Ged Bulmer
You can take the boy out of FNQ, but you can’t take the country out of Wheels’ favourite editor. A measured, methodical approach to driving and note-taking complements devastatingly effective administrative skills Likes: decision-making Dislikes: a chat
John Carey
Occam’s razor seems blunt compared with JC’s tendency to slash to the core of a car’s ability. His fierce, somewhat hirsute exterior hides a shining wit and sublime writing ability Likes: tidy engineering Dislikes: instant coffee
Jonathan Hawley
Able to combine Senna’s driving talent with Edward de Bono levels of precision thinking and the writing ability of Shakespeare. Honest. Otherwise a moderately talented hack for hire Likes: writing biogs Dislikes: fashion
Bruce Newton
Forsook a (potentially) glittering career in motorcycle racing to concentrate on journalism and never looked back. Combines clinical car analysis and industry knowledge with legendary warmth and humour. Ahem Likes: bikes with pedals Dislikes: being idle
Sean Poppitt
Poppitt’s debut on the COTY panel is backed by several years driving the Wheels engine room, road testing anything on offer. Boasts he has never left a car un-spanked Lacks age, not wisdom Likes: redlines Dislikes: deadlines
Peter Robinson
Car companies quake when Robbo’s opinions descend from the mountain, but for the COTY panel his decades of experience and unerring ability to recall people, events and cars are invaluable Likes: honesty, efficiency and good cheese Dislikes: loud music in restaurants
Michael Stahl
Unrecognisable in a helmet, Australian car journalism’s former enfant terrible has barely mellowed with age, especially when tackling COTY’s 80km/h lane change. His rapid fire verbal humour is matched only by his clever prose Likes: smartly dressed men Dislikes: having no hair
Leanne Tander
Our judging panel’s second newbie for 2008 is a genuine driving talent who almost took out the Oz F3 championship this year. Also has experience in karting, Formula Ford, and V8 Supercars. Quietly opinionated, and genuinely nice Likes: BMW steering Dislikes: exploding engines
FUNCTION
How well does it work? Does the nominated car work better than its competitors? Does it represent an improvement in user-friendliness? Is it better designed?
TECHNOLOGY
Does it deliver genuine advantages to consumers through the use of improved technology? Includes the use of new materials, superior production techniques and the use of innovative systems. The focus must always be the delivery of genuine advantages through the application of better technology … and at a reasonable price.
EFFICIENCY AND ENVIRONMENT
How efficiently does the car use resources. What impact on the environment does its use involve? Takes into account fuel consumption relative to competitors. Also, to a lesser extent, whether the car represents an efficient investment of materials and energy. The environmental rating is based on carbon dioxide and emissions associated with use.
SAFETY
How well does the car protect? Rates both active and passive safety systems of the car, whether standard or optional equipment. A possible five points can be achieved for active safety features (ABS, EBD, BA, TC, ESP), while passive safety features (specifically, the number of airbags fitted) is also scored out of five.
VALUE
Does the price accurately reflect its qualities? Essentially, quality – in every sense – versus price. Affordability is pre-scored (from a possible five points) based on the cost of the range. A further possible five points can be awarded by each judge based on the actual pricing relative to competitors.
In 2007 it was stifling heat, swarming flies, emotional anguish and ultimately, a well-engineered but conventional sedan winning COTY.
This time, it was arctic winds, limb-sawing sleet, serial hailstorms, lost car keys … and penultimately, three out of the four COTY finalists were also well-engineered, conventional sedans.
