Autoexpress have published their test of a Saab v Subaru diesel estate test. http:/ /tinyurl.com/2f3dhd
Haven't read it in great detail but they put the Saab first (£4000 dearer basic on the road price and£10,000 dearer as tested -can that be correct?) as it is better finished inside and a bit more economical/faster altho the Subaru rides better, handles better, has more space, luggage room and doesn't catch your fingers in the handbrake. Neither car seemed to achieve anywhere their claimed mpg but suppose the testers average includes all the performance testing.
Edited by Pugugly on 05/04/2008 at 13:45
|
|
Usual journalists' nonsense. Completely out of touch with what a real-world buyer wants in an estate car.
|
My impression is that the journalist's mpg is based on getting from office through city centre traffic at a crawl for many miles, then blasting car enthusiastically down winding A or B road to assess performance, checking how hard car can corner.
All this is done on a car that may or may not have been run in (Depends on manufacturer).
A well known mag used to publish a "Magazine touring route mpg" which was very close to real life. Now many just use "test mpg".
As always you need to read all the reviews across the web and magazines to get anything like approaching a real assessment.
|
|
|
|
|
First reaction is that a car costing £10k more *should* be a lot better!!
|
|
Having read the test, it isn't on most criteria, including the important ones for an estate namely boot and rear passenger space.
|
The test economy for the Scooby was atrocious though, especially compared with the "official" data ... it didn't even make the Govt. urban figures.
In Autocar / express tests, the cars usually give a test mpg that's close to the Govt worst ...
|
|
|
Was also glad to see that it wasn't just my gf and I being strange shapes. We found the comfy seats in a 95 ruined by the stupid headrests that cannot be adjusted further back.
Overall, I didn't read anything about the Saab that would persuade me not to get a Honda Accord instead. I'd consider a Subaru if I needed 4x4, but as I don't, I'm not sure it's for me.
|
"And in next weeks issue we will see if the new Focus Saloon can cut the mustard against a Rolls Royce Phantom"
Edited by daveyjp on 03/04/2008 at 11:46
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When I read road tests like this it reminds me why I cancelled my 20 year subscription with CAR magazine several years ago. I get the impression that most of the writers in british motoring magazines these days know absolutely nothing about and have no interest in the engineering, manufacturing or marketing of cars. Instead they are completely obsessive about what image they believe the cars portray and whether soft touch plastics have been used on the dashboard.
|
" Instead they are completely obsessive about what image they believe the cars portray and whether soft touch plastics have been used on the dashboard."
Too true.
I have been rude on other threads about motoring journalists.. so I will not be even more rude here.. save to say I think most are pimply faced muppets..:-)
Comments about: "acres of black/gray plastic " on a dash are commonplace. When you live in a car and drive it you want soemthing easily cleaned of dust, chocolate and occasionally vomit. What you do not want is soft absorbent fabric which absorbs the carp and makes it difficult to clean with one wipe.
Of course, when you realis ethat some magazines (Used Car Buyer) think a used car is 1-3 years old.. you realise none of them live in the real world..
As for image, if I were them I'd worry about the image they protray if I were them and chosing a different car brand will make no difference..
Rant over.
BTW: Diesel cars take usually 10k miles to loosen up and get better mpg then....
|
I agree, Bagpus and madf.
Interestingly, this weeks Autocar tests the Legacy D estate and the Saab 9-3 twin-turbo D estate (not back to back admittedly) but rates the Subaru the better buy. The Saabs engine is apparently very good, whereas the rest of the car is found to be dated and lacking. Actuallly, they say pretty much the same about the Legacy - good engine, rest of car a bit dated. But obviously still better than the Saab.
Now if/when they put the twin-turbo D in the Alfa 159 Sportwagen (with Q4 auto box), that would be very tempting!
|
I am constantly annoyed by journos trying to tell me what the best cars are as quite honestly, they have no more clue than anyone else - its down to the individuals requirements and priorities.
