Wednesday 30 April 2014

2014 Land Rover LR4 Review

Posted: 29 Apr 2014 05:00 PM PDT

Mike Schlee Apr. 30, 2014 Photos by Mike Schlee and Land Rover

Tradition runs deep with this one. While most Land Rovers have become quite contemporary by shedding hundreds of pounds to save fuel, the LR4 continues to be a relic of a bygone era. Like a grandparent with a smart phone, the old boy receives new technology for 2014.

FAST FACTS

Engine: A 3.0-liter supercharged V6 offers 340hp and 332 lb.-ft. torque

Transmission: Eight-speed automatic

Fuel Economy: Official ratings are 14 MPG city and 19 MPG highway.

Price: Pricing starts at $50,625 while a loaded HSE LUX model costs $61,175.

The biggest change occurs under the hood. Gone is the uber-thirsty 5.0-liter V8, replaced by a slightly more efficient 3.0-liter supercharged V6. Developing 340 hp and 332 lb-ft of torque, the new powerplant is supposed to offer two more MPG in both city and highway driving. But in a 5,655-lb vehicle with the aerodynamics of a brick wall, its fuel consumption is still abysmal. Official ratings are pegged at 14 MPG city and 19 MPG highway.

Just Drop the Start-Stop

Aside from the new engine, improved efficiency can also be attributed to the LR4 adopting Land Rover's eight-speed automatic transmission. Paired to stop-start technology, we were only able to eke out an average 16.1 MPG during a week of driving. Making matters worse, the start-stop engagement is rough and slow to react. More than once we caught the system off guard and had to wait momentarily for the engine to fire back up.

Other than this one annoying nuance, the supercharged V6 is smooth, powerful and doesn't make us miss the V8 at all. Being supercharged, power from the six-pot comes on instantly. Land Rover claims it will sprint from 0-60 mph in 7.7 seconds, which is slightly slower than the old model, but plenty quick for a large SUV.

Don't worry about missing the V8 rumble either because the V6 makes plenty of pleasing sounds including a distinct whine from the blower under moderate acceleration.

Single-Speed or Two-Speed?

Also new for 2014 is a standard single speed, four-wheel drive transfer case. Since most LR4s will never climb over anything bigger than a curb or wayward skateboard, Land Rover decided to equip the SUV with a simpler, more efficient transfer case. If you do intend to go mountain climbing, a more traditional two-speed transfer case is still available. However, even the less hardcore single-speed LR4 is fully capable off-road as it includes terrain response and an adjustable air suspension that can raise minimum ground clearance from 7.3 inches to 9.5 inches at the touch of a button. The adjustable height also makes entry for shorter passengers and children easier as the LR4 will also squat down. That also means you will be able to enter more height-restricted garages.

Besides excelling off-road, the LR4 is also a master on the road. It's one of the most comfortable large utility vehicles we have ever driven. Much like the new full-size GM SUVs, the LR4 rides smoothly, is easy to drive and is incredibly quiet inside. If hauling gear is an important as hauling people, the vehicle is rated to tow 7,716 lbs. That sits just above the unibody, Hemi-powered Dodge Durango and about 600 lbs below Cadillac's 2015 Escalade.

High Rider

Part of the reason the LR4 is so easy to drive has to do with its seat positioning. You sit at proper SUV height with a commanding view of the road unlike some slightly raised crossover pretenders. The LR4's boxy shape only enhances sightlines thanks to its tall, flat windows and a lack of blind spots.

Tuesday 29 April 2014

2014 Chevrolet Impala vs 2014 Toyota Avalon

Posted: 28 Apr 2014 05:00 PM PDT

Full-Size Sedans With a New Lease on Life

2014 Chevrolet Impala vs 2014 Toyota Avalon

Mike Schlee Apr. 29, 2014 Photos by Adam Wood. Video by Adam Wood.

Previously, the Chevrolet Impala and Toyota Avalon were dull enough to make Ben Stein seem like Robin Williams.

Uninspiring too look at, drab inside and dull to drive, they championed space, comfort and value above all else. They were the highway queens for rental fleets, retirees and travelling salespeople alike.