It had been a fire-and-ice sort of year, of course. We went into the seven-day exercise, held initially at Ford’s You Yangs Proving Ground near Geelong, and later in the lovely Macedon Ranges, north-west of Melbourne, in late-2008. While we drove, the global automotive industry wasn’t just dealing with shifting goalposts; the footy field itself looked like being redeveloped for condos.While we were in Geelong, Ford Australia’s local engine plant was granted a three-year reprieve, spreading palpable relief through the town. But around the same time, the Ford Motor Company’s capo-dei-capi Alan Mulally, GM’s Rick Wagoner and Chrysler’s Robert Nardelli had flown to Washington (infamously, on their private jets) to seek a US$18b life-support package.We were sharply aware that COTY ’08 coincided with a turning point in economic and automotive history.We began the process with 18 models in a total of 53 variants. They’re all assembled somewhere on these pages, in a photograph taken on the You Yangs skidpan in the wickedly polar weather mentioned earlier. This was our first trip back to the You Yangs since COTY 2005, Ford having opted to keep its impressive new FG Falcon under wraps throughout its development. COTY this year featured an all-new road route, centred on the pretty Mt Macedon township of Woodend.Looking at the assembled field, it occurred to me that people still like sedans. To my way of thinking, the crossover craze had reached a new zenith – or hopefully, nadir – during 2008 with the BMW X6, a coupe-four-door-truck-sports-thing appealing to 65-year-olds with ponytails.And yet at COTY, quite conventional, three-box sedans accounted for eight of the 18 models assembled (Audi A4, Ford Falcon, Honda Accord, Honda Accord Euro, Jaguar XF, Mazda 6, Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG and Mitsubishi Evo X). Three more were hatchbacks (the Mitsubishi Lancer Sportback, and the Peugeot 308 and Honda Jazz). Three were SUVs (Subaru Forester, Volkswagen Tiguan and the seven-seat Mazda CX-9), one a station wagon (Peugeot 308 Touring), one a one-box coupe and cabriolet (Smart ForTwo), and BMW gave us the 1 Series Coupe and Convertible, treated here as two different models.There was certainly a notable number of diesel engines among the variants (eight among five models). But aside from the obviously growing trend to compression ignition, there were no gender-bending, category-morphing, flux capacitor-powered, multiply util-active sedoupés.Aside from the Peugeot 308 Touring, a compact wagon trying to seat seven, the weirdest thing here was the new Smart ForTwo, but it’s really no weirder – only a little bigger – than its predecessor.Therein lay another trend that I, for one, began to question during Day One’s introductory walk-arounds.It’s an accepted fact that cars get bigger and heavier each year; some of it’s human growth, some of it’s safety and comfort, much of it’s marketing. Typically, each of our contenders this year had put on five to 10 percent more poundage over their predecessors.As editor and judge Ged Bulmer pointed out, “the number of cars in the past four or five years that have actually lost weight, you’d probably count on one hand.” (Last year’s Mazda 2 was the first that came to mind.)But in the ’08 atmosphere of automotive overhaul, I wondered aloud if COTY judges might one day applaud the omission of air-conditioning, CD players, satellite navigation and a bouncy-castle complement of airbags.It may not be far off: GPS-activated, collision-avoidance systems and (perhaps inevitable) external speed controls could revolutionise passive-safety design. Ever-improving electric steering already points the way for X-by-wire systems far lighter than hydraulics. Electronic miniaturisation means a car can provide all your personal entertainment, connectivity and navigation needs, with a single socket; everything’s already in your mobile phone.Someone could make a cheap, minimalist, manual-windowed car right now, but who’d buy it? Well, Europeans already are: the Dacia Logan is one of the fastest-selling cars on the continent. Not to mention its success in South American and Asian.Our judging debates included the expected old rivalries, and two fresh voices.Wheels staffer Sean Poppitt is already experienced in the COTY cause, having previously run errands and retrieved kangaroo carcasses for the judging team. Quick, keen and knowledgeable, Poppitt also spins off more similes than a, uhh … well, he’s a lot better than I am with similes.Our other new COTY judge is one of the country’s most credentialed racers. Two months earlier, only an engine failure at the final round of the Australian F3 championship had prevented Leanne Tander from becoming the first woman to win Australia’s premier driver’s championship.Tander brought a fresh perspective to the judging, along with effortlessly elegant wheel-twirling skills and the neatest handwriting ever seen in COTY. Glancing at her notes, Bulmer remarked: “Wow, definitely a gold star.”Leanne responded: “At least I get one Gold Star this year.”She clearly enjoyed the challenge. “I didn’t have any preconceptions about the cars or anything at all,” she said. “There’s so much to absorb about every car, my head’s about to explode. Everybody here looks at cars in a completely different way than I ever have … for me, noise isn’t normally an issue. It’s either good noise or bad noise.“But I can definitely assess how they handle, how they respond to braking and steering inputs, acceleration… You want to make a good decision, because a lot of people look to COTY to assist them. I’ve always held it in high regard from a reader’s perspective, so I want to make sure the thing I vote for is worthy.”Our two days of driving at You Yangs began with a shot-peening from 3mm hailstones. It happened twice more during the day, and the weather was barely better the next, as the nine judges continued to work through the 53-car conveyor-belt of durability circuit, dirt circuit, 100km/h wet-stop, 80km/h lane-change, ride and handling circuit, then a few furious minutes of note-taking.It’s a lot of cars to plough through. And plough some did.Subaru not long ago almost had a stranglehold on COTY; every Liberty that came along was a strong contender. But its recent foot-shooting festival continued with the spacious, practical but dynamically disappointing Forester. Carey summed it up best: “The atmo version is blancmange, and the Turbo is blancmange with a sparkler on top.”Similar disappointment oozed over the cat-caricature Peugeot 308 hatchbacks, the Jocelyn Wildenstein of