On the road: Vauxhall Viva SE 1.0 – <b>car review</b> | Technology | The <b>...</b> |
- On the road: Vauxhall Viva SE 1.0 – <b>car review</b> | Technology | The <b>...</b>
- <b>Review</b>: Escort Max 360 Radar Detector with Directional Arrows <b>...</b>
- Best of 2015: Why Self-Driving <b>Cars</b> Must Be Programmed to Kill <b>...</b>
- Nissan Juke Nismo RS: <b>car review</b> | Martin Love | Technology | The <b>...</b>
- Mini JCW: 'This <b>car</b> asks: Are you having fun yet? The answer is, of <b>...</b>
| On the road: Vauxhall Viva SE 1.0 – <b>car review</b> | Technology | The <b>...</b> Posted: 18 Dec 2015 10:00 PM PST Driving a Vauxhall Viva SE 1.0 is like flying Ryanair. Every time you look for a thing – satnav, parking sensor, pretzels, aircon, a smile, some acceleration in second gear – it isn't there. Seriously? Vauxhall's idea of a "feature" is a driver's seat head adjuster and a removable luggage compartment cover? Then you have to talk yourself down: it is very cheap. It's cheap to buy and cheap to run. It's cheap enough to represent a social shift, the democratisation of new car ownership. It's so cheap that to drop a monkey on green metallic paint, as on my version, is like garnishing a Happy Meal with saffron. Keep that in mind. It didn't cost very much. Or, in industry parlance, it is "affordable". The gears are tinny, so you often have to wiggle them about before you hit the one you want. The clutch is very high, which might suit some outlier with super-stretchy tendons, but for most will just give you a sore left foot after a long drive. But of course you'll be thinking, "Never mind my foot, how did I get all the way to Chichester on a quarter-tank of petrol?" That'll be the advertised 62.8mpg (it's never that high in real life, but I was still impressed; some trips didn't seem even to register on the fuel gauge). The engine is 1-litre and feels it: very little acceleration in any gear, and no residual vroom to fall back on. I haven't nearly stalled so often since I was a learner. Once you're at your speed, however, it is quiet and surprisingly robust. Indeed, the only chink in its feeling of reliability is the steering, which is flaky and unpredictable. It feels more like puppetry than mechanics, the column connected to the wheels with string; the driver calls the shots eventually, but not very smoothly. Now you're thinking, "Who would drive a car like this?" whereas, if you were in it, you'd be saying, "It's amazing how often it feels like a regular car, when it's closer to the price of a prestige bicycle." Inside, it's a bit more British Airways. The materials don't feel irksomely synthetic, the displays look pretty classy, and if you can't quite believe that a car could exist without a USB or digital radio, ask yourself what's wrong with singing the in-car entertainment yourself, like they did in the old days. Its deficiencies would irk you only if you met it as a hire car, and the hire firm was making the savings, stiffing you with the inconvenience. Actually, that's probably where you will meet it. But if you buy one, you'll know exactly why.
Price £8,540  |
| <b>Review</b>: Escort Max 360 Radar Detector with Directional Arrows <b>...</b> Posted: 24 Dec 2015 01:01 PM PST
After more than a week of driving with the Max 360, we can say that's everything you'd expect given the technology inside and Escort's history. Combining Escort's clever filtering technology with the added protection of a rear-facing antenna makes for a powerful yet user-friendly radar detector. But we're not picking winners here and now. We haven't performed the instrumented, objective tests on the Max 360 that we used to pick the Passport Max over the Valentine One in our 2014 head-to-head comparison test. This review is based purely on real-world use and subjective experiences with the Max 360. Whether or not you need arrows on a radar detector is as much a philosophical question as a technical one. Arrows act as a manual filter of sorts. A weak signal from behind that isn't getting any stronger often can be ignored. A strong signal that moves from ahead, to the sides, to behind means the source has passed (although may still be tracking your speed). But to process a series of squawks and flashing lights at 80 mph requires snap judgments. Most drivers only need to hear the warning of a Ka-band radar alert or a strong K-band signal to hit the brakes. Where the signal is coming from is secondary to the fact that a nearby threat simply exists. In that sense, the Escort 360's (and Valentine One's) greatest advantage isn't the arrows, but the fact that there's a rear-facing antenna to quite literally cover your ass. Valentine One acolytes almost universally disagree that the arrows are a luxury. Instead, they insist that the arrows are a critical tool to avoiding the roadside taxman. If you count yourself among the drivers who deem the arrows vital, know that the Max 360's pointers do it better. Escort's directional indicators pack more information and are easier to read than Valentine's. With the directional display configured to "band mode" the arrows illuminate different colors depending on the type of signal received. A green glow indicates X band, blue represents K band, and a red light means Ka-band radar is present.
