|
I dunno enough of the technical stuff to say whether the engine will be any good. But over the last decade, good diesels have started to appear in sizes much smaller than were previously tolerated: Fiat/GM with a 1.3, Toyota with a 1.4, Ford/PSA with a 1.4.
Those engines do not produce a car which is any sort of fireball, but then not everyone wants a car which accelerates like a Jaguar. Plenty of drivers just want sonmething which is easy to drive, reliable and economical, and those small diesels seem to fit that brief very nicely.
Sure, the diesel engone costs more to buy, so they are not a machine to buy unless you are doing a decent mileage. But I know lots of rural dwellers who want a small car for ease of parking etc, yet who clock up high mileages. I know several retired people in the countryside who do more than 15,000 miles a year as they travel around a dispersed set of friends in cars of this sort of size, and an 80mpg machine would be great for them. (I note what some posters say about Kia/Hyundai's grossly optimistic figures, but I'm talking about the concept rather than the possibly flawed implementation).
As to the notion that such a thing is "poverty spec", it all depends what you want. A etired person now will remember the Ford Escorts which were ubiquitous in the 1970s, and one of these machines will be light years better in nearly every respect: faster, quieter, comfier, roomier, and massively more economical. If Kia can make this car as good as they claim, there will be a market for it ... and it won't surprise them at all to know that Jamie doesn't want one.
|
|
Loads of people have complained about getting poor observed economy with the Fiat 1.3.
Admittedly, a lot of those complaints were when it was fitted to small Vans where it was probably overworked.
Everyone likes the concept of 80mpg. I just don't think people will like the reality of what it takes to achieve it.
Interestingly, I've yet to see anyone 'leak' a BSFC map of any of these tiny diesels. Gee, I wonder why that is....
Edited by unthrottled on 27/08/2011 at 00:06
|
|
I understand NowWheels post, im fully aware there is a market for small economical cars i am not stupid. I also dont expect every car the accelerate off the line with the growl and pace of my car, not that its often required anyway but i do question the wisdom of such a small engine. Yes theres a market for these cars but why does that remain true when these super economical models are often a four figure sum more expensive than another model they make which is still economical. If you're paying £12,000 for a new car you can afford some fuel. I dont see why people pay an extra premium for a worse car due to its economy, if the only point of the car is to save money, surely that defeats it.
The reality is to achieve 80mpg its going to have to be driven like a hea***, with the dead person actually driving it. You're talking 50mph on the motorway with lorries, caravans and horses overtaking you. Pedestrian speeds everywhere else with massive ques forming with people going 'you've got a 61 plate car you can afford some sodding fuel!!' and being late, for everything, constantly. I like economy but very good economy can be achieved in other cars without having to resort to dead-pensioner style driving. My old Pug 406 HDi got 50mpg on a run, and that was a 1.4 tonne automatic saloon and thats doing what i'd call normal driving, not thrashing it obviously but just normal, never held anyone up with it. 50mpg is achievable in the real world i think now, 80 is quite a way off. Realistically.
|
The reality is to achieve 80mpg its going to have to be driven like a hea***, with the dead person actually driving it. You're talking 50mph on the motorway with lorries, caravans and horses overtaking you. Pedestrian speeds everywhere else with massive ques forming
Jamie, that's nonsese. Either it's a long time since you drove a low-powered car, or you are just being hyperbolic.
In the early 2000s I clocked up quite a mileage in Ireland driving my mum in her 1.0 litre VW Polo, a heavyish car for its time with a 50bhp engine. It had stodgy handling and an unsettled ride, but its lack of power was not an issue. It would cruise happily at 70 on the rare occasions we used motorways, and on the rural roads where I got most use out of it the main drawback was that overtaking required a lot of planning. The queues were ahead of us, rather than behind.
I worked the gearbox quite hard in that Polo, so imagine that fuel consumption was not the lowest. But the diesel Picanto promises an 85bhp engine, with a lot more torque than the Polo's petrol unit, and the two cars have almost exactly the same weight. So the diesel Picanto will be a flyer by comparison, and won't have to be worked hard unless you want it to perform like a big fast car. It will be quite powerful enough to run around on A and B-roads without having to be overworked or cause queues, and with diesel torque it will overtake with a lot more power to spare than something like than the mid-sized 1.4 cars of a few years ago (e.g. Astra 1.4).
Maybe it is true that the idea of a 3-cylinder diesel is flawed; we'll have to see how it works once it's avaialble for testing. Avant is right to point out that the economy proposition of a car like this works only if the diesel engined variant doesn't cost too much of a premium over the petrol engine, tho this sort of calaculation depends a lot on the mileage and on the cost of fuel (which we can expect to rise substantially over the next decade).
