AiR
Forum Addict
Yeah dims difference is bigger than I remembered. I wound't call either spacious though
Shush you! Kids should know their place...
Last edited:
Our "own" car reviews
- Thread starter NooDle
- Start date
NooDle
Ik ben niet alleen lekker met kaas!
i quite like the clio exterior, especially the sides and doorhandles
leds are in a weird spot though, and the interior is properly strange with combining analog and digital guages
since you'll spend a lot more time inside than looking at it, this would be a dealbreaker for me
leds are in a weird spot though, and the interior is properly strange with combining analog and digital guages
since you'll spend a lot more time inside than looking at it, this would be a dealbreaker for me
GraPghaST
New Member
*cough*
I'm still driving over them at 45 kph, which is still more than I should be doing in a 30 kph zone, that is deserted at 7 AM. When I need to slow to a crawl to get over them, call me back.
Also, Hi. What took you so long to register here? Now make a thread about that Golf that plays us the song of its people every time you're at the office.
Also, Hi. What took you so long to register here? Now make a thread about that Golf that plays us the song of its people every time you're at the office.
Lastsoul
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2005
- Messages
- 2,180
- Location
- Finland
- Car(s)
- MX5, 406 Coup?, 106 Rallye, Porsche 924, X300 Six
I happened to come across one of the few Renaultsport Clio 200s in Finland. Prefacelift model of the previous gen to be more precise. According to Evo, it shouldn't be as magical as the 172/182 Clios, or as good as later naturally aspirated 2.0 16V RS200 Clios. That might be true.
But still. What a driver's car. Steering was quick, accurate and had excellent weighting. Gearshift was a bit french in feel, but still accurate and allowed quick shifts. The engine was ordinary 2.0 16V petrol in a small car until 5000rpms. Decent torque to move about effortlessy combined with short ratios. And after 5000rpm? It sang like almost like a Honda on the days gone by too long ago. It was quick enough to joy on the straights, but corners made it feel alive. Damping was great, it had a little layer softness to make it livable and then ruthless wheel control after that. It felt alive en decent speeds, but the limits were apparently pretty high and I got the feeling that if pushed it would be a joy to hoon. I didn't, it was somebody else's car so I treated it with respect. All in all, you could really feel the guys behind the RS Clios were driving enthusiasts, and they had been given enough freedom to turn the shopping car into a driver's machine.
My time with the Clio was short, so no pictures this time. And I'm truly angry to Renault Finland, as they refuse to bring Renaultsport models here. We only got the Clio for a brief period of time, and you could technically order the Megane too if you wanted to buy 45ke hot hatch without test driving. And after all, for many years the Renaultsports were the only competitive cars Renault made.
But still. What a driver's car. Steering was quick, accurate and had excellent weighting. Gearshift was a bit french in feel, but still accurate and allowed quick shifts. The engine was ordinary 2.0 16V petrol in a small car until 5000rpms. Decent torque to move about effortlessy combined with short ratios. And after 5000rpm? It sang like almost like a Honda on the days gone by too long ago. It was quick enough to joy on the straights, but corners made it feel alive. Damping was great, it had a little layer softness to make it livable and then ruthless wheel control after that. It felt alive en decent speeds, but the limits were apparently pretty high and I got the feeling that if pushed it would be a joy to hoon. I didn't, it was somebody else's car so I treated it with respect. All in all, you could really feel the guys behind the RS Clios were driving enthusiasts, and they had been given enough freedom to turn the shopping car into a driver's machine.
My time with the Clio was short, so no pictures this time. And I'm truly angry to Renault Finland, as they refuse to bring Renaultsport models here. We only got the Clio for a brief period of time, and you could technically order the Megane too if you wanted to buy 45ke hot hatch without test driving. And after all, for many years the Renaultsports were the only competitive cars Renault made.
_HighVoltage_
Captain Volvo
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2006
- Messages
- 9,964
- Car(s)
- 1998 Volvo S70 T5M
Hbriz
Ballroom Blitz
Then it would be the Clio 197. The 200s were only the facelifted model and then the new turbocharged one. Makes it slightly less confusing
2014 Chevrolet Malibu LTZ
It's got a big trunk, it feels underpowered in city driving. highway cruising it feels speedy. It had a infotainment display like the Explorer I had but this one felt lacking. It's got a nice big display but, no GPS. I don't get it. On the LTZ it should be standard. The Explorer had Infotainment which had GPS in it.