But people are sick of being bored. Customers want a little excitement for their hard earned money. We're not talking about feeling like a six-year-old at Disney, but something a little more exhilarating than standing in line at the DMV was sorely needed for both brands. Thankfully, Chevrolet and Toyota's full-size sedans both recently got a much-needed dose of vivacity.

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

Now More Exciting

In fact, Toyota is in the middle of revising its vehicles with sportier looks in an effort to forget its stodgy past. The Corolla, 4Runner, RAV4 and Highlander have all received aggressive, if not controversial new styling inside and out. The Avalon plays it the safest however and features some old Toyota styling elements mixed in with a few Lexus cues. The top-of-the-line Limited model adds some pizazz with quad HID headlights and LED daytime running lights.

The last generation Impala was the poster child for anonymity. Without an interesting or unique line on the entire car, Chevrolet was determined to change things with the 2014 Impala. Beauty is subjective, but we are sold on the new Impala's look and find it to be more appealing than the Avalon. It is identifiable from a distance and projects the sort of road presence that is associated with most modern full-size sedans.

Power vs. Lightness

Although each vehicle offers more efficient, less powerful engine choices, we selected the two drivetrains that have come to dominate this segment over the past several years. That means V6 engines measuring around 3.5 liters hooked up to a six-speed automatic transmission. In the Toyota, the 3.5-liter V6 is good for 268 hp and 248 lb-ft of torque, while the Chevrolet's more potent 3.6-liter V6 makes 305 hp and 264 lb-ft of torque.

Even though the Avalon suffers from a substantial power deficit, it does possess a near 340-lb weight advantage. On the road, the cars feel very similar power-wise at city speeds. Once up to speed though, the Impala begins to show its power edge on the highway.

Since it is lighter and less powerful, the Toyota Avalon Limited achieves better fuel economy ratings of 21 mpg in the city and 31 mpg on the highway; two better than the Impala LTZ in both scenarios. However, after a week of testing, our real-world numbers closed the gap and saw the Impala achieve an average of 23.2 mpg compared to the Avalon at 24.

Predictable vs. Isolated

Both succeed as comfortable cruisers ready to eat up miles of freeway, especially if you choose optional adaptive cruise control. The steering in both cars is light, as it should be, but we Avalon's wheel is too easy to spin. The Impala as a whole communicates back to the driver what is happening on the road better than the Avalon. The Chevrolet was very predictable in its actions and feels less isolated from tactile road feedback than the Avalon.

There are some minor issues with the Avalon as well. The brakes require too much pressure to stop the car and lack a linear slow-down feeling as you press the pedal. That tends to lead to frequent unpleasant stops in heavy traffic. The other issue is the ride comfort. For a large car set up to pamper passengers, too many bumps and cracks in the road make their way up into the cabin of the Avalon, which is a complaint we have with a few Toyotas lately. Although more supple on the road, the Impala is not a pillar in comfort either. Maybe both manufacturers focused a little too much on excitement while developing their latest land yachts.

Space vs. Style

Inside it becomes a battle of the spacious Impala versus the sumptuous Avalon. When it comes to materials used, overall design and execution, the Toyota wins hands down. Whereas the Avalon is coated in faux leather wrapped surfaces and expensive looking materials, the Impala is splashed with a mash-up of vinyl-like surfaces and teal stitching. Oh, that teal stitching. We have no idea how this came to be so prevalent in Chevrolet products but here's hoping it stops. To be fair, there are plenty of trim combinations available for the Impala that nullify the complaint.

Although the Avalon is a much nicer place to be, the Impala does have a few redeeming qualities. The center stack controls are easy to understand if not a little bit cheap feeling and there is a hide-away cubby behind the screen for stashing valuables. Our only big gripe is that the telescoping steering wheel doesn't extend far enough.

The Toyota Avalon is as much for passengers as it is for the driver. The Limited model features three-zone climate control and heated rear seats: two items not found on the Impala. Legroom is almost the same between the two cars with the Toyota coming up about half an inch short at 39.2 inches. The Impala's trunk is bigger at 18.8 cubic feet, but the Avalon is nothing to sneer at with 16.