The caaculations I did five years ago on the trade-offs between purchase price fuel costs for a petrol or diesel car look much less favourable to petrol now that the price at the pumps has increased by 45%. Some looking now to buy an economical small car for their retirement would be wise to see how their cost calculations work with fuel prices much higher than now.
Some of what is being written in this thread comes across as a spurious rationalisation of a dislike for small and economical cars.
|
|
Now Wheels
There is plenty of opinionated material to pick from (much of it mine), but you were unfortunate enough to select a quote that is quite irrefutable.
The quoted fuel consumption is of interest only to your annual VED bill. The actual fuel consumption is what matters. To achieve 80 mpg will involve methodical, slow driving. The average speed on the extra urban part of the NEDC is only 40mph.
I don't have a dislike of small and economical cars. I do have a dislike of hyperbole and there's plenty of that surrounding the 1.1 CRDi.
I know no one is interested in the theory of crankshaft torque fluctuations and NVH, but it affects the way people drive-and hence the observed economy.
|
|
Out of everything ive said the quote Now Wheels pulled me up on was probably the most accurate thing i had said.
The average speed on the extra urban part of the NEDC is only 40mph.
Which proves my point, i want them to test it at 75 on a British motorway and then claim those figures.
Its fair to say i dont often drive underpowered cars, ive not driven anything with under at least 100bhp for quite some time but i do remember my 1.1 Fiesta as my first car nearly 10 years ago which wouldve been quicker if you rowed it. Im being accused of disliking small economical cars thats absolute rubbish, i think its fantastic and vital that such things are being produced. But in the case of the 1.1 Kia its maybe going too far and its purely about economy and they've forgotten about the rest of the car, and for 12k i want a bit more for my money. Its cars like this which make unrealistic claims about its economy and are too expensive is what i dislike.
|
Out of everything ive said the quote Now Wheels pulled me up on was probably the most accurate thing i had said.
The bit I quoted included your comment that the stated mpg could be met only at "pedestrian speeds everywhere else with massive ques forming". If you think for a momemt about efficiency, you'll know that driving in first gear at pedestrian speeds is a very thirsty way of getting about ... and if that's the most accurtae thing you wrote, the rest of it must be pure fantasy.
i want them to test it at 75 on a British motorway and then claim those figures.
No other car is tested at motorway speeds, let alone illegal speeds, so you what you are asking is that this car's mpg measured in a much less favourable manner than other cars on the market. Why do you want to subject this car to testing for a usage which is unlikely to form a major part of its target market?
Its fair to say i dont often drive underpowered cars, ive not driven anything with under at least 100bhp for quite some time but i do remember my 1.1 Fiesta as my first car nearly 10 years ago which wouldve been quicker if you rowed it.
More hyperbole, and more assumption that everyone else wants to drive fast. Plenty of drivers get good mpg out of smaller engined cars by driving more gently (not necessarily more slowly, just taking longer to accelerate). There are plenty of drivers who will find that if the engine produces anything like the stated power outputs, it will be more than adequate for their use.
Im being accused of disliking small economical cars thats absolute rubbish, i think its fantastic and vital that such things are being produced.
Actually, you have repeatedly denounced the concept of a small and economical car as a damnable thing becaue it won't be the fastest machine on the road. Surprise surprise! But
But in the case of the 1.1 Kia its maybe going too far and its purely about economy and they've forgotten about the rest of the car, and for 12k i want a bit more for my money.
Others may want different things for their money, and it's very clear that you are absolutely definitely not part of the target market for such a vehicle.
Its cars like this which make unrealistic claims about its economy and are too expensive is what i dislike.
How about we wait and see what sort of mpg this machine can actually achieve before jumping to conclusions?
|
|
|
|
Now Wheels
There is plenty of opinionated material to pick from (much of it mine), but you were unfortunate enough to select a quote that is quite irrefutable.
Irrefutable that at 50mph on the motorway you would be overtaken by horses?
I think we live on different planets.
The quoted fuel consumption is of interest only to your annual VED bill. The actual fuel consumption is what matters. To achieve 80 mpg will involve methodical, slow driving. The average speed on the extra urban part of the NEDC is only 40mph.
Indeed. All the figures in the tests are based on slow methodical driving, for whatever car is being tested; that's why they are not replicated in real life, and cars driven fast on the motorway won't meet the stated extra-urban figure. However, my experience of driving on rural Irish roads is that an average of 40mph is quite realistsic even in a fast car; sightlines and poor surfaces preclude anything much higher. On the rural roads in Yorkshire, an average of 45 is possible, but it is rare to average much higher. So for non-motorway use the NEDC is about right on average speed, tho it misleads by not accounting for the amount of acceleration and braking needed.
I agree that the motorway figures are likely to be much lesws favourable, particularly for a smallish car. But that applies to most small cars, which will at mway speeds be using a much higher proprtion of their maximum power.
