuter in a small countryside village, it’s about as good as you can get. My disappointment came when he said it was white. A fridge? Oh dear… Well, nowadays it’s a fashion color again (I’m still old-fashioned…).
However, first real impressions were astonishing. Live, the white bodywork in conjunction with several gray plastic inserts, together with the green-yellow interior (I forgot to ask the color, as I’m slightly colorblind) and alloy wheels, create a big laugh! For me it looks terrific, as for most people who see the car.
It comes well equipped, with air-con, alloys, board-computer and radio with CD-player. Interior design shows a bit it’s age, but it’s remarkable that a car which as covered 123k kilometres (77k miles) in three years hasn’t got a single noise coming from the trim. Impressive, especially when you notice that plastics are hard and appear to be cheap.
Comfort is also good. It’s roomy, noise insulation is adequate and the tall suspension absorbs potholes well – remember it’s a very short chassis. The seats could do better with some lateral support, something you miss more when cornering on a high driving position.
And, speaking of cornering, how does it drive?
For a start, I don’t like a high driving position. This, together with the absence of lateral support from the seats, creates a lack of confidence on me. No, it doesn’t feel like it’s going to corner on its roof, but it doesn’t inspire too much confidence. Even so, I felt brave enough to push it a bit (not too much), and it behaved like it should: predictable handling with final understeer. And it doesn’t corner on its side either, very nice when you remember the good comfort.
The steering is a letdown, being far too undirect and somewhat vague, but the same cannot be said to the brake and clutch pedals: as good as you can wish for, with virtually no dead course! I wish my smart’s brake pedal felt like this… Brake power is also good, as you have disk-brakes all round.
The gearbox, placed on the centre console, comes handy and has a soft feeling, but the shifter could ask for a shorter movement.
Gear ratios are very short (from first to fifth) and that, together with low weight and good torque, creates a nice response from the engine, most noticeably mid-range performance (a clear peak at 2500 rpm). On the road, overtaking until 100 km/h (62 mph) is not out of question (with two occupants, anyway) and performance always feels brisk.
But, were it really shines is at the urban jungle: compact dimensions, comfort, great visibility all-round (there is plenty of glass), responsive engine and low fuel consumption means this car is unstoppable! Add an omnipresent smile on your face (everybody’s face, if I’m honest) and a lot of practicality (the boot looks bigger than the official figures might suggest) and you have a brilliant daily partner.

Verdict: cheap, fun, practical and small, all together in a well built package.

Vital data:

Engine and transmission:
1251 cc, inline-4 cylinder, 4 valves per cylinder, turbo (diesel)
70 hp (51 kW)/ 4000 rpm
145 Nm/ 1500 rpm
Red line: 5000 rpm
5-speed manual transmission

Dimensions and weights:
Length/ width/ height: 3538/ 1589/ 1601 mm
Empty weight (incl. driver): 1035 kg
Boot: 206 litres
Petrol tank: 35 litres
Tyre dimension: 185/65 R14

Official performance:
Top speed: 150 km/h (94 mph)
0-100 km/h (0-62 mph): 18 seconds
Fuel consumption (urban/extra-urban/average): 6,7/ 4,2/ 5,2 l/100km (42/ 67/ 54 UK mpg)

2000 rpm, 5th gear: 78 km/h (49 mph)
2600 rpm, 5th gear: 100 km/h (62 mph)

Driven: September 2009

Main equipment: air conditioning, dual front airbags, radio with CD-player, alloy wheels, trip computer.

Classification: 16 out of 20

smart roadster 60 kW - photos

2009-08-02T09:46:00.000-07:00

Some more photos of my beloved smart. Still as good as ever! :D

smart roadster: entertaining device

2009-05-17T03:45:00.000-07:00

Greetings everyone!

Today’s post regards, once again, the smart roadster, my car. The reason why I find it interesting to get back to this is simple: it’s a sheer emotional thing.
I’ve driven it now for more than 3k kilometres (~2k miles), and I have to say I still think it’s epic. For the ones who do not understand me, please, read some ‘proper’ reviews of this car, or just drive one. Yesterday I met another roadster driver, and his thoughts on his car are pretty much the same as mine, even if his use of his roadster is much different from mine.
However, a common point was made: it cannot be the only car on a daily basis. Let me explain: my work place is 25 kilometres from home, and I end up driving more than 2k+ kilometres a month. In April, I used it on a daily basis, and I was astonished with its fuel consumption: week after week, it was always up to 4,5 l/100 km (50+ mpg). Better is hard, but I recognize my driving is far from average and I go to work mostly on highway. But I have no garage at my week-house, a big and somewhat troublesome city, so I felt stressed many nights. My car was already vandalized in March, when someone broke both screen wiper arms, so you understand me…
So, I picked up my parents Rover once again. And I must recognize that after a month with the roadster, the feeling of ‘peace’ it transmits is nice, the driving experience being completely different from the smart’s. It’s a nice drive, the engine being the responsible. But it hates cornering, it’s noisy and its fuel consumption is getting higher as the car gets older. With 170k kilometres (~106k miles) on the clock and being 12 years old, my last week average was 6,5 l/100km (36 mpg), absolutely ridiculous regarding my driving profile, and far from the old 5,8 I/100km (41) I used to manage some years ago… The roadster is also limited in rainy weather, not because of the softop (even if mine leaked two times out of the blue…), but because of fat tires and low weight. It simply disconnects from the road…
After two weeks away from my roadster, I was dying to drive it again. And this is my point of view: for someone who only needs a daily working tool (and drives considerable kilometres on the way…), the roadster is not the best option. You barely enjoy its qualities and you start to exaggerate its weaknesses. And that’s because you have to drive it. This is an entertainment device; you should use it when you want to. That also leads to low mileage, so the frequent and expensive maintenance services turn out to be less and therefore irrelevant. If you are looking for economy, there are important points other than fuel consumption…
If you are an economy maniac (as me... :S) who also happens to love cars and driving them, try this: buy a smart roadster and reserve it for the weekends and vacations; buy a cheap work horse for the daily life. Insurance and taxes will be cheap in both cases; petrol consumption won’t ruin your wallet; you will drive to work more relaxed and above all, you will leave the playstation alone during the weekends…

Please, read this reviews:

http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarreviews/34732/smart_roadster.html

http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarreviews/45290/smart_roadster.html

Just bought: smart roadster

2009-04-11T03:00:00.000-07:00

Hello car enthusiasts!