Compare Specs

		vs
Vehicle	2014 Chevrolet Impala	Advantage	2014 Toyota Avalon
Engine	3.6-liter V6	-	3.5-liter V6
Horsepower	305 hp	Impala	268 hp
Max. Torque	264 lb-ft	Impala	248 lb-ft
Fuel Economy	19 MPG city / 29 MPG hwy	Avalon	21 MPG city / 31 MPG hwy
Observed MPG	23.2 mpg	Avalon	24.0 mpg
Weight	3,800 lbs.	Avalon	3,461 lbs.
Front Legroom	45.8"	Impala	42.1"
Rear Legroom	39.8"	Impala	39.2"
Rear Cargo Capacity	18.8 cu. ft.	Impala	16.0 cu. ft.
Starting Price	$27,670	Impala	$32,150
As Tested Price	$41,340	Impala	$42,410

Pricing is another area that favors the Impala. With a naturally aspirated four-cylinder base-engine, the Chevrolet begins at just $27,670 after destination charges, while the cheapest Toyota lists for $32,150. However, as tested, our loaded Avalon Limited model came to $42,410 after destination charges, while the Impala 2LTZ came in at almost the same price of $41,340.

The Verdict

Still, at a thousand dollars cheaper, with more passenger space, more power and a minimal fuel economy penalty, it is hard to argue with the Chevrolet Impala. Plus, the new car has rediscovered that full-size elegant road presence Impalas of old were synonymous with. Toyota did an admirable job bringing its full-size sedan up to date; Chevrolet just did it better.

2014 Toyota Avalon Limited

LOVE IT

Interior design
Interior materials
Fuel economy

LEAVE IT

Price
Brake feel
Smaller inside

2014 Chevrolet Impala LTZ

LOVE IT

Interior space
Power
Presence

LEAVE IT

Interior material
Teal stitching
Worse fuel economy

Rental car review: A Tale of Two Econoboxes | The Truth About Cars

: A Tale of Two Econoboxes | The Truth About Cars

Posted: 28 Apr 2014 10:54 AM PDT

sentra-exterior

Last month, I took two business trips where I had to rent a car: one to Boston and one to Los Angeles. I rolled the Hertz dice and ended up with a Chrysler 200 in Boston and a Nissan Senta SV at LAX. Each was a 24-hour rental, but the prices were remarkably different. The Chrysler: $61.59 for one day. The Nissan? $116.31 for one day. If the street price to buy one of these cars was anything in relation to the difference in rental price, everybody would be buying the Chrysler. Boston Strong!

Both cars were as un-optioned as theyâ€™re made. Bluetooth? Nope. The Nissan curiously had a third-party Bluetooth system hacked into the car, but it didnâ€™t work. The Nissan also had a bunch of things glued to the windshield, which I presume include a GPS tracking feature as well as an annoying multicolored LED that faces out and blinks random colors as youâ€™re driving down the street. Most likely, this Sentra served in an earlier life as part of some ZipCar-esque car sharing service.

: Mysterious blinky light on the Nissan Sentra SV rental

: Inside view of the mysterious blinky on a rental Nissan Sentra SV. Also visible is the aftermarket Bluetooth microphone (non-functional)

Anyway, before we get into the driving impressions, a Chrysler 200 base model seems to cost $21,540 ($495 more if you want Bluetooth). The Senta SV is $18,350 ($800 more if you want Bluetooth, navigation, and other electronic gadgets). The Chrysler has a 2.4 liter engine versus the Sentaâ€™s 1.8 liter. The Chrysler has a 4-speed auto, versus the Nissan's CVT; pricier Chrysler 200′s have a 6-speed auto, but not this one. Overall performance was probably about the same, but neither car inspires you to push it. I will give credit to the Chrysler for being a noticeable step up with interior quality (e.g., having a leather-wrapped steering wheel). Road noise was reasonably muffled, and the car felt generally solid over bumps and other road indignities. The Nissan was just a cheap, unapologetic econobox.

chrysler200-center-stack

Before I go on, I must digress. I drove through Cambridge and Boston, on my way out to the â€˜burbs and back again to Logan Airport. I even drove right past Fenway Park, a side effect of an epic digression to pick up a pack ofÂ Americaâ€™s only domestically brewed Trappist beer. (Highly recommended!) Not once, not a single time, did somebody honk at me. Nobody cut me off. When I signaled, people let me in.Â Boston, whatâ€™s wrong with you?Â Where are your passive aggressive moronic idiot nutjob drivers? Have you gone soft on me? (Do Boston drivers feel sorry for you if you're driving a Chrysler 200?!)

