cars and furious

Future Models - Nissan 2011 Murano

First official look: Nissan chops Murano’s top

Tops-off-roader: Roofless Murano is unlikely to be sold outside the US.

Murano convertible emerges from left-field as Nissan reveals 2011 CrossCabriolet

15 November 2010

IT WAS first seen in a grainy mobile phone image taken at a preview event in North America recently and now Nissan’s 2011 Murano CrossCabriolet has been officially revealed ahead of its world debut at the Los Angeles motor show on Wednesday (November 17).

Ruled out for sale in Australia and likely only ever to be sold in North America, the Murano-based CrossCabriolet combines crossover with convertible body styles in an unexpectedly cohesive way.

According to Nissan North America, which bills its as the world’s first all-wheel drive crossover convertible, the CrossCabriolet “delivers the open-air exhilaration of a convertible while extending the versatility of the Murano in exciting new ways”.

Confirmed for release in the US from early next year and aimed directly at sun-seeking SUV fans in southern California and Florida, the CrossCabriolet comes with just four seats but is claimed to represent “a breakthrough in concept and design” by offering space for golf bags or luggage even with the top down.

Apart from the CrossCabriolet, which Nissan says will feature a premium level interior, the Japanese brand will also use this week’s LA show to debut its Ellure sedan concept, a new Quest people-mover and the production version of the Leaf EV.

While Nissan Australia has committed to releasing what it claims will be the world’s first mass-produced EV here in 2012, there are no plans to introduce the CrossCabriolet, Quest or Ellure Down Under.

Nor does Nissan Australia plan to make available the 2.5dCi diesel version of the Murano that went on sale in Europe in September.

No further details have yet been provided for the CrossCabriolet, which was formally revealed today in a single side profile image, but it is expected to be a V6 petrol-only affair.

Future Models - Land Rover 2012 Range Rover Evoque

Geneva show: Land Rover springs Evoque cabrio

Raising the roof: Although presented as a concept, a decision could be made within weeks to put the Evoque convertible into production.

Range Rover Evoque Convertible to debut in Geneva to assess production future

LAND ROVER could decide within a month whether to build a convertible version of its stylish Range Rover Evoque compact SUV, depending how people react to its surprise debut at next week’s Geneva motor show.

The iconic British brand caught everyone off guard this week by revealing the first photos of the drop-top Evoque, which has been developed under the guidance of Land Rover design director Gerry McGovern.

Describing it as “the world’s first premium convertible SUV”, Land Rover clearly does not regard the Nissan Murano CrossCabriolet – which debuted at the Los Angeles motor show back in November 2010 and went on sale in the US last year – as being in the same class.

Believed to weigh only about 75kg more than the Evoque coupe on which it is based, the convertible concept features a fully retractable roof system, a rollover protection system and a drop-down tailgate.

Mr McGovern said the Evoque lent itself to a convertible conversion, with minimal changes to weight and torsional rigidity.

He said the concept would be used at Geneva to gauge reaction and assess the potential of a production model.

“The Evoque lends itself beautifully to the idea of a convertible,” said Mr McGovern.

“This study is not a traditional convertible design execution – instead we have worked with the balance of the Evoque’s lines to retain its distinctive shape and create something that is unique and, we believe, highly desirable.”

He said the Evoque’s distinctive rising waistline and shape have been retained, with the roof housed in a neat tapered finisher and the roof mechanism stowed below the belt-line.

The concept rides on unique 21-inch Titan silver wheels and is finished in a new metallic Causeway Grey paint.

Land Rover global brand director John Edwards said the company was excited to see the response to the concept.

“The Evoque Convertible Concept is a new twist to the Evoque story and explores the potential to further extend the nameplate’s appeal by giving existing customers more choice, while at the same time reaching out to a completely new customer base.”

cars and reviews

Suzuki / Kizashi / Sport AWD sedan

Our opinion

We like

Sharp steering, compliant ride, excellent handling, impressive traction, value for money, attractive styling

Room for improvement

Needs a manual, CVT can be a little slow to respond, Sport model should get a least a little more power and torque, styling not much different to other models

NOT many people expected Suzuki, which is known for making motorbikes, baby cars and small 4WDs, to come up with such a well-sorted medium-sized sedan as Kizashi.

The all-wheel-drive Sport version of the Kizashi pushes the model even further, and while it isn’t perfect, is a great car to drive in many conditions, thanks to its intelligent AWD system and the brilliant chassis set-up.

Suzuki Australia was keen to demonstrate the capability of the AWD system, so it launched the car in Queenstown, New Zealand.

Several hours of the drive were spent on a large expanse of snow at the Ski Farm vehicle testing park.

While the cars were fitted with chunkier snow tyres, the activity showed the strength of the AWD system.

One particular demonstration had us attempt to drive up a snow covered incline in front-drive mode. It was incredibly slow going and almost impossible to get up. Of course, switched to AWD the Kizashi managed it quite easily, as long as you were prepared to go easy on the throttle.

It was also fun to powerslide the Kizashi around in a safe environment. While fairly pointless, this proved just how well set up and how predictable the Kizashi Sport is.

It also performed extremely well on the way up to the Snow Farm on a twisty dirt road – used for the Race to The Sky rally – and some similarly twisty tarmac roads.

The standard Kizashi is a well-balanced vehicle, but the 10mm lower suspension and AWD system make it an absolute cracker.

It is a real treat, turning in just as you direct it to and sitting nice and flat in the turns.

Despite its sports intent, the suspension is not rock hard; the ride is extremely comfortable, but there is little pitch and roll.

An extremely bumpy road generated some steering rack rattle, but it only happened twice, otherwise the steering is good.

The AWD system gives this Suzuki a sure-footed feel. It seems to calculate a lack of grip quickly and intervene accordingly, sending 50 per cent of the drive torque to the rear wheels under acceleration (with a 20 per cent throttle opening).

The Kizashi Sport is a fun drive, but it would be a lot more fun if it had a manual version and an engine with a bit more punch.

The AWD Sport is available only with an efficient continuously variable automatic transmission (CVT). It works quite well in most conditions and was more than adequate in city traffic.

Pushed hard, the slurring of the CVT starts to spoil the drive. It can also take a while to respond and the driver has to wait for it to adjust and deliver more power after a slow corner.

After a while, you can adjust to get on the throttle earlier in the corner, but this is not ideal.

There is a ‘manual’ mode, and while this helps to simulate a manual gearbox, it doesn’t hold a gear, and can still be a bit slow to get going.

A manual transmission would allow control of the revs to pull out of those corners much faster. It also spares the ears the slurring the CVT controlled engine makes – not a pleasing tune.

On a positive note, the steering-wheel paddle shifters are easy to use, and the regular gear shifter is set up intuitively (moving it forward changes down and moving it back changes up).

The engine is adequate for most applications. It is generally smooth, although it can get generate some unpleasant vibrations nudging 4000rpm under load in some conditions.

Overall it is a reasonably torquey powerplant. However, this car has a Sport badge on it so we were disappointed there was not any extra grunt.

A turbocharger would be at the top of the wish list, but even an extra 10kW and 20Nm would probably make a considerable difference.

The car’s excellent handling only increases the desire for more herbs and spices.

Even after a day of merciless flogging, the fuel consumption average sat at 9.9 litres per 100km – and excellent result, given that the engine was working hard all day.

The standard Kizashi is an attractive car and the Sport is too, but they would need to be parked side by side to tell them apart. The Sport adds an extra dash of aggression, making in, in our opinion, the best looking mid-sized car by a considerable margin.

The interior is not overtly stylish, but modern and attractive, with everything is in the right place. It has a mix of metal-look trim sections, a black dashboard and doors and cream trim from the pillars upwards.

The front seats are fairly supportive, but they aren’t full on buckets. It is also comfortable in the back with lots of leg and headroom.

The front leather seats are electrically adjustable and, importantly in a Queenstown winter, have a heating function.

The AWD Sport Kizashi is well loaded with gear for the price. The sound system, with its huge rear subwoofer, is quite powerful. Sunroof, Bluetooth connectivity, bright HID light, dual-zone climate control and a key system which lets you get in and start without taking the key out of your pocket make this Kizashi easy to live with.

