Of the millions of oohs and ahhs that are expended over the days of judging COTY, there was one particular phrase we kept hearing when drivers stepped from the C63 AMG: “Just freakin’ awesome.”
The C63 really shouldn’t work as well as it does. Into what we regard as a compact sedan is shoe-horned a 6.2-litre, 32-valve, hulking and seriously mother-grabbing V8 monster motor, purpose-built by AMG and not derived from any Benz production unit.
Outputs of 336kW and 600Nm equate to almost 2.5 times those of a C200K. So, despite the 1730kg kerb weight of the C63, straight-line performance enters the super-coupe realm with a claimed 0-100km/h in 4.5 seconds. That just shades BMW’s $18K-dearer M3 coupe and its new sister sedan – the latter of which had to be pillaged to match the C63’s surprise $144K price tag.Ah, but that’s where the flagrant awesomeness of this beefed Merc sedan comes in. It goes around corners, too.The C63’s entire front end is unique, with bespoke sub-frame, three-link suspension system, broader track widths, different hubs, different wheel offsets, the whole shooting match. Spring and damper rates are fully 100 percent firmer than any other C-Class model.Braking is on absolutely the same scale of superness, with 360mm front discs clamped by six-piston calipers and the 330mm rears by four-pistons. “It’s got great go-age,” said Carey, creatively, “but it’s also got great stoppage.”It also has great steerage. It has no right to turn into corners the way it does, and as Poppitt put it, the steering transmits a “constant stream of data”. “Hard to fault, dynamically,” said Hawley, who praised the steering, brakes and ESP calibration on dirt. My own notes read “95 percent of the result of an M3 coupe, for 50 percent of the effort.”For the first time on a Benz, the ESP system can be completely disabled, yet its two functioning modes drew plenty of praise. “The ability to switch the ESP to Sport is a major plus,” wrote Bulmer, who also described it as a “gripping performance car – utterly enjoyable”. Poppitt agreed: “The ESP calibration is very well-judged, very reassuring.”The 7G-Tronic tranny likewise boasts three modes, with finely measured blipping on downshifts. A part of the C63’s performance ambience is also, finally, down to an improved control feel: the chunky steering wheel and rock-solid ‘Speedshift’ paddles transmit precision.But heading the performance, always, is the engine. “Apocalyptic engine note – I want it as my ring-tone,” Poppitt opined. “Wheel spinning in the first four gears on a wet, but coarse surface … Impressive,” Newton surmised. Hawley’s scrawly notes read: “Sweetly brutal engine” – or possibly “Sweaty brutal engine.” It’s both.So, issues? Judges found the low-speed ride w-a-y too firm. Hawley, who conducted the Wheels comparison test earlier in the year, recounted that it’s firmer than even the M3’s stiffest track setting.It’s got a fully equipped cabin and a staggeringly complete safety score, but Tander felt the interior looked “a bit plain and disappointing”.Robinson, while maintaining the car’s awesomeness, still felt that it “doesn’t have the engineering integration, the designed-as-a-whole feel of the M3”.Newton’s notes read along similar lines: “One of the most cohesive AMGs I’ve ever driven – most have too much power and too little chassis. This feels better balanced, but still a sledgehammer. The M3’s guile appeals to me more.”“Looks tough, goes hard, and has forced BMW’s hand on M3 sedan pricing,” concluded ed Ged, joining the consensus that half the reason for the C63’s excellence is the platform from which it was derived. And that’s the model that won COTY last year, by costing $57-$96K and being, well, adequately awesome.
The first-generation Forester quickly carved itself a reputation as the sharpest handling compact SUV around; a comparatively lithe, responsive entrant in a segment littered with dynamic duds.
But functionally, the Subaru was hamstrung by its compact dimensions and tight packaging. Rear-seat leg room was severely restricted, and, as family transport, it was compromised to say the least.
Enter gen-two. New Forester has grown in every dimension. Its body is 75mm longer, wheelbase has grown by 90mm, it’s 60mm wider and 110mm taller. The result is greatly improved space for all passengers in all directions, including a big 109mm gain in rear-seat leg room. The rear doors also open wider to improve entry and egress. NVH improvements include framed doors (a Forester first) and additional sound deadening in key structural areas.The list of standard safety kit, including ESP and dual front, side and curtain airbags, had judges nodding in approval. It came as no surprise to learn the Forester is a five-star ANCAP crash performer. The fact the new Forester launched in Oz at the same price as the outgoing model – despite this significant equipment upgrade – was also applauded.The judges were less than impressed, however, with the Forester’s interior. Cheap-feeling plastics and a lack of design flair left most feeling cold. “Interior is cheap,” scribbled Robbo. “Too many contrasting finishes.”But despite concerns over its interior presentation, judges were largely impressed with the Forester’s overall functionality. “Practical and unpretentious,” wrote Jonathan Hawley, succinctly.And so to the driving, where Subaru’s historical strengths lie and where the promise of a new double-wishbone rear suspension heightened expectations. Instead, this is where the Forester’s COTY charge unravelled.Overly soft suspension delivered a supple ride (probably the best of any vehicle here) but also a lack of body control and a disturbing tendency to alternate between understeer and roll oversteer during hard cornering. At three-quarter pace, the Forester feels neutral and predictable, but flirt with the limits of adhesion and any sense of poise evaporates. “Inconsistent grip levels,” said Robbo. “Understeers, bites, then understeers. Lacks body control.”The kick-back-prone steering copped a hammering in the pages of the judges’ books: “Steering is vague and approximate,” read my own notes, while Robbo’s disappointment only deepened: “Steering too slow and vague – doesn’t steer like a Subaru should.”The naturally aspirated four also came under fire. Outputs of 126kW/229Nm don’t seem anaemic, but fail to translate from spec sheet onto the road. There’s a lack of fizz below 4000rpm, a problem compounded by the four-speed auto. Speaking of which, eyebrows were raised at a $40K SUV using a four-speed automatic. Points in the Value and Technology criteria were duly deducted. The turbo XT ups the power stakes to 169kW/320Nm, bringing a welcome boost in mid-range punch, but the extra grunt also overwhelmed the chassis. Several judges complained of hairy lift-off oversteer behaviour.Then the rain came. And with it, thunder, lightning and hail. In the slippery conditions, the Foresters’ ESP was all at sea. Once the front end had pushed wide (which it inevitably did), the electronics were too often caught napping, before panicking and biting too aggressively, unsettling the car and spooking most judges: “Not at all sure-footed,” said Bulmer.In truth, much of the blame can be laid at the tread of the XT’s rubber. “Those Geolandars would have to be close to the worst piece of rubber ever!” raged Newton. The Bridgestones fitted to the lower level models actually offered better wet-weather grip, but still disappointed.In fact, if there’s one word to capture the Forester’s 2008 COTY campaign, it’s ‘disappointing’.
