“There are lots of B-Maxes for sale, but beware of any fitted with the Powershift transmission which is unreliable. Someone may be able to say which B-Max models have this.”
Yes, all of them. I can’t recommend a Ford here as neither the 1.0 Ecoboost motor or the Powershift automated manual box are reliable.
|
|
Reading through the list of what you want and what you need, i'm not sure the car exists!. You say you have a Ford C-Max, a car which is not particularly big, but you want something smaller. You say you have tried a Suzuki SX4 S-Cross but found it too big?. The SX4 is 8cm shorter and 4.5cm narrower than a C-Max (so a big car it aint!). But the Mazda CX-3 (2cm narrower and 2.5cm shorter) is too cramped!. You don't want privacy glass, which is fair enough, i get it that not everybody likes it, but pretty much every car on sale in the UK has it on the higher spec versions (where, statistacally, you are likely to find an auto option on a small car), so you may not have a choice unless you are willing to compromise on something else. And that, to me, is what this conondrum will boil down to, which of your requirements you are willing to compromise on (though obviously you can't do anything about the length of your legs!)
A couple of other points. The Citroen C3 aircross IS available with an auto gearbox, a proper torque converter one. As it is quite a young car, it has only ever been available with this box, unlike its close cousin the Peugeot 2008 which started with the automated manual (but now also has the t/c auto). Not really sure what relevance the fact that the ix20/Venga being discontinued has to do with anything?, it isn't like Hyundai/Kia are going to stop stocking spare parts for it, but be in no doubt, they are no fun to drive at all. As someone who runs a current shape Jazz, i doubt with your extra long legs you'd get comfy behind the wheel as the seat doesn't go that far back. Also it is a narrow car, more so that the 2008.
|
|
Thanks for suggestions. Yes, I know I'm awkward..
Mazda feels cramped inside, especially in the back. Nothing to do with external dimensions. The SX=Cross is same size as the C-max externally but I would prefer something smaller. Also privacy glass seems very dark.
I'll have a look at the Citroen, must have mis-read the online brochure.
Interesting to know that the Ford auto box is not recommended.
I know I may have to have privacy glass - again, it's much darker on some cars than others.
Of the Honda and the Civic linked from SLO's post - they both look a bit bigger than I had planned but may be worth a look. I assume the auto boxes on those are both fine. Someone over the road at work has one of those Toyotas in bright blue which is really eye-catching. Certainly not an attractive car in my eyes but then nobody could call the C-max attractive!
|
|
The current face lift HRVs are Japanese, the early ones are Mexican - quality issues..
The new HRV will be available soon with a turbo 1.5 engine - from the Civic - this should be worth trying as the current non-turbo 1.5s engine are not the best.
|
|
|
“Of the Honda and the Civic linked from SLO's post - they both look a bit bigger than I had planned but may be worth a look. I assume the auto boxes on those are both fine.“
Try both of them, you might be quite happy. The Honda is a bit more conservative and has better visibility. As for the gearboxes well they’re both well proven CVT boxes. They’re not liked by boy racers and speed merchants but for normal drivers they’re perfectly decent with seemless acceleration and fuel economy that matches or often betters the manual equivalent.
|
|
Re the Citroen C3 Aircross, you might aswell also have a look at the C4 Cactus. This is mechanically identical, but has been slightly toned down from the original Cactus as it now occupies the space from the previous C4, i.e, competeing against 'conventional' family hatchbacks like the Golf or Focus. It has similar dimensions to the Aircross, and the seating position, while not quite as high as the Aircross, is still higher than normal. You will probably have to deal with the tinted glass though.