The car I’m reviewing today is very special for me, and for several good reasons. The main one is that this is my real first car, as I just bought it with my money. And, for the ones who dream to have something and, much later, exclusively with their own effort, manage to make that dream come true, the feeling is something unforgettable, a genuine milestone!!!
And that’s my case. A car enthusiast since 1997, when the, then new, Mercedes-Benz SLK made me awake to the “car world”, my car dreams always went around the aforementioned SLK and, occasionally, other cars that, by their time, were very appealing (the last one was the Opel Astra GTC 1.6 Turbo with 180hp, exclusively for Portugal). Even so, the SLK dream was omnipresent. It was standing deeply in my heart, and the choice was very obvious. It only depended on the time needed to afford a nice second-hand unit.
The smart roadster never managed to “tickle the box” the way the SLK did. I even remember the first time it was seen as a prototype, at the 1999 IAA Frankfurt Motor Show. I remember to think “that front is horrible, and this is a stupid car compared to the city-coupe”. But, in 2002, the final version was presented, and, if remarkably similar, it seemed to look considerably better than the IAA prototype. Maybe the tweaking to the original lines worked very well. Really? No. Now I think the design just grew on me, and I say it because, now, I love those prototype’s lines. And that was the beginning of the roadster dream!
Ridiculously high-priced when new, only a handful of drivers bought this car. Why? For a start, the driver had to be wealthy, mostly because a two-seater, convertible and almost boot-less car cannot be the only car for 95% of people… So, it was most likely to be a second car, maybe third. A weekend toy, and that makes it look even more expensive than it already is. So, generally speaking, that driver had to be older, unless we are talking about a kid with rich parents. And that brings yet another problem: entering, and especially exiting the car, is hard for anyone but young, fit or not very tall people. So, kids were ok, as well as not-very-tall and fit drivers, but everyone left outside this group were likely to regret their buy…
Another problem very exposed by the time was the automated gearbox: slow and rubbish gear changes made it unsuitable for 100% sporty drivers, despite handling abilities among the very best you can think of. In the fortwo it was already criticized, and that was only a city car. In a true, light, uncompromised sports car it was a no-no for many automotive journalists, for some people who actually drove the car and, probably, for thousands of car-magazine readers who never actually drove one.
So you see how specific the target owner of this car was. And that helps to explain poor sales, and why Mercedes-Benz took the decision to end production in late 2005, after only about 43 000 units had rolled off the Hambach factory. By the time, many of them were still in the factory’s parking lot…
For me, the only issue was it’s by-the-clouds price tag, so, when I first heard it was going to be discontinued, I was… well, sad. That was the end of my smaller, down-to-earth dream, so, I went back to the used SLK plans while not thinking a lot about it.
But, when I first searched for used roadsters, I was astonished by the low prices. Really, a 40% discount over a new one, with 30k to 40k kilometres and two to three years is something to think about. And that’s just what I did. Furthermore, it’s cheap to insure and cheap to run, even if maintenance is due approximately at 10k kilometres periods and prices are quite high (more than 300€…). So, it’s a racional decision as well. Let’s rock!

Mine is two years old and has had covered only about 21k kilometres. So, it’s virtually new, the downside of its condition being the exterior paint somewhat spoiled by city dust (no garage car)… With some options fitted, like air-conditioning, additional instruments for the turbocharger pressure and engine oil temperature, electric and heated rearview mirrors and radio, nothing is missed. Not even the power steering, the low weight and small wheels being responsible for a slightly heavy but acceptable steering wheel movement, despite being very direct. The upside is that communication between driver and machine is genuine and simple, with a feeling I had never experienced before. But the brilliant steering is just the tip for a fantastic handling.
For a kick-off, the driving position: extremely low, stretched legs and very short gear lever movements means pure pleasure. Only the steering wheel is disappointing, being somewhat big and thin, and the fact it’s only a two-spoke don’t help to make it look nice. Together, the very low driving position, the superb noise from the engine and the bad insulation from the exterior mean you always feel you are going faster than you really do. If you open the soft top, that feeling is exaggerated even more (from 80 km/h, listening to the radio is… hard). That allows you to have fun safely, everywhere and with low fuel costs. But mountain-road driving really is the ultimate driving experience. It’s low weight, together with the short gear ratios, narrow tyres, rigid structure and tolerant ESP (yes, almost irreverent!) means undiluted driving fun. Oversteer appears very easily but it’s as easy to control and to play with, at least with the ESP on. Reactions are very progressive and, let’s never forget, you are not travelling very fast, so the risk is small. But, when given the chance, the small engine accelerates the car ridiculously well for its size, while delivering a fantastic sound. Here, the gearbox is not as bad as people say. You just have to anticipate corners a little but, if you do so, it won’t change gear in the middle of a corner or, even best, it won’t kickdown (in manual mode, of course). The only real downside are the brakes, pure old-style-Mercedes brakes. Don’t misunderstand me, they do stop the car easily, but the first (long) three quarters of the pedal travel do almost nothing, and only then the brakes start to bite. And they squeak... The final nice part is that ride comfort is, relatively speaking, very good, mostly because of the very nice seats and tall tyres. Only high-frequency pavement irregularities are badly absorbed, but that’s mostly a problem for small-town, stone-paved streets, once again exaggerated with no roof, and it probably has to do with the short wheelbase.
At the highway it always feels planted, even at very high speeds, and cross wind is no problem either. Here, the biggest downside, especially in long trips, is wind noise, very high from 130 km/h (80 mph) on. Insulation is no strong point, and the same applies for interior materials. Build quality is slightly better.
Fuel consumption is excellent: around 4l/100 km (59 mpg) while driving carefully and less than 5,5 l/100km (43 mpg) while driving fast (my week average stands at around 4,5 l/100km – 52 mpg). Boot space is limited, the front one being the most usable (the rear one only has space for a laptop and a few, similar-shape objects). Interior practicality is not better, as storage spaces are few and very small, but a (big) friend I have, who is almost 2 metres tall, fits… almost perfectly (he got in with no roof...).
So, the smart roadster is not versatile, has poor rear visibility, an horrible automatic-mode gearbox, it’s noisy at speed, attracts a lot of attention (even today) and it can be very hard to get in/ out while in narrow parallel parking. And yet, its limitations only help to make it more desirable than it already is. It’s, by far, the most astonishing car I ever drove.

Verdict: the most stylish, amazing and cheapest approach to a genuine sports car.