If it wasn’t for the remarkable strength of the competition – including two other Hondas – the eighth-generation Accord may well have gone all the way through to the final stage. It was COTY 2008’s great surprise.
Larger than Toyota’s Aurion, the now genuinely Falcodore-sized, Thai-built sedan offers unsurpassed value in the class, together with dynamics that are vastly improved over its admittedly underwhelming forebear.
Prices are attention grabbing, especially the $29,990 sticker for the cheapest VTi four-cylinder auto – no model currently on sale in Oz offers more car for the dollar – but the $46,990 V6 Luxury also scores highly against the Value criterion. “Outstanding value equation,” noted Poppitt. “Heaps of standard kit.”The oversized dimensions translate to an impressively spacious interior and a huge boot with a full-size, steel-rimmed spare as standard. Front or rear there is space to spare in every direction, while ingress and egress is easy. However, a number of judges complained of an excess of lower lumbar support. In terms of overall theme and positioning of instruments and controls, the dashboard resembles that of the new Accord Euro, though close examination reveals they are different designs with virtually nothing in common. Initially, the judges complained of an excess of centre-stack buttons, but, as the COTY process unfolded and wheel time increased, many praised the basic ergonomics of the controls. Most significantly, both are beautifully built, with the expected Honda fit and finish.Technology? Both the 202kW 3.5-litre V6 and the 133kW 2.4-litre four pack impressive engine tech as standard. Honda’s Variable Cylinder Management disables the rear bank of three cylinders to run as a triple, or one cylinder from each bank to operate as a V4. Testing proved the official 10L/100km isn’t a true reflection of the V6’s parsimonious abilities on a steady throttle. On the VTi, the engine can operate just one or both of each cylinder’s exhaust valves to reduce pollutants. Ignoring the V6’s ‘eco’ light, the driver is never aware of the changeover point with either engine; drivetrain refinement remains a taken-for-granted Honda advantage. For Efficiency and Environment, both scored well. Understandably, the V6 also scored for its added smoothness, more immediate throttle response and swifter acceleration. Amazing how torque-steer is no longer an issue on the best of today’s large front-wheel-drive cars.Why, then, did this Honda not progress farther? Certainly not for any lack of ease of driving. Few cars are as undemanding to wheel down the freeway or to park. But true to its American influence, the Accord takes this philosophy a step too far. The utterly feel-less steering is vague, even numb, around the straight-ahead. Perhaps this disconnection between driver and road suits the character of the car, especially on the VTi’s 60-series rubber, but the judges expected greater involvement and improved responses. Still, scribbled Poppitt, it is “Dynamically, a quantum leap from the soggy previous-gen.”On track and road, most judges preferred the slower VTi to the V6. A floaty ride and slower steering reactions, blunted by the nose-heavy V6, meant it was slower to turn in, induced greater understeer and displayed more bodyroll. Rapid steering inputs through the lane-change manoeuvre overwhelmed the steering’s power assistance, which ‘froze’ on some testers. Likewise the lower profile 17-inch tyres impacted on ride comfort, especially at low and medium speeds. “Too bouncy and harsh,” according to Newton.The brakes were next up for criticism. Complaints about long stopping distances in the wet surfaced. The Accord’s standard stability system (labelled VSA by Honda) provoked discord among the judges. Some found it performed poorly on dirt, while others rated it highly for the fact that it was not so intrusive as to prevent effective steering inputs. Disconnect the stability system and, Newton summarised, it was “graceful and predictable”.Finally, the team struggled with the conservative styling that manages to borrow many of the worst themes from its Asian competitors. “A bit Hyundai Grandeur in appearance,” according to Bulmer.It says plenty for the huge step Honda has taken with the overall abilities of the new Accord that it went through to the second round of COTY 2008. It was then, on the road, that the judges quickly realised the superior dynamics and driver appeal of its in-house Euro rival better satisfied the Car of the Year standards.
From its smooth and powerful six-cylinder engines, to its sophisticated five- and six-speed automatics, to its spacious and comfortable interiors, the FG Falcon is a thoroughly contemporary and mostly impressive expression of the ‘big car for a big country’ ideology.
But unlike the 2002 BA Falcon, a car that showed what a backs-to-the-wall Ford Australia was capable of, the FG does not significantly raise the bar for large cars. As a result, it also doesn’t carry home to Broadmeadows our distinctive red COTY trophy.
FG cleared the initial cull at You Yangs – and deserved to – but by the time the two-up Woodend loops were completed on day five it was clear that the Ford had issues that would ultimately derail its COTY campaign.A lack of consistency across the range best sums up the Falcon’s problems. While some models, such as the stunning G6E Turbo, stand out like a beacon, others, such as the nose-heavy XR8, make us wonder how it came to be signed off.Crucially, the big-selling base-model XT felt tired, despite its low kays, with steering rack rattle under heavy cornering loads worse than any of the front-wheel drive cars. The rear end was skittish, the ESP tune not up to Ford Australia’s usual standards, and the amount of suspension and tyre noise transmitted into the cabin did it no favours.Things improved farther up the range, but where you delighted in an obvious strength, such as the staggering performance of the XR6 Turbo, it was frequently negated, in that car’s case by a slow and heavy clutch and gearbox.The driving position across all models was the subject of much debate, with taller testers such as Carey and Robinson lambasting the limited range of steering height adjustment. As Carey stated, pointedly: “It’s an all-new car, so why isn’t that fixed? They had the opportunity to do it.”There was other evidence of cost-cutting: no rear door pockets or door grabhandles on any model, no adjustable rear headrests for the outboard passengers, and none whatsoever for the centre-rear passenger.While these may seem relatively trivial matters to some, the omission of standard curtain airbags on all but the G6E and G6E Turbo is a disappointing safety blemish, albeit one ameliorated by the option’s reasonable cost.That aside, the FG regains valuable ground against the safety criteria by being the first Australian five-star ANCAP performer, and there’s little doubt that significant effort has gone into engineering a much safer structure.There’s equally little doubt that the FG remains good – and sometimes great – value. This comes together most obviously in the G6E Turbo. At $54,990, this is a car that embodies the European sports sedan ethos at a fraction of the cost. Its engine is capable of landscape-crushing performance and its chassis of handling all that power and torque, all the while communicating fluently with the driver while keeping passengers relaxed and comfortable.The G6E Turbo was a cut above all other FGs, including the XR6 Turbo, appreciation of which was tarnished by the unrefined thumps emanating from the diff under full throttle upshifts in the manual version.That said, the XR6 in either turbo or atmo form is a far superior dynamic offering to the disappointing XR8.“Extra weight of the V8 blunts turn-in and pushes the nose wide in hard cornering,” noted Sean Poppitt.The superiority of the XR6 Turbo in particular over the XR8 caused more than one judge to ponder the future of V8-powered Falcons: “The turbo is faster, better balanced and more frugal – is the V8 dead?” asked Poppitt.It was a question that remained hanging even after the high-performance FPV GT and F6 were put through their paces, with results that basically mirrored the XRs. Some judges also felt the FPV’s lacked differentiation from their more mainstream siblings, considering the price premium.The Woodend road loops confirmed that a decade of development has dramatically transformed Ford’s 4.0-litre in-line six. Powerful, refined and responsive, more than one judge declared it ‘world-class’. Add in a choice of five- and six-speed automatic transmissions and this was a drivetrain as good as any on test.The real world also gave the chance for the XT to regain credibility thanks to its outstanding ride quality. This was allied with masses of space and a rear seat Robbo rated more comfortable than the new BMW 7 Series. Unfortunately, the bangs and thunks remained.Moving up through the G6E and XR6 Turbo, the ride became a touch more terse but, at the same time, the interior presentation lifted noticeably. No doubt, the FG has the VE Commodore beaten when it comes to modern, clean and attractive cockpit presentation.But overall, FG didn’t blow our 2006 COTY winner away. Indeed, in the final analysis it was FG being banished by an impressive, imported 2008 crop.
If the 2008 Wheels Car of the Year award had simply been based at Ford’s You Yangs Proving Ground then the second generation Mazda 6 would have been a red-hot favourite for the COTY gong.
There, the judges studied the form guide, poked and prodded all three bodystyles – hatch, sedan and wagon – and drove both petrol and new turbo-diesel engines on some truly challenging (and enjoyable) bitumen and dirt.
The positive impact was obvious from the moment the 6 was sighted. The compact and clean lines of the original had been transformed into something larger and more complex, yet no less graceful. “I think it looks great. Classically Japanese in a good way,” wrote road test editor, Sean Poppitt. “Sharp, sculpted, sporty and sleek.”Inside, the increase in space for rear-seat passengers was palpable, as was the improved quality and presentation around the dash and instrument panel. The exquisitely simple Karakuri rear-seat folding system transferred from the original 6 and remained a hit.“Nice packaging, good ergonomics,” noted Michael Stahl. “Functionality points for the body range.”And not only for the breadth of that range, but the depth and pricing. Starting at $27,990 for the Limited sedan six-speed manual, rising to $43,890 for the Diesel Sports hatch (six-speed manual only), the 6 offers buyers a diversity of choice rarely matched. Importantly, every model in the range includes six airbags and stability control as standard.As COTY was being conducted, news came through of price reductions for most models, a deal sweetened by other improvements, including the option to use cheaper standard unleaded petrol with the MZR 2.5-litre four-cylinder without impacting on performance or economy – both of which are improved over the old model. Good news for consumers and indicative of the attention to detail Mazda devoted to the 6.At its very core is the same gram-saving strategy first employed in the development of the MX-5, our 2005 COTY winner. While kerb weights go up, the increases are not that significant considering all key dimensions grow.The bodies have also been made stronger, the hatch’s torsional rigidity improved by a significant 30 percent. Mazda expects a maximum five-star NCAP rating, one more than the original 6.The suspension has been refined and the brake hardware upgraded, while power steering assistance swaps from hydraulic to an electric system (derived from the RX-8, the 2003 Wheels Car of the Year winner).This later change created concerns. Had the delightful crispness and delicacy of the original 6’s dynamic balance been lost? It took only a few minutes of driving to get an answer: “Brilliant chassis, you wouldn’t know it’s front-wheel drive,” declared Jonathan Hawley.On the curling, winding rise-and-fall of the durability circuit, all the 6s were marvellous, exhibiting screw-tight body control and intimate communication. Dirt roads were managed by sensitively tuned ESP and ABS. Without stability control’s watching eye, the flickable, light nature of the car became apparent. A real blast.The bored and stroked MZR four-cylinder petrol engine was the supporting act in this masterful display of dynamics. Meanwhile the new MZR-CD 2.2-litre turbo-diesel four was gaining a mixed response (see breakout, page 102), but was also unable to upstage the 6’s dynamics.“Sharp, responsive steering, great turn-in, rock-solid chassis,” enthused Poppitt. “This is a chassis designed by people who understand and actually enjoy driving. Peugeot should hire them…”Stop right now and Mazda may have taken the silverware.But it’s not that simple and the award isn’t decided here. The second stage of the process, the two-up testing on public roads around Woodend, places more emphasis on day-to-day liveability. Here, the excellent chassis assumed less prominence and the occasional You Yangs murmur of discontent gained volume.Yep, that old Mazda bugbear of road noise became more obvious, the contact between tyre and tar generating an unhappy amount of din. That was particularly so in the back seat of the hatch and wagon and especially on the lower-profile rubber employed by the upper-end models.Driving the turbo-diesel hatch on 18-inch rubber, editor Bulmer noted: “At highway speeds the boominess becomes an issue and you need to shout over it. Not acceptable.”Nor was the firmness of the ride. It started out tetchy at lower speeds and never really settled any time the road surface degraded. Again, those passengers in the back of the car suffered more. “The ride is not as refined as the (Honda Accord) Euro,” declared Peter Robinson.This reference to the Euro is significant and not uncommon. While COTY contenders are rated against the criteria, and not each other, the presence of a direct competitor always engenders unofficial comparisons. Deep into the process, you could sense the Honda gaining ground metaphorically, while literally covering it more smoothly.The 6 lacked the Accord Euro’s refinement and plush ride quality, could not match its rich interior quality feel or superb, supportive seats. As simple and straight-forward as the 6’s various controls appeared to be, the steering wheel gearshift buttons and paddles proved fiddly, while some judges simply could not figure out how to access the trip computer function.There had also been plenty of debate about the quality of the MZR-CD diesel engine and the lack of availability of an automatic transmission option. In the end, most judges gave the thumbs up to its performance (but not its noticeably rough soundtrack and turbo lag), but thumbs down to the heavyweight clutch action and a pass to the six-speed manual’s gearshift.It was a snapshot of the debate that would eventually overwhelm the 6. A great feature would be counter-balanced by an ordinary one. While something inspired, something else disappointed.For all that, there’s no doubt the 6 was one of the very best of the contenders that vied for COTY 2008, not always starring against the criteria, but never duncing. After galloping out of the You Yangs Proving Ground, it cleared the two-ups and its progression to the final three was appropriate reward.Without the ride and refinement concerns, and with more convincing all-round polish from the diesel, this year’s result may have gone Mazda’s way.
While other manufacturers have been trying for years – and in some cases, over several model cycles – to build a compact SUV that meets the criteria observed by COTY, none have made it to the final hurdle.
Then along comes Volkswagen with the Tiguan, its first attempt at such a vehicle, and slots it straight into the final handful of COTY contenders. Make no mistake, the Tiguan isn’t just a very good soft-roader, it’s a very good car. So how did it come so close, and what stopped it from snatching the trophy?
First impressions, it must be said, weren’t particularly good. VW’s styling department have provided a somewhat anodyne interpretation of a smallish wagon that nevertheless appealed to Carey’s astringent tastes: “Pert and (for the genre) reasonably pretty; benefits from restraint in surfacing and detailing,” he enthused. However, it left others, such as Tander – “has a very long bonnet with rest of car squashed towards rear” – ambivalent.What couldn’t be ignored was the Tiguan’s apparently tighter-than-usual dimensions, which would eventually come back to bite, dashing its COTY hopes. Compared with the Subaru Forester, the only other compact 4WD in the field, VW’s effort appeared somewhat truncated. But looks can be deceiving. While the VW is indeed 170mm shy of the Subaru’s overall length, it’s slightly wider, just 7mm lower and rides on a wheelbase only 11mm shorter.The result, however, is a cargo area that’s undeniably tight, leading Stahl and Bulmer, the most recent breeders on the judging panel, to phone spouses and request pram dimensions (I kid you not), to see if they would fit in the Tiguan’s 1.07m-wide boot. Turns out they did not, but other judges chose to focus on things like the Tardis-like rear legroom, the reach- and rake-adjustable rear seats, and the stylish interior finishes.Out on the You Yangs torture chamber of roads and tracks, the Tiguan’s abilities came into sharper focus, with some intriguing mental comparisons. “A GTI SUV, or what?” noted Stahly, who also deemed the road manners “overall nice, very car-like … Golf-like, even”. Newton went a step further, asking whether the 147kW, petrol 2.0-litre turbo was “better to drive than a WRX?”The fact was that none of the three Tiguans driven – a 2.0-litre 125kW petrol, 103kW 2.0-litre diesel or the beefed-up 147kW 2.0-litre petrol – failed to impress for their handling, steering or braking. All three managed short stopping distances on the gravel and wet tarmac, while the stability control quickly sorted things out on slippery surfaces without shutting down the power completely.Of the three, the low-pressure turbocharged, direct-injection 2.0-litre petrol, with manual transmission, was the most impressive, simply because it offers such strong performance for its $33,990 price. Or did, until, under the guidance of editor Bulmer, it ground to a halt with painful ratchetting noises coming from the front end indicating a driveshaft problem. Nevertheless, when the votes were tallied after three days at You Yangs, the Tiguan was easily voted through to the next round of driving. A replacement 2.0 TDI was requested, and supplied, although this version came equipped with the six-speed automatic.So it was on to the road loop to continue the battle with the remaining six semi-finalists. As ever, this can be the most telling of COTY disciplines. With on-the-limit handling, braking and acceleration completed, Stage Two emphasises strengths and weaknesses already identified, while unearthing valuable insights that may have been missed in the proving ground cut and thrust.Two things immediately came to the fore in the Tiguan’s case. One was confirmation that this must be the world’s best-handling compact SUV. Forget about excess body roll and understeer – the Tiguan points, grips and steers better than many hatchbacks or sedans. Backed by effortless performance from the 2.0-litre engine (the 125kW version, that was; the 147kW was left back at base) or the grunt of the diesel, it meant, in my own words, “there’s no reason to buy a BMW X3 (still!)”But the other aspect of the Tiguan’s on-road behaviour that focused attention was the ride quality, which drew the worst of Robbo’s single-word condemnations, namely “unacceptable!” Strangely, the petrol-powered version seemed even stiffer than the diesel, despite Volkswagen claiming that suspension settings were broadly similar. After much head-scratching it was decided the difference had to be in the different tyre brands (Pirellis for the petrol, Bridgestones for the diesel), despite the actual tyre specs and pressures being otherwise identical. Both rode with a knobbly lack of comfort, jolting back-seat passengers in particular and going some way towards explaining the Tiguan’s excellent body control.In other respects, Tiguan occupants are extremely well looked after. The rear seat is a ripper, certainly offering better leg room than the mid-sized sedans that also made it through, and despite occupants sitting high enough to look over the front headrests (a bit like in the Golf, which contributes some of the Tiguan’s DNA) there’s still plenty of head room under that high roof. The doors open wide for easy access, there are cupholders galore, a glovebox with its own cooling facility and plenty of air vents. In short, as well as being fun to drive it is also easy to live with.Except for the lack of boot space, which ultimately swayed most judges not to vote ‘Tiguan’ when it came to choosing a COTY 2008 winner. In terms of technology (especially drivetrain), functionality, environmental friendliness and other COTY criteria, it ticked most boxes. But surely, most thought, a nominal off-roader destined for suburban family duties needed more sheer volume to cart gear in the rear? “I have major reservations about the lack of luggage room,” Bulmer wrote at the last. Clearly, despite the Tiguan’s otherwise excellent packaging and abilities, it was on the mind of other judges as well.
COTY throws up ‘difficult’ cars every year. In 2006 it was Holden’s long-wheelbase Statesman and Caprice models that had the judges arguing; in 2007 the BMW M3 coupe.
In ’08 Honda’s Jazz took up the cudgels on behalf of controversy. While the discussions lacked the volatility of the last couple of years, they were no less intense.
No-one, absolutely no-one, had issues with the fundamental concept of the second-generation Jazz. It’s a car that successfully builds on the original’s packaging brilliance while remedying its dynamic flaws.The problem is stability control – or the lack of it. The Jazz has been launched in Australia without ESP despite it being offered in other markets. Known as VSC in Honda speak, this acknowledged life-saver is around 12 months away, awaiting calibration with the five-speed automatic transmissions now fitted optionally to the Oz-spec Jazz.Okay, there are plenty of superminis on sale today that don’t offer stability control. However, newer arrivals at the top of the market such as the Mazda 2 and the Ford Fiesta (the latter will be eligible for the 2009 Wheels COTY) do.And there’s no doubt that Jazz sits at that top end of the segment, in terms of pricing, quality and engineering.“If the Jazz had ESP, even as an option, it would be an instant COTY favourite,” was how Peter Robinson saw it.ESP or not, judged purely in terms of Function, the second-gen Jazz was clearly the best car present at COTY 2008. That’s because it retained the original’s fundamental tall-boy monobox concept, fitting the fuel tank under the front seat to maximise interior versatility.Still less than four metres long but 30mm wider, the Jazz is simply extraordinary in the amount of loading, luggage and seat space it can create.“You could fit an entire lounge room worth of Ikea inside,” marvelled Sean Poppitt. “It’s a bloody Tardis. Huge inside for its external dimensions.”That obviously makes the Jazz attractive as a city car, but that’s not its only trick. There are heaps of storage nooks throughout the cabin, including substantial space under the cantilevered rear seat. And in city driving, its slim pillars and massive glasshouse ensured the driver has no problems manoeuvring through tight spots.“Now I know how a goldfish feels looking out of its bowl,” exclaimed Jonathan Hawley.The Function criterion also encompasses driving experience, and here it’s obvious the Jazz has made great strides. The original was criticised for remote steering and a jiggly ride, something the new car has largely overcome. Not only is it competent, it’s confident and even fun.In addition, the cabin was significantly quieter in terms of road noise than several of its highly-fancied rivals, including the Mazda 6. Engine noise was more prominent, though, highlighting the effort the small donks had to put in.That particularly applied to the base model 1.3-litre GLi, especially when mated with the optional five-speed automatic transmission. The 1.5-litre engine in the VTi and VTi-S coped better in either manual or auto form, the latter aided by quick-shifting paddles on the steering wheel.“The 1.5 is a fantastic revvy little engine, similar to the 1.3, but with more urge and therefore more enjoyable,” noted Bulmer. Jazz did well in Efficiency and Environment too, its small engines swallowing frugal amounts of fuel and emitting very modest levels of carbon dioxide.Technology was not its strong suit, however, presenting as a thoroughly orthodox mechanical combination. The first- generation CVTs are gone, the 1.3-litre engine is upgraded significantly while the improved suspension remains a combination of struts up front and a torsion-beam rear.With pricing stretching from $15,990 to $23,920, the Jazz looks mildly over-priced, even though our cars come from Thailand. So the Value equation was rated only mid-field.Such impediments weren’t going to prevent the Jazz’s march to business end of the Wheels COTY process. But the lack of stability control was – and it did.
Back in June 2008, when the second-generation Accord Euro arrived in Australia, few could have predicted the turmoil and turbulence that would fill the second half of the year.
Rising levels of uncertainty, and the mood of caution that followed, served to highlight the Honda’s virtues. Not too big, not too thirsty and not too expensive, it embodies moderation. Yet this sedan is also, as the eight Wheels Car of the Year judges found, a car of great ability, unquestionable quality and superior safety. Avoiding both excess and austerity, the Accord Euro is a car that suits the times. This isn’t the reason it’s the winner of the nation’s longest running and most respected new-car award, however. The stylish Honda sedan also satisfies the COTY criteria, those five time-tested measures of automotive excellence, better than any other car launched in 2008.
Blending driver satisfaction, passenger comfort and all-round user-friendliness in just-right proportions, the Accord Euro is an exceptionally well-rounded car. It is, as one judge put it, “a car with very little wrong with it”.During the week-long COTY program the judges’ appreciation of the Honda’s harmony grew steadily.Flaws, too, were discovered, but none were fatally serious.Dynamically, the Accord Euro was outstanding. “A very well-balanced and neutral-handling car,” noted Ged Bulmer. This opinion was echoed by COTY first-timer Sean Poppitt. “Supremely neutral, stable and composed,” he wrote. “Body control isn’t quite as tight as the Mazda 6, but ride quality is markedly superior.” Only when driving hard did the Accord Euro’s suspension settings cause any concern. “Ride comfort very, very good, but could use a little more rebound control at times,” I observed. Mid-corner bumps and heaves do sometimes overtax the rear dampers.Having grown in comparison to the first-generation Accord Euro of 2003, the new model is roomier. The dimensional increases are significant (length 50mm, width 80mm, wheelbase 35mm, front and rear wheel tracks 65mm). Inside, the new Accord Euro’s greater interior width is instantly obvious. This isn’t the only thing to like. The front seats are superbly supportive and the driving position excellent. Rear seat space and comfort – at least in the outboard positions – is also very good. But getting into and out of the rear seats should be a little easier. The problem is the size of the apertures. “Rear door too small; hit my head getting in, a bit tight getting out,” wrote Leanne Tander, smallest of the COTY judges. Bruce Newton too noted the problem. Diligent Newton was also the judge who paid most attention to cargo capacity. “Boot is an odd shape, but sizeable,” was his verdict on the Honda. With its 467 litres, the flat-floored compartment is similar in size to the first-gen Accord Euro and also goes awfully close to equalling the volume of large, Australian-made sedans.All the way from instrument panel to bootlid latch, the quality of Honda’s interior design, materials and assembly impressed the judges. Every point of contact with the car seemed to have been seen as a chance to impress. “All the dials and controls push, pull and rotate with slick precision and a quality feel,” wrote Poppitt. “Quality leather and plastics, beautifully finished.” Others felt the Honda deserved comparison with more costly cars. “Impressive interior,” approved Robbo. “Why pay more for Euro cars?”There were very few negative remarks on the interior, none serious. A couple of judges thought the ergonomics of the heating, ventilation and air-con controls, and the in-car entertainment system could have been a little clearer and more intuitive. “Too many buttons?” asked Leanne Tander, with good reason. Most judges also noted an increased level of road boom when riding in the comfortable rear seat, but it was generally agreed that it was not as loud as similar noise in the boomy Mazda 6.Honda’s decision to make the new Accord Euro’s line of descent quite obvious (they even put the same man, large-project leader Hiroyuki Ikegami, in charge of the second-gen program) found favour with the COTY judges. “Nice exterior (and interior) design,” was Michael Stahl’s pithy summary. Some judges thought the surfacing, in places, would have benefited from more restraint and less complexity. “Styling overly fussy,” sniffed Sean Poppitt.But those who thought the car would look better if it resembled its predecessor more were in the minority.There was unanimity on the excellence of the Honda’s engine and transmissions. The 2.4-litre four is an updated version of the engine used in the first-gen Accord Euro (and is also essentially the same engine as used in a bunch of other models, including the Accord VTi, CR-V and Odyssey, plus others not sold in Australia). But for duty in the Accord Euro, the relatively long-stroke 2354cc engine is tuned a notch or two higher than in other Hondas. In the first-generation model its max power was 140kW, for the second Honda’s engineers liberated an additional 8kW. This six percent jump came from an increase in compression ratio, enlarging valve diameters, revisions to cam timing and improving gas flow through the exhaust system. It’s sweet, smooth, responsive and muscular. “Another stellar Honda engine!” enthused Sean Poppitt. “The drivetrain is every bit the equal of the Audi A4’s four cylinder.” None of the other judges would have disagreed with this flattering assertion. Both five-speed auto and six-speed manual gearboxes also earned plenty of praise.While the new Euro’s performance never became a burning issue for the judges, it’s actually a little slower than the first-gen. The engine’s maximum power boost is more than offset by the weight increases that accompanied the growth in size. These range from six to almost 10 percent, depending on model. Wheels performance tests have confirmed new Accord Euro’s poorer power-to-weight ratio has blunted its acceleration.But the extra kilos deliver an increase in body rigidity, something Honda believed the new car needed. Safety, handling, and NVH (noise, vibration and harshness) were the reasons. Testing confirmed success in the latter two cases, and independent crash testing has shown the new Euro does a great job of protecting occupants in an impact.The standard complement of airbags is comprehensive: a pair of dual-stage front airbags, dual-chamber front-seat side airbags and full-length side curtain airbags. But the Honda’s intelligently designed body structure, especially its front end, also contributes to its A-grade test results.The Accord Euro’s list of active safety technology is also competitively comprehensive, but doesn’t work quite as well as it reads. The judges rated the effectiveness of the Honda’s driver aid systems as average, the calibration of the ABS coming in for criticism for its dirt road performance. This didn’t mean the Accord Euro’s stopping was poor in all circumstances. “Gravel braking substandard,” wrote Peter Robinson. “Wet bitumen brilliant.” The car’s standard ESP system – VSA is Honda’s marketing name for electronic chassis stability – didn’t arouse strong feelings one way or another. It may have been better than some, but it fell short of being the best.Some COTY judges were pointedly critical of the new Accord Euro’s chubbiness. One of them was Michael Stahl. “Put off a bit by weight gains,” he noted. But fuel consumption cuts provided an effective counterpoint. Both six-speed manual and five-speed automatic versions of the car achieve 8.9L/100km consumption and 212g/km CO2 in the Australian Government’s ADR81 test. This represents efficiency improvements and global warming emissions reduction over the previous model of two percent for the manual and five percent for the auto.For efficiency and environmental impact the Accord Euro is that bit better than average. Those same words could apply equally to the Honda’s technology. Almost everywhere you look, there’s something a little superior to the class norm. The engine’s impressive specific output, for starters. Double A-arm front suspension, where simpler struts are common. Fuel-saving electric assistance for the rack and pinion steering. But what elevates the Accord Euro well above the medium-car herd is the painstaking attention that was obviously paid to integrating all the separate systems into a wonderfully cohesive whole.Value was never going to be a big problem for the Accord Euro in COTY 2008. The base manual, at $32,990, is competitively priced against similar size rivals from Japan with comparable equipment content. Some judges noted that other respected brands, like Mazda with its new 6, open their medium-car ranges with an even more affordable model. A sub-$30,000 model would spell genuinely superior value, argued Peter Robinson, but others pointed to the fact you need to spend near-identical money on a Mazda 6 Classic to match the base Euro’s equipment levels.At the other end of the price spectrum there was little dissent. The Luxury specification Accord Euro automatic, for instance, was judged great value for $41,990. To the base model’s by no means skimpy list of standard equipment, the Luxury adds 18-inch wheels and tyres, HID headlights, power-adjustable front seats, auto headlights, rain-sensing wipers and sunroof. The Luxury Navi version, at $44,990 with auto, adds sat-nav and a reversing camera to the list.When the Accord’s superb core technology, great quality, polished dynamics, impressive refinement, good fuel efficiency and above-average safety is considered alongside its comprehensive standard equipment, there’s only one possible conclusion. As Stahl noted in typically to-the-point fashion: “Near ‘Euro’ sophistication at 60 percent of the price.” Some other judges might have left out the “near”.What’s certain is that the Accord Euro is truly a happy medium. And a deserving Wheels COTY 2008.BODY Type 4-door sedan, 5 seats Materials steel L/W/H 4740/1840/1440mm Wheelbase 2705mm Track (f/r) 1580mm Cargo capacity 467 litres Weight 1525kg (base); 1605kg (Luxury auto)DRIVETRAINS Layout front engine (east-west), FWD Engines & transmissions 2.4-litre 4cyl (148kW/234Nm) 6-speed man (230Nm in 5-speed auto)CHASSIS Suspension: Front double A-arms, coil springs, anti-roll bar Rear double A-arms, coil springs, anti-roll bar Brakes ventilated discs (f); solid discs (r) Tyres 225/50R17 (base); 235/45R18 (Luxury auto) Spare full-size (base); space-saver (Luxury auto)PERFORMANCE 0-100km/h 9.4sec (Luxury auto, tested)CONSUMPTION/EMISSIONS ADR81 test consumption 8.9L/100km Minimum fuel grade 95 RON (unleaded) Greenhouse 212g CO²/km (base); 212g CO²/km (Luxury auto) Emission standard Euro 4DRIVER AIDS ABS, EBD, EBA, TC, ESPPASSIVE SAFETY SYSTEMS Seatbelts front pre-tensioners/load-limiters Front airbags yes Side airbags yes Curtain airbags yes Knee airbags no Crash rating five star (Euro NCAP)PRICES, ETC. Prices $32,990 (base); $41,990 (Luxury auto) 3-year retained value 59% (base); 59% (Luxury auto) Service intervals 6 months/10,000km
While it’s probably a bit strong to label the Accord Euro a “lemon” for a pinging engine (as some of you have), we agree that this ‘pinging’ issue with the Accord Euro needs to be dealt with swiftly by Honda.
Despite not having experienced the pinging problem ourselves during testing, we have subsequently received enough correspondence on the topic to know that it is a problem for a number of owners.
We recently contacted Honda Australia who acknowledged having also received calls on the topic via the dealer network.Honda Australia claims the sound is not pinging (detonation) per se, but rather a similar-sounding post-combustion noise, and that Honda Japan has offered assurances the issue will not harm the engine.Honda Australia has reiterated that the engine is guaranteed for the entire time it is in the original owner’s possession, even if this extends beyond the three-year warranty period.The company also claims a fix is well underway, and expects this to be implemented by April. We will keep an eye on the matter and keep readers informed of developments…
We’ve admired their interiors, we’ve drooled over their drivetrains, we’ve quibbled over quattros. But we’ve never had an Audi come anywhere near this close to claiming the Wheels COTY crown.
Audi’s downfall over the years has always been, in one way or another, dynamics. The company’s insistence on having longitudinal engines hanging forward of the front axle has always put Audi behind for point-in precision, cornering balance and ride quality.
That’d be fine, if Audi merely desired to better middle-luxury front-drivers from France, Sweden and Japan. But its German rivals aren’t only rear-drive – they’re reliably among the best rear-drivers around.The platform underneath Audi’s all-new A4 attempts to reverse the dynamic nose-dive by moving the front differential forward (displacing the clutch or torque converter), thus effectively moving the front axle forward by 154mm. It’s visible in the new A4’s more rakish exterior lines – although a quick look at any one of the rather confusing array of engines suggests that a lot of the weight remains on the wrong side of the wheels.And in any case, expectations had already copped a punch in the nose a year earlier. The new A4’s cut-and-paste platform made its debut in the A5 and S5 coupe, which left us dead cold not only with its poor rear-cabin packaging, but with the front-drive A5’s soggy dynamics and light but argumentative steering, and the sporty S5 quattro’s harsh ride. “A German Thunderbird” said Robbo at the time.As a static display, the new A4 started racking up points immediately against the COTY criteria. Aero Cd figures run as low as 0.27 and the A4 claims (only just) the biggest boot in its class, at 480 litres. Kerb weights looked a promising story, beginning at 1410kg for the base model.On average, though, the 1410-1690kg kerb weights are little advanced from the Mercedes C-Class, and well shy of the trim BMW 3 Series. The Audi is also longer overall (by around 120 and 180mm, respectively) than these rivals.The engines, spanning petrol turbos of 1.8 and 2.0 litres, a 3.2-litre petrol V6 and turbo-diesels in 2.0 (four-cylinder), 2.7 and 3.0-litre V6 guise, all feature direct fuel injection and are acknowledged as front-runners in economy and efficiency. The four-cylinder TFSI is a four-time class winner of the “engine Oscars” – a fact well-known to Carey and Robinson, two of the judges for the international award.Along with all the engines, there’s a drivetrain for all tastes, too. Either the front wheels or all four are driven via your choice of six-speed manual, six-speed auto or eight-step CVT.COTY judges were charmed by the interiors. “Typically beautiful interior; materials feel top-notch,” offered Poppitt. However, more than one judge would gripe at the absence of left footrests. Some felt that the standard, firmly padded seats were too flat in shape; rear benches were handicapped by being a tad short under the thighs. Rear occupant space almost matched that of the Honda and Mazda sedans, with the Audi being around 30mm shorter in overall length.For once, the plaudits didn’t stop when the driving started. Audi has tweaked torque split on the quattro versions – which included our 2.0 TFSI manual, 3.2 FSI auto and 3.0 TDI auto – with more rearward bias to aid handling. But that didn’t explain why everyone’s favourite was the sweet-engined, charmingly chuckable 1.8 TFSI.Robinson was wildly impressed. “The best A4 – best value, a terrific package,” he wrote. “The basic FWD chassis is now so good, do you need quattro?”Robinson’s praise continued for the Dynamic Steering option, fitted to two of our fleet. Dynamic Steering, available on top of Audi Drive Select (which alters throttle, tranny and damping settings through Comfort, Auto and Dynamic modes) is an electric system; standard A4 steering is still hydraulic, with a clever vane-type pump.But let’s get this dynamic thing straight: Audi plus electric steering equals a positive outcome? Commented Robbo: “It’s far less intrusive than the 5 Series. You could drive this for years and not be aware it was there.”Not so much love for the standard steering, though. Leanne Tander found the standard set-up’s high-speed feel a little light and wandery at the straight-ahead; Carey called it “synthetic”. Poppitt judged that the A4 chassis “can’t match the 3 Series or C-Class for dynamics; steering is still an issue”. Hawley, likewise: “Lacks the poise of the C-Class, but still a superb effort by Audi.”Drivers almost universally praised Audi’s ESP and ABS performance, but were less united on Audi Drive Select’s effects. “The Dynamic mode seems to ruin the ride without aiding the dynamics,” Poppitt grumbled.A theme that emerged fairly early was the confusion over the A4’s model spread. Above the excellent 1.8 TFSI, for example, is a 2.0-litre TFSI; on paper, our quattro example added 37kW, 70Nm and $20,000, but on the road seemed to add very little. Among the diesels, likewise, there’s a startlingly excellent 2.0 four, a 2.7 V6 and an admittedly muscular 3.0. Topping the lot, in theory, is the 3.2 petrol, but it’s comprehensively trumped by the big diesel.Said Hawley: “Is this a diesel, or a V8? It’s even faster than the 3.2 petrol.”Where our 3.0 TDI quattro allowed suspension fiddling with its $5826 ADS/DS option, some serious ride issues surfaced in the 3.2-litre petrol car (similarly shod on 18s, but lacking the electronics). Bulmer proclaimed the engine “a gem” but Poppitt wasn’t convinced the 1690kg flagship was the most sporting variant: “Lovely engine, but it’s about as sporting as John Howard in his tracksuit.” It was also thirstier than the six-cylinder Falcons.A phrase that began to be heard from around day four was “the law of diminishing returns.” From an absolutely cracking base model (albeit, one carrying more than $13K in options as supplied to us), the A4 range loses its charm as one moves farther up. Plus ça change: chassis refinement, primarily in ride issues and steering feel and responsiveness, became harder to overlook when prices climbed beyond $70K.It can’t have helped that the A4 was in the presence of some very capable and comparably-sized Japanese sedans that kicked off at $30K. Flint-hearted Carey dismissed it thus: “Transportation appliance, luxury grade. Made in Germany.”It’s true that the Audi wasn’t only being compared against itself and the COTY criteria. Inevitably, there was the spectre of the reigning COTY, a direct rival to the A4.Good as the Audi is, particularly in areas like interior quality, overall efficiency and safety scores, the Mercedes-Benz C-Class still has its measure in packaging and trumps it for poise.The Audi is certainly a worthy rival to the C-Class. But not quite worthy enough to succeed it as COTY.