Re the Ford 'powershift' auto, it is not just Ford's that would be an ill advised choice, it is any automated dual or single clutch manual. The powershift has a particularly poor reputation, but nobody seems to have yet made a gearbox of this type which offers long term reliability. This includes any VAG car (Audi, Seat, Skoda and VW), BMW and Mercedes (both of these use torque converter auto's in certain models, but all the smaller ones use a dual clutch job). Kia/Hyundai have also started using this type of gearbox, which is kind of ironic, as (A) they were amongst the few manufacturers sticking to the older more reliable torque converter auto and hence were recommended on the forum for folk looking for a 2nd hand auto, and (B) some manufacturers are now realising the folly of the automated manuals and are turning back to the torque converter auto. These include Ford and the PSA group (Citroen, Peugeot and Vauxhall).
|
It’s not that this technology can’t be made reliable it’s that it can’t be done within the cost constraints required on mass produced cars. I drive them daily on Volvo coaches and some of them have 2m miles up and rarely have problems with the gearboxes. Clutch packs can start to judder as the miles rack up but they just keep on going. The difference is that these cost £300k upwards and there’s also less of a weight concern too.
In cars CVT or a conventional lightweight torque-converter transmission is the best bet and only time will tell if Hyundai and Kia can succeed where even Toyota and Honda failed.,
|
It’s not that this technology can’t be made reliable it’s that it can’t be done within the cost constraints required on mass produced cars. I drive them daily on Volvo coaches and some of them have 2m miles up and rarely have problems with the gearboxes. Clutch packs can start to judder as the miles rack up but they just keep on going. The difference is that these cost £300k upwards and there’s also less of a weight concern too. In cars CVT or a conventional lightweight torque-converter transmission is the best bet and only time will tell if Hyundai and Kia can succeed where even Toyota and Honda failed.,
I seem to remember having a similar conversation with GB re the automated manual's on trucks, which presumably are the same as on coaches. I think the general consensus was that they are single clutch. This figures as the single clutch versions in cars, as far as i am aware, are more reliable than the dual clutch ones. The issues i read regarding the single clutch versions, for the most part, are jerky gearchanges and delayed reactions when pulling away. But then again, i have also read that, certainly the jerky changes, can be much reduced by lifting off the throttle slightly on the change. But it would seem logical that being of a simpler design, the single clutch would be more reliable.
When i was still driving buses most of them were (i think) t/c auto's (Volvo B7 coaches), but we did have a couple of Neoplan Skyliners and i'm sure they were automated manual's. There was a very pronounced delay in between pressing the throttle and the bus moving, so much so that on uphill traffic lights, you had to be careful not to release the handbrake until you felt the drive kicking in otherwise you could end up rolling backwards slightly!. The changes seemed to be more ponderous at lower speeds (>40mph), above that they seemed to be smoother and quicker (though the smoothness was probably just the momentum of the bus).
|
Spot on bbd, they are single clutch transmissions. Even the latest Volvo Elites I drive have very ponderous changes, although they smooth up a bit if you hold a gear to let it rev a bit. They’re built for durability over anything else and Volvo certainly know their game, these are lovely big things to drive. The gear changes wouldn’t be acceptable in a car but it’s certainly far more robust than the dual-clutch systems.
Not sure what Trucks use. Most are autos now I believe but the single clutch is a bit slow witted if you were pulling a heavy load uphill for example. Fine on a coach but as you mentioned you need to feel for the biting point before releasing the parking brake on a hill otherwise it’ll slip back.
Edited by SLO76 on 28/02/2019 at 16:49
|
|
|
|
|
Regarding privacy glass - if you get a car with privacy glass and a panoramic roof you'll find the glass roof more than compensates for the side privacy glass making the interior darker. I have a Venga 3 from 2012 which at the time was the top of the range and the glass roof really makes for a light cabin despite the rear privacy glass
If you go for an ix20 / Venga the auto is a 4 or 6 speed auto (torque converter type ). 6 speed came in around early 2016 and your budget should be able to get you in a new one. The fuel consumption on these is rather high though. If you do mainly town mile /short journeys you won't see above 30mpg around town. I'm getting as low as 22mpg on my 2012 Venga Auto doing all short mile journeys. However they will do around 40mpg on a run. If you want to see approximate mpg values set the trip meter to instant mpg when you take a test drive and see what it says at a constant 30 mph. Interestingly, as has been said by SLO76 Hyundai / Kia are going away from torque boxes to DCT for some reason, possibly weight?
