What about a Golf (either a hatchback or estate)?
Carfile are offering the Golf estate (1.5 eTSI 150 Life 5dr DSG) for £23,530.80. I presume the eTSI will be a mild hybrid.
www.carfile.net/buy-your-car/volkswagen/golf_estat...l
Haven't checked out the spec, but my dad's 2018 Golf estate does have an electric handbrake.
Just to recap what I said in my original post
"those “Mild Hybrids” are simply a waste of space"
and a waste of money. All the technology is there for is to make the stop/start more reliable )manufacturers have admitted this) and as we know stop/start saves sod all fuel.
|
All the above is irrelevant since the new car will not be a replacement for the Fabia which is probably a long term keeper.
If you read the first line of the original post it says
"Definitely going to changing the Pulsar early next year"
which is why I came up with a short list containing similarly sized cars but was concerned that the performance of the 1.8 Corolla and (to a lesser extent) the performance of the Ioniq/Niro would also be lacking after the 180PS Pulsar.
So sorry to disappoint you lot but I can 100% say it will not be a Jazz or a 1.8 Corolla.
My post on the Jazz vs Fabia was in response to Groaver, not you. While it may be irrelevant to you, it may not be to him and deserves a response at any rate.
"those “Mild Hybrids” are simply a waste of space"
and a waste of money. All the technology is there for is to make the stop/start more reliable )manufacturers have admitted this) and as we know stop/start saves sod all fuel.
You are of course entitled to your own opinion, but don't paint it as fact. What Car found the Suzuki Ignis MHEV to be 15% more efficient than the non MHEV version of the same car over the same real world MPG test.
But regardless of what you personally think of them, avoiding a mild hybrid, if you plan to ditch the (full) self charge hybrid idea, may be an even taller order than avoiding diamond cut wheels. Because despite what you think, it isn't just about making stop start more reliable, it is about cutting the overall emissions for each manufacturer in order to meet stringent targets. Manufacturers not doing so are going to face truly enormous fines. Mild hybrid systems are a relatively cheap means to lower the emissions on cars which are neither full hybrid nor electric. So your chances of finding a new car, especially with the kind of power and performance you feel you need, is very slim.
|
|
Mr Thunderbird, you seem to be getting rather angry in some of your responses, you've obviously never driven a mild hybrid or done any meaningful research into the subject, The hybrid system has nothing to do with the stop start ( all modern cars have it regardless of power) instead it helps the ice at times of heavy load/ potential fuel burn but you probably already know that, as the very happy owner of a 2 month old 'mild hybrid' Vitara I can assure you the technology works.
|
|
I have driven the Lexus UX (loan car whilst mine was serviced). Its not great. Despite not being very tall, it didnt feel particularly stable, and wasnt that great on the motorway. Lovely place to sit however. I have quite a bit of experience of Hybrids, and think the issue with them and the press is all to do with the CVT style transmission. The press always drive them hard, and you get a fair amount of engine noise if you do that. But if you drive life a normal person they are much better.
However, if you get a more powerful hybrid they dont work so hard to provide the same performance, and that makes them a much nicer place to be. Of the cars you have short listed i would go for the 2.0 Corolla Estate or hatch as a runner up. The nicest small hybrid i have driven was the Lexus IS, but you can no longer buy a new one and they have a foot operated 'hand brake', and no android auto.
|
Bbd: I see Whatcar have a 30-70 time of 8.6 seconds for the Jazz.
Like you say, I had to trawl a bit to find that.
That seems pretty respectable to me for a car with (on paper) 109bhp. I timed our 1.3 CVT (102bhp, not a hybrid) from 30-70, and while it was done only with a smartphone timer and looking at the speedometer, I figured it at just under 10 seconds. No ball of fire granted, but not too shabby given the general opinion on CVT's (all noise and no action) along with the amount of bhp and torque on offer.
|
|
How do I get a car loan with low credit, bad credit, or no credit?
|
How do I get a car loan with low credit, bad credit, or no credit?
No idea but I'm sure you can answer your own question.
|
|
|
|
What about a Golf (either a hatchback or estate)?
Carfile are offering the Golf estate (1.5 eTSI 150 Life 5dr DSG) for £23,530.80. I presume the eTSI will be a mild hybrid.
www.carfile.net/buy-your-car/volkswagen/golf_estat...l
Haven't checked out the spec, but my dad's 2018 Golf estate does have an electric handbrake.
Just to recap what I said in my original post
"those “Mild Hybrids” are simply a waste of space"
and a waste of money. All the technology is there for is to make the stop/start more reliable )manufacturers have admitted this) and as we know stop/start saves sod all fuel.
