2007 Chrysler Sebring 2.0 Limited Diesel

As regular readers of my automotive antics will recall, I have owned a number of Rovers, most of which have not always been very reliable. The first of these, a 2004 Rover 45 1.5 Club SE, was no exception to this rule, and within a few weeks of my embarkation upon the lively journey of ownership ended up at the garage for some repairs. The local former Rover dealer in Epsom (now long since closed down) had lost its franchise in 2005 with the collapse of MG Rover, and by late 2009 it was selling Jeeps, Dodges and Chryslers instead. I was recommended to go there to have the cam cover gasket on the wonderful K-series engine renewed, as well as some other tasks, and it was not the best customer service I had ever experienced.

Having dropped the car off at the dealership earlier in the week, I arrived on Friday afternoon to retrieve the 45 only to find that the engine was still in pieces at the workshop. As I had specifically requested the car be ready for my weekend trip, a courtesy car was hastily organised, a 2007 Chrysler Sebring 2.0 Limited with a diesel engine. This was in the era just after Chrysler's bankrupcy and merger with Fiat, so the models on sale in this country had a strange mixture of American, German and Japanese DNA and were free of any Italian influence whatsoever. Some of the engines were co-developed with Mitsubishi, who had been in partnership with Chrysler since the 1970s, some cars had Mercedes-Benz platforms and still others used Volkswagen engines. This particular Sebring had a 140 bhp Volkswagen Group engine matched to a six-speed manual gearbox, which was similar to the powertrain fitted to various Audis, Volkswagens, Skodas and Seats of the era. It was the best thing about the car.

The Sebring was an imposing sort of vehicle, roughly the size of a Ford Mondeo, although only available as a saloon. The Limited model, with its grey leather interior and external chrome trim highlights, certainly stood out on a cold December evening in suburban Surrey, and was mine until Monday. Working out that the car had a very high level of specification, I set about familiarising myself with all of its quirks and features (as automotive Youtube star Doug DeMuro would say). I found such luxuries over and above my Rover 45 as front and rear parking sensors (which did not work properly), satellite navigation, cruise control, climate control, variable intermittent wipers, automatic headlights, a massive centre colour touchscreen with built in hard drive and a lot more besides. It was certainly more than my modest weekend needs would require...

The build quality of this luxurious American automobile did leave a lot to be desired when compared with the VW Group vehicles which shared its engineering, with nasty plastics, a certainly far less than premium keyfob, a broken interior doorhandle mended with duct tape and cheap switches, but it was certainly interesting. The leather-lined cabin did a very good job of cosseting my newly executive class self on the way down to Hampshire, and being a diesel, even the fuel economy was reasonable. In fact, there were two trip computers if one wanted to compare and contrast the cost of different journeys. Other controls seemed reasonably easy to operate, and the car seemed to waft along on a big wave of torque. There were even some songs left for me on the hard drive for my listening pleasure...

The ride and handling left much to be desired in comparison with something like a Volkswagen Passat, but this was to be expected from the pre-merger Chrysler LLC. The Sebring, and its Dodge Avenger twin sister, were not exactly known for dynamic excellence, and I have to say that I agree with general motoring opinion about this. As a car that would cruise along motorways and interstates, it is fine, but challenging B roads were not its forte. There were also 2.0 litre and 2.4 litre petrol engines offered in the UK with manual and automatic transmissions, but the diesel was the most economical and fastest. In America there was, of course, a popular V6 option, but prevailing contemporary opinion in Europe at the time demanded a diesel, and so Volkswagen supplied them with one off the shelf.

By 2009, the Sebring had almost vanished from British showrooms, with its career over here being somewhat lacklustre, and I cannot say that I can blame Chrysler UK for its discontinuation. The depreciation was terrible, the quality far from even the standards of contemporary budget brands such as Kia and Hyundai, and the car was unmemorable to drive. By 2014, Chrysler had entirely withdrawn from the UK, leaving only Jeep to fly the flag for the USA over here. My time with the Sebring also came to an end, and I went back to proper traditional Rover luxury.

Sebrings are still around on the secondhand market at temptingly low prices, but with a big question mark over reliability and parts availability these days, they are not the sort of car I would recommend. I would, however, like to try a Chrysler Delta at some point, which was based on the final version of the famous Lancia Delta, but that will be a story for another time.

2019 MG3 1.5 Exclusive

It could be said that I have more experience with the MG3 than most of the online motoring press. I have driven three different examples, filmed three different videos about the model and owned one (with my wife) for more than two years. I get a lot of online ridicule about the car, especially from drivers of premium diesel cars who sometimes doubt my automotive credibility. However, I will continue to stand up for this underrated little supermini, and find that those outside of the self-proclaimed armchair expert fraternity seem to think that it is quite a good little car. Whilst there are numerous flaws, I find it most endearing in a number of ways, and when the opportunity presented itself to drive a new 2019 model at Richmond MG in Southampton (https://www.richmondmotorgroup.com/mg/) earlier this week, I jumped at the chance.

I had known about the facelifted MG3 for some time now, and was excited to see the changes which had been made in mid-2018. Truth be told, some of them are not quite what I would have personally chosen, but for the vast majority of potential purchasers, they will be considerable improvements. I cover the main ones in a video on my Youtube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcDB4sWvbO0

At first I had to be persuaded by the staff to take the new model out on the road (along with the MG ZS 1.0 automatic I had principally come to test drive), but I was glad that I did. I was handed the keys to a gleaming red 1.5 Exclusive model with less than 150 miles on the clock, and set off towards Southampton docks.

Differences between the old and new model became immediately apparent in the first 50 yards: the level of refinement and comfort has improved noticeably. The new seats, which lack the rather "exciting" pattern on them of the pre-facelift car, look very similar to the ones from the ZS, and on this top Exclusive model are partially trimmed in leather. They seem to have a bit more bolstering which makes up for the fact that the steering column still does not adjust for reach, a feature shared with the ZS. The engine also seemed much quieter, which is probably due to additional soundproofing, and the even gearchange seemed different, although I suspect this is due to the new gearknob and the 55,000 mile difference between this example and mine.

On the road, the engine delivers power in much the same way as before, its 1.5 litres of capacity making up somewhat for the lack of turbocharging. It still needs to be worked hard in order to maintain brisk progress, but is quieter and settles down nicely during cruising. The hydraulic power steering remains too, for which I was very grateful, although the steering wheel itself has been completely changed for the one from the ZS. This is one of the biggest improvements of all, matched by the complete redesign of the dashboard.

The slightly low-quality and budget feel of the pre-facelift car's interior has been switched for something much more contemporary and higher quality. There are no soft touch plastics, but then with a car which only costs under £13,000 in its most expensive form, this is not to be expected. What is to be expected, however, is better ergonomics, and the designers at MG's parent company Shanghai Automotive (aka SAIC) have done an excellent job in providing them. The interior of the MG3 seemed old-fashioned in many respects when the car was launched over here in 2013, and now with fake carbon fibre trim, an enormous central touchscreen, new window and mirror switches, upgraded indicator and wiper stalks and brand new door handles, the different is remarkable. Not all the changes are necessarily good, the fabric door cards have been replaced with hard plastic, for example, and the MG Metro style red stiching on the seats, gear gaiter and steering wheel has gone, but the overall effect is a pleasant one.

The central touchscreen, again shared with the ZS, is seven inches in size, and has built-in Apple Carplay on the top two models, along with Bluetooth, air conditioning, rear parking sensors and a reversing camera on the Exclusive model I tried. The fiddly little standard unit on previous MG3 models looks positively embarrassing by comparison. It is not the easiest system to use, however, as there do not seem to be any physical shortcut buttons, but to have something like this for the money is excellent.

The slightly weird heater and ventilation controls of the pre-facelift model, along with the bizarre placement of the hazard light switch and door locking buttons, have also been addressed with this new model, and the effect is much more conventional and higher quality. The instrument dials have not changed, though, which I found slightly odd considering they are very different from the ones on the MG ZS. If you want to see what it was like before, then please feel free to watch my 2014 MG3 Style 22,000 Mile Ownership Report:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6w74WOR5gpE

Other changes include different alloy wheels, a new tailgate design (which I do not like as much, although it probably looks cleaner), a completely different front end aping the look of the ZS and incorporating the LED daytime running lights into the headlight units, and a black parcel shelf as opposed to the white one in my car. They have not changed the cheap feeling exterior door handles or the inadequate door mirrors, however, which remain full of blind spots.

Another thing which remains the same is the stiff ride, which means that the MG3 retains its "warm hatch" characteristics, albeit with the benefit of excellent handling. The engine, fitted with start stop since the advent of Euro VI emissions regulations in mid-2015, also delivers similar economy before, and the manual gearbox (the only transmission option) retains five rather than six speeds. I would have loved to have seen an MG3 with the 1.0 litre three cylinder turbocharged engine from the ZS and the six speed manual gearbox from the larger MG GS (which can certainly more than handle the power), but my wish has not been granted by SAIC's marketing department... That said, such a change would have increased the price of the car beyond a level which it could have managed in a class which is even more competitive now than when the MG3 first emerged in Britain in 2013.

Pricing in the facelifted range starts at around £9,500 for the basic Explore trim (which does not feature body coloured door handles or remote central locking) rising to around £12,800 for the top Exclusive model I tested. It is interesting to compare this with the 2013 range, where the basic Time model started at around £8400 and stopped at under £10,000 for the top of the range Style variant (like mine), albeit with a Style Lux (later renamed Style+) option at £10,500 with full leather trim. The main difference now, however, is that any MG has a seven year warranty, only matched by Kia in this class. This makes the ownership proposition somewhat different from 2013.

Discounting smaller city cars from the class below, the nearest opposition remains, as it was in 2013, the Dacia Sandero, still Britain's cheapest. This ranges from around £8,800 with the 900cc turbocharged engine one needs to match the MG3's performance in Essential trim (roughly comparable with Explore in MG3's range) to around £9,800 for the top Comfort trim, although to specify it to anywhere near an MG3 Exclusive, this will require just over £11,000. (The very basic £7,000 Access trim can be totally excluded from this.) The Dacia really is not a bad car for the money, but with a very standard three year warranty, noticeably cheaper standards of fit and finish and also a much less pleasant driving experience, one could argue that the MG3 does not quite compete directly head on with it.

More directly comparable rivals are the Ford Ka Plus (starting at around £11,000), the Vauxhall Viva (starting at just over (£10,000) and probably also the venerable Corsa, which starts at just under £13,000, but is available with huge discounts. Of these, a comparable Ka Plus to the MG Exclusive would be around £12,300, but still lacking many of its features and with a less powerful engine, a Viva SE with air conditioning at around £11,000 has a smaller boot, less powerful engine and much less equipment, and the basic five door Corsa Griffin with a comparable engine would cost over £13,200 with a lower standard of equipment. Of course, all of these also lack the MG's seven year warranty.

In short, the MG3 actually remains quite competitive in its class. If you want the sophistication and advanced engine technology of the majority of superminis, most best selling rivals in the class cost up to £5,000 more when comparably equipped with a similar power output, and even then do not have the excellent handling and class-leading ownership package. Group four insurance for all models will seal the deal in the minds of many. For someone who is not bothered about the last word in fuel economy or cabin materials, but is primarily concerned with overall running costs, it still makes a lot of sense.

As a little bonus, here is my 2014 MG3 Style Full Video Review as part of the Tweed Jacket Reviews series:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oHNIboTqXo

Thank you once again to Richmond MG in Southampton for the chance to drive the new MG3!

2019 MG ZS 1.0 Exclusive Automatic

Whilst I was at Richmond MG in Southampton (https://www.richmondmotorgroup.com/mg/) earlier this week, I had a chance to test drive a 2019 MG ZS 1.0 Exclusive automatic. It was most enjoyable, and I look forward to having a longer test drive at some point in the future.

The MG ZS (not to be confused with the five door hatchback and four door saloon model of the same name based on the old Rover 45 sold between 2001 and 2005), is a small SUV/crossover which competes with models such as the Ssangyong Tivoli, Renault Captur and Suzuki Vitara, but is cheaper than all of them. Long time readers of my reviews will know that I am fond of the Tivoli and Vitara, but find the Captur somewhat disappointing, so I was most fascinated to try this one out whilst also having a look at the facelifted MG3. The base model ZS starts at £12,500, around £2,000 cheaper than an equivalent Ssangyong, around £3,500 cheaper than an equivalent Renault and around £4,500 cheaper than an equivalent Suzuki, hence why MG's sales in the UK increased by 104% last year. In a market which was down overall by around 7%, that is very impressive indeed. Is there any substance to back up this headline grabbing price, however?

Truth be told, there are one or two compromises in the MG ZS engineering which allow its low initial outlay for potential purchasers. The first of these is that MGs are no longer built (or at least partially built) at the former MG Rover plant in Birmingham. MG6 and MG3 models were partially assembled from kits brought over from China between 2011 and 2016, but the bosses at MG's parent company, Shangai Automotive (aka SAIC) decided when the former was discontinued and the latter slightly facelifted in 2016 that all assembly would now take place in China. Having driven two MG6s and a British assembled MG3 in comparision with a facelifted MG3 and the new ZS, I cannot at all say that this has had a negative effect on overall quality. In fact, the decision to concentrate MG's indigenous efforts on sales, marketing and preparation of cars in China seems to have resulted in better quality, keen pricing and a massive sales boost. It is a shame that MG do not assemble cars any more in Britain, however.

The second factor in achieving this extremely good pricing structure has been to keep the old 1.5 litre four cylinder normally aspirated (i.e. without a turbocharger) engine from the MG3 and transplant it into the ZS unaltered. Although the engine has had some minor changes since first appearing in the smaller model in 2013, it essentially still has the same problems as always. The only gearbox available is the same five speed manual, albeit with a much better gearlever than earlier MG3 models which means that the change is relatively slick and well-weighted. Power is over 100 bhp and 0-60 mph arrives in just over 10 seconds (extremely similar to the MG3 and more than competitive for a base model engine in this class), but the engine needs to be worked very hard to achieve reasonable performance. Fuel economy suffers due to the lack of turbocharger, and so expect to achieve around 40 mpg in everyday driving, rather than the 50 mpg which is likely with something like a Renault Captur 0.9 tCE in Eco mode.

Thirdly, various items which are standard, or at least options on the ZS' rivals, cannot be specified at all. This includes autonomous emergency braking, which is standard on every Ssangyong Tivoli, for example. Par for the course safety equipment which is fitted as standard to higher specification rivals, such as the admittedly more expensive Tivoli Ultimate, such as front parking sensors, lane keeping assistance, lane departure warning and forward collision warning, are noticeable by their absence from the options sheet. This helps explain the less than stellar performance from the ZS in the Euro NCAP crash tests: it scored just three out of five stars. With simply adding a couple of these, MG could have ensured the reassurance of a top safety score for the families who make up a majority of ZS buyers. Better news is to be found in what is fitted on the top Exclusive model.

Aside from the aforementioned safety equipment omissions, the ZS Exclusive does feature just about everything else one would desire from a small crossover. There is cruise control, a seven inch touch screen with satellite navigation and Apple Carplay, climate control, a reversing camera, automatic lights and wipers, fake leather seats (which are very comfortable), LED headlights, diamond cut alloy wheels, silver roof rails, three different steering models (Urban, Normal and Dynamic) and a seven year warranty all as standard. With the 1.5 engine, this actually costs slightly less than a base specification Renault Captur, which only comes with a three year warranty, and a basic Suzuki Vitara (admittedly with a much better engine) is a whole £1,500 more. But what of the 1.0 automatic model I tried?

This top-of-the-range three cylinder turbo engine, co-developed with General Motors, is the most contemporary unit that MG has introduced into its cars since its rebirth in 2011 and it is paired with a six speed automatic gearbox. The automatic is very smooth, and even includes a manual mode for more "sporty" driving, although with small crossover, this is a bit of a moot point: most will simply leave the gearlever in drive and let the car do the work. From rest, there is much improved torque over the older 1.5 litre engine, and as a result it does not feel stressed at town speeds. If only MG offered this with the six-speed manual gearbox from their GS model in the ZS and MG3, then it would be an absolutely cutting-edge contemporary choice. However, the probable reason for not doing this is the fact that MG has to buy in/build under licence these newer units from General Motors, and thus a fee is applicable, thus also adding an automatic gearbox means that the extra cost can be more easily justified. This extra cost is £2,000 over the manual Exclusive, thus a total price of £17,500.

The higher driving position of the ZS compared with something like an MG3 does make the car feel very substantial, and the interior, although not exactly premium, feels well-built and even includes some soft touch materials on top of the dashboard. I was grateful for the presence of a conventional handbrake when so many cars these days seem to prefer the electronic type (which is much less reliable), and the plush seats were comfortable. The controls, touch screen excepted, are easy to use and logically laid out, and are a noticeable step up in quality from any previous MG model. Audi levels of fit and finish are still yet to be achieved, but it is so much better than most people would expect at this end of the market (such as with a cheaper Dacia Duster). Steering reach adjustment is absent, which is a shame, but this would have probably increased the price somewhat.

Aside from the willing three-cylinder turbocharged engine, the ZS 1.0 automatic feels comfortable in town, and is easy to drive with good overall visibility (although those standard rear parking sensors on the top two trims are pretty much essential, as in most SUVs). The ride is definitely very different from an MG3, being vastly softer, but the trade off is much more bodyroll. The electric power steering is also completely different from older MG models, and feels much more distant and artificial. Putting the steering into the "Dynamic" mode, which increases its weight somewhat, is highly recommended, but it does not have the same feel through the steering as the hydraulic system fitted to the MG3 and MG6. This was very much missed, but is to be expected in this class of car.

Smart-looking, if what somewhat generically styled, well-equipped, competent to drive and fitted with a very contemporary engine if one chooses the top-of-the-range Exclusive 1.0 automatic, the MG ZS is a very good car indeed. On balance, I still prefer the Ssangyong Tivoli, which has more equipment and even more solid feel, whilst matching the MG's seven year warranty package and three different steering modes, and comes with a more economical diesel option, but this runs it very close. I would certainly take this over a Renault Captur, Ford Ecosport or Nissan Juke (the three much more expensive class best sellers) any day of the week.

2018 Renault Megane Sports Tourer 1.2 Dynamique Nav

Each year since 2016 I have spent Christmas in Central Germany. This involves flying to Hannover Airport and then hiring a car to drive the 100 or so miles to where my sister lives in a small town near Kassel. Each time, we have used a different hire company and also have had a different (non-German) brand of car. The automotive delights so far include a DS3 (formerly a Citroen, but now its own brand), a Ford Focus and, for 2018, a Renault Megane Sports Tourer.

When I arrived at the Enterprise hire car desk at Hannover Airport, I was presented with the choice between the petrol-engined Megane and a diesel-engined Peugeot 308 SW. I had heard bad things about the Peugeot I-Cockpit layout, and I was keen to drive a petrol on the Autobahn, so I chose the Renault. Straightaway, I was struck at how nice and substantial the key felt, a world away from the flimsy old Renault credit-card type electronic keys which previous models have had, and, naturally, a big step up from a Dacia.

Upon discovering the Megane in the Enterprise section of the airport car park, the car very handily unlocked itself (it would appear that the keyless entry system is excellent), although the button for the boot release is in an awkward place, so loading luggage was a bit more complicated than usual. Pairing my phone for the long drive down to the Werra Valley was no problem, and Renault's long-standing partnership with TomTom meant that the sat nav was reasonably straightforward to programme and seemed accurate during the journey. Not all the controls were as straightforward, however.

A little research has revealed that the lesser two trim levels in the Megane range, the Expression + (now renamed Play) and the Dynamique Nav (now renamed Icon and known in Germany as Limited) do not have the same 8.7" portrait-orientated touch screen as the higher spec models. Instead, models such as this Dynamique Nav/Limited get an older 7" landscape display which shares its basic functionality with the systems found in the Dacia Logan MCV and the pre-facelift Renault Captur. This means that switching between different applications, such as between music and navigation, is far more difficult than it needs to be, the fonts seem very old-fashioned, and it is very clunky to operate.

The dashboard does at least look very sophisticated, even without the 8.7" system, although the heater controls, some of which are touch operated without any sort of haptic feedback, are very small and fiddly. In fact, the combination of rain, darkness, a long Autobahn journey, being unfamiliar with the car and driving on the wrong side of the road made the first drive in the Megane much more stressful than it should have been. Since the Renault 11 in the 1980s, of which the current generation Megane is a direct descendant, many models in their range have had separate audio controls on a stalk next to the steering column, and this one is no exception. However, this goes right against the current fashion for all controls not on the dashboard in a modern car to be contained on the steering wheel, where they are lit and visible at all times. In the darkness, it took me a long time to find out how to adjust the stereo volume without using the central control knob on the dashboard before I remembered this Gallic quirk.

Two more things which the Megane ST shares with the less expensive Dacia Logan MCV and the Renault Captur are the Eco button and a cruise control activation switch next to the handbrake. The former is a mode which restricts the car's torque output by around 10% for better fuel economy, and with this 1.2 petrol engine's 130 bhp, the difference between on and off is not that noticeable. However, in the Logan MCV and Captur, which share the same 900cc three-cylinder turbo petrol and 1.5 litre four-cylinder turbo petrol engines developing around 90 bhp, having Eco mode on is really only for town use, otherwise summoning up decent progress is somewhat frustrating. The cruise control situation is even more infuriating, as all the other controls for the cruise control system are on the steering wheel, so reaching with the other hand onto the centre console next to the handbrake to turn the system on and off seems to make no ergonomic sense whatsoever. In short, although the Megane is better than many previous Renaults in its control placement, other similarly priced European brands such as Volkswagen and Ford are still vastly better in this regard.

In terms of the driving experience, the Megane certainly is not awful, but it is not particularly memorable. In this respect, it is reminiscent of past Kia and Hyundai models (the newer generation Ceed and i30 are much more lively to drive) in that the car feels stable and composed on the motorway, but handling is not particularly exciting. As with so many French cars these days, the emphasis is on comfort, so body lean is prevalent, but the ride is smooth and absorbs bumps and potholes reasonably well. This is not a car specifically designed for Alpine passes, and if one wanted such a thing then Renault would probably point one towards their new Alpine A110 sports car, but for the needs of the target market, it is probably sufficient.

The Dynamique S/Limited trim level contains a good level of equipment such as automatic lights and wipers, cruise control (complete with ridiculously placed activation switch by the handbrake), front and rear parking sensors, Bluetooth and satellite navigation. This particular car has an optional reversing camera, for which I have been grateful already on more than one occasion, and keyless start and entry. There is also a digital dashboard, with a strange system on this automatic model whereby there is no rev counter, but just a line to show whether someone can keep the car in the so-called "Eco" range for maximum fuel economy. I miss the traditional dials of so many of its rivals very much... Speaking of fuel economy, I imagine it would do around 400-500 miles per tank of fuel, which for a modern small petrol engine is not very impressive, but if one averages 80-90 mph on the Autobahn, as I did, then perhaps it is not difficult to see the reason for its unusual thirst.

Estate cars are often bought for their capacious boots and improved rear accommodation, and the Megane Sports Tourer is no exception to this. The boot, at around 520 litres, is over 100 litres bigger than the Megane hatchback, although it is trounced by even my Seat Toledo hatchback at 550 litres, and the cheaper Skoda Octavia estate at 610 litres. The design of the car is rather pleasing to the eye, but this is perhaps a case where aesthetic appearance has won out over utility. The rear seats seem spacious enough, but again, an Octavia estate would be larger.

One area in which the Megane does seem to have improved massively in recent years is cabin quality. The first generation car, launched over 20 years ago, had an abundance of hard brittle plastics like many of its contemporaries, and carried on a length tradition of flimsy French fragility. This is not a criticism which can be levelled at the current generation model, which was launched in 2016. The dashboard and upper parts of the doors are festooned with soft-touch material, all the switches feel as if they are very good quality, even if some of them are a bit illogically placed, and the seat fabrics are no longer suspiciously lightweight. It all feels suspiciously like a cross between a Korean and German car, and this is no bad thing at all.

To sum up, the Renault Megane Sports Tourer is a solidly- built, smooth riding, comfortable and relatively practical car with a handsome design and good equipment levels. It is, however, let down in some surprisingly important areas, such as illogical control placement and a disappointing infotainment system on the lesser models, still questionable reliability and a high list price compared with some of its rivals. It is a good effort, but in a class with so many talented cars, it cannot quite yet emerge at the front of the pack.

2008 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X

Further to yesterday's review of the Subaru Impreza WRX STi, today we look at what was its arch nemesis for many years, the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X. I had the opportunity to sample the Lancer right after the Impreza, and, thanks to a quirk of the day's organisation (I was not supplied with a video camera as requested for my first run in the car), I got another go as well. Thank you once again to Drift Limits (https://driftlimits.co.uk/) at Bovingdon Airfield for allowing me to have the time of my life driving these two wonderful cars in typical rallying weather!

The Mitsubishi Lancer nameplate is much older than the Subaru Impreza, and was first introduced in the 1970s on a rear-wheel drive saloon car called the Galant, one of the first Mitsubishi models sold in the United Kingdom under the name Colt Lancer. It was largely unexceptional, something about the size of a Ford Escort, but with rather anodyne, if somewhat handsome, styling, and very similar engineering. Even at this early stage, however, things were getting interesting... In 1974, a rally specification version of the Lancer, known as the 1600 GSR, won the African Safari Rally, and was tuned to produce around 170 bhp, an incredible figure for the time in an ordinary saloon car. Production versions only produced around 100-110 bhp, but were still almost as powerful as the legendary contemporary Ford Escort RS 1600.

In 1991, the then contemporary Lancer (known as the Mirage in Asian markets) was upgraded to produce a mad version known as the Lancer Evolution GSR, which, with a 2.0 litre turbocharged engine, produced just under 250 bhp. (There was also a slightly less crazy RS model, but history seems to have forgotten about that!) It also had four-wheel drive, whereas other Lancers/Mirages had been front-wheel drive for many years before that. It, of course, became a very popular rally car, taking on the original Subaru Impreza from around 1992 onwards.

The Lancer Evolution then progressed through many different versions (numbered between I and IX), each based on the basic contemporary Lancer/Mirage, but always with a 2.0 litre turbocharged engine producing upwards of 250 bhp in standard tune and four wheel drive, and with ever more sophisticated engineering. By the time that the final generation of Lancer (for now) was launched in 2007, the Lancer Evolution had become so much a part of the furniture that it was the first version in the Lancer range to be designed, which arguably led to a much better looking basic design too. It was this rather tasty treat which awaited me when I had finished with the Subaru...

The 2008 vintage Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X was sold in the UK with a number of different power outputs, but the basic one was either the GS or the FQ-300, which produced, rather predictably, around 300 bhp. Compared with the Subaru, the design is immediately much more pleasing to the eye, and although the saloon form factor is maybe not as practical as a hatchback for some, the boot was still quite large for a performance car. This generation of Lancer also has a much higher standard of finish than the contemporary Subaru with a soft touch dashboard, doors which feel much more substantial, a nicer gearchange and a lovely central touchscreen. The driving position was also much better, with clear instruments and a pleasant-feeling steering wheel.

The five-speed gearbox may be missing a gear compared with an Impreza, but it shifted much more easily, and if left in third gear, as on the track, this did not seem to matter very much. What did matter was the steering and handling. In comparison with the Impreza WRX STi, it was an absolute revelation. Like the Subaru, it has different driving modes, and I sampled it in both tarmac and gravel modes, for some reason... The bodyroll was much less, the steering much more precise and the car was very, very easy to place through the corners. This, added with the same kind of performance as the Subaru, with 0-60 mph dispatched in under five seconds, meant that laptimes around the circuit would have been appreciably quicker. Indeed, when following my old friend Jim in the Impreza around the circuit, I could easily take the corners much quicker without having to drive beyond my own personal limitations.

Granted, the car does not have brakes that are as good as the Subaru, and on the secondhand market is about a third more expensive as a contemporary Impreza WRX STi, but in every other respect, the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X is superior. The car was so good, in fact, that during my second session (where the video camera was switched on), I was having so much fun that I ignored the request from the instructor to come off the track as I had exceeded my allocated number of laps. So I had to go around for another one. What a shame!

When Jeremy Clarkson reviewed these cars on Top Gear in 2008, he came to exactly the same conclusion. He drove both on a track, and was able to place the Mitsubishi very precisely through the corners, whereas the Subaru kept on running wide. In these awful conditions, I would doubt that an average driver with no racing experience could have a much quicker car with which to cover the ground, as something like a Lamborghini would be an absolute handful. I went round so fast that the instructors in the Audi R8 and the Lamborghini Gallardo that I was following advised their drivers to pull over and let me past!

With mind-bending acceleration, precise steering, impressive practicality and a degree of user-friendliness that seems to mark out all Japanese saloon cars, the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X has to be one of the best cars available for the money. It was surely a mistake on Mitsubishi's part to discontinue this legendary performance machine and leave the market wide open to Subaru in favour of introducing the distinctly Eclipse Cross crossover, but then I am not part of the marketing department at the Renault Nissan Mitsubishi Alliance. No wonder values of the final incarnation of this automotive giant are on the rise!

Videos from the track, complete with bumbling commentary, coming soon.

2008 Subaru Impreza WRX STi (UK Spec)

Last week, my old friend Jim, an amateur racing driver, and I went to Bovingdon Airfield near Hemel Hempstead for a track experience with Drift Limits (https://driftlimits.co.uk/). For just under £45, we enjoyed putting two of the most well-known rally cars of the last 25 years, the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X and the Subaru Impreza WRX STi, through their paces. Before we set out, we were given a drivers' briefing and were accompanied by an instructor at all times.

In typical rally fashion, the weather was wet and absolutely appalling, and given the choice of any of the other vehicles Drift Limits had on offer (which included a rather nice Lamborghini Gallardo, an Aston Martin V8 Vantage and Audi R8 amongst others), the Subaru and Mitsubishi were probably amongst the safer options. This has to do with the fact that they both have sophisticated traction control systems, they both have four-wheel drive and that they only produce around 300 bhp, as opposed to some of the others which easily offer double that. Still, it was a little bit hairy out there, but a lot of fun. Let us start with the Subaru first.

The Subaru Impreza was first launched in Britain in 1993, and was essentially a smaller version of their already successfully Legacy large family car. It was available in both saloon and estate forms, offering the option of four-wheel drive traction on all models (the front-wheel drive only variants never sold very well). Soon, things got much more exciting, and an Impreza Turbo was released, which got a 2.0 litre turbocharged version of Subaru's famous "boxer" engine, and just over 200 bhp. It was significantly more exciting than the normal Impreza's 1.6 and 1.8 litre engines.

Soon, the Impreza Turbo (known as the WRX in other countries, which stands for "World Rally eXperimental) gained something of a cult following, especially when a certain Scot by the name of Colin McRae started to campaign vigorously in a modified version on the world rally stage. In its standard form, the Impreza was not that interesting, apart from the four-wheel drive offered on most versions, but the reputation of the Turbo, boosted by McRae's various rally victories, just grew and grew.

The Impreza was replaced with a new version in 2000, complete with a new version of the Turbo now renamed the WRX to bring it in line with the rest of the world, which was facelifted twice before being itself discontinued in favour of the model I tried in 2007. This 2008 Impreza WRX STi (the STi is the slightly upgraded version with flared wheelarches and more power) developed around 300 bhp from a 2.5 litre four cylinder turbocharged boxer engine. The 0-60 mph time was quoted at under five seconds (in dry conditions), and from experience I can well believe that this was possible.

With a ridiculously over the top bodykit, a mean-looking set of alloy wheels and an enormous rear spoiler, the word I would use to describe a 2008 vintage Subaru WRX STi is certainly "purposeful". This example had clocked up over 120,000 miles hard driven miles, but was still in good order, although I would not like to even imagine how many clutches and sets of brake pads it had worked its way through during that time. The transmission is a six-speed manual gearbox with a distinctly long throw, rather like a contemporary Suzuki Vitara, although for the track experience most of the time the car was left in third.

Through the tight Bovingdon Airfield circuit the Impreza certainly has plenty of power, and Jim, who also drove both cars back to back, commented that out of the two, the brakes in the Subaru were much better than the Mitsubishi. We certainly ensured that all the driver aids were switched on during the time, as aquaplaning was not quite what I wanted to do... The Subaru has a switch inside which allows choosing between various modes, such as snow, tarmac, gravel and others, and we selected tarmac. I was grateful that on this UK spec version, ESP and ABS were standard along with a plethora of airbags.

In the extremely wet conditions, the Subaru was not really that difficult to handle. Admittedly, compared with the Mitsubishi, body roll was not as well controlled, and the steering was not as precise, but the acceleration was certainly comparable. On a public road, the Impreza would probably be a little bit more comfortable. However, what was not so good was the tacky interior plastic, including a hard scratchy dashboard, a standard specification far inferior to the Lancer, which I imagine cost much the same upon release ten years ago, and far less easy to use controls. It has to be sad that the frumpy styling of the Impreza hatchback upon which this car is based certainly looks ugly and bloated compared with the Mitsubishi as well.

One area in which the Subaru does claw something back, however, is value for money. Good examples of the 2008-9 WRX STi sell for around £15-18,000, far, far less than the comparable Lancer Evolution X. That said, Subaru are still making the Impreza WRX STi, whereas the Lancer has been discontinued (apart from in China) and the Evolution series died a few years ago, probably making it more desirable due to rarity.

In isolation, then, this era of Impreza WRX STi is a fast, good value car with plenty of power and a driving mode for virtually any occasion, but perhaps there is something missing. Tomorrow, we will go into more depth about what that may be when we look at the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X in more detail. Videos of both experiences will also soon be uploaded (along with bumbling commentary) for all you thrill seekers out there!

2008 Renault Trafic Passenger 1.9 dCi

In 2016, I had the privilege of adding yet another type of vehicle to the roster of those I have driven, in this case a 2008 Renault Trafic Passenger (the minibus variant of the normal Trafic van). On sale in various guises since 1980, the Trafic continues to be a popular van all over Europe, especially as it is also sold under various other badges, such as the Vauxhall Vivaro, Opel Vivaro and the Nissan Primastar. Some variants are even built in Britain at a factory in Luton (IBC Vehicles) which used to make Bedfords until 1986. A truly perennial design, the Trafic/Vivaro entered its third generation in 2014.

The second generation of Trafic was introduced in 2001 and was made until 2014, with a facelift in 2006. This model therefore had a remarkably similar production run to the fourth generation Ford Transit/Tourneo I reviewed last week (2000-2013). Whether this Anglo-French/Germano-Japanese creation was any better than its Ford rival is an interesting topic for discussion. Without a doubt, the current generation of Transit/Tourneo Custom is a vastly superior vehicle, but what happens when one takes a direct comparison with two of the same era?

The 2008 model I drove had a very poor quality plastic interior, not much performance from its 1.9 dCi turbo diesel (I think it developed around 100 bhp) and had an overall impression of fragility in finest French fashion. (We had hired a brand new 2013 model at the event I was working at a few years before, and the interior was no better.) The driving position was also better in the Transit, along with the gearchange. In some aspects, however, the Trafic was a bit better.

The design of the fourth generation Transit was always a little bit more evolutionary than revolutionary, and was exceptionally dated by the time of its replacement in 2013. The Trafic, by contrast, still looked reasonably contemporary by the time of its demise, and the version in current production is clearly takes many design cues directly from its predecessor. One thing I hope that they have not carried over is the rather 1990s looking key, which remained the same as the one from the 1998 Renault Clio until the end of production in 2014...

Some of the dashboard design, although the area itself was of poor quality materials, was much better than the contemporary Transit, and certain models incorporated a Tom Tom sat nav. Sadly, this was very poorly executed, as it was only possible to program this using a remote, which was easily lost, thus rendering the system useless. Why it was ever designed this way is beyond me...

These ubiquitous vans are all over Britain, France, Germany and many other European countries (it was built in Spain too), and although somewhat interesting in design, their poor quality, less than stellar reputation for reliability and mediocre driving experience do count against them. The Volkswagen Transporter of this generation is a much better vehicle, testament to the fact that it is still in production in modified form today. The fourth generation Ford Transit is probably similar in quality (building a factory by the sea probably wasn't a good idea in terms of rust prevention), but with hardier drivetrains and better ergonomics. Overall, I think if I was in the market for such a van, I would probably take the Volkswagen, if it was at a reasonable price.

2016 Ford Tourneo Custom 2.2 TDCi

Following on from yesterday's exploration of the 2008 Ford Tourneo, I had the opportunity of driving its next-generation Turkish-built sister in 2016, the Ford Tourneo Custom. Launched in 2013, the Tourneo Custom (and its sister Transit Custom van model) replaced the lower end of the Tourneo/Transit line-up, whilst a larger model simply known as the Transit takes care of the higher end. The Tourneo Custom I drove was a nine seater high specification MPV with a feeling of a business class cabin on an aeroplane, and improved upon the previous generation in every way.

Just a few months old when I tried it in August 2016, the gold Tourneo Custom I drove felt more refined, more luxurious, more comfortable and safer in every respect. There was even a colour screen in the centre of the dashboard, Bluetooth built into the infotainment system and, something I have never seen on any other vehicle, a place on the dashboard specifically designed to hold a mobile phone securely. Having hired four of these vehicles over the years (three Transit Customs and the Tourneo Custom), I have some experience with trim levels, and the upper echelons of the range are the place to be. The lower variants, sometimes even lacking air conditioning, feel very stripped out in comparison, although for trips to building sites and other such tasks, I doubt this is much of a problem.

The Tourneo Custom, however, has niceties such as automatic headlights, cruise control, front and rear parking sensors, alloy wheels and a multi-function steering wheel. It is very much like one of Ford's car models, although, depending on your point of view, this may not be as good news as it sounds. The previous generation Ford Fiesta (which I reviewed several months ago) had a very confusing array of buttons on the dashboard for controlling the infotainment system on the style of an old Nokia 6210 mobile phone. This has been universally hated by most testers, but was carried straight over into the cabin of the Tourneo and Transit Custom in 2013. Thankfully, with the new model Fiesta and the facelifted versions of the Tourneo and Transit Custom this has been significantly redesigned, but on this older Tourneo Custom, it would have taken some getting some getting used to had I not driven a Transit Custom before. The dashboard plastics, whilst much improved over the previous generation British-built Transit, are also not up to the best quality from something like a Volkswagen Transporter T6. The ride and handling, however, are very much up there with the best.

Continuing with the theme of being similar to one of Ford's passenger cars, the Tourneo Custom has no nasty surprises in the way that it drives if coming straight from a car with no experience of vans. The steering is remarkably accurate, the 2.2 diesel engine is relatively quiet and pulls well, and the ride, particularly with a load or passengers on board, is quite comfortable. True, the 100 bhp base version of the engine is not fast, but get the 123 bhp mid-spec unit (which is the one I have most experience of), and it turns the Tourneo Custom into more of a jet liner than one may want it to be. With a sweet six-speed gearbox, 70 mph comes up much sooner than one might expect, and means that the MPV settles down to a very comfortable motorway cruise. The driving position is definitely not as comfortable as a Volkswagen T6 Transporter, but most people should still be just fine.

The amount of room in the back is still vast, and the overall feeling of quality is massively improved over the previous generation. The luxury airport private hire vehicle is accentuated by plushly trimmed seats, nicely damped door handles and tinted glass at the rear. In the boot, the optional electric rear tailgate would certainly help in terms of closing what feels very much like a barn door unless one has the strength of Dwane Johnson, and reversing into parking bays may be out of the question. That said, the boot capacity remains absolutely huge for anyone short of a full symphony orchestra, certainly a five piece band would be just fine. The optional parking sensors, however, are a wise accompaniment to the standard dual aspect mirrors for ensuring that manoeuvring dents and scrapes are kept to a minimum.

The Tourneo Custom, particularly in the revised 2018 form, is a fine vehicle. Very spacious and well equipped, with a punchy engine, refined performance and easy to live with, it is no surprise to find that this van derived MPV is consistently at the top of the sales chart along with its van sibling. Available in a myriad of trims, body lengths, heights and specifications, this is one of the best of its type, and will continue to be so for some time to come.

2008 Ford Tourneo

Before I first drove a Ford Tourneo in 2014, I never realised that being a minibus driver could be so much fun. I had the privilege of being assigned a 2008 Tourneo (essentially a more luxurious Transit with windows and nine seats) hired from a firm on the South Coast for various duties in the summer of that year, and it was a thoroughly agreeable experience.

The fourth generation Ford Transit (and, by extension, the Tourneo) was produced from 2000-2014 and was the last one to be manufactured in the United Kingdom, at a dedicated facility in Swaythling, just opposite Southampton Airport. As its replacement, the Transit Custom, is manufactured in Turkey, it is interesting to compare the quality of the two. It has to be said that the example I had was very heavily used after six years and 130,000 miles, much more than the average hire vehicle, and seemed to be in reasonable good shape, although there were a few problems with it.

First of all, the plastic wind deflector which goes between the windscreen and the driver's door in order to improve aerodynamics was missing, which meant that the door flapped alarming at higher speed, although I knew it would not come open. Secondly, there was already some rust bubbling along the sills underneath, and there is hardly a Transit or Tourneo of this generation which does not have this problem. That being said, the major components of the van, such as the engine, clutch and gearbox and steering, all still seemed to be fine order, and the gearchange was no more difficult to operate than on a Fiesta.

The whole interior ambiance of the fourth generation Tourneo, particularly that of the post 2006 facelift models such as this one, is pleasant enough, with the overriding impression being one of practical simplicity. The driver's seat does seem to lack a bit of adjustment, but the front can carry three passengers with remarkable ease thanks to a dashboard-mounted gearchange and a handbrake which fits between the seats. The stereo, which had an AUX in, is also a model of clarity and there is an absolute plethora of stowage for bottles, clipboards and other paraphernalia. This has to be one of the most practical vehicles I have ever driven.

The boot alone, despite its dauntingly huge single piece rear tailgate which is very heavy to close and pretty much rules out reversing into parking spaces, can easily accommodate about eight suitcases, or over 1,000 500ml bottles of water. Each seat in the rear two rows is individually shaped with plenty of legroom, which can make for some fun outings. Mind you, the sheer size of the Tourneo means that narrow country lanes and multi-storey car parks are probably not its natural habitat.

On the road, the Tourneo's 2.2 litre diesel produces around 115 bhp (I think, it was hard to tell), which means a surprising turn of speed. Certainly with fewer people on board, there are no problems winding it up beyond 75 mph, although by then, there can be serious buffeting, prodigious bodyroll and questions about braking performance. Apparently most bank robberies in the Uk during the 1960s and 1970s involved a Transit van at some point, and I can well believe it. Those who had never driven one before certainly should have little to worry about. That said, parking sensors were a very rare optional extra, so low speed manoeuvres can be somewhat daunting until one has fully mastered the dual aspect mirrors.

To sum up, a Tourneo was designed as a rapid airport shuttle for VIPs and their luggage, and performs this task more than adequately. I have heard of the 2.2 diesel engine doing over 300,000 miles if properly maintained with frequent oil changes, so if one of these does come up for a reasonable price, with good service history and is relatively rust free, it seems like an excellent buy indeed. Just remember to try to stick to the speed limits and not to corner like a getaway driver...

2016 Volkswagen Transporter T6 2.0 TDI

One of the other types of vehicle which I think tends to get overlooked in online reviews, both written and audio visual, is the humble panel van. I have had the privilege of hiring a few of these over the years, and I imagine many others of my readership will have too. The two types of van most common at hire places seem to be Ford Transits (and variations on the such) and Volkswagen Transporters. The Volkswagens are the longest running type of medium van currently on sale on the European market, and have been going in modified form since 2003.

The T6 Transporter I hired in September 2016 was, supposedly, a fairly new design, but is heavily based on the T5 Transporter from 13 years previously, with some body panels being identical. This is a smart facelift, however, and the T6 certainly feels far from old-fashioned, although this may say more about the quality of the competition than the van itself. Available with both petrol and diesel engines (something of a rarity for a medium van in this country), mine had a 2.0 litre diesel engine with a modest power output of around 100 bhp. This engine is available in a variety of other Volkswagen Group products, and seemed more than adequate for the purpose.

One of the surprising things about the T6 is that is feels very much like a large Volkswagen Polo rather than a van. The driving position, with its dash mounted gearlever and high quality steering wheel, takes little acclimatisation and is very comfortable. The amount of vibration through the pedals, steering and gearshift is commendably low, and it certainly nicer than a Ford Transit Custom in this way. The dashboard also tends to have the later Volkswagen infotainment systems fitted these days, with niceties such as Bluetooth and DAB radio, which makes the whole experience far more pleasant.

The main omission from the spec sheet of this rather basic model was parking sensors (essential in a van which does not have the dual aspect mirrors like a Ford Transit Custom), but otherwise despite its steel wheels and black door handles, it had air conditioning, electric windows, power steering and stability management. The interior also felt high quality and logically laid out. The payload is perhaps not the most in a van like this, which is not available in such a variety of body lengths and heights as the Ford, but for most people's needs it should be more than adequate.

The driving experience was easy and pleasant, with well weighted steering, secure handling, plenty of torque and not too much pitching and rolling from the suspension. Both this and a Transit Connect are much, much better than vans of old, but I slightly prefer the driving experience of the Volkswagen, which gives more of the large car rather than medium van feel. Certainly the passenger carrying versions of the Transporter do feel very luxurious indeed.

The only real downside of the T6 is its price. A comparably equipped Transit Connect or Vauxhall Vivaro costs several thousands less, but if the priority is to feel more like a car than a van, and have smart contemporary styling, then a Volkswagen Transporter is hard to beat.