Vital data:

Engine and transmission:
698 cc, inline-3 cylinder, 2 valves per cylinder, turbo (petrol)
82 hp/ 5250 rpm
110 Nm/ 2250-4500 rpm
Red line: 6000 rpm
6-speed automated manual transmission

Dimensions and weights:
Empty weight (incl. driver): 865 kg
Boot: 59 (front) + 86 (rear) litres
Petrol tank: 35 litres
Tyres: Bridgestone B340 185/55 R15

Official performance:
Top speed: 175 km/h (109 mph)
0-100 km/h (0-62 mph): 10,9 seconds
Fuel consumption (urban/extra-urban/average): 6,3/ 4,3/ 5,1 l/100km (37/ 55/ 46 mpg)

3000 rpm, 5th gear: 80 km/h (50 mph)
3000 rpm, 6th gear: 106 km/h (66 mph)
3500 rpm, 6th gear: 121 km/h (76 mph)

Price in 2007: around 21k €
Driven: from March 2009

Main equipment: air conditioning, dual front airbags, ABS+BAS+ASR+ESP, radio with CD-player.

Rate: 18 out of 20

Driven: 2008 Audi A6 2.0 TDI S-Line

2009-02-23T14:38:00.000-08:00

Driven: Audi A6 2.0 TDI S-Line (2008)

Hello once again!

Today’s driving report belongs to my almost daily-transport in my work days in Spain: the Audi A6, in S-Line guise.

Oh dear… It’s big, isn’t it? Well, not a very good start for me. And its design does not pretend to make it look smaller, either. Even so, it’s a symbiosis of elegance and sportiness. Its lines are dynamic, especially from the side and the back, which are underlined by the S-Line equipment package. This package includes gorgeous 17” alloy wheels (a nightmare to clean, and that’s almost a weekly task!), front, side and rear skirts and lowered suspension. From an aesthetical point of view, it certainly looks nice. But it also looks big and somewhat fat…

Solidity is omnipresent, in both the exterior and the interior. Speaking of this, it looks mostly classic, with most of the sporty looks gone. Yes, there are (fake) aluminium inserts here and there, but the overall result is far from exciting. Materials are top-quality in most places, but I’m sad to report that hard, cheap plastic is used in many places. This particular unit, with extreme use (100 000 km, or 62 000 miles, in about 11 months), shows that even better. For example, in the B-pillar, under the seatbelt’s release mechanism, that plastic is completely grated by the stainless-steel of the seatbelt’s fixation mechanism… This plastic appears in more places but, happily, in most of the cases, far from frequent eye view.

And how does it move? Well, unfortunately, not very well. Body movements are well controlled for a 1.6 ton, 5 metre saloon. It transmits a very nice safe, planted sensation, but that sort of goes away when you press the brakes. The pedal has a lot of dead travel, and that contributes to remind you how much inertia you are carrying. The steering is very light (the steering wheel is great, small and relatively thick), but it’s feeling is absolutely artificial, so, you feel disconnected from the car and the driving experience. The engine is the smallest in the range, so you will never expect it to be fast. As it stalls so easily, you have to apply half accelerator before depressing the clutch pedal, to start moving. Before 2000 rpm there is no power, but, at that point, suddenly all of it comes together (not a lot of it, anyway…). Even so, that makes city driving uncomfortable. Roundabouts are especially annoying: you enter with little engine speed and need to gain moving speed fast, first it’s pedal to the metal, the car does not respond, people beep at you, 2 hours later you reach 2000 rpm, the car suddenly awakes and you almost crash to the car in front of you. See what I mean?
Transmission gear ratios are very short, so, in normal road driving circumstances, the engine feels decent. Trouble is, while cruising, comfort is not very good. Reasonable, generally speaking, but that’s too short for this vehicle segment. The S-Line pack may have something to do with that, and an automatic transmission will probably solve the engine’s power delivery issues. Otherwise, the cabin is well insulated in acoustic terms, it’s roomy and there are enough storage spaces.

The high point of a small, diesel engine is, of course, fuel consumption. And this engine fulfills this point nicely, being able to average under 5 l/100 km (47 mpg), at a constant speed of 100 km/h (62 mph). Combined driving (city/ highway), with casual driving, will return up to 8 l/100km (29 mpg), nice for an executive saloon and better than what the reviewed E 220 CDI can accomplish. But engine oil consumption can reach an almost ridiculous 2 litres per 10 000 km (6 250 miles)…

So, if you are on the market for an executive saloon, you’re better off with an E-Class Mercedes-Benz. But, if you really fancy the A6, please, go for a bigger engine (the 2.7 TDI may be a nice compromise) and avoid a sports suspension.

Verdict: a failed attempt in the executive market.

Vital data:

Engine and transmission:
1968 cc, inline-4 cylinder, 4 valves per cylinder, turbo (Diesel)
140 hp/4000 rpm
320 Nm/1750-2500 rpm
Red line: 4500 rpm
6-speed manual transmission

Dimensions and weights:
Empty weight: 1650 kg
Boot: 546 litres
Petrol tank: 70 litres

Official performance:
Top speed: 210 km/h (131 mph)
0-100 km/h (0-62 mph): 10,3 seconds
Fuel consumption (urban/extra-urban/average): 8,0/ 4,8/ 6,0 l/100km (29/ 49/ 39 mpg)

2000 rpm, 5th gear: 90 km/h (56 mph)
2000 rpm, 6th gear: 105 km/h (66 mph)
Price in 2008: around 30k €
Driven: May-November 2008

Main equipment: dual-zone climate control, metallic paint, alarm, dual front, side and window airbags.

Rate: 12 out of 20

2008-12-17T16:43:00.000-08:00

Driven: Mercedes-Benz E 220 CDI Avantgarde (’03 W211)

Hello everyone!

In the next few lines, I’ll be describing my thoughts on a car that, on the first place, I should not like very much.

And why is that? Well, put simple, I do not like big, heavy cars. This E-Class is almost 5 metres long and more than 2 metres wide, so, for me, there is a lot to dislike. And, unlike most people, who think “big and heavy is safer”, I think the opposite way. Of course, if you have more metal in front of you, it’s harder for, say, a wall get to you. But the sensation of inertia that a big mass carries on while moving is something that makes me feel… uncomfortable.

But no, the reason which makes me like it it’s not the brand, MY brand, my beloved Mercedes-Benz star! It’s something beyond that.