The Kizashi Sport is a convincing car and great value for money. I would love to have one as a comfortable daily driver, and weekend fun machine, but I couldn’t do it unless a manual version became available.

Some people won’t mind the CVT and might not push it so hard so often. For them, the Kizashi Sport AWD is a good buy, especially given it has the extra security of AWD in wet conditions, on snow and gravel.

Suzuki / Grand Vitara / range

Our opinion

We like

Refinement, smooth new 2.4-litre petrol four-cylinder, V6 performance, off-road ability

Room for improvement

Lack of cargo space, auto transmissions, ground clearance

ALTHOUGH market analysts can be wrong, they will argue that people who buy a compact SUV do not strictly-speaking drive them off-road. They are buying a station wagon that sits them higher than a car in traffic for better visibility and has a higher hip point, making it easier to get in and out of.

They also want four-wheel drive, so that they have a suitable traction system to handle the occasional jaunt to the snow or a slippery gravel road, or simply for added confidence in wet or greasy conditions.

Where image is concerned, with a compact SUV you can say to the world that you may have a healthy outdoors lifestyle - without hurting the environment - even if you only spend most of your time sitting in traffic eating cream buns and burning large quantities of fuel.

Yet Suzuki has stayed true to its off-road origins by continuing to offer a civilised, compact SUV that also has the hardware to go off-road.

While we would hate to see Suzuki lose the off-road features it has (such as dual-range full-time 4WD), it's fair to say that the greatest sales volume in this segment is generated by products that provide much less off-road ability.

With this first upgrade of the third-generation model - just three years after introduction - Suzuki has made an effort to improve the Grand Vitara’s performance and refinement. To make it more like its competition, in other words - without losing its rugged nature.

The new 2.4-litre is very linear in its power delivery, with tractable low-rpm performance and smooth revving nature at high rpm. It gets a little raucous from around 5000rpm on its way to the 6500rpm cut-out.

The carry-over turbo-diesel engine, with its new dual-mass flywheel, is much smoother - athough it is still not the quietest diesel in the business.

The new 3.2-litre V6 is a much better engine than the 2.7-litre it replaces. It has a clear improvement in power but like Suzuki V6s ever since the 2.0-litre V6 in the first Grand Vitara, mid-range torque does not seem its strong suit. Perhaps we’re spoilt by the current crop of mega-torque turbo-diesels.

Maybe the way the automatic transmission operates has something to do with the V6’s apparent lack of torque.

The five-speed auto seems to have the right pick of ratios and in Drive it is a very smooth, subtle shifter. However, it simply won’t reach into the power band on kickdown though, resulting in sluggish overtaking performance.

Once you discover the ‘Power’ button (hidden from the driver’s view on the left side of the gear selector) the V6 comes alive with a deep lunge into the rev band. The high-revving nature of the engine rewards with quick - if not RAV4 V6-quick - results.

The auto’s gated lever is not the best of this type, with gears awkward to select manually and in the five-speed auto both second and third gears share a slot – meaning you cannot hold second gear - the transmission will eventually shift to third gear.

The five-speed manual, standard in the 2.4-litre (and the only transmission for the turbo-diesel), is direct enough but does have a tendency to baulk in the one-two plane under quick gearchanges and the shifter has side-to-side movement not normally associated with the most recent manual gearboxes. Not bad, but not brilliant either.

The four-speed auto (optional in the 2.4) really is crying out for another ratio. The gap between first and second gear (about 2000rpm) is too wide and the 2.4 struggles to find the power or torque at the right time.

The Grand Vitara seems large enough for a couple or a couple with young children, but otherwise it becomes a stretch for interior space.

There seem a few elements of the interior that are surprisingly old-school for a three-year-old design.

For example, where many other manufacturers have a seat back that folds onto a compact seat base to present a flat long load floor, the Grand Vitara’s rear seat double folds to rest against the back of the front seats - and has a strap to hold it in place, just like most of the SUV wagons of the 1990s did.

Even though Suzuki appears to have made the seat back and base as slim as possible, this design just doesn’t allow the cargo space that other more clever designs do.

Another design issue is that the rear seat is set back between the wheel wells, making the rear seat narrow for three occupants. Most new designs place the rear seat ahead of the wheel wells, allowing a wider seat and better access, too.

Cargo space is acceptable, given that the Grand Vitara is a slimmer compact SUV than some other compacts that have seemingly morphed into medium SUVs. There is a low loading lip, four tie-down points and four hooks on the cargo walls.

Despite a rear seat that is on the narrow side and feels more like a perch than a lounge, it is all comfy goodness up in the front. The bucket seats are supportive and comfortable for long stints on the rough roads served up in the Northern Territory.

The perceived quality of the Grand Vitara doesn’t seem quite as good as some of its competitors. Yet on the launch - despite more than 300km bone-shaking rough NT roads - we experienced no problems.

The Grand Vitara is not the most dynamic compact in its class, with a front-end that prefers to run wide with a fair degree of bodyroll and while the steering is direct enough, it could offer better road feel. The story is better with the optional 18-inch wheels, but the Grand Vitara’s chassis is built for comfort, not fast cornering.

That does not mean that the Grand Vitara is like an SUV of old to drive - it can be turned-in nicely in tight dirt corners. It’s better than a RAV4, but like the RAV4, the Bridgestone Dueler tyres don’t seem to do any favours for grip.

Ride quality and body rigidity appear to be very good. We tested the new model on the Mereenie Loop Road - one of the worst possible dirt road surfaces you could expect to encounter, with corrugations, bulldust holds and potholes - and the Grand Vitatra took it in its stride.

Although the three-door has a 200mm shorter wheelbase, it feels almost as planted on the road as the five-door, which is not always the case with a short-wheelbase model.

The standard stability control - which is not as intrusive as other stability control systems - quells any wayward behaviour anyway. ESP is switchable in high range at speeds up to 30km/h - beyond which is permanently on. ESP deactivates entirely in low-range, although traction control remains on.

The off-road performance of the Grand Vitara is very good, although the low-range reduction is not quite what it could be on the V6. The V6’s hill descent control is worth using, as without it the high-revving V6 doesn’t have quite enough engine braking and will run away on steeper stuff.

Bumpy high-crown roads can be problematic with the Grand Vitara because it doesn’t have a surfeit of clearance to begin with and as the independent suspension compresses, clearance is even less. The exhaust is quite low at the break-over point and the three-door’s rear muffler also is exposed.

The inclusion of traction control will make a doddle of steep climbs, on which the previous model’s open front and rear diffs would cause the Grand Vitara to come to a halt. While the river sand we drove though at the Finke River did not present any problems, the traction control may become too intrusive for deep sand driving.

There might be bigger, faster and sportier SUV compacts but none offer the blend of versatility that the Grand Vitara does. More luggage space would endear it more to families and no matter what Suzuki does, the hard-core off-roaders will never be quite be happy with it.

Yet if you do drive on steep, slippery state forest tracks on the weekend but want a smooth, user-friendly city car, it would be hard to go past the Grand Vitara, especially in new 2.4-litre form.

hot cars with girls

Mitsubishi / Lancer / sedan range

Our opinion

We like

Standard stability control, high levels of equipment, smooth engine, improved handling

Room for improvement

Flat seats in ES and VR models, louder than expected tyre noise, CVT feels sluggish

MITSUBISHI's redesigned Lancer sedan gains the upper hand in the small car class before you even turn the key.

By including electronic stability control across the range with a starting price of $20,990, Mitsubishi has taken the high ground when it comes to safety.

It’s a bold move, and one that should be commended, especially when ESC is not even available as an option for the all-new Toyota Corolla range.

Whether or not stability control is high enough on the priority lists of small car buyers remains to be seen.

The evidence so far suggests that they don’t care enough about safety to cough up extra cash, but ESC is becoming better known and awareness campaigns such as the one run by the TAC in Victoria seem to be changing attitudes.

Most fleet operators have previously been opposed to safety features that add cost, but that’s also changing as vehicle safety is increasingly seen as a part of occupational health and safety obligations.

A feature that is more likely to appeal to small car customers is the cruise control that is standard on all Lancers.

It is amazing to think that Mitsubishi can include this demerit point and money-saving feature for a $20,990 car, when the $36,490 Ford Focus XR5 goes without it.

