TELL ME ABOUT THIS CAR

The Abarth 124 Spider is a turbocharged two-seater roadster tuned by the performance arm of Fiat. The Abarth 124 Spider is based on the Mazda MX-5, which is the reigning Wheels Car of the Year, but the Fiat-badged version is more powerful and has a greater emphasis on performance via a firmer suspension and stronger brakes.

STRENGTHS

• Performance. It might draw heavily from the Mazda MX-5 parts bin, but the Abarth scores unique suspension with Bilstein dampers, a limited-slip differential and a more powerful, turbocharged 1.4-litre four-cylinder engine that produces 125kW/250Nm. This means it can hit 0-100km/h in a respectable 6.8 seconds, and it feels racier and more focused when the road gets twisty.

1

• Handling. Its 1060kg kerb weight might be slightly heavier than the MX-5’s, but the Abarth stays true to its lightweight roadster philosophy. Its firmer suspension means it turns into corners more keenly and the chassis has a nice sense of balance, helped by a 50:50 weight distribution. The brakes are brilliant, too, thanks to a reassuringly firm pedal that’s easy to modulate on the cusp of ABS.
• It’s affordable. Fiatis yet to drop official pricing, but the Abarth 124 Spider will hit Aussie shores wearing a price tag in the low $40K bracket, putting it in the same ballpark as the range-topping Mazda MX-5 2.0 GT
• It has more equipment than the Mazda, such optional systems such as blind spot monitoring, adaptive headlights and rear cross traffic alert. The most notable piece of standard equipment, though, is a reversing camera, which is something you don’t get in the MX-5.
• It sounds sporty. Unlike the MX-5 that can sound a little underwhelming on start-up, the Abarth 124 fires into life with a deep-throated bark. The secret to this stirring soundtrack is the Abarth’s quad exhaust pipes. However, if you really want to dial the 124’s noise up to 11 – and trust us, you do – you can also option an even louder Monza exhaust.

1

WEAKNESSES

• There’s no reach adjustment on the steering wheel. This sounds like a minor complaint, but it’s something that compromises your driving position and by extension, how you interact with the car. It’s more of an issue for tall people, who either sit too far back to accommodate their legs, or cramp themselves by sliding forward to reach the steering wheel.
• It’s not as pure as the Mazda MX-5. It’s not as simple or as paired back as the Mazda, with the Abarth’s turbocharged engine changing the two-seater’s personality. Where the MX-5 comes alive high in the rev range as you ring every last drop of performance from its aspirated engine, the Abarth feels more muscular, even lazier. This makes it a more relaxing car to drive everyday, but slightly less rewarding when driven hard.

The obvious rival is the Mazda MX-5. In terms of price and performance, the more powerful 2.0 GT MX-5 variant is the closest competitor, but you should also consider the cheaper 1.5-litre MX-5 which remains a brilliant sportscar and costs a full $10K less than the Fiat. Toyota’s 86 and the Subaru BRZ are also worthy rivals and deliver affordable, rear-drive thrills, however neither have a convertible option.

There’s never been a better time to review the dual-cab 4×4 class of 2016 than right now. Wheels pitches eight of the biggest sellers in the segment for the title of King of the Heap. Here’s number three, the Mazda BT-50.

First published in the May 2016 issue of Wheels magazine, Australia’s best car mag since 1953.

THE BT-50 was co-developed with the Ford Ranger, and in terms of chassis and powertrain fundamentals, there’s little to separate the two.

Given that Mazda belts Ford for overall sales in Australia, you’d think that would translate here, but it doesn’t – not by a long shot. Ranger outsells BT-50 by around two-to-one. So, given how similar they are in terms of spec and value, Mazda must have an image issue in this segment. Clearly 4×4 ute buyers are more interested in boofy unbreakability than sportiness.

And it actually does extend further than simple perception. Mazda wanted its BT-50 to deliver a bit more ‘zoom-zoom’, so it has a slightly quicker steering rack and slightly firmer dampers. And, since last year’s upgrade, the Ranger has electric power steering assistance while the Mazda continues with hydraulic assistance. On the road, especially at a brisk cruise, that’s no bad thing, but off-road, where lots of low-speed wheel turning is needed to negotiate ruts and rocks, it struggles to keep up, whereas the Ford’s wheel spins quickly and fluently from lock to lock.