I often buy left-field cars rather than the usual suspects as there are some secret gems out there. Volvo 460 is a case in point. I had one, albeit a cherished low mileage one and I adored it, but read the test reports and you would think they were awful. It just wasnt true and while it wasnt a sports saloon, it was well thought out, solid and very comfortable, not to mention oddly economical ( 45 mpg from the 1.8 petrol ).
Actually what I find more telling are the ownership surveys which throw up an often completely different set of cars - I recall the Galaxy/Sharan being heralded as the best MPV only to come at the bottom of any car in such surveys.
The general rule is dont believe everything you read and try everything, not just what the so called experts say you should.
I personally look forward to driving a Legacy diesel.
|
I am constantly annoyed by journos trying to tell me what the best cars are as quite honestly they have no more clue than anyone else - its down to the individuals requirements and priorities.
I agree. I think the motoring journos know as much about cars as the majority of estate agents know about houses...............not too much.
|
|
|
Actually what I find more telling are the ownership surveys which throw up an often completely different set of cars - I recall the Galaxy/Sharan being heralded as the best MPV only to come at the bottom of any car in such surveys.
I had an early Sharan, and whilst the design was way ahead of competitors when launched (1995? and still being sold 13 years later), their position at the bottom of reliability tests was well and truly merited!
|
The telling thing in reviews is the comparison of the Mark2 model versus the Mark1 which tells us readers how much better the Mark2 is.
Then you re-read their Mark1 review and surprise: thy never mention half the issues where the Mark2 is suppoosedly better.
Hence my contempt.
Is "contempt " too harsh? Nope.
|
|
|
|
I am constantly annoyed by journos trying to tell me what the best cars are as quite honestly they have no more clue than anyone else - its down to the individuals requirements and priorities.
I completely agree.
But what is, in my opinion, even worse, is a certain magazine that, in its summaries of various cars, instead of saying "Good" and "Bad" or "For" and "Against" says "You'll like" and "You won't". How do they know what I'll like? Grrrr.
|
How do they know what I'll like? Grrrr.
Continuing that theme - they also seem to have an obsession with 'cubby holes' , 'sunglasses-holders ', 'cup-holders' or underseat/underfloor cavities of any description. What on earth do people fill these 'useful' spaces with? I've enough trouble finding stuff in the car without half of these 'surprise & delight hiding places'. I suppose it comes down to an apparent perception by manufacturers that we all carry half our possessions with us whenever we venture outdoors or young Johhny will scream the windows out if he hasn't got a place to stick his lollipop or half-eaten burger.
Edited by woodbines on 05/04/2008 at 12:53
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd choose the Subaru any day for reliability over the Saab, although the Saab almost certainly has the better diesel engine.
Subarus always seem to have a drink problem for their given CC, petrol and now it seems diesel.
|
Subarus always seem to have a drink problem for their given CC petrol and now it seems diesel.<<
I dont think thats at all true. My Forester is a 2L auto with four wheel drive and Im averaging 31 mpg - are there really that many cars with that spec that are more economical?
|
"are there really that many cars with that spec that are more economical?"
Stu, Any journalist driving your car would average about 22mpg...cos of the way YOU drive and the way THEY drive.
I read the comparison. Since most of the comparisons did not have figures - eg.. despite saying the Subaru would cost to run they had no depreciation on maintenance costs in the Technical Details!- I assume it was totally subjective and they had made their minds up before they started.
Anyone with any sense would immediately reject any GM offering as carp cos GM can't design and build any decent cars world wide. And who wants to drive a £28k Vectra?
(and that is an objective statement .Not:-))
Edited by madf on 03/04/2008 at 20:02
|
I dont drive that economically, atleast not to an extreme. I get close to the combined figure atleast.
Working on that basis with my driving, the Qashqai 2.0 petrol manual is barely more economical than my petrol auto Forester which is proof atleast that the Subaru is not any more thirsty than comparable cars, if not that economical in the scheme of things.
|
My previous big car before my Outback 3.0 auto was Volvo S80 2.9 auto. Using the trip computer readings only, I would say that the Volvo was about 10% more economical. Given the OUtback has 4WD and is a few inches higher than the S80, I don't think that's too bad. The poor economy of all my cars is more a reflection of my driving style (in terms of urban journeys rather than a very heavy foot!).