Since the forties that Mercedes-Benz has a car on this segment, even if, back then, it was called 170V. Since then, the E-Class has always been the benchmark of the Executive cars, and, for many, the first Mercedes which come to mind when asked about a model of the three-pointed star brand. So, it is useless to say it’s a very special car, extremely developed in technical ways. Well, the first production units were not that well developed, as many electronic misfires caught surprised a lot of E-Class owners.
The unit I drove is a 2003 E 220 CDI, bought about one year after the launch. At that time, Mercedes-Benz already had solved most electronic “bugs”, and this car has been trouble-free during all its intensive life. Welcome back, Mercedes-Benz quality!

It’s a gorgeous car. It was back then, and I think it still is, despite having being too much exposed. It’s classic, sophisticated lines are a perfect symbiosis of timeless elegance with a dynamic touch. I even think the 2006 facelift is a bit worse; it has too many useless details, like it’s trying too hard. The original W211 Avantgarde does not need any of them.
Quality perception is extremely high: from the radiator grille to the interior air-vents, it seems everything was built to last forever. Yet, there are a couple of modest plastics, but, as they are sow few, and are strategically-located (so no one will touch them very often…), that’s not a problem. Built quality is as good, and so is the interior presentation. Everything is where you expect it to be, buttons offer a nice touch and there is plenty of standard equipment, but the options list is… well, it’s a Mercedes-Benz options list: as long as expensive. And I mean really expensive: once I went to the main Mercedes-Benz website and “built my own E-Class”. After adding EVERY single option, their amount was actually higher than the car’s basic price! And my “basic” car was the E 500… But then, I even ordered an heated (!!!) steering wheel and designo variable-color paint… It’s ridiculous. Truth be told, you only need a couple of options: the fantastic-looking Avantgarde equipment line, leather seats and metallic paint. In some versions, this equipment already comes as standard.

But how does it drive? My first (unfortunately bad) surprise came as I switched the ignition on. The cold engine immediately made itself very present on the inside, and not with a pleasant note. More like the familiar white-van cars… Things go better as it warms up, until it gets to be unnoticed. At motorway speeds it’s very quiet on the inside, extremely comfortable and highly refined, with no real perception of the speed you are travelling at. It’s also economical, managing to average under 7 l/100km (34 mpg) at around 120 km/h (75 mpg).

But the real amazing surprise comes when you take it to secondary roads. Despite being heavier and larger than the facelift W203 C-Class, and with slightly longer gear ratios, the engine always feels more responsive. It also feels much more interactive than the numb Elegance W203 I reviewed; it’s actually fun to drive! The driver always feels more connected, like he is part of the action, and with superbly controlled body movements, it’s a joy to corner with it. Even so, comfort is something always present, and, together with the already-mentioned quality perception, you always feel you’re in a very special, safe car. On a motorway journey, under extremely heavy rain, it always felt planted, like nothing could affect its integrity. Just brilliant.

So, it is very good on a twisty road and brilliant on the motorway, as well as at the urban jungle. It’s roomy, versatile, there are plenty of storage places and it’s economical. After driving the 2008 Audi A6, I still think the E-Class is the best executive car!

Verdict: the safest bet on the executive car world.

Vital data:

Engine and transmission:
2148 cc, inline-4 cylinder, 4 valves per cylinder, turbo (Diesel)
150 hp/4200 rpm
340 Nm/2000 rpm
Red line: 4750 rpm
6-speed manual transmission

Dimensions and weights:
Empty weight: 1610 kg
Boot: 540 litres
Petrol tank: 65 litres

Official performance:
Top speed: 217 km/h (136 mph)
0-100 km/h (0-62 mph): 10,1 seconds
Fuel consumption (urban/extra-urban/average): 8,8/ 5,0/ 6,3 l/100km (27/ 47/ 37 mpg)

2000 rpm, 5th gear: 95 km/h (59 mph)
2000 rpm, 6th gear: 115 km/h (72 mph)
Price in 2003: around 60k €
Driven: 2003 – today

Main equipment: Avantgarde equipment line, leather seats, dual-zone climate control, sunroof, metallic paint, alarm, dual front, side and window airbags.

Rate: 16 out of 20

Driven: Jeep Grand Cherokee V6 CRD Laredo

2008-11-01T09:21:00.001-07:00

Driven: Jeep Grand Cherokee V6 CRD Laredo

Hello once again!

Today’s review is all about the 2006 Jeep Grand Cherokee, in Laredo trim, with the brilliant Mercedes-Benz V6, 3 litre, diesel engine. And, for me, that’s what this car is all about: the engine.

It’s a pretty nice car. It’s lines are an evolution of the former model, especially the back. It’s not an elegant car, though. It’s more dynamic, even aggressive.
I think the 2001 Grand Cherokee, in Limited trim, was the best looking SUV until that date. Even today, there is not a single SUV that makes me look at it as that one did, when it was first launched. It was beautiful, and even the Mercedes-Benz M-Class does not impress me all-round as that car did. But that’s only a matter of taste, and I’m suspect, because I don’t like SUVs. That’s the reason why I have no proper photos of it, even if I drive it quite many times…

Really, I don’t see the point. Who, in this world, would take a 60+ thousand euro car off-road? “Oh no, I will scratch the metallic paint!” Please, if someone really needs to off-road, and does dirt work, it’s better to buy a pick-up (there are some quite nice ones, now…) and a proper car.

But now you say “what if I want to off-road in luxury?” Well, this is not the car for you. The Limited trim only adds some “chrome” bits and a bit more equipment, so, it’s only about the looks. But general interior quality is very poor on both trim levels. Unbelievable for a car of this status, it’s even worse than the mentioned 2001 MY. There are cheap plastics everywhere, hard, cheap looking, grey plastics. Similar to those from a ’97 Hyundai Accent, and not any better.

At least, standard equipment is not as bad. There is sat-nav, a nice sound system, electric seats, air con, airbags everywhere, ESP, plenty of cup-holders and a lot of storage spaces. It’s a functional, roomy interior, and, even if plastics are bad, at least they are properly put together.

But the best thing, as I said earlier, is the engine. Turning the ignition on, and the diesel V6 comes to life with an ultra-soft noise. A shame that, before you listen to it, you have to listen two-million ridiculous warning noises, reminding its American origins. You have a beep when you put the key on the ignition. Another one before you switch the engine on, and another when you select reverse. And yet another one, until you put the seat belt on…

The automatic gearbox, on the other hand, is another high point. It shifts seamlessly, with almost imperceptible, smart changes. It is a bit slow, truth be told, especially when using kick-down function, or changing from “R” to “D”, and vice-versa. And its manual mode is not convincing, either. It is neither practical nor pleasant, and the only point I see for its use, is while anticipating an overtaking maneuver, to avoid the lapse of time the kick-down takes.

