Driven: 2010 Hyundai Tucson
From the inside, it's quite possible to mistake the new 2010 Hyunda Tucson for a Lexus.
That's certainly what Hyundai would like to hear, and it's true. Over the course of a week with the Tucson, I noticed that its interior elicits a lot more oohs and ahs—especially from those who don't consider themselves gearheads or enthusiasts—than you might expect for a vehicle that totaled less than $30k.
A look and feel that's just right
It's a vehicle that, looking at materials, trim, and interior appointments, does everything right. Keep taking a closer look at interior details, and you won't be disappointed. The plastic surfaces aren't too shiny and have a consistent look throughout, and the bright trim pieces accent the interior in an understated, classy way. The cool blue backlighting for the dash and instruments also adds elegance.
From the outside, the Tucson carries a silhouette that's much like that of its predecessor, though simultaneously more flamboyant and more fluid. The sheetmetal has been sculpted with flowing creases that create a curvy, aerodynamic, and elegant effect. Overall, the Tucson looks sport-wagon aggressive, and a little more like a wagon on stilts than other compact crossovers; that's not at all a bad thing.
Everything's not quite as delightful with respect to the driving experience, but your passengers again probably won't be disappointed. With 176 horsepower and 168 pound-feet of torque, the Tucson's new so-called Theta II four-cylinder engine, though not a new direct-injection design, actually feels stronger than the step-up 2.7-liter V-6 that's been offered in the past. It works great with the new six-speed automatic transmission, but especially when cold its sound quality is a little crude. Compared to GM's 2.4-liter, in the 2010 Chevrolet Equinox that we also posted a review of this week, it sounds coarser driving gently at the low revs but keeps its cool when pressed, sounding much more civilized into the higher revs when pulling off full-throttle passes.
Smooth, economical powertrain; disappointing steering
The single greatest point of dissatisfaction in the Tucson—at least through our finicky driving tastes—is the steering. For this reviewer, who's already not a fan of the way electric power steering systems are tuned in many models, the Tucson's new Motor Driven Power Steering system would be a deal-breaker. The system is light at low speeds, as it should be, but it all deteriorates from there. At intermediate speeds, on backroads, the steering assist seems to change in very noticeable ways from corner to corner, and by the time you get to 50 or 55 mph, it seems to be punching you back toward center, with a heavy rubbery feel that's nothing even like any manual steering gear we've felt before. Make a quick maneuver at lower speeds, and there's a sort of binding-loosening feel as the steering quickly changes its assist level. And on a stretch of roadway that has deep tramlines, the system seemed to surrender completely, becoming limp yet heavy as it was apparently auto-correcting for the road surface.
In contrast, the Tucson's brakes feel great—like those of a small, sporty car, and surprisingly (for a tall vehicle) there's not much nosedive.
Driven: 2009 Ford Fiesta ECOnetic Diesel
"We get squat."
That was the pronouncement of a journalist and car-nut friend of mine named James who I bumped into on the streets of a northern Italian town this past spring.
His pronouncement came when he spied a gen-VI 4Motion Golf TDI. "We" Americans don't get the new Golf (ne Rabbit) just yet and even when we do a TDI with all-wheel drive might not happen here.
Why this VW talk in a Ford review?
Because Ford is savvy enough to know that when its Fiesta launches in the U.S. at the end of 2010 it absolutely must be affordable enough to attract some of VW's vaunted youthful fervor, i.e., single guys in their early thirties like James who want the cool factor of cars that currently sell in Europe. But in this economy there's no way that out of the gate Ford could gamble on facing off against such expensive machines as TDI Golfs, just as even VW probably won't bring us TDI Golfs with AWD because they'd cost roughly $30k, too daringly close to the MSRP of an Audi A3.
In the case of Ford these cost concerns likely mean optional Fiestas, such as the subject of this review, the 1.6-liter ECOnetic turbodiesel that might otherwise compete for a similar buyer to VW's TDI Golf (and is touted as 63-mpg eco titan across the pond) probably won't ever sell on these shores. It's just too expensive.