Anyway, back to the cars. The Chrysler is rated for 20 city / 31 highway mpg. I figured out the reset button once I got on the highway, so I managed to get 32 mpg (indicated) on the remarkably traffic-free Saturday morning drive. Once I got caught up in Boston traffic, using Googleâ€™s truly impressive routing skills to follow one obscure side street into the next whilst cutting from Quincy to Braintree (kids: donâ€™t try this at home), my indicated mileage dropped, bringing me in at 22 mpg combined. Still, not a bad performance. The Nissan, though, was stunning in the mileage department. LA traffic being what it is, thereâ€™s no such thing as freeway driving. Itâ€™s all about â€œcombinedâ€ driving, and my final tally was 33.8Â mpg (indicated), splitting the difference between the 30 city / 39 highway rating. (Overall, I'd say that I put both cars through similar drives, so the mileage difference here is representative of what happens with bigger engines in heavier cars: roughly 600 pounds different.)

But CVTs! They bore us! There is much mileage to be gained when you can run the engine at arbitrarily chosen speeds. Want to go fast? High RPM. Want to save gas? Low RPM. This is great if you care about efficiency, but itâ€™s a nightmare if youâ€™re used to using engine noise as a proxy for looking at the speedometer. If you put your foot down just a little bit, the car might well be accelerating, but the engine noise is holding constant. You just never know, so your best bet is to set the cruise control and forget trying to enjoy your drive. The Nissan, trying to squeeze all the juice out of its tiny engine, does precisely this. The engineâ€™s noise, and the tachometer's readout, are nothing other than a direct measure of where your foot happens to be on the gas. Consequently, the Sentra is as boring as a lecture about how CVT transmissions can optimize engine power output and improve mileage, but at least itâ€™s honest. What about the Chrysler? Despite having a bit of traditional engine rev and gear changing, it's every bit as dull. You can option up for a big V6 but then you're competing in a whole other segment.

chrysler200-rear

Recommendations: if youâ€™re trying to get a cheap car, get the cheaper Nissan Senta with the 6-speed manual. You can at least pretend youâ€™re not driving a cheap econobox, and you wonâ€™t care that youâ€™re getting 10% worse gas mileage. On the other hand, the base-model Chrysler 200, for the extra few bucks, and with discounts maybe not that many extra, gives you something resembling a luxury car experience. Sure, the drivetrain is nothing more than a high-achieving econobox, but the rest of the car is a step up. The quiet ride, all by itself, would make the Chrysler 200 a much better car if you spent a lot of time doing your daily soul sucking commute. When the 2nd-generation Fiat-enhanced version comes out next year, with a base price of $21,700, I expect it to be a very competitive car. Not only will it have more gear ratios (9 speeds!) and better mileage (36 mpg freeway!), but it will also be decidedly not ugly. It might even have some excitement. Maybe.

Monday 28 April 2014

2014 Chevrolet Spark Review

Posted: 27 Apr 2014 05:00 PM PDT

Sami Haj-Assaad Apr. 28, 2014 Photos by Sami Haj-Assaad

Despite its small size, the Chevrolet Spark doesn't have a hard time standing out. With its K-pop styling and bright paint colors, the car easily catches the eyes of many pedestrians and other motorists.

FAST FACTS

Engine: 1.2 liter engine, 85 hp 85 lb-ft of torque.

Transmission: five-speed manual is standard, CVT optional

Fuel Economy: Rated to get 30 MPG in the city, 39 MPG on the highway.

Pricing: Starts at $12,995 including destination, $16,160 as tested

Is that a good thing? It probably is when you consider the fact that cars in the Spark's price range are usually anonymous and drab.

But the Spark has more going for it than stare-stealing style. It features fewer compromises in terms of size, design, driving feel and fuel economy than others in its class. Looking at that exterior, you can't help but smile; it's fun and inspired, looking like a cartoon character or even a caricature of the larger Sonic.

