Our "own" car reviews
- Thread starter NooDle
- Start date
NooDle
Ik ben niet alleen lekker met kaas!
For a 30000? car, that's highly disappointing. The very same compartment in my Skoda doesn't contain exposed cables
that is pretty fail...my astra cost me less than a third of that 9 years ago, and featured a closed cubbyhole in the boot
otoh you're amost never gonna need it so who cares
narf
Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
that is pretty fail...my astra cost me less than a third of that 9 years ago, and featured a closed cubbyhole in the boot
otoh you're amost never gonna need it so who cares
"who cares" is a phrase that should get you kicked out of car makers that want to make premium cars.
You'd expect "who cares" from budget cars, but then you look at a Skoda...
Another though from the "who cares" department - when you open the boot floor to get to the chubby hole that used to be the spare wheel storage - nicely carpeted-ish by the way - the rope-and-hook piece apparently is supposed to be hooked into the boot lid seal. I'll try to remember to take a picture tomorrow, I can't imagine that to be good for the seal
AiR
Forum Addict
Me neither. Could also be that all the NA versions they bring in don't move as fast. *drumroll*
narf
Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
After all those complaints some positive points 
Merc sure knows their target demographic - the car is old-people-proof. I tried to be an idiot with the pedals, but it remains civilized. It'd be heaven for my 93-year-old grampa and especially for his Audi's clutch, when not clutched in the Benz won't rev past 1.3ish. On the other hand, you can hear my grampa parking through closed windows with your headphones on loud
The brakes are near-perfect, considering it's such a slow car. No jerkiness when just touching the pedal despite being new, and when pushing harder it feels just right.
The steering has no feel whatsoever, but that fits the car very well. Extremely light for granny's weak arms when parking
Some negatives, it's still way too slow... and more thirsty than I expected. I averaged around 7.8l/100km, and used enough fuel to reduce the impact of the previous renter underfilling :lol: there wasn't a lot of vmax driving due to traffic, so I expected a new Merc with the smallest turbo petrol to perform better than that.
Merc sure knows their target demographic - the car is old-people-proof. I tried to be an idiot with the pedals, but it remains civilized. It'd be heaven for my 93-year-old grampa and especially for his Audi's clutch, when not clutched in the Benz won't rev past 1.3ish. On the other hand, you can hear my grampa parking through closed windows with your headphones on loud
The brakes are near-perfect, considering it's such a slow car. No jerkiness when just touching the pedal despite being new, and when pushing harder it feels just right.
The steering has no feel whatsoever, but that fits the car very well. Extremely light for granny's weak arms when parking
Some negatives, it's still way too slow... and more thirsty than I expected. I averaged around 7.8l/100km, and used enough fuel to reduce the impact of the previous renter underfilling :lol: there wasn't a lot of vmax driving due to traffic, so I expected a new Merc with the smallest turbo petrol to perform better than that.
narf
Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
Yeah... But then the Kadett isn't eleventy million metres tall.
narf
Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
Treating both cars' frontal projection as a rectangle, your Kadett is 75% of the MBB. Weight is even more drastic, 55% :lol:
narf
Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
That'd still be a big fat 0
AiR
Forum Addict
I've now driven a Polo 1.2 TSI in R-Line trim, so 90 HP, CD310 something radio and cruise Control and rear parking sensors, stuff like that. Engine was sufficient but not impressive, overall competent but a bit dull. However, most alarmingly it was quite loud with lots of road and tyre noise penetrating the cabin. Brought my dad who's an old musician (and hence a bit hearing impaired) on the test and he too noticed the noise, quite high in pitch, yet a drone. Weird nose. Also quite small on the inside.
Handles well and is comfortable to drive. List prices are too high though, but campaign cars coming soon as the European car sales are in the toilet and manufacturers are desperate to move metal, which is nice for us customers. But that noise, I expected more from VW.
