Hello all,
I'm considering chopping in the a4 for one of the above models. I'm off to test drive them on Wednesday and wondered if anyone had any thoughts on them.
I'm tempted by the price of the 1.7 but have got doubts as to whether 114hp is going to be enough?
If you want to 2.0 then you have to have awd. Does this have any effect on tyre life?, I seem to remember with 4wd you have to change all the tyres at the same time?
Finally I'd be interested to hear from any owners out there.
Safe driving!
|
|
The 1.7 is definately enough engine for the car, its a nice driver...however I much prefer the 2.0 AWD, its a little heavier on fuel as you would expect and probably tyres and I guess its a touch noisier too. I only ever had them as new cars so cant comment on actual tyre life im afraid.
The AWD system is pretty good though, the rear wheels arent in use all the time, you will most likely be doing the fronts more often on the AWD as in a normal FWD car.
However the increase in power is very noticeable (it will do 120mph easily) and the handling is far more sure footed, particularly in wet weather I found it much much more capable. The FWD descends into dramatic understeer very quickly in the rain.
Edited by countryroads on 07/01/2013 at 19:29
|
|
Two friends have both models. Seems the 1.7 is prefectly adequate but the 2.0 adds that extra dimension of ooomph, but its not vital.
|
Thanks for the replies, so I'm right in thinking there is no need to change all tyres simultaneously on the awd. I think I'm right in saying on some 4x4's mismatched tyres can reek havoc with the diff!.
I'll look Forwards to test driving them and shall report back.
Out of interest does anyone have any thoughts how the sportage compares the the ix35?
|
|
The 2 cars are almost identical in their drive in my opinion, I have had both as company cars, I think the Kia looks better, but visibility is worse. If I was buying one, Kia, just for the looks....
Its always best to have matching tyres all over on an AWD, however aslong as they are the same size its not critical to the health of the car to have different brands.
|
|
The 4wd system is on-demand - ie, it's fwd normally and only transfers torque to the rear when slip occurs.
While regular tyre rotation isn't necessary to protect the transmission it is still needed as the electronics use front:rear differences in rotational speed from the ABS sensors to detect slip !!
If you can't afford 4 new tyres, rather than 2, when the time comes you need to seriously consider whether you can afford a new car - don't forget that replacing 2 at a time has to be done twice as often.
|
|
The AWD system in these cars isnt that sensitive, it has to deal with differing wear front to rear and precisely because it is electronic rather than mechanical a few mm difference in tyre wear is no issue at all.....tyre rotation isnt necessary nor is it beneficial in cost terms either.
|
|
It deals with differering wear front:rear by slip at the transfer clutch - not enough to wear that clutch because it's normally at zero pressure - but as the tyre wear differential becomes greater the tendency to deploy ABS and/or 4wd increases unneccesarily.
There's no real cost benefit in not rotating - all it does is half the cost on two occasions rather than a big spend on one - but compared to the cost of buying a car, it's small change.
I'm sure the Kia owners manual will recomend rotation - the equivalent Hyundai models do.
|
Thanks for all the advice thus far. Whilst changing all 4 tyres at once isnt financially prohibitive for me I'm not sure if I can justify the expense as I don't really need an awd car, but I suspect I might want the bigger engine. I guess I'll have to test drive tem and go from there.
Just trying to get a feel of the likely running costs of any new car.
|
Today I went out in a sportage 1.7 3 spec car. I can report that at low speeds the engine was willing and responsive, I was quite surprised that 114 hp would be as good, however once you got over 70 the engine was really quite unresponsive. In 6th gear at 80 you were doing 2700rpm and the car did not want to pick up any more (not that you shoud of course). Wind and tyre noise was noticeably greater than my a4 but perhaps this should e expected.
I am going to turn to try a 2.0 diesel. I'm hoping this will address soe of my criticisms of the 1.7
|
|
In some respects, many cars would struggle to pull away in top gear at 80mph and you would expect to have to change down to fifth for a bit more oomph. Not really an issue. If that the only criticism, then it seems a waste to buy the larger and less economical engine. Each to their own! I buy automatics and don't suffer that problem at all.....
|
|
6th gear in the 2.0 is great, really easy overtaking and in that sense far better than the 1.7, it pulls 40mph to well over the motorway limit surprisingly quickly! how did you find the general drive..ride, noise etc I think they are fantastic!
|
Yep, I'm off to try a 2.0 next week. Generally I felt the car drove well, the ride was perfectly acceptable but I did think there was quite a bit of tyre and wind noise.