The styling of the Lancer is likely to lure quite a few buyers into showrooms.

It looks good is base form, although at this week’s launch near Canberra the base cars were fitted with alloy-rims from the dealer accessory catalogue.

The VRX, which looks like slightly toned-down version of the Evo, will appeal to a lot of younger drivers who traditionally buy Lancers and then weigh them down with a full outfit of plastic skirts and spoilers.

With that brutal nose, the slit headlights and overt bodykit, the VRX comes pre-made as a boy-racer – just add a big exhaust.

So the Lancer ticks all the boxes for safety, equipment and appearance, but what about the drive experience?

Well, it’s actually pretty good.

A Ford Focus still handles better and feels faster, but this Lancer drives pretty well and is a big improvement over the last car.

When you drove the base model of the previous Lancer, it really a bland experience and there was a whiff of cheapness that just wouldn’t go away.

Its steering was rubbery, the suspension was too soft and the car just felt rather second rate.

The new car feels quite well tied down.

Its steering doesn’t set new standards, but is well weighted and gives a reasonable amount of feedback.

The suspension is well tuned and the car was well composed on some rough country roads on the launch.

Its body control is quite good, there is very little bodyroll and the car feels much more solid than the last.

I was expecting to notice a big difference between the way the sport-tuned VRX and the two lesser models handled, but it was not obvious.

There was perhaps a slightly sharper feel to the steering, thanks to the lower-profile tyres, but the ride comfort was not affected much and the VRX didn’t seem to handle all that much better.

That isn’t a big problem because the base car already handles well enough, although you would expect the cars to have a more obvious character differences.

None of them felt particularly harsh when it came to ride comfort.

They feel firmer than previous Lancer models, but not harsh, even on rougher roads.

Tyre noise, especially on the coarse-chip tarmac used in the country, was quire noticeable. It can cause quite a roar and wind-noise around the A-pillar was also present.

The new 2.0-litre engine is a good thing, with quite a lot of torque on tap. It’s smooth and rather quiet.

You can rev it right out, but there really isn’t all that much grunt up the top of the rev range.

The five-speed manual is a decent gearbox and is the best option for getting the most out of the engine.

The Lancer’s CVT automatic is better than many on the market.

The slurring sound of the adjusting gear ratios can be off-putting when you are really pushing the car along, but it is not all that loud when you are driving normally.

It does feel quite slow to get going with this transmission in some conditions and the performance figures show the automatic is one second slower 0-100km/h.

The pre-set gear ratio in manual mode for the auto doesn’t seem to help much.

Owners may enjoy showing the metal gearshift paddles of the VRX automatic to their friends, but it’s unlikely they will use them much after the initial novelty has worn off.

Fuel economy from the test drive came in at around 8.0L/100km, which is pretty good when you consider we were revving the engine out a fair amount to get a feel for it.

The cabin room of the Lancer is excellent and is best described as cavernous.

Rear passengers enjoy plenty of headroom and legroom. As with almost all cars these days the middle seat of the second row is very uncomfortable, thanks to a fold-down armrest that retracts into the back cushion.

The seats in the two base models are reasonably flat and unsupportive, but the VRX seats gain larger side bolsters which are much better.

The split/folding rear seat opens up a large storage area and the boot is big as well.

Interior quality has never been a highpoint for Lancers.

The new one is better, although it is probably not the best around.

It has a fairly simple, logical layout and looks fine.

The plastics are all hard, and some sections have a slightly budget look, but the general appearance is of a good quality car.

The only real noticeable difference between the two lower models and the VRX is a metal-look dashboard and door strip that is replaced by a carbon-fibre look section.

Mitsubishi says the VRX also gets a different seat trim, but you could have fooled us.

Both are black with a white specked pattern and few people will be able to pick the difference.

Apart from the bold bodykit and wheels, there is not a heap that distinguishes the VRX from the mid-spec VR model, unless you use a Bluetooth phone or like the gimmick of the keyless entry and start.

The VRX also gets the automatic headlights and rain-sensing wipers, but I don’t have a huge issue with turning on the headlights myself or flicking on the windscreen wipers when it starts to rain.

One option that drivers who like their music should examine is the premium Rockford Fosgate sound system, which sounds brilliant.

Given that the Lancer sound system head-unit is integrated, choosing the factory option is the only way to dramatically improve sound without having to cut into the dashboard to fit a different head-unit.

Sound systems can be awfully expensive too, so spending $750 is not all that much.

Mitsubishi / Lancer / Ralliart range

Our opinion

We like

SST dual-clutch gearbox, styling, performance, comfort, versatility, safety, grip, reputation, value, five-year warranty

Room for improvement

No steering column reach adjustability, shiny black dash trim cheapens cabin, some road noise intrusion, sedan’s vision-obstructing rear spoiler, some slight steering rack rattle, no manual availability

AUDI’S seminal 1980 Ur-Quattro started it and the Ford KE-KH Laser TX3 and Mazda BF 323 Turbo 4WD twins brought the concept to the mainstream, but we have to thank Mitsubishi for truly kicking off the definitive and practical affordable forced-induction all-wheel drive pocket-rocket package in Australia.

Some 15 crucial months before Subaru hijacked the idea with its epochal Impreza WRX (little more than a scaled-down version of its 1991 Liberty RS Turbo, it must be said in Subaru’s defence), the CC Lancer GSR Turbo 4WD stunned recession-weary small-car buyers in October 1992 by sheer virtue of its formidable performance and all-weather grip.

That Mitsubishi introduced the GSR four-door sedan at a giveaway $28,960 (almost the same price as a Toyota Camry CSi) gives you some idea of how sensational the fastest Lancer of the time really was.

A skyrocketing Japanese currency soon put paid to the Mitsubishi’s price advantage, and eventually helped kill the car when the all-new CE Lancer lobbed in during 1996, but the GSR still holds a special place for bargain-performance car lovers.

In 2008, Mitsubishi is trying to rekindle some of this love, and show upstarts like the WRX and Golf GTI (only worthy of its reputation in Australia since 2005) with the Ralliart.

Let’s start with its static virtues and vices.

The Ralliart’s even-sharkier nose and bonnet treatment lift this above bread-and-butter Lancers for sure, and the Sportback’s high-set hatch spoiler looks better in our opinion than the sedan’s rather too-ostentatious (and vision-impeding) boot-mounted item.

It’s too bad there aren’t sexier alloys either, as the VRX items are more ‘Verada’ than va-va voom.

Inside, it’s a similar story, with the CJ Lancer’s neat if slightly dull dashboard doing little to add the same sense of occasion as, say, the camp tartan trimming the interior of a Golf GTI. Shiny black plastic just doesn’t cut it on a $40K-plus car. Sorry, Mitsubishi.

But other than restricted reversing vision (spoilt on the Sportback by its thick pillars) and an occasionally rattly steering column that will tilt yet not reach, the driving position is fine, and the seats amply supportive.

They need to be, because the Ralliart lives up to its name by liking corners, on all manner of road surfaces.

Ours were mostly dry with only the occasionally damp patch and one loose track bit experienced during our 200km-odd driving session, but we came away secure in the Mitsubishi’s mighty all-wheel drive grip.

Thrown into a fast, sharp corner, and the Ralliart’s attitude centred on the neutral, keeping calm and composed despite the speed in which the turn was taken.

Body control is one of this car’s greatest assets, as is a steering set-up that is nicely weighted and quite instantaneous in its reactions. If only Mitsubishi could dial in a bit more feel from the helm.

Initial acceleration in the admittedly low-mileage test cars was more sparkling than startling (and we are willing to swear that the 35kg lighter sedan seems sprightlier than the porky Sportback), but the turbocharged 4WD Lancer is still an extremely swift and smooth cruiser anyway, easily coping with all manner of sealed roads while stealthily tracking along at quite illegal speeds, in the manner of a much larger vehicle.

Adding to this is the super-slick workings of the TC-SST dual-clutch sequential gearbox, which lives up to expectations as an ideal compromise between a conventional automatic and manual gearbox. The paddle shifters are well placed too.

Maybe it’s the almost 1600kg weight of the Sportback, blunted by the AWD system and held back by the tenacious hold of the rubber, but getting the most out of the Ralliart’s performance by flooring it constantly has obvious fuel consumption consequences.