Also, they had a Up with panoramic roof and a ridiculous price tag of 178 000 SEK (for Americans: $28k) parked next to a Golf VII for the same amount of money. Dad hadn't seen an Up before and was shocked and amused at the expensive little car.
Next we went to Ford and found the dealership was inhabited by a lone representative who was filling in for all the sales guys who were either sick, getting married or on holiday. He was a nice guy to talk to, genuinely interested in cars, less in sales pitching. Got to test the 1.25 again (he thought it was an Ecoboost when he handed me the keys) and again, a very sufficient engine, but not the one I wanted to test. I drove back, he called the sales people and then found the key to a non-boost Ecoboost, the 1.0 NA three-cyl with 80 horsies.
The 1.0 Ford makes a nice noise. A rough, "intense" noise, it's a bit like a small dog. It barks a lot for it's size. Noise makes you want to put the pedal down to get more. That kind of noise. I thought that lack of displacement would mean it would struggle at low revs, but I was very much wrong. It is extremely driveable! I am hugely impressed by the 1.0, obviously it's great in the city, so I took it to the motorway and it kept up! You do miss a sixth gear at 120 km/h, it revs to about 4000 RPM in fifth which of course makes a bit of noise.
Still, at 120km/h and 4000 RPM, the noise level was comparable to the Polo at 80 km/h and maybe 2000 RPM less, which is amusing and/or alarming. I pulled off the motorway and drove a "B-road" (70km/h) back, came to a hill I know well and aimed the Fiesta up the hill in fifth, doing 70 km/h. Kept giving it the same amount of gas I did before on flat ground. Naturally I expected it to bog down and prepared to shift into fourth. It didn't. It just went up the hill. No drama. A 1.0 engine. Amazing!
Can't wait to drive the 100 HP Ecoboost!
Handles well and is comfortable to drive. List prices are too high though, but campaign cars coming soon as the European car sales are in the toilet and manufacturers are desperate to move metal, which is nice for us customers. But that noise, I expected more from VW.
Also, they had a Up with panoramic roof and a ridiculous price tag of 178 000 SEK (for Americans: $28k) parked next to a Golf VII for the same amount of money. Dad hadn't seen an Up before and was shocked and amused at the expensive little car.
Next we went to Ford and found the dealership was inhabited by a lone representative who was filling in for all the sales guys who were either sick, getting married or on holiday. He was a nice guy to talk to, genuinely interested in cars, less in sales pitching. Got to test the 1.25 again (he thought it was an Ecoboost when he handed me the keys) and again, a very sufficient engine, but not the one I wanted to test. I drove back, he called the sales people and then found the key to a non-boost Ecoboost, the 1.0 NA three-cyl with 80 horsies.
The 1.0 Ford makes a nice noise. A rough, "intense" noise, it's a bit like a small dog. It barks a lot for it's size. Noise makes you want to put the pedal down to get more. That kind of noise. I thought that lack of displacement would mean it would struggle at low revs, but I was very much wrong. It is extremely driveable! I am hugely impressed by the 1.0, obviously it's great in the city, so I took it to the motorway and it kept up! You do miss a sixth gear at 120 km/h, it revs to about 4000 RPM in fifth which of course makes a bit of noise.
Still, at 120km/h and 4000 RPM, the noise level was comparable to the Polo at 80 km/h and maybe 2000 RPM less, which is amusing and/or alarming. I pulled off the motorway and drove a "B-road" (70km/h) back, came to a hill I know well and aimed the Fiesta up the hill in fifth, doing 70 km/h. Kept giving it the same amount of gas I did before on flat ground. Naturally I expected it to bog down and prepared to shift into fourth. It didn't. It just went up the hill. No drama. A 1.0 engine. Amazing!
Can't wait to drive the 100 HP Ecoboost!
NooDle
Ik ben niet alleen lekker met kaas!
1 litre is all you need,especialy turboed.AiR said:
also, i did own a much older petrol Polo 1.4 which according to my wife made a very annoying engine drone... never noticed it myself but it drove her crazy, u to the point where she flat out refused to take long trips in it...