The cabin was well furnished with plenty of toys but the fit and finish was not in the same league as my present a4. The car we drove was 1 year old and there were a couple of rattles and fraying around the sunroof blinds.
That said it s an awful lot of car for the money and the 7 year warranty is a big bonus.
I do feel that the range hampers me in getting the car I want. For example I would want a 2.0 but not awd. I like the 3 spec bt am not keen on the blingey wheels that come with it.
It's still on te short list however. I think we have narrowed it down to either a skoda superb, Kia spare, a4 avant or a q3. Any thoughts on any of these cars?
|
It's still on te short list however. I think we have narrowed it down to either a skoda superb, Kia spare, a4 avant or a q3. Any thoughts on any of these cars?
I've just finished reading a Group Test in What Car? (Jan edition) and the Sportage 2.0 AWD comes last with just 2 stars. Noise, lack of refinement and a weak engine are the main reasons.
The Mazda CX5 easily wins, followed by the new Honda CRV and the VW Tiguan.
The CX5 is worth a look if you like these "cross-over" style vehicles, and is available in two states of tune in 2.2D guise (fast and indecently quick by all accounts).
However, from your shortlist, it would be the Superb or A4 Avant for me...
|
|
The Mazda CX5 easily wins,
In my book it wins the prize for the ugliest front.
|
|
To be honest, I would go for the Kia out of those, I like the spec to value ratio, and the looks too so thats my choice, road noise I never found to be an issue..However, Hyundai used to do an ix35 with the 2.0 engine and 2wd, might be worth looking for one of those..
|
I'm a little wary of the Mazda. Our mileage is borderline at 12-15k pa, and the Mazda diesels don't seem to have the best reputation. Possibly the jury is still out on the sky activ range.
The hyundai is worth another look and the dealer seemed very keen to deal.
One recurring factor I cannot get away from though is the size of the superb estate. For a young family I can't see that we'd ever need another car.
|
|
I'd agree with that, Chris, and you can get a 4x4 version of the Superb too.
The question is whether you want a crossover / SUV or whatever you like to call it (such as the Sportage, ix35 and the Mazda CX-5) or a normal estate. If you need a really big estate, it's the Superb or Mondeo (assumoing you don't want to spend a lot more money on an A6, 5-series or Mercedes); the next size down is the Octavia or Mazda 6; the A4 Avant is a lovrly car if you don't need the room, but I couldn't justify the extra (at least £7,000) that it costs over my Octavia vRS.
If you go for a Mazda, go petrol, but the VAG common-rail diesel is fine. I don't know how well Kia / Hyundai diesels will last - too early to say perhaps.
|
Yep I seem to have narrowed it down to a fairly diverse range of cars. I like the idea of a suv but don't want 4x4. The a4 avant we have been offered is a good deal. 4500! Off list price but if we went for it, it would be identical to our existing car bar the fact it would be an estate and the face lifted model.
The superb is se guise seems to have a good level of spec. I ll be interested to see how keen the dealers are to do a deal. Unfortunately the vat free offer only applies to petrol superbs and they are going to be thirsty!
The q3 is the curve ball the boot is 20 litres less than an a4 saloon but a more practical shape.
The kia in 2.0 2 spec guise is getting close in price to the a4 avant.
Decisions.....
|
If you go for a Mazda, go petrol, but the VAG common-rail diesel is fine. I don't know how well Kia / Hyundai diesels will last - too early to say perhaps.
The 2006-2009 2.2 CRDTi Hyundai-Kia diesels seem to be proving reliable without any undue attention although few have done mega miles - one owner has done 186,000 uneventful miles but not many are over the 100,000 yet.
The even newer 2010-onwards all-new 2.2 CRDi Hyundai-Kia has obviously done even fewer miles but nothing to report yet.
|
|
|
|
I'd say try to replace tyres in 4's .. you have better negotiating power on price!
|
|
|