Despite that initial lapse of time, overtaking is a safe task: all you need is to “smash” the accelerator, the gearbox will change from, say, 5th to 3rd, and off you go. With 510 Nm of torque, it is unbelievable how this heavy-weight car can accelerate. Even with no kickdown, the gearbox always keeps the engine above 1600 rpm, where you start to find most torque, so there are always enough power reserves. And what’s more, the short gear ratios also favor acceleration.
The price to pay is heavy fuel consumption: while driving at open road, with little accelerator movements, it is possible to burn only 8,5 l/100km (27,7 mpg), at around 100 km/h (62 mph). For around 120 km/h (75 mph), in the same conditions, it burns around 11 l/100 km (21,4 mpg). About the same as in urban traffic, with ultra-careful accelerations.
Trouble is, you have to concentrate very hard to do so. As the engine is so responsive, and also sounds nice, it is a joy to do short sprints at the lights, and the same applies to open-road driving, if kickdown is often used. It corners almost like a normal saloon, with no drama at all. But there is a lot of weight to carry, and the price to pay is that fuel consumption rises up to 50% in all those conditions…

So, a car I like mainly because of the engine. Pretty much as my brother’s Seat Ibiza Sport, with 130 hp, which I will review later.

Verdict: A useless car with a very nice engine. Practical, unrefined, big and heavy: We, Europeans, only need the practical part.

Vital statistics (portuguese version):

Engine:
2987 cc, V6, 4 valves per cylinder, turbo (Diesel)
218 hp/4000 rpm
510 Nm/1600-2800 rpm

Dimensions and weights:
Empty weight: 2100 kg
Boot: 979 litres (up to the roof)
Petrol tank: 77 litres

Official performance:
Top speed: 200 km/h (124 mph)
0-100 km/h (0-62 mph): 9,0 seconds
Fuel consumption (urban/extra-urban/average): 13,1/8,6/10,2 l/100km (18/27,4/23,1 mpg)
2000 rpm, 5th gear: 95 km/h (59 mph)
3000 rpm, 5th gear: 140 km/h (88 mph)
Red line: 4500 rpm
5-speed automatic gearbox, with tiptronic
Price in 2006: 60+k €
Driven: 2006 – today

Rate: 13 out of 20

Driven: Audi A4 Cabrio 1.8T

2008-02-21T11:21:00.000-08:00

Driven: Audi A4 Cabrio 1.8T

Hello everyone!

Today’s post is about a car that leaves me with different and ambiguous thoughts: The 2002 Audi A4 Cabrio. Why? Well, I truly think it’s a case of double personality. At least for me, a 25 year old man…

A convertible car is most about style, but also to give away stress levels accumulated during the week, for those irreverent enough to drive with “the wind in the hair”. And then, there are the different approaches to the theme: there are roadsters, built, from day one, to be so; there are cars whose roof’s are simply cut off (yes, those brilliant old Saab cabrios…); there are convertibles developed at the same time as a similar coupe version (as the Mercedes-Benz CLK, or the BMW 3-Series).

And then, there’s the Audi A4 Cabrio.

It follows none of those approaches. It is not a roadster. There is not a similar coupe version. It’s based on the regular ’00 A4 saloon, but with a revised chassis and other bits. But with a much, much more appealing design. And essence…
The black paint on this particular unit, combined with several chrome and aluminium parts, results extremely well. The dark, slim headlights give it an aggressive and sporty look. Its profile and back are more elegant, but the twin exhaust pipes give it a dynamic touch. And, when the roof is up, the elegant design remains virtually untouched. Gorgeous.

The inside is a lot less inspired. It’s, basically, an ordinary A4 saloon, with circular air vents are not much more. This unit, in basic specification, does not add any appeal. There is no red leather, nor a two-tone steering wheel. I don’t like the fake wood manufacturers now use, but I even would like to see some in here, just to add a touch of colour (there are some, otherwise nice, black plastic inserts).

Built quality, on the other hand, is extremely inspired. It has to be one of the best built cars I know, and the design also favours quality perception. Materials are first class in most places, but even the worse plastics are very acceptable. The fabric roof works seamlessly, but it is the only component that does not correspond to the general high quality perception. It does insulate road noise and rain as expected. It even allows an automatic car wash with no drama, and the car itself feels more solid with the roof up. But, somehow, it does not feel very solid to me, maybe because, each time I touch it from the inside, it looks like there is nothing above that initial layer of fabric…

But I started this driving report with a pertinent point: it is a car with double personality.

When starting the car with the roof up, the engine is barely audible from the inside. It’s a very relaxed and quiet ambiance. The engine is silky-smooth, the clutch, brakes and accelerator are also smooth, but the five-speed gearbox has an excessive travel. Steering is light, as well, and the four-arm steering wheel also contributes to the relaxed driving attitude. And it is spacious in every one of its four seats, apart from rear height. So, it is a “mature” people’s car, and I hate it for that. Of course, for my long night journeys behind the steering wheel, it would be perfect. It even is economic, as I average around 7 l/100km (34 mpg) when driving on open-roads, at 100-120 km/h (62-75 mph) speeds. But, even on long journeys, I want to be remembered, at every time, I’m driving a car, not my room chair. And it’s not handy, if you reverse onto a cathedral without seeing it. Yes, there are that much blind spots…

But then, I push the roof control, on the center console. And this lethargic personality goes away… Well, sort of.

With the wind in the hair, all this relaxed, almost inert driving experience perfectly makes sense. It is the best attitude someone wants when driving home, after a hard work day. A little bit of peace. The wind washing your ideas, tearing off all the stress and worries. Relatively speaking, of course, because, at 120 km/h (75 mph), with the windows up and with the wind deflector, there is barely any wind on the inside… And, in this configuration, it feels attractive to me. I love the sun, the wind and the smells of the fields. With the heated seats, even some winter days are no obstacle. Well, at least here, in Portugal, where there is plenty of sun and warm temperature most of the time…

So, it is useless to say it is not a fast car, nor a driver’s car. That’s not the point. It is a comfortable cruiser, quick Q.B. Good to drive across town, if you like everyone looking at you. Brilliant for a long trip with the roof down. Music and company? It’s up to you…

Verdict: an ultra-relaxing, stylish car. Or, in another perspective, an healthy anti-stress medicine.