AiR
Forum Addict
There was something strange with the Polo. Probably caused by the tyres, didn't check what they were but suspect they were "green".
Today I wanted to test a Kia Rio, to which the salesmen said that they only had the 1.2 in stock and that you don't want that. Because it's a almost C-segment size car with no horsepower. So instead I took the Fiat Punto TwinAir for a spin in the rain. 0.9 liters, two cylinders and a turbo. Very raw noise, very cool!
The Twinair screams towards the redline in any gear you put it in, of which there are six, and if we earlier established you don't need more than 1 liter we can now say you don't really need more than two cylinders either. The 85 horses are available with just a little dib on the throttle. It's also the quietest one so far on the motorway thanks to the sixth gear, to which the shift indicator wants you to go almost all of the time. Great engine, however it does introduce a little bit of resonance in the dashboard every now and then as you go up towards the rev limiter, so a bit of a concern regarding interior build quality.
Dashboard is quite nice to poke at and has a nice radio, some of the controls are a bit odd, as it was raining I found that the operation of the wiper speed was the same as the operation of the lights, you turn a switch on the stalk. Nice wheel to grip, my tester was red with black roof, black mirrors and black rims, so it looked quite the part, despite being an almost ancient design (introduced in 2006). Facelifted since however which has brought it a few niceties such as LED rear lights.
Rustproofing is an issue however compared to the competition, and Fiat isn't as well established as Renault or Ford in my market and doesn't offer more than three years warranty.
Next weekend I'll try and find a Clio.
Today I wanted to test a Kia Rio, to which the salesmen said that they only had the 1.2 in stock and that you don't want that. Because it's a almost C-segment size car with no horsepower. So instead I took the Fiat Punto TwinAir for a spin in the rain. 0.9 liters, two cylinders and a turbo. Very raw noise, very cool!
The Twinair screams towards the redline in any gear you put it in, of which there are six, and if we earlier established you don't need more than 1 liter we can now say you don't really need more than two cylinders either. The 85 horses are available with just a little dib on the throttle. It's also the quietest one so far on the motorway thanks to the sixth gear, to which the shift indicator wants you to go almost all of the time. Great engine, however it does introduce a little bit of resonance in the dashboard every now and then as you go up towards the rev limiter, so a bit of a concern regarding interior build quality.
Dashboard is quite nice to poke at and has a nice radio, some of the controls are a bit odd, as it was raining I found that the operation of the wiper speed was the same as the operation of the lights, you turn a switch on the stalk. Nice wheel to grip, my tester was red with black roof, black mirrors and black rims, so it looked quite the part, despite being an almost ancient design (introduced in 2006). Facelifted since however which has brought it a few niceties such as LED rear lights.
Rustproofing is an issue however compared to the competition, and Fiat isn't as well established as Renault or Ford in my market and doesn't offer more than three years warranty.
Next weekend I'll try and find a Clio.
NooDle
Ik ben niet alleen lekker met kaas!
that is supposedly the best in class (the new one). also perhaps a Kia Picanto should be surprisingly good, well equipped and not expensive at all.
Poolcar lottery for me again, ended up with a C3 again, albeit yet another one (silver this time). I guess the is an older pre facelift one since it had no bluetooth and a nasty stereo with BIG LETTERS ON THE DISPLAY AT ALL TIMES. this one did not have the superlight steering which annoyed me on the other( blue) C3.
Driving a petrol C1 nowadays has made me forget just how noisy and unrefined a diesel can be, not to mention slow.... this was much slower than my c1, and revving it just made it louder, not quicker...
Quite a relief to be back in my own car, really : much quieter ( wind noise was ridiculous), more refined, better stereo, not such a soft and bouncy chassis, and overall much nippier. Thats what losing 300 kgs does for you i suppose
rickhamilton620
has a fetish for terrible cars
The Fiesta you drove...was it the 3 cylinder ecoboost? Your post wasn't clear enough lol. That's one car that's super interesting...I want to see the official EPA numbers but the car's not out yet here
.It and the upcoming Mitsubishi Mirage will be the only 3 cylinder B-Segment cars sold new in the US.