On-road, the BT-50’s damper rates make suspension movements quite quick and abrupt. Over undulations taken at speed, front-seat occupants are given a series of short, quick lifts, as if rising for the trot. It’s not horrible – and preferable to the wallow delivered by a few of the contenders here – but it’s a little odd.

The 3.2-litre five-cylinder that powers both the Mazda and Ford originates from the Transit van. Here it runs upgraded injectors, among other changes, in an effort to quell noise levels but remains a mid-fielder in terms of NVH – notably short of the muted Amarok, yet comfortably ahead of the raucous Colorado and D-Max.

The BT-50 feels quick enough, though our timed runs saw it curiously slower than Ranger at 12.4sec to 100km/h and 9.5sec for the 80-120km/h passing move.

Ford’s extra work reshaping the power and torque curves translates to an on-road advantage, yet the BT-50’s six-speed auto is well calibrated to deliver intuitive shifts, and will hold gears in manual mode. Like other Mazdas, it also has our preferred push-to-downshift configuration.

No one in our test crew favoured the Mazda’s exterior styling over the Ford’s – “too feminine and fussy” were the main criticisms – but we lean towards the BT-50 for its simpler execution of instruments and minor controls. It provides a conventional speedo/tacho pairing, whereas Ford reduces the tacho to an (optionally selectable) electronic display.

No prizes for the Mazda in the back, though. Like most other contenders here, it puts rear-seat occupants in a too-upright position, with legs bent at a sharp angle and little under-thigh support. No rear vents, either, or much of anything to take your mind off the terse suspension tune.

The BT-50 finds itself on the podium, doing most things reasonably well, if short of the Ranger in a few key areas. Maybe 4×4 ute buyers do have sound reason to be working Blue.

Off-road performance

It might look a bit sissy and the hydraulically assisted steering struggles when worked hard, but the BT-50 does feel grenade-proof off-road. It made it up and over our vertiginous torture test, and handles ruts and corrugations without feeling as though the steering column is about to part company from the rest of the rig.

It was also one of the more adept dirt-road sliders with the ESC off, which points to a fundamentally well-sorted chassis.

HYUNDAI I30 SR Score: 73/100

Price & Equipment | 16/20

Price and platform similarity sits at odds with philosophical differences in the i30 SR and Cerato Si. The Hyundai is sportier to look at than to drive, while it’s the reverse in the Kia, yet they perform on a similar plane, and share rear parking sensors, reversing camera, auto headlights, LED DRLs, leather/synthetic trim, cruise control, sat-nav, and7.0-inch colour touchscreens.

Interior & Versatility | 15/20

Deeply bolstered front seats give the feel to complement the SR’s sporty interior touches, and bring extra lateral support. Smart packaging means there’s similar rear legroom to its rival despite a 50mm-shorter wheelbase, but no rear air-con outlets. The Hyundai hauls 378 litres of luggage, or 1316 litres with its 60/40 split-fold rear seats folded.

Performance & Economy | 14/20

The i30 SR’s 2.0-litre four offers decent refinement but doesn’t tickle the senses like a warm hatch should. Healthy 124kW/201Nm outputs translate via a six-speed auto (or six-speed manual) to modest performance, hampered by a kerb weight nearing 1400kg, and its 7.7L/100km fuel number is adrift of the class best.

Ride & Refinement | 15/20

Only the fact that the Hyundai has a slightly sporty leaning makes it a fraction less absorbent as an urban appliance. Its locally tuned strut and torsion-beam suspensions work adeptly on a variety of Australian road surfaces, from the sharp edges of run-down city streets to undulating coarse-chip country roads, where it’s also pretty quiet.

Steering & Handling | 13/20

A lack of steering enthusiasm and feel comes (along with the engine’s lack of sparkle) as the chief reason the i30 SR isn’t a hot hatch, or a particularly inspiring warm one. But it works here because the obedient, grippy and well-balanced Hyundai merely needs to be the sporty mid-to-high-spec small Korean hatch alternative.

KIA CERATO SI Score: 74/100

Price & Equipment | 17/20

Cerato gets ample active safety gear including blind-spot detection, lane-change assist, rear cross-traffic alert and front parking sensors, but misses out on a driver’s knee airbag, dual-zone climate and auto wipers. It also rolls on 16-inch alloys rather than 17s, which, with a more conservative exterior, makes for a subtler visual package.

