Peugeot 2008 GT, Volkswagen T-Cross R-Line: From the clean scene

Compact crossovers are all the rage and there’s nothing wrong with Euro flair, so …

ONE can but rarely does, the other cannot and simply shouldn’t.

If you’re still confused by the difference between a sports utility and a crossover – and it’s understandable, as both types are going for that achingly trendy rugged and ever-so-slightly bulked look - then that’s a good a disparity as any.

Effectively, it comes down to the first type generally having an off-road ability whereas the others aren’t so much wannabes than never-weres …. presenting in two-wheel-drive in a way that just isn’t tailored for any kind of daily driving surface other than those created by man. They absolutely eschew any kind of off-road gumption, which is okay because you were never going to use it anyway.

The cars on test today are high achievers at the art of looking a touch terrain-trustworthy yet in a manner that relates clear desire to steer clear of icky dirt or grime.

If anything that ambience enhances probable appeal as perfect choices to become hatchback alternates for those seeking a sensible urban and occasionally open road choice with recognition that even all-wheel-drive mightn’t make a jot of difference in those environments.

There’s more going on here, of course. Almost all crossovers have become the Swiss Army knives of the car world through their clever packaging, but there’s no argument that can be a secondary consideration to at-wheel playfulness and how well they present at the kerbside.

In that respect, the two models here do seem to have a certain something more.

VOLKSWAGEN T-CROSS R-Line

Price: $43,490

Powertrain and economy: 1.5-litre four cylinder turbopetrol, 110kWkW/250Nm, 7-speed dual-clutch, FWD, combined economy 5.5 L/100km, CO2 126 g/km

Vital statistics: 4235mm long, 1782mm wide, 1584mm high, 2551mm wheelbase, luggage capacity 455 litres, 18-inch alloy wheels.

We like: Smart but sensible ambience, good ride, nice engine.

We don't like: Some interior plastics, stop/start abruptness.

THINKING small has been a careful process for Volkswagen; basically, it’s taken the best part of a decade for it to arrive at this car, the new baby of its sports utility/crossover family. 

The project started in 2012, when Wolfsburg’s designers created the Taigun concept; basically a quasi rockhopper based off the Up! City hatch. It was greenlit for sale by 2016, but obviously that never happened. After giving it more thought, VW determined the car would be too small. They’ve since junked the Up!, too.

It then started over, shifting focus to what now have, a larger but still tightly dimensioned derivative of the Polo hatchback. The Taigun nameplate hasn’t gone to waste, as it is being reused as a rebadged long-wheelbase T-Cross. But that’s only for the Indian market, so don’t hold hope for local introduction. 

The Cross delivers in 1.0-litre three-cylinder Life and Style formats which certainly sound like fun. Yet assuredly this 1.5-litre four-pot R-Line on test will also do brisk business; so many customers find it easy to buy into a flagship that seems tailored to deliver just that little bit extra verve and visual fizz. In respect to the latter, the R-Line is not as flamboyant as the limited-count 1.0-litre First Edition that’s been snapped by early birders. I wouldn’t be dismayed about that; the R-Line’s body kit embellishments aren’t as loud, yet they lend more coherence to an overall look which I suspect will be a major lure for buyers.

Sure, look at the T-Cross when it’s parked alongside the 2008 GT and there’s no argument which delivers the more drama; that Peugeot is a far more vivacious thing, not just from all exterior angles but also when you slip inside. 

At same token, though, it’s easy to imagine the VW won’t loss too much ground from being less immediately striking. Whether or not we should ever celebrate when a design approach is less likely to axe-split opinion is somewhat moot.

What is more relevant is that, though it’s clearly less outrageous, the T-Cross is hardly a weak design in its own right: All the cues that link it to a wider family spanning through T-Roc, Tiguan and Touareg are there; I quite like how it acknowledges their inspiration by being upright and just a touch square. There is some plastic cladding but it isn’t overdone, in overall shape and stance it very nicely and neatly done and, more importantly, by and large it evidences as class act in ambience.

The latter is important. Small crossovers can risk being considered cheap and generally nasty because of a perception they, and the cars they derive from, are often built down to a price. 

You can hardly sense that with the T-Cross; in large part because it’s derived from a hatch that has always aced on an aura of upmarket appeal but also this sub-sector has so risen in consumer popularity quite often the choices are made simply of impression of quality. In this instance, that is has much of the same dashboard and interior layout as the Polo is far from harmful. While you might only quibble about some of the interior plastics, but that’s really about it. 

Having the same 'MQB-A0' platform as the Polo, the same engines, and the same basic structure also strengthens the proposition. 

It's far roomier than some older small crossover models, with a decent 385-litre boot and good space in the back seats. You get some excellent front seats, the digital instrument screen looks classy and works well, and the central touchscreen is, generally, a model of simple and explicable menu layouts. It has rather handsome graphics, too.

Standard kit for a T-Roc includes a multi-function steering wheel, all-round electric windows, air conditioning, lane keeping assistant, forward collision alert with automated braking, stop-start, a blind spot monitor and LED daytime running lights. Quite a lot, then.

The R-Line upsizes the touchscreen and handily adds a reversing camera, adaptive cruise control, keyless access, digital instruments and a decent stereo system. The steering wheel integrates not only has buttons for the media controls but also for the cruise control, which in older VW’s has always been by stalks. That’s a good improvement that’ll start to transfer to other models. Also new is a wireless recharge pad for your phone; that’s good, but since you have to cable in the enable Apple CarPlay functionality it slighty smacks as a halfway. After all, your device will recharge off the US anyway. Better to to go the whole way and have wireless CarPlay and recharging, really.

The driving side of things is by large VW 101: It’s no hot hatch, of course, and less effervescent than the Peugeot when it comes to chassis balance and steering feel, but there’s a likeable honesty to the actions and it has an air of solid dependability. Those largish rims – everything but the base car runs on 18s - don't wreck the ride, and though it’s certainly not an expedition vehicle, it drives confidently on gravel and will likely not embarrass itself on a grassy field, assuming it’s not a sopping day and there’s minimum mud. 

I’m keen to try this car with the 1.0-litre, because it has an awesome reputation and it’s also potentially enough for this model anyway, but would also say that in isolation, the larger capacity unit on test is going to appeal for its broad torque, sharp throttle responses and pretty decent refinement. It also works comfortably with the seven-speed direct shift transmission that, again, is common to all versions.

PEUGEOT 2008 GT

Price: $45,990

Powertrain and economy: 1.2-litre turbo-petrol inline-three, 114kW/240Nm, 8-speed automatic, FWD, combined economy 6.1L/100km, CO2 138g/km.

Vital statistics: 4300mm long, 1550mm wide, 1530mm high, 2605mm wheelbase, luggage capacity 434 litres, 18-inch alloy wheels.

We like: Effervescent engine, 3D i-cockpit, creative styling.

We don't like: Driving position.

MUM and dad were average height, so too my sister. My brother? Short. So, I of course, have defied the sequence.

My tallness is not sufficient to ensure an NBA selection shortlist, but has definitely refined what I do in motorsport, which I’ve taken up at club level. Even if I had the skill set, the long legs and frame aspect ruled out single seaters.

Road cars aren’t so bad, but some are more challenging that others. For instance, the MX-5 roadster is a bit of tight fit when the top is up, but I’ll always make it work because the car is so good. 

Anyway, now to the 2008. It’s been around a while now, and we’ve met before on two previous occasions, so I knew what to expect when slipping into the driver’s seat. Basically, weirdness. All to do with the iCockpit layout, which features the dials set high on the dashboard. 

I’m sure it’s not a problem for an average-sized driver. And it’s clearly not one for Peugeot, because why else would they make it a signature of all its passenger product? It didn’t become an issue for Mrs B, who is rather less height advantaged than I am (and no, you can’t see the wedding photos), when she drove the car.

But it is a problem for me, and here’s why. The dinky and oddly shaped steering wheel has to be set low, otherwise the rim obscures the dials. When you're tall, that effectively asks for the wheel to place virtually in my lap, which makes for an awkward driving position that any amount of fiddling with the seat and wheel positioning just doesn’t seem to quite rectify. As I say, it’s not something everyone is irked by. I daresay a lot of people won't have a problem. And, just to reinforce, I didn’t find the car outright impossible to drive. But it often just felt awkward. So, I’d have to say it's well worth trying before you buy.

Funny thing is, the car itself is quite roomy and the seats are truly comfortable for someone of my height. Also, I’m also really quite impressed by the new instrument display in the redesigned format that’s among the key upgrade features arriving with the car’s big mid-life facelift.

The display has always been digital but now there’s a 3D effect would be easy to describe as a gimmick, but in reality, it works very well. It’s implemented by combining the 10-inch digital display with a similarly sized screen sitting a couple of centimetres further in front.

That second screen gets key information (speed, navigation, that sort of thing) beamed onto it from above, like an inverted head-up display, while the one behind also runs information. It’s not as complex as it sounds, looks utterly amazing and you don’t need special glasses. Also, there’s nothing else like it in the class nor, as far as I can tell, in any other production car. Though the much, much pricier Mercedes S-Class is promised to deliver something similar. As an option.

 Anyway, where it’s really effective is when delivering the various viewing modes, selected via a roller on the wheel. Go for ‘Driving’ and you get a 3D model of the 2008 within its lane. On either side are lines, which associate with the lane keep and highlight in orange if the car thinks you’re straying into danger. It’ll ultimately intervene at the wheel, this action reminding it’s meted “semi-autonomous driving capability.” Which means hands-off for a short period, but basically it really only suits motorway running.

There’s also a way of delivering the sat nav front and centre, and having the speedo tucked off to the side, plus ‘Personal’ modes that allow you to pick what you want to appear; like a trip computer beside the speed readout. You’re probably imagining there’s every chance of all this instrument screen interaction risks becoming a distraction and yet it really isn’t, in part because the logics are … um, logical.

Not everything else is. Far less so are the row of push-buttons below the centre screen, which all seem to have dual functions, the individual activations depending on how they’re touched. Or, it sometimes seemed, simply how they were looked at. 

Maybe that’s a bit too avant garde, but there are other stabs at achieving a standard of utter modernity that do pay off. One little tweak deserving credit comes with how it considers personal device interaction; in addition to a USB port, there’s another for USB-C, which is set to be the next big thing, yet is still ignored by most makers. The only other one I know of that is also doing this is … well, it’s Mercedes.

Overall, in respect to pure design effectiveness, the 2008 GT’s cabin it’s not as strong as the T-Cross’s, and neither is it as roomy – in the cabin proper, rear seat passengers won’t get the same lower leg space and might find it a touch constrained for head room, in the boot you’ll have to remove the rear parcel tray to fit anything too bulky (for me, it was a standard bbq gas bottle) - but it is rather more flairful. You’ll be more delighted to show it to others simply on that basis.

The 1.2-litre three-cylinder is now a core performer in small Peugeots, although the GT achieves a higher state of tune – so, an extra 18kW and 10Nm above standards - and achieves an eight-speed automatic rather than a six-speed.

It doesn’t seem to be overwhelmed by the extra cogs but can become a little busy; not so much in the ramp up from 50kmh to 100kmh but certainly when you’re buzzing the car down a fun road and running in Drive. The provision of paddle shifters behind the steering wheel is a not-so-subtle reminder that Peugeot’s expectation is for this kind of driving to be totally hands on. Certainly, it’s a better drive when you’re manually changing gears, having also put it into Sport mode. A function that also sharpens the throttle, weighs up the steering and makes the engine sound racier. All in all, in this level of engagement, it’s a proper little scamp and no end of fun. Not that secondary road driving is the only forte. Actually, it has a wide talent when it comes to driving, which might surprise because, relatively speaking, it is a small car. 

Yet it doesn't drive like one. It has very grown up manners especially in terms of damping and stability at speed and under braking. Body control through corners is also good, though the flipside is that the ride is a bit firm, it’s hardly disconcertingly ripply.

Assuming you’re comfortable enough with the driving position to feel wholly confident with the car. And sadly I’m not. I can see the benefit – for one, having such a small steering wheel means don't need to put in the same amount of input due to its size – and yet, it’s just not for me.

 Such a shame because it is, otherwise, a little charmer. C’est la vie, right?

Ford Focus Active: I’m not an SUV, OK?

Here’s a hatch that likes to stick to its knitting as a passenger car– even if it has pinched a few SUV design elements.

Price:  $37,990
Powertrain and performance:  1.5-litre three cylinder turbocharged petrol engine, 134kW at 6000rpm, 240Nm at 1750-5000rpm. Eight-speed automatic transmission. Front-wheel drive. 6.4L/100km, 148g/km CO2.
Vital statistics: Length 4398mm, height 1502mm, width 1979mm, wheelbase 2700mm. Luggage 443 litres. Wheels: 17-inch alloys with 215/55R17 tyres.
We Like: Sparkling performance, particularly in Sport mode. Nice ride and handling. Higher ride height for ease of entry and exit. Excellent safety specification. Give the bird to SUV pretenders.
We don’t like: Automatic gets a little confused at times. Vehicle competes in a shrinking market.