automotive feline grace. Aside from needing to astral-chart Peugeot’s Australian line-up of variants, we all lamented the driving enjoyment of bygone Peugeot hot hatches, if not their bygone plastics and build quality.With an extra two seats and 100mm in the wheelbase, the 308 Touring was treated as a separate model. And it deserved to be. Vastly better to drive than the hatch, and making an admirable attempt to squeeze seven seats into a compact package, it found two champions in myself and Bruce Newton. We had won two more converts come the end of Round One, but it wasn’t enough.Bulmer, who had criticised the usefulness of the Pug’s rear-most row of seating, had no qualms with the Mazda CX-9. Most judged this full-sized seven-seater’s quality and dynamics to be the equal of far costlier German rivals. Until broken-record Carey brought up, as he does every year, a slightly less costly (and COTY-winning) Australian rival, the Ford Territory.If near-criminally clever packaging impresses, lift the tailgate of the new Honda Jazz. And hold onto something, lest you be sucked into the vortex before you. The 1.5-litre manual was a hoot to drive, but the marginally performing 1.3 auto (destined to be the most popular version) was further handicapped by poor tyres. That was one safety setback; the lack of ESP availability in the range would assume the presence of a Chokito floating in the Jazz’s swimming pool.Jaguar’s sleek XF, which we tasted in four flavours, including petrol and diesel, was a walk-up winner for Rear of the Year. That its engines are basically a generation behind German rivals ended up drawing little negative comment, other than the weakest-link petrol V6. We were appropriately surprised/delighted by the innovative cabin lighting and pop-up gear selector, which sparked a typical COTY exchange:“It’s very gimmicky,” said one judge.“Yes, but it works,” said another.“For how long?” asked yet another.On the dirt circuit, BMW’s little 1 Series Coupe was more fun than a bathtub full of Kylies. But it seemed to have an identity crisis, with the atmo 125i being the more balanced and entertaining drive. “The [twin-turbo] 135i’s performance is really nearing the edge of its chassis envelope,” Hawley ventured.Tander broke a Convertible. Whooshing around the dirt circuit, the 120i snagged something and was rendered hors de combat with a bent lower control arm. Thereafter it sat next to the Emissions shed, cocking its leg.Robinson, eyeing it there, conceded: “I think the Coupe and the Convertible are the best-looking 1 Series. But that’s not saying much at all.” Those who had been judges last year recalled the VW Eos, and the 1 Series Convertible was suddenly put in its place.So, too, the second-generation Smart ForTwo, which also is the best example yet. And which also isn’t saying much.The most evocative drives at You Yangs were unquestionably the Mercedes C63 AMG, the mental Mitsubishi Evo X and its milder and admittedly less dynamically talented little brother, the Lancer Ralliart.The Mercedes, with a genetically-modified link to the reigning COTY, came closest of the performance cars to making the trip north to Woodend.In the end, those that advanced after the first vote on the morning of Day Four were:Audi A4: a revelation, especially after our underwhelming experience of the same platform under the A5/S5 coupe just 12 months earlier. Ford Falcon: impressive for its ride, interiors and value, and strangely, more at home on the road than at ‘home’. The G6E Turbo is utterly world-class. Honda Accord: competent, comfortable, quality within and without, they’re like Camrys with character – and just as affordable. Honda Accord Euro: 10 percent heavier than the sweet, outgoing model, but compensates with greater refinement in just about every area. Honda Jazz: a triumph of packaging, and a lesson to others that an inexpensive car doesn’t have to look and feel cheap. Mazda 6: zoom-zoom with five-seater room; an enjoyably edgy drive, with a people-pleasing range of body styles and the option of a diesel. Volkswagen Tiguan: the GTI of SUVs; in fact, more entertaining on-road than a lot of ‘hot’ hatchbacks. Inoffensive enough everywhere else.Thus, seven models in a total of 17 variants convoyed along the delightful inland route from Geelong, via Bacchus Marsh and Gisborne, to Mount Macedon. Farther north, it’s a road that Robbo knows very well: “Thirty-five years ago, I used to do this drive a lot – and very, very fast,” he said. “It’s better heading south, with the ground falling away in front of you as you run along the ridge.”The weather, too, was showing the delightful Macedon Ranges at their best. It was low-20s and gloriously sunny, and after a quick lunch – no other kind at Car of the Year – at our Holgate Brewhouse boutique digs, the two-up road loops began.Our effervescent organiser, Jenny Lamattina, had mapped out a 47.5km loop that took in stretches of freeway, slow urban driving, open highway, ascents and descents, offering an admirably broad menu of road surfaces. Each lap took around 40 minutes. From a tourist’s point of view, the route also took in Hanging Rock (which, Robinson tried to explain, is not based on a true story), and the famous, short stretch of Straw’s Lane where cars seem to roll uphill.Several mystical things were to be revealed over the next 24 hours: how the Audi A4 gets better with the less money you spend; how Ford’s Falcon seemed to have been born for these roads; how the Volkswagen Tiguan’s ride quality is supernaturally sensitive to tyres and how its optional, automatic reverse-parking system is so lifelike, it even cruises around for hours looking for a parking spot; how, despite the nuances of Holgate’s boutique-brewed Big Reg Lager, Double Trouble and The Hopinator, their imbibers end up speaking almost identical drivel.Meanwhile, our final four cars had frothed to a head.As you’ll see, they were the Audi A4, Honda Accord Euro, its separated-at-birth Hiroshima cousin the Mazda 6 and the VW Tiguan. Three fairly conventional sedans and an SUV.The ultimate selection would occur after another day of four-up testing. It was fully obvious to judges that this was going to be a very difficult decision. Said Bulmer, “I don’t remember the last time we had such a close group of contenders.”Added Robinson, “It’s so very tight this year, but mostly because there isn’t a truly standout car. There are several very, very good cars, but nothing that changes the game.”In a context far larger even than COTY, in boardrooms from Michigan to Mumbai to Munich, the game had already been changed forever.