The ix20 / Venga auto isn't a "fun" car to drive - its purely practical motoring aimed at folks who want purely practical motoring and a generally reliable car with easy access. The autos use the 1.6 petrol "Gamma " series engine which dates from 2009 so is very "Old tech" and you'd probably think it a bit "rough" compared to a C-Max
But its big selling point is that it is considered very reliable and if you follow the servicing schedule you do get the 7 year warranty with Kia which helps alleviate worry about expensive things going wrong and needing deep pockets.
Regarding support for run out models - I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that manufacturers are legally obliged to support a model for 10 years after production ends and run out models are generally available at discounted prices as dealers clear stock.
|
|
I'm back.
I went to a Honda dealer today. Sat in the Jazz and the HRV. I actually felt hemmed in in the HRV due to the styling and the height/width of the centre console. Preferred the Jazz. With seat fully back it felt just OK for legroom; would obviously need to have a test drive though to see what it felt like in action.
Any opinions on the engines and the auto gearbox? 1.3 on trims S/SE/EX and 1.5 on the Sport models, given that I am coming from a 1.6 manual petrol.
Still some other cars on the shortlist to try out but interested to know opinions.
|
|
Obviously the 1.5 having 130bhp is going to be the fastest, but i guess it depends on what you want and expect. What i can tell you is that we have a Jazz EX CVT auto with the 1.3 (102bhp) engine, and if you are prepared to let it rev like a Honda, there isn't a lack of performance. According to the official figures, our Jazz will take 12.3 seconds to 60mph which, depending on where you are coming from, isn't the end of the world. But using the entirely unscientific method of the stopwatch on my phone and looking at the speedometer, i timed our car a couple of weeks ago at 10.6 seconds. I have also timed it from 30-70mph (one of the forum members told me that the car couldn't do it in the time i said), so i am in no doubt that there is plenty of performance available, albeit at the top of the rev range. We have had ours for nearly 2 years now and while it isn't perfect, i am very impressed with it. I would be interested in trying the 1.5, but as you know, it is only available in 'sport' trim, which misses out on some of the equipment of the EX.
To sum up, the car can seem a little schizophrenic, one moment plodding along smoothly (but slowly), but prod the throttle right down and all hell breaks loose, with the revs screaming and the car leaping forward like it had an electric shock!. It does take a little time to learn how much throttle to press for what you want without the overreaction, but it will come. If you are comfortable in the car (which surprises me a lot!), i would say go for it!.
Also, be aware that the CVT transmission in the Jazz 'learns', so when we first got ours, it did seem a little sleepy. Then it (apparently) learned what i wanted from it. It can still get caught out in certain situations, but most of the time it does exactly what i want, when i want it, to the extent that i very rarely use the sport mode, and even less frequently use the paddles behind the steering wheel.
|
|
Thanks. It's not the most comfortable of the cars I sat in but I haven't ruled it out.
I'm actually not too bothered with the EX trim so the Sport looks fine. Dealer said that EX trim is the biggest seller for them, which is understandable given where they are.
|
I bought a new Jazz Sport last June. 8K miles later I have zero regrets. i find the seats extremely comfortable. A test drive would help you sharpen your opinion in this regard. It is not a ball of fire in terms of performance. I had a vtec Honda in the early nineties and had forgotten how these engines need revving. All of the power is in the mid and upper range, where I want it really; I have no interest in traffic light races! One cricicism is that it is not the quietest engine in the world but I have got used to it.
Equipment is excellent, it has all I want. Nothing has gone wrong, everything works first time and it hasn’t used a drop of oil. Magic seats live up to their name. I also negotiated a very good discount off list.
|
|
Just to update - I have now ordered an ix20. It was the most comfortable in terms of my seating position and I felt it had plenty of light and space inside. Others may have been bigger on paper but not as spacious internally.
