As requested, here are our first impressions of our lil car ( 2004 auto LX ).
Dealer: As with the Daihatsu, perfect, same dealer.
Practicality: Not a patch on the Daihatsu for packaging, but it is just about adequate for four people. Boot is very small but atleast its a practical shape. There are however many useful cubbies, decently sized too, including the under boot space which is well arranged so you can store various things in the tray provided.
Driving: OK, lets be honest, it is not a quick car, but with a decent space, it can overtake and the gearbox is ever so smooth, more so than the Subaru ( misses agrees ).
The engine is far more vocal than the Daihatsu, nor is it anything other than noise, but if you treat it moderately, it never gets too loud and doesnt need too many revs to get it up to speed. At speed it is quiet, but the gearbox does have a habit of changing down a gear if you dont ease the gas down gently ( the pedal is very sensitive ).
Steering and handling are much better than the Daihatsu and it never feels unsettled even on long, fast bends. Ride is not bad, but the Daihatsu does have the edge in this respect.
Very easy to park although rear window is small.
Rear seats fold down flat with the squabs folding forward, creating a very useful space although not ever so long.
Bits and Pieces: The dashboard plastic around the centre console is rather cheap looking in the shiny kinda way that the Daijit somehow seems to avoid, maybe its since improved but its a minor thing.
Cupholders are as ever, shallow and useless for anything other than cans, bottles tip over easily. Fit and finish generally is very good though, doors feel very solid and everything has a durable feel to it.
One nice touch is having elec rear windows, its a little thing but useful.
Running costs: Reports of poor economy havent been our experience at all - we got 40 mpg from exclusive town work, 43.5 with a mixture of A-roads and country lanes and on a steady dual carriageway run over to Norfolk, we got 54 mpg. This is not in the same ballpark as the Daijit for sure, but its not bad at all and not the 35 mpg that others have mentioned, so maybe our car with 31k is better run in perhaps?
Road tax is £120, and aside fro the Mitsui i and the Smarts, I think this is as good as it gets for small autos.
Overall, we like the car very much. It has different strengths and weaknesses to the Daihatsu, but its still a very likeable little car. Certainly my misses has no regrets about getting teh Subaru gone and she drove over 250 miels in it this holiday, something that she wouldnt consider in the Forester. All id say is, if your used to quick cars and you liek them that way, dont buy one, but otherwise, its a great automatic city car with decent out of town ability aswell.
|
Hi Stu, Enjoyed your write up, thanks. What sort of auto box does it have? Hope you caught some warm weather on your hols, how did it go?
|
As far as I can tell, its a 4-spd, conventional auto with overdrive. The revs do drop at four different points so that would seem about right although maybe 4th is OD, never sure really.
Holiday was brilliant thanks, came back with loads of energy. Weather was pretty good for the most part, but we had rented a house with indoor pool so even if weather wasnt so good we could still enjoy! Just nice to get away really.
|
Just had the results from using the 99 octane unleaded in our Picanto - on almost identical usage as normal, we got an extra 70 miles from a tank which is a 7-8 mpg increase. This was mainly around town 30-40 mph, stop-start and some country lanes.
I find it curious because it was suggested that it would make no difference over normal UL, but it certainly has! I would suggest to anyone with a thirsty Picanto auto to try it, see if it helps.
Still waiting to see if it makes a difference with the Daihatsu, it so rarely runs out you have to wait a while!
|
Just a quick note on economy - we are still getting 42-45 mpg mainly around town so reports of poor economy in the 30's would appear to be driver related or down to a specific issue with their car.
Done 3000 miles now, nothing has gone wrong, still delighted with the car.
|
>>so reports of poor economy in the 30's would appear to be driver related or down to a specific issue with their car.
Mine was one of those reports with SWMBO's Picanto 1.1 auto. Always low to mid 30s over 2.5 years mainly 20 mile commuting, mostly clear roads early am and normal 5pm traffic slow but steady and occasional motorway jaunts. The car was checked at first and second service by Kia main dealer including diagnostic sweep and nothing found. It probably was the car or perhaps "driver related" due to the fact that you had to gun it to keep up wth most traffic. Currently getting 48mpg from last 3 tank fills on a new Fiat 500 1.2 manual.
|
It is true that the auto saps alot of power ( of which there is littel to start with ) but we have found that adapting to the cars low power and not trying to gather speed quickly seems to help ( unless you really must ).
Its not a fast car by any means and lacks torque, which is compounded by its tendancy to hang onto 3rd gear even at low speeds.
