New Car Statistics 2016

R.O.R · 12-01-2016 5:35pm

I drove the Tuscon one day and the Kadjar the following day, towards the end of last year.

Over the same test route, and the Tuscon was by far the better machine to drive. Didn't know the performance figures, but I'm very surprised there's such a difference as the Tuscon was not slow.
Engine is very good in the Kadjar, but it struggles at low revs whereas the Tuscon pulls much better at low speed.

JohnBoy26 · 12-01-2016 5:37pm

walus wrote: »

Of course there is and in a real life you hardly use it. I'd be more concerned abut the kerb weight for the diesel versions 1.7-1.8t for a small SUV is frankly ridiculous. The car may be new but the design approach that Hyundai used for creating it is old.

In what way?

walus · 12-01-2016 5:52pm

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

In what way?

In way that they did not care about reducing it weight by using lightweight materials and modern design techniques. They produced a small SUV that has a weight of a size bigger vehicle (Honda CR-V, Audi Q5). There is nothing fancy about that approach.
Even worse so when they fit a under power motor to pull it. Sure it looks nice but that is the only nice thing about it I'm afraid.
Say a Mazda CX5 is similar size (slightly bigger actually) but yet it weights only 1.45t with a more powerful (150 bps) 2.2L diesel - that is impressive. Also looking at the pricing in Platinum with 2.2 150 bhp diesel it is cheaper than comparable Tucson.
Kadjar is around the 1.45-1.5t mark as well. I bet these two must be more agile and handle better tan Tucson.

Jesus. · 12-01-2016 6:46pm

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

Your powers of deduction are incredible, that or you must be psychic?

Huh?

Jesus. · 12-01-2016 6:49pm

JamboMac wrote: »

You don't buy an suv for it 0-60 do you? Surely you'd buy a completely different car if that's a priority.

Well you'd still expect it to be able to do it in less than 13 seconds. That's just very slow. There's no reason why you couldn't get one with reasonable grunt that goes with the space etc that you're buying it for. It certainly shouldn't be either or.

JohnBoy26 · 12-01-2016 6:52pm

walus wrote: »

In way that they did not care about reducing it weight by using lightweight materials and modern design techniques. They produced a small SUV that has a weight of a size bigger vehicle (Honda CR-V, Audi Q5). There is nothing fancy about that approach.
Even worse so when they fit a under power motor to pull it. Sure it looks nice but that is the only nice thing about it I'm afraid.
Say a Mazda CX5 is similar size (slightly bigger actually) but yet it weights only 1.45t with a more powerful (150 bps) 2.2L diesel - that is impressive. Also looking at the pricing in Platinum with 2.2 150 bhp diesel it is cheaper than comparable Tucson.
Kadjar is around the 1.45-1.5t mark as well. I bet these two must be more agile and handle better tan Tucson.

What modern design techniques didn't they use? What lightweight materials did the competition use that Hyundai didn't?

The Tucson is just a shade over 1.5 ton with the 1.7crdi engine, not 1.7 or 1.8 ton. Tbh I just think you're clutching at straws. It's obvious you're not a fan of Hyundai and that's fair enough. The Tucson is a fine machine though that's as good as the competition and better than some.

JohnBoy26 · 12-01-2016 6:55pm

Jesus. wrote: »

Well you'd still expect it to be able to do it in less than 13 seconds. That's just very slow. There's no reason why you couldn't get one with reasonable grunt that goes with the space etc that you're buying it for. It certainly shouldn't be either or.

Those are on paper figures. Real life experience can be different. Have a look at R.O.R's post above.

Jesus. · 12-01-2016 7:13pm

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

The Tucson is just a shade over 1.5 ton with the 1.7crdi engine, not 1.7 or 1.8 ton.

That makes the 13 seconds sound all the more unimpressive

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

Those are on paper figures. Real life experience can be different. Have a look at R.O.R's post above.

That is true. Real life driving is more about the midrange shove. However, whatever way you look at it 13 is fukking slow man

JohnBoy26 · 12-01-2016 7:16pm

Jesus. wrote: »

That makes the 13 seconds sound all the more unimpressive

That is true. Real life driving is more about the midrange shove. However, whatever way you look at it 13 is fukking slow man

What does it matter though if it's 13 seconds, if it doesn't feel slow in real world conditions?

Jesus. · 12-01-2016 7:23pm

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

What does it matter though if it's 13 seconds, if it doesn't feel slow in real world conditions?

I would wonder about that tbh. Although everybody has differing opinions as to what's slow and what's nippy.

It wouldn't be for me anyway.

MuppetCheck · 12-01-2016 7:38pm

Jesus. wrote: »

I would wonder about that tbh. Although everybody has differing opinions as to what's slow and what's nippy.

It wouldn't be for me anyway.

In gear times is the most important real world measure. Especially when it comes to engines like those. Being slower to 60 could mean an extra gear change on one car. It's quite possible that in gear acceleration might be quicker.

JohnBoy26 · 12-01-2016 7:49pm

Jesus. wrote: »

I would wonder about that tbh. Although everybody has differing opinions as to what's slow and what's nippy.

It wouldn't be for me anyway.

Even if you haven't driven it?

kodirl · 12-01-2016 9:20pm

RedorDead wrote: »

13 x Golf GTI done so far with 16 x Golf R done. Waaaaay up on last year. Last year they had 6 x GTI done and 1 x R done at the same stage.

Jaysus, that's mad. More R's sold than GTI's!