Big Where it Counts

With short overhangs and a tall roofline, the Spark is easy to maneuver and features a 32.5-foot turning circle, which is almost as tight as the Fiat 500. The body shape makes for excellent headroom and outward visibility. Compared to other small cars, the front seats of the Spark feel less constrained and more comfortable. With 39.4-inches of front headroom and 42 inches of front legroom, the Spark offers more space than its main competitors: the Fiat 500 and Scion iQ.

Hidden in the C-pillar are handles for the rear door. Yes, this small car features five doors and seating for just as many passengers. Those in the rear seats will manage if they're under six-feet tall. With 37.3 inches of rear headroom and 35.2 inches of rear legroom, it's clear that these seats aren't just for show, like they are in the Scion and Fiat.

In terms of scale, the Spark is a bit bigger than its rivals; it's longer than the 500 by five inches and is the only one of the bunch to offer dedicated doors to the second-row of seats. Trunk space is also ahead of the competition, offering a usable 11.4 cubic feet of storage with the rear seats in place and 31.2 cubic feet when the seats are folded down.

Energized Interior

It's easy to pick out parts of the cabin where Chevrolet cut corners to save cost. The headliner feels like it's made of cardboard and certain plastic parts of the dashboard feel woefully cheap.

However, other parts of the car are decidedly attractive. The seven-inch color touch screen looks good and performs well. It even offers navigation powered by your smartphone. There are also body-colored slick plastic panels on the inside of the car to add extra flair. The cool gauge cluster looks like what you'd find on a motorcycle, similar to units in the Trax and Sonic. The seats also feature some color-matched accents.

Big Heart

Just ahead of the front seats is the 1.2-liter engine. It makes enough of a racket to make you think it's up in front with you. For all that noise, it only makes 84 horsepower and 83 lb-ft of torque and is a busy bee when it comes giving the Spark enough oomph to hit highway speeds. Directing that power to the front wheels is a new continuously variable transmission. The replacement for the four-speed auto is extremely effective at giving you everything the engine has when you need it and dropping to low RPM when you don't.

Although less powerful than the Scion iQ by 10 ponies and heavier by about 200 lbs., the Spark felt more than adequate for motoring around town and could keep up with traffic on the highway. On the other hand, passing takes patience and careful planning.

Fuel economy during our weeklong test of the subcompact rang in at 33 MPG, which is just below the officially advertised average. As temperatures were still low during our test, the car was equipped with winter tires, a likely culprit for the lower-than-expected mileage.

An alternative to the CVT is the five-speed manual, which is rated to return one MPG more in city driving situations.

On the road, the Spark is softer and more comfortable than other sub-$13,000 cars like the Mitsubishi Mirage, although that's not saying much. It doesn't quite crash over bumps and potholes, but you'll still notice intricate details of the asphalt you're driving on. Fortunately, the car features responsive steering which saves it from feeling like a penalty box.

Value

Cheerful to drive and interesting enough to look at, the Spark does have its drawbacks. It's low entry price disappers quickly once you start optional features. Sure a base Spark LS model costs $12,995 including delivery, but lacks (deep breath) the CVT, touch-screen, upgraded stereo, power locks and power mirrors, steering-wheel mounted controls, cruise control and even Bluetooth and USB connectivity.

To get all of that you'd have to opt for the LT1 Automatic model that we had, with a $16,160 price tag including the $340 dealer-installed fog-lights. We'd skip the fog-lights to save some money but at that price the Spark still has sticker-shock.

Sure it's a little goofy looking, but the car comes up big in key areas. Take for example the 10 standard airbags, which help the Spark return an IIHS Top Safety Pick Rating, beating out the Scion iQ, Smart fortwo, and even bigger cars like the Ford Fiesta, Kia Rio and Toyota Yaris. It's the only car in the subcompact class that achieves an "Acceptable" rating in the small overlap crash test, something that helps put buyers at ease when it comes to their safety in a small car.

The Verdict

Simply put, the Spark is fantastic when compared to its main competitors from smart, Scion and Fiat. It's cheap and efficient without penalizing you for having a budget. The passenger space is excellent and fit four adults, while the interior is attractive and livable. If you're thinking of buying something this small, the Spark will prove to be everything they're looking for and a little bit more.