Ride was decent, a bit more noisy than the Explorer but nothing unusual. Seat had good support.
The front bumper is too low. I scraped it a couple times coming out of parking lots. It's also low enough to hit those cement blocks they put in front of parking spaces sometimes. Well, not hit, scrape.
It has a stop start system, you can defeat it by keeping the heat or a/c on, letting off the brake once, putting it in neutral, or not hitting the brake hard enough at lights.
I can't say much about it because, there's nothing crazy about it.
It's got a big trunk, it feels underpowered in city driving. highway cruising it feels speedy. It had a infotainment display like the Explorer I had but this one felt lacking. It's got a nice big display but, no GPS. I don't get it. On the LTZ it should be standard. The Explorer had Infotainment which had GPS in it.
Ride was decent, a bit more noisy than the Explorer but nothing unusual. Seat had good support.
The front bumper is too low. I scraped it a couple times coming out of parking lots. It's also low enough to hit those cement blocks they put in front of parking spaces sometimes. Well, not hit, scrape.
It has a stop start system, you can defeat it by keeping the heat or a/c on, letting off the brake once, putting it in neutral, or not hitting the brake hard enough at lights.
I can't say much about it because, there's nothing crazy about it.
rickhamilton620
has a fetish for terrible cars
I like that most everyone is decoupling Navigation from the touchscreen and making it optional: its an expensive add-on with little value in the age of the smartphone and $50 basic Garmin with lifetime updates.
I believe you can get the Explorer the same way, with MFT but without navigation...if you really needed it on that system, you could connect your smartphone and use Sync Services to get turn by turn directions pushed to the car and displayed in cluster and through voice prompts.
The Malibu without in dash navigation offers similar functionality via the built in OnStar data connection, so no paired phone is required.
Lastsoul
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2005
- Messages
- 2,180
- Location
- Finland
- Car(s)
- MX5, 406 Coup?, 106 Rallye, Porsche 924, X300 Six
Then it would be the Clio 197. The 200s were only the facelifted model and then the new turbocharged one. Makes it slightly less confusing
I stand corrected
The 197 it was.
narf
Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
That's the thing - it's not an expensive add-on once you have the expensive large touchscreen and the computers to run bluetooth etc. As you can tell from the $50 basic Garmin, the GPS-specific hard- and software is cheap. There's no need to skip the GPS once you've got everything else.
That's why I was so deeply disappointed with my MB B, it had that exact setup. Infotainment, bluetooth, GPS button... but no GPS software. I wouldn't be surprised if it did have the GPS receiver, and just lacked an update.
rickhamilton620
has a fetish for terrible cars
It may be cheap for the manufacturer to install, but the annual updates to the map data are ridiculously expensive here and they'll never be as up to date as Google Maps on your phone.
Perc
Very Odd Looking Vehicular Object
Built-in satnav is still considered a premium feature and they like to keep their healthy profit margins.
Everyone knows the hardware that goes into a GPS costs a poofteenth once you have the touchscreen and stuff already, but that's not the point.
Everyone knows the hardware that goes into a GPS costs a poofteenth once you have the touchscreen and stuff already, but that's not the point.
Our "own" car reviews
The car had GPS because it could tell me local weather and movie showings. Neither of which seems useful everyday...
There was no turn by turn app. It was a software limitation I bet.
The car had GPS because it could tell me local weather and movie showings. Neither of which seems useful everyday...
There was no turn by turn app. It was a software limitation I bet.
rickhamilton620
has a fetish for terrible cars
That info's actually delivered by XM Satellite Radio's data stream. Turn by turn isn't a app on the MyLink screen with GM products, instead it's initiated via the blue OnStar button in the headliner or visor...then that info is pushed to the display screen in the cluster. Technically yes there's GPS in the vehicle but only in the OnStar hardware in the car that's separate from the MyLink head unit.