Interior & Versatility | 15/20

Aside from a token bit of faux carbonfibre, the Kia cabin is more restrained, but offers ergonomics and seat comfort to match the Hyundai, and similar conveniences and space. Plastics and leather/synthetic seat trim finishes are consistently decent, the boot swallows 385 litres, and there’s a full-size alloy spare, as in the i30.

Performance & Economy | 14/20

A 2.0-litre producing slightly less (112kW and 192Nm) works with a bit less weight in the Kia – about 1330kg – to give the auto-only Cerato Si real-world urge to match the i30 SR, with slightly better economy of 7.1L/100km. A comparable 50-litre fuel tank enables the thriftier Kia to go a bit further between fills, too.

Ride & Refinement | 15/20

Kia’s blend of ride and handling is perhaps the biggest departure from Korean cars of old – it’s a decent steer – but not from its rival. Well-judged spring, damper and roll-bar rates give it a relaxing gait with just the right balance of compliance and discipline. It’s softer, then, but not to the detriment of dynamics.

Steering & Handling | 13/20

The Kia is the one for the downsizer who isn’t necessarily seeking sportiness – or athletic visuals – but still appreciates chassis cohesion. The Cerato’s steering is on the same page as the i30’s, while the handling tends towards stability rather than adjustability or involvement, and the suspension compliance ensures it copes over lumpy roads.

THE VERDICT

Where you place the Hyundai i30 SR makes a big difference to how you view it. Consider it a warm hatch and perhaps it misses the mark. But as a well-equipped small hatch with a sporty look, it might be a bit more appealing to a certain buyer than the more sober-looking Kia Cerato Si. For every equipment hit, there’s a miss, leaving a pair of well-equipped hatches that don’t necessarily go gadget-for-gadget. Official – and real-world – retained values are difficult to split, but the Kia holds a warranty advantage at seven years (though the Hyundai’s five-year cover is already generous). The i30’s grippy front seats, 17s, and sports suspension make it a fraction more fun, but it’s no quicker than the Cerato Si, which uses slightly less fuel. Overall, there’s very little in it.

First published in the November 1996 issue of Wheels magazine, Australia’s best car mag since 1953.

Ford has pinched, pulled, fiddled and finessed the Falcon to the tune of $40 million, most of it spent underneath. TODD HALLENBECK is our man in the inspection pit.

Yes, this is the new Ford Falcon. We’d better make’ that clear because, unless you’re seriously Ford-literate, the changes can be as hard as Wally to spot. The new Falcon – EL – is slightly new and most of its newness is out of sight, tucked under the rear.

The Falcon has been improved yet again – 14 short months after Ford retuned several niggling front suspension handling problems on the EF.

Now, Ford EL Falcon picks up where EF II left off, introducing rear suspension changes as well as a few new body curves on GLi and Futura.

When EF was launched in September 1994, we described it as the “touchy-feely Falcon”. Ford’s $220 million makeover turned the outclassed, outdated ED into the new, feel-good Falcon. Problem was, it didn’t feel so good through corners because of a nervous chassis. Compared with ED II, EF was a step forward, but against Commodore, Camry and Magna, it needed more work.

Ford didn’t have far to walk to find the answers. Across the road from Broadmeadows, Tickford had nailed down the EF’s squirming suspension on its XR models with only minor impact on ride and comfort.

The real twist to the EL’s story is not that the answers came from Tickford, but that Tickford had used one of Ford’s suspension engineers – John Mole – to sort out the XR’s handling.

Finally, after two years, EL picks up the XR-series rear end locating points and firmly plants the touchy-feely Falcon on the road.

According to Mole, Ford EF Falcon and EF II suffered from too much roll-steer- a factor of body roll versus axle movement. EF’s roll-steer reduced its straight-line stability and made initial turn-in twitchy, so he lowered the Watts link pivot point on the differential by 20mm.

“Where the Watts link pivots is the roll centre – it’s that simple,” he says.

Lowering the roll centre reduces the load transfer on the rear wheels during cornering.

“The EF and EF II had five percent roll-steer, which is a bit high,” he says. “EL has two percent.”