LOVE IT

Cute Styling
Responsive Handling
MyLink
Space

LEAVE IT

Noisy
Rough on the road

2014 BMW i8 hybrid first drive Review | Autocar

2014 BMW i8 hybrid first drive <b>Review</b> | Autocar

Posted: 26 Apr 2014 03:01 PM PDT

What is it?

The BMW i8 is the zen-like, sustainable, low-emissions, petrol-electric, 'new-premium' German sports car of the future.

Expressions of concept don't get much more complicated. But, while the two most important words in that string get crowded out by their louder neighbours, they are undoubtedly 'sports car'. Or rather they should have been – written in bold, enlarged, indelible type.

Unfortunately – predictably, perhaps – that probably wasn't quite how it was. Because the i8 turns out to be a car of incredible visual impact, laudably mature execution, and offers a uniquely appealing ownership proposition. But drive it and you won't be acquainting yourself with the undeniable perfect future of the sports car – but instead a £100,000 BMW that doesn't deliver the engaging edge an enthusiast might expect.

What is it like?

It should be like a Porsche 918 Spyder for a fifth of the outlay. It's certainly got some promising ingredients.

The 1.5-litre three-cylinder Mini Cooper engine cradled between the i8's back wheels has a higher specific output than any production combustion engine that BMW currently makes, feeding 228bhp and 236lb ft to the rear wheels of the car via a 6-speed ZF automatic transmission. Between the front wheels there's a 128bhp, 184lb ft 'hybrid synchronous' electric motor, driving those front wheels through a two-speed automatic transmission.

And here's the clever bit. That electric motor and transmission, the 7.1kWh lithium ion battery mounted where the car's transmission tunnel might otherwise be and the high-voltage power management system add almost exactly 200kg to the i8. Relative to an aluminium or steel equivalent, says BMW, the carbonfibre-reinforced plastic monocoque saves exactly 200kg. So the car weighs in at 1540kg with fluids onboard: which is less than a current Porsche 911 Turbo, never mind the 918.

The i8's two-speed gearbox, meanwhile, allows the electric motor to operate at peak torque as the combustion engine passes its torque peak in the lower intermediate gears. And that means, as well as 357bhp, you really do get 420lb ft of mid-range thrust from this car at times. And it feels like it.

Early impressions of the i8 are of nothing less than a fully-fledged supercar. The body looks ridiculously low, wide and ground-hugging. The styling's got smack-in-the-chops impact to rival a Lamborghini, and scissor doors for belt-and-braces extravagant effect.

You have to fold yourself into the cabin between a low roofline and a high, wide, expensive-looking sill. And once you have, the interior's got no less of a sense of occasion to it, with a generously sculptural, driver-focused dashboard, colourful LCD instruments, low-slung and deep-dished sports seats; there's also an abundance of little features and touches that lift the ambience way above BMW's usual conservative norm.

So it talks the talk, the i8 - loud and clear. Walking the walk of something as pure as a Porsche 911 was always going to be the harder bit. On handling precision and that final sliver of driver engagement, the BMW falls short of brilliance. But it's good, and almost there. Certainly good enough to consider the car an amazing success in its own hyper-specialised niche.

Right up until you go looking for that critical last fraction of driver appeal, in fact, the i8 does almost everything right. Starting off with 'Comfort' mode selected on its adaptive dampers and near-silent drive turning its front wheels, the i8 is comfortable and super-civilised around town. It's a bit choppy-riding occasionally, but not often.

Its steering is light but there's a modicum of well-judged feedback, and performance is entirely decent in electric mode. Electric-only range is a bit low, in reality about 15 miles. But the BMW seldom operates like a range-extended EV unless you explicitly instruct it to anyway, its combustion engine regularly chiming in through most drive modes even when the battery is relatively well-charged.

Knock the gear selector into 'Sport' mode and the engine begins to run almost continually. Gun the accelerator away from a standstill and the powertrain feels like a big V6: instant and heavy-hitting on pedal response, but with a loud, gruff, synthesized soundtrack broadcast to you over the audio speakers.

Yet the harder it revs and the faster you go, the smaller that imaginary V6 seems. Work it really hard beyond 5000rpm and the i8's performance level feels a touch thin and strained.