How expensive? The FWD version I drove earlier this month in Portugal stickers just north of $31,000. Yes, a car with the interior capacity roughly on par with that of a three-door, $12,205 Toyota Yaris is more than twice as expensive. Ouch.
Mind you, there are big variables in European market pricing; the five-speed-manual, 1.6-liter TDCi ECOnetic in England sells for more like $23,000. Still sounds pricey? Perhaps. But I suggest you keep reading.
First, I had a five-door model to test. That makes the cabin more flexible, and although it's not a huge car inside, the Fiesta is comfortable enough for four passengers, and the height-adjustable front seats and tilt/telescoping steering wheel stalk meant both tall and short drivers (there's loads of headroom) found the cockpit comfortable. Some aspects of the Fiesta interior even best the uber-titan of this segment, the Honda Fit, with more supportive seating surfaces and switches and dials that feel a hair more deluxe.
Some pieces of the puzzle not so slick include a raw metal seatback behind the fold-forward rear seats that'll almost certainly get scratched and the rear-seat bottoms also don't fold forward a la Fit, so you don't get the benefit of a fully flat load floor. So while the Fiesta is close in scale to the Fit, it's not as practical, making the Nissan Versa and Toyota Yaris more logical cross-buys.
Save for the ace in the Fiesta deck—superior handling to either of those cars.
I put over 500 miles on the ECOnetic and from the windiest snakes of blacktop barely cut into mountainsides to the fastest national highways, the little Ford felt tight, taut, and supremely stable. Kind of like a VW Golf, actually. Crucially, Ford doesn't err on the side of a soft suspension, which today seems the universal solution to making econoboxes feel less cheap and darty. The Ford's simple but effective strut front, beam axle rear suspension is stiffly damped, minimizing body roll and the electric steering, which has made many a more expensive car feel numb at the tiller is highly communicative without making the small Ford darty. Impressively, while the latest MINI Cooper will awkwardly tramline on grooved pavement, even over large segments of metal bridge decks the Fiesta feels firmly planted and easily tractable.
This is all on a version of the Fiesta that's tweaked for fuel economy. Yes, the lowered suspension (by 10mm) surely aids handling, but low-rolling-resistance 14-inch tires do not, and yet the Fiesta hangs on tight, and only when pushed much harder than I'd dare behind the wheel of a car that gets similar fuel economy, the Honda Insight, was I reminded that this wee Ford was brewed for eco-frugality, not sportiness.
Speaking of which, that Insight analogy might twig you to the fact that I did not achieve 63 mpg during my test; more like 44 mpg. I blame the Portuguese.
On Portugal's national highway system even those in the far right lane regularly hustle at 85-90 mph, and with the ECOnetic Fiesta's fifth gear made taller (final drive ration adjusted from 3.37 to 3.05), to save more fuel, the engine was barely-there quiet even at these speeds. And although the 1.6 TDCi motor is slow to rev, torque builds quickly and there's passing power aplenty around 2500 rpm.
So I drove the snot out of a diesel Fiesta for 11 days and got fuel economy numbers on par with the $20,000-$23,000 Honda Insight in a car that's far more nimble, equally practical, and which, if Ford could figure out how to build the diesel motor in Mexico (where North-American versions of this car will be made) could theoretically sell for about the same price.
And none of that will probably happen, much to my friend James' chagrin.
Then again, if both gasoline and diesel were running about $4.50 a gallon, as they were in Portugal this summer (and in this country last summer) Ford might well reconsider the idea. And American buyers might come to welcome the notion that "fuel economy" and "vanilla driving experience" don't have to be synonyms.
This story originally appeared at The Car Connection
The 5 Cars That Killed Chrysler…This Time
While we wait for Chrysler to emerge, hopefully leaner but not that much lighter, from its bankruptcy—perhaps with some fashionable Italian loafers and a rejuvenated Dolce & Gabbana wardrobe—TheCarConnection.com started thinking about the company's product missteps in recent years. No, not the Dodge St. Regis or the TC by Maserati (shhhhh!), but the very recent past.