I imagine its down to poor adaptation to the particular cars characteristics - if you drove a moderately powerful car and went down to a Picanto auto it would be quite a culture shock not being able to rely on torque.
|
Anyone else think that 42 - 45mpg from a tiny 1.1 litre car in the 21st century is pretty dreadful?
Just by way of comparison, my BMW 530d automatic does 920 to 960 km before I bottle out and fill up with between 64 and 66 litres of diesel, which approximately covers my weekly drive on autobahns and around town. That's around 6.7 l/100km or 42mpg in old money.
My wife's Ford Ka was also not terribly good on petrol but had an engine designed shortly after Stephenson's Rocket.
|
Your right of course, in the scheme of things it isnt great, but then it is not a new design - must be 5 years since it was launched.
Then again, you would be lucky to get 35 mpg from a Polo automatic so it is a step up if you are comparing petrol autos rather than diesels.
I also look to the Mitsubishi i which is 55 combined, where small auto cars should be now. Overall though its a cheap car to run.
|
|
|
Anyone else think that 42 - 45mpg from a tiny 1.1 litre car in the 21st century is pretty dreadful?
Especially when you consider that, by stunorthants own admission*, it is really only 35 - 37 mpg, as he is getting 7-8mpg extra by using 99 octane fuel.
[ * see post above at Thu 24 Jul 08 17:55
Just had the results from using the 99 octane unleaded in our Picanto - which is a 7-8 mpg increase. ]
Also, again by his own admission, his driving style is "relaxed".
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=64789&...f
"The right to drive more slowly".
So the "reports of poor economy in the 30's " may be reflecting really what others get with this car.
|
We were getting 50-51 mpg on the 99 octane but have since reverted back to the normal stuff as the extra cost doesnt pay back enough on the mpg unless it does a long journey.
I never quoted in any thread what the figures were on 99, more careful reading required.
Our current figures are for normal UL.
Oh and my driving style is largely irrelevant since I dont drive the car more than 50 miles a month out of the 900 that it covers and my misses has sped up somewhat from her early days what with her daily 40 mile drive to and from work. Its mainly tight country lanes and town roads so no room for economy driving anyway.
|
7-8 mpg increase. This was mainly around town 30-40 mph, stop-start and some country lanes.
1)What were the before and after mpg figures for that then?
reverted back to the normal stuff as the extra cost doesnt pay back enough on the mpg unless it does a long journey
2) How much does the 99 cost?
3) How much does the 95 cost?
so reports of poor economy in the 30's would appear to be driver related driving style is largely irrelevant ... no room for economy driving anyway.
4) Does not compute! ;-)
Edited by jbif on 04/09/2008 at 23:54
|
1) You already have the figures - before 99, 42-45ish, when using it 50-51. Its the same use that the car gets now, I just dont do the driving.
2) 99 is 117.9, 95 is 111.9.
3) Again you havent read it very well have you. Reports of POOR economy would be down to driving style, ie a heavy right foot. My second statement is that 'economy driving', to get the figures higher than normal, would be difficult on the type of driving my misses does so I believe they are representitive.
|
99 is 117.9, 95 is 111.9.
So for a 5.4% increase in cost, you got a 13% [45 > 51 mpg] or 19% [42 > 50 mpg] improvement.
But despite that you "have since reverted back to the normal stuff as the extra cost doesnt pay back enough on the mpg unless it does a long journey."
Does not compute! ;-)
|
>>We were getting 50-51 mpg on the 99 octane
Not being overtly technical I thought that this type of fuel only really delivered mpg and performance benefits in high performance cars or cars with sophisticated EMUs. I remember reading a test in Evo or Top Gear a while ago where a Porsche GT2, Impreza and a MKV GTi all delivered usefully more bhp with Optimax (V Power) but to think a lowly Picanto might improve its mpg by 15% or more should have the 99 octane's marketing bods beating Stu's door down. I suspect driver related error at the fuel pumps TBH.
|
I guess its possible but we were getting than many more miles, thats all I know. :-)
|
A lot of Japanese-designed engines, especially Mitsubishis do indeed return better MPG in the order of about 5-10% with high-octane fuel, even the smaller ones.
Whether the current Hyundai engines are similar enough to Mitsubishi ones I don't know. 99RON fuel did seem to return better MPG on my Accent, but nowhere near 14%. Fundamentally very similar, Alpha-series unit (1.3, non-VVT in my case).
|
|
|