And have you actually driven a 1.5 150 eTSI?
If you don't want other people's views (opinions) then don't ask for them!
I'm out, you're on your own. Seeing how you are behaving, I suspect quite a few others are out too.
|
If you don't want other people's views (opinions) then don't ask for them!
I provided a very clear spec of what I wanted in my original post together with 4 cars that seemed to match that spec and a max price, something very few poster do. But despite this posters still suggest inappropriate cars and cars of a type I have said I won't be buying.
The posters that have replied giving help based on my original criteria suggest, as I expected having already driven one, the Corolla 2.0, for that thanks. Its only the way they drive in hilly areas that concerns me, in town and on the motorway it was 100%. That is why I included the Hyundai/Kia with their DSG boxes which seem to be rated better in these circumstances.
But no mild hybrids for me. Even the barmy government acknowledge the technology is pointless since the sale of them will be banned at the same time as normal petrol/diesel cars. Proper hybrids and PHEV's continue to live for a further 5 years which seems to prove my point.
|
|
T'bird,
With nothing available in the Sportage/Tucson range that wasn't hybrid, I didn't want to spend an extra £8000 ish on something I didn't want...
Like you, I didn't want a hybrid of any description, butinmy case, for the cost benefit reasons.
I too had odd suggestions, didn't want PSA/Citroen,, the impuretec engine... (and a dealer I can't stand...
So I went left of field... again...
|
Like you, I didn't want a hybrid of any description,
But I would like a Hybrid but I will not be spending money of a pointless "Mild" hybrid that is sod all better than a non-hybrid. Happy to spend on a proper hybrid and would love a plug in hybrid but they look beyond sensible cost vs benefit considerations.
Current thinking is down to 2 cars, a Skoda Scala 1.5 DSG and the Kia Ceed 1.5 T-GDI. Good deals on both but whilst the Scala is less money it does not have the electric handbrake that is a 100% necessity for the Mrs.
Skoda needs some options whereas the Kia has the lot as standard. Add the options (essential and desirable) and the Kia is less money plus it has the electric handbrake.
Looks like a choice of one at present then but the thought of the hybrid still lingers.
|
Like you, I didn't want a hybrid of any description,
I meant Just any old hybrid.. the price differentials are silly. Taking the Peeeee comes to mind for some.
The Kia is good, very good, just be happy about those seats..
Currently you should get the 2 free services..
Edited by _ORB_ on 07/12/2021 at 18:49
|
|
|
Like you, I didn't want a hybrid of any description,
But I would like a Hybrid but I will not be spending money of a pointless "Mild" hybrid that is sod all better than a non-hybrid. Happy to spend on a proper hybrid and would love a plug in hybrid but they look beyond sensible cost vs benefit considerations.
Current thinking is down to 2 cars, a Skoda Scala 1.5 DSG and the Kia Ceed 1.5 T-GDI. Good deals on both but whilst the Scala is less money it does not have the electric handbrake that is a 100% necessity for the Mrs.
Skoda needs some options whereas the Kia has the lot as standard. Add the options (essential and desirable) and the Kia is less money plus it has the electric handbrake.
Looks like a choice of one at present then but the thought of the hybrid still lingers.
Note that the KIA will benefit from a far longer warranty than the Skoda. Given the complexity of modern cars and the high cost of repairs, that might be something well in its favour. I like the Ceed's styling (better than its sister i30 too) over the Scala, and I've never heard of any issues of significance with its DCT if you want to match the Scala's DSG.
|
|
|
|
|
How about a Lexus CT200h? They are supposed to be much better now as Lexus sought to specifically address the complaints associated with the pre facelift models including better construction to reduce NVH. www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202110098312261
Within budget for a 2020 or 2021 model. Would be a similar car to your Pulsar in most categories albeit an improvement.
|
I had a Pulsar, loved it, and very good value, almost unknown in this country.
Replaced it with Hyundai i30, regretted it seating too low for me, a lot of getting in and out as a work car, gearbox superb.also door access a bit smaller, I wore away the door rubbers in 2 years! Ioniq, I assume the original one is a similar height.
Replaced it recently for a Hyundai Kona Hybrid ultimate spec, love it, similar mpg to the Pulsar, better spec, a superb drive, I am 6ft, and access and seating is great. Bought new, vowed never to do, but secondhand prices being high meant a good deal was to be had, and despite limited supplies Hyundai giving a discount, dealer had spec and model I wanted by pure chance.
Car came on Michelin CC handling good, very quiet, good response with electric motor assist.