What's gone wrong—this time—from a product perspective? Here are five of them:
Chrysler Sebring: No contest here. The Sebring sedan, along with its Dodge Avenger sibling and its Sebring Convertible variant, were somehow a step behind the instant they arrived, beginning for 2007. These models have been almost universally panned by reviewers—mostly for being behind the curve in performance and lacking in interior quality—and they have a lackluster repair record to boot, with Consumer Reports rating the Sebring the worst in reliability, of all the models surveyed, in 2008, with lots of recalls affecting its rollout as well. This is a huge, bread-and-butter, money-making segment that hosts the Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, Nissan Altima, Ford Fusion, and Chevrolet Malibu; Chrysler clearly cut corners on the Sebring and placed its wagers on some admittedly innovative features for the options list but skimped on interior materials and cabin quality, with noise and vibration, to some, a step backward. The name change for the Dodge sedan, from the benign Stratus to the renaissance-fair-worthy Avenger, probably didn't help either.
Dodge Nitro: Nowhere does the term half-baked apply so well as with Jeep's Nitro. Closely related to the Jeep Liberty, an off-road capable vehicle with niche appeal, the smallish Nitro is a truck-based SUV that's not intended for off-roading. The Nitro was brought to market at the same time as GM, among other companies, was admitting that there wasn't a future for mid-size truck-based SUVs, gobbling up product development and marketing money that could have been used for more fully realized vehicles. Factor in the 15-mpg city rating, 3,500-pound tow rating (the same as many car-based crossovers), and the unimpressive performance that TheCarConnection.com has noted firsthand, and you have to wonder where the Nitro is coming from.
Dodge Caliber: When gas hit $4 a gallon last summer and shoppers—still flush with jobs, real-estate money, and credit to spare—went to the dealership, many were disappointed to find that Dodge dealerships didn't have any vehicles that topped 30 mpg. The Dodge Caliber, which gets ratings in the low- to mid-20s in its most popular variants—despite a roomy interior and some trick features like tailgate speakers and a cooler box—just doesn't have the fuel economy or even the refinement of rival models. Dealerships were caught like deer in headlights, lacking fuel-efficient small cars at a critical time when shoppers were flocking to more fuel-efficient cars like the Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, and Ford Focus—and GM had even rolled out a 37-mpg (highway) version of its Chevy Cobalt, the XFE. The Caliber just wasn't frugal enough for most shoppers and Chrysler lost out at a critical time.
Chrysler Pacifica: The Pacifica was a likable, well-designed family vehicle, its success ruined by ill-conceived marketing and a glitchy product rollout. With a roomy, attractive interior that combined Chrysler's minivan seating expertise with a welcome upscale ambiance from then-parent company DaimlerChrysler, the Pacifica was a large, comfortable, and luxurious crossover vehicle that was even a little ahead of its time in 2003; it might still even today match up reasonably well versus GM's full-sizers like the Buick Enclave. But everything else went wrong. Initially the Pacifica suffered from quality flaws, and it was at first priced too high, forcing Chrysler later to drop prices (and send resale values into freefall). In the end, Pacificas were benchwarming on dealer lots, some sold at a $10,000 discount.
Dodge Challenger: Okay, this one's going to be controversial, we know—even within TheCarConnection.com. But this editor feels that the Challenger just sends out the wrong message for a company with a very checkered past. The Challenger might fire up all the right nostalgia cues for some of the older Boomers looking to put on some deep-tinted sunglasses and relive that special window of opportunity in the '60s or early '70s—or for a younger set perhaps a Dukes of Hazzard episode—but those times are long, long past, and the number of those people with 401Ks and pension money to spare has dwindled. By making the Challenger so retro, as opposed to the more modern feel of the revived Chevy Camaro, the end product somehow feels like an aging geezer who's trying desperately to keep his high-school haircut—and shunning the very engineering mindset that set Chrysler apart from the rest of Detroit leading up to the original muscle cars.
This story originally appeared at The Car Connection