On the road, the Max 360 demonstrated more-than-adequate range in calling out true police signals. The OLED display is also packed with easy-to-read information. In Spec or Expert modes, it can present either the exact radar frequency or the front- and rear-antenna signal strengths for up to four different radar sources. We have just one chief complaint with the Max 360's performance: The arrows are slow to react when the radar source changes positions relative to the detector. The "ahead" arrow often remains lit for several seconds after you've passed a stationary police car before finally flipping to the rear indicator. After it's acclimated to your local haunts, the Max 360 is quieter than most detectors thanks to Escort's own patented superpower that uses GPS to silence known stationary sources like motion detectors. In a world painted with radar waves, filtering out false alerts is a key part of sniffing out speed traps. Twenty years ago, the greatest annoyance was the automatic door opener at the gas station, but the traffic-flow sensors now lining our interstates and the blind-spot-monitoring systems built into today's cars can wreak havoc on a radar detector and your ability to use it effectively.
The Max 360's filtering isn't flawless, though. Anecdotally at least, the Max 360 seemed noticeably noisier than a Passport Max or a Passport Max 2. That's the downside of a rear-facing antenna: it also increases the unit's sensitivity to false alerts. Our test unit was particularly sensitive to K-band radar emitted by blind-spot-monitoring systems. During one morning commute we were antagonized by the world's most aggressively driven Buick Enclave. No matter how fast we drove, we couldn't escape the reach of its blind-spot radar and the grating brap of the Max 360. It's even worse when your car is the radar source. The Max 360 is virtually unusable in modern Hondas and Acuras equipped with blind-spot monitoring. The constant drip, drip, drip of a weak K-band signal from the rear is the acoustic analog of Chinese water torture. Turning the safety systems off in the car doesn't help, either. It merely disables the chimes and warning lights while the radar continues to transmit.
We're also surprised that the radar-detector industry continues to operate as if it is doesn't benefit from economies of scale or Moore's Law. While the Valentine One's $399 price hasn't moved in more than a decade, the $650 Max 360 does a fine job of making it look like a value. Both strategies seem out of touch with the era when great software is often free. Waze, the Google-owned, crowd-sourced navigation app is shockingly good at outing speed traps. Those who are in the know run Waze and a radar detector simultaneously, but plenty of lead-footed drivers rely solely on the free app. (Escort Live, the subscription-based app that interfaces with Escort radar detectors to mark and share speed-trap locations has too small of a user base to be reliable in most locations.) If you can afford the price, the Max 360 offers confidence-inspiring insurance against a cop with a radar gun. At the same time, the most expensive, most feature-packed device isn't automatically the best buy. More affordable detectors like the Valentine One and Escort's less expensive GPS-equipped units still offer excellent protection for a steep discount. |
| Best of 2015: Why Self-Driving <b>Cars</b> Must Be Programmed to Kill <b>...</b> Posted: 23 Dec 2015 09:00 PM PST  Self-driving cars are already cruising the streets. but before they can become widespread, carmakers must solve an impossible ethical dilemma of algorithmic morality. From October 2015…
When it comes to automotive technology, self-driving cars are all the rage. Standard features on many ordinary cars include intelligent cruise control, parallel parking programs, and even automatic overtaking—features that allow you to sit back, albeit a little uneasily, and let a computer do the driving. So it'll come as no surprise that many car manufacturers are beginning to think about cars that take the driving out of your hands altogether (see "Drivers Push Tesla's Autopilot Beyond Its Abilities"). These cars will be safer, cleaner, and more fuel-efficient than their manual counterparts. And yet they can never be perfectly safe. And that raises some difficult issues. How should the car be programmed to act in the event of an unavoidable accident? Should it minimize the loss of life, even if it means sacrificing the occupants, or should it protect the occupants at all costs? Should it choose between these extremes at random? (See also "How to Help Self-Driving Cars Make Ethical Decisions.") The answers to these ethical questions are important because they could have a big impact on the way self-driving cars are accepted in society. Who would buy a car programmed to sacrifice the owner? So can science help? |