Why do that? Seriously, why can't it work like every other system? That seems like bunch of useless steps just to punch in "32 wallaby way, Sydney."
rickhamilton620
has a fetish for terrible cars
It's so they can offer "navigation"* on even the cheapest GM model. Even a base 15k stick shift Cruze w/out Cruise Control has OnStar w/Turn by Turn navigation. You can get the MyLink with Navi head unit if you want to have maps, select POI's, and enter addresses yourself on the screen w/out a OnStar subscription but it'll cost you upfront. Ford's Sync Services does something similar (so yes, even a base Focus could theoretically "come with Navigation"*) only employing your smartphone's data connection instead of a dedicated 3G radio in the car:
*Technically Ford and GM are right...it IS navigation, but not in the way many expect IMO. At least they don't actively advertise it as such to the masses.
Davetouch
is un-Stoppable
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,543
- Location
- Longbridge, Birminghamland
- Car(s)
- '00 9-3 2.0 Turbo Vert, Various MGs, '99 Ringoo
Well I may as well add a couple to this thread;
MG6 GT 1.8T TSE
Many have called this the triumphant return of MG. Others have said it is a massive failure. The sales figures may speak for themselves, but all I'm interested in is the car itself. Underneath this is a lightly played with Roewe 550, which itself underneath is a heavily petted Rover 75. So much for a triumphant return...
The first thing that kicks me about this car is the price. The one I was chucked the keys to was a top-spec, nothing-missing, all-boxes-ticked company fleet car. I'm not sure but it probably cost no more than ?25,000. You can barely get a base spec BMW 316 for that. But surely the quality is infinitely better on the Beemer? Well maybe, but not infinitely. The MG's interior isn't what one would call Germanic, and that partly has to do with its indenticalness to the Roewe's interior, but its a long way from what I would call bad. The satnav/radio system isn't the most intuitive but the buttons all feel solid enough and once you've found them it doesn't seem so overcrowded anymore. Again; not perfect but far better than one would expect. The seats are nice and comfy, and there is a lot of space. Front, rear and in the boot. This is Focus money for almost Mondeo size.
Styling is obviously everyone's own kettle of fish, but I like it. It definitely looks better in the flesh than in photos, but the rear end could do with some work. It definitely doesn't look too bland, inside and out, which is always a plus, and something some of the big companies still haven't got right.
So its time to get out on the road. The first thing I noticed was at a roundabout. The steering and chassis are superb. Very direct and easy. I certainly can't wait to get this out on a track just to get it round some tighter bends and push a bit harder. It definitely surprised me in this aspect; especially since it weighs the same as my Saab. Its definitely not a light car, but you don't really notice.
Until you put your foot down. Ah the engine. Brought to you today by the letter 'K'. Yes, while like the rest of the car its been messed with and improved, its based on an old product. And frankly 158hp isn't enough. I dread to think what the non-turbo 133hp version is like (thankfully not available in the UK). It moves initially but completely drops off at the top end, where I'd really like the turbo to be doing more work. I haven't driven the diesel yet, which is supposed to be better, and it does seem to have a fair amount of torque, but we shall see. New engines are in the pipeline, and hopefully they will be worth the wait. The gearbox sadly isn't anything to write home about, either. Its direct but sometimes feels a bit clunky.
So should you buy an MG6? Well, no. The engine really lets it down, which for what is supposed to be a relatively sporty brand is a big let down. As a car it was a cheap and quick fix of the Roewe 550, and it shows. The next gen will hopefully be mostly Engineered in Britain so should be noticeably better. I look forward to that one.
MG3 1.5 VTI Style
The instant advantage the 3 has over the 6's downfalls is it isn't based on anything. This was a whole new car from the bottom up, so it doesn't suffer from leftover Roewe parts found out the back in Shanghai. The first thing you'll notice, however, is - like the 6 - the price. Even fully kitted out this thing is under ?10k. What can you get for under 10 grand in the UK? Base spec Ka, base spec Fiesta, or a low spec Micra. Or a Dacia. Not even Honda will give you a Jazz for that much. And none of them will have leather, DAB radio, MP3, cruise control, parking sensors, automatic wipers and lights.... yeah you get the picture. This thing is cheap. But is it bad? Does this come back to the 'cheap and cheerful' lie we're supposedly always told?