I know it's a now discontinued car but I don't need the latest greatest newest model.
Main disappointment (apart from the obvious no heated front screen) was the poor colour choice, but Hyundai had a better colour range than Kia.
Thanks for all your comments and advice.
|
|
A good reliable car with an excellent warranty.
|
Main disappointment (apart from the obvious no heated front screen) was the poor colour choice, but Hyundai had a better colour range than Kia.
Is it true that there are no factory orders for Hyundai and the dealers only get to pick what is available in the import compound?
|
Main disappointment (apart from the obvious no heated front screen) was the poor colour choice, but Hyundai had a better colour range than Kia.
Is it true that there are no factory orders for Hyundai and the dealers only get to pick what is available in the import compound?
It wasn't true in 2010 - the specification/colour of the Santa Fe I wanted wasn't available in UK dealer stock, Tilbury import centre or in-transit at sea so my dealer placed a factory order which took 12 weeks to arrive.
|
Is it true that there are no factory orders for Hyundai and the dealers only get to pick what is available in the import compound?
Can't say for all, but I was told that the ix20 was not being produced any more so my choice was limited to what was available on their lists. They had the variant/colour I chose anyway.
|
|
On the face of it, it would seem odd for Hyundai not to replace a small SUV which is such a popular type of car at the moment.
I suppose the Kona is meant to fill that slot, as it's only slightly bigger than the ix20. Kia have the Stonic and the larger Niro.
|
On the face of it, it would seem odd for Hyundai not to replace a small SUV which is such a popular type of car at the moment.
I suppose the Kona is meant to fill that slot, as it's only slightly bigger than the ix20. Kia have the Stonic and the larger Niro.
I looked at the Kona but the only auto is top of the range, list price over £25k. Seems a bit daft to me as you are limiting the market for autos. It's too new to have second hand ones available in my price range.
|
|
Avant has mentioned the Niro above. A very quick look shows you can (apparently) buy a new one - in the "2" spec. - for £19.5k (that's with no extras). Seems quite decent to me given the warranty. It's definitely in the back of my mind in the event the present car has to go.
Not sure how the long term value would play out though ... Toyota' replacement batteries are reasonable at around £2k - but haven't seen the price of Kia ones.
|
On the face of it, it would seem odd for Hyundai not to replace a small SUV which is such a popular type of car at the moment.
I suppose the Kona is meant to fill that slot, as it's only slightly bigger than the ix20. Kia have the Stonic and the larger Niro.
This goes back to the Q2 vs C-Max question. Firstly, the ix25 and Venga are MPV's not SUV's, being more geared for practicality than style. I am disappointed that Hyundai/Kia are choosing not to directly replace them as, like you say Avant, they are very popular with a certain set of buyers, like older ones, folk with reduced mobility and/or back problems, and even just families who are more concerned with usefulness than impressing or fitting in with their neighbours. Yes it is a little smaller than the Kona (which is an SUV, and probably what Hyundai expect the ix25 buyers to go for now), but it is actually more spacious, practical, and has a usefully bigger boot volume. This is due to how tall it is (taller, ironically, than the Kona), meaning there doesn't need to be as much space between the front and rear seats, as even taller folk's (lower) legs will be more or less vertical instead of stretched out forwards. We very nearly went for an ix25 ourselves a few years ago, but my wife (I would have gone for the ix25, but as it is her who gets the Motability allowance, it is her her decision) said she preferred the i30, so that is what we got. Then of course, she was complaining for the 3 years we had it about how low set the seats were on it!. Despite misgivings about the reportedly poor performance and economy of the n/a 1.6 coupled with the t/c auto, i'd still sooner have an ix25 or Venga over a Kona or Kia's equivalent, the Stonic.
|
|
|
|