Loads of safety features, which some hate, but they do a good job, stop start pain no longer as hybrid negates that. Recommend a long test drive if you can.
|
Hyundai Kona Hybrid ultimate spec, love it, similar mpg to the Pulsar,
Did look at the Kona but the Ioniq is higher rated, bigger and only about £50 more expensive thus would be the one to go for IMHO.
For your Pulsar to get similar mpg to the Kona hybrid it must have been a diesel, our 1.6 DIG-T struggles to get into the mid 30's.
|
|
|
|
How about a Lexus CT200h? They are supposed to be much better now as Lexus sought to specifically address the complaints associated with the pre facelift models including better construction to reduce NVH. www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202110098312261 Within budget for a 2020 or 2021 model. Would be a similar car to your Pulsar in most categories albeit an improvement.
Don't think so. round these parts £23k gets me a 68 plate car. So about £15k on top of the 18 plate Pulsar gets me a slightly newer car. Looking in a 2018 What car the Pulsar was rated 4*'s and did well in its category, the Lexus was rated 2* and did not get a mention. Checked reviews on the web and all say its pretty poor.
Then there is performance, its way down on the power of the Pulsar and has little more than 1/2 the torques. So my desire to replace a fairly quick motor with one of similar performance would simply not be met. I had the UX on my initial list as a wild card, that has decent power and is a higher rated car, another £2500 gets me a brand new one.
As I said, no way, not even thinking about it.
|
How about a Lexus CT200h? They are supposed to be much better now as Lexus sought to specifically address the complaints associated with the pre facelift models including better construction to reduce NVH. www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202110098312261 Within budget for a 2020 or 2021 model. Would be a similar car to your Pulsar in most categories albeit an improvement.
Don't think so. round these parts £23k gets me a 68 plate car. So about £15k on top of the 18 plate Pulsar gets me a slightly newer car. Looking in a 2018 What car the Pulsar was rated 4*'s and did well in its category, the Lexus was rated 2* and did not get a mention. Checked reviews on the web and all say its pretty poor.
Then there is performance, its way down on the power of the Pulsar and has little more than 1/2 the torques. So my desire to replace a fairly quick motor with one of similar performance would simply not be met. I had the UX on my initial list as a wild card, that has decent power and is a higher rated car, another £2500 gets me a brand new one.
As I said, no way, not even thinking about it.
TBH, I see no reason in considering the CT200h over a Corolla, paying more for a car which isn't as good. Yes the little Lexus is endlessly reliable, but so is the Corolla. And from what I have read, the CT200h doesn't ride very well.
But as I mentioned earlier, I am constantly baffled about the quoted power and torque outputs for hybrid cars as this seems to vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. For example, the quoted torque figure on this website for the CT200h is 105 lb/ft (@2800rpm), which doesn't compare well with the Pulsar's 177 lb/ft (from 1600-5200rpm). But if I look on auto-data.net which goes into much more detail, while it agrees with that torque figure for Lexus being the 'system total' (suspiciously, the same figure at the same revs given for the ICE on its own), it also lists the torque figure for the electric motor alone as being 153 lb/ft (and being an electric motor, that torque is there from 0 rpm!). So as I said, it makes no sense to me, and is the reason why I wouldn't write off a hybrid based on quoted figures alone, a long test drive is the only way to be sure. It may well be that one persons driving style (a typical motoring journalist for example) might not get the best from a hybrid, but for someone who drives in a smoother and more considered manner, it could be the best thing since sliced bread!.
|
It may well be that one persons driving style (a typical motoring journalist for example) might not get the best from a hybrid, but for someone who drives in a smoother and more considered manner, it could be the best thing since sliced bread!.
Have written this before. When we test drove the Corolla it was great in town and better than expected on the motorway. But on hilly roads driving in a normal manner despite the supposed improved CVT box the revs still flared when you asked for more power and when carrying out an overtake needing still more power there seemed to be little relationship between the noise and speed increase. The few overtakes I carried out had no real issues and you would probably get used to the different feeling but it was a bit unnerving to get no feeling of how fast you were going to get past. The wife hated it, did not feel confident overtaking at all.
We did arrange another drive (asked for 3 hours) to try and get a better appreciation but as Covid progressed into September 2020 we decided to leave it until better times came. 15 months later it looks like those better times are even further away.