The car's handling stands up more stoutly to inspection – but not indefinitely. Body control is excellent; steering response equally immediate. Lateral grip levels could be higher, particularly at the front wheels, which begin to scrabble and scream under load if you harry them.

Drive intelligently though, using weight transfer to give the steering authority on turn-in, and the i8 responds for the most part like any good mid-engined machine should: with some balance and alacrity, but exceptional in neither.

The rear axle is always glued to its line, giving dependable stability. It declines any attempt to adjust your arc through a corner with a bit of throttle-steering. That's a typical facet of a car that just doesn't respond well to being driven hard, and one that approaches its adhesive limits a bit early for our tastes.

The i8 can be enjoyed vividly enough as you approach that point, of course. But not ultimately as vividly as a £100,000 sports car really ought.

Should I buy one?

If you genuinely don't mind compromising on sporting clarity of purpose for lower emissions, enhanced economy and of-the-moment desirability, sure. But if that's you, the sports car market would seem to be a strange place to go shopping for your next car anyway.

The BMW i8 doesn't quite feel as exciting as it does fast; it's secure and fluent, but not the last word in fun. Accounting for its novelty value, brimming supercar attitude and its low-emissions sense of environmental responsibility, it'll be more than sporting enough to satisfy people who couldn't otherwise have justified a sports car.

But it's not quite convincing enough to hit the heights that true enthusiasts will expect of it. There is all the intriguing complexity in the world to contemplate here, but sadly not quite enough depth.

BMW i8

Price £99,845 (not including £5000 government grant); 0-62mph 4.4sec; Top speed 155mph; Economy 135mpg; CO2 49g/km; Kerb weight 1560kg; Engine 3cyls, 1499cc, turbocharged petrol; plus 129bhp electric motor; Installation Transverse, rear, rear-wheel drive (IC); transverse, front, fwd (electric); Power 357bhp at 5800rpm; Torque 420lb ft at 3700rpm; Gearbox 6spd automatic (IC); two-speed automatic (electric)

Saturday 26 April 2014

2014 Nissan Versa Review

Posted: 24 Apr 2014 05:00 PM PDT

Aaron Gold Apr. 25, 2014 Photos by Aaron Gold

Unlike most new cars, the Versa S is not strong on showroom appeal; its job is to allow dealers to place newspaper ads that scream "DRIVE HOME A NEW VERSA FOR JUST $59 DOWN!" while the sales reps upsell their prospects to vehicles that are nicer and more profitable rather than the $12,800 base Versa sedan.

FAST FACTS

Engine: 1.6 liter 4-cylinder engine producing 109 horsepower and 107 lb-ft of torque.

Transmission: S models offers a 5-speed manual or 4-speed automatic; S Plus gets a CVT.

Fuel Economy: 27 MPG city/36 MPG highway with a manual trans, 26/35 with the 4-speed automatic, and 31/41 with a CVT. We drove the manual and averaged 35.1.

Price: $12,800 as tested, including an $810 destination fee.

So the Versa S does its best to fade into the background with body-color window frames and blacked-out door handles (the opposite of the nicer SL and SV models). Its 15" steel wheels wear simple plastic wheel covers, and color choices are limited to white, silver, grey, black, or blue. Even the chrome garnish that surrounds the grille on nicer Versas is jettisoned in the name of thrift.

Can You Bear Such A Basic Cabin?

But if you check out the standard equipment list, you'll see that the Versa isn't quite so stripped down as you might expect. Forget about nice-to-haves like power windows, mirrors or locks, Bluetooth, or even a remote trunk release; you won't find them. But the Versa S does come with air conditioning, a two-speaker stereo with an auxiliary input jack, and power steering, all standard. The only option for the S is a four-speed automatic, priced at $1,000; Nissan also makes a $14,600 version called the S Plus, which comes with cruise control, a CVT transmission, and a few extra paint colors, plus a trunk spoiler.