ONE of the more under-reported events of New Zealand’s 2020 motoring year has been a substantial reduction in the choice of a long-serving nameplate – the Ford Focus.

We first saw that name close to 22 years ago when the first-generation model was launched here to replace the Mazda 323-derived Laser. Since then, the Focus has regularly been a solid competitor in the small car segment against the likes of Toyota Corolla and Mazda3.

But times change, and the advent of the small SUV is having a massive effect on the ongoing viability of small front-driven hatchbacks and sedans. Year to date to the end of August this year, what are known as compact SUVs have commanded 18 percent of our new vehicle market – while small passenger cars have reduced their share to a measly six percent.

So what to do? Ford New Zealand’s response has been to make some members of the Focus lineup redundant. The entry Trend hatch and Trend wagon have gone, and the Titanium level of specification has disappeared.

Instead, there are now just three members of a Focus lineup that Ford New Zealand has dubbed the 2020.75 selection. And interestingly, they’ve all moved away from being standard hatchbacks – instead, the focus (ahem) is on them being a bit special in different ways.

At the top there’s the Focus ST, a 206kW 2.3-litre turbocharged hot hatch that has entered the Kiwi market at $59,990. Then there’s the ST-Line X, which at $42,990 essentially replaces the Titanium but which has a greater driver focus (ahem again) via such things as lowered sports suspension, and sporty interior detailing.

And the entry model is now the $37,990 Focus Active, a hatch which gives the bird to those darned SUVs by pinching various design elements off them, such as increased ground clearance and extended wheel arches with protective cladding, and still claims to be a hatch.

I love it. As a motoring journalist I’m always banging on about how silly it is for some small vehicles to be described as SUVs when they clearly aren’t. They might have jacked-up ride heights, but they’re also front-wheel drive and with hatchback body shapes – and to my eyes that makes them small passenger cars, not sports utility vehicles.

But with the Focus Active, Ford doesn’t suite describe it as an SUV. Closest the brand goes is to describe the vehicle as having an SUV-inspired design. And that’s great, because it leaves the real Ford SUVs, such as the upcoming Escape and the smaller Puma, to market themselves as SUVs.

I’ve just spent a week behind the wheel of a Focus Active, and it’s a great compact car. It’s jacked-up ride height – 30mm at the front and 35mm at the rear – means it is easier to get in and out of than a traditional small hatchback, but in just about every other respect it operates like any hatchback should.

Just about. The latest Focus range has a selectable drive mode system that normally offers Normal, Sport and Eco. But in the Active, this has been extended so the system also offers a Slippery mode for low-traction conditions, and a Trail mode for soft surfaces. So that’s another difference that underlines the ‘active’ intent of the Focus Active.

But it still doesn’t make it an SUV.

Powering the Focus Active is a 1.5-litre turbocharged three cylinder EcoBoost engine that develops 134kW of power and 240Nm of torque. The engine is mated to an eight-speed automatic that is operated by using a rotary gearshift dial, which was something that I simply couldn’t get used to.

The dial is simple enough to operate – you turn the dial to select Park, Reverse, Neutral or Drive – and there’s a central button to push if you wish to operate the transmission manually using paddles on the steering wheel. But I discovered that I must spend a lot of my driving time with my left hand resting on a gearshift lever, because the lack of one in the Focus felt a bit strange.

It’s a very good engine and transmission combination though. I was fascinated to learn that the little triple engine has cylinder deactivation technology that automatically shuts down one cylinder at times when torque demand is low, such as cruising along a motorway.

Sometimes it feel as if the transmission got a little confused when the Focus was operating in the Normal drive mode. I felt things were much better in Sport, with the auto able to extract quite sparkling performance from what remains a small capacity engine.

A major selling point of the Focus Active when it was first released here was that it has independent rear suspension, whereas the likes of the Focus Trend had a torsion beam setup. But with the 2020.75 rationalisation, all three Focus models now have the IRS.

The Active’s multi-link setup remains a little different however, because the suspension is high-riding to give that little extra ground clearance. But don’t think that translates to any lessening of ride and handling ability, because this vehicle drives really well, helped along by the stability of 17-inch wheels.

The Active theme is carried through into the interior, with all seats featuring an ‘A’ on the seat backs. It also has rear privacy glass, an eight-inch colour touch screen, Ford’s Sync-3 in-vehicle communications system which includes Apple CarPlay/Android Auto smartphone compatibility, wireless smartphone charging, and satellite navigation.

The vehicle also now has the FordPass Connect embedded modem which features an array of remote vehicle functionality and connected services such as remote vehicle lock and unlock.

Perhaps if there is one downside to the Focus Active’s claim to offering the benefits of being a crossover vehicle without calling itself an SUV, is that it doesn’t look like an SUV – and given New Zealand’s current fixation with that vehicle type, it might be a disadvantage.

I hope not, because the Active really does appeal as a vehicle that spans the boundary between a small hatchback and a small SUV. Best of both worlds, you could say.

Skoda Kamiq: Big on aspiration, but ...

As much as the mid-level variant’s designation suggests optimised ambition, perhaps a touch more still wouldn’t hurt.

Skoda Kamiq Ambition Plus

Price: $36,990

Powertrain and economy: 1.5-litre turbo-petrol inline-four, 110kW/250Nm, seven-speed dual-clutch automatic, 2WD, combined economy 5.8L/100km, CO2 131g/km.

Vital statistics: 4241mm long, 1988mm wide, 1553mm high, 2651mm wheelbase, luggage capacity 400 litres, 17-inch alloy wheels.

We like: Effervescent and economical powertrain, roomy interior, quiet running.

We don't like: Dull interior trims, undersized infotainment screen, incomplete driver assist provision.

NOT too much, not too little – as the middle child version within the three-strong family representing Skoda’s smallest crossover, the Kamiq in its Ambition Plus configuration should occupy a sweet spot.

The less expensive of two derivatives running the strongest engine, a 1.5-litre petrol, kit-wise more in tune with the 1.0-litre base car and cost-wise at the dead centre, $6000 less than the Monte Carlo flagship, $6000 more than the entry car.

Outwardly, then, the most pragmatic selection from a brand that aces as a sensible choice; the perfect stop for those seeking a practical, versatile family transport in a compact, affordable package.

And yet … somehow, not quite.

Why? Let’s get back to that. First, let’s say the Kamiq in general is a good addition within Skoda SUV-dom. Entering a sub-sector that’s winning a lot of attention, it’s also sure to ride comfortably into action.

Yes, there are a huge host of potential rivals, yet it delivers with quiet commitment to making a good fist of being the best kind of Skoda: A car that stands out without ever doing anything overt to draw attention to itself. Different, but not weird. Well-designed, but nothing dramatic.

The look is familiar. Who mentioned Russian Dolls? Well, yeah, in respect to the general body design, it looks as much like a smaller Karoq as that car comes across as a three-quarter scale Kodiaq. But don’t go thinking Skoda design is a cushy job involving little more than rescaling blueprints on the company photocopier. The general ethos might not have changed, but there’s a lot of evolution happening here. Just look at their faces, for instance.

Putting the dipped beam projectors just above the daytime running light strips, as part of one combined unit, has been the look affected by the Karoq and Kodiaq. On the Kamiq, though, the DRLs are above and the headlights themselves sit – separately, but only barely – just below. A minor tweak, perhaps, agreed, but one that has massively dramatic effect of making the baby immediately look the more modern.

Same goes inside. The general ambience is samey, yet the new baby has some sassy in-cabin design improvements - such as a smarter infotainment touch screen - that are destined to feature in the Karoq next.

All this and the model’s name - Kamiq comes from the Inuit language spoken in Greenland and northern Canada and means ‘perfect fit’ – would seem to relay impression that a lot of the special K flavour from the bigger models has filtered into this newbie.

Yet, while true in general ambience, it’s not quite right in respect to overall ability. As a spin-off from the Scala hatch, Kamiq builds upon the VW Group MQB-AO platform, designed for small cars. This delivers plenty of pluses, yet also means it can only have front-wheel drive and torsion beam rear suspension.

So even though it has some electronic assists to help reduce wheel slip on challenging surfaces, it’s not at all up to emulating the off-road adventure abilities that are a given with the larger lookalikes. Likewise, with such a light frame and a modestly-oomphy engine, which revs hard but hasn’t a lot of low-down pull that you’d get with diesel (which doesn’t offer in our market), it doesn’t have the same towing credibility.

Still, being crossover-lite is hardly breaking against sub-category convention; if anything, it means this model is running at common pace with everything else it directly sells against.

If you only want a car such as this for mainly urban fossicking and there just one or two people using it for the majority of the driving time, then the Kamiq sells itself quite well. The performance is good, the car’s external dimension is perfect for zipping around built-up areas and fitting into tight parks and, space-wise, the cabin keeps up established Skoda hallmarks.

Though front seat occupants are seated a little closer to each other than in a Karoq, it seems to pretty much have as much head and leg room up front as the larger car and proved pleasant for adult-sized rear seat occupants even with a tall driver. That Kamiq rides 37mm higher than Scala with which it shares its underpinnings and also has raised seating also means it fulfils the all-important remit of delivering a SUV-ish aura, though ultimately it is quite ‘ish’ in that respect.

Chuck in a 400-litre boot, with a useful reversible floor mat (rubber one side, carpet the other), and 60:40 split rear seats that can increase the cargo capacity to 1395 litres and it’s really on target as a particularly decent choice among compact crossovers that might even feasibly act as a family’s only car. Assuming you want that with a SUV flavour. If not, then there’s the Scala. 

The equipment provision is intriguing and is potentially this derivative’s weak point.

It’d be churlish to scold Skoda NZ for determining a commitment to piling in a load of active and passive safety features as a priority. The Plus doesn’t tick every box, but it has almost all the good gear, with a lane keeping device, fatigue alert, seven airbags, cruise control, AEB along with collision avoidance.

Notwithstanding, it’s a pity the brand’s largesse doesn’t reach to blind spot monitoring, rear traffic alert and active cruise control. The Plus can, be ordered with these, but obviously inclusion has to happen at time of assembly, so conceivably most potential buyers won’t bother. At best, you’d have to wait four years between box-ticking and the car’s arrival.

As things stand, then, you can either accept the Ambition Plus as is, or take a deep breath and spend that extra $6k and buy the Monte Carlo. Frankly, the temptation would be great: As much as the flagship is priced to the point of almost being precariously placed, it seems to be the better deal. On the equipment side, it has all the stuff you might wish wasn’t absent from the mid-range model and a lot more: A panoramic sunroof, adaptive LED headlights, tinted windows, front parking sensors , adaptive dampers, a bigger centre infotainment screen with much better resolution and black carbon sports seats.

On top of that, the Monte’s cabin is trimmed far more nicely; I normally don’t mind cloth trim, but the quality and colour of the furnishings in the Ambition Plus on test were disappointingly dowdy. They’d probably pass muster were the car aiming at fleet interest but, of course, that generally doesn’t happen. Private buyers just want a bit more pizzazz and flair than this car was able to present.

For sure it’s not billy basic. Though the infotainment display is meanly-sized, it does a good job of supporting Apple CarPlay. And some of Skoda's 'Simply Clever' touches (door-edge protectors, an umbrella in the door, a torch in the boot and more) also still provision.

The four-cylinder TSI engine operates well enough with the seven-speed DSG automatic to support conjecture it’ll be the bigger seller. Performance is adequate, rather than pacey, but with a sub-ten-second 0-100km/h time and good midrange responsiveness, it's a good engine. Smooth from idle to redline and keen to slip into fuel-saving cylinder deactivation mode when it gets the chance, a sequence that you might not even twig to if it wasn’t signalled on the dash display, because the refinement barely erodes. 

The car’s overall quietness is set to be a selling point. Moreso than the general driving characteristics. It’s tidy enough – little understeer, lots of grip, nicely-weighted steering and good pedal feel – and is up for being driven at a tidy clip, yet seems less vibrant and informing than the VW T-Cross and SEAT Arona which share this platform. It’s fine, but not flamboyant.

That’s often the Skoda way, of course – this is a brand that aces in understatement, after all - and while some might think it a bit too dull, undoubtedly others will find appeal in how it gets the job done with quiet, grown-up efficiency.

For all that, the Ambition Plus would be all the more appealing were it meted just a little more pizzazz. As much as it has a good drivetrain, decent interior space, it would be better with a slightly stronger equipment list and some high-quality fixtures and fittings.

Toyota Yaris ZR Hybrid: Meet the car that kills the Prius

Is a super-thrifty version of a car already known for its economy over-egging things? After driving the Yaris in its flagship Hybrid version, it’s hard to resist the petrol-electric option.

Price: $32,990.

Powertrain and economy: 1.5-litre petrol three-cylinder, 67kW/120Nm (85kW total system output), constantly variable transmission, FWD, combined economy 3.3L/100km, CO2 76g/km.

Vital statistics: 3940mm long, 1695mm wide, 1500mm high, 2550mm wheelbase, luggage capacity 270 litres, 185/55 R16 alloy wheels.

We like: Impressive thrift, playful chassis, strong spec.

We don't like: Drum brakes, overly-fussy dash displays.

CALL it Brutus … the car that not only stabs Toyota’s Caesar in the back, but puts a knife through its heart.

Okay, so the Prius has had it coming for some years. Other Toyotas with intrinsically the same battery-fed petrol-electric drivetrain that made its world debut in a gawky hatch (internationally, the sedan was officially Japan-only) have already proven themselves to be smarter buys in respect to driveability, comfort, social awareness and cost-effectiveness (and, in the here and now, that means you, RAV4).

Yet there’s one ace card the nameplate that ‘started it all’ has always held grimly. The one constant with the nameplate that kicked everything off and has been around since 1997 has been that it’s the ‘go-to’ car if you want ultimate fuel economy. All four generations have set that pace.

On release, Toyota let it be known, but not too loudly, that the 1.5-litre Yaris hybrid, entering the scene with the first three-cylinder petrol engine it has paired to an electric motor and battery, was a thriftier car than the Prius hatch.

However, it wasn’t by much – just 0.1 litres per 100km – and with all indication being that this result came from a lab result rather than the latest WLTP testing protocol, accepted as the measuring stick for cars entering our market, my own supposition was that it probably wasn’t that relevant for real world operability. 

So, anyway, with the ZR Hybrid the aim was to drive normally for a week; over a cycle that might be considered usual for an average owner. No special consideration to economy. Just driving. Air con on, going with the flow speed-wise and so on.

Before giving away how it went, a quick recap on what the brand reckons is ultimately achievable. An official combined consumption of 3.3 litres per 100km represents a 0.1L/100km advantage over the full-sized Prius, a 0.6L/100km advantage over the Prius C and also 0.1 up on the most parsimonious non-Toyota here, Hyundai’s Ioniq Hybrid. Also well up on the non-hybrid Yaris, which also has this 1.5 but in different tune. That car’s a guts in this company, with an optimal 4.9.

So, the ZR Hybrid clocked just under 300kms. Around half of that was in urban driving, the remainder dedicated to an open road drive. Sounds like something you might do?

I expected the best thrift coming up around town and, sure enough, it was certainly sipping then, dipping to as low as 2.1 litres per 100km in stop-start traffic. I also expected that the burn would increase on the open road. And, yes, that happened; just as it does with a Prius. Except not to the same degree. Not even close.

My experience with Prius is that you have to work diligently to extract a sub four litres’ per 100km average from open road driving. The Yaris?

For the first half of the trip, the car was run in its economy mode, with an average of 3.8 litres per 100km by halfway. I drove a further 20kms in a 50kmh zone, in a busy traffic stream, then retraced the open road trip, this time with the transmission in its Power mode. Sure enough, this made the car feel noticeably brisker. Yet … and here’s the kicker … the average by the end of the trip was 3.4L/100km. When the car was returned to Toyota three days on, it was up to 3.9L/100m. With no effort involved. That’s thrifty. 

Will a Yaris ever be considered by a Prius purchaser? The cars are unequal in size and price, yet the prospect cannot be ignored; the cheapest Prius, the SX, is $7000 clear of the dearest Yaris but if you want specification comparability, then the gap widens by a further $6500.

It’s something of a moot point. Even though Toyota hybrid sales keep strengthening, it’s driven by interest in versions of regular cars: Camry, Corolla and, now, RAV4. Market interest in Prius, a car that was once a must-have for every one whose was anyone, has eroded to the point it barely achieves double registrations figures in any month. Now that the old hero has been outgunned on economy … well, is that the sound of a nail being hammered in?

Fratricide isn’t really what Yaris is all about, of course. As always, expectation is to continue supremacy in the supermini zone, which though eroded by those pesky crossovers is still a core business.

The brand has gone in hard in respect to maintaining profile. This is a completely fresh start – new from the tyres up, and the biggest change in philosophy and shape in 15 years.

Going big means going a touch smaller. The shift to the make’s smallest adaptable platform yet, known internally as TNGA-B, allows the car to be 5mm shorter, 50mm wider and 40mm lower than the old model, but with a 50mm longer wheelbase to generate additional interior space. It also sits closer to the asphalt and has a squarer stance, which makes it look more serious this time around.

So much of how the car is shaped reminds the small cars are a design nightmare; there’s huge impetus to deliver a sense of individuality, of course, and character is important as well, yet the abiding remit above all is to maximise the interior capaciousness without affecting exterior compactness. In short, panache is all well and good, but it has to be practical. 

Toyota’s perhaps treading a fine line. The Yaris is definitely bold. It’s also … well, a bit quirky, too.  A more aggressive nose is attached to a body that appears slightly inflated, with some weird creases, angles and push-outs. It’s a new look for the street, no argument, if not necessarily for Toyota – the profile is strongly reminiscent of a car we never got here, the even smaller Aygo, a co-production with PSA purely for Europe. One tip if you’re keen to be noticed: Sidestep the dull colours, including the dark metallic red on our tester, and instead plump for a vibrant primary hue, then spend the extra $500 on achieving a black roof. Doing so will really lift its kerbside character.

Being big where it counts delivers when you slip inside. The front half of the cabin is a top spot. There’s a good amount of room and, with the front chairs being set quite bit lower and a touch further apart, it not only delivers a far more natural driving position but also one less prone to shoulder-rubbing.

This revision doesn’t impinge on the rear, where a lofty driver doesn’t have to give too much consideration to allow taller passengers to achieve reasonable back seat comfort. Short distances are better than long, perhaps, but there’s foot space beneath the front seats, a sensible amount of kneeroom and decent headroom.

To optimise occupant space they’ve reduced real estate further behind, fortunately not to the cruelly detrimental effect that has really hurt the Corolla. While still better than some, in a sector where every skerrick of space counts, a 16 litre reduction in capacity, to 270 litres now, with all design accommodations – a false floor for hiding valuables, a skinny space saver, hybrid battery under the back seat - it’s coming close to marginal.

If it lightens the load there, it packs it on in another key area: Specification. When it comes to the equipment level, even cynics will have to admit Toyota has upped its game, not least in respect to safety this time around. 

The Yaris has yet to undergo the ANCAP crash test that matters most here, but it is surely well-prepared. The new TNGA platform has performed well in its other representations and all models come with eight airbags in total, including twin centre airbags (on the inboard cushion of both front seats) to better protect occupants in a side-impact crash.

On top of this, it’s gone all serious about avoidance tech, with far more than has ever previously been seen in a Yaris. Now everything specifies with speed sign recognition, lane-tracing assistance, autonomous emergency braking with intersection assistance, reverse camera, and automatic high beam, while the ZR chucks in blind-zone warning, rear cross-traffic alert, and front and rear parking sensors. It’s a pity the latter only go into the optimum level, as those functions are increasingly standard on new models, but all in all it ticks a lot of boxes and it’d be churlish to criticise it for that.

All these functions require display space and the priority spot, a modest-sized panel adjacent to the speedo, can become busy. You can be facing a load of icons, all vying for your attention, spanning quite a lot of interest points, from lane keep and speed sign awareness to economy, range and the hybrid system’s operability. Oh yeah, and a few sub-menus that, realistically, shouldn’t be explored until you’re parked up. 

Just too much? There’s surely some risk newbies will become bewildered to the point of simply ignoring what the car is relating. Which is surely counter-productive to all the good deeds it can perform.

The ZR has other displays. There’s a head-up projection that’s well designed and comprehensible at a glance; just as it should be. The touch sensitive head unit on the console directly ahead of the transmission lever is right-sized, well sorted in respect to finger-prodding functionality and looks swish. Arrival, at last, of Apple CarPlay integration means you needn’t use any of the in-build functionality, which is just as well, because Toyotas own displays haven’t progressed in years. The fonts, graphics, washed-out colours and slightly whiffy resolution has a staleness and operability is slow. You’d never bother with the in-built sat nav. Google maps are so much faster and better resourced. This, some hard, shiny plastics and use of old-style switches deliver unnecessary cheapness to a cabin that, on the whole, really represents as a step up in quality and style and could, with a bit more effort, have set a new bar for the category.

Given that Toyota has been making hybrids since last century and this is actually the fourth compilation of a petrol-electric drive system to go into a Yaris (though the first for our market), you might start to wonder when a petrol-electric set-up starts to be considered time-worn.

Well, not in this sector. For one, because Toyota alone presents this level of tech in the category and also because this is a fresh approach; not as technically advanced as the system implemented in the RAV4, similar in basics to those in the Corolla, Camry and … ahem .. the Prius but sharper and smarter.

What you’re getting is a three-cylinder version of the more familiar 2.0-litre, four-cylinder, utilising the Atkinson cycle and running a high compression ratio of 14:1.

It’s linked to a new electrical motor producing almost 60kW and 140Nm of torque, along with a lighter lithium-ion battery pack, still driving the front wheels via a CVT automatic gearbox, of course, though even that seems sharpened.

This Yaris is the first to use this new type of battery pack, allowing double the recharge capacity and 50 percent more output. The battery cools through the use of the cabin’s air temperature, negating the need for a stand-alone liquid system.

Impression Toyota has made another step forward increases with operability; the car still doesn’t go wholly electric for prolonged periods, but it does deliver more battery-first involvement: It’s the default when you punch the Start-Stop button at start-up – though, the colder the morning, the shorter the delay before the engine might also fire as well – but once warmed and with a light throttle from standstill you can stay on EV power for almost a kilometre if you don’t go over 40kmh. At higher pace and even under a more enthusiastic approach, the classic Toyota hybrid experience that occurs once underway seems slightly more oriented toward electric optimisation. Hence, I guess, why there’s such a clear fuel-saving benefit.

The thrum that’s a trademark of all three-cylinders is not too obvious here; yes you can hear when the engine is toiling, but it’s not overly obvious. A shame in a way, as it has quite a nice note. When both energy sources are working as one, the car feels quite sprightly and you can feel when the instant torque from the electric motor in lending to the job. 

Fun to drive, I hear you say? Well, yes, I’d have to agree with that. It’s quite a world away from those earlier hybrids, where the science project approach was all too obvious.

Of course, there’s a very good reason why Yaris is stepping up for driver involvement. The TNGA was designed to deliver this and, beyond that, the mainstream model is the basis of a genuine hot hatch, the GR Yaris, that’ll be here at year end. Different body (three-door, not five), a substantially different powertrain and drive system (all-wheel-drive) and quite in another league for performance .. yet, underneath it all, the same basic car. I can’t wait. 

The ZR Hybrid doesn’t ache for racing stripes, because it’s never sporty. And why should it be? Yet the ride and handling is improved and the bigger footprint is a plus point; all the previous jauntiness has been replaced by a more grown-up feel. It’s settled on surfaces that would jolt the predecessor and is a much more precise-feeling car. At same token, out on the open road, it is less wearying. There’s clearly been huge effort put into making it more refined and much quieter. The engine is rarely outright vocal and, at a steady pace, the mechanical involvement is hardly obvious. More obvious is the tyre roar over coarse chip.

I don’t particularly like CVTs, I’d have to agree this one works competently in this application; it still flares a bit and doesn’t encourage manual intervention but will probably still come across as being well-sorted and in tune with buyer expectation. 

The Yaris arriving with rear drum brakes is a bit of an eyebrow raiser. The emergency stopping performance isn’t brilliant; that could also be down to the low-friction tyres as well. 

Even this, the overly-complex dash displays and that it has some obviously cheap plastics inside that doesn’t keep the Yaris from winning a lot of plaudits.

It’s thoroughly executed product; the chassis delivers the road manners of cars in the next class size up; the drivetrain has verve beyond its size; the car has flair. We don’t mind the look and look forward to trying out the other family members. The Yaris Cross and the GR are clearly coming off good bones.

 Why bother with a hybrid system when small cars are generally fuel-ekers by nature anyway? Fair question: It’s probable the standard Yaris will also take its time to empty a tank. Yet highly improbable it will come close to emulating the efficiency discovered here.

If not quite as technically advanced as that in the RAV4, the Yaris hybrid is a technical tour de force; it’s hard to imagine it not going into other existing cars. It’d be a good fit for the Corolla, I’d suggest. For sure, Toyota has to push on into more overly electric fare – a plug-in hybrid option for the Yaris facelift would seem only logical and, ultimately, it has to front up with a compact fully electric vehicle.

Even so, the Hybrid as it presents now is pretty decent, what adds to the allure is how easily it appears to accomplish its efficiency.

 In that respect, you shouldn’t be surprised if you see a death notice for a legend. It’d be sad to see the Prius go, given its history and major impact, but unless it manages to find another ace card, it’s really surely now on borrowed time.

Audi Q3: Sharp and strong

Sportback styling adds extra zip to the Q3, though for full zap we’d always prefer the RS.

RSQ3 (above) is a true stomper, but we also like the 45 TSFI Sportback styling

AUDI RS Q3/RS 45 TFSI Sportback

Prices: $111,900 (RS Q3), $114,900 (RS Q3 Sportback)

Powertrain and economy: 2.5-litre turbo-petrol five-cylinder, 294kW/480Nm, seven-speed dual clutch automatic, AWD, combined economy 8.8L/100km, CO2 202g/km; 45 TFSI 2.0-litre turbo-petrol four-cylinder 169kW/350Nm, seven-speed automatic, AWD, combined economy 7.7L/100km, CO2

Vital statistics: 4506mm long, 1851mm wide, 1571mm high, 2680mm wheelbase (RS Q3), 4507mm long, 1851mm wide, 1557mm high, 2680mm wheelbase, 20-inch alloy wheels.

We like: Spunky Sportback styling, well-specced, quality.

We don't like: Annoying auto stop/start, RS3 still beats Q3 version.

POWER doesn’t just express in kiloWatts – it can also show as killer looks.

In respect to that statement, then, I know exactly what question is formulating in the minds of Audi-philes smitten by the cars on test here today.

So, let’s fast track to the answer. Which is a ‘yes’. Yes, the RSQ3 also formats in the Sportback shape also under scrutiny, in a 45 TFSI guise.

And, yes, I’m also glad about that. As eye-catching as the original, more rounded styling continues to be, it’s still beaten by the newer, leaner and lower-roofed but still five-door look now also delivered for the second smallest SUV in the four-ringed circle.

Achieving the sharpest shape with the sharpest engine is a more premium buy-in. Audi adds bumps up the regular RS price by another $3000. That model, by the way, is defined as a wagon in Audi-speak. I don’t see quite see it, either. Then again, I’m still wondering why they just don’t call the Sportback what it emphatically is. A ‘coupe.’

Anyway, semantics. This new shape? Money well spent. Whatever the sportback gives away over the regular edition in respect to practicality – and it’s really not TOO much - it more than makes for with additional panache. There’s just something about a coupe, right? Which is what it is, even if this maker is reluctant to call it that. 

The wagon and co… sorry, ‘Sportwagon’ models are much of a muchness in styling detail, especially at the front. When viewed from that aspect it’s clear Ingoldstadt expects you to like large grilles. The new singleframe item is not horrendously large as in the latest BMW sense, but is still pretty big and, with the RS, it’s backed up by more vents in the bumper and under the leading-edge lip of the bonnet. Sad to say, some are fake.

Obviously, the RS interior is rather sportier than the 45’s – for starters, the latter misses out on the performance car’s high-backed, perforated leather bucket seats – but they don’t differ too hugely in terms of general ambience. 

It’s all highly digital in respect to the displays, which deliver as a big touchscreen angled towards the driver in the centre of the dash and a TFT screen in front of the driver that delivers all the instrumentation. With the RS, you get specific layouts set up to deliver lap times, cornering Gs, torque and power loadings and all the other stuff that will be useful when on the racetrack you’re never likely to visit. At least, not in your own car.

The flagship has a flat-bottom steering wheel, clad in Alcantara suede of course, and which has the RS button that allows you to easily flick it into the monster modes.

From the inside looking out, differences between the body styles are really only noticed by rear seat occupants and when you’re loading the boots.

Boot space in either better than you might expect. An extra 77mm in wheelbase and 100mm in overall length means this Q3 is space efficient enough to encroach on Q5 territory. Of course, the sportback is the more compromised - you’re giving away around 125 litres’ cargo space – and yet the shaping of the luggage space doesn’t seem too unfriendly. The 45mm-lower roofline means it concedes a small amount of headroom and rear-seat flexibility, but the sister ships are much of a muchness for overall occupant space.

 From the outside, the 45 gave a great support to the ‘looks can thrill’ concept. It didn’t look outrageously muscled, as the RS car obviously does, but just portrayed as being particularly sophisticated, in an impressively suave way. 

Mind, you, it had all the right ingredients: In addition the performance-themed S-Line bits and a spectacularly eye-catching Tango Red paintjob, this example was outfitted with an Audi Exclusive back styling package, had dark tinted glass and  the regular 19-inch rims were replaced with 20-inchers in a five-spoke design.

It looked extravagant and, assuredly, in altogether adding $6600 to the car’s regular $87,900 sticker, served as an excellent example of how to make an already fairly expensive front-drive two-litre car all the pricier. And yet, if you’re among those who can afford admission to this show, the premium might seem fair value, given how you’d seen how much attention the car received.

All the same, as much as each will doubtless have their own enthusiast circle, it seems to me that the RSQ3 is the more alluring in, simply though being the edition that conceivably stands better chance of carrying itself higher, for longer, given that it simply leaves no stone unturned in its quest for performance bragging rights.

I wouldn’t like to get into debate about whether the most powerful Q3 is the best car that comes from the Renn Sport division – realistically, it is not – but equally it’s pretty hard to argue against the pedigree. 

Though the 2020 RS maintains its 2014-born predecessor’s basic elements – so a 2.5 litre five-cylinder, dual-clutch tranny, quattro – everything has been sharpened all the more, including that eponymous engine. Add in the additional RS-pure loadings of 21-inch alloys in anthracite black with diamond-turned finish and 255/35 tyres, RS sports suspension plus with adaptive damping, an RS sports exhaust system (with dual black-edged oval tailpipes) and every available assistance system in the Q3’s safety-tech cache. Well, it’s really very appealing. 

The engine gains an aluminium cylinder block and crankcase for an overall weight saving of 26kg, but it’s the improvements in outputs that more keenly appreciated; with 294kW and 480Nm the 2020 edition has 24kW and 15Nm more than the previous car to at last assume level-pegging with the RS3 hot hatch. 

Start up from cold, in Comfort mode, and it's distantly rumbly. Nice for the neighbourhood. Let it warm, switch up to Dynamic mode, stiffen up the dampers, put the gearbox in Sport and open up the taps in the sports exhaust … and, well, put it this way. Those modes, if used on the school run, would have the car in detention within minutes.

Restrict the full-out rudeness to special occasions and it’s a fairly decent accomplice. The engine in the less than full-out mode is quite driveable for every day mooching; it’ll happily burble along at a meander. But you don’t want to be heavy-footed on the urban beat.

Adjust all the settings to the other extremes and, yes, it’s a creature of the fright; top speed of 250kmh, 0-100kmh in 4.5 seconds and drawn to redlining the boomerang-shaped digital tacho at every opportunity. Keeping yourself from running it hard means having to resist the exhaust note, and that’s a challenge. Thanks to the 1-2-4-5-3 firing order, it is quite unlike anything else for sweetness of tone and snap-crackle. There's no direct connection between this engine and the original 1980s Audi Quattro five-cylinder unit, but the aural lineage is unmistakable.

All this horsepower, but does it have a chassis equally worthy of it being worthy of being in the big boys’ club? Well, it’s certainly eager to prove this, the RS refit delivering stiffer, lower springs compared to the 45 Sportback and faster, sharper but also heavier steering. You can get adaptive dampers and ceramic (front) brakes. So, yeah, straight away it’s a firmer, more resolved car than the 45. 

That doesn’t obviously make it better for every occasion. The RS recipe is rather between firm to outright chunky for urban driving and, yes, tyre-generated road noise is more obvious, even when measured against a Sportback on its optional, enlarged wheels and wide tyres. But, then, that’s the breaks with an RS.

The bonus comes on an entertaining road; which is where it really sets a high bar; sitting flat, composed and possessing endless grip and traction. Yes, the 45 will also shine in this condition, but not as brightly. The difference of one having a Haldex-based multi-clutch system, that can send as much as 100 percent of the power to the rear wheels, and the other having a more traditional viscous coupling differential is one factor. The degrees of separation in sheer shove … well, yes, that counts too.

So, within the family, it’s rightly the star. If consideration is broader, though, it’d still be challenging to recommend the RS Q3 over an RS3. As fast, capable and steadfast as the crossover is, it still hasn’t the same level of deftness and I’m not sure it will communicate quite as directly; understandably because, with the Q3, it’s all about having to keep higher-standing mass in check.

Still, it’s not as if Audi has created a one-dimensional character. The cleverness of the ‘RS mode’ button on the steering wheel avoids this. You can use it to configure the suspension’s drive-select set-up into two distinct arrangements. Perhaps lighter steering, cushier ride, less engine noise for everyday and more athletic settings for special times.

So much about this car, so little said about the ‘45’. Yeah, sorry about that. It’s that the lesser is unworthy of comment in respect to its performance. Everything’s okay there. But fair to say it’s a different kind of thing; that 2.0-litre engine is more about good manners and reasonable economy that presenting an absolute level of energy.

Both models drive with a real sense of quality but, notwithstanding that neither are really designed for anything that could be termed as ‘off-roading’ – regardless that there’s a mode to support just that - the ‘45’ feels more like an SUV for the urban dweller. Still, if you're looking for style and refinement it’s pretty handy in the city chic role.

Twin test - Kia Seltos LX, Limited Turbo: The price of power

Comparing the entry and top versions of Kia’s compact crossover provides reminder about the depth of its core talent.

Seltos LX (above) hasn’t the full suite of technology availed to the Limited Turbo (below) yet, though a little undercooked in some aspects, nonetheless presents strongly for value and competence.

Prices: LX $27,990, Limited Turbo $46,990.
Powertrains and performance: LX: 2.0-litre four cylinder petrol, 110kW at 6200rpm, 180Nm at 4500rpm, constantly variable automatic, 6.8L/100km, 157g/km CO2. Limited Turbo: 1.6-litre four cylinder turbocharged petrol, 130kW at 6000rpm, 265Nm at 1500-4500rpm, 7-speed dual clutch automatic, 7.6L/100km, 175g/km CO2.
Vital statistics: Length 4370mm, width 18000mm, height 1615mm with roof rails, wheelbase 2630mm. Cargo 468/1428 litres (LX), 433/1393 litres (Limited Turbo).
We like: Good looks, plenty of interior room, LX value for money, Turbo cheerful performance.
We don’t like: LX price point lowers safety specification, Limited Turbo transmission can get confused.

AN old saying about twins: Two unique souls united by birth.

It’s of relevance with Kia’s compact SUV, the Seltos. There’s the front-drive LX that represents as the entry choice. And, at the top of the family, there’s the all-wheel drive Limited Turbo which costs a whopping $19,000 more.

And yet both these variants of the Seltos share the same body – in fact, if you lined them up alongside each other and squinted, it would be impossible to differentiate between the two. But the two models are way different, nonetheless.

Of course this sort of thing happens all the time. Obviously all vehicle model ranges have to begin with an entry model, and they invariably top out with either a highly specified or performance-oriented version.

There are two differences with the Seltos range, though. The first is that the entry LX presents as an outstanding value package for the money even though it does lack in some important areas. The second is that the Limited Turbo offers both specification and performance – it has a different engine and transmission, different running gear and suspension, and a much higher level of standard spec.

Little wonder then that Seltos is currently New Zealand’s biggest-selling small SUV, with 1437 registrations to the end of July, well ahead of its nearest competitors Mitsubishi ASX, Hyundai Kona, Honda HR-V and Suzuki Vitara.

But in the case of the LX, in some respects you do – or should that be don’t – get what you pay for.

What you don’t get is the full suite of safety features that is otherwise standard on every other member of the Seltos range, including an LX+ model that Kia New Zealand has cleverly included which carries an $8000 price premium over the LX.

What the LX doesn’t have, which the LX+ does, includes blind spot detection, rear cross-traffic alert, front parking sensors, and electronic park brake. Not only that, but the LX’ camera-based autonomous emergency braking system (AEB) is designed to recognise cars and pedestrians only, while the rest of the Seltos range’s radar-based AEB also recognises cyclists.

Despite this, the LX has received a five-star ANCAP safety rating, although the organisation does warn that it is important consumers are aware that there are some differences in safety performance for the entry level Seltos.

“Base models of the Seltos miss out on some of the more advanced features available with the radar-fusion AEB system, and we would encourage consumers to purchase a variant which offers the advanced collision avoidance capability as this can translate to real differences on the road,” it says.

Truth be told, at this time safety features such as blind spot detection, rear-cross traffic alert and cyclist detection should be the preserve of the more expensive higher-specified vehicles, not product that retails for less than $28,000.

And despite its price, the LX still carries good specification that includes lane keep assist, ABS brakes with all the goodies, hill start assist, high beam assist, a reversing camera, tyre pressure monitor, and even a driver attention alert that judges when the person behind the wheel is losing concentration and sounds a warning.

Powering the LX is a 2.0-litre Atkinson Cycle four cylinder engine mated to an intelligent continuously variable automatic that Kia calls iVT.

Atkinson Cycle engines, which up until now we have mainly seen in hybrid vehicles, are designed for efficiency and economy rather than sheer power, and in that regard are ideal for the sort of operation that would normally be expected of a small SUV such as Seltos.

The vehicle performs well if slightly breathlessly at times when the vehicle selectable drive mode is set to Normal, but the major upside is that the average official fuel consumption is 6.8 L/100km. The drive mode also offers an Economy setting but that felt like somebody had connected a parachute to the vehicle, while a Sport setting quite markedly improves performance. So overall, it works well.

At the LX level the Seltos drives rather well, too.  It is front-driven, and the suspension comprises MacPherson struts at the front and a torsion beam axle at the rear. I found the ride to be quite firm, and the handling felt secure despite the vehicle’s 177mm ground clearance.

Being the entry Seltos, its level of specification is entry as well – albeit in a new-age way. Lighting is halogen rather than LED, all the exterior finish is black or body-coloured, and the wheels are 16-inch. Inside, the front seats are manually adjustable, the trim is cloth, the air conditioning is manual, there’s a single USB port, it’s the only Seltos with no satellite navigation as standard, and both the instrument cluster and central touch-screen are the smallest of the Seltos range.

This model also comes with a space-saver spare tyre, which ironically gives the LX the best rear cargo space of the Seltos selection. It offers 468 litres with the rear seats in use, compared to 433 litres offered by the Limited which has a full-sized spare.

Right up at the top of the Seltos range there’s the AWD Limited Turbo, which with its $46,990 price tag, is quite a different vehicle.

For starters, it carries a lot more kit. The exterior features a lot of chrome and black highlights down its beltline, and the interior includes such luxuries as heated and ventilated composite leather seats that are power adjustable, climate control air conditioning, a head-up display, and wireless phone charging.

The Limited Turbo also has an interior mood lighting system with six selectable themes and eight colours that can change at regular intervals or even pulse in sync with whatever music is being played through the audio system.

Good heavens. Fortunately the performance potential is in keeping with whatever colour-coded rock might be blasting out of the speaker system. That’s because under the bonnet is a 1.6-litre turbocharged engine. It is quite grunty, especially when the vehicle is in the Sport setting.

The engine is mated to a fast-acting seven-speed twin-clutch auto, and for improved handling potential the vehicle’s rear suspension is a multi-link setup. This Seltos also runs on 18-inch alloys shod with 235/45 R18 tyres, and it has an upgraded braking system.

What’s interesting about this model is that it is quite capable of being trundled around town in the normal way. Then if more sparkling performance is desired, then the Limited Turbo is quite capable of providing that, too.

But is it all worth the extra $19,000 that must be shelled out to purchase the Turbo model over the LX? That’s up to the buyer to decide, and the good news in that regard is that there are three other models in between for the customer to choose from.

You could say they are quintuplets – five unique souls all united by birth.

Hyundai Venue Elite: Passenger car by any other name

Isn’t it time we stopped marketing very urban models as sports utilities?

 

Price: $33,990
Powertrain: 1.6-litre 16-valve OHC petrol engine with CVVT, 90kW at 6300rpm, 151Nm at 6850rpm. Six-speed auto with SportShift. Combined economy 7.2L/100km, 165g/km CO2.
Vital statistics: Length 4040mm, width 1770mm, height 1592mm, wheelbase 2520mm. Luggage capacity 355 litres. 17-inch wheels with 205/55 R17 tyres.
We like: Excellent interior design, good room, easy drive.
We don’t like: Engine gets a little breathless; it’s not an SUV

HYUNDAI’S Venue is a sports utility vehicle, right?

It certainly looks like an SUV, its ground clearance is slightly higher than a passenger car and so its ride height is also slightly more elevated. Armed with all that detail, the Hyundai marketers tell us that makes the Venue an SUV.

But it isn’t. What the Venue is, is a front-wheel drive hatch with new-age bodyshell design, and with ride and handling characteristics that are all passenger vehicle.

That’s no criticism of the Venue, which is an excellent example of latest trends in passenger vehicle design. But it is also a latest example of the current blurring of the lines regarding what is an SUV and what is a passenger vehicle.

The Motor Industry Association, the organisation which represents the interests of New Zealand’s motor vehicle distributors, classifies vehicles according to a market structure set down by Australia’s Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries.

At the highest level, vehicles are split into three classes – passenger, SUV, and commercial. The FCAI classifies an SUV as a vehicle based on a wagon body style and with an elevated ride height. And while typically an SUV should have either 4WD or AWD, the organisation says that 2WD variants of a model are acceptable.

But here’s the rub. While it used to be that a true SUV was a rugged medium to large vehicle with an elevated ride height via ground clearance of 200mm or more, these days that ground clearance is reducing so the ride can be more passenger car smooth than SUV lumpy.

With the Venue the ground clearance is 170mm, which isn’t much more than a hatch or sedan which is usually around 145mm-150mm. To my reckoning the Hyundai’s ground clearance is the lowest of all compact SUVs currently on the market – even the diminutive Suzuki Ignis, which is the smallest SUV of all, has a minimum ground clearance of 180mm. And by the way, the equally little Suzuki Jimny’s clearance is 210mm.

So the question needs to be asked: isn’t this getting just a little silly? Aren’t the vehicle marketers taking so much advantage of the current popularity of SUVs – they currently take up close to 50 per cent of all new vehicle sales here – that they are ruining the intent of the vehicle classification system?

MIA chief executive David Crawford agrees that motor vehicle design, and customer preferences, are evolving to the extent that the classification process needs to be reviewed.

“I think things are reaching a stage where we need to decide what constitutes an elevated ride height. It isn’t defined. Is there a need for us to specify what a vehicle’s minimum ground clearance needs to be for it to be called an SUV? I think the issue has to be discussed among MIA members.”

Crawford and his team might overcome this issue by reviewing how SUVs are segmented.

At present, decisions on whether SUVs are compact, medium, large or upper large are made simply by multiplying their length by their width to get their so-called footprint. If the total is 8100 or less, the SUV is a compact. If the total is 8101 to 8800 the vehicle is a medium, and so on.

Maybe if minimum ground clearance was factored into this calculation, then anything with a clearance of less than, say, 180mm could be considered a passenger vehicle. Or crossover. Or lifestyle. Anything – but not an SUV.

As I said towards the start, all this is no criticism of the Hyundai Venue, because it is an excellent new vehicle from the South Korean manufacturer. It takes all the good things from the SUV style – elevated ride height for higher seating hip points and improved visibility, and superior passenger and cargo accommodation – and combines it with the ease of use normally expected of an urban passenger vehicle.

Two versions of the Venue are available – a $29,990 entry model, and a $33,990 Elite. Both are powered by a 1.6-litre Gamma engine that is under the bonnet of a number of Hyundai and Kia vehicles, and which in this application offers 90kW of power and 151Nm of torque, and which is mated to a six-speed automatic with a SportShift manual function.

While that’s modest amount of grunt – which underlines the fact that the Venue is very much an urban-oriented vehicle – an interesting feature is a Driving Control/Traction Control function that is operated by a rotator control on the centre console.

Select Driving Control and the driver can choose Normal, Eco and Sport driving modes. In the Eco mode the engine and transmission logic is set to maximise fuel economy, while the Sport mode changes steering effort and the engine and transmission logic for better performance.

By selecting Traction Control, the driver can then choose traction modes that cater for Snow, Mud and Sand. What the system does is adjust left and right front wheel slip control, and engine torque and gearshift patterns according to available levels of traction.

It all helps, and Hyundai says that theoretically it could put all the vehicle’s power through a single wheel, but it’s nowhere near AWD. The vehicle’s instruction manual warns exactly that. It says the Traction Control system’s design is based on 2WD, and the Venue should not be driven in conditions that exceed the intended design. So there you go. It could be said that the Traction Control is halfway towards proper SUV operation – which is exactly what the Venue is anyway.

The model we drove was the Elite, which offers a high level of safety specification for the price. This includes blind spot collision warning, lane keep assist, driver inattention warning, rear cross traffic alert, rear park assist, forward collision avoidance, and a reversing camera. It’s all part of Hyundai’s SmartSense safety package.

Ironically, the Venue carries a four-star rather than five-star ANCAP crash safety rating, because it doesn’t have the European-style ISOFIX child seat harness system, and there is no cyclist detection in its automatic braking system.

Comfort and infotainment specification is very good, too. The vehicle carries an 8-inch multimedia system that caters for Apple Carplay and Android Auto, and at the Elite level it boasts such goodies as proximity key and push-button start, climate air, and a heated steering wheel. A connected car platform also allows remote operation of such things as air conditioning by using a smartphone.

How very urban is that? Which is exactly what the Hyundai Venue is intended to be. That’s why while it might look like an SUV, it isn’t. It’s a passenger vehicle folks. And that’s what makes the model so appealing.

Stinging mettle – so, you're looking for a performance hatch

In alphabetical order, here they are – the Abarth 595 Competizione, AMG 45 S and the Ford Focus ST. Oh, and just for good measure, a surprise mystery guest.

ON the right roads, in the right conditions, there’s nothing to touch a compact car packing a big punch – so here’s a big ‘yeah boi’ for that fantastic creation, the hot hatch.

Here’s an acknowledgement, too, of how far that formula has gone. The four cars on test today very much remind just how elastic the genre has become. 

Today’s ilk present across a span of abilities, from instruments of cost-effective fun to full-out, spend up large small-sized supercar slayers.

The common connect? Easy. All aim, of course, to deliver the base attraction of being driver’s cars of pedigree performance purity. Compelling zest, eye-popping pace, keen handling and an easily exploitable chassis … often, too, an ability to provide the most amount of laughs for the smallest amount of money. It’s right here.

Hot hatches – a category anything packing a tailgate of some kind fits into, even when the body stylings otherwise diverge – have been in our blood for 40 years now, but that’s not to say they’re here to stay. At least, not in the banging and burbling format we’ve got to know so well.

In case you still didn’t know, purely fossil fuel-reliant engines are on the way out. Cold hard fact, in the distant future, the hot hatch will follow every other passenger vehicle in having to ultimately abdicate its internal combustion engine entirely in favour of being completely electric.

Stricter emissions standards are already increasingly putting pressure on car makers to reduce their average CO2 emissions across their fleet of models or face hefty financial penalties; which puts pressure on low-volume but high CO2 producing cars like hot hatches. 

That’s why Ford cancelled plans for the next-generation Focus RS, why Peugeot, which has a long and illustrious hot hatch legacy, has reportedly added electric impetus into the formula for it next 208 GTi and why Volkswagen, arguably the inventors of the hot hatch with the 1975 Golf GTI, has committed to battery-assisted impetus for all almost all its performance fare. The new GTi coming next year will be spared, but anything from now on with an ‘R’ badge won’t.

 So, if you’re convinced petrol purity is an essential element of this concept, it’s potentially time to act fast. If you’re out to ‘get ‘em while they’re hot’, the following should all be considered.

ABARTH 595 COMPETIZIONE

 Base price: $42,490

Powertrain and economy: 1.4-litre turbo-petrol four-cylinder, 132kW/250Nm, 5-speed automated single-clutch transmission, FWD, combined economy 5.8L/100km, CO2 133g/km.

Vital statistics: 3657mm long, 1627mm wide, 1485mm high, 2300mm wheelbase, luggage capacity185 litres, 17-inch alloy wheels.

For: Giant-killing spirit, design’s longevity, sounds fantastic.

Against:  A touch too mad to be a daily driver, that gearbox!

BACK in 2007 I had the amazing good fortune to travel to Italy to drive the hot Ferrari of the moment, the 430 Scuderia.

In addition to that Michael Schumacher-tweaked model, we also had opportunity to drive a Fiat that, while highly familiar in teensy ambience and look, was then so new to the scene it was still months from being exported, let alone being built in right-hand drive. 

The ‘Scud’ was a fab but fleeting thing; a treasured veteran now, so increased in value most are no longer driven. 

The Fiat 500, on the other hand, has kept going … and going … and going. Thirteen years is sometimes two complete production cycles these days, yet the 500 endures. It’s more than just the life cycle; the design’s longevity is also something special. A very modest facelift in 2015 aside, it’s been completely unchanged.

The only version still around now is the 595 Competizione from Abarth, which has been spinning out heated versions of Fiat’s supermini since 2008. 

Really, the 595 is a reheat. You might recall that the most bonkers limited-edition Abarth 500 ever was a limited count tribute car to Ferrari issued in 2012; the maddest, most extravagant version of this bad-ass baby ever. 

Would we ever see the likes of it again? Yes. It’s this car.  Okay, the 595 isn’t a complete reissue, but only in sense that there’s less carbon fibre and there are no Prancing Horse badges now. 

But when it comes to the essentials and even some ingredients such as the steering wheel … well, I’d suggest there’d be an excellent chance of interchangeability. The turbocharged 1.4-litre powertrain, single clutch automated manual transmission, suspension, tyre type and wheel sizes are all as first rolled with that Fezza-aligned funster. Which, by the way, at $80,000 a pop, cost basically twice as much as a 595 does now.

At half the price, Italy’s smallest streel brawler obviously becomes a much better pitch against its most obvious competition - mainly the auto-only $39,740 Volkswagen Polo GTI and the manual-only $35,490 Ford Fiesta ST.

Well, in theory. In reality, it is a harder road to take. The Tom Thumb size, a transmission that’s the work of the Devil; the skateboard ride, Mack-like turning circle and dated ambience.

And yet, as an ultimate format of a car designed as 500s always were – as cheap, friendly choices for the cash-constrained masses. – it’s an impressive feat that, for all the annoyances and constraints, gets under your skin. 

Race seats, a fat-rimmed, flat-bottomed steering wheel. alloy pedals, leather-trimmed shifter, a boost gauge cum shift light, plonked boy racer import car-style atop the dash, a back seat that’s more a low-set parcel shelf … all ludicrous, I know, but superb to see. Likewise the 17-inch alloys, fat sill extensions, twin exhausts and Brembo brakes with red calipers.

Even if anything fails to draw your eye, it’ll certainly turn your head on strength of sound. Of the cars gathered here, it was by far and away the loudest for exhaust note. And bravo to whoever tuned those twin pipes to deliver such a barking - dare I say Ferrari-esque – stridency.

Does it go? Does it heck, though everything tends to be brought down to scale. A 0-100kmh time of 7.4 seconds and top speed of 215kmh isn’t hugely hot, but when the setting sites just centimetres above the road and in a wee capsule everything is somewhat ‘amplified’. Karters know what I mean.

Somewhere between extra-nippy and surprisingly rapid, it’s certainly busy enough at 100kmh to warrant your full attention, the engine being spirited and rev hungry, especially in Sport. This activates the turbo’s overboost function and makes the exhaust note raspier and is, of course, mandatory, as driving it like a loon is operating at ‘Italian normal’.

That “Competizione MTA automated manual” delivers with four buttons: 1, N, R and A/M translating to ‘first’, ‘neutral’, ‘reverse’ and ‘auto/manual.’ You need to start out in first and then either allow it to self-shift through the forward gears or go into manual, which requires you to change up and down with paddle shifters.

Auto mode is the default but hardly good; the shifts tend to be lurchy and ill-timed. Manual is far sportier, snappier and much more in tune with the engine’s effervescence … once you learn that the path to smooth, slick upshifts is to snap off the throttle just at the point of upshift, then smack down on it again as the gear engages.

Basically, it’s a wild wee ride …that (and you knew this was coming) due to the wee wheelbase, light weight and limiting strut front, torsion beam rear suspension, feels that way, too. Jauntiness evident around town becomes the primary attribute that will make or break long-distance travel at open road speed.

The patron saint of tyres is a saving grace; it relies hugely on the 17-inch Michelin tyres providing plenty of sticky grip (they do). Also, you’ll find those brakes are much more than titillation and the go-kart-like direct steering means it points faithfully. Yet bumps that would be shrugged off by larger, heavier fare cause it to jump and crash about and it’ll accomplish hard cornering with untidy, inside rear wheel-lifting brio.

There’s nothing to suggest there’s a lack of sincerity in its engineering yet it’s also a car challenging you to accept that, in its world, things are different.

MERCEDES-AMG A 45 S

Base price: $111,000

Powertrain and economy: 2.0-litre turbo-petrol inline four-cylinder, 310kW/500Nm, 8-speed dual-clutch transmission, AWD, combined economy 8.9L/100km, CO2 204g/km.

Vital statistics: 4419mm long, 1796mm wide, 1440mm high, 2729mm wheelbase, luggage capacity 355 litres, 19-inch alloy wheels.

For: Exquisite engineering, astounding engine, surprisingly flexible.

Against: So pricey, can we have the gear stick back?

WHEN the A45 first launched it was packing 265kW and, once the Audi RS3 achieved a touch more, AMG pumped it up to a class-leading 280kW, enhancing the torque by 25Nm to 475Nm for good measure. And that was enough to reinstate as the world’s most powerful 2.0-litre hot hatch, never to be troubled since.

Now there’s this while new generation. Which conceivably could have kept all the good bits of before and still been class king. Except, of course, it hasn’t. AMG was probably bothered, for one, that the old car was just 0.1 seconds faster to 100kmh from a standing start than the Ingolstadt worrier. Also, this is a brand whose credo is based on continual improvement.

Accordingly, with transference to a new platform, they’ve gone and redone all the performance hardware. Comprehensively. Power climbs to 310kW, torque to 500Nm, 0-100kmh falls to 3.9 seconds and … well, life with this wee smasher becomes even more of a blaring blur.

Well, that’s how it looks. In reality, there’s potentially a point where fast is fast, and faster doesn’t really feel it. I’d imagine that were all editions to be brought together, I guess you would have little trouble rating their respective blast values and picking the one that has, on the hot hatch scale, just gone into the equivalent of a thermonuclear zone. 

But among A45 constants is that it has always been so much about the thrusting rush. Every predecessor has offered what this one delivers so easily; the kind of heart-jolting accelerative excitement that normally only associates with roller coasters when they free-fall off the ride’s highest point.

So it keeps doing that. Just as it keeps on setting the mark for being a car that seems almost over-qualified for the job it undertakes. 

As a rule of thumb, you can generally take it for granted that any carmaker, when heating up any family car – which this still is, being an A-Class by birthright – will approach the process with some extra consideration and enthusiasm. But the AMG is more than that; the processes that involve here are astounding exacting, perhaps not to the point of overkill, but certainly to a level where the word ‘perfection’ seems to translate as ‘borderline acceptable’. 

Assuredly, some owners will wonder why it needs as many performance functions or even why it so patently factors in performance abilities that, let’s agree, are well beyond reach in our driving environment, even on some racing circuits, and perhaps even the average level of engagement.

Fair point? Well, maybe, though I think the colleague who reckons it has somehow become so good as to be sanitised is missing the point. 

For sure, it is a car that enforces you’d have to be driving like an utter loon – and then some - to reach beyond the point where it cannot cope. There’s a massive zone in which it will behave at a level that is as intoxicating as it is incredible, to the point where it will make you question all you thought you knew about physics. 

And yet as much as it does all that, it also gives greater acknowledgement to the probability that some drivers haven’t the skill level to meet its capabilities, and accordingly gives them a better chance when they mess up. Yet on the other hand it also plays to expectations of those who do have the talent.

You imagine it already very devilish in the daily drive modes, which reach to Sport, but turn the dial further into Race and it assuredly so much more evil evidences that you realise PDQ that with this car, there’s extreme and there’s EXTREME. 

The throttle sharpness is so much greater, every bit of the grunt is availed, it revs more readily to 6750rpm, which is where peak power occurs, and anything beyond light throttle translates into extremely quick forward motion. The latency is obvious when pegged at a standstill as the car positively quivers.

The exhaust note, too, finally releases the pop-bang, so reminiscent of Group A rally cars of old, that used to avail so easily in the first-gen car. Enforcing the seriousness here are the bonus facilities of launch control and drift modes; each open on presumption you already have a handle on the basics of their technique. Chucking an all-wheel-drive car into a slide is still a tricky business. 

As always, it isn’t shy in announcing the insanity. The test car’s special yellow paintwork, which is all part of the Edition 1 treatment, is barely necessary, because so much more about the car’s appearance draws attention anyway.

Those 90mm diameter quad exhaust pipes sitting either side of a diffuser marked out by two vertical twin fins, there to help to suck the rear of the car down – also the job of the big angled spoiler on the top of the boot lid and the dive planes jutting out of the DTM-ready front spoiler - the huge 360mm cross-drilled front discs and accompanying six-piston callipers sitting all too obviously behind the fat tyre-shod 19-inch alloys, plus all the performance shop stuff inside – in this case, including heavily-bolstered front chairs that are a no-cost option to wider, more roadcar-style types, plus the requisite flat-bottomed and flat-sided steering wheel in Alcantara and complete with yellow twelve o'clock marker on the top  … all lend very obvious clues to it being intended for rather more than a shopping run.

Those used to the old cars will find easily acquaintance with the new, save that they’ll search in vain for the stubby central gearshifter.

Notwithstanding that the new approach - shifting, when things get busy, by way of the now larger, alloy paddle, one on each side of the steering column, and then fine-tuning adjustment with chubby multifunction switchgear on the wheel hub – presents a more appropriate tie-in with  Mercedes’ F1 involvements, and definitely delivers good result from the new AMG Speedshift eight-speed dual-clutch auto, I do miss the shifter, if only because it looks far more ‘pro’ than what we get now: The Mercedes’ 101 of a plastic column wand to engage Drive, Reverse, Park and Neutral. 

The dials you’ll play with most are the shortcuts that can be set up for the damper settings and active exhaust, or something else should you prefer and another that lets you toggle through the different drive modes. Elsewhere, the broad double display setup of the MBUX infotainment system stretches across the top of the shallow dashboard and it’ll also impart loads of performance-specific info, in addition to undertaking all the everyday functions dedicated to infotainment and the like.

The active and fully variable 4Matic Plus all-wheel-drive transmission with its AMG Torque Control is a thing of beauty. Power is distributed between the front and rear axles, with torque vectoring by brake on the front axle and a more advanced twin multi-disc clutch setup on the rear. These electronically controlled clutches offer total variability in power distribution across the rear axle.

So it’s good to go. And go, and go. And though it can accommodate drivers who are compelled to keep it in Comfort mode and tootle within the posted limits, to the point of offering a reasonably cosseting ride and even some decent degree of comfort – notwithstanding those sports seats are probably only good for a couple of hours – it’s really designed to drive. Hard.

The most rewarding section of a two-hour final run was the quite country road section that was done and dusted in 20 minutes. On that piece, the reward was intense: The car was all but telepathic.

It’s really hard to see how the A45 could be improved. Except, of course, they’ve already managed to do just that three times already. So, undoubtedly, it will be.

Shame the price has to be so stratospherically high, though the one consolation is that A45s are among those AMGs that seem to hold remarkably good residual value. Surely that’s as much a nod of acknowledgement to their special qualities as anything else?

Ford Focus ST

Base price:  $59,490
Powertrain and performance:  2.3-litre four-cylinder DOHC 16-valve turbocharged petrol engine. 206kW/5500rpm, 420Nm/3000-4000rpm. Front-wheel drive. Fuel consumption 8.6L/100km.
Vital statistics: Length 4388mm, height 1492mm, width 1825mm, wheelbase 2700mm. Luggage 273 litres. Wheels: 19-inch alloys with 235/35 ZR19 Michelin Pilot Sport 4S tyres.
For: Best Focus ST yet.

We don’t like: A manual option wouldn’t hurt, cheap interior plastics, RS fans need look elsewhere.

NEW Zealand’s association with fast Focuses (or should it be Focii? You decide) has been a wild ride through history.

Beginning with the 127kW/196Nm 2.0-litre four-cylinder ST170 of 2003, the adventure really fired up with the thrilling and hugely characterful 2.5-litre 166kW/320Nm five-cylinder XR5 Turbo. Everything became all the more exciting after that when Ford doubled the mix; keeping a front-drive firework but also offering a more honed higher-tier model that, by adding in the ingredients of four-wheel-drive, tricky differentials and even more explosive power – initially in a five-pot format that performed sensationally and sounded superb - and then as a four-pot that kept everything on the boil, even that amazingly evocative burble, really shook things up. 

And now it’s … different, with all bets hinging on the lesser of the two formulas.

Which makes things interesting, when you consider that two letters have always explained not just why the ST has previously been sporty to a certain point, but still is. 

Ford ditching the RS was a late action. One that occurred well after the ST now acting in its stead had gone into production. You’d have to think that, had the determination to axe the previous flagship occurred before ST had been signed off, the latter might have been made even more sharp-edged than it is. But that’s not how it played out.

So the point is? Well, just this. Don’t hung up about how well this car compares to the RS. It was never designed to be an alternate so doesn’t deserve consideration as a stand-in now. How can it?

The only Focus it needs to be compared with is the previous ST and that’s an exercise in which the outcomes are pretty much entirely positive – it’s a major step forward.

Obviously, there’s significantly more fizz, though in spending time with it you quickly realise that’s not the only pull. Also adding to the value is the shift in transmission choice – yes, it’s a shame it no longer has three pedals, but an automated manual now is crucial for ongoing (and elevated) success. The car’s on a much better platform, the latest styling is more attractive and the ST equipment level is finally properly sorted. That previous ST was too ‘lite’ for comfort features and driver assists. 

Simply, what we get now is something that feels less a product of marketing hype than engineering can-do. Even though it retains rather more of the basic bits that go into a standard Focus than the RS ever would, it uses those shared parts well. And all the special extras are … well, more special.

 For instance, while the suspension components are basically the same, it takes adaptive dampers, which stiffen and soften according to which buttons you've pressed. There’s an electronically controlled differential, which uses hydraulically operated clutches - and a myriad of sensors and inputs - to shunt as much as 100 percent of the engine's power to the wheel that can handle it best. And to help keep it on the boil, the engine gets an anti-lag system, distantly related to that used by Ford's rally cars, which keeps the turbo spinning even when you've lifted off the throttle. 

While the body kit isn’t overly rakish, it takes Recaro front bucket seats – which, for the first time ever in a performance Focus, are properly low-seat - and the grey-finished alloy wheels are treated to the same, very grippy Michelin Sport Pilot tyres Benz puts onto the A45.

If you have to pick immediate allures, that’s easy. One is that engine, the other is the chassis.

It’s not just that it has 22kW more and another 60Nm; the more crucial element is that the new outputs are a lot more honest. The old car’s oomph unrolled in in intriguing fashion; it was an engine that felt faster than it potentially was, as evidenced by a claimed 0-100kmh sprint time that put it in the dust raised by the Golf GTi, the RenaultSport Megane and Subaru’s WRX manual back in the day.

The new is far less likely to feel the sting of sand in its face. An increased displacement is handy, but really this engine shines because it is of better pedigree, being basically the Mustang's 2.3-litre, turned sideways, and detuned just a little. Its maximum power output is more than you'd get in all but the most expensive versions of the Golf GTI, the same as from that Megane RS and a just a little bit less than a Honda Civic Type R. The big torque and that clever anti-lag system ensure it's sure not slow, that 5.7-second 0-100kmh time confirms it, though really it’s the wide slug of oomph that really seals the deal. This is an engine that feels robustly muscular all through its rev range.  It also sounds good, almost like the old five-cylinder engine, with some nice pops and crackles on the overrun. 

Such a gold medal effort for a car that previously struggled to find a podium place holder deserves the silver lining of a terrific transmission. Which the new seven-speed is … in the main. 

A six-speed manual alternate still exists – in other markets. Ford NZ has chosen not to bother, in belief the volume sales potential rests with the auto, so it wants to concentrate on a single variant. 

Logic suggests that’s going with the flow – for instance, almost all hot Golf buyers prefer direct shift and the Renault Sport Megane’s status has lifted by going this way. Ford’s box delivers pretty good shift quality. It’s as snappy as you’d want into the Sport and Track settings, smoother in the Normal you’ll revert back to for everyday driving.

However, there are irks. For one, as Colin Smith pinpointed in his own test, the gearing is slightly out of step with Kiwi speed limits; an irksome indecisiveness between sixth and seven incurs around 100km. Also, the rotary dial gear selector is a bit budget - as indeed are too many plastics within the cabin – and a bit underwhelming for a performance model while the  steering wheel buttons that initiate the sports functions could be more logical – why two, separated by a third that has nothing to do with going faster? The one closest to the wheel boss allows a primary access whereas the other opens into a sub-menu for the fully fun stuff that very much widen the car’s character. Track – which comes with the usual ‘circuit only’ nonsense advisory – very much amps up the engine note accompaniment and delivers pronounced throttle blipping down shifts. 

There’s some steering tug when you floor it, but with an electronically controlled limited slip differential assisting with power application, it’s nothing like the wrist-stretching torque steer that used to affect old-school types. The ST also achieves sharper steering than the regular Focus, too, so there’s less swivel.

Another high-end aid that delivers positively is the Continuously Controlled Damping, which monitors suspension, steering and braking inputs at 2 milli-second frequency to adjust damping responses. It’s a very responsive and clever system.

Ford has good history insofar as chassis development goes and the ST doesn’t let the side down. It’d be intriguing to put this model up against the ST Fiesta to judge which was the more athletic; potentially the smaller car has a touch more deftness, but it’d be close.

The Focus definitely has an ace card with the multi-link rear suspension it gains in place of the torsion beam axle used in mainstream Focus hatches; that it rides closer to the tarmac than the standard car also is a positive.

Basically, it has an exciting stick-like-glue feel, is hugely confident attacking corners and is rarely significantly rattled by ruts and bumps. How could it be improved? Well, there is a way … but it involves provisioning the enhanced traction that is delivered to the AMG 45. An all-wheel-drive ST would be a heck of a thing, but it’d also be a lot closer to being the kind of Focus Ford says it no longer wants to build.

All the same, it’s this greater … ahem .. focus on hardcore dynamism that really makes this ST more impressive to drive than any before it. A touch more effort on cabin quality and perhaps a bit of a rethink about how to improve the gearbox’s actions and involvements and this direct, agile and purposeful model would be the best thing out there in the sub-$60k sector.

HYUNDAI VELOSTER 1.6T LIMITED
Base price: $52,990
Powertrain and economy: 1.6-litre four-cylinder turbo-petrol, 150kW/265Nm, 7-speed dual clutch transmission, FWD, combined economy 7.1 L/100km, CO2 163g/km.
Vital statistics: 4240mm long, 1800mm wide, 1409mm high, 2650mm wheelbase, luggage capacity 303 litres, 18-inch alloy wheels.
For: Second generation car is so much better sorted than its predecessor.
Against: Too closely priced to the massively harder-edged i30 N and who needs this weirdo design?

THIS was, quite literally, the car in the background.

If not for a change in testing date, the Hyundai would not have been on the scene. And, truth be told, it wasn’t expected to be part of the scene when it did turn up. The intent was to leave it parked up and totally out of the picture until the ‘fast’ stuff story had been signed off.

Except that proved impossible. During those days there were occasions when the Veloster had to be driven. And, every time it was, it took opportunity to strive to impress that it, too, had a right to be considered picked for play. So should it?

Well … maybe. In truth, there are hurdles beyond the first and most obvious one; which is that asymmetric body styling. It’s not for me.

Frankly, I never warmed to with the first generation of this car and still see no point to with the second. Mostly, it’s because I’m just a person who enjoys the neatness of symmetry; so the Veloster’s ‘two doors on one side, one on the other’ approach straight away irks on that level.

But it also fails to convince because it lends no particular benefit in respect to practicality. If anything having front doors this long simply makes it awkward when you’re parking, because in angle slots especially you are always aware of the requirement for additional space in which to swing them, else it’s hard to get in or out. Beyond that, it just looks weird. So, yes, as much as I acknowledge that it’s always good to have a USP, basically any standout ingredient only becomes a plus when it has a purpose. And this doesn’t.

Anyway, putting all that aside – impossible, I know, but let’s try – the Veloster will have to convince that it’s basically as good as the established Hyundai hot hatch that is very good indeed; the i30 N.

Surprised it comes closer to the car the South Korean mega-brand hired former BMW M Division engineering supremo Albert Biermann to help make, and then poured huge R&D resources behind? Yeah, me too.

The Veloster in previous form has never been anything like that sporty. And, truth be told, it still isn’t feral enough to take on the N product in a straight-up fight, because outright performance still isn’t on par. And yet it does at least feel a lot sportier now than it previously did. Transference to a more competent chassis (the same platform as the i30, which brings a new multi-link rear suspension) seems to have inspired the development team, but perhaps they also began to spend time with Biermann’s group as well.

Whatever has happened, the Veloster has a lot more fighting spirit than previously. It has a nicely snappy version of the direct shift transmission – which, of course, the N has yet to get and very much needs – achieves much better suspension tuning than before, is given some decent brakes, is treated to good tyres (no points for guessing these being Michelin Pilots) and even has better seats. All of which makes it much more memorable.

Even that the colour range now includes the shade seen here, a dull metallic grey finish that seems identical to the hue that was once a very expensive option on very high-end performance cars (Ferraris and AMGs especially) and was so special care it couldn’t be hand-washed with anything other than an expensive solution … well, it adds to Hyundai taking this car in a route that was previously too hard. What’s always been a sports car by definition has, at least become sporty.

Mind you, that’s possibly just the version on test. An entry level model with Hyundai's 2.0-litre four-cylinder petrol engine is available, but you know it’s highly unlikely to be as sharp or as involving as the flagship Turbo Limited. 

This one is powered by a 1.6-litre turbo petrol four-cylinder. It’s the same size engine that does the i30 N such good and, though not as highly tuned here – with 52kW less at optimum - assuredly it has decent verve, particularly when you tap into the turbo over-boost though kick-off enthusiasm is reasonably good, too. It even manages a snarly exhaust note from time to time. 

It’s in marriage to a seven-speed dual clutch transmission whose character is in theme with the engine’s improved nature. Sure, it demands a moment to sort itself when transferring from forward to rearward motion – but, then, all transmissions of this type tend to ask for this. But if you’re pressing on and expecting swift, accomplished up and down changes, it’s really in the mood. 

The car’s ride is the most cosseting in this group, no arguing about that. Yet grip is good and the car now has a far more positive attitude, at least with just a driver aboard, than it previously demonstrated. The nose-led attitude has been vanquished for a sharp, responsive turn-in. The torque vectoring control system doubtless helps keep it tidy, but it doesn’t seem too intrusive.

It’s all good, if only to a point. Frankly, this is still the car that will struggle to keep the others in its sight; there’s not quite enough wick, for a start. But does deserve kudos for a demonstrating more tenacity than it appears capable of. 

If more madcap, it still stays sensible on safety grounds. In typical Hyundai fashion the car is loaded with assists. The SmartSense suite now standard on every Veloster incorporates driver attention warning, forward collision warning, forward collision-avoidance assist, blind-spot collision warning, rear cross-traffic collision warning, adaptive cruise control, high beam assist and lane keeping assist systems. Some can be a little over-zealous, but it’s all for a good cause.

The second-gen cabin has a more affluent feel now and of course it has a large touchscreen with provision for Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, plus a heap on in-house developed functions. There’s wireless phone charging, too; on a decent-sized pad to boot. Heated and ventilated front seats, a head-up display, a full-width glass sunroof and an 8-speaker Infinity premium audio system are provisioned, plus the kind of leather that never convinces as being from a bovine.

So, all in all, it’s an intriguing car, albeit not one that ultimate sells itself easily. It’s become bigger, which helps free up more interior room – though not to the point of making it four adult friendly - and while the design proper doesn’t work for me, I’d have to agree the shape has become more attractive, particularly in silhouette.

Realistically, if any Veloster has a chance of getting into your life, it’s this one. But it’s probably only an outside chance. Especially with the family opus i30 N costing just $2000 more. Still, it was interesting and if you’re an absolute fan of ‘out of the ordinary’ …. well, it’s certainly that.

Volvo S60 T5 R-Design: Keeping the boot in

Once a badge of outright fiery performance pedigree – Volvo in this instance reserves the T5 designation to signal a slow burner.

Base price: $82,900
Powertrain and economy: 2.0-litre turbo-petrol four-cylinder, 192kW/400Nm, 8-speed automatic, AWD, combined economy 7.3L/100km, CO2 168g/km.
Vital statistics: 4761mm long, 2040mm wide, 1431mm high, 2872mm wheelbase, luggage capacity 390 litres, 19-inch alloy wheels.
We like: Lots of tech, smart look, smooth engine.
We don't like: Small boot, not like the old-school T5.

 HERE you go, another car that sets up a ding-dong battle between heart and mind.

Why should be obvious to see. The market has put the absolute boot into sedans. If there’s any commonality to the avalanche of marketing data every brand accrues, it’s the overwhelming evidence that no kind of passenger vehicle can succeed unless it has a semblance of something plainly absent from today’s tester. Let’s call it the crossover gene. 

So, with that in mind, the S60 should be basically invisible, because nobody’s supposed to be interested.

And, yet, on the day I used it as a retreat from the cold when, having decided not to race in a car club event at my local track, I volunteered for gate duty undertaking Covid compliance checks on the final day these were relevant under what transpired to be the first round of Level Two, I met a lot of ‘nobodies’. 

Who were all genuinely interested. Maybe not to the point of wanting to buy in, but certainly keen to sit in it, look at the powertrain and run up questions about what the car was about. 

The one thing it particularly did, too, was draw out owners of older Volvos. Even though this brand isn’t a huge performer in respect to NZ-new registrations, the Swedish enclave is surprisingly healthy, thanks to used imports. The guys I met seemed to be running ex-Singapore cars. Mainly a few V90s sitting up in the spectator area and the service park but also a 1980s’ S80 T5 R from the 1990s that was proudly reprising the famous international touring car racing works effort. 

The S60 here gave the old-school supporters a fair bit to think about. Volvo has changed hugely in the past few years, but rest assured in ownership with China’s Geely and despite production now expanding from Scandinavia to the United States and China, it’s still emphatically Swedish in spirit.

That exemplifies in how this car delivers in its styling, comfort, equipment level and under the bonnet. And with the badges?

Well, today’s T5 is no longer a five-cylinder, but a 2.0-litre four-cylinder turbo petrol, and the T8 format this level of sedan and wagon can also equip with is also well off the traditional numerical mark, as it now represents the presence of a "twin engine" powertrain that combines another version of the 2.0-litre, but this time with a supercharger working with the turbo and backing from an electric motor.

The latter format delivers something quite remarkable - a PHEV system that is emphatically performance-minded yet can also be driven in quite frugal manner – and I’d readily admit that transferring to the S60 T5 after a week with a V60 T8 demanded attuning, quite literally, to a different, less frantic pace. 

At same token, of course, it’s only fair to acknowledge that the transition also took me into lower pricing altitude, exaggerated all the more through the V60 having come with enough options to almost double the $20,000 difference that divides the models in their purely factory formats.

Could you tell? Well, yes, in respect to their fitouts, the V60 clearly had more finery to justify its higher placement in the prestige zone. At same token, though, the S60 hardly felt like it was trading at pauper pack level. 

Volvo interiors these days are exemplars of modern Scandinavian design and, beyond that, this is a brand that accepts it has to provision fulsomely if it has a chance of being thought of as a true rival to other like-sized and powered Euros.

While sedans are falling out of favour, the competition is still pretty hot. The rivals for this models conceivably included all the stars; the BMW 3 Series, Audi A4, Mercedes C-Class, Jaguar XE and Alfa Romeo Giulia. None can be taken lightly.

The S60 pitches in with appealingly modern styling, a cabin fitout and comfort features that will be familiar in this sector, delivers well in cabin size and then throws in the additional possible allure of being all-wheel-drive, when most others are not.

While it is not an outright performance model, the engine also achieves an optimisation tweak from Polestar, which though now primarily involved in making electric cars still lends a hand to its original task of tweaking the fossil-fuelled engines to deliver a touch more pep.

That’s how is translates here. The S60 is not emphatic in expressing sporting intent, but the engine has more than sufficient power for most circumstances and, certainly, it has no issue with reaching, holding and exceeding our legal limit. The eight-speed gearbox works well with it to produce a rounded, pleasing performance envelope. It lacks the impressive oomph that the PHEV so effortlessly implements yet there’s enough of a torque swell, from quite low revs, to make it feel ‘larger’ than it really is.

That’s definitely a good thing. The S60 is in its fourth generation and each seems larger than the last; this time there’s a 100mm increase in length, mostly to improve rear seat leg room, which has previously been so tight as to be criticised.

That possibly won’t now happen, though perhaps as the dimensional increase doesn’t influence boot space, some might question what’s going on there. It’s a 392 litre cavity – long and wide but shallow in shape – and even though it has a 60/40 split folding seat, the amount of luggage room will be questioned. Volvo will, of course, say the answer is the V60.

If styling sense, too, the wagon has an edge though that’s not to say the chiselled, sculpted styling doesn’t look any less good on a sedan. Those abbreviated overhangs, the squared and hunkered stance and the detailing of those Thor’s hammer DRLs bisecting the headlamps. Everything about this car expresses that this is a maker in a confident frame of mind.

Volvo interior design is all heading to a commonality, so no surprise to see the S60 achieve the feature interior element of a big, upright 'Sensus' touchscreen in the middle that remains a model of clarity and simple menu layouts. Worried about fingermarks? Well, yes, it does suffer them – so Volvo includes a cloth cleaner for that. As you would expect, the R-Design seats are sumptuously comfortable.

The engine start and stop function might have newbies guessing, as this is by a rotating knob near the electronic park brake button. It requires a 45-degree turn clockwise, then release. Different? Sure, but it’s easy to locate and use.

All in all it imparts as being very executive in its ambience, and aside from the plastics being perhaps not quite up to German premium standard, there’s very little to quibble about.

The specification delivers four-zone climate air, full LED lighting with cornering lamps, powered and heated front seats and connectivity for both types of smartphone, though the USB ports are a little awkwardly placed. Also, there’s a three-pin (220V) outlet located in the rear of the centre console for recharging devices that don't have a USB lead. 

And no-one could claim Volvo is neglectful in respect to the well-being of its customers. The safety provisions are so impressive. City Safe’s recognition smarts keep improving and it also initiates autobraking if a head-on collision seems imminent. Adaptive cruise and lane keeping, a 360-degree camera, self-parking and extremely well-sorted traffic sign recognition. A little pop-up graphic in the speedo advises when the car is approaching a speed camera.

The S60 runs adaptive damping with three drive modes and also has decent 245/40R19 PremiumContact rubber, the chassis is quite well-sorted and likewise the all-wheel-drive. Yet as impressive as it is for its grip and flowing mannerisms, it stops short of delivering a fully engaging feel; there’s nothing here that suggests it’s going to deal to the top Germans. A lot of this is to do with the steering. The rack is accurate and nicely weighted, but devoid of feel.

Still, even if truly keen drivers won’t be captured, it feels pleasingly planted and secure and while the ride quality is firm, it soaks up surface imperfections well. So, while imagining it to be a modern equivalent of those classic 850 T5 BTCC racers is asking too much, it’s quietly quick when you need it to be. Plus, it’s also decently thrifty, too. At a steady 100kmh the engine is only revving at around 1600rpm; holding it there and running in Eco mode allows easy access to sub 10 L/100km outcomes.

So, yeah, there are pluses and minuses, pretty much in even quantity, really. Not that this really matter, because what the S60 really requires if it is to achieve volume is something that doesn’t appear likely to occur any time soon. A change to consumer tastes. If we go back to sedans, then obviously it has a chance. But, frankly, it’d have to do more to convince me.

Even so, step back and view it through a broader spectrum and there’s every reason to be impressed, if not about the car specifically then at least in respect to what it represents as a brand effort. 

Volvo’s really a make on the move, now. Annual output has doubled in less than a decade to stand at 700,000 units – a count the likes of Jaguar can only dream of achieving –and the entire model range is delivering all-new designs, architectures and technology. It's standing tall and that’s even before we’ve been given a chance to look at its opus, the Polestar electric cars.

Mercedes-Benz GLB 250 revisit: A class act spurs ML memories

It’s Colin Smith’s turn to consider this new Benz. Among conclusions? ‘Small’ today is bigger that ‘large’ used to be.

Base Price:  $92,900

Powertrain and performance:  2.0-litre four-cylinder DOHC 16-valve turbocharged petrol engine. 165kW/5500-6100rpm, 350Nm/1800-4000rpm. All-wheel drive. Combined cycle fuel consumption 7.7L/100km (claim), 8.2L/100km (road test).

Vital statistics: Length 4634mm, height 1659mm, width 1834mm, wheelbase 2859mm. Luggage 565 litres. Wheels: 19-inch alloys with 235/50 R19 Continental PremiumContact6 SSR tyres (run-flat).

We Like: Driving position and visibility, five-seat family wagon space and occasional third row versatility. Brilliant multi-beam headlight technology, intuitive MBUX infotainment and control system.

We don’t like: Aggressive lane departure interventions, compromised access to third row seats.

THE alphabetic sequencing suggests the new Mercedes-Benz GLB sits one-size-up from models carrying the `A’ designation.

And the knowledge that Mercedes-Benz has built its new GLB on the same transverse engine platform as the latest A-Class hatch - and derivatives including the CLA, GLA crossover and B-Class - points to a compact definition.

But slot it into a car park and the GLB actually seems larger. So, I checked and compared.

Do you remember the W163 Series ML introduced in 1997 as its first Mercedes-Benz foray into SUVs beyond the mighty G-Wagen? The GLB has a wheelbase dimension 40mm longer than the ML and is also 47mm longer overall.

Width measures up at an identical 1834mm but the ML stood 116mm taller and that is where the impression of larger size is gained.

The debut of the GLB offers a family wagon solution between the GLA crossover and the GLC mid-size SUV with a spacious interior layout that includes three-row seating.

Pricing begins at $78,900 for the entry level GLB 200 (front-drive) version and the GLB 250 4Matic (tested here) is priced from $92,900. The step to the GLB 35 AMG performance model adds another $12K.

The 1991cc direct-injection petrol engine is a staple across multiple Mercedes-Benz model lines and powers the GLB 250 4Matic with 165kW available between 5500-6100rpm and peak torque of 350Nm across a wide 1800-4000rpm range.

And one more comparison to the old ML - the 2.0-litre turbocharged engine in the GLB 250 4Matic offers 5kW and 40Nm more than the 3.2-litre V6 from the late-90s.

Matched to the new eight-speed DCT dual clutch transmission there is readily accessible torque and close ratios to deliver relaxed highway cruising or a couple of quick downshifts and plenty of punchy response.

On the highway at 100kmh the GLB 250 4Matic settles at a long-legged 1500rpm in eighth gear or shifts to 1800rpm in seventh 2400rpm in sixth and 3000rpm for some fifth gear urgency.

It’s capable of the 0-100kmh sprint in a very respectable 6.9 seconds while a claimed combined cycle fuel consumption figure of 7.7 litres per 100km was nearly met by an 8.2L/100km road test average and a 7.2L/100km highway check.

A big part of the GLBs appeal is direct transfer of the intuitive technology introduced on the latest A-Class and since deployed across other Benz models.

That includes dual 10.25-inch displays with a configurable dash layout, the MBUX operating system with ``Hey Mercedes’’ voice inputs plus touchscreen, command controller and steering wheel haptic ``scroll and click’’ buttons providing multiple ways to interact with the GLB.

Where the GLB departs from the A-Class is its lengthened wheelbase, raised ground clearance and upright wagon styling. It’s a ruggedly stylish SUV with a purposeful stance, bold 19-inch alloy wheels and the detailing includes black roof rails and mirror housings.

The layout and dimensions make it a roomy mid-size wagon with the active lifestyle benefits of all-wheel-drive including off-road drive mode, boosted ground clearance, a powered tailgate that reveals 565-litres of load space plus a 2000kg braked tow rating.

One more skill in the GLB play book is the third-row seating and 5+2 accommodation.

It’s an occasional third-row suitable for younger children and going seven-up in the GLB requires clambering over the folded second row seats. And creating any useful footwell space means sliding the second-row well forward - although the front seats help with a deeply scalloped shape.

While the third-row falls somewhere between ambitious and occasional, the second row is a comfortable place to be when the GLB is configured as a five-seater. Generous shoulder width and only a moderate amount of centre tunnel intrusion combine with enhanced rear passenger visibility from a raised seat height.

The second row is configured with a 60/40 fore-aft slide mechanism and a 40-20-40 folding backrest. Installing the extra seating means a spare wheel isn’t carried and the GLB rides on Continental PremiumContact6 SSR run-flat tyres in a 235/50 R19 sizing.

The wide tyres provide surefooted feel on the road and once beyond the city limit, I liked the firmer suspension feel and reduced steering assistance offered in Sport mode.

The GLB proves easy to drive with a comfortable seating position including full power adjustment and memory functions for the front seats.

A check through the GLB model line-up reveals the step from 200 to 250 level brings more than increased output, one extra gear and 4Matic all-wheel-drive. The equipment list is also boosted with adjustable suspension damping, a panorama sunroof, heated front seats, shift paddles and carbon look cabin trim.

The test vehicle was optioned with the Galaxy Blue metallic paint ($1490) and three of the well-priced option packages including AMG Sports Package ($1990) including sports steering wheel and Sports Direct Steer while the Vision Package ($1190) adds a 360-degree camera display and the excellent Multibeam LED headlight technology.

The Driving Assistance Package ($1990) brings Active Lane Change Assist, Active Distance Assist cruise control and route-based speed adaption. The test vehicle priced up at $99,560.

Other standard technology content includes Traffic Sign Assist, multiple mini-USB charge points – including two in the second row and two more back in row three – and the 64-colour ambient lighting system.

The new GLB evolves the modern style and technology appeal of the latest A-Class and its follow-up derivatives with the addition of SUV capability and a generous increase in cabin space. The result is a strong new Mercedes-Benz contender in the fashionable medium SUV and crossover segment.