Vital statistics (portuguese version):

Specs:
1781 cc, inline-4 cylinder, 5 valves per cylinder, turbo (petrol)
163 hp/5700 rpm
225 Nm/1950-4700 rpm
Red line: 6500 rpm
Gearbox: 5-speed manual
Empty weight: 1540 kg
Boot: 315/246 litres (roof on/off)
Petrol tank: 70 litres
5th gear, 2500 rpm: 100 km/h (62 mph)
5th gear, 3000 rpm: 120 km/h (75 mph)

Official performance:

Top speed: 226 km/h (141 mph)

0-100 km/h (0-62 mph): 9,4 seconds

Fuel consumption (urban/extra-urban/average): 11,6/6,7/8,5 l/100km (20/35/28 mpg)

Main equipment:
Electric soft top, dual-zone air conditioning, heated seats, removable wind deflector, twin front airbags, sidebags at front, radio-CD

Price in 2003: around 45k €
Driven: 2006 – today
Verdict: 15 out of 20

Mercedes-Benz CLC

2008-02-01T15:12:00.000-08:00

Mercedes-Benz also presented the latest C-Class based coupe, the Sportcoupe’s successor: the new CLC.

Entirely based on the CL203 chassis (a shortened version of both the W203 and S203), with several bits from the new C-Class, it appears to be a nice, and younger, alternative to the brilliant 204 C-Class saloon and estate.

But then, there is the weird part…

If Mercedes-Benz did not want to spend a lot of money developing a smaller-volume production, brand-new coupe (the CLK is placed between the C and E-Classes), then why not, at least, adapting all the C-Class engines?!
Well, they did it, kind of. With one engine, the 1.8L, supercharged inline-4, 200 KOMPRESSOR. It’s a very nice engine, no discussion about that. But the best-seller, on the entire Sportcoupe’s six years of life, was the diesel C 220 CDI. And, basically, it’s the same engine offered by now, despite the new 170 hp, 400 Nm, 2.1L CDI being on the market since 2006, first introduced on the facelifted E-Class.

And that applies to the range-base C 180 KOMPRESSOR and C 200 CDI…

What’s the reason behind this? If you know, will you tell me?

Mercedes-Benz SL '08 facelift (R230)

2008-02-01T14:36:00.001-08:00

Hello!

In the last few days, a lot has been told about the facelifted Mercedes-Benz SL, as the first unofficial leaked photos emerged some days ago.

Yesterday, the first official press release was made public, along with the official technical data.
Apart from the design, as each one of us have our own ideas (I don't appreciate it very much, I admit, but I may change my mind when I first see it for real), the engine range is re-arranged, with the new versions SL 280 and SL 63 AMG being first in the R230.

However, the most interesting part, for me, is that the SL 350 receives the very latest version of the, already brilliant, V6 3.5L, first introduced on the '08 facelift SLK, with a slight increase in power. It appears, to me, the closest re-interpretation of the Sportlich und Leicht (Sporty and Light) concept, adapted, of course, to the 21st century standards. Far from light (1825 kg), it sounds the best on the entire range, not over-priced as it's bigger brothers, but with a high-revving, powerful and light V6 under the bonnet.

I think finally, as Jason Plato says when test-driving the Black Series CLK 63 AMG, "Mercedes is starting to build cars with the driver in mind".

And I quite like that...

News: New CLC C-Class coupe

2008-01-27T15:00:00.000-08:00

Ooops, they did it again...

While looking for today's news, I was presented with the second official press-release related to the C-Class Sports Coupe’s successor: the new CLC.
The first press release, which went public on January 9th, only revealed the front design of the car: very nice, indeed. Things looked promising, but, on January 21st, the first (leaked) photos of the ’08 facelift SL appeared. And I was, simply, shocked. So, as the Sportcoupe’s back always looked somewhat weird to me, I started to think that, maybe, it wouldn’t be a very nice job, either.
I’m afraid my suspects were founded.

All I can see is a restyled 1997 Ssangyong Musso, with hints from some old Lexus, or Nissan, or something like that… How is this possible?! What’s wrong with Mr. Peter Pfeiffer?

Am I being too conservative? Maybe... But aren’t most Mercedes-Benz clients, as well?

Driven: Mercedes-Benz C 220 CDI Elegance ('04 facelift)

2008-01-27T10:35:00.000-08:00

Hello once again!

The car I will be talking about in the next lines is the ’04 facelift, W203 Mercedes-Benz C 220 CDI, with Elegance trim. It was bought in August 2004, and I was the second person driving it. As another Mercedes-Benz was traded (a 1998 C 220 CDI, also in Elegance trim), I remember, back then, to think “This is soooooo much better! It’s as easy to handle as my Rover!!!” Really, as I was the last person to drive the old Mercedes, the difference was very obvious. Today, the very same car seems to have changed. No, the car is the same, apart being three years old and with almost 90k kilometres (56k miles) on the clock.

As I have driven many sportier cars after that first drive, now, the first thing I notice, is the steering’s complete absence of feel. None at all, you have no idea of what’s going on with the front wheels. The brakes are also indirect, somehow, they do not transmit much confidence to me, and the gearbox is very easy to handle, has nice gearing ratios, but is slow and lacks that nice mechanical feeling. Maybe the Avantgarde version is better. Compared to the old W202, it is a massive improvement in all the above mentioned areas. I hope the new W204 represents the same sort of improvement over this W203…

But let’s change subject. I think it’s lines are great, even today. I love that dynamic back. I love that arrow-shaped nose, very low, indeed. It’s drag coefficient (Cd) of only 0,26, one of the best in series production cars ever, is actually better than the new C’s 0,27 (due, between other things, to the larger rearview mirrors). That’s why it’s top speed is so good (224 kph, or 139 mph) for an engine with 150hp. The new C-Class needs 20hp more to achieve 229 kph (142 mph), even with it’s gearbox’s similar final drive.

Another advantage is fuel consumption. At a constant speed of 140 kph (87 mph), during a very long journey, and with maximum load, it averaged 5,5 l/100km (43 mpg). Just brilliant. Noise insulation is very nice and, once warm, the engine is very silent. Speaking of the engine: it’s one of the smoothest engines I know, even considering petrol engines, like the Kompressor unit in the ’00 facelift SLK 200, which I will review later. It only shows all it’s strength from 2500 rpm on, but lazy driving at 1500 rpm is possible, with enough power reserves for most situations.