Well inside the first thing I noticed (Being 6ft 2in or 1.88m) when I got in the back is wow. I don't fit properly in the back of a Jag XF, but this? Easy. Sure the seat isn't the most comfortable, but going back to comparisons - the Dacia Duster's are much worse. Its a ?10k car; what did you want - a Rolls? Not often I have plenty of headroom in the back of any car, let alone a small one. The interior itself is also a marked improvement over the 6's 'we'll sort it later' mantra. Its not overcrowded and is pretty intuitive. Obviously no complicated satnav but hey its got just about everything else under the sun.
The styling is also a marked improvement to me. Every time I see one of these driving around I like it more. Some of the vinyls work better than the others, but that's why they're an option. It looks properly good, this. Even in orange. One thing I will mention is that they updated the styling for the EU market over the Chinese version. It looks a hell of a lot sharper and the CN models just look a bit awkward at times. So top tip; don't get one in China.
So out on the road. Sadly I had a slightly shorter drive in this than the 6, but it still left its mark. It wasn't on twisty roads so the chassis and steering seem pretty good, but I haven't had a proper chance to throw it about. Shame, as I'd love to find out what its really like.
But what about the engine; have all the issues with the 6's engine been learned from? Well sort of. The top end is wonderful. It makes a great noise and pushes on relatively well for a small car. But the bottom end? Ah. Someone forgot to install the torque. Peak torque is a plentiful; 137Nm, and comes along at a frankly pitiful 4,750rpm. Yes its a petrol but that really needs to be lower. All it means is you're revving it a lot, which is fine but if you ever want to overtake someone, you'll need a long run-up. It doesn't mind being revved, however, so you may as well rag it around and have a hoot. At the same time it produces 105hp and is a 1.5l. That could also be higher. The potential solution of a turbo bolted on the side would probably be the best thing to do as quickly as possible. The gearbox is nice and tight though; another improvement over the 6.
So if you shouldn't buy a 6; should you buy a 3? Well put it this way - I don't like small hatchbacks. They're silly and slow and useless and boring. Well maybe they're not so slow anymore, but either way this is the first hatchback I would actually buy. Its the price a hatch should be, and while it does have a couple of small downfalls, its a properly good little car, and those downfalls are quickly forgotten. And you can't forget that in exchange for the slightly lower than ideal performance supposedly insurance is cheap. They certainly won't let you forget that it you walk into an MG dealer, which is something you should do. If I had ?10k and was looking for a smaller car to park next to the Saab, I would no longer be heading straight for the Dacia dealership...
MG6 GT 1.8T TSE
Many have called this the triumphant return of MG. Others have said it is a massive failure. The sales figures may speak for themselves, but all I'm interested in is the car itself. Underneath this is a lightly played with Roewe 550, which itself underneath is a heavily petted Rover 75. So much for a triumphant return...
The first thing that kicks me about this car is the price. The one I was chucked the keys to was a top-spec, nothing-missing, all-boxes-ticked company fleet car. I'm not sure but it probably cost no more than ?25,000. You can barely get a base spec BMW 316 for that. But surely the quality is infinitely better on the Beemer? Well maybe, but not infinitely. The MG's interior isn't what one would call Germanic, and that partly has to do with its indenticalness to the Roewe's interior, but its a long way from what I would call bad. The satnav/radio system isn't the most intuitive but the buttons all feel solid enough and once you've found them it doesn't seem so overcrowded anymore. Again; not perfect but far better than one would expect. The seats are nice and comfy, and there is a lot of space. Front, rear and in the boot. This is Focus money for almost Mondeo size.
Styling is obviously everyone's own kettle of fish, but I like it. It definitely looks better in the flesh than in photos, but the rear end could do with some work. It definitely doesn't look too bland, inside and out, which is always a plus, and something some of the big companies still haven't got right.
So its time to get out on the road. The first thing I noticed was at a roundabout. The steering and chassis are superb. Very direct and easy. I certainly can't wait to get this out on a track just to get it round some tighter bends and push a bit harder. It definitely surprised me in this aspect; especially since it weighs the same as my Saab. Its definitely not a light car, but you don't really notice.
Until you put your foot down. Ah the engine. Brought to you today by the letter 'K'. Yes, while like the rest of the car its been messed with and improved, its based on an old product. And frankly 158hp isn't enough. I dread to think what the non-turbo 133hp version is like (thankfully not available in the UK). It moves initially but completely drops off at the top end, where I'd really like the turbo to be doing more work. I haven't driven the diesel yet, which is supposed to be better, and it does seem to have a fair amount of torque, but we shall see. New engines are in the pipeline, and hopefully they will be worth the wait. The gearbox sadly isn't anything to write home about, either. Its direct but sometimes feels a bit clunky.