If the power and torque figures are accurate, this Kia diesel has enough power not to have to be flogged on the motorway, provided that the top gear is high enough. It remains to be seen how it is geared, but it does have the potential to be a lot more economical than a small petrol engine.
I don't have a dislike of small and economical cars. I do have a dislike of hyperbole and there's plenty of that surrounding the 1.1 CRDi.
I certainly agree about the hyperbole. Kia/Hyundai has a track-record of wild optimism in its quoted mpg figures, so it's good to see them being taken with a pinch of salt. But the hyperbole in the denunciations is just as bad as Kia's
|
Irrefutable that at 50mph on the motorway you would be overtaken by horses?
I think we live on different planets.
He means the fact i said to achieve figures like that you'd have to be driving at 50 on a motorway and you know it, stop missing the point on purpose. Very annoying when people do that.
You talk about rural roads, motorways were built to stop us using rural roads and being too noisy outside some pensioners house so shouldnt motorways be a major inclusion into the fuel economy testing?
|
Irrefutable that at 50mph on the motorway you would be overtaken by horses?
I think we live on different planets.
He means the fact i said to achieve figures like that you'd have to be driving at 50 on a motorway and you know it, stop missing the point on purpose. Very annoying when people do that.
Cut out the hyperbole and it might be a little clearer which assertion you actually mean.
It's very annoying when people deliberately post a load of patent nonsense, and then cry foul when they think that an objection has been made to the wrong bit of nonsense, childishly claiming that someone has "missed the point on purpose" when the point was a half-truth buried in fantasy.
As to having to drive at 50 on the mway to achieve those figures, it depends how much of the driving mix being measured on was on the mway. The mpg figures are an average of difft speeds, and no car will meet its quoted figures if driven at 75.
You talk about rural roads, motorways were built to stop us using rural roads and being too noisy outside some pensioners house so shouldnt motorways be a major inclusion into the fuel economy testing?
The point of the tests is to reflect actual usage, not somebody's idea of desired usage. The structure of the test is poor, but that's a recipe for maing it worse. Some vehicles rarely use motorways, and I think it's reasonable to assume that a little Picanto is likely to be spending less of its time on the motorway than something like a Mondeo.
|
Cut out the hyperbole and it might be a little clearer which assertion you actually mean.
If i need to explain which part of that post i 'actually meant' and what i didnt, in the case of speeding horses on the M4, then you have a serious problem. Not me.
*not bothering responding to the next bit*
Some vehicles rarely use motorways, and I think it's reasonable to assume that a little Picanto is likely to be spending less of its time on the motorway than something like a Mondeo.
I think its reasonable to suggest that most people buying diesels, specifically new ones will be people doing reasonably high mileages and not just popping to the bowls club, and that somewhere along the way they're going to end up on a dual carraigeway or motorway with it at some stage.
|
I think its reasonable to suggest that most people buying diesels, specifically new ones will be people doing reasonably high mileages and not just popping to the bowls club, and that somewhere along the way they're going to end up on a dual carraigeway or motorway with it at some stage.
Indeed, they probably will use the motorways a bit, and I never suggested oherwise. However it seems that the only figure you are interested in that for a vehicle which does a high proportion of its mileage at 75pmph on the motroway. A car doing say 20% of its mileage on the mway, driving at 60 rather then 70+ you would choose, could still fit the 40mph average of the test.
High mileages are not the sole preserve of motorway drivers. You seem unfamiliar with vehicle usage patterns in rural areas, where popping off to see friends every day of going to a difft shop may involve a 30-miles-each-way trip.
Cut out the hyperbole and it might be a little clearer which assertion you actually mean.
If i need to explain which part of that post i 'actually meant' and what i didnt, in the case of speeding horses on the M4, then you have a serious problem. Not me.
Jamie, you write so much hyperbolic froth that I would be deeply concerned about anyone who thught that they could divine with any certainty which bits of froth you actually meant.
If you write like a clown, you'll be read like a clown.
And I am not going to waste any more of time with you. I can get my fill of hyperbolic big-talk anytime I want it by talking to an angry teenager, but I come to the backroom in the hope of a coherent discusion with adults. I thought you might fit that category, but evidently I'd better look elsewhere in the backroom for mature conversation.
|
You seem unfamiliar with vehicle usage patterns in rural areas, where popping off to see friends every day of going to a difft shop may involve a 30-miles-each-way trip
Well its not like i live in London i am aware there is countryside, i dont live in the middle of nowhere i just dont find myself on rural roads that often, so fair point, possibly.
Jamie, you write so much hyperbolic froth that I would be deeply concerned about anyone who thught that they could divine with any certainty which bits of froth you actually meant.
So you still think it was a serious suggestion that horses would be on the M4? Still? Really?
And I am not going to waste any more of time with you.
Ooo get you :)
|
|
|
|