On the other hand, we really did enjoy exploring the power and driving dynamics of this particular Lancer, and realise that 12.5 to 13.5L/100km is not too bad a figure for a car capable of 220km/h.

Certain bitumen types betrayed the Ralliart’s road-noise deadening abilities, though, but this wasn’t always the case on the rural roads we drove on. A test in more built-up urban areas is needed as well, since we found little to complain about with this car’s ride quality.

Like the low-key styling, the attributes of the fastest Lancer this side of the heroic Evolution X takes time to fully realise and appreciate.

The more we drove in it, the more apparent it became that, for the outlay, the Ralliart does offer an outstanding alternative to the WRX as well as its hot-hatch rivals.

If you loved the idea of the original Lancer GSR from all those years ago, then the reborn CJ Lancer version makes for a fitting successor.

Mitsubishi / Lancer / ES sedan

Our opinion

We like

Styling, safety, practicality, eager handling, sporty engine performance, great fuel economy, value, long warranty

Room for improvement

Lots of road noise, low-speed dynamic finesse falters at speed, firm ride

By BYRON MATHIOUDAKIS 29/02/2008

SOME car-makers would kill to have the Mitsubishi Lancer’s slightly renegade reputation.

Always a little rough around the edges, this most masculine of small-cars has been a proven rally champion since its 1974 Aussie inception, and maintained a somewhat roguish appeal through its turbo-charged 4WD Evolution incarnations in the 1990s and today, despite the pseudo Celica Lancer Liftback series of 1977 to 1981.

Indeed, speak to any kid raised on a Playstation Gran Turismo and they’ll tell you that the Lancer has the street cred to cut it.

Like somebody’s cocky kid brother, the Lancer has long lacked the final polish and social graces to win road test comparisons. Raffish against a Corolla, uncouth compared to a Mazda3, even the rather dowdy previous-generation CG/CH series drove to its own beat.

So has any of this boyish charm changed with the CJ series released late last year?

Well, stylistically speaking, the pudginess of the previous model has given way to a handsome four-door sedan with a very Alfa 156 profile, an aristocratic nose (to more gently snuff out wayward pedestrians), rising feature line in profile and wide track wheelarches that improve the Lancer’s road stance out of sight.

And Italy-meets-Magna is the only way you’d describe the distinctly Japanese matching front and rear-end graphics.

For the record, the car’s shadow is 35mm longer and 65mm wider than before, with the wheelbase and front and rear track having also grown accordingly.

The interior is instantly familiar to anybody who has sat in a current model Outlander SUV. Both share the same platform, with the Lancer also adopting much of its cabin architecture.

(In fact, the CJ Lancer series shares its platform with the Outlander compact SUV, as well as the Dodge Caliber hatch and Avenger sedan, Chrysler Sebring, Jeep Patroit and Jeep Compass compact SUVs.)

Hmm... lots of (albeit well-made) hard black plastics surfaces, relieved by a concerted effort in symmetry, minimalism and metallic-style horizontal trim spearing from door to door across the appealingly modern facia.

In fact the whole dashboard works well, with easy reach of the audio controls in the upper half of the console (flanked by a pair of effective ventilation outlets) and a most generic set of heater, ventilation and air-conditioning controls below. It all looks classy lit up at night too.

Very Alfa-esque too is the cowled instrumentation binnacle, housing a nicely designed speedometer on the left and a 6500rpm-redlined tachometer to the right, with an electronic display for temperature, fuel, trip and odometer-related information. It’s even illuminated in the same red as you’d find in a 147 or 156. Very smart indeed.

What isn’t so clever is the upper console digital display that is all but impossible to read in direct sunlight or when the headlights are turned on during the day. You can’t increase the illumination either.

However, a decent sized glovebox, lots of slots for bits and pieces, large exterior mirrors and a comfortable driving position shows that Mitsubishi hasn’t taken its eye off the important aspects of interior design and layout.

Four overhead grab-handles, a very Euro-style lane-change indicator function and a nicely integrated audio set-up further enhance the Lancer inside.

The front seats are broad if a little flat in support (offering no lumber adjustment is an oversight), but the driver’s is height adjustable, the good looking T-spoke steering wheel of perfect size tilts, and there is just about enough space up front for even the tallest folk.

In the back, there is also agreeable room for two adults and a small kid, backed up by lots of leg space, a decent amount of shoulder and headroom, and head restraints and a lap/sash seatbelt for all three.

Mitsubishi says that there is more space overall inside the CJ Lancer than there is in the 1985 to 1991 first-generation TM-TP Magna sedan.

The 400-litre capacity boot is backed up by a split-fold rear seat that makes the most of the cargo space this car offers, although the rear backrests only fall onto the cushion, resulting in a non-flat load area into the cabin. The aperture into the boot is quite small too.

On the road, the eager yet extremely economical 2.0-litre four-cylinder petrol engine proves that Mitsubishi has learnt much from its years in competition.

Rorty, revvy and punchy, with a wide spread of torque to draw upon, it endows the Lancer with almost hot-hatch vigour when coupled with a slick and easy short-throw five-speed manual gearbox and well-measured light clutch that make light work of rowing the Lancer along.

The Mitsubishi’s real world acceleration feels faster than the official figures suggest – the manual ES sprints to 100km/h in 9.5 seconds on the way to a 200km/h top speed – particularly once on the move.

Surprisingly quick and communicative steering and a flat attitude to cornering further cement the Lancer’s driver-orientated attitude, aided by plenty of grip from the front wheels, a rear-end that likes to stick to the road, and a general poise and balance that urges keener drivers to push on harder.

However, as speeds build, the Lancer begins to lose composure, and can become a little ragged through quicker corners.

The driver needs to be attentive with constant steering corrections in order to maintain fluid progress, while the steering does not quite impart the same sort of confidence promised at lower velocities. And while grip isn’t lost easily at all, a nice clean cornering line can be.

Perhaps the Yokohama Advan 206/60R16 tyres are letting the side down a bit, but the Lancer loses any air of sophistication that its complex multi-link rear suspension specification might suggest.

Plus, the ride, while firm and absorbent, isn’t as supple as the comfiest small cars (Ford Focus, VW Golf, Nissan Tiida and Mazda3), lacking their ability to smother most road imperfections.

And there is far too much road noise coming into the cabin. Perhaps the Mazda 3 inspired the Lancer a tad too much in this regard. On the other hand, the sporty signature-Lancer exhaust note can be quite appealing to some.

In our estimation, the Mitsubishi stands with the Mazda and Focus as the most desirable small sedans available at the price.

Along with dual front airbags, the company should be congratulated for fitting ESC stability and traction control and a knee area airbag as standard equipment, and offers the added safety of side and curtain airbags for a miniscule $800 extra.

With even the base model ES (tested here) also including cruise control, air-conditioning, power windows, electric mirrors, CD/MP3 compatible audio and a comprehensive trip computer display, the Lancer cements its position among the top three small-cars for value as well.

Right now, we can’t think of a better-looking sedan in that class either.

Still a tad rambunctious, Mitsubishi’s once-adolescent Lancer is now a more sophisticated but never boring and still extremely likable young larrikin.

Mitsubishi / i-MiEV / 5-dr hatch

Our opinion

We like

Performance, silent running, cheap ‘refuelling’, interior space

Room for improvement

Range anxiety, handling, basic interior with hard surfaces, no steering wheel adjustment, high price

WITH the first commercially available electric car in Australia parked in your driveway, it’s hard not to feel like the automotive pioneers of the late 19th Century.

As much as it is simple to drive and running costs are very small, you quickly experience the reality of “range anxiety”.

Just as those pioneer drivers must have been preoccupied with the daily challenge of how and where they would be able to refuel their innovative horseless carriages, so you inevitably concern yourself with where and when you might be able to next recharge your Mitsubishi i-MiEV electric car.

For a start, it’s not quite as easy as the car-makers would like us to believe – at least at this stage of EV infrastructure development.

You can’t just park your EV in the garage and plug it into a regular power socket, for a start. They are only 10 amps and you need a 15-amp power supply. Bugger!