With regards to system power and torque figure it does indeed seem confusing but pretty sure I read its simply the way different transmissions mix the power from the 2 sources. It also seems pretty obvious to me that with a fully depleted battery you would never get the max quoted figures anyway since you would be on petrol power alone, bit of a shock if suddenly 70kw of electrical power went missing 1/2 way through an overtake. Trying not to get too reliant on the quoted figures but with my preferred 30-70 times being in short supply you have to base your short list on some facts.
|
|
|
|
Just to expand a little on the hybrid quoted figures, I have looked into the Corolla and Niro as both were mentioned in the first post of the thread. These figures come from the website mentioned.
Corolla 1.8 hybrid;
Electric motor power 72bhp, torque 120 lb/ft
ICE power 98bhp, torque 105 lb/ft
system total 122bhp (no system total for the torque given, but on the Lexus CT200h, the quoted torque figure is the same as the ICE on its own)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Niro self charge hybrid;
Electric motor power 44bhp, torque 125 lb/ft
ICE power 105bhp, torque 108 lb/ft
System total 141bhp, torque 195 lb/ft
Taking the above figures, it makes no sense to me that the stated (total) power output for the Niro is nearly 20bhp more than that of the Corolla.
|
|
As I suggested above the type of transmission used may have an affect on the figures. The Niro is a DSG and the engine speed and road speed "should" be directly linked. The 1.8 Corolla uses the older and less efficient CVT whereas the CVT in the 2.0 is supposedly better.
But the 195 torques and 141 bhp system figures of the Niro look very similar to those of a 1.5 TSI Scala which has a turbo to boost power, not a battery which does look a bit suspicious when the road test figures of the Scala look way better than the Niro. Autocar quote a 30-70 of 9.5 seconds for the DSG hybrid Niro, Autocar (again) quote 7.3 seconds for a 1.5 DSG Scala. If the power/torque figures were really as close as those above suggest there is no way there should be over 2 seconds between the cars.
Nothing is simple any longer.
|
|
Just looked on the Hyundai website and believe it or not the figures for the Ioniq hybrid are identical to those of the Niro. But when you look at the Plug in Ioniq figures the electric motor is more powerful yet the total system power is exactly the same as the standard Hybrid, very strange.
Hyundai quote that the 195.5 "system" torques is available at 4000 rpm. Using the age old torque to bhp formula that converts to 148.9 bhp @ 4000 rpm, more than is available at the max system rating of 141 bhp @ 5700 rpm.
All very confusing.
Now going to a darkened room.
|
But the 195 torques and 141 bhp system figures of the Niro look very similar to those of a 1.5 TSI Scala which has a turbo to boost power, not a battery which does look a bit suspicious when the road test figures of the Scala look way better than the Niro. Autocar quote a 30-70 of 9.5 seconds for the DSG hybrid Niro, Autocar (again) quote 7.3 seconds for a 1.5 DSG Scala. If the power/torque figures were really as close as those above suggest there is no way there should be over 2 seconds between the cars.
I believe the Scala is around 200kg lighter than the self charge Niro. While I doubt that would account for the entire 2.2 seconds, I could see it being responsible for half.
But I thought the Scala would be a non starter anyway because of the manual handbrake?. Also, I may be thinking of someone else, but didn't you test drive a DSG equipped car a couple of years ago and thought the gearbox awful?.
|
.Also, I may be thinking of someone else, but didn't you test drive a DSG equipped car a couple of years ago and thought the gearbox awful?.
Truth be told I don't really like autos but since the manual gearbox is slowly dying with the changeover to hybrids and electric cars and the wife's need to have an auto its time to make the change.
Have driven DSG's and whilst OK I found them very sluggish moving off making town driving a bit of a pain (Kia DSG's get the same reports). The CVT's are better in town but I do not like the way they flare the revs. Historically TC boxes were inefficient and not that many manufacturers use them these days. Did drive a Volvo XC40 which has a TC auto and it was fine, except for the MPG at under 30, ouch.
So the best car at the moment is keeping the Pulsar.
Will have to keep looking.
|
.Also, I may be thinking of someone else, but didn't you test drive a DSG equipped car a couple of years ago and thought the gearbox awful?.
Truth be told I don't really like autos but since the manual gearbox is slowly dying with the changeover to hybrids and electric cars and the wife's need to have an auto its time to make the change.
Have driven DSG's and whilst OK I found them very sluggish moving off making town driving a bit of a pain (Kia DSG's get the same reports). The CVT's are better in town but I do not like the way they flare the revs. Historically TC boxes were inefficient and not that many manufacturers use them these days. Did drive a Volvo XC40 which has a TC auto and it was fine, except for the MPG at under 30, ouch.
So the best car at the moment is keeping the Pulsar.
Will have to keep looking.
That's what I did 4+ years ago. Better the 'devil you know' than something that is not enough to your liking, needs or too expensive.