Last year saw BMW’s smallest hatchback morph into BMW’s smallest coupe and convertible.
There’s more to come on the 1 Series front – a X1 mini off-roader and even a sedan are on the cards – but for the moment, the extensive re-engineering work to turn a five-door into two two-doors was more than enough to give them COTY eligibility. With the likes of the 120i Convertible weighing in at just $52,900, sales far exceed COTY’s requirement of at least 250 units per annum.
On the COTY catwalk – where judges got to poke, prod, sit in, examine and learn about the cars before driving them – the 1 Series duo got a qualified nod of approval. The proportions are a little weird thanks to a high roof, stumpy boot and long bonnet, the latter to accommodate an in-line six. The 135i shouts its intentions with an M-Sport bodykit. Better than adequate rear leg room led the 190cm Poppitt to describe the packaging as “pretty bloody good”, although others were less enthusiastic about available head room in the coupe, or the rear-seat narrowness of the convertible enforced by the folding roof mechanism.Our selections from the range started with the 2.0-litre four-cylinder 120i and 3.0-litre six 125i Convertibles through to the 125i Coupe and brawny 135i turbo six Coupe. Given the latter is being favourably compared with past M3s, its $72,230 price tag seems relatively affordable, but against other respected chop-tops like the VW Eos, the Convertible’s (up to $80,000) sticker seemed excessive.Driving any BMW should be a joyful experience, and on the whole, the latest 1 Series variants didn’t disappoint. Sheer performance from the 135i was tempered by the atmo engine’s absolute smoothness, and its useful balance of power and precision in what is, after all, a relatively lightweight and short wheelbase car. “Love that engine” said Stahl, and although noting the 135i’s “knuckly” manual gearbox action, declared it “one hell of a package”.Electronic stability control was adjudged to be finely attenuated on any model, acting promptly on the slippery dirt section but not shutting down forward progress completely. Or, it could be completely switched off if needed. Not that this was such a good idea in the 135i on the bitumen handling sections; its 225kW and 400Nm in less than 1500kg of car constantly tested traction.We treated the roofed and roofless models as separate variants, but did the convertibles lose out in any way to the coupes? The weight penalty is around 100kg, boot space is reduced by 65 litres with the soft-top in place (or 110 litres folded) and on the whole, judges found the relatively small loss of body rigidity acceptable. “Not a lot of evidence of scuttle shake with the roof down,” Newton surmised.So, no gripes with the 1 Series Coupe or Convertible? Well, there were a few niggles, and they added up. I’m not a great fan of the ride, which is supple enough up to a point but quickly runs out of suspension travel and becomes harsh over really rough stuff. Or perhaps it’s those standard run-flat tyres. Robbo bemoaned the “heavy steering at low speeds” (whereas Poppitt loved “the heavy, meaty steering”) and the twitchy, powerful 135i felt “a bit too much engine for the package,” according to Bulmer.That’s not taking into account a spooky chain of problems with the 1 Series variants we tested. The seat height adjustment broke in one of the cars, but it was the 120i Convertible that was worst affected. The lower control arm on its right front suspension went banana-shaped, leaving the front wheels pointing cockeyed in two directions. It probably bounced badly off something on the dirt loop, but to so comprehensively bend a substantial component without anyone noticing the hit seemed strange and disconcerting.Both variants scored highly on safety, with the obvious exclusion of curtain airbags on the convertibles, although its side bags offer head and thorax protection, and they have natty pop-up roll-over protection behind the rear seats. Environmentally, it is slightly above average thanks to the lack of mass and the most popular variant – the 120i Convertible – having a relatively efficient engine.But both the 1 Series Coupe and Convertible missed the cut. There’s no doubt they are exciting cars to drive, especially those with larger engines, and the 125i Coupe was universally praised as being the sweetest of the bunch. Doubts over value, rear-seat accommodation and ride comfort caused judges to mark the 1 Series twins about mid-field, and there was polarisation about whether the powerful 135i was as well-rounded as BMW’s best coupes. And to progress to the next round of Car of the Year 2008 that just wasn’t quite good enough.
There’s a place in the world for cars like the Smart, but its natural environment is more Europe’s clogged cities than suburban Australia.