And that 15-amp outlet at the factory? No, sorry. That has a regular Aussie three-point socket and, while the i-MiEV’s umbilical cord has a three-point pin alright, the earth pin is too big to fit in our plug. I guess we could have filed it down, but we didn’t think our friends at Mitsubishi would appreciate that.

People experienced with similar compatibility problems with caravans and caravan parks tell me they make their own short adapter leads using plugs from a hardware store, but we didn’t like the idea of risking a rare and expensive car with such a bush mechanic lash-up.

And, despite companies like Better Place having talked about hundreds of charge points and battery-swap stations being installed in our major cities, it has yet to happen – at least in Melbourne – and goodness knows when it will.

Sure, we could have taken it back to the Eastside Mitsubishi dealership and used their specially installed plug, but we could think of better things to do than spend seven hours sitting in their waiting room for it to recharge.

And all that talk about quick-chargers? Well, now you’re talking about a mini power station and apparently every time you use one it shortens the life-expectancy of the battery pack, which of course represents a major cost when it inevitably comes time for replacement.

Here at GoAuto, it’s probably worth our while spending a few hundred dollars to get a suitable power supply hooked up, but of course that will not suit everyone. You would hardly want to install one in a rental property, for instance,

So what did we do for our test? Sorry, but we copped out. We booked the car for just four days instead of the usual week and planned to keep our mileage down so we could simply return the i-MiEV before the battery died.

With a quoted range of up to 160km (depending on driving style), we thought a schedule of 120km would realistic but in the end the warning lights started flashing after about 80km and by the time we got the i-MiEV back to the dealer it had done little more than 90km and was on the verge of going into limp-home mode.

We know of one other journo who took the car for a country drive and turned back just before the charge level reached halfway, but there was a headwind on the return drive that sent the gauge tumbling and he was seriously nervous about making it back. Talk about range anxiety.

These are the realities of EVs currently (if you’ll excuse the pun). There is no problem with the cars themselves, but the reality of ownership seriously constricts uptake. It’s all very well for a council or university to install the appropriate recharging equipment, but if there is to be an electric future then widespread infrastructure is essential.

Of course, it’s a classic supply and demand conundrum.

Getting back to the good news on the i-MiEV – and other EVs – is that it is very user-friendly in terms of operation. My girlfriend was able to jump in and drive the i-MiEV to the shops with only minimal instruction and loved the experience.

We’ve driven the i-MiEV before, but there’s a big difference between a two-kilometre sample with a technician sitting alongside and a proper test where you jump in and drive away for the best part of a week on your own. This was like being thrown the keys by Karl Benz.

Not that there is a proper key with the i-MiEV. You just turn the dummy key in the steering column and … nothing. Just a little click and ‘Ready’ light to tell you the car is set to go.

Push the throttle and the i-MiEV smoothly eases away with a subtle electric motor hum; push a little harder and the car accelerates briskly, thanks to considerably more torque than you would expect from an equivalent petrol-powered city-car.

Although there is little engine noise, and not much wind noise either, 100km/h on the freeway feels faster than that. Yet the little i-MiEV handles it easily and cruises comfortably. It is speed-limited to 130km/h but is apparently capable of reaching 160km/h.

With a familiar auto-style P-R-N-D T-bar shift for the single-speed transmission, driving around town is just like driving any other city-car, only quieter, smoother and faster (though making the most of the latter significantly reduces the range).

In fact, it is so quiet – especially when you’re stopped at the lights – that you become very aware of surrounding noises, like the radio in the car next to you or even pedestrians’ conversations.

Unfortunately, Mitsubishi’s usual annoying seatbelt reminder is still present so you get nagging chimes as soon as you turn the key, even before you take off.

Engine braking is quite severe (in a good way), so you hardly need to use the brake pedal - even in regular Drive mode, let alone the special ‘Brake’ setting on the transmission that increases the braking effect and power regeneration.

Ride quality is very good – probably better than regular cars of the same size because the i-MiEV is much heavier – but the same cannot be said of the handling. The narrow motorcycle-style tyres might have low rolling-resistance, but they look like a joke and provide precious little lateral grip, even in the dry. We’re glad we didn’t get to try it on a slippery wet surface.

Despite being smaller than light cars like the Toyota Yaris and only marginally bigger than a Smart, the i-MiEV’s tallboy styling – courtesy of Frenchman Olivier Boulay – provides more interior space than you might expect and there’s actually plenty of room in the back seat for carrying adults.

However, interior comfort is hardly the i-MiEV’s strong suit and is more in keeping with an ecobox costing $12k than the $48,800 demanded here.

The seats are flat and have little side support – not that there’s much lateral force to deal with! – but at least those in the rear have quite long squabs and provide good thigh support.

The plastics are quite hard and dull, there are few pockets, compartments or cupholders, and there is no steering wheel adjustment at all, not even height.

On the plus side, the instrumentation is quite neat, with a central digital speedo surrounded by an arched economy gauge to help you extend that battery range, flanked by ‘Mickey Mouse ears’ that show the ‘fuel’ level on the left and trip info on the right.

Considering its price, the i-MiEV is only reasonably well-equipped, with automatic climate-control and sat-nav, although the latter regularly froze on us for no apparent reason, which was quite annoying. And there’s no cruise control.

Visibility is very good, helped by the steeply sloping windscreen that provides a sneaky little peep window between the A-pillar and side mirror so you get a reasonable view of traffic islands and corner apexes.

Overall, the i-MiEV is surprisingly easy to drive and live with. It is a tribute to Mitsubishi and a significant milestone in automotive history. Of course, range anxiety at this point is a reality, but nobody expects EVs to be for everybody at this stage of their development.

Right now, the i-MiEV appears like something out of Futurama, but to the next generation it will seem as modern as Karl Benz’s moustache.

Audi / A4 / 2.0 TDIe sedan

Our opinion

WHO would have ever thought that the car industry would be so focussed on making its cars more fuel efficient? It has happened before, with the numerous oil crises, but this time fuel thrift is here to stay.

Audi’s latest short to medium term solution is to employ technology such as an idle-stop system and regenerative braking to eke out the best economy possible.

Audi’s fuel figures are impressive: its latest mid-size A4 TDIe returns an official average of 4.8L/100km, which is getting to the pointy end of the fuel economy race.

One of the realities of manufacturers’ fuel consumption claims is that they can be hard to achieve in practice, and the Audi A4 TDIe is no different. We achieved 5.7L/100km in an urban/country mix, and 7.2L/100km in the city.

Still, that’s not bad for a premium German sedan and only a few years ago would have been the sort of figures you’d only achieve with a small turbo-diesel hatch.

The A4’s cabin oozes quality and refinements that belie its sub-$50K starting price.

Sure the rear legroom is a bit tight, the A-pillars impede vision a little and the side mirrors could be bigger for better rear vision (at the loss of aesthetics I suppose) but as a whole it is comfortable and makes the buyer feel as though it was money well spent.

The turbo-diesel is not only thrifty but also provides a reassuring mid-range punch when needed. Better still, the transition from the characteristic turbo-diesel soft throttle response off the mark to a torquey mid-range is finely blended; it is smooth and predicable.

Some turbo-diesels may well have better torque but are not as drivable because it feels as if you are reaching for an on-off switch when the vehicle lunges forward as it reaches its peak torque.

The 2.0-litre is a smooth diesel too, with a keenness to extend to its redline. The only point at which the diesel feels a little clunky is when it fires up automatically as part of the stop-start feature. You can feel the engine rocking on its mounts, as if it resented being woken up.

The manual transmission feels better to use than in other A4s we’ve sampled. Light, positive shifts are the norm, and the same applies to the clutch operation.

The Audi’s ride and handling are above par, too; it has the fine suppleness to its ride over sharp bumps that many manufacturers still can’t get right, and also remains tightly controlled at higher speeds – although it’s not in the same league as BMW.

The A4 TDIe is a front wheel-drive car but its responses to input make it almost feel like a rear-driver. Granted, it’s a long way from being an accomplished rear-drive track car, but for what it is, it’s pretty good.

In a world that is demanding lighter, leaner more efficient cars, it is good to see that some manufacturers have not lost the point that some drivers still enjoy driving.

Although the stop-start system is not especially subtle in operation, this is a minor quibble when you are eating your cake and having it too.