I found that the TC auto in the Mazdas I tested (gen-3 Mazda3 and the CX-3 back in early 2017) were smooth and only reduce the mpg (real world figures quite good) by 5-10%, in line with the Real MPG figures on this site. Similar performance (0-60 times) degradation from manual to auto. Both got around the 40-41mpg mark (not bad for cars with only afew hundred miles on them tops). That was with the Skyactiv-G engines.
The latest cars in Skyactiv-X form are, as well as being about 10-20% better on mpg, quite perky performance-wise (though not cheap). I think that the CX-30 would be a useful replacement for your roomy and swift Pulsar, but with far better styling and handling. No dual clutch issue to worry about either, and the manual cars have very nice gearboxes. Hopefully they can come with the 16in wheels and tyres to make the ride softer if required.
Worth 'window shopping' and getting some test drives in when possible to help point you and the wife in the right direction. Something may come out of the blue.
Best of luck with the search.
|
How about a Plug in Hubrid Jeep Renegade? A left field suggestion perhaps but it seems to fit the bill. 0-60 7.5 seconds and 26 miles battery range (quoted). Fairly sure it is a traditional torque converter automatic, too.
www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202110118358642
|
So the best car at the moment is keeping the Pulsar.
Excuse me if I am overstepping the mark here, but I can hardly believe you are thinking of keeping the Pulsar because you can't find a car as fast as you want.
Your wife needs an auto and she needs an EPB, because of arthritis, a very painful condition (my wife suffers from this in her legs and hips).
You may want a car with a given amount of performance, but you don't need it.
So if you can't find a car which fulfils both your wife's needs and your wants, then you need to get a car which fulfils her needs. That is, or should be (IMO), the most important consideration here, and if that means a Corolla 1.8 hybrid, then so be it.
I mean what would it actually mean in real terms if you don't get a car as fast as you want?. How much longer do you think your average journey will take if you can't use as short an overtaking opportunity as you could with the Pulsar?. To help answer, have a look at this very illuminating Autocar article from a few years ago,
porsche-911-turbo-s-vs-smart-fortwo-real-world-race-across-wales.
If you don't trust links or can't be bothered to read it, the short version is this. 911 Turbo S vs Smart Fortwo (0.9t) doing 190 miles across Wales, avoiding dual carriageways and motorways (as much as possible) and not 'flouting' the speed limit (though some leeway was permissible for overtakes).
The 89bhp Smart ForTwo took 9 minutes longer to complete the journey than the 572bhp Porsche.
|
|
Given the OP got upset about people suggesting cars he doesn’t like, that’s a bold move BBD..
|
Given the OP got upset about people suggesting cars he doesn’t like, that’s a bold move BBD..
You could be right Metropolis,
So apologies Thunderbird (just in case)
|
|
BBD
We are in the fortunate position of being able to afford a new car and have set an ideal max of £25,000.
Auto box and electric handbrake are essentials (she loved those in the XC40 we test drove as well as the Corolla demo) but after almost 4 pleasurable years of the Pulsar (and more recently the Fabia) we do not wish to go back to the miserable performance of cars like the 1.6 TDCi Focus. The wife agrees that we are better keeping the Pulsar than buying a car we soon learn to hate.
We also appreciate the difference in journey times on public roads is little different even with loads more power. A run to relatives in the Focus 1.6 TDCi used to take about 8 hours all in, the Pulsar with an extra 70 bhp took about 7 1/2 hours back in early September. Back in the 80's with about 80 bhp and roads that had less dual carriageway it still took about 8 hours. The trip in the Pulsar has been so much nicer, we went in the Fabia once and even that was better than the Focus.
As you say we don't need the performance but when buying this car its an essential at the top of the list just like the auto box and handbrake.
|
|
Guessing the Jeep is a non-runner?
|
Guessing the Jeep is a non-runner?
We are not looking for that type of car. The ones I listed originally are all medium hatches. When you consider that Jeep has a poor reputation and their cars are pretty much Fiat mechanically why on earth would I want one instead of the Kia/Hyundai/Toyota/Lexus in mentioned originally all of which have good reputations and long warranties.
|
If you don't trust links or can't be bothered to read it, the short version is this. 911 Turbo S vs Smart Fortwo (0.9t) doing 190 miles across Wales, avoiding dual carriageways and motorways (as much as possible) and not 'flouting' the speed limit (though some leeway was permissible for overtakes).
The 89bhp Smart ForTwo took 9 minutes longer to complete the journey than the 572bhp Porsche.
Thanks for that post - was an interesting read.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
