Ford Escape ST-Line X: Staking a solid claim

This medium sports utility goes heavy on spaciousness, specification and sizzle, but a touch more character and driver appeal wouldn’t go amiss.

Price: $55,990

Powertrain and economy: 2.0-litre turbo petrol four cylinder, 184kW/387Nm, 8-speed automatic, AWD, combined economy 8.6L/100km.

Vital statistics: 4620mm long, 1666mm high, 2178mm wide, 2710mm wheelbase, luggage capacity 556 litres, 19-inch alloy wheels.

We like: Hefty tech implementation, improved interior space over Kuga, strong powertrain.

We don't like: Lacks the Puma’s charisma, some iffy interior plastics.

MEDIUM and compact sports utilities have been all the rage for the