Accompanying all the revisions to rear-end geometry are changes to suspension and power steering to improve high-speed manners. Initial damping has been softened to better absorb road surface irregularities, while secondary impact damping has been firmed to control body movement.

The ride quality Ford set as a benchmark was the 5 Series BMW. The target may have been Bavarian high-brow, but the competition was – and is – Commodore’s independent rear suspension.

Against its showroom nemesis, Falcon now scores major browniepoints. The Ford not only rides better, but is also more progressive and better balanced near the limit during high-speed cornering.

But you don’t need to crank the Falcon into an apex at tyre-shredding speed to appreciate its positive feedback.

Even at touring speeds, EL feels noticeably less twitchy and more stable than both EF II and IRS Commodore.

Steering has a lot to do with it. Less power assistance has provided more feedback in GLi and Futura, and improved self-centring gives better straight-line stability.

Move into the Fairmont or LWB cars, and the steering turns back to its old habits.

“What you’re probably experiencing is a point of transition where the speed-sensitive steering is giving too much assist,” explains Mole.

At the limit, though, the Falcon’s new suspension tune and steering all come together in a progressive, balanced and forgiving package. We turned several quickish laps around Adelaide International Raceway, and for such a big car, weighing a few over 1400kg, it is surprisingly nimble and quick to change direction. In situations where the old suspension would wallow and rock, such as during simultaneous hard braking and turning, the new suspension tune feels smooth and unbothered.

Suspension changes affect all Falcon models from GLi to LTD. Body panel changes, however, only affect GLi and Futura. Fairmonts merely receive additional glint work on the grille.

Ford spent $40 million on launching EL, but the sticker price of a GLi remains unchanged at $25,594. Futura is now $32,328 (up $250), and Fairmont and Fairmont Ghia prices are inflated by $400 and $670 respectively. Fairlane and LTD both cost $170 more.

Meanwhile, Ford is throwing in vanity mirrors, speed-sensitive intermittent wipers (except on GLi), vertically adjustable lumbar support, integrated wiring for car phone, door pockets and Smart Tint side and rear windows at no additional cost.

Fairmont also receives power-adjusted front seats.

You’ll also find a typeface change to the instrument cluster numerals -faster italics.

Engine and transmission haven’t been touched, which means the harshness of the standard 4.0 litre six is still alive and vibrating. Ford has tried to reduce NVH by fitting all ELs with a laminated oil sump. Highly sensitive testing equipment may be able to detect a reduction in noise and vibration but from the driver’s seat we couldn’t.

GLi and Futura body changes to bonnet, grille, bumper and headlights, Ford claims, are an attempt to attract younger buyers and female buyers to Falcon.

Underlining the claim are poor sales of GLi and Futura compared with Commodore Executive.

According to Graham Wadsworth at Ford’s design studio, research shows people like two eyes and a mouth and the EF GLi’s and Futura’s tight bonnet-to-bumper blank styling is impersonal and cold.

“We’ve also done a lot to improve the interior colours and added Chilli Red as an exterior colour,” says Wadsworth.

According to Roger Clarke, Falcon market and sales manager; “The average Falcon buyer is 49 years old. That’s a terminal problem. In Falcon terms it’s got to be 35-40 years old.”

XR6 and XR8 are the exceptions: the average buyer age for the performance Fords drops by as much as 10 years.

Passive safety features – identified by Ford research as a big selling point for women – continue the firm’s claim to be the only Aussie-built car with standard driver’s airbag. EL also passes European occupant injury standards for offset frontal crash, and international regulations for side-impact, via strengthened A and B-pillars, high-strength door intrusions bars and added high-density foam to interior armrests.

Sì senor Ford, me gusta su EL Falcon …

G-Vectoring Control and a bunch of other subtle upgrades bring the MY17 Mazda 6 into line with the rest of its family.

WHAT IS IT?

The debut of Mazda’s G-Vectoring Control technology on its flagship sedan and wagon range, in conjunction with a bunch of noise-reducing, luxury-enhancing measures to give the Mazda 6 a chance up against Volkswagen’s hugely talented Passat.

WHY WE’RE TESTING IT

This is the third update for the current-generation Mazda 6 since it launched here in December 2012, and while it’s more of a spruce-up than last year’s serious makeover, it brings G-Vectoring Control to the table, promising more cohesive handling and improved steering connection.