The bigger – plus 195mm for a still-tiny 2695mm in overall length – second-generation Smart ForTwo is undoubtedly hugely improved in many key areas. Yet in terms of Dynamics and Value it’s still so obviously compromised that, despite the clever rear-engine packaging, the world’s smallest production car never looked like proceeding beyond the first cull.
Under the intense COTY spotlight, the Smart failed to make a strong impression against the criteria. The positives – a terrifically willing and smooth little engine, excellent passive safety and still-cute if hard-to-spot-the-changes styling – were quickly outweighed by negatives.We drove two Smart variants: coupe and convertible, both powered by the 62kW turbocharged engine variant (chosen by 30 percent of local customers, and yes, we did ask for a normally aspirated version), one with the standard manual steering, the other the optional ($450) power steering. On the varied exercises at You Yangs the judges immediately found the manual steering wanting.For the demands of city driving, the steering was criticised for being too slow, as well as too heavy at parking speed, surprising on a car that carries just 44 percent of its 825kg over the front wheels. On the handling course, the steering loads built up excessively as understeer abruptly increased on turn-in. “Awful steering,” carped Stahl. “It tramlines, wanders and is bad in crosswinds.” The electric power steering is quicker, far lighter and really should come as standard, but there is still the impression the driver is constantly chasing the front end because the chassis never settles.The bigger, now Mitsubishi-supplied, one-litre engine (it was just 698cc on the first version) produces enough power to drop one ratio (down to five forward gears) from the automated gearbox. Despite the shifts being noticeably quicker, there is still an obvious delay. Carey asked: “Why isn’t there a manual gearbox with a clutch pedal?” Performance was judged “zippy” in city driving, but the long travel and grabby brakes conspire against smooth progress in stop-start driving. In the transmission’s optional automatic mode ($750) the sluggish changes are further exaggerated.Nor did the Smart’s dynamics endear themselves: the too-stiff suspension directly impacts on the ride, which can be harsh over potholes and corrugations, yet pitches the car longitudinally during gearchanges, and is prone to bouncing. Yet this firmness of ride doesn’t prevent the ForTwo from feeling top-heavy. Fun it is not.Stability control is standard and fundamental to the safety package, but the system isn’t tuned for Australian conditions, tending to intercede rather erratically. On gravel roads, which few Smarts will encounter, it’s pretty obvious that the engineers have ignored any serious testing on such surfaces, but the problems of the aggressive intervention also arose on wet roads and through our lane-change test. Some judges began to question its stability.“Schizophrenic,” said Poppitt of the Smart’s ESP.Questions were also raised about the ForTwo’s value, given its base $20K price, the relatively low level of standard equipment and the high cost of the many options.As much as we’d love to love the ForTwo, in the end we agreed that you can buy far more rounded small cars, which carry four adults, for less money. To make any impact in Australia, the ForTwo needs greatly improved suspension compliance, stronger performance and a decent gearchange. No judge questioned why the Smart fell at the first hurdle.
Jaguar’s XF failed to progress beyond the first round of COTY 2008, however this is far from an accurate reflection of the enthusiasm many judges felt for the new sedan.
Nor, let it be said, of Jaguar’s achievement in developing a highly competitive sports-luxury car.
The panel was unanimous in thinking this is the most complete Jaguar sedan in decades, and a credible alternative to its premium German rivals. “This is how Jags should look, feel and behave,” noted Poppitt.Jaguars should be beautiful and the XF’s contemporary exterior earned near universal praise, at least from the rear-three-quarter view. “Like a four-door Aston Martin,” enthused one judge, though others found the front-end contrived and the headlights slightly awkward and out of keeping with the otherwise flowing lines.Jaguar presented the full four-engine line-up for the COTY evaluation: the identically priced $108,350 petrol or diesel V6s, through to the $134,830 V8 and range-topping $173,170 supercharged SV8. The spread of performance and subtle handling nuances between the models, as defined by their engines, intrigued the panel who collectively concluded that the engineers had achieved just about the right balance for each variant.Both V6s offer a supple low-speed ride (“wafts across the road like good Jags do,” said Newton) and lighter steering than the more sporting V8s. On bitumen the chassis’ poise, agility and body control earned praise, though a few judges were disappointed when they became aware of mild steering kickback on corrugations and only average wet and gravel braking. The ESP tuning, too, was intrusive on gravel, totally shutting down the engine if the XF started to drift. In contrast, with the ESP switched off (or in the SV8’s dynamic mode), the chassis’ natural balance transformed the XF. “A riot on dirt,” according to Poppitt. “SV8 has razor-sharp throttle response.”“Everybody is enthusing over the looks from outside; I think the real delight is from behind the wheel,” said Stahl.The judges found it hard to ignore the fact that the weakest link in the XF line-up – the 3.0-litre V6 petrol – is also the best selling model. “Not as strong or as characterful as the Germans,” opined Newton. In this class, the 3.0-litre V6 was found wanting: the Ford-based engine lacked both the refinement and low-end power expected of a luxury sedan. (The Falcon in-line six is clearly superior in both areas.) There was unanimous agreement that the 2.7-litre twin-turbo diesel delivers enhanced performance and finesse, yet achieves 7.5L/100km in the combined fuel cycle. The 4.2-litre V8s – 219kW/411Nm normally aspirated and 306kW/560Nm supercharged – notably upped the performance whilst subtly altering the XF’s personality from polished luxury limo into true sports sedan.Bulmer, quickly settling into a perfect driving position, loved the interior’s combination of contemporary style with traditional Jaguar character. Functionally, the interior works almost as well as it looks. There is plenty of wood for traditionalists, but you’re more aware of the crafted aluminium and leather surfaces.“The XF delivers near-BMW levels of driver satisfaction with a much better ride,” noted Newton. “The engines aren’t as good, but this is a really nice package.”But not quite nice enough to go through to the next stage, for which that uncouth V6 (and a disappointing lack of any innovative engine tech) can take most of the blame.