AiR
Forum Addict
Yes the Ford 3-cyl 1.0 without turbo, so they just call it "1.0 80HP" instead of "Ecoboost".
Speaking of EPA, in the EU test cycle all variants of the Ford 1.0 get exactly the same consumtion figures, be it the unboosted naturally aspirated 80 HP, the 100 HP medium output or the 125 HP high output version. Did someone say we need to reform the NEDC test..?
Update
Not to self: do not trust auto journalists. There is a difference in consumtion between the three, albeit only a tenth of a liter in either direction. The 100 HP and 125 HP versions of the turbo engine get the same figures though. I think it's the same turbo, just different mapping, but not sure.
I sat in the Mirage (called "Space Star" here) and it'd have to really cheap for me to buy one, but it isn't. Mitsubishi even explained the "less-than-desirable" Euro-NCAP rating with the reasoning that the intended buyers don't care much about living (albeit in a fancier, less offensive wording).
Update
Not to self: do not trust auto journalists. There is a difference in consumtion between the three, albeit only a tenth of a liter in either direction. The 100 HP and 125 HP versions of the turbo engine get the same figures though. I think it's the same turbo, just different mapping, but not sure.
I sat in the Mirage (called "Space Star" here) and it'd have to really cheap for me to buy one, but it isn't. Mitsubishi even explained the "less-than-desirable" Euro-NCAP rating with the reasoning that the intended buyers don't care much about living (albeit in a fancier, less offensive wording).
Last edited:
rickhamilton620
has a fetish for terrible cars
Yes the Ford 3-cyl 1.0 without turbo, so they just call it "1.0 80HP" instead of "Ecoboost".
Speaking of EPA, in the EU test cycle all variants of the Ford 1.0 get exactly the same consumtion figures, be it the unboosted naturally aspirated 80 HP, the 100 HP medium output or the 125 HP high output version. Did someone say we need to reform the NEDC test..?
Update
Not to self: do not trust auto journalists. There is a difference in consumtion between the three, albeit only a tenth of a liter in either direction. The 100 HP and 125 HP versions of the turbo engine get the same figures though. I think it's the same turbo, just different mapping, but not sure.
I sat in the Mirage (called "Space Star" here) and it'd have to really cheap for me to buy one, but it isn't. Mitsubishi even explained the "less-than-desirable" Euro-NCAP rating with the reasoning that the intended buyers don't care much about living (albeit in a fancier, less offensive wording).
pr fail! I know that Euro-NCAP places special focus on available "driver assist" tech, I think that's what caused the Mirage's score to drop compared to its rivals.
There didn't seem to be anything too alarming about its actual crash test results (not like it was a Chrysler Neon or Opel Sintra) so *dunno*
With the US NCAP also factoring in assist tech it'll be interesting to see what score the govt gives it here.
Back to the mirage itself, what's interesting to me is the strategy pricing wise in the US: give semi-premium content standard (auto climate control, power everything, fog lamps, alloys, etc.) at supposedly a super cheap price and super high MPG.
Whether people will bite (the styling is bland and who knows how it'll drive) is anyone's guess.
2013 Ford Explorer w/ 2,000 miles
It's not the fastest. It has to be one of the most quiet cars I've ever been in, you barely hear a semi truck pass you. There's some tire noise but nothing like usual. It has acoustic glass or something that resists noise and gets rid of most of it. It does help.
Ride quality - Good, for a 4x4 crossover it's really good. It's not floaty but it kneads out most small annoying bumps.