If they did an Outback auto with the diesel I would be very tempted. Its a pity more Japanese companies do not do diesel autos. Surely their gearboxes which are up to the power of a 3.0 litre or more can deal with a 2.0 litre turbo diesel?
|
Comes down to car marketing. The diesel auto will no doubt arrive when the current version is on its last legs, to drive those few extra sales then, 6 months later, a new version will be out with no auto.
Doh!
|
|
|
|
>> Subarus always seem to have a drink problem for their given CC petrol and now it seems diesel.<< I dont think thats at all true. My Forester is a 2L auto with four wheel drive and Im averaging 31 mpg - are there really that many cars with that spec that are more economical?
No offence, but there are plenty of 2 litre cars of similar size and performace that could improve on that figure, assuming you mean out of town driving.
I had a 2 liter non-turbo Passat which woudl easily do 34-35 on the motorway at usual motorway seeds.
|
My Impreza 2.0 (160bhp model) does about 36mpg on the motorway.
The snag is that the engine is very free reving and the car generally encourages you to drive it rather hard. Normally, with other cars, I've tended to change up as soon as possible for best economy. Now that my Impreza is run-in I tend to find it difficult to resists reving it hard in each gear, up to about 6000rpm, and this pulls the economy down. Driven sensibly in 'mixed' rural and city driving it does around 30mpg, which I think is fairly average for a 2.0i car. If I 'gun' it a bit though, then the average drops to 26mpg.
|
Bagpuss has it spot on - and is also the reason I also cancelled my long running subscription to Car.
I think we have said it a few times on here that the writers (I won't bother with Journalists as that suggests they at least do some form of investigation) do not have a clue about engineering or manufacturing.
If it has a soft touch dash, goes side ways on a track and costs more than 35K then it is good.
There is an obsession with testing very expensive cars all the time in these mags which leads me to wonder who buys them - I doubt it is the people who can actually afford the cars.
I would like HJ to have one as a long termer to give us a really good understanding.
Come on Subaru - give the top man a legacy diesel estate for 12 months.
|
Totally agree about the testing of expensive cars. Id like to see far more tests of cars under £20k which is what most people will spend their money on.
Also, why they do group tests with key cars missing is beyond me - looking at whatcar tests from the 80's, they managed then to get a decent group of cars together, so why not now?
The saddest thing is that reliability is never mentioned except when talking about the odd Alfa. To me, if I buy a new car, I expect it to be reliable, thats why id buy a new car over a used one, so there are less likely to be problems. If however a car has a habit of going wrong from new, id sure like to know and it is a total failure of many publications that they avoid the topic which can ruin a new car experience.
|
>> Also why they do group tests with key cars missing is beyond me -
>>
I guess that they can't get the car or cars that they want.
What Car is one of the best mags for data, specs etc, but their judgement is apalling and I have serious doubts about their independence.
This month - May - frinstance - page 11. The heading is 'reliable 4x4' They suggest as 'Best Buy' the Landrover Freelander. Quote "We're not sure about reliability"
|
>>I guess that they can't get the car or cars that they want.<<
Well they should be able to - Top Gear mag recently got a Bristol Fighter for test, prob the hardest car to secure for such purposes on the market, so if thats possible then getting an example of each mid-range hatchback really shouldnt be that hard.
|
What Car depends upon advertising.
In the early 1970s/late 1960s Car was very rightly rude about the handling of teh new Mark2 Zephyr/Zodiac on Goodyear "Gripless" And Firestone tyres. As a result the two tyre makers pulled all advertising.
What Car is FULL of advertising.
Two and Two makes Four.
EDIT
And What Car in its Car Reviews has the habit of saying against a car: ... "there are better cars in the class.." and then you look at their reviews of competitor cars...and nowt.
Personally I think their reveiws are totally subjective,, eg Honda Jazz is best supermini... at its price it should be twice as good as the competitors so on vfm it is carp.. Objective? Nope.
Edited by madf on 05/04/2008 at 16:27
|
|
|
|
|
|