With none of the contrasting-color interior trim found on nicer Versas, the S model's dash is a large, unadorned expanse of hard black plastic, echoed by more plastic on the door panels. The seats are covered in a material that feels like institutional bed linen, and like most cut-rate car upholstery, it's a magnet for pet hair. But the big windows let in plenty of light, and the playful shapes throughout the cabin give it a bit of personality. And it's hard not to appreciate the straightforward control layout, with simple three-dial air conditioning controls and an easy-to-use stereo.

The real surprise is the back seat, which is incredibly roomy -- in fact, the Versa offers more back-seat head- and leg-room than many mid-size cars, including Nissan's own Altima. The seat bottom cushion is a bit short; with so much space, there's certainly room for more thigh support. Still, it's almost scandalous how much comfort is on offer for back-seat passengers. The trunk is generously sized at 14.9 cubic feet, and at the Versa's cheap price, we can forgive the chintzy trunk mat and the lack of a fold-down seat (which is offered on the SV and SL).

All this space had us thinking of the Versa in a family way, so we looked into its crash test scores. Again, better than we expected given the price: Though it failed the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's tough new small-overlap crash test (as have many small cars), the Versa scored "Good" (best possible marks) in front, side and roof-crash tests. From the Fed, the Versa earned four out of five stars, with only three stars in the front-impact test. Like all new cars, the Versa comes standard with antilock brakes, electronic stability control, and six airbags (two in front, two front-seat-mounted torso airbags, and side curtain airbags), but advanced active safety features such as lane-departure or blind-spot warning systems or a backup camera are nowhere to be found.

Light Weight Makes Little Engine Ok

All Versas are powered by a 109 horsepower 1.6 liter engine. It's noisy, but its 107 lb-ft of torque provides all the zip the 2,400 lb Versa requires. EPA fuel economy estimates are 27 MPG city and 36 MPG highway for the five-speed manual and 26/35 with the optional four-speed auto. The CVT in the S Plus is significantly better at 31 city/40 highway, but we were quite satisfied with the 35.1 MPG we saw in our manual-transmission test car.

Steering precision is not a Versa strong point, but the ride is comfortable and smooth and the suspension takes on big jolts without the cheap-sounding clunks and clatters we're used to hearing in other inexpensive cars. A light clutch and reasonably precise shifter rounded out a driving experience that was quite a bit better than we expected given the Versa's bargain-basement price.

Overall, we were impressed by how much Versa one gets for 13 grand. Of all the amenities not found in the Versa S, the only two we missed were power locks (with only one key slot in the driver's door, getting the family in and out and getting the car locked up becomes a major production) and the remote trunk release (which makes locking one's keys in the trunk a real possibility). But we had everything else we needed: Room for our growing kids, air conditioning, music, and enough power to merge onto the freeway without aggravating our ulcers. That pretty much fills our basic family-car requirements.

And if you want more, the Versa offers it: SL and SV models have significantly nicer interiors and more creature comforts, without a huge increase in price. A fully-loaded Versa SL with power everything, alloy wheels, Bluetooth, automatic transmission, keyless entry and ignition, touch-screen stereo with satellite radio, and optional navigation system lists for $18,460. That's more than $700 hundred bucks better than the least-expensive Honda Civic sedan.

In terms of cheap-car rivals, the Chevrolet Spark and Mitsubishi Mirage come the closest on price at $12,995 and $13,790 respectively. Both offer more standard equipment, but they can't match the Versa on size or speed. (We're intentionally leaving out the $13,240 Smart ForTwo, which lacks air conditioning and a back seat.)

One could argue that the best alternative to the Nissan Versa S is a good used car; there are plenty of serviceable family sedans to be found for thirteen grand. But there's a lot to be said for the peace of mind that comes with a new car, especially one covered by a nice long factory warranty -- in the case of the Versa, 3 years/36,000 miles bumper-to-bumper and 5 years/60,000 miles on the powertrain.

The Verdict

It may not be glitzy, it may not be glamorous, but the Nissan Versa S is a better car than we expected, especially given its bargain-basement price. Not only does it provide new-car peace-of-mind (and that new car smell), but it's easy to live with and even offers serious family-car credentials. In terms of basic A-to-B transportation, it's about as good a bargain as you're going to find.

LOVE IT

Cheap price
Roomy interior
Not too terrible to drive!

LEAVE IT

Noisy engine
Indifferent steering
Manual door locks are a real pain