Audi / A3 / Sportback 5-dr hatch range

AUSTRALIA’S premium small-car market is on fire at the moment. Overall sales in the segment are up by a massive 67 per cent to the end of August compared to the same period last year.
In fact, a quick glance at the VFACTS sales figures for the first eight months of 2013 suggests it has experienced a bigger increase than any other segment.
It’s been a very busy year in that marketplace with Mercedes-Benz launching its A-Class sales juggernaut in March and Volvo pushing for more volume with its V40 hatch range that arrived in February.
Audi came slightly late to the party with its all-new A3 Sportback range in May, but it has made up for lost time with strong month-on-month sales, chasing Benz and even bettering the BMW 1 Series in August.
Audi’s Australian arm is banking on even higher sales with the introduction of two new variants this month – the 1.4 TFSI with fuel-saving Cylinder on Demand (CoD) technology and the 1.8 TFSI with Quattro all-wheel drive.
Both models are based on variants that already exist. The inclusion of the fuel sipping technology and all-wheel drive naturally comes with a price increase.
The 1.4 TFSI with CoD offered in base Attraction spec at $37,900 plus on-road costs is $2300 more expensive than the original, while the 1.8 TFSI Quattro adds $3000 to the cost of the two-wheel drive version for a price of $45,500.
For the money, the fuel efficiency focussed 1.4 TFSI includes 16-inch alloy wheels, reverse parking sensors, dual-zone automatic climate control, dynamic suspension, leather-wrapped steering wheel, a pop-up colour display, paddle shifters and Bluetooth connectivity.
The 1.8 TFSI Ambition adds 17-inch alloys, aluminium window surrounds, Audi Drive mode select, front fog lights and front leather-appointed sports seats.
Audi is one of a number of European car-makers that offers a suite of options across its model range that can easily push the price of the car out by thousands of dollars.
Audi says it has consolidated its optional features list for the third-generation A3, and now offers 13 individual options, down from 27 in the superseded model.
A lot of options are now grouped together in packages, and there are now five of these to choose from, up from two in the previous A3.
Both vehicles tested were optioned up with a number of packages.
The 1.4 TFSI CoD featured the Technik package which includes sat-nav, park assist and a reversing camera for $2990, the Style package with 17-inch wheels, Xenon headlights and LED daytime running lights for $2000, the Assistance package with adaptive cruise control, Audi’s Pre-sense collision warning system and lane-departure warning for $1800.
All of this plus the $1350 optional Milano leather added $8050 to the $37,900 recommended retail price.
The Technik and S line sports packages added to the 1.8 TFSI Quattro hiked the price up by even more, with an $8240 increase to $53,740.
To be fair, a number of major competitors, including the BMW 1 Series, also offer a similarly dizzying array of options for a price.
Audi’s unmatched reputation for creating beautiful cabins, regardless of the size or price of the vehicle thankfully continues with the A3 Sportback. The 1.4 TFSI CoD features a lovely two-tone colour scheme with the luxurious leather seats contrasting beautifully with the dark-grey soft-touch materials of the dash.
The compact proportions of the A3 give a cosseting feeling and visibility is excellent at all angles, while the boot features best-in-class capacity of 380 litres with rear seats up and 1220L when folded.
Put your foot down in the eco-friendly hatch and there is a hint of turbo lag from the Volkswagen Group’s 103kW/250Nm 1.4-litre turbo-petrol engine, but once you move past it, the Audi gives solid straight-line performance. Audi claims it is good for the zero to 100km/h dash in 8.4 seconds and we have no reason to dispute that.
We’ve remarked before that the new A3 is a dynamic leap over the old one. It may lack the rear-drive playfulness of a 1 Series, but it has sharp turn-in, excellent body control and quick electric steering.
The seven-speed DSG produces smooth changes and is well-matched to the sprightly little engine – those kinks are being increasingly ironed out as time goes by.
Audi chose not to include the monitor highlighting when the cylinder deactivation kicks as they do with the more up-market S6, S7 and S8 models, so there is no way to tell when it is operating.
Keeping an eye on the revs gives you some idea, as the system starts at around 1300 to 3900rpm and cuts out cylinders two and three when coasting and at low speeds to improve fuel use.
Official fuel consumption for the 1.4 TFSI CoD of 4.7 litres per 100km is best in class for petrol models, and a 0.3L/100km improvement on the regular version.
Our brief drive through South Australia’s McLaren Vale region returned figures of 7.0L/100km.
The 1.8 TFSI Quattro’s cabin is bathed in darker colours than the 1.4 TFSI and replaces the standard front leather seats with Alcantara and leather trim front sports seats. It also gains a lovely chunky three-spoke sports steering wheel.
The 132kW/280Nm 1.8-litre turbo TFSI Quattro is noticeably gutsier than its less-powerful sibling and putting a foot to the floor produces a swift reaction and a nicer engine note.
Audi’s Quattro all-wheel drive system adds extra traction and helps jolt the little German off the mark. While Benz offers AWD on high-end performance version, having such a system this far down the range gives Audi a welcome point of difference.
The suspension set-up kept the car balanced through corners, while potholes and bumps were handled without any drama on our drive through wine country. Our test car had a drive select system, with a firmer damper tune able to be dialled in.
We managed fuel economy of 8.0L/100km, which is more than the official figure of 6.6L/100km – but then, economy was not our main aim on this short drive leg.
A 0-100km/h sprint time of 6.8 seconds gives the 1.8 TFSI Quattro official ‘warm-hatch’ status and our time in it supports that. It certainly builds anticipation for the hotter 206kW/380Nm S3 Sportback that arrives in local showrooms in December.
Audi is hoping to appeal to eco-conscious buyers in the premium small car segment with the 1.4 TFSI, although the $2300 premium for such a minor improvement to fuel efficiency and some small performance improvements is a fair hike.
The 1.8 TFSI Quattro on the other hand is a worthy addition to the already solid A3 Sportback line-up, and while it doesn’t quite have the performance figures of an all-out hot hatch, it offers just enough bang for your buck to end up on a few shopping lists.

Audi / A3 / Sedan

Our opinion

You would be forgiven for thinking the new A3 offering from Audi was simply the current Sportback with a modified rear-end. But place the two cars side-by-side and it becomes clear that not one panel is typical to both.

Under the skin, it’s a different story: with the exception of the hatch-only 1.6-litre diesel option, the sedan range shares the same powertrains. Also as per the Sportback range, the flagship 1.8 TFSI quattro gets four-wheel drive grip.

The first of our test-cars was this top-performing (for now) 1.8 TFSI quattro with both the technology-rich Technik and stylish S line packages tacked on to, take the $47,800 starting price up to $56,140.

Audi has got the styling spot-on with this A3, and sitting on RS4 resembling 18-inch matt-black alloy wheels and 15mm lowed suspension, the little four-door looks the biz.

We particularly liked the notch which follows the line of each wheel-arch and an elegant roofline that ties the bonnet and new boot together, with proportions and scale very reminiscent of the very first Audi A4 of the 90s.

Jumping aboard revealed the changes the S Line package has on the interior, with sports seats covered in perforated alcantara, a flat-bottomed thick-rimmed steering-wheel and black roof-lining all fitted for the $4200 option.

The sports-seats provided excellent comfort, support and with a firmness as is typical to Audi interiors, white stitching and matching white fabric peeped through the sporty looking perforations and imparted a very high-quality feel to the cabin.

The dash continued the same quality with a more understated approach and simple design laid out in dark inoffensive tones using top-quality materials.

All variants get a good sized screen that rises silently from the dash when the ignition is switched on vehicles, but with top-spec MMI equipment (Audi’s term for the entertainment and information kit) get a larger screen with higher resolution.

A touch-sensitive pad is incorporated in to the top of a centre-console mounted dial which allows occupants in the front seats to enter commands by simply drawing/writing shapes and letters.

This is, quite literally, a nice touch but we couldn’t help thinking the idea was conceived in a left-had drive country where most people are right-handed.

Lesser variants of the A3 sedan don’t get as much in the way of equipment or style, but the cabin is still a nice place to be regardless of spec, and while the partly imitation-leather covered seats didn’t quite fool us, they looked and felt fine.

Base variants don’t get satellite navigation but annoyingly the ‘NAV’ button is still present, and displays a frustrating reminder on the screen that someone didn’t pay for the Technik pack.