MarkN · 12-01-2016 9:34pm

As someone half looking around this year, that news gives me confidence in the product given the whole emissions situation - if others are buying the cars then why wouldn't I etc I'm aware that the new models so far are not involved but the brand is.

Obviously the GTI figures are probably only of interest to the likes of us but on the more mass market models, if I were marketing manager of VW I'd be shouting from the rooftops about sales figures of 2016 vehicles.

ba_barabus · 12-01-2016 9:45pm

Anyone know how Fiat and Alfa are getting on?

walus · 13-01-2016 10:22am

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

What modern design techniques didn't they use? What lightweight materials did the competition use that Hyundai didn't?

The Tucson is just a shade over 1.5 ton with the 1.7crdi engine, not 1.7 or 1.8 ton. Tbh I just think you're clutching at straws. It's obvious you're not a fan of Hyundai and that's fair enough. The Tucson is a fine machine though that's as good as the competition and better than some.

The 1.7L is 1.58t. The 2.0L diesel is between 1.7-1.8t depending on the version and it is the type I had in mind as the 1.7l is just not powerful enough for the car in my opinion and I would certainly never consider it. Also if we are really down to detail the 0-60 for the 1.7 lump is 13.7s. Whichever way you look at it it is very slow.
In terms of what materials Mazda and the likes are using in their cars I do not know and that should not be a surprise to anyone. People in the business of making cars surely do though and that includes Hyundai too. Taking a few kgs from the engine and a bit more from the chassis would be a no brainer.

I'm completely neutral to Hyundai as a make as much as I'm to VW or Mazda. I do like my cars however and do not buy them by their looks alone. Tucson is a great looking car but it has nothing else going for it in my opinion. You can easily find 3-5 other SUVs in similar size and price that other than the looks and fake leather offer a lot more.
Hats off to Hyundai who now that to attract the buyers in Ireland is to offer a car with good looks, leather seats and low road tax it will sell. The guts of it do not matter. Thank God that there are still other car makers who do care about how their cars drive.

RedorDead · 13-01-2016 11:34am

ba_barabus wrote: »

Anyone know how Fiat and Alfa are getting on?

Alfa Romeo - 2 cars done whilst they had 5 done at same point last year. Fiat 54 done whilst they had 42 done at same point last year.

You would have to fear for Alfa Romeo here now. Especially with Giulia arrival pushed out.

MarkN · 13-01-2016 1:48pm

RedorDead wrote: »

Alfa Romeo - 2 cars done

:eek::eek:

Drummerboy08 · 13-01-2016 1:55pm

MarkN wrote: »

:eek::eek:

Probably demos too....

jon1981 · 13-01-2016 1:57pm

RedorDead wrote: »

You would have to fear for Alfa Romeo here now. Especially with Giulia arrival pushed out.

Reliability reputation got them in the end.

my friend · 13-01-2016 1:58pm

jon1981 wrote: »

Reliability reputation got them in the end.

I've owned one, it was more reliable than the BMW

MarkN · 13-01-2016 2:04pm

Luck of the draw. I've had 8 BMWs, new and used and only one had an injector issue. Touch wood!

R.O.R · 13-01-2016 2:24pm

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

Probably demos too....

We've bought one. Not sure if its reg'd yet to make the figures though.

GusGus · 13-01-2016 10:54pm

R.O.R wrote: »

We've bought one. Not sure if its reg'd yet to make the figures though.

Are you serious ? You bought an Alfa ? What type.? Sorry I loved the 159 and other models but can't understand why you'd buy one now and they are a crazy price

MarkN · 13-01-2016 11:05pm

I think ROR means in a business capacity not for personal use.

ba_barabus · 14-01-2016 12:49am

GusGus wrote: »

can't understand why you'd buy one now

I'd imagine someone else is footing the bill

swarlb · 14-01-2016 10:30am

GusGus wrote: »

Are you serious ? You bought an Alfa ? What type.? Sorry I loved the 159 and other models but can't understand why you'd buy one now and they are a crazy price

Why the shock ? What is wrong with buying an Alfa ? or a VW for that matter, or a Hyundai, or even, God forbid, a Toyota.
Maybe they bought the car because (the horror) they simply wanted an Alfa Romeo, regardless of the price, or the model, or the engine, or what people think (and what people think has no place in the choice of anything).
The only models that Alfa Romeo had that were a big 'seller' was the 155 and latterly the 156. Apart from that they sold in quite modest numbers. There were not droves of people buying Alfa's in the 70's for example.
The whole car landscape has changed over the past 10 years, people buy for many different reasons, affordability, warranty packages, specification.
Fiat (and Alfa as they are the same company) have had a steady decline in this country for a number of years, and little of it has to do with the actual product, and as much to do with the company selling the product.
At the same time Hyundai, for example, have experienced a steady increase over the same period.

R.O.R · 14-01-2016 10:42am

Turns out I got the wrong end of the stick, and it's actually an old Giulietta coming back against the new 500L that's gone out.

ironclaw · 14-01-2016 2:02pm

R.O.R wrote: »

Turns out I got the wrong end of the stick, and it's actually an old Giulietta coming back against the new 500L that's gone out.

There I was hoping for a 4C

00so · 14-01-2016 2:36pm

RedorDead wrote: »

Alfa Romeo - 2 cars done whilst they had 5 done at same point last year. Fiat 54 done whilst they had 42 done at same point last year.

You would have to fear for Alfa Romeo here now. Especially with Giulia arrival pushed out.

Delighted for them after the way they treated their customers (when they actually had some)

New Car Statistics 2016

Comments