So should you buy an MG6? Well, no. The engine really lets it down, which for what is supposed to be a relatively sporty brand is a big let down. As a car it was a cheap and quick fix of the Roewe 550, and it shows. The next gen will hopefully be mostly Engineered in Britain so should be noticeably better. I look forward to that one.
MG3 1.5 VTI Style
The instant advantage the 3 has over the 6's downfalls is it isn't based on anything. This was a whole new car from the bottom up, so it doesn't suffer from leftover Roewe parts found out the back in Shanghai. The first thing you'll notice, however, is - like the 6 - the price. Even fully kitted out this thing is under ?10k. What can you get for under 10 grand in the UK? Base spec Ka, base spec Fiesta, or a low spec Micra. Or a Dacia. Not even Honda will give you a Jazz for that much. And none of them will have leather, DAB radio, MP3, cruise control, parking sensors, automatic wipers and lights.... yeah you get the picture. This thing is cheap. But is it bad? Does this come back to the 'cheap and cheerful' lie we're supposedly always told?
Well inside the first thing I noticed (Being 6ft 2in or 1.88m) when I got in the back is wow. I don't fit properly in the back of a Jag XF, but this? Easy. Sure the seat isn't the most comfortable, but going back to comparisons - the Dacia Duster's are much worse. Its a ?10k car; what did you want - a Rolls? Not often I have plenty of headroom in the back of any car, let alone a small one. The interior itself is also a marked improvement over the 6's 'we'll sort it later' mantra. Its not overcrowded and is pretty intuitive. Obviously no complicated satnav but hey its got just about everything else under the sun.
The styling is also a marked improvement to me. Every time I see one of these driving around I like it more. Some of the vinyls work better than the others, but that's why they're an option. It looks properly good, this. Even in orange. One thing I will mention is that they updated the styling for the EU market over the Chinese version. It looks a hell of a lot sharper and the CN models just look a bit awkward at times. So top tip; don't get one in China.
So out on the road. Sadly I had a slightly shorter drive in this than the 6, but it still left its mark. It wasn't on twisty roads so the chassis and steering seem pretty good, but I haven't had a proper chance to throw it about. Shame, as I'd love to find out what its really like.
But what about the engine; have all the issues with the 6's engine been learned from? Well sort of. The top end is wonderful. It makes a great noise and pushes on relatively well for a small car. But the bottom end? Ah. Someone forgot to install the torque. Peak torque is a plentiful; 137Nm, and comes along at a frankly pitiful 4,750rpm. Yes its a petrol but that really needs to be lower. All it means is you're revving it a lot, which is fine but if you ever want to overtake someone, you'll need a long run-up. It doesn't mind being revved, however, so you may as well rag it around and have a hoot. At the same time it produces 105hp and is a 1.5l. That could also be higher. The potential solution of a turbo bolted on the side would probably be the best thing to do as quickly as possible. The gearbox is nice and tight though; another improvement over the 6.
So if you shouldn't buy a 6; should you buy a 3? Well put it this way - I don't like small hatchbacks. They're silly and slow and useless and boring. Well maybe they're not so slow anymore, but either way this is the first hatchback I would actually buy. Its the price a hatch should be, and while it does have a couple of small downfalls, its a properly good little car, and those downfalls are quickly forgotten. And you can't forget that in exchange for the slightly lower than ideal performance supposedly insurance is cheap. They certainly won't let you forget that it you walk into an MG dealer, which is something you should do. If I had ?10k and was looking for a smaller car to park next to the Saab, I would no longer be heading straight for the Dacia dealership...
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2006
- Messages
- 18,171
- Car(s)
- '12 MX-5 PRHT, '02 Freelander, '90 Disco 1 Bobtail
K-series? In 2013? RoeweMG, I am disappoint.
I don't think I've ever seen a picture of the MG3 before, I like it. Reminds me of the DS3 but doesn't look daft. Thanks for sharing.
I don't think I've ever seen a picture of the MG3 before, I like it. Reminds me of the DS3 but doesn't look daft. Thanks for sharing.