There were some great features in even the base variant though. We liked the clever idea to cut a smart-phone accommodating slot in to one of the cup-holders, and the retro-styled air-vents that were fun to play with.

In the back seats the extra interior space over the A3 Sportback was welcome with just enough head and legroom for a 188cm passenger and the seats were as snug as the front, but the C-pillar did encroach a little on the view.

On the road the 1.8 TFSI Quattro had all the confidence inspiring grip that one associates with the 30-year quattro badge even in very wet and slippery conditions.

Chucking the all-paw sedan in to any corner and at some enthusiastic speeds caused no complaint or qualm from any corner with power being shared around seamlessly. Uninterrupted progress was the only indication the quattro system was at work.

The lowered sport suspension resisted rolling through both fast and slow, tight bends but conspired with the low-profile 225/40 Continental rubber to transmit a little more road noise in to the cabin than we would prefer.

With 132kW and 280Nm of torque the 1.8 turbo four-cylinder engine didn’t quite deliver the effervescent performance the tricked-up and lowered Audi seemed to promise with its looks.

Progress was never tedious but power could be best described as adequate and nothing more. Doubtless the scorching S3 sedan will appease the petrol-heads when it arrives.

The 2.0-litre TDI version however delivered exactly what one might expect with 320Nm of torque from a barely off-idle 1750rpm.

The four-pot oil-burner was so solid and refined only the abundant pulling-power served as a reminder it was the diesel version, and even when revved to the red-line there were no unpleasant rattles or knocks.

The TDI option also brings the best fuel economy of the range using a head-scratching 4.5 litres of diesel per 100km.

It’s a shame the 2.0-litre diesel is only available as a front-wheel drive because the combination of range-leading fuel-efficiency with torque-taming four-wheel drive would have made a TDI quattro option a real winner.

That said – the two driven wheels didn’t struggle to find traction unless deliberately provoked and mid-corner grip was very good in all variants.

Without the sport suspension, roll became a little more apparent, but the vibration-absorbing ability of the standard suspension and comfort improved too.

Last of the cars on trial was the entry level 1.4 TFSI and it was here that we got the biggest surprise.

The smallest engine might be down 0.4-litres on the 1.8 TFSI and 29 kilowatts but it manages to push out the same amount of torque as the non-quattro 1.8-litre, with 250Nm on tap.

Combine that impressive figure with an engine which has just shed 19kg thanks to a new alloy cylinder-block and you have a very lively little package on your hands.

Devoid of a heavy engine and four-wheel drive system, the cheapest A3 sedan weighs a whopping 145kg less than the top of the range 1.8 TFSI quattro.

Out and about that weight-saving becomes very obvious.

Acceleration might not be up there with the more expensive options but considering it only had 1.4-litres to boogie with, the entry level Audi felt more sprightly than an 8.4 second zero to 100km/h dash sounds.

In corners though the 1.4 TFSI was a delight with rapid turn-in, good feel through the electric power-steering and lively almost skippy road-holding.

The smaller 17-inch wheels with higher profile Dunlop Sport Maxx tyres cut interior road noise dramatically without sacrificing too much grip.

The lightweight feel constantly begged for a couple of clicks on the downshift paddle, whereas the more expensive variants encouraged a more sedate rate of progress.

What made it all the more enjoyable was the knowledge that, if you backed off the throttle, you could cruise along with justified environmental smugness using just 4.7 litres of fuel every 100km.

All engine options are bolted on to Audi’s well-known double-clutch ‘S tronic’ automatic transmission with the lesser 1.4 and 1.8-litre versions getting seven gears and dry-clutches, while the torquey quattro and diesel engines need six gears and oil-emersed wet-clutches.

Both breeds worked very well dealing with the available power efficiently, and intuitively changed their behaviour according to the driving style.

A manual gearbox would perfectly suit the involving character of the 1.4 TFSI and might push the asking price even further towards the sub-premium brands that Audi is targeting.

Audi’s smallest sedan is great fun, well priced and put together as well as you would expect from the German maker.

All variants have adequate performance but from a performance versus price perspective, we thought the entry-level 1.4 TFSI was unbeatable value and the standout of the range.

It’s a shame the delicious S Line package is not available for the cheapest version because dressed up in alcantara and big wheels, the frugal but fun 1.4 TFSI three-box Audi would simply tick all the boxes.

Audi / A3 / S3 Sportback

WITH a starting point as good as the new-generation A3, Audi was unlikely to stuff up the hotter ‘S’ version.
But what we weren’t sure of was whether it could make its own compelling case in the face of the sublime offerings from Benz and BMW – or the likes of Mitsubishi’s Banzai Evo Lancer – at this, the relatively cut-price end of the market.
Audi has responded by paying emphasis to its native strengths – quattro AWD grip, punchy turbo engines and sublime attention to detail – but avoided adding any police-baiting lairy body kits, painful ride stiffness or narrow racing buckets.
Aside from the tweaked grille, menacing quad tailpipes and 18-inch alloys, you’ d scarcely recognise an S3 for what it is, at least until you hear the 2.0-litre turbo breathing deeply with a blat of the throttle.
Paired to a six-speed dual-clutch auto with paddles, the force-fed powertrain fairly gallops up the gears with nary a trace of lag and with an understated but menacing and resonant burble. Matched to the sweet six-speed manual gearbox, it feels even livelier, though on paper its four-tenths slower to reach the tonne.
This ‘new’ engine features the same displacement (1984cc) as its predecessor, but is now 5kg lighter, 18kW/50Nm more powerful and more thermally efficient. It’s also tilted further rearward by 11 degrees to improve weight distribution, with a front: rear split of 59:41.
The new model is 70kg lighter than before, thanks to the Volkswagen Group's new modular transverse MQB platform – the regular A3 was the first car to use it – and extensive use of aluminium in the bodyshell.
The lighter kerb weight translates to the S3’s more eager turn-in and pliable nature mid-corner. The MQB, though, could also use a little more sound-deadening in this instance, because road roar from the 225/40 R18 tyres is distracting on coarser-chip surfaces.
But gremlins beyond that are few and far between. The electromechanical steering loads up nicely as you pile on speed, and its linear action provides accurate feedback to the driver. The 25mm lower suspension keeps the S3 flatter in the bends than its already well tied-down A3 sibling, and on wet roads the quattro multi-plate clutch AWD system has plenty of traction.
Audi offers an ‘S performance package’ for $4990, which adds LED headlights, a Bang and Olufsen sound system, Audi’s ‘magnetic ride’ adjustable shocks, bigger-bolstered seats with a diamond stitch pattern, a different alloy wheel design and red brake calipers.
We wouldn’t bother, largely because the magnetic ride system doesn’t bring a great deal of benefit to the table beyond the fine ‘regular’ ride setting on the base car. The magnetic system offers three modes, with the comfort setting too soft and the racier setting too jiggly.
The bigger-bolstered sports bucket seats that come with the package are also a step down from their no-cost ‘inferiors’ because Audi ditches electric adjustment in favour of a manual.
The cabin is by-and-large a lesson to all others on how to merge sharp design – see the pop-up screen, rounded dials, transmission tunnel-mounted infotainment dial and sumptuous flat-bottomed wheel – and bulletproof quality and soft-touch tactility.
But on the other hand, there’s precious little stylistic difference in here to make the S3 stand out from a base A3 that’s almost half the cost. Perhaps the odd extra bit of aluminium here, some contrast stitching there might make a difference to the ambience ...
Still, there’s nothing wrong with the list of standard equipment. You get Xenon headlights with LED daytime runners, satellite-navigation, park assist with front/rear sensors and a reversing camera, and five-spoke 18-inch alloy wheel.
The cabin gets Nappa leather-clad electric sports seats, a BMW iDrive-style dial mounted on the console to steer through the multimedia interface, Bluetooth streaming, dual-zone climate control with rear vents, and a leather-wrapped, flat-bottomed steering wheel.
The S3, then, is a fine alternative to its racier, but perhaps rougher, rivals, because it offers nearly as much pace for much less money without skimping on equipment. And don’t underestimate the surety on a wet road provided by the quattro system.
It is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Lexus / CT / 200h F-Sport

IN THE RELATIVE CALM before the German baby car blitzkrieg the CT 200h Hybrid is sitting pretty.