Materials and build quality are other high points. Before this ’04 facelift, the W203 was regarded as one of the worse Mercedes in the range, especially due to the interior’s poor materials. Speedo and tachometer were horrible looking, and the car’s interior appearance rather connected with the sophisticated exterior, not to mention early electronic problems. But there was a big turnaround with this facelift. Materials are, mostly, very nice (although, there are some, strategically-located, hard, cheap-feeling plastics).
This particular unit, with beige leather seats (option), looks especially attractive, and very nice in conjunction with the dark blue exterior. Facelift also brought more standard equipment, like thermatic automatic air con. Even so, the options list is as long as expensive. Sunroof is about 1600 €, about the same as the Elegance trim pack. Every options considered, this particular unit was priced over 50k € (2004 portuguese basic price was around 45k).

It is a very pleasant place to be in, the suspension is very comfortable, and it corners reasonably well. I love driving, and I like driving this car, as well. But this is one of those cars where a trip on the side seat is also very rewarding. Just to enjoy the quiet ambiance…

Final thoughts: a very nice allrounder, unless driving joy is required.

Vital statistics (portuguese version)

Specs:

2148cc, in-line 4 cylinders, 4 valves per cylinder (Diesel)

150 hp/4200 rpm

340 Nm/2000 rpm

Red-line: 4600 rpm

Gearbox: 6-speed manual

Weight: 1590 Kg

6th gear, 2000 rpm: 110 km/h

Official performance:
Top speed 224 kph (139 mph)
0-100 kph: 10,1 s
Average fuel consumption: 6,1 l/100 km (39 mpg)

CO2 emissions: 159 g/km

Main equipment: twin front airbags, sidebags at front, windowbags, rain sensor, light sensor, tempomat with speedtronic, electronic air condicioning, leather seats, sunroof, alarm, Radio-CD
Price: 50.000+ €
Driven: August 2004 - today
Verdict: 15 out of 20

2008-01-26T16:44:00.000-08:00

Hello everybody!

Today's post is dedicated not only to every car fan, but above all, to Mercedes-Benz enthusiasts in particular. For those who like photography, and actually collect them, as it is my case.
So, here I leave some nice webpages, where you can find many, many nice pictures.

Enjoy!

http://www.emercedesbenz.com - a very nice blog, with all relevant press releases from Daimler AG, photos and links to interesting articles over the internet, like new car reviews.

http://www.mb-w140.de - the best website for 1991-1998 S-Class fans, with all specs and lots of pictures.

http://www.500sec.com - perhaps, the biggest online Mercedes-Benz photo collection available.

http://www.fan-gallerie.de - website with lots of Mercedes-Benz pictures, test-drives and other relevant information.

http://www.seriouswheels.com - some of the best pictures available over the internet. A must-visit for photo-seekers.

http://www.rsportscars.com - more of the same, but most models are current production.

http://www.netcarshow.com - lots of pictures of actual and not-so-new cars, from every single make. Unfortunately, dispite high resolution available, not that much quality...

http://www.automobilismo.it - an italian magazine's website, with lots of very nice pictures.

http://www.exoticsonroad.com - many pictures of great machines in real-world action.

http://www.automanias.nl - only the best cars from Mercedes-Benz, mostly AMG's. High-resolution photos.

And, of course, you can always spend some time on Mobile.de, Ebay and the like. Sometimes, there are quite nice photos!

Did I miss a very nice one? Make me know! ;)

Driven: Volkswagen Polo 1.2 Trendline Pack ('05 Facelift)

2008-01-25T13:20:00.000-08:00

Hello everybody!

Today i'm posting the review of a car I drove back in May 2006: a Volkswagen Polo 1.2 Trendline Pack '05 Facelift.

It is a rented car, first registered in September 2005, painted in brilliant silver. I find it good looking, every panel is painted silver (except the lower ones, which are black), the wheel covers are simple (no light-alloys here...) and it's interior, even if not innovative, looks simple and well built. But - and here start the (bad) surprises - it's cheap plastics everywhere! Not a convincing, rubber-feeling single bit, no. Only hard plastics. I know the previous generation Polo had different interior materials depending on it's equipment level, what meant that, the more expensive trim level, the better the plastics. Later, I discovered that even the top-of-the-range GTI has the same hard plastics : Bad politics, VW! That is not the way to go, and I know that the Golf V and Passat '04 are more of the same, which means that the Golf IV is still my (good) reference.

But let's stop looking at it, and let's drive it. Turning the ignition on and, what the hell is that?! It sounds like something I'd never listened, something powered by electricity, hideous! Of course, 3-cylinder engine...

The driving experience has nothing to do with the Rover one, as the car feels disconnected to the driver. It is, clearly, a city car, with an ultra-light steering and clutch, and an accelerator and brakes that only seem to work when pressed very hard! Every single pedal has a very big travel, and indirect feel. I hate that. The gearbox does not impress, either, it is slow, although reasonably precise. It's feeling is mechanic, as I like, but, again it's travel is just exaggerated...

But let's go back to the engine: it's so weak it needs half accelerator just to get the car moving. Well, keep it moving is another issue, as it seems to need too much accelerator. By this time, the noise the engine makes almost worries me. It seems I'm pushing it too hard, like it will explode, like it is running at 101% of it's reserves. And I'm moving 50 kph, across the city... I start to wonder how will it be on open road and highway. Not very good, I think to myself.

All-round visibility is quite nice. Another indication about this car's habbitat. As I'm driving to the gym, I start to abuse the poor little thing: pedaaaal toooo the metaaaal! Arriving at the (red) lights, hard on the brakes, and OH, NO! Did I broke it? What is all this noise and vibration?! Oh, it's just the ABS working. Brake power? Mediocre, and the ABS works every single time I brake a bit harder... And another thing: as the suspension is very soft, body movements are not that well controlled. At least it is comfy, maybe even more than the Rover. By this time, the biggest advantage I see over the Rover is sound proofing, really, much better. Another one is trim-related noise: it's nice interior built quality means that this is non-existent, unlike Rover's. Even despite it is a rented car, with more than 13k kilometres on the clock.

While on open-road, it's (predicted) weaknesses soon show up. From 0-100 kph it takes two hours, and from 60-120 kph two days. Overtaking is a real adventure, reserved only for brave people (like me :D ). Sometimes, I even had to give up, it was just impossible. With the kilometres passing by, I found there was no real advantage in changing to a lower gear and revving the engine. The engine note went abruptly up, and the car was not much faster than maintaining a higher gear. That is due to it's torque: compared to the Rover, it loses by a massive 38 hp, but only 15 Nm. So, this terrible engine is all about torque, like a diesel one.