Peugeot‘s longer, wider, lower and heavier – by a hefty 155kg on the base model – 308 presents to the market with an almost bewildering choice of models.
Buyers select from three petrol and two diesel engines, five- and six-speed manual gearboxes and four- and six-speed automatics, in five-door hatchback or long-wheelbase Touring (wagon) bodystyles. All for sales of less than 3000 cars in 2008, a below-par result that is at least partly explained by the elevated prices: a $25,990 entry-level sticker shocked the panel. But, as the judges quickly discovered, the French attempt to portray the 308 as a Euro-premium isn’t supported by the driving experience.
Peugeot admits the 308’s basic architecture is carried over from the 307, and the two models share the same 2608mm wheelbase (2708mm in Touring), while retaining the same windscreen-forward design, tall proportions and the marque’s strange obsession with a long front overhang and a wide-mouthed grille. The days of Pininfarina’s elegant influence on Peugeot design are long gone. The front suspension is MacPherson struts, and the 308 preserves hydraulic power-steering rather than swapping to a new electric system. Against the class best, the retention of a torsion-beam rear suspension, rather than the independent multi-links of the Mazda 3, Golf and Focus, negatively impacted on ride and handling.On the varied surfaces of the proving ground, there was uniform acknowledgement that the 308 was a significant improvement in handling over the 307, but the judges still found plenty to criticise. The disappointing performance of the throbby 1.6 petrol engine (shared with the Mini), especially when tied to the lazy and inconsistent auto tranny, worried the panel. “Slow, slushy, slippery, horrible,” exclaimed a frustrated Stahl. Some felt that at the price, the base 308 XS deserved the smoother and better performing 1.6-litre turbo of the $30,590 XSE, though the downside was obvious – the added grunt introduced unwelcome torque steer.From behind the wheel it was impossible not to be impressed by the 2.0-litre turbo-diesel when it was tied to the excellent six-speed automatic. This combination is relaxed, impressively responsive and undemanding.“By far the best,” enthused Newton. “Powerful, smooth.”Apart from the obvious performance differences, the most striking divergence between the various models was evident in the steering and ride. On the petrol models the steering was lighter and more fluent than that of the diesels, which was heavier and slower to react. Yet, even among the petrol engines the steering feel varied, to the point where some judges believed the 1.6 XTS had a quicker steering rack that produced more ‘pointy’ handling, at least on smooth blacktop. Rack rattle and kickback were obvious on rough surfaces, while the ESP performance produced a mixed response, and the ABS braking was judged no better than average. The front suspension on a couple of cars groaned and knocked over corrugations, while the ride varied between acceptable and choppy, verging on harsh. “Crashy ride, poor by the class standard,” complained Carey.The French affliction for a weird driving position continues. The long-arm/short-leg relationship between driver and car is exaggerated by flat and high pedals and soft, flat seats that fail to deliver proper support. Recently, Peugeot has made huge strides in terms of perceived quality and the 308 is the best yet. Materials, textures and finish are ahead of the 307, if not quite to Golf standards.If the hatchback failed at the first ballot, the better driving Touring gained solid support from a couple of judges, predictably those with young families who saw the extra value and appeal of what is essentially a crossover model with three rows of seats. Because of the 100mm stretch in wheelbase (all behind the B-pillar) and the extra seats, the Touring was treated as a separate model in its own right.Peugeot calls the rear-most seats ‘occasional’, an honest description that indicates they are best used for sixth and seventh child passengers. Cargo space is limited when the third-row seats are in place, but they fold flat on the floor and can, like the centre row, be removed completely to produce a vast 2149-litre carrying capacity.Any realistic comparison with its logical competitors marks the inconsistent and flawed 308 poorly for value, a major handicap in the COTY evaluation. The base car even misses out on standard stability control. So while the 308 pushes Peugeot forward in some areas, the way it drives still incorporates too many of the faults left over from the previous model. Nobody was surprised when the Pug failed to go beyond the first knock-out stage.
