Review - Ford Focus 1.6 Zetec

Ford Focus 1.6 Zetec  

Not so long ago, someone asked us “What do you mean when you say ‘good to drive’?” The answer was simple, drive any Ford Focus, then drive almost any comparable car of the same age, come back and tell us which was the more responsive, more intuitive, more direct and simply more fun car to drive.

But there is more to the Focus than just excellent handling characteristics, and to prove it, we ‘re testing the 1.6 litre engined Zetec model. Why? Two reasons; firstly, this was one of the most popular models and engines and secondly, it isn’t the bottom feeding 1.4 version, which is a little bit of a limp-wristed engine.

You’ll notice from the pictures, that our test car is a 3 door model. The reason is because of one of two truths we are adamant about; the first is that the number of cars that look better as a convertible than a coupe can be counted on one hand, and the second is that there are no cars that look better as a five door than they do as a three door.

The Mk I Focus is without doubt a handsome beast, especially after the 2001 refresh that somehow still looks modern and generally up to scratch today, despite being ten years old.

The key difference between the first models and the refreshed 2001 models is the indicator position, as you can see on our test car, they are positioned within the main headlight cluster rather than separately.

This modification cleans up the front end to such a degree, the difference in looks is very dramatic with the refreshed cars looking sharp and modern, and the pre-refresh models looking their age to a very marked degree.

The Mk I Focus, was given the development code CW170 and was a direct replacement for the aging Escort, which had been using the same basic platform since 1990.

Ford had been stung by the press’ rubbishing of the car, with several going as far to say that Ford thought it could sell any old rubbish, with much of the criticism aimed at the poor handling of the Escort. Ford sprung into action, going as far to develop a brand new independent rear suspension system for the new car as well as integrating the ‘Edge’ design language that Ford was rolling out across it’s range.

The result was a car that rewrote the book on how a family hatch should handle. No longer could manufacturers simply bolt together a set of MacPherson’s and a Torsion Beam and hope for the best, because the Focus wiped the floor with the lot of them.

At new, the 1.6 Zetec cost around £12,500, and for that you got plenty of basic equipment and an engine that you could poke with a stick and get a satisfying response. It was competitive too, despite being much cheaper than a Mk IV Golf, the only real difference was a few areas of inferior plastics in the Ford. In truth, this model never set the range alight, but the fact that it was as good as a Golf for around £1,500 less and much better to drive as well, meant the Focus quickly became one of the most popular cars around, with all the benefits that come with being a desirable car.

The engine is a 1.6 litre, all Aluminium four cylinder engine that was considered by many to be the pick of the range and we’d still maintain that. Ok it’s a 1.6 litre with only 99 bhp and an equally lowly 107 lb/ft of torque, the sort of figures that aren’t too far out of reach for 1.2 litre engines of today, but as always, one of our tests for a refined engine is having more torque than power.

It means that when you prod the engine with your sudden case of lead feet, the engine doesn’t just make a lot more noise and not much else, it means the car pulls at you and feels like it wants to get a move on.

This engine is also the best balance of performance and economy across the range. The 1.4 is not really any better on fuel but is much slower and the 1.8 and 2.0 engines are faster but can dive on fuel economy.

So for your 1596cc, DOHC, 16v Four cylinder engine, pumping out 99 bhp at 5,500 rpm and that rather lumpy 107 lb/ft of torque arriving at 4,000 rpm will haul the lightweight 1158 kg Focus to 62 mph in just 10.9 seconds and will reach 115 mph, not bad for a £12 family box.

The key is the weight, despite the fact this was at the time, a large car for it’s class and can cart four people plus luggage around in comfort and safety, the Focus is a feather weight machine. It lets you access the potential of the engine when you want it, but also means you can keep revs down and fuel economy up.

But the engine is not the thing to get excited about with the Focus, no that honor is reserved for the handling. Ford’s of this vintage and newer have managed to carve out a niche in their respective markets for being excellent cars to drive, and that is the Focus’ ace. In fact, for some, once they’ve owned a Ford they can own nothing but another Ford or a BMW. This is how far ahead the Focus was.

The key is more than just that headline-grabbing rear suspension. Firstly, Ford’s chassis engineers created a very stiff body and chassis, coupled with a wide track, particularly at the rear making the rear end not only spacious, but also extremely well planted. The front is equipped with standard MacPherson struts, but even here, Ford worked hard to find a set-up that is both responsive but compliant, a trait that is expected of even the cheapest of cars today.

The rear end, where that legendary ‘Control-Blade’ multi-link set-up is hidden offers up so much control and feel at the rear, but it’s also an extremely compact unit, taking up no more space than a Torsion Beam set-up and so giving the Focus a spacious boot and low load lip. While the job of setting up the Focus to make the most of the suspension set-up was key to the cars handling, the design of the rear suspension is undoubtedly the key to it’s success.

But Ford didn’t stop there. What’s the point of excellent body control, very accurate steering, excellent damping characteristics and superior levels of grip if the steering control is poor? Therefore, the Focus used hydraulically powered steering assist, and continued to do so in the Mk II and switched to an electro-hydraulic system for the Mk III. While hydraulic systems cost mpg, they are vastly superior in feel to electronic systems, and again Ford worked hard to make the steering wheel feel like it was actually connected to the wheels, to let the driver interact with the car rather. The steering on this car is in many cases, superior to most mid-range family hatchbacks today simply because it’s hydraulic system is well set-up when compared to mediocre electronic systems, despite the seven year age gap.

The handling comes down to little things, like being able to turn sharply and quickly, a task that is useful in every day life, not just when you want to have fun. The sharp turn in means you can really get the car into a corner, hold speed on roundabouts and generally make rapid progress.

When you do though, the Focus is quite happy to respond. The engine is vocal but not rough, possessing a nice four cylinder yowl that is audible but not intrusive. The engine never really sounds in pain, as some unrefined four-pots do when being revved. Throttle response is good, and while it’s not the most free-revving engine, it is happy to work hard. The gearbox is sublime, a slick five speed that is a joy to shift cogs with, although first gear is very short and can need a quick change after you pull of. The clutch is measured and gradual, the sort that is nicely balanced between comfortable, measured travel and sharpness.

The brakes are 278mm ∅ discs at the front, with 250mm ∅ drums at the rear. All Zetec models come equipped with ABS and ESP was optional, but the simple fact is the lightweight Focus has brakes that are strong, responsive and don’t fade unless you’re really pressing on hard for long periods.

The Focus is a well mannered car under normal driving conditions, with that well sorted suspension set-up making the car ride well, absorbing bumps and pot-holes nicely.

Motorway manners are good too, with wind noise kept to a minimum and road noise is also at an acceptable, if slightly raised level on all but the worst quality of motorway surfaces.

The engine at motorway cruise makes just enough noise to be noticeable as a background hum, the sort of sound that we characterise as the sound of the engine happily burbling away to itself. If you’re a fan of total silence then it’ll annoy you, but we like some character in our cars, and this noise gives the car a sense of that.

The interior is high but not top quality, even when it was brand new. The whole interior is well bolted together, noting rattles or creaks where it shouldn’t, however, on the upper surfaces of the dash and in front of the passenger seat, the plastics are hard-touch ones that are hard wearing but ultimately unattractive and harsh to touch.

In fact, like the rest of the car, the best place to be in a Focus is behind the wheel. The whole car feels like it was aimed to be driven, all the design work of interior is focused towards the driver, the nicely shaped dash is rather good looking and well proportioned.

The dash is clear and concise, if a little uninspiring, with two large dials for speed and revs, and one either side of those for fuel and temperature, all contained snugly within that shapely dash surround which is the attractive part of the dash.

The centre console is simple, with the radio/CD up high and the ventilation or AC controls below that, with large chunky and good quality buttons.

The seats are comfortable, even the cloth ones provide good support all around and possessing an excellent driving position that means you can just chew up the miles. The rear seats are also spacious, that wide rear track means you can get three adults into the rear of the Focus in relative comfort, but as with most cars in this class, it’s best to keep that situation to short jaunts rather than long hauls.

The glove box is useful, if not the most spacious we’ve ever seen, able to swallow a sat-nav, chargers and CD’s but not much more.

Boot space is always pretty generous, with 350 litres of boot space on offer plus that low sill and wide rear end making the Focus a compact but spacious tool. The rear seats split fold 60:40 across the range and the car has plenty of cubby holes and storage pockets.

Equipment can be hit and miss with the Zetec model. There was a vast array of options available so kit levels can vary from car to car.

Standard kit includes ABS, power steering, electric windows, steering column mounted audio controls, front and back fog-lights, driver and passenger air bags, side air bags (previously optional), remote central locking, removable radio facia and 16 inch alloy wheels.

The options range from CD Player, rear parking sensors, electric tilt/slide sunroof, metallic paint, xenon headlights, traction control, sat-nav system, and quick-clear wind screen. This means you have to be sure you’re getting the kit level you want/need, but it also means you can get an absolute bargain if you shop cleverly.

Running wise, the Mk I Focus does show it’s age a little. With the engine able to make just 40 mpg for it’s small size and power output, you will be stopping regularly, although a 665 mile tank range is more than enough to make it competant.

Emissions are again slipping behind the times a little, with that engine knocking back 165 g/km of CO₂. It means that you’ll be paying out £165 per year, and only just as it sits right at the top of Band H. Just one more g/km would mean £190 per year.

The revised insurance group ratings means the Focus sits in Group 13, or if you’re still adjusting Group 5 vis the old system, which makes the Focus statistically no more expensive to insure than a similarly engined Fiesta.

So if you’re interest is peaked by the Focus, how much are you going to have to fork out for one? Well, the simplest answer is how lucky are you and how much effort are you willing to give? With so many options available, to get the car you want requires some shopping, however our car, which came pretty stock, so Radio/Cassette, no AC and no sunroof, dating from 2002 with 88,000 miles on the clock would set you back anything from £2,100 - £2,300, less for an older and/or higher mileage stock example.

If you’re after some goodies that make it feel modern, you’ll either need to spend a bit more or get some luck. For a similarly aged example with no more than 10k miles per year, Air-Con and CD player, you’ll be looking at £2,500 or more.

Conclusion

What can be said that hasn’t already been said about the Focus before? Well the simple answer is ‘nothing’. The Mk I is as good today as it was when it was new. Ok the engines are dating, particularly on emissions, but they remain a decent range and the 1.6 Zetec remains the absolute pick of the bunch.

The efforts to reduce emissions and save fuel in new cars has lead to a massive reduction in driver involvement in new cars, making the Mk I feel as sharp as ever, and those timeless looks make this 13 year old design seem as up to date as ever. The simple fact is this: If you want a new car that has high levels of driver involvement, you buy a BMW, a MINI or a Ford.

If you’re buying a car from the 2000’s that has high levels of driver involvement, you buy a BMW, a MINI or a Ford, a fact that the Mk I Focus epitomises.

Ok, it’s engines do feel a little weedy compared to engines with the same capacity today, and the road tax does border on crippling, but right now, with the steady, relentless march towards complete driver segregation from the mechanicals of the car, we’d happily recommend you drive one and find out what actual driving is about; accuracy, controlled changes of direction, slick, well measured controls and a sense that you and the car are actually connected to each other, not communicating via wires.

Put it is this way, talking to someone face to face is always better than talking on the telephone. Most modern cars only let you talk to them via telephone. The Focus has always been about the face to face, which is just better. So, yes, you do have to pay for it, but a Focus will always reward you in a way most cars wouldn’t even understand, even £15-£20k brand new cars.

MD

Ford Focus 1.6 Zetec

Engine: 1596cc 16v DOHC In-Line Four
Power: 99 bhp @ 5,500 rpm
Torque: 107 Lb/ft @ 4,000 rpm
0-62 mph: 10.9 Seconds
Top Speed: 115 Mph
Fuel Economy: 40 mpg Combined

Motors - How Did Saab Fail?

How Did Saab Fail? 

At the time of writing, the news has only just broke that Saab is being pursued by the Swedish government’s debt collectors for over £850,000 the company owes suppliers and despite selling off huge chunks of it’s factory and letting the buildings back, and securing millions in investment from China. So how did Saab reach the point where the company is swirling the plug hole?

It’s a hard question to answer really. Saab had been allowed to get outfrom under the GM brand, and was back in full Swedish ownership thanks to the purchase of the company by Spyker. However, the company did take the designs for GM’s Epsilon platform which it uses for the 9-3 saloon, GM engines and drive trains as well as the so called ‘Hi-Per’ strut, a version of the MacPherson strut suspension that Saab engineers designed for the American conglomerate.

Saab 9-1 Concept

And to top off the announcement of a new 9-3, a 9-4x SUV, Spyker announced that they had reached a deal with BMW to buy the 1.6l turbo petrol from the current MINI Cooper S and the 1.6l turbo diesel powering the MINI Countryman.

These engines would be used for the 9-3 range, but also a 9-1 super mini to rival the MINI and Audi A1.

Saab, a brand known for it’s sensible, upmarket attitudes could finally flex it’s muscles. And then suddenly, it completely hit the fan.

Back in March 2011, Spyker announced that it’s CEO was stepping down to be replaced by Victor Muller. Jan Ake Jonssn would take up the role as Saab CEO. The announcement that an importer network for Russia felt like good news, things were happening, Saab seemed busy. The 9-3 and 9-4X were apparently well under way in development and the revised 9-5, while not perfect, was a serious imporvement for the brand.

Just a few days later however, production was halted at the Trollhaten plant for a few hours. This may not sound like a major incident, but in the 21st century world of the 24 hour factory, this was major news.

When a factory with more than 17,000 square meters of space stops working, it can only mean bad news. And it did. About two weeks after this first haltage, Saab announced it was seeking ‘short and medium term funding’ as suppliers stopped parts deliveries over unpaid invoices. Saab was now a car company that wasn’t manufacturing cars and current sales of it’s 9-5 saloon and aging 9-3 were not generating enough income. Despite this, Saab executives were adamant that the 9-4X and new 9-3 would be enough to save the company, they just needed to survive till these cars could be released.

2012 Saab 9-3

In early May, Saab announced a £105m investment from Chinese company Hawtai to manufacture Saab’s for the crucial Chinese market, a key component to profitable business. In return, Hawtai would take a 30% share in the Swedish company and have access to it’s European dealer networks. This funding, according to Victor Muller, would secure funding for the 2012 9-3 replacement and the ‘Phoenix’ modular platform.

It seemed Saab was going to haul itself out of the fire at the last moment.

However, just a week later, the shock announcement from Hawtai was that the deal was off due to the Chinese company failing to obtain shareholder approval on the deal. Saab was once again hanging by a thread. In addition, a refinancing deal with the European Central Bank has been revised down to £240m from £350m, with Saab saying all the money was needed to get the 9-3 and it’s Phoenix platform into production. Despite this, the company had announced the deal with BMW to purchase the engines powering the MINI cars.

The tenacity of Saab’s executies was shown by the fact just a couple of days later, a deal was done with Pang Da, a Chinese distribution firm, for £39m worth of cars and a further £57m for a 25% stake in the Swedish marque. So finally, a month and a half after production group to a halt, Saab began making cars again, with efforts to shift the 6500 car backlog underway, no small task for a factory with a capacity of 218 cars per day. However, the company’s medium term future was safe and Saab would get the crucial Chinese presence it so vitally needed.

On top of this good news, Saab announced the company had hired Jason Castriota to take up the position as head of design. Castriota’s CV is impressive, including the Maserati Birdcage concept, the Ferrari 599 GTB and Maserati GranTurismo. He had previously been head of Ferrari’s Special Projects division which makes one-off cars for private customers.

Saab PhoeniX Concept

Castriota’s first effort was the truly stuning PhoeniX, a working concept car based on the Phoenix platform and featuring a 1.6l turbo petrol engine. A sign of the potential Saab had if it could survive.

But the good news soon dried up. Just a few days after the announcement of Castriota’s appointment, production at Trollhaten stopped again, this time due to a lack of parts. After a near two month shut down, the parts had simply run out, with Muller admitting it was “hard to predict” when things would get started again.

Saab 9-5 SportWagon

Despite this, Saab announced the crucial 9-5 esate, due to go on sale early, available in late 2011, along with a raft of improvements to the engine line-up and interior equipment. This was despite the fact that production was still halted, and likely to remain that way till early July at best, and the information that Saab had only paid 10% of what it owed it’s suppliers with an obligation to have the rest of it’s debt paid by September.

At this point, the noises of Saab selling some of the Trollhaten factory and lease it back in order to raise funding in the short term began to appear.

The 'IF Metall and Unionen' Union group, whose members include Saab’s employees, announced that it’s staff had not been paid in July, and the true scale of Saab’s problems began to come to light. It turned out that the £11.5m the company had recieved for an order for cars detined for the Chinese market had been used to pay it’s staff in June, although it meant that it was being paid just £19,k per car, with a base 9-3 costing £21k in the UK. All the while the parts supply problems kept the factory silent.

The Trollhaten Factory

As well as this order, Saab announced it had sold 50% of the Trollhaten factory with a 15 lease agreement which was able to raise £25m worth of funds plus an additional £5m in shares sold to the same investment company.

Despite these two important and much needed pieces of good news, there was still not enough money to allow the factory to restart production. In addition, due to not recieving the funds in time, Saab was force to sell a further 17% stake to raise immediate funds. Unfortunately, the sale only is expected to have raised approximately £7m, with some £50m needed to allow production to be restarted and continued.

Sensibly, Saab announced last week it was no longer planning to attend the Frankfurt Motorshow, citing it, quite rightly, as an 'inappropriate use of resources'. While this was the only course of action the company could take, it had planned to exhibit the 9-3, production ready 9-4X, a 9-2 as well as the PhoeniX concept car.

Finally we arrive at the point where the Swedish government has begun taking steps to reclaim Saab’s debts. This is a three month process unless the company can pay it’s debts. If the company cannot pay, the Swedish Tax Authority will then have the power to declare Saab legally bankrupt.

But again the question of how has this happened? Saab’s future looked good, GM had taken steps to ensure Spyker had the funds and reassurances in place to sustain the company, Spyker even sold the sports-car business to fund Saab. It seems the famous Swedish marque has managed to achieve the same rapid fall into bankruptcy that Rover-MG managed, although that was due to the management taking vast sums of money from the company’s accounts.

The 9-4X SUV

Saab had the future models, it had the global pressence, it had the technology and the company was adament it had the funding, and yet somehow, something has gone horribly wrong despite a huge amount of outside investment, assest and share sell-offs and huge car orders.

History may reveal that, like Rover-MG, the company was grossly mismanaged at some point. It may also turn out, like Rover-MG and the MINI brand, that Saab had a game-changing car sitting in the factory begging for the funds and production space. BMW has been able to increase it’s sales continuously thanks to the Rover-MG designed MINI and 1-Series, while the Rover-MG brand sits dead at our feet.

It’s a sad state of affairs and miserable position for a brand that has consistently been a true innovator, which started out as nothign more than a division of the aircraft manufacturer way back in 1937. I will be sad to see Saab go out of business, but as things stand, there appears to be no way back for the famous Swedish car maker.

MD

Motors - Eco-Cars & The Ordinary Alternative

Eco Cars & The Ordinary Alternative 

 

One of the key considerations behind buying any car today is not it’s standard kit list, how it looks, or how fast it is, it’s simply how miles does it do to the gallon and how much is the tax?

These are worthy considerations. While motoring isn’t the out-and-out planet killer car-hating groups will tell you, cars do indeed contribute to the CO₂ emissions of each country of the world and the lower these emissions are, the better off we all can be, in more ways than just our wallet. This has brought on a raft of so-called ‘eco-cars’, cars that have super low emissions and are more often then not a form of ‘alternate fuel’. However only one little Japanese car manufacturer has put it’s thinking cap on and here’s why.

Toyota Prius - Petrol/Electric Hybrid

2010 Toyota Prius

I was never much of a fan of this car. Because this car, particularly the early versions, is an absolute con. Don’t get me wrong, the technology in it is amazing and the system is a fantastic idea, the system is, in principle, a sound idea but the problem is, it doesn’t scale down to ordinary cars. The Prius is a principle example of how the Hybrid system doesn’t scale.

The problem is there is so little space for batteries and what batteries there are, hold so little capacity, you can only get around 30 miles before your petrol engine has to take over the work load. So it means even a daily commute and school run could require the petrol engines assistance. The Hybrid model is simply proof that the electric car isn’t ready yet. Batteries simply don’t have enough capacity.

My other beef is ‘comparative MPG’ figures. The current Toyota Prius has MPG figures of 72.4 mpg on the Combined cycle. Sounds great? Well yes, but that’s for the electric motor, not the petrol engine. At that point, what you have is a heavy car, being towed by an engine that is rather weedy, particularly with the old 1.5 litre engine. It means the engine has to work hard to accelerate the car, the mpg figures dive.

There are some excellent Hybrid’s out there. The Porsche Panamera Hybrid is a clever system as it uses the strengths of the electric motor; torque. The motor is setup to propel the car from stationary up to 37mph, at which point, the petrol V6 clutches in seamlessly and takes over. Why? Well the initial acceleration is where an engine is struggling the most, it’s as far away from it’s peak torque as it can get and so is extremely inefficient.

An electric motor hits peak torque from zero revs. So it is used the get the car moving, and the engine does the rest with its far more flexible nature, such as multiple gears, which makes it more suitable for higher speeds. The other problem, is the weight of all this equipment. On top of your petrol engine and fuel tank, you need an electric motor strong enough to move several tons, and enough batteries to power it.

The motor may be a lot lighter than the engine, but that doesn’t mean it is particularly light, and as for the batteries... Not only do battery cells weigh an enormous amount, the amount of material that must be mined to obtain the exotic metals for them means that there is a huge amount of embodied energy in Hybrid cars and that while the user is making environmental savings, the manufacturer is in fact doing more damage.

Vauxhall Ampera - Range Extender

2012 Vauxhall Ampera

This is another petrol/electric Hybrid, but one that has a significant difference that is worthy of mention. Like the Prius, the Ampera has a petrol engine and an electric motor, however the petrol engine has no connection to the wheels. The electric motor does all the driving.

So what does the engine get to do? It has been relegated to the job of generator. It simply sits there turning a large capacity alternator, making electricity for the batteries. If the electric motor is really going for it, the engine speeds up, generating electricity faster to keep up.

The advantage is the mpg figures aren’t so wildly different across the range of drives, but like a dual-drive hybrid, if you run of juice, you have to sit and wait for the foul, horrid petrol engine to bail you out. A little ironic for a car marketed on it's alternative fuel credentials.

Nissan Leaf - Electric Car

2012 Nissan Leaf

The Nissan Leaf is the first real attempt at a mainstream production electric car. And it is a beautifully designed car, with nothing to really make it stand out as an alternate fuel car and a fantastically well built car to boot. Nissan realised the average person doesn’t want to be a Save-The-Planet advert, they just want a car.

Because this has been designed to be an electric car, it has been given a far more powerful motor. While the Prius has to make do with 80 bhp and 153 lb/ft in it’s electric motor, the Leaf has 107 bhp and 207 lb/ft motor. While 20 bhp and 50 lb/ft of torque may not sound like a lot, trust me, it is.

The Leaf also has a proper capacity in it’s batteries. While the Prius can manage 30 miles in electric only trim, the Leaf can, and will, do 100 miles. Three times the distance with a propulsion system that is up to the job of moving the car fast enough to keep up with traffic.

The downside? That’s easy. If your petrol or diesel car is running low on fuel, ten minutes after pulling into a petrol station, you have a full tank. The Leaf, on the other hand, will require at least 7 hours of mains electricity. And where does this electricity come from? That’s right, the coal/oil/gas fueled power station. So much for ‘emission free’ motoring.

Honda FCX-Clarity - Hydrogen/Electric

Honda's FCX Clarity

Let’s consider for a moment that electric and petrol/electric hybrids are just a fill in, a support band, for the real future. Is hydrogen power the answer?

On paper, maybe. The set-up is basically the same as any current range-extender hybrid, and like the range-extender it has a fuel tank like any ordinary car, but the difference is what you put in it.

Water is a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen. On their own, these are two substances that burn rather nicely Mixing these two materials, Hydrogen from the ‘fuel’ tank and oxygen from the air generates electricity for the standard faire battery and electric motor setup.

The Hydrogen is obtained using the reverse process that the FCX Clarity uses to generate it's electricity, in an energy intensive process called ‘cracking’ where Honda split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen and use the Hydrogen as a fuel.

And it works very well. The car looks and drives like an ordinary car, while emitting nothing more than water. So what’s the catch? Yes, the ‘cracking’ process, which requires a vast amount of energy to carry out.

So far then, we’ve managed to pick some massive practical and environmental holes in the so called ‘green cars’. But this isn’t to say that these systems will never be perfected, and there is little doubt that the combustion engine’s days are numbered and one of these drive systems is likely to take it’s place.

With the car and computer industry both with vested interest in batteries, the capacity is rocketing upwards and charge times are falling, while Renault are leading the innovation of quick swap systems of replacing your discharged batteries with fresh ones, currently a half-hour process. Not bad when compared to the 7-12 hours required to charge them yourself.

And BMW have recently announced plans for an electric car about the size of a MINI that will have the option of a micro-generator. The idea of using one of the high efficient and high torque yet extremely lightweight, single cylinder motorcycle engines BMW have at their disposal would make total sense.

But these systems are not perfected and, today, are a long way from ousting the petrol engine. And this means that while most manufacturers are jumping on the Hybrid band wagon, they are ignoring the true innovative petrol engines they have developed.

DieSotto Engine

The DieSotto 1.8 Engine

This is perhaps the most innovative system that I have ever heard of. Mercedes Benz developed it in 2007 for the Frankfurt Motorshow as part of the F700 concept car.

The concept was a preview for the new S-Class model, but featured a Twin Turbo charged, 1.8 litre four cylinder engine. However, it featured the ability to self-ignite petrol in the exact same way a Diesel engine functions, using turbo injection with a super high compression ratio to induce the fuel to ignite without the use of a spark plug. This meant that this tiny little engine generated 235 bhp and a massive 295 lb/ft of torque, placing the F700 concept on a par on performance with a S350, a 307 bhp 3.5l petrol V6.

The engine was even better than simply having a high compression ratio. It featured a lot of technology that ordinary cars now come with, such as a start/stop system, a single alternator/starter motor, direct injection, variable valve timing and variable geometry turbos.

F700 Concept Car

However, even this tech pales in comparison to the real achievements of this engine. Firstly, that self ignition system, known as Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition (HCCI), meant the 2 ton, 5 meter long S-Class could achieve 47 mpg Combined. When you compare that to the 27 mpg for the S350 model, this shows how much potential the engine has.

Not only that, Mercedes engineers gave the car a variable compression ratio and a computer control system that could disengage the spark plugs. Yes, not only could this Petrol engine pretend it was a Diesel with all the advantages of torque and efficiency, it could be a high power, high performance petrol engine, thus making it perhaps the most exciting engine ever created.

But instead, Mercedes admitted they dropped the rather expensive research and development of this engine to develop a hybrid petrol/electric unit due to the much cheaper costs and easier marketing.

I mentioned right at the start about the little Japanese company that can. So who am I talking about? Well, it’s those flogging-a-dead-horse, Wankel rotary lovers; Mazda.

The SkyActiv Program

Mazda love to follow a dead-end route. The Wankel rotary, the engine that started out life as a Supercarger, has never been efficient enough or reliable enough to be a dependable car engine, and yet Mazda refuse to give in and are still determined to develop yet another version to meet ever-tightening emissions. But that isn’t what I want to talk about. No, I want to talk about Mazda’s ‘SkyActiv’ program.

The SkyActiv program is a new step in the design of engines, gearboxes and even body shells, to reduce weight, improve engine consumption, minimise costs and improve packaging.

The Chassis:

The biggest culprit of poor fuel economy is NOT a thirsty engine. It is in fact, weight. The more weight you have, the more power and torque you need to propel it, and so you need a bigger, thirstier engine. Load your car to the brim with luggage, and get a feel for how much harder the engine has to work and how breathless it feels doing jobs it normally copes with easily.

Mazda’s first goal, lightweight, lead to them revisiting the basics. The design of the car frame. They set out to not only improve rigidity, but reduce weight while they were at it. By simply redesigning the basic framework of the car and using a larger amount of high-tensile steels, they claim a 30% improvement on rigidity, but also a near 10% reduction weight.

That may not sound impressive, but take our 1956kg Mercedes S350, that would mean a weight saving of over 150kg! And that’s before you attach a single body panel, piece of trim or any mechanicals.

The same process was applied to the suspension, by changing the design of the individual components to be a naturally stronger component, less material is required, reducing costs and weight. In fact, Mazda have said this has contributed to a 14% weight reduction, putting out savings so far on just a rolling frame of over 20%.

Our S350 would now weigh a massive 430kg less! And we are still yet to add an engine, a gearbox, any interior trim, or even a single body panel.

The Gearbox:

With the MX-5 and rotary-powered RX sports cars as flagship models, Mazda should know what a good gear change feels like, so they applied the same principle to the ordinary cars. This pursuit lead to more than just a claimed slicker, smoother gear change.

In the manual gearbox, the six speed unit is a whole 16% lighter, around 3kg and improves fuel economy by 1%. Small amounts, but these many small amounts add up.

The Engine:

Petrol:

The SkyActiv-G Petrol Engine

Known as the the SkyAtiv-G engine, Mazda engineers were sent away to try and reinvent the wheel.

Like the DieSotto engine, Mazda engineers ramped up the compression ratio, in this case to 14:1, a rise from a standard 11:1. Like the advantages of the DieSotto engine, it makes for a much more efficient combustion process and allows for more power and torque for the same amount of fuel.

However, this created other problems with removing exhaust gas fast enough to prevent ‘knocking’, a term for uneven burning due to hot exhaust gases remaining in the cylinder. So Mazda changed the exhaust manifold system from a 4-1 unit to a 4-2-1 system, preventing back-pressure and so ensuring an efficient burn process on each cylinder.

On top of the efficiencies of direct injection and high temperature spark plugs, this engine is 15% better on mpg and also develops 15% more torque as well as massive savings in emissions without the need for engine down sizing or the addition of a turbo charger.

In fact, the naturally aspirated, 2.0l petrol engine will develop a claimed 163 bhp and around 155 lb/ft of torque, and when fitted to a 2012 Mazda6 saloon should achieve around 48 mpg, a figure that puts this petrol engine right in the mix with Diesel motors. The emissions, claimed to be around 135 g/km of CO₂ would mean a years car tax would cost just £115.

Compare that to a brand new Mondeo. A 2.0l petrol will net you an engine with 142 bhp and 136 lb/ft of toque, capable of just 35 mpg and emitting a whopping 189 g/km of CO₂, which will demand £245 for a years tax.

In reality, the Skayactiv-G engine makes fine reading compared to a 2.2 diesel Modeo, which has 172 bhp and 295 lb/ft to its name, capable of 45 mpg and emitting 165 g/km of CO₂, which is going to cost you £50 more than the Mazda at £165/year.

Diesel:

The SkyActive-D Diesel Engine

With the petrol making a 2.2l Diesel engine look a little foolish, then the SkActiv-D 2.2 Diesel engine should make its rivals look laughable.

For this engine, Mazda actually lowered the compression ratio to 14:1 from 16:1, but made the ignition process longer and slower to allow a more even combustion process and means less black diesel smoke.

It also means the engine doesn’t need to be so beefy, so Mazda shaved 28kg from the engine weight by making the block from aluminium rather than iron and reducing the weight of the cylinder head.

That wasn’t the end of the challenge as Mazda have been forced to utilise more advanced injectors to combat ignition problems during cold-start up.

Finally, they added two-stage turbo charging to allow for optimal driving conditions. It means, Mazda can brag about their Diesel engine not requiring NOX treatments to prevent high nitrous oxide emissions that is the Achilles heel of the diesel engine and is currently solved by a power-reducing NOX collector.

So when Mazda announced the CX-5 crossover in July 2011, equipped with the 2.2l SkyActiv-D engine, the details they revealed told of 173 bhp, 305 lb/ft of torque and emissions of less than 120 g/km of CO₂, meaning this massive, Audi Q5 sized SUV will cost a remarkable £30 per year to tax. In comparison, a 2.0l TDI Q5 has 167 bhp, 258 lb/ft attempting to shift 1755kg worth of car, which results in just 45mpg and, with 165 g/km of CO₂, will set you back £165/year for tax.

In the Mazda6 test mule, this same engine is capable of 65mpg and just 110 g/km of CO₂, putting the cost of a years road tax at just £20. In fact, both these engines are so good that there are already compliant with the Euro VI emissions regulations due in 2015, Mazda completely ignored the current Euro V.

So forget your heavy, expensive, headline grabbing hybrids and range extenders, ignore the electric cars that are more prototypes than feasible cars and leave the Hydrogen fueled cars of tomorrow for tomorrow.

Mazda, a pokey little Japanese company, who have played second fiddle to Ford for twenty years and relentlessly pursue a dead technology and have a insatiable love of the cheap sports car, have developed some ordinary engines that will go in ordinary cars, that will cost pretty much what they cost today.

And yet in the real world of traffic and variable speeds and lead-feet, and in the statistical world of Combined MPG, expensive Tax discs and emissions regulation, can really mix it with the headline grabbing, sun-shining-out-the-backside, eco-cars.

I'm not trying to say the alternative fuel cars will never be mainstay, I'm looking forward to the days of the high power, instant torque electric motor, but Mazda are able to show how much development there is left in the internal combustion engine. If Mercedes had the motivations of Mazda, that astounding DieSotto engine would be everywhere. Before they announced the SkyActiv program, Mazda issued a press-release describing the initial negotiations with Toyota to lease the Hybrid system powering the Prius.

Unlike Mercedes, Mazda decided to go for the advanced technology rather than the band wagon, and I respect Mazda all the more for it and as far as I’m concerned, they deserve the rewards of acknowledgement and sales figures for their bravery.

MD

Review - Mitsubishi Colt CZC Turbo

Mitsubishi Colt CZC Turbo 

 

Our latest review is of a car built simply to appear fashionable. It’s a hard-top coupe/convertible, CC, from Mitsubishi, created using the Colt hatchback as a base, more specifically, it uses the hot versions of the Colt, meaning the CZC has the sporty bodywork from the CZT and the Naturally Aspirated and Turbo charged version of the 1.5 litre engine.

As a Baby CC, the CZC Turbo is a rather unique little car, with most being based on low-rent, lightly tuned petrol engines, so if you want a real alternative to the Mini Cooper Convertible, then this should be your first stop. It’s quite a looker too, making the Mini look over restrained and ever so slightly dull. The CZC has a very aggressively slopped bonnet, that funky body kit from the CZT which includes the front and rear bumpers and the side skirts. It also gets the gorgeous 16” alloy wheels which suit the car perfectly. Roof up or down, this cars dimensions are pretty much spot on.

The CZC Turbo is essentially the top model in the Colt range, basically a CC version of the Hot Hatch car, and although Mitsubishi have made big changes in the 2008 facelift, the CZC wasn’t part of that exercise and subsequently dropped totally from the range. Back when it was new, a top spec CZC Turbo would have set you back just over £16k which placed it on a par with the Mini Cooper Convertible, with a ‘57’ plate model, the last registration where CZC’s were available will cost a fiver short of £9,000, making it rather a cheap buy.

So what does the CZC Turbo offer you for your £9 grand? Well unlike the Cooper, which gives you a ‘MINI’ badge and a rather sexy looking soft top roof and its BMW-bred chassis and handling, the CZC offers you a Mitsubishi badge, a heavy but far more practical origami-esc hard folding roof and the 150bhp turbo charged 1.5 litre four cylinder engine.

The engine itself it from Mitsubishi’s ‘Orion’ Series, coded the ‘4G1’ series, with the engine in the CZC fully coded as the 4G15 series, which comes in both Normally Aspirated and, as here, in Turbo Charged form.

This means the Iron block, Aluminium head 1468cc, DOHC, 16 Valve, Turbo Charged, In-Line four cylinder engine is able to offer up a whopping 147bhp at 6,000rpm, about 30bhp more than the Mini Cooper Convertible. On top of this, the engine churns out 155 lb/ft at just 3,500rpm. Again this eclipses the Mini which only develops 118 lb/ft. It is because of these figures, and despite weighing 1200kg, the CZC Turbo is able to reach 62mph from standstill in just 8.1 seconds and travels on to a top speed of 126mph.

The only problem is the Turbo lag is very pronounced, so bad in fact if you find yourself below 2,500rpm and you stick your foot down; there is no performance what so ever. This means you have to pay attention to what gear you’re in. Unfortunately, the gearbox is only a five speed, which means to combat that terrible Turbo lag, you need to change gear a lot more often. Thankfully, the gear change is smooth and effective with a nice precise and purposefulness feel to it, the gear stick slots in firmly and snugly with no wobble or looseness to it. The clutch is also pleasant, not too heavy and while it obviously isn’t a sports type, it is sharp enough to be good to use.

The brakes are pretty good too, with 257mm Vented Discs at the front and 249mm solid discs at the back, the CZC Turbo has plenty of stopping power to back up its straight line speed. The ABS doesn’t cut in too early either.

However, these are all things that have been drawn from the CZT Hot Hatch, the handling of the CZC Turbo however, differs from its brother. To accommodate the roof, the CZC Turbo is slightly longer than the CZT and the weight of the roof combined the fact the whole car is less rigid means that while the CZC Turbo is a good little car, it isn’t a convertible Hot Hatch.

The roof mechanism and the structural bracings means the CZC Turbo is 130kg heavier than its brother and the lack of rigidity means the suspension system has to be supple enough to absorb all the bumps and impacts the chassis can normally absorb. However Mitsubishi forgot this and simply bolted on the CZT’s rather stiff MacPherson strut/Coil sprung, Torsion beam set-up to this car. It also means, that when you have managed to get the right gear, the car is full of understeer, lacking ultimate grip at the front tyres and is able to spin the wheels in the wet without much provocation.

It isn’t as bad as other CC cars, because the suspension is well damped and still stiff enough to allow for good cornering, but the ride is pretty poor. Bumps and pot-holes cause the ride to crash around, even with the roof up and you feel every single one of those bumps. The body roll is well controlled though and the ride isn’t bouncy like many CC cars.

The steering doesn’t help either, the Electric Power Steering is very over assisted and so is numb and unfeeling, with a very detached driving experience. All this means that despite the fact the CZT is a fantastic little bargain, the CZC Turbo doesn’t benefit from the attributes the CZT’s base brings and still has the disadvantages of a stiff ride.

Compared to the Cooper Convertible, the CZC has a much stiffer ride but the Mini has the better overall package, being less stiff but controls body shake much better.

The roof is the typical origami system, packing itself neatly into the boot. The extra length to the car is only a small addition as the car is short enough not too need an enormous roof and the wind screen was extended to further shorten the amount of folding roof that was needed. It means the CZC looks pretty good with the roof up as well as down, a failing of many CC cars we feel.

The CZC Turbo closed or open looks are also aided by the stylish bodykit, chrome exhaust tip, those funky alloy wheels. We’re not sure what we make of the enormous ‘Turbo’ motif that adorns the boot lid, which is in fact bigger than either the ‘Colt’ or ‘CZC’ badges, something that makes us laugh.

The roof noisily goes from fully closed to fully open in around 20 seconds, with the driver simply needing to stop, undo two clips and then pull the roof button that sits next to the window controls. A couple of beeps indicates the car is happy, although the system gets rather irritated if you do anything before the ending beeps.

The interior is as much of a mixed bag as the handling, which again is taken pretty much straight from the cars brother. The materials are of good quality, rather scratchy in places but you can feel that they are of very acceptable quality. The seats are however rather a disappointment. In the CZC they are half-leather sports seats, which feel quite snug when you first climb into them, with good thigh and lumbar support and the head rests are also fixed just right to offer support when you want it.

However despite this, they are in fact terrible. There’s very little luxury in them, so the whole time you’re on the move the crashy ride is sending all those bumps and undulations straight into the passenger cell and into your backside and back. It means that after an hour on the motorway, you feel tired and worn out. This is made worse by the fact the seats are uncomfortable no matter how much you adjust them, which isn’t easy as the backrest controls are difficult to get hold of comfortably.

The same story can be applied to the dash, which on first glance is a very sporty looking white background, black text and red needle 3 dial set-up which have individual surrounds. The Speedo, warning lights and trip computer LCD are all placed in the largest centre dial with the analogue fuel and temperature gauges set to the left and revs set to the right, all sounding lovely and would suit the car perfectly if it wasn’t of a horribly obvious cheap unit. The dials don’t look great and the surrounds are plastic, the chrome effect plastic tips of the surrounds look horrible.

Even though Mini use plastics for the same effect, they at least use high quality materials, a trick that Mitsubishi either ignored or couldn’t be bothered to do. Ok, Mini’s are a far more ‘premium’ and this shows in material and build quality but being a £16 grand convertible, you’d hope they might have made some effort.

The centre console is more of the same. The radio is an unbranded unit, but is a single CD-Changer with MP3 reading capability as standard and could be upgraded to include an Aux port as well, however the buttons, in particular the illuminated volume control look and feel cheap. The surrounds are rubberised to be easy to grip but just feel cheap to touch, and the main trip computer, Air-Con, which is standard on all CZC’s, has the same controls.

However the centre console is very compact without looking squashed, with the mileage, mpg figures, radio/track settings and Air-Con temperature settings all together in one LCD screen unit sitting highest, the air vents right below, with the compact CD-Player below, followed by a storage bin with a closable front and then the Air-Con controls about level with the bottom of the steering wheel. The 12V socket is the only thing set forward below this, with two recessed storage areas either side of it, in fact this compact set-up makes the front of the car feel far more open than it might

The CZC Turbo is not actually a four seat convertible hatchback but in fact a 2+2 car, and this means the seats in the back aren’t actually fit for use by grown adults. In fact there is so little legroom that the rear seats are unusable, especially if the driver/passenger are over 5½ ft tall. This is unfortunate as those half seats are fairly comfortable.

Headroom in the rear is terrible if the roof is up, but is good in the front seats, even six footers will find extra headroom, although the roof does make the car feel a little claustrophobic.

Surprisingly, the boot is pretty spacious when the roof is up, able to swallow up 450 litres without a problem and the whole space is very uniform with minimal intrusion from the wheel arches. If you use the rear half-seats as a luggage shelf, then the CZC becomes a rather practical little car.

When you drop the roof, obviously boot space is destroyed, with that 450 litre capacity cut to just 190 litres, about as small as you can get but will still carry weekend luggage for two people. It comes with a retractable screen that separates the space the roof needs from the boot space that will be left over. A common sight in CC cars but is still helpful, particularly in this car gets very upset if you do anything that interferes with the roof retraction, even just adjusting the windows can be enough.

The only problem the boot throws up is that fact you get no spare wheel at all, not even a crummy space saver. Instead you get a fairly comprehensive repair kit, which in our opinion is a better solution than useless space saver wheels, although requires a far more mechanically minded person to make good use of.

Kit wise, the CZC Turbo is very well equipped. As well as the MP3 compatible single CD-Player, ABS, power steering and Air-Con that come as standard, the CZC Turbo also gets frameless electric windows, steering wheel controls for the CD-Player, Fog-lights, leather trimmed steering wheel & gear stick, half leather seats, door open warning, dual front airbags, heated seats, remote central locking with keyless entry and immobiliser as well as those funky 16” alloy wheels all make the standard kit list, with the metallic paint options and the Aux port for the CD-Player the only extras that will require extra expense.

Even running costs are a mixed bag, with the second hand CZC Turbo’s available likely to set you back a maximum of £8,995, which will get you a 57 plate final edition model with low mileage and £6,495 netting you an 06 plate with acceptable mileage, although these good residual values only likely to hold as long as CC’s remain popular.

That big ‘Turbo’ badge should give you an idea of what fuel economy will be like; not great. However that said, the CZC Turbo will make nearly 40mpg combined, although it will easily drop into the 20’s if you’re hammering that turbo charger.

Emissions aren’t fantastic either, that performance is going to cost you, with the exhaust kicking out 168 g/km CO2 placing the CZC Turbo in Tax Band H, which means you’ll be paying £190.00 per year.

With any needed parts for repairs having to be shipped from Japan means the CZC Turbo is very expensive to insure, being rated to Insurance Group 23, it’s very expensive for what it is and this could be a major put off for plenty of potential buyers.

Conclusion

Well firstly, don’t be sold on the idea that the Mitsubishi Colt CZC Turbo is a proper convertible Hot Hatch, because it really isn’t. The chassis is isn’t rigid enough to make do anything useful with the overly stiff suspension. In fact this is a long way from being even remotely a driver’s car.

The over assisted and extremely numb steering coupled to the horrible Turbo lag make it a very difficult car to really get anything out of and the understeer ruins what fun could be extracted even when you get the right gear.

Throw in the potentially astronomical running costs and the CZC Turbo can make no sense at all.

However, compared to many of the CZC Turbo’s direct rivals, this is a great little car. That fantastic body kit and tasteful lashings of chrome mean this is a proper looker and the funky alloy wheels give it a sporty look that most CC’s can’t even touch. Ok it isn’t as good to drive as a Mini Cooper Convertible but in our opinion, this car is comparable enough to be the preferable car. It’s straight line performance offers great fun, it allows you to immensely childish at the lights while looking properly fashionable in the way only a convertible can offer.

If you truly want a convertible Hot Hatch, you need the Mini Cooper S Convertible, however that is well over £20k, meaning the CZC Turbo is pretty much the next best thing and you do have to pay for it.


Ultimately the decider will be how judgemental you feel against the interior and whether you can afford the rather high running costs. Most people will end up with a Mini Cooper Convertible so the Colt CZC Turbo is in fact a great looking and good value alternative to the Mini and far more inferior CC’s.

Mitsubishi Colt CZC Turbo
Engine: 1468cc, 16v DOHC Turbo charged In-Line 4
Power: 147bhp @ 6,000rpm
Torque: 155 lb/ft @ 3,500rpm
0 - 62mph: 8.1 Seconds
Top Speed: 126mph
Fuel Economy: 39 mpg combined



MD

Review - Mazda 626 GXi

Mazda 626 GXi 

 

The Mazda 626 was always intended to be little more than a sensible family saloon that played a decent second fiddle to the Mondeo offered by parent company Ford. Whether equipped with petrol engines, diesel engines, or even a V6 engine, in saloon, hatchback or estate guise, the 626 was a reasonably priced well spec-ed car in the Mid-Sized-Family Saloon segment.

In this review we will be giving you a flavour of what this now extinct car is like to drive, use and own. We’ll also try to suggest why the model was cut completely when it was replaced in 2005 by the Mazda6 before we leave you with hopefully a better idea of what this Mondeo alternative is like as a prospect.

So firstly, why the GXi? Well the GXi was a mid-range model that came with various options such as Air-Con, CD-Player and alloy wheels as standard or easily negotiated into any deal. The mainstay engine of the 626 was the 2.0l petrol engine, which featured in most GXi’s.

So firstly a brief history on the 626 model we’ve found. In 1998 Mazda launched the completely redesigned 626, the fifth generation of the model code. It ran on the same platform as previous 626’s and various other front wheel drive Mazda’s and Ford’s and in fact the current Mondeo and Mazda6 use an evolution of the platform the 626 was based on. The current platform is coded by Mazda as ‘GH’, the 5th generation 626 used the ‘GF’ platform.

The ‘FS Series’ engine, a 2.0l naturally aspirated, four cylinder engine, like the base chassis, was an evolution of the engine that had equipped all previous versions of the 626. It is a typical iron block with aluminium head and has equipped a raft of Mazda’s and Ford’s including several Mazda pick-up trucks and the Ford Probe and Mazda MX-6 front wheel drive sports cars. The block continues to be used as the diesel engines that power the current Mazda6 but has been totally superseded as a petrol engine in favour of more powerful and far more efficient engines.

Power wise the 626 is roughly average for its age. The Naturally-Aspirated, 1991cc 16v DOHC four-pot develops just 116bhp at 5,500rpm and a rather chunky 135 lb/ft of torque at 4,500rpm. We agree that it is the sign of a refined but lightly stressed engine when it develops more torque than power, it also implies that the engine will pull well, which the 626 does, in fact it may surprise you with a 0-62mph of 11 seconds, a time that is pretty reasonable. Ok it is behind the times now, but this is a car that is anything from 5 -12 years old now. The top speed of 123mph suggests slightly high gearing but for normal use, in particular on motorways, the 626 is perfectly happy.

Handling is never going to be the 626’s strongest area, it is after all a car that started out costing around £13k in 1998. However, MacPherson’s on all four corners means the handling is predictable and while it was never a BMW, the 626 does grip well.

This is helped quite a lot by a comparatively low weight, the 626 weighing in at just 1280kg, despite the engine being an over-engineered iron block that is able to be used reliably as a Diesel powered block.

Steering feel is also good, mostly because the steering is hydraulically assisted set-up rather than electric that most modern cars use and suffer numbness and remoteness. However, again this isn’t a sports saloon, but you can feel the bumps and the steering gives plenty of feedback which means you have the confidence to stick it through a corner if you’re feeling particularly brave.

The car is helped on the ‘fun’ front by an oddity that has afflicted many a Mazda through the years; it’s engine characteristics. As we’ve seen, the torque arrives at a very reasonable moment, but it’s the delivery that surprises. Most cars have a small surge when they hit peak torque however the 626 has a very noticeable change in G-Force as it gets going and the noise becomes quite deep and loud, where before it was quiet and civilised. This affects many Mazda’s including the 323 hatchback of a similar vintage to the larger 626, the MX-5 with it's very peaky motor that needs a good thrash to find its top power and the rotary-engined RX-8 which is a high revving nut-job of an engine.

It doesn’t detract from normal driving and actually adds an artificial level of fun to the 626 as you feel the car shove you into the seats and the engine starts to find its voice.

The only problem we had was the amount of road noise that penetrates the cabin. This is all tyre-roar and means you’ll be turning the radio up to hear it on motorways before thinking your hearing is going at low speeds.

The 626 is most at home on motorways though, despite the road noise. The 626 engine, like a lot of modern mid-sized capacity engines is designed to be at its best when cruising at 80mph and the motor is quiet and civilised in most circumstances, although part of that may be the amount of afore mentioned road noise.

All in all, the 626 is exactly what it is; a reasonable family saloon. It never tries to convince you it’s even remotely sporty but it just means you never hold that against it.

The 626 is a fairly Plain-Jane affair on the looks front. For the most part the front end looks discrete, sensible and mature with very little badge going on and a small grill and disguised mouth, pretty typical of ‘90s saloons. Nothing offensive but nothing to excite the blood. The rear end is the same, again very little badge-work going on, with the Air-Con system getting most acknowledgement with the ‘I-AC’ on the rear of models equipped with the ‘Intelligent-Air Con’, a self adapting system somewhere in between basic Air-Con and climate control.

The rear end also features an integrated ‘spoiler’, a bump at the boot-lid which has the third brake light. The standard wheels were steel wheels, but 5 spoke, 8 spoke and multi-spoke alloy wheels were all available as options.

The integrated mud-flaps are useful, keeping huge amounts of crap off the bodywork and the wing mirrors offer excellent visibility. Beyond the subtle lines in the bonnet, the 626 has no real stand-out features on the looks front to excite. We’re not bothered by that, in fact discrete on this level doesn’t exist any more, with many cars having huge badges on the front grill.

The interior of the 626 is reasonable in quality at best but is, in fact it is a very comfortable place to spent large amount of time, particularly in the front seats. Now as you might imagine, we spent a lot of time in a lot of car seats and we still maintain that the front seats of a Mk IV 626 are some of the comfiest and supportive seats ever. They’re just perfect. Leg support is excellent and the foot well, particularly the passenger foot well is deep, the head rest are perfectly aligned to support both neck and head as required and the seat back itself offers back support like almost no other car.

A top spec Rover 75 isn’t quite as good and the sports seats in a BMW MINI Copper S come damn close. Ok the 626’s seats aren’t designed for sporty in any way but over long distances they are brilliant, we spent two years doing regular trips from Swindon to Norwich and never once did any of the seats cause any discomfort. Perfect.

Rear leg room can be a bit lacking when the front seat is set for a tall driver but a 6 foot passenger can use the rear seats in a fair degree of comfort and the rear seats are pretty supportive and comfortable too. The centre seat has a full seatbelt although with three passengers in the back, room to place feet becomes tight. The rear seats have a 60:40 folding arrangement but don’t fold completely flat, even with the head rests removed.

Boot space is pretty good at 503 litres. It was hardly class leading in it’s day, a situation that hasn’t changed, but it does mean the 626 is a pretty practical car, able to easily ship a family of four around along with a months worth of shopping load and the rear doesn’t unacceptably squat when it’s loaded up.

The material quality is a little disappointing, around the time of the Mk IV 626, Mazda was rated as one of the best Japanese manufacturers for build quality and reliability, but the centre console is pretty cheap. It isn’t poorly built but it does have a feel minor creaks and the stock radio unit isn’t very durable or long lasting. A CD-Player was still an optional extra so don’t be surprised to see a radio/cassette player.

There a wonderfully convenient cubby hole in the centre console next to the clock that acts as a good place to put a mobile phone or cigarettes. The Air-Con controls are a bit low down but are very simple and easy to use, a long way from the confusing mass of buttons of cars today.

The gear stick on the pleasant and accurate 5 speed gearbox has a fairly long throw but is very naturally placed and is clear from disruption by the handbrake or centre console, an obvious thing that manufacturers, particularly of cheaper cars, sometimes forget.

The steering wheel is pretty big but is lovely to grip and very adjustable. The clutch is light and predictable with a reasonable length and a very neutral, gradual bite point, the throttle is much the same, and the 626 is a very easy car to drive at low speeds although long periods of clutch work will make for a tired ankle due to the length of travel. The brakes are strong and predictable thanks to vented discs at the front, solid discs at the back, a nice touch considering cars in this segment did still come with drum rear brakes.

As we mentioned, visibility is fantastic and the windscreen wiper has a wind-deflector that is perfectly placed so that when it is lined up with the verge or edge of the line you’re in via the Driver’s line of sight, it lines the car up perfectly in the centre of lanes, quite a wonderful coincidence if nothing else.

The dash itself is also slightly surprising; with the big centre Speedo with the rev counter clanking one side and the fuel and temperature gauges on the other side. This makes for a rather classy set-up that is clear, communicative and easy to take in completely with an instant glance.

Warning and indicator lights are hidden when not active, and so make the dash look very neat and tidy. It is in fact a well designed, well sorted unit. The backlight is the only disappointment, being a rather uninteresting green but it does light the dash well, ensuring it is still easy to take in at night as well as during daylight.

Because the 626 was in a hugely competitive market, there are plenty of well looked after examples. We found plenty of year 2000 (W reg, Y reg etc) examples, some with a raft of extras like Air-Con, CD-Player, Leather, Air bags, alloy wheels and all the usual extras you expect on a new car today with around 60,000 to 70,000 miles on the clock starting at just under £1,700. That’s a road worthy, taxed and equipped family saloon for just £1,700! You can spend much more if you like, £2,500 will get you a fully kitted GXi. Because the 626 has so little value you can beat a dealer up and haggle well, you can earn yourself an absolute steal.

And it’s not like running costs will hurt your pocket. The 626 GXi we’ve been looking at here is placed in Insurance Group 10, making it very affordable despite the 2.0l engine. Fuel economy is also pretty good, with electronic fuel injection, a modern head and a light state of tune means the 626 can achieve 35.8mpg combined. This is fairly easy to achieve too at normal cruising speeds.

Car tax will hurt quite considerably compared to brand new cars, the 626 emits 206 g/km of CO2 which means the 626 will cost north of £250 a year in road tax, high enough that it could become a justified deal breaker.

Conclusion

The Mazda 626 GXi is a very competent car, easy to drive, good for long distances and spacious. It’s a modern enough car to have all the things the modern car buyer expects in their family saloon and is reasonably efficient for a decade old car. It’s easy to see why Mazda dropped it in favour of the far more modern looking and better driving Mazda6 in 2005 but that is simply because the consumer wanted a more modern and stylish car to fulfil the role of family saloon. The 626 is an inexpensive, competent and decent looking why to ship four people and their luggage around in comfort. A good measure is seeing if it’ll make a good taxi and plenty of 626’s are used by private taxi firms.

Mazda 626 2.0l GXi 

Engine: 1991cc DOHC 16v In‐Line 4 

Power: 116bhp @ 5,500rpm 

Torque: 137 lb/ft @ 4,500rpm 

0‐62 mph: 11.0 Seconds 

Top Speed: 124mph 

Fuel Economy: 35.8 mpg  

MD