And the worst bit was still to come: fuel consumption. The first time I refueled the car, the average was a staggering 8,9 l/100 km (26 mpg)!!! Massive, but I abbused the poor little thing. On the final pit stop, after a much more pacific driving, it averaged a more "acceptable" 6,5 l/100 km (36 mpg), even so, more than the Rover. Why? The reason is simple: as the engine has such a big lack in horsepower, it is always been pushed harder than the Rover's K-series, for the same effect. And that pays in petrol...

Final thoughts: a reasonable city-car, designed with a lazy driving style in mind. Good looking. Terrible engine, it would do much better with a bigger one... Is it worth the price? No...

Vital statistics (portuguese version):

Engine:

1198 cc, in-line 3-cylinder, 4 valves per cylinder

65 hp/5400 rpm

112 Nm/3000 rpm

Red line: 5800 rpm

Official performance:

Top speed 162 kph

0-100 kph 14,9 s

Average fuel consumption: 5,9 L/100 km (40 mpg)

Main standard equipment: twin front airbags, front electric windows, central locking, ABS, radio

Price: 14.000 €

Driven: May 2006, 5 days, 686 kilometres.

Verdict: 11 out of 20

My car: Rover 214Si

2008-01-24T13:50:00.000-08:00

Greetings everyone!

As I am 25 Years old and have this passion, you would guess, correctly, I have a driving licence. I do. Back in 2002, this dream became true, and I found myself in an all-new level: the steering wheel was mine!
So, what was I going to drive?
Here at home, there were only two cars: a 1997 Rover 214 Si, and a 2000 Diesel Mitsubishi L200 4x4.
The rover was the obvious choice. Right? Not so fast... OK, it has a nice engine, with a power-to-wheight ratio of about 11 kg/hp (with hp I mean "german" ps, not english bhp - although similar, it's not exacly the same). And small. And practical. And good-looking. I'll be back to this later. Trouble was to manage the clutch, specially when stopping while going uphill. As a new driver, that was quite a (big) challenge.
So, the pick-up was the choice for most of the times. Despite it's gigantic dimensions (the square back simplifies a bit...), it's as easy to handle as a vacuum cleaner (as Jeremy Clarkson often points out while driving a car). It may have a turning circle bigger than Jupiter's orbit, but the steering is light, the gearbox is easily manageable and the door back mirrors are very big. And, in junctions and roundabouts, the sheer size and presence of the thing often gives advantage over normal hatchbacks and the like. Up-hill stops? No trouble at all: it even takes off in second gear with no drama!

But there was something about the Rover.
First, the lines: I love the design, even today. It's exterior is contemporary, even by today's standards. I mean it. As Rover never replaced the car with a real substitute (ok, there was the '00 facelift 25), somewhat that lines really never went off, as it happens with a car when it's sucessor comes out. It was the latest iteration. It was version 1.0 and, while there was version 1.1 ('00 25), there was no version 2.0, if you see what I mean.
But the interior is a different story. Soooooo different... This is were the car more shows it's age. While having some character (british style is something I love...), it's old fashioned in most places, above all the centre console. And the electric windows switch location. And the steering wheel, even if it's feel and dimensions are quite nice.
Another (major) issue is build quality. It is poor. Speaking about cars, in general, I think british people are great about styling. And about soul. Even about technology, even if not cutting-edge. But I do think, as well, they are not very good at putting bits together. And, by the looks of things, not very good accountants either.
(By the way, I just hope Range Rover and Jaguar's more-than-predictable new owner, Indian company Tata, does a good job maintaining both this brand's Britishness...)
Built quality is, then, a problem. Not that something fell of the car so far, but it lacks solidity. Some exterior panels are not perfectly aligned, there are massive gaps between them and, while going over bad tarmac (very usual in Portugal...), every single interior bit gets voice. It´s bad. And sad, the car deserves much more. Oh, I almost forgot, all these cars have some serious rust issue at the base of the boot door supports, even the facelift 25.
But then, there is the K-series, twin-cam 16-valve 1.4L engine. And, what I have to say, is: what a masterpiece! Along with the styling, this is the reason of my passion for this car. It is a small 1396cc inline-4 with 103 hp/6000 rpm and, in this pre-facelift version, it has 127 Nm/3000 rpm. Just brilliant. The only comparable engine I can remember of is the '99 Alfa Romeo 1.4L, wich developed the very same 103 hp, but at higher revs (6300 rpm). And it had less torque. And it guzzled fuel without a care. Well, there are reports that Rover's K-series are very thirsty, as well. All I have to say is, of course, it can be thirsty, specially when the driver is in a good mood (you know what I mean ;) Otherwise, it is economical, I average something around 5,5 l/100 km (43 mpg) at a (very) constant speed of 100 kph (62 mph), and a week average of about 6-6,5 l/100 km (36-39 mpg), with urban driving included. As I have the privilege of driving alone most of the times, the car travels light, so overtaking is not an issue, either. Most of the times, 5th gear is enough, while 4th is the best for speeds under 80 kph and 3rd for under 60. Then, it's just pedal to the metal, and let the K rev, something it loves. Of couse, since the moment you do that, you'd be better forget the radio, as the engine noise will overtake that, as well...
A masterpiece, then, the K-series. Of course, I'm forgetting that, with about 106k kilometres, it's head gasket blew off... Even if it was not directly engine's fault, as the water pump desintegrated and the radiator was blocked. So, it overheated. So, the famous head gasket was part of the past, and the engine had to be opened, so it could be replaced. What a headache. But the new one, together with an otherwise-perfect reliability, made up for it.
Now, with more than 160k, it still is my everydar runner.
Of course, back in 2002, most of this facts were "still to happen". But, back then, I already felt there was something about it.

So, there you are. I have a Rover. And I like it. The man is crazy, may you think. A bit, may I say. But personality is something fantastic, even if it envolves (big) lacks. As I read somewhere, "Personality has no price, nor commercial value..." It is so true...

First message

2008-01-24T12:06:00.000-08:00

Greetings everyone!

Here I am, writing my first message. First of all, let me apologise for my not-so-perfect english (you might call it rubbish sometimes...). The intention is the best, I guarantee you.
With this blog, I intend to do many thing: first of all, post links for all the news I think are relevant; of course, post links for new photos I find in the Internet (mainly Mercedes-Benz, my biggest passion...); and, last but not least, share reviews of some cars: not necessarily new ones, just the ones I get to drive.

Keep in-gear!