| Nissan Juke Nismo RS: <b>car review</b> | Martin Love | Technology | The <b>...</b> Posted: 12 Dec 2015 10:00 PM PST Price: £21,650 When Nissan's Juke launched in 2010, it caused an immediate sensation and became one of the most divisive cars on the road. It was a real Marmite job and people either loved it or really loathed it. I remember seeing one for the first time, parked on a leafy lane in Devon. I screeched to a halt to marvel at its hideousness – that unsettling mix of flowing lines and sharp edges, that weird combination of round headlamps under a second set of top lights, as if a large car was devouring a smaller one. It reminded me of a snake swallowing whole a wide-eyed frog… What on earth was Nissan up to? But the dramatic looks and unusual high-riding stance has grown more familiar with the passing years, and the haters are slowly losing their battle with the likers. To my amazement, the Juke is now one of the bestselling cars in Britain. Some drivers want to stand out from the herd. They enjoy being individuals. When you own a Juke you are part of an in-crowd; a sorority of Juke drivers. Members flash their lights in silent salute as they pass you. You're part of a clique united by a passion for a small ugly car. It's probably the same for owners of small ugly dogs – the fellowship of the pug! The Juke gave a generation of motorists a choice. Where traditionally you'd have had to settle for a boring old supermini – a Fiesta or a Polo, maybe – now you could buy a miniature SUV with striking looks. This sort of styling requires sacrifices: the sloping roofline means the boot is smaller than you'd hope, despite a clever two-shelf affair, and the rear seats are cramped. Up front, the driver sits tall with a good view of the road, but somehow the cabin feels claustrophobic. There are five models in the Juke line-up: the cheapest, the Visia, is amazing value at £13,620. The car I drove is the range topper – a Nismo RS which costs £21,650. It gets an aggressive body kit which makes it look even more outlandish: in white it looks like it's going to the party as a Star Wars Stormtrooper. But you also get a big chunk of performance, tuned suspension, power steering, sport brakes, spoilers and a thrilling 1.6-litre 215bhp turbo which will blast you to 62mph in 7.9 seconds, only a fraction slower than a Golf GTi. The car also gets Nissan's award-winning Safety Shield, which sounds like a force field. Its cameras give you a 360-degree view, lane departure warning, blind spot assist and moving object detection. The Juke is sophisticated, sporty, affordable, reliable… But I still think it's ugly. Email Martin at martin.love@observer.co.uk or follow him on Twitter at @MartinLove166 |
| Mini JCW: 'This <b>car</b> asks: Are you having fun yet? The answer is, of <b>...</b> Posted: 11 Dec 2015 10:00 PM PST BMW Mini John Cooper Works: 'It's quirky, but it refuses to sacrifice performance for cuteness.' On day five with the Mini JCW (John Cooper Works, if you like your car to be known by a host of unconnected words), I mused aloud that if I didn't have children (they complained about the legroom, as they always do, and it's only going to get worse), and I did a lot of exciting driving, this is the car I would get. The eight-year-old said he now understood how the dog felt when we discussed what breed we'd get once he was dead. (The six-year-old said, in an unhurried monotone, "Sausage dog. Furry one.") Oh yes. In this natty little hot hatch, with its dials and binnacles and cup holders and darling gear stick, all-round shiny and joyful like a Marc Jacobs key ring, its beautiful red and racing green colour-way, its ever-ready revving, I can totally see it: just me, a wire-haired dachshund and the open road. It's quirky, but it refuses to sacrifice performance for cuteness. Related: On the road: Vauxhall Adam S – car review Only the double exhaust, with its sport-mode roaring, was a bit of a pantomime. Everything else was extremely well-pitched, at the person who loves to drive, especially when other people are watching. The steering is meaty and rewarding, and makes you want to lean back and make DIY driving noises. The JCW recently came out in this manual edition and, though I never drove it, I can't work out what the point of the automatic was: almost the entire thrill is in working through the gears, marvelling at the fresh burst of enthusiasm delivered by each one. This is all me, I thought, capering through the mundane traffic like a car late for a secret meeting with the other cool cars. All me and my mad skillz, plus my vroom-ing noises. The interior is high spec, but maybe too visually noisy to belong in a grownup's car: it's full of red cushions and patches and ledges, unnecessary contrasts that yell, "Are you having fun yet?" The answer is, of course, yes. The 0-62mph is unnecessarily good for any regular purpose (6.3 seconds), the handling is thrilling but beefy and reliable. It is low-slung and dinky and I, frankly, don't care that you can't fit anything in the boot, or that a backseat passenger is liable to show their pants as they clamber over the selfishly roomy front seats. It is not, by anyone's terms, a thrifty car, neither to buy nor to run. Even if you can live without the bells and whistles – heated seats, parking control – it's still nearly double the price of the cheapest Mini Cooper. Your heart will be able to tell you whether or not it's worth it.
Price £30,385 |
| You are subscribed to email updates from car review - Google Blog Search. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
No comments:
Post a Comment