As the only large SUV on test this year, and Mazda’s biggest car to date, the CX-9 stood out like a colossus in a field of mostly conventionally sized COTY contenders.
Unlike Mazda’s smaller five-seat CX-7 SUV, the CX-9 makes no attempt to play down its bulk, a point noted by Peter Robinson, who described it as “heavy; massive dimensions – designed for America”.
Dimensionally, the CX-9 is slightly longer, wider and taller than the 2004 COTY-winning Ford Territory, with the kerb weights of its simple two-model line-up coming in around 50kg lighter than the respective Ford rival.There’s no denying that it’s more stylish looking than the five-year-old Ford, however, with Sean Poppitt commenting that “it carries off the rakish zoom-zoom styling very well.”The CX-9 backs up its bulk by providing accommodation that’s the envy of its peers. Its roomy interior is attractive and well-finished, with an easy-to-navigate dash and a versatile seating configuration that has undoubted family appeal. Mazda’s claim of best-in-class rear-seat accommodation is hard to argue with, especially when adults can sit back there in a modicum of comfort. When not in use, the third row folds flat into the cargo-bay floor, liberating a vast luggage area in the process.Like the majority of soft-roaders, the CX-9 is basically a FWD that’s capable of driving all paws when required, via its Active Torque Split AWD system. It’s also more on-road than off-road oriented, exhibiting superior dynamics to more purposeful 4x4s such as the Prado and Pajero.Judges were impressed by the smoothness of the 3.7-litre V6 and Aisin six-speed automatic, a combination that moves the CX-9’s 2080kg kerb weight with impressive zeal, albeit with a reasonably heavy 13L/100km slug of unleaded in the process.Aside from fuel economy, the only criticisms of its performance focused on the amount of throttle required to get its mass moving again from a standing start, or out of a low-speed corner. Mass also became an issue in braking tests, where the CX-9 hauled up okay, but not brilliantly.The ride, however, is commendable, thanks to independent front and multi-link rear suspension. NVH is also well controlled for the most part, the exception being a bit too much front suspension knock over potholes.The steering is light, and not overly endowed with feedback, but the ratio is decently quick and judges were mostly impressed by the CX-9’s dynamic feel. “Very nice chassis balance; never feels like a lardy SUV,” said Poppitt. “Surprisingly agile for its size,” seconded Jon Hawley.Mazda’s DSC stability program was not so universally praised, however, with most judges taking some issue with the manner in which it activated during testing. The system can be switched off, but reactivates at speeds above 15km/h. That’s not a major issue in this style of vehicle but the tuning of the system was. “ESP a disappointment; very slow to kick in on dirt,” noted Michael Stahl, a sentiment shared by Peter Robinson, who noted simply that the “ESP setting is un-Mazda-like”.As a large and reasonably affordable seven-seat SUV the CX-9 makes a strong case against its established rivals. But with the possible exception of its additional interior space and superior refinement, it does not set any new standards and, as such, failed to gather enough support to progress beyond stage one.
The last time a Mitsubishi Evo fronted up for COTY duty (Evo IX in 2006), it was bundled out at the first hurdle.
Its raw dynamic magic seduced all our judges, but the poverty-pack interior, jackhammer ride and general lack of refinement killed the love. This time around, Mitsubishi has made much of the new Evo’s liveability, claiming it now offers “performance without compromise”. Cue the COTY crucible…
The Evo started positively enough. During the static evaluation there was much head-nodding among judges at the depth of technology it offered. The sedan’s rear spoiler, roof, bonnet and front guards are made from aluminium, as is the all-new 2.0-litre turbo four. Breathing with variable valve timing on both exhaust and inlet cams, outputs peak at 217kW/366Nm, and it can be coupled with the new twin-clutch transmission (TC-SST) or a five-speed manual. Then there’s the three-mode all-wheel-drive system, offering Tarmac, Gravel and Snow settings that govern traction via a front LSD, a torque-splitting active centre diff and an advanced yaw-sensing rear differential.Judges approved of the extensive standard safety equipment list, which runs to ESP and seven airbags, along with auto headlights and rain-sensing wipers. There was a sense that the wild-child Evo may finally have grown up.Aside from these technical improvements, there was agreement that Mitsu has significantly lifted the bar in terms of interior quality. Newton even thought it “quite luxurious, for an Evo.” Others weren’t convinced, however, grumbling about the lack of steering wheel reach adjustment, plastics quality and the fact that there simply isn’t enough differentiation from the base $20,990 ES Lancer, particularly in the range-topping MR.Which brings us to Value. At $59,990, the entry Evo represents whopping bang for your buck, but tick the MR box at $72,190 and the included suspension upgrade served to ruin ride quality without noticeably aiding dynamics. Accordingly, most didn’t score value beyond the median.Nevertheless, as judges cycled through the You Yangs dynamics tests, praise for the