Well… pretty isn’t the perfect summation for a car that will win very few beauty contests. “Is it a Mazda?” one person piped up. “A bit bland!” quipped another. Fussy, we say, and a major disappointment to our eyes, particularly after the promising concept car that preceded the productionised version.

Anyway, less than a year away from the next-generations of Audi A3, Mercedes B-class and – of course – the BMW 1 Series due much sooner than that, the littlest Lexus, Australia’s first four-cylinder Lexus, the cheapest-ever hybrid Lexus, and the first-ever car with a tachometer that can switch to a sort of glorified ‘econo-gauge’ a-la early Commodore and Camira, has a few months to bathe in the brilliance of freshness amongst a surprisingly senior bunch of competitors.

And against these, the Japanese petrol-electric hybrid luxo hatch – another world-first but not for long we predict – is fiercely competitive.

Under all those funny angles and lines lay the innards of the Toyota Auris – basically our current-gen Corolla but with a more sophisticated multi-link rear suspension system – as well as the existing Prius petrol-electric hybrid.

Now while that may not sound like a promising beginning, these Toyotas are accomplished if unexciting machines boasting unrivalled reliability and dependability. 

Boring? Not if you are a 70 year old woman forced to clamber out of your BMW 120i’s window because the central locking system has deadlocked you inside your car on a 35 degree day; not boring if the dual clutch transmission failure in your VW/Audi sets you back thousands of dollars in repair costs; and not boring if your Merc’s electrically operated steering column costs $5000-plus not to stay kaput. These are first-hand accounts from actual owners writing or calling in to complain. Note all relate to German vehicles.

So is the CT 200h an uppity Prius in Lexus couture, or has the T-brand exorcised the Wal-Mart from its prestige compact motor?

Since this is the company’s first C-segment hatch, let’s begin in the dark recesses of the CT 200h F Sport’s back seat.

With three positions across, there is sufficient space for shoulders, feet, legs and knees, and even headroom is quite good. 

But, the window-line upsweep brings a downbeat, confined feeling. The lack of face-level air vents, cupholders, centre armrest and insufficient storage facilities are likely to bring your mood down further. One feels as if this is just any ordinary hatchback back here.

Things improve markedly up front despite an ocean of hard plastic trim that completely flies in the face of Lexus’ once-vaunted slush-moulded technology. Space-age meets Prius pretty much sums it up.

Set on a horizontal plane is a neat array of buttons and LED screen for the climate control air-con, while below that an angled centre console gives the front occupants a sense that they are in an aircraft’s cockpit – or at the very least a modern interpretation of the old Honda NSX.

In the up-spec models the analogue instrument dials light up in white graphics with a choice of the aforementioned eco-charge gauge or a tacho that cleverly changes at a press of a button, depending on which of the four transmission settings is engaged – although strangely, activating the cruise control cuts out the rev counter.

So far so good, for you will have to look far and wide for a clearer speedo and fuel readout.

A sumptuous pair of big, body-hugging bucket seats – electrically adjustable in all sorts of ways for the driver – do a great job in making you feel right home in the CT 200h.

Lexus, too, has sorted out the heating/ventilation basics, with ample heating and cooling as needed, backed up in this guise by very effective front seat warmers.

The well-located three-spoke steering wheel with satellite controls for the audio/media, Bluetooth, trip meter and cruise functions, also bodes well for a wide range of driver-comfort options. 

And even rearward vision isn’t as bad as that big fat ugly pillar suggests, thanks to the inclusion of a side window. Having a reverse camera with parking sensors is a massive boon too. 

Yet the foot operated park brake belongs in a DeSoto and so jars in a car as modern as this – particularly as the job of engaging Reverse or Drive is via a natty Prius-esque chromed-head joystick. 

A very BMW 1 Series-esque addition is the standard on all models bar the base Prestige sat-nav screen that pops up and down from the top of the centre of the dash. Some shorter passengers found it obstructed their forward vision, but in typical Toyota fashion it functions admirably via a novel PC-style mouse-pad setup.

Less likeable are the exposed cupholders and shiny plastic lower-console materials that serve to cheapen this $50K car. These, along with the vinyl door and armrest trims, betray the CT’s Toyota origins. It is barely more premium than an up-spec Corolla. A VW Polo owner would cringe, let alone a Golf driver.

Also surprising is the small glovebox and centre bin that do nothing to alleviate the distinctly average storage solutions in this car. The boot is wide and flat but not very deep (since some of the hybrid gubbins live under there), but at least the split-fold rear seats fold forward to give a competitively large cargo area – if only compared with the outgoing 1 Series. A space-saver spare tyre lives underneath that floor too.

Speaking of floors, flooring the accelerator pedal really betrays the Prius DNA lurking underneath because of a not-inconsiderable thing called a Constant Variable Transmission – CVT for short.

Kicking off in ‘Eco’ mode (with a green light on the dash telling you as much), there is nothing sporty about a CVT. With a distant but discernable drone, this gearbox is inherently laggy by the very nature of its power build up, so the Lexus never feels particularly sprightly off the mark as a result.

But do you care? Once in motion, momentum builds up quickly enough, and suddenly you are speeding along at quite a rate of knots. Put your foot down again and… nothing. You’re in Eco mode, dummy. This is all about saving the bees. The feel-free steering, listless performance… it’s all there for a reason!

So you slot it in ‘Normal’ and not much changes when you take off, but the Lexus’ CVT at least is more willing to change down for a more discernible amount of forward thrust.

In either mode everything about the driving experience is swathed in a rich veneer of smoothness. And for many of you that won’t sound so bad.

Turn the console-mounted rotary knob to Sport, and the dash switches from eerie blue to devil-may-care red, the tacho takes the place of the Econometer, and everything feels somehow faster. It isn’t – not from 0-100km/h – but kick-down responses are much quicker, sporty even, with a hefty mid-range punch to make the front wheels chirp and the environmentally-aware cyclist in you wince.

The CT 200h does an OK impression of Jekyll and Hyde it seems. The fact that we were averaging an indicated 6.3L/100km throughout such driving shenanigans pretty much validates Lexus’ hybrid tech approach. You can have a fast car and a frugal one to boot. 

Earlier we mentioned the steering – probably the least driver-orientated helm in terms of feedback and response we have encountered at this end of the price spectrum in a long time. At least it weighs up to a more satisfying degree in Sport.

That’s not to say the Lexus hatch doesn’t handle – it does, and with poise and confidence, and on a range of roads from fresh bitumen to loose gravel besides. Point it through a corner and the car will follow your chosen line precisely, gripping the tarmac with determined tenacity and reassuring control. It’s just you won’t be bombarded with feedback from the road. And for some folk, that’s a desirable thing.

Ultimately, if you’re in Sport and up for a bit of hot hatchery, the CT’s electronic driver aids will intervene early and with authority, but you will get a sense that this car will run progressively wider through a turn the faster you go, with the aforementioned calm degenerating into tyre scrubbing understeer.

Now that would be OK if the payback was an incredibly cosseting ride, but it isn’t. On the F Sport’s 215/45 R17 tyres, the ride ranges from acceptable on smooth roads to at-times annoyingly firm on the many bad surfaces that blight our inner city and suburban streets. Plus, a dull roar broadcasting throughout the cabin often accompanies the suspension’s tiresome jitteriness. 

Just to make sure we were not being overly critical we plied the same roads with a Golf 118TSI on standard rubber, and the difference in refinement (among other attributes) was truly remarkable. Lexus, more work is needed here.

The CT 200h feels like a (very good) work in progress. In so many ways it is right up there with the posh Euro hatches, but with a unique persona backed up by a truly remarkable drivetrain.

However this car falls between stools spectacularly too.

Bring the sporty expectations down a notch or two and the CT could make complete sense as a rapid and economical compact express with comfort, reliability and serenity to spare.

Except the F Sport version at least isn’t that supple and the tyres transmit too much road noise.

Yet we still rate it highly enough to put it right up there with its ageing German competition, because most owners will love what the Lexus can do anyway, while doing it with reassuring durability and dependability.

Just don’t expect the Japanese car to be sitting so prettily 12 months down the track when it becomes the oldest member of the compact premium hatch posse.