1

MAIN RIVALS

Ford Mondeo, Holden Commodore, Hyundai Sonata, Kia Optima, and Toyota’s big-selling Camry, not to mention the Volkswagen Passat and its mechanical relative, the Skoda Superb.

THE WHEELS VERDICT

A more polished car than last year’s model and a significant, if subtle, step forward in contemporary Mazda dynamics. While the 6 lacks the packaging and refinement credibility that makes the Volkswagen Passat such a force to be reckoned with, the Mazda continues to offer a unique blend of bulletproof Japanese reliability with European-style driver appeal.

PLUS: Handsome styling; high-quality interior; spirited engines; sweeter steering connection; minor noise reduction MINUS: Still not particularly quiet; firm ride on 19s; sedan’s shallow boot

THE WHEELS REVIEW

IT MIGHT be four years old, and counting, but Mazda’s flagship passenger car, the Mazda 6, simply refuses to fall behind the rate of progress. Like an older sibling who’s not yet prepared to give-up the spotlight, the 6 has put its hand up for yet another round of improvements barely 18 months after 2015’s extensive mid-life update.

Playing catch-ups to the new-generation CX-9 and recently updated Mazda 3, the changes to the latest 6 focus on further improving its refinement, updating its technology and making the flagship Atenza’s cabin feel a bit more special. But then there’s also Mazda’s patent-pending G-Vectoring Control system, which is surely of greater interest to Wheels readers than titanium dashboard trim and a satin-chrome glovebox latch.

Externally, you’ll need to be the world’s biggest car nerd to spot the difference. The side mirrors have been redesigned and now electrically fold when you lock the car (except on the base Sport variant), and there’s a new high-flake paint colour (Machine Grey Metallic) that gets a premium-sparkle finish like the optional Soul Red hue.

The remaining MY17 changes come down to the bits you can’t see. There’s G-Vectoring Control, of course, but also several measures to reduce the 6’s noise, vibration and harshness (NVH). Improved rear door sealing, thicker front door glass (a ‘soundproof’ type on GT and Atenza), and more sound deadening in the roof combine with several NVH measures on the turbo-diesel 6 to put a pillow over this car’s often-flappy mouth.

A ‘High Precision DE Boost Control’ system improves the precision and response of the engine’s torque delivery in light-throttle situations, while a ‘Natural Sound Smoother’ (a damper in the hollow part of the cylinder-piston pin) reduces diesel knock, particularly from standstill, and enhances the diesel’s acoustics. Finally, ‘Natural Sound Frequency Control’ (the Japanese love their marketing terms!) monitors injection timing to ensure sound waves from different stages in the combustion process cancel each other out, in order to reduce vibration.

That sounds promising in theory, but it’s not something we can report on yet, seeing we only drove a 6 Atenza petrol sedan. The NVH improvement is marginal at best, and over some types of road surfaces, noise still manages to find its way into the cabin, which isn’t helped by the firm ride on the Atenza’s 19-inch wheels. The unchanged 2.5-litre SkyActiv-G petrol four also gets a bit vocal higher up in the rev range, but it remains a strong, lively and responsive engine that never sounds unpleasant.

Handling-wise, there really is a linear and controlled feel to the way the 6 turns into corners. Gone is the vagueness and moments of disconnection of the previous model, replaced by a crisp consistency as you apply throttle through corners, further underlining the effectiveness of GVC.

But if your attention does begin to stray, the MY17 6 gets an upgraded version of ‘i-ACTIVESENSE’, adding pedestrian recognition to its ‘Smart City Brake Support’ function while extending the autonomous braking’s intervention threshold to 80km/h (up from 30km/h). The ‘Smart Brake Support’ function (audible collision alert and two-stage autonomous braking) also expands its operating range, now 15-160km/h, while traffic-sign recognition displays the speed sign in the instruments new full-colour data display.

So, besides a bunch of blink-and-you’ll-miss-them improvements, the 6 line-up carries on in very much the same fashion as last year. Yet it’s now a more driver-friendly experience, while retaining the sporty flavour that has always been a 6 hallmark. Kudos to the Japanese for hedging their bets on stuff that makes a car feel better, rather than simply look different.

1

SPECS Model: Mazda 6 Atenza Engine: 2488cc 4cyl, dohc, 16v Max power: 138kW @ 5700rpm Max torque: 250Nm @ 3250rpm Transmission: 6-speed automatic Weight: 1531kg 0-100km/h: 7.6sec (tested) Economy: 6.6L/100km Price: $45,390 On sale: Now

THE LATEST Audi A4 Allroad has landed, introducing with it turbo-petrol power to supplement the turbo-diesel. Offering all the technological and driveability benefits of the latest A4, it provides a smarter, comfier, and more dynamic alternative to many luxury SUVs.

WHAT IS ITBasically an Audi A4 Avant wagon with more ride height, wheel arch extensions, and a tougher grille, the A4 Allroad quattro is the luxury sphere’s answer to the Subaru Outback, and a welcome respite from an endless parade of premium SUVs.

The ninth-gen Audi A4 (if you count three iterations of the Audi 80 that preceded it) is probably the brand’s strongest against the genre-defining BMW 3 Series, so the inclusion of the Allroad raises the interesting question as whether consumers need to default to a more cumbersome SUV alternative.

MAIN RIVALS

Subaru Outback, Volkswagen Passat Alltrack, Volvo XC70

THE WHEELS VERDICT:

UNTIL Mercedes and BMW decide to bring out jumped-up versions of their respective C-Class Estate and 3 Series Touring wagons to Australia, the A4 Allroad quattro has the luxury medium crossover market sewn up, especially as the Volvo XC70 is too old and the pioneering Subaru Outback too cheap.

Only the in-house Volkswagen Passat Alltrack can provide some semblance of competition, but it may not be enough, because the Audi majors on all the things that make the latest A4 sedan/Avant compelling (like quality, technology, safety, refinement, and all-round capability), in a roomy and high-riding AWD package. For design, versatility, driveability, comfort, and exclusivity, the A4 Allroad quattro has many luxury SUVs licked – including Audi’s (admittedly ageing) own Q5.

PLUS: Design, quality, versatility, performance, efficiency, space, safety, technology, exclusivity

MINUS: Ride-soothing adaptive dampers optional, expensive options, some road noise intrusion

The Audi A4 Allroad quattro is the thinking SUV buyer’s crumpet.

Compared to its in-house Q5 equivalent, the recently released B9-series Avant wagon based newcomer is roomier, lighter (by 175kg!), faster, less thirsty, more athletic, comfier riding, lovelier inside, and only fractionally smaller boot-wise.

But with a $10,000 price advantage, the more modish SUV will prove way more popular. And that’s a pity, especially as this second-series A4 Allroad stands virtually alone among the luxury brands in brandishing a lifestyle-alluding medium-sized crossover. Scandinavia’s venerable Volvo XC70 is the exception, but modernity-wise that old-timer’s more Roxette than Röyksopp.

To better avoid rocks, there’s hill-descent control, 34mm of extra ground clearance (at 173mm – though that’s still 27mm shy of the loftier Q5), and a fresh part-time AWD system dubbed Ultra. Chunkier bumpers, a toothier grille, bodyside cladding, different alloys, and a unique rear diffuser give the Allroad that obligatory streetwise attire.

Although 80kg lighter than before, the new Allroad has grown, accommodating five adults fairly easily. Of course, lavish interiors are Audi’s forte, so it’s no surprise that obsessively sparse detailing and sensual materials coalesce effortlessly with logical switchgear and firmly supportive seating, for a sumptuous yet sensible cabin experience. Certainly in our test car, which included the optional ‘Virtual Cockpit’ digitalised instrumentation, a head-up display and 19-speaker Bang & Olufsen audio.

A 505-litre load capacity is handy, stretching to 1510L with the 40/20/40 backrests lowered. There’s also a space-saver spare, powered cargo cover, and electric tailgate with foot-gesture activation. Only occasional tyre drone and the odd suspension jolt intrude in an otherwise civilised environment. The optional adaptive dampers help provide a gentler ride.

The real point, however, is that – unlike most SUVs – the Allroad drives like a hunkered-down sports/luxury wagon, meaning that the A4’s fluid (if slightly remote) steering, enjoyably agile handling, and unflappable roadholding translate largely undiluted. There’s alacrity and control to be savoured, backed up by spirited performance from a brawny yet cultured and frugal 2.0 TFSI four-pot turbo. Or a 140kW/400Nm 2.0 TDI turbo-diesel alternative from $71,400 is also available.

It’s clear, then, that the smart money is on the A4 Allroad. But will SUV buyers take heed?

SPECS

Model: Audi A4 Allroad quattro 2.0 TFSI S tronicEngine: 1984cc 4-cyl, dohc, 16v turbo

Max power: 185kW @ 5000-6000rpm

Max torque: 370Nm @ 1600-4500rpm

Transmission: 7-speed dual clutch

Weight: 1655kg

0-100km/h: 6.1sec

Fuel economy: 6.7L/100km

Price: $74,400

On sale: Now

SECRET STASH! Inside the rarely seen Mercedes-Benz classic car bunker. Tickford returns; James Bond’s new ride; Brock a decade on; 2016 Wheels Tyre TestALSO INSIDE THIS EDITION:

• Alpina’s Aussie masterplan laid bare
• Hyundai goes Ford Focus RS hunting
• Surprise! Holden’s Yankee cousin drops in
• Honda NSX: A first drive 25 years in the making
• Seven-seater megatest: Our own 70-seat theatre
• Merc’s tech-laden E-Class driven
• Infiniti plans GT-R-based supercar

There’s never been a better time to review the dual-cab 4×4 class of 2016 than right now. Wheels pitches eight of the biggest sellers in the segment for the title of King of the Heap. Here’s number four, the Toyota Hilux.

First published in the May 2016 issue of Wheels magazine, Australia’s best car mag since 1953.

TOYOTA’S ownership of this segment was once so absolute that ‘Hilux’ just about became the non-enthusiast’s term for anything that resembles a 4×4 ute, the way a non-barbeque enthusiast refers to ‘a Weber’. Intensifying competition saw Toyota really ramp up development for this eighth-generation model, as well as increasing Toyota Australia’s involvement in all aspects ranging from dynamics to load carrying and accessories.

Given Toyota also had the advantage of targeting the class-leading Amarok, you’d rightly expect big things from the new Hilux. We sure did.

You still get traditional Toyota virtues like rock-solid reliability and resale value, idiot-proof functionality and the confidence you’ve made a solid, gamble-free choice. However, you also get a 4×4 ute well short of best-in-class for dynamics and on-road performance. We won’t sugar-coat this: The all-new Hilux is, compared to the standard-setter, stiff and bouncy in its ride, neither fast nor frugal, and downmarket in its interior accommodation.

Hilux’s shortcomings are clear the moment you slide behind the wheel. You may be greeted by an all-new dash, but the design is a collision of mismatched surfaces and too many ideas. Functionality may be fine, but it’s an aesthetic no-man’s land, with HVAC controls like a ’90s Corolla, a hard plastic wheel in SR spec, and hose-out door bins. The only element that looks remotely contemporary is the multimedia screen, which, depending on your point of view, either looks vaguely like a tablet well positioned in the centre or an afterthought from an automotive superstore.

On the plus side, the basic, fully manual HVAC system, with minimal microswitches and solenoids, has less to go wrong in harsh and dusty Aussie conditions, and credit needs to be given to the rubber dust covers that plug the USB and audio inputs. And driving position, ergonomic details and general functionality are fine; it just feels like the car equivalent of a site office.

Rear-seat accommodation may not differ too much from the rest of the field, but an even more upright backrest than the worst offenders, a short cushion and lack of vents make it a thoroughly unappealing place.

Then there’s the suspension tune. Switching from the plush-feeling Amarok to the ultra-terse Hilux on the Hume is like going from an armchair to copping kidney punches from Danny Green. Sure, the Hilux is set up to carry Uluru on its back, and a load in the tray or even adding a hard canopy would be sufficient weight to tame the rear suspension a little. But we rate ’em as we find ’em, and the Hilux SR is one stiff, unforgiving brute over Aussie backroads. The upside may be crisp steering and better body control than the tail-enders, but it’s still hard to reconcile the trade-off for a recreational cruiser.