Interior - It feels quality. Although the odd thing once I set it to my driving position I felt far away from the drivers door. I couldn't rest my elbow and steer with my left arm without forcing to stretch out. Everything's laid out well and easy to understand and learn easily. The only gripe I have is the radio. This one has the fancy Sony one and trying to use the buttons were difficult. I cant tell if it's touch sensitive or an actual button, neither work consistently for me. It has the ability to connect your phone to the car for hands free calling and music access. I had my iPhone 4 connected via USB and you can access all the music by artist, album, playlist, etc. The best part? It doesn't lock out your phone like some car stereos do forcing you to navigate through the stereo. If you feel navigating your phone is faster, it works.
The dash can show to the right of the speedo GPS, radio info, or your phone stuff.
Rear legroom in the second row looks good. Very usable. 3rd row, I can't comment on.
I put both 3rd row seats down because the headrests block a fair amount of the rear window so rear visibility is less then ideal for a car this size. Even though it has a backup camera.
All in all, for me if I had a family, it would be a tough call between this and a Flex, I haven't driven that but, it seems like it would be a great car too.
The car is best when you're not mashing the throttle. It's a heavy car so flooring it won't really help that much. You feel the most oomph at 30-50% throttle. It can cruise so well. I spent a two hour drive with it through suburban towns on state roads. It preformed well, brakes are top notch. I never felt like the brakes were inadequate.
One last thing. I was flipping through the settings for the car (you can adjust remote start time, delayed lights time after shutting off the vehicle and other stuff) I found this and I cannot for the life of me figure out what it means.
EDIT. I found out why!
Makes sense, I end up doing that anyways...
The one thing that would bug me is the new tone Ford uses for warning. Like when you start the car, or you leave your headlights on and you open the car door when the car is shutoff. It's so weird and irritating. I want a standard bong. The turn signal noise is also strange. It sounds too "digital." Does that make sense?
It's not the fastest. It has to be one of the most quiet cars I've ever been in, you barely hear a semi truck pass you. There's some tire noise but nothing like usual. It has acoustic glass or something that resists noise and gets rid of most of it. It does help.
Ride quality - Good, for a 4x4 crossover it's really good. It's not floaty but it kneads out most small annoying bumps.
Interior - It feels quality. Although the odd thing once I set it to my driving position I felt far away from the drivers door. I couldn't rest my elbow and steer with my left arm without forcing to stretch out. Everything's laid out well and easy to understand and learn easily. The only gripe I have is the radio. This one has the fancy Sony one and trying to use the buttons were difficult. I cant tell if it's touch sensitive or an actual button, neither work consistently for me. It has the ability to connect your phone to the car for hands free calling and music access. I had my iPhone 4 connected via USB and you can access all the music by artist, album, playlist, etc. The best part? It doesn't lock out your phone like some car stereos do forcing you to navigate through the stereo. If you feel navigating your phone is faster, it works.
The dash can show to the right of the speedo GPS, radio info, or your phone stuff.
Rear legroom in the second row looks good. Very usable. 3rd row, I can't comment on.
I put both 3rd row seats down because the headrests block a fair amount of the rear window so rear visibility is less then ideal for a car this size. Even though it has a backup camera.
All in all, for me if I had a family, it would be a tough call between this and a Flex, I haven't driven that but, it seems like it would be a great car too.
The car is best when you're not mashing the throttle. It's a heavy car so flooring it won't really help that much. You feel the most oomph at 30-50% throttle. It can cruise so well. I spent a two hour drive with it through suburban towns on state roads. It preformed well, brakes are top notch. I never felt like the brakes were inadequate.
One last thing. I was flipping through the settings for the car (you can adjust remote start time, delayed lights time after shutting off the vehicle and other stuff) I found this and I cannot for the life of me figure out what it means.
EDIT. I found out why!
Makes sense, I end up doing that anyways...
The one thing that would bug me is the new tone Ford uses for warning. Like when you start the car, or you leave your headlights on and you open the car door when the car is shutoff. It's so weird and irritating. I want a standard bong. The turn signal noise is also strange. It sounds too "digital." Does that make sense?
Last edited: