Suzuki Vitara is available as turbo + DCT and NA +TC.

I'll readily stand to be corrected but I was fairly sure that the "S" model Vitaras, with the 1.4 turbo engine had a torque converter. There was an earlier thread in which the same sort of question was posed. The diesel has the twin clutch.

The HJ review appears at first glance to indicate that the 1.6 N/A petrol has a TC auto box, as its 0-60 time is 1 sec slower than the manual equivalent (also a reasonable increase for the CO2), but the 1.4T auto has the same 0-60 time/CO2 emissions (only 1g/km more) as its manual version, so is likely to be a twin clutch type. I had a look on Parkers (boo!) and Suzuki's website, but didn't see any information to say what they were. I would say that there still appears to be a bit of ambiguity in the info (the diesel appears, by the same criteria, to have a TC box - odd that, given most DCT types [VAGs, Fords, etc] have a very similar 0-60 time, mpg and CO2 level as the manual), so nothing proven definitively as yet. My info came from the 'Driving' section (table) of HJ's General Review of the Vitara.

My reply wan't about how fast accelerating they were (even compared to each type of gearbox), but saying the differences in 0-60 time was a good guide (if the figures are to be believed, which I would for the moment) to whether an auto is a dual clutch type, which normally are close to that (sometimes beating) of the manual, whereas a traditional torque converter type will be somewhere between 0.7 - 1.5 seconds slower, depending on the car and engine combo as well as the specific auto box itself.

My reply wan't about how fast accelerating they were (even compared to each type of gearbox), but saying the differences in 0-60 time was a good guide (if the figures are to be believed, which I would for the moment) to whether an auto is a dual clutch type, which normally are close to that (sometimes beating) of the manual, whereas a traditional torque converter type will be somewhere between 0.7 - 1.5 seconds slower, depending on the car and engine combo as well as the specific auto box itself.

I get that Andy and yes the twin clutched jobbies can be as efficient as manual manuals because basically they are a manual but automated, i was more commenting on how some car buyers might be swayed by figures alone, but have little idea how cruelly the car is driven when achieving them.

The younger drivers seem to be obsessed with 'brake', meaning bhp alone, when torque and when its available and gearing is more important for everyday use.

True, true. Most people probably don't use more than 2/3rds of the power of their car, if that, most of the time. Its probably why the newest version of my Mazda3 with their 2.0 N/A (120hp) petrol engine is far less liked than the equivalent Golf, Leon and Octavia with the 1.4TSi engine, even in 'standard' 122hp form, because the turbo makes low and mid-range acceleration far easier than with the Mazda, as cars with that engine (and similar) have a wider power band than the N/A Mazda. Much more civilised (I found during test drives of these engines in a 3 and a Scirocco) for overtaking without having to floor it or dropping a cog or two every time.

Still, there is something to be said for the occasional thrash (once fully warmed up) and/or Italian tune-up to blow the cobwebs away in the engine to keep it from gunking up, especially with today's modern GDI engines, and besides, it sounds great. Probably safer over the long term in the better (over)-enginered Japanese cars that can take the occasional beating (if well-maintained generally - I do this with mine with no issues). I'd never run it like that, especially a lower-powered car like a town-hybrid, all the time. Instead I'd buy a performance hatch for the same price.

The wheel/tyre sizes and emissions of the Niro depend on the trim chosen. The lesser ones run on 16" Alloy Wheels 205/60R16 with 88 g/km; the other trims run on 18" Alloy Wheels 225/45R18 with 101 g/km (the 16" wheels are available as an option). From experience with other hybrids, the smaller wheels will give a 5-10% improvement in fuel consumption.

Find the ride on the 16" wheels to be OK, and not "overly firm". If your idea of "luxurious" is the magazine road-tester's desire for "soft touch" finishes everywhere, look elsewhere. If you want a reasonably well-equipped car, even at the lower-priced trim levels, with reasonable finishes on the parts you touch, a test drive is worthwhile

My owner's review is available in the relevant section

I was mainly talking about the hybrid versions, and the top spec ones in both cars. It should be noted that the lower spec ioniq also comes with 15in wheels and higher profile tyres (though the 16in ones on the mid-spec model and the Niro seem fine) - its that it is generally thought that ALL hybrids ride more firmly than equivalent sized/performance petrol/diesel only cars. Unfortunately the CO2 emissions are only ok in comparison to rivals, and, of course, anyone buying a new hybrid now doesn't get the benefit of £0 VED but the same £140 as most other new cars.

My gripe over the interiors of both is the abundance of dull grey plastic (yes, both have brightly coloured inserts) rather than the softest of materials used in German marques. Its not terrible, but I would've preferred to have some options on the plastics colour, including a darker colour nearer to black. I do have a similar issue with the current crop of Mazdas (I own an older 3) which have very little in the way of options on interior trim, outside of a bit of leather facia trim and seats for the top of the range Sport models. I don't necessary expect German levels of options (which are usually overpriced), but I would've hoped for at least two variants.

I actually like the ioniq (styling-wise over the Niro, which has a better interior) in mid-spec trim generally, though performance wise its not for me as I'd be looking for something somewhat nippier than my current 1.6 petrol engined Mazda3.

What about the dash and general trim? The GC image on the Hyundai website makes it look black, however real-world photos here and on other car review websites indicate a more grey look. The Niro dash/trim (not talking about the seats) is, admitedly, a darker colour of grey/nearer to black and more to my liking, but I didn't see any variations other than the seats and possibly the colour of inserts.

Still, not anywhere as cheesy as the interior of the Prius (I've never been a fan of Toyota styling, inside or out), and both beat that car hands down on the exterior styling.

How much did you end up paying for the car if you don't mind me asking? Any discounts available (I didn't see much via brokers). The list prices look about £7k - £10k more than I would be paying (cash) if I bought an equivalent performance car of similar size and general spec.

It would take me a hell of a long time to make that back through reduced fuel costs unless I was doing starship mileages (which I don't normally do) over a reasonable period of ownership (I tend to keep mine 8+ years [my current Mazda3 is in its 12th year of ownership from new]), let alone the average of 3-5 years.

I suspect buying such cars via leasing (or PCP?) for 3 years or so may be a better bet, given the cost of battery replacements after the warranty is up would seriously outweigh the value of the car, possibly making it obsolete as few punters looking for a second-hand car would be able to afford several thousand of £££ to do so in addition to the price of the car itself - surely that would make depreciation past 3-5 years very high? It wouldn't be so bad if the overall cost of buying and running (including all fuel and maintenance/parts etc) the car (for say 10k miles a year) over the expected lifespan of the car itself (being generous at 15 years) was comparable to that of a petrol-driven one.

Am I missing something here? I just don't think either adds up (at the moment) for financial reasons (especially for the longer term buyer), particularly for full electric cars vs petrol/diesel power only. As I said, I can understand the market for such cars as taxis and people doing very low mileages in densly populated cities where polution at road level is very high, but other than that, I just don't see it, whatever the good points about the driving experience of the cars themselves.

I wasn't suggesting th batteries would run out after just 3-5 years, but their usefulness (how much charge they are capable of taking, and thus useful mileage using them) drops consistently with age, usage/charging pattern (batteries like to be trickle charged and not fast charged) and environmental conditions (temperature). I personally don't believe the PR from the manufacturers about them having 'no loss' after 10 years - them lasting (at least working in some fashion) for that long, yes, but certainly not at 100% - even on the most expensive phone and camera batteries (same design,. but smaller) the battery manufacturers don't make that claim, perhaps 66-70% over 5 years, perhaps a bit better for cars IF they are regularly trickle charged and not fast-charged (probably better for hybrids than fully electric cars as a result, as hrbrids can be efficiently charged by the petrol engine as required on the go)

As I understand it, most decent batteries of the NiMh and Li-Ion type lose in the region of 33-50% of their capacity in 7-10 years (maybe a bit more now) of life, depending upon those factors above. Hence why, if say, you sold the car after 5 years, then the new owner might only get 66-75% of the useful capacity of the batteries, and as the car (and batteries) age, the likelihood of a failure or them needing complete replacement due to the slow degradation of the batteries increases, but the price to do so would still remain reasonably high (unless the tech improves so much that they can be produced in huge quantities very cheaply - not on the horizon as yet).

Note that the battery warranty doesn't mean they guarantee they can charge to 100% of their original capacity 1 day before its up, just that if they fail, they will replace them - it would actually be VERY GOOD if they did, because, presumably, the replacments would be brand new and not refurbished or old stock reclaimed from write off cars of a similar age, which would mean they would have another 10 years of life left, increasing the value of the car by several £0000s.

As such, even if the car otherwise is in good condition, its value will surely depreciate far more than ordinary cars, not so much so for a hybrid (though if the batteries aren't replaced and are effectively useless when [say] the car is 15yo, the car is actually a poor buy compared to a standard petrol car as it carries far more weight and thus is less effeicient and more polluting).

I would say that the higher general reliability of the Prius (the Niro and ioniq are too new to gauge over the longer term as yet, but will probably be good) over ordinary cars offsets the battery replacement cost to a dgeree (but not completely) IF the original owner keeps it for its entire life, but certainly not if they sell it - hence why the depreciation curve, whilst fine up to 3 years (as you stated) is shallow, I wouldn't be suprised (as SLO said, I believe) it rapidly steepens afterwards as the time that the batteries need replacing approaches (even more so for full electric, as they have no back up motive power as at least hybrids do) - as other cars become a more viable product due to lower capacity of the Prius' batteries.

I think that there are two reasons why hybrid cars, especially Priuses, are selling well in the US - like here, they are good for reducing local pollution in urban areas (not overall though, as I mentioned before), which is why taxi drivers (and over here too) buy them, and because they sell them on after probably 3 years or so before the depreciation curve becomes steep. Also, they are a fashionable item beause many celebrities own one for PR purposes to 'save the planet', so people copy them, and that snowballs because people think owning one 'looks cool'.

Eventually they will (Priuses) go out of fashion as the reality of their overall lack of benefit to the environment is more widely known, and/or many other similar cars enter the market (hopefully) once the energy density/environmental/charging/cost disadvantages of batteries is eventually licked. Almost always the 'first' in new tech ends up never being the dominant player once the tech goes mass market (as I described for video cassettes).

Anyway - I hope you enjoy the Niro. Might be worth investing in some winter or all season tyres as you live in a rural area.

Answer these questions:

Are Electric cars a viable replacement for all cars? No

If they were, is the infrastructure in place - or planned to be in place by a known date - so INSTANT charging - on demand - will be possible? No

If the infrastructure for instant charging was in place, could the National Grid and power supply system deliver the required power to millions of cars? No

If the National Grid and power supply system could deliver the required power to millions of cars, could the generating system supply it? No. (Especially not at night - no solar, in calm weather - no wind, and in winter when it is dark and cold.)

Think 20 years plus from decisions to invest being made - none really are.

Just called my local Suzuki main dealer.

The definitive answer regarding which Vitaras have what gearbox:-

1.4 Turbo S Vitara (comes as 4x4 only) has a Torque Converter transmission.

The 1.6 naturally aspirated petro Vitaral is Torque Converter.

The diesel Vitara is TCSS which is Suzuki for Twin clutch

Edited by Robsnextcar on 08/01/2018 at 23:38

Didn't ask about that one ... sorry. You would think the 1.4 set up would be the same as in the 1.4 Vitara and I don't know (without looking) what's in the 1.0 litre. Best call the dealer.

Many thanks for this information I'm the 'OP' ......I really like the Suzuki Vitara - I could not work out what type of gearbox the 1.4 Turbo had. I knew the 1.6 na was a Torque Conv but now you have informed me that the 1.4 Turbo is a Torque Conv also the Vitara is possibly going to be the new car. My other considerations are: Honda Civic 1.0/1.5 Turbo with CVT gearbox. Hyundai i30 Tourer 1.4 Turbo with DCT gearbox. Skoda Octavia 1.4 Turbo with DSG gearbox - (not sure about the DSG though) but like the car. Mazda CX-3 2.0 na with Torque Conv gearbox (might not be big enough for my needs). Mazda 3 Fastback 2.0 na with Torque Conv gearbox (might not be big enough for my needs). Mazda 6 2.0 na with Torque Conv (but mpg is quite low). Toyota C-HR 1.2 Turbo with CVT gearbox. BMW 2-Series Active Tourer 1.5 Turbo with Auto (would have to be second hand - due to price) BMW 3-Series Estate 1.5 or 2.0 with Auto (would have to be second hand - due to price) What do you think about these everybody???? Or any other suggestions than the ones already made.

Whilst I like Mazdas generally (why I own one, though it is 12yo), they do have their 'challenges' - the Mazda3 fastback (equivalent of my 3 saloon) has a small boot aperture - its boot is a lot bigger than the hatch, but if you need to store anything that is not shaped like a suitcase (i.e. items that come in larger cube-shape boxes), then they won't likely fit through the apearture, nor via the rear doors even though the boot itself is big enough to house them. Really annoying. The 3 and the 6 are a bit low as well (the latest 3 is lower than my old one).

That being said, its reasonably roomy inside the car, though the 3 generally doesn't make as efficient use of its footprint as other more 'upright' or boxy-looking cars. Nice to drive though, although the TC auto box does sap a reasonable amount of power (the 2.0 petrol auto is about the same performance as the base 1.5 petrol manual in the 3, though oddly enough the drop-off isn't as bad in the CX-3 between the manual and auto, which seems odd as both use the same engine and tune [the 6 has a higher power output]). You'll probably get about mid 40s ave. mpg out of the manual and about 10% less for the auto, which comes out similar to that of the old 3 1.6 petrol manual which isn't as powerful or quick.

No turbos, DPFs or DCTs to worry about though (same for the 6). The inside of the CX-3 (except the boot, which is similar sized [except for the Sport, see earlier comments as to why] to the 3 hatch at around 350 ltr) is essentially the same size as the 2, except with a higher roofline. I found it nice to be in, but if you have need for older kids or adults in the back regularly, then check out the space first (as well as the boot) with the front seats in the position for the driver+spouse.

Note that you often can get far better deals (percentage wise) for the 6 (new and nearly new, including from dealers [especially around the turn of the year and reg change time when sale targets matter a lot] car supermarkets and brokers) than the 3 (though still good ones) and especially the CX-3 (half as much off the prices). The same goes for lots of similar cars for other makes, like Ford Mondeo vs Focus vs Fiesta - I've often seen brand new/del miles only showroom Mondeos offered for less that equivalent spec and performance Focuses - it use to be because they were in higher VED groups (and to some extent insurance groups), but with new ones now that most have to pay £140pa the annual difference in running costs is not that high, and you get far more car for your money.

Whatever you keep mon your list, get a decent length test drive (at least an hour, preferably more) for all who will drive the car and on a variety of road types (including poorly surfaced roads) and speeds, and include how easily it can be reversed into spaces (visibility/ease of using the parking sensors/camera [if it has one]), ergonomics/comfort as your requriements (take your time to adjust the seat as best you can - otherwise it can give a false impression, which can be a very expesnive mistake [hence why having a long test drive is essential]) as well as checking if the type of items you regular take with you (luggage, golf stuff, boxes, child seats etc) can all fit in easily.

The pain is (and for me as well) is that no car ticks all the boxes (at least reasonably if not 100%) - the Mazdas aren't that quick (though ok) and for those reasons I stated above, VAG cars are far better on those score but I'm not so impressed with long term reliability, customer service etc, Hondas are very expensive, Toyotas/Lexuses are boring to drive and not quick at all, KIAs/Hyundais are reasonable across the board but nothing is really 'great' (yet).

For me, that means sticking with what I've currently got and waiting until something better comes along that won't break the bank. I'm also shying away from ANY dual clutch gearboxes unless and until they demonstrate at least the same level of reliability over the long term as TC ones; I personally won't entertain cars with CVTs as I don't like the way the drive - they are designed for pootling around rather than a decent driving experience (I wonder why the Subaru Impreza has one though) and are often mated to cars that are not good at handling either.