The new 130kW/450Nm 2.8-litre turbo-diesel four delivers decent refinement for this class, and is mated to a well-mannered six-speed auto, but this powertrain does not provide swift performance. Hilux was slowest of our group over 400m, yet its 8.5L/100km fuel number is nothing special.

Hilux does provide a strong sense of bush-bashing competence and durability, which goes some way to mitigating its on-road shortcomings, though not quite far enough.

Off-road performance

Take the Hilux off the smooth stuff and it starts to make a more persuasive case, steaming up steep climbs and putting its generous new levels of rear-wheel travel to good use. Its traction control is quick-acting and, even better, quick to release. Engaging the rear diff lock cancels the traction control on both axles, though, so some climbs are actually more effectively tackled without even locking the rear diff.

The Volvo V90 Cross Country has been unveiled in Sweden overnight, providing the full range of images of the Swedish brand’s Volvo XC70 replacement that’s due in 2017.

Volvo has released few details yet of the fourth and final model in the company’s 90-series line-up, which includes the Volvo XC90 seven-seater SUV, S90 sedan and the twin V90 wagon on which the new CC is based.

1

The higher-riding V90 gets the typical Cross Country treatment including black plastic protective trim for areas such as the wheel-arches, skid plates and side scuff plates. There’s an extra 65mm of ground clearance over the regular wagon, according to Britain’s Autocar.

It also reports that the all-wheel-drive Cross Country will feature four switchable driving modes, comprising Rough Road, Comfort, Eco and Dynamic, and rear air suspension will be optional as it is on the XC90.

A range of bigger wheels can also be expected based on Volvo’s approach to its other jacked-up models, which include the Volvo V40 Cross Country and V60 Cross Country.

1

Four-cylinder engines from the rest of the 90-series line-up will be available for Volvo Cars Australia to select from. Meaning D4 and D5 turbo diesels and T5 and T6 turbo petrols. Volvo’s T8 petrol-electric hybrid is also likely to be available.

The V90 Cross Country completes Volvo’s move away from XC badges for its high-riding wagons, instead using the letters exclusively for its SUV range.

The more rugged V90 will be a crucial model for Volvo in the North American market, where the XC70 – or V70 XC as it has also been known – has been popular since its debut 20 years ago.

Volvo’s regular V90 wagon doesn’t arrive in Australia until the first quarter of 2017, so expect its taller sibling some months after.

TELL ME ABOUT THIS CAR

It’s the cheaper, de-contented little brother of Peugeot’s acclaimed Peugeot 308 GTi 270 hot hatchback, making a little less power, and stripped of some important performance hardware that helps make that car so satisfying.

STRENGTHS

• The drop in power of around 16kW doesn’t make the 308 GTi 250 feel appreciably slower than the 270 variant. There’s still ample strength and muscularity of its delivery of 184kW/330Nm from the 1.6-litre turbo-charged four-cylinder engine. There is some slight hesitancy at very low revs, but the mid-range surge is impressive and it revs beyond the 6000rpm redline with a deep growl from a speaker-enhanced soundtrack symposer.
• Its cornering capabilities are equally impressive. The brakes are smaller than those fit to the 270 model, but are more than up to the task on the road, there’s plenty of grip and traction is very rarely an issue even without the 270’s limited-slip front differential to handle the generous torque output. It’s a neutral chassis setup, which inspires confidence, with front grip more often than not the first to go at the limit.
• Its sharp yet understated exterior styling and well-specced, minimalist interior will appeal to buyers who want to be different without being too different.
• At $44,990 it’s $5000 cheaper than the 270 version.

• The steering doesn’t inspire the confidence that is on offer from the chassis. Once you’re used to operating Peugeot’s tiny steering wheel it’s well weighted and reasonably accurate, but with lock applied it is difficult to feel how much grip is left in the front tyres. Subsequently, cornering hard requires a little too much guesswork and you can be left taking two or three bites at each bend.
• Wheel can obscure part of the instrument display, depending on the relationship between seat height and steering column chosen by the driver.

The Volkswagen Golf GTI has long been the dominant model in this segment, thanks to its persuasive blend of performance, liveability, cabin quality and value. It’s questionable whether the 308 GTi in either guise is quite enough to topple this status quo. For anyone chasing pure performance and accepting of some day-to-day compromises, take a look at the Renault Sport Megane RS265. It’s a front-drive benchmark.