Mitsu’s pace and honed dynamics came thick and fast. Sharp steering and almost telepathic turn-in, gobs of grip and a deliciously adjustable chassis meant no other car – C63 AMG included – could match the Evo’s cornering speeds.Plant the snout tight to the inside line, feed in power and the centre diff shuffles grunt to the back axle, the rear end squatting in the quest for traction. Press harder on the throttle and the yaw-sensing rear diff juggles torque to the outside wheel and the Evo slingshots out of apexes.Ed Bulmer’s notes in particular bristled with Evo-love: “Thrilling to drive, a thoroughly exhilarating machine.”And from Stahl: “The 135i isn’t your ‘budget M3’ – this is.”While some found the five-speed knuckly and slow, every tester gushed about the twin-clutch SST ‘box. In manual mode, response to inputs is immediate, but the ‘box also offers three auto modes: Normal, Sport and Super Sport. In Sport and SS, the Evo does an accurate job of picking the right gear, blipping the throttle expertly on downshifts.On gravel, not surprisingly, the Evo excelled; engaging the ‘Gravel’ mode produces a more rear-biased power delivery and languid four-wheel drifts. “Great on dirt” was Hawley’s summation. More disappointing was the Evo’s wet/dirt ABS calibration. In both disciplines it sailed worryingly past the last cone.In the final wash-up, and despite an undoubted extra layer of civility, the tenth-gen Evo stumbled in the same areas as its predecessor: it’s still too focused and uncompromising to score highly against the majority of the criteria. Ride quality is improved, but still harsh on pocked tarmac and NVH levels are intrusive. Plus, the Evo’s thirst for 98 RON skyrockets into the low 20s when pushed hard. Factor in the surprisingly poor braking performance and stage one was as far as the Evo flew. Again.
Remember the good old days when you went to the footy and got to watch a reserves match before the main game?
It made for an interesting comparison. The fundamental purpose was the same, but everything happened a bit slower, less surely and without the same poise or ability.
That’s kind of how the Ralliart stacks up against the rally-rocket Evo model from which much of it is derived.Okay, in Wheels COTY the entrants are pitted against the criteria and not each other. But considering most judges drove the Ralliart immediately after the Evo at You Yangs, the gap in class between the two Lancers was obvious.The Ralliart is not a bad car. Indeed, quite the reverse is true. For just beyond $40,000 you get the determined and punchy, turbocharged and intercooled new 4B11 2.0-litre engine, driver-adjustable AWD and Mitsubishi’s brilliant dual-clutch TC-SST transmission.But while the Evo sits happily among the elite, the Ralliart impresses without reaching the same heights.It’s not helped by typical Mitsubishi penny-pinching. You get a disappointingly brittle and bland interior, a tinny body, no reach adjustment on the steering wheel, too much road noise and – most heinously for a car with real sports potential – sub-standard rubber.The Ralliart comes shod with the same 18-inch wheels and 215/45 tyres as the naturally aspirated VRX, and it didn’t take the tortuous You Yangs bitumen long to show what a short-sighted decision this is. “It needs better rubber,” wrote Poppitt. “All the chassis fundamentals are there, but the tyres wash into understeer. Steering is also disappointing – too many turns and lifeless.”It wasn’t hard to sense the Ralliart had more dynamic potential than its tyres were allowing it to show. The ride and handling balance was better than either of the front-wheel-drive Lancers that bombed in COTY last year, and better than the harder and more focused Evo. It gave rise to hope that the GS architecture underpinning the Lancer might have some talent after all.More subjectively, the looks of the Ralliart in Sportback (hatch) guise drew some negative commentary, all of it centring around the weirdly heavy rear-end: “It looks like it’s pooped in its pants,” said Carey.The hatchback also hurt the Ralliart’s marks when it came to Function, as the load lip is high and the actual luggage space far less than the sedan. Rear-seat space was fine, but the small rear doors didn’t help exit and entry.By contrast, the front end styling of the Ralliart remains strong and aggressive, dominated by an enlarged matte-black grille and vented aluminium bonnet donated by the Evo.Indeed, the Evo’s various filtered and filleted contributions ensure the Ralliart ranks highly in terms of Technology. The engine downgrades to a single-scroll turbo and cedes 40kW/23Nm, but remains a vibey, noisy treat. Its continued punch and the SST’s ingenious flexibility serves up 0-100km/h in 6.3sec, an ADR fuel figure of 10.2L/100km and CO2 emissions under 250g/km.In the real world, however, its thirst for 98 RON is prodigious when pushed, but worth living with: “It’s a great drivetrain – revvy, powerful,” declared Hawley.The Ralliart also fares well when it comes to Safety. Seven airbags include a driver’s knee ‘bag, and there’s also EBD, brake assist and an ESP system that seemed well-tuned. A space-saver spare is a disappointment, but the $42,490 price remains tempting.But not tempting enough to garner the judges’ support and win through to the COTY final. Like many also-rans, the Ralliart is dedicated and hard working; it just lacks the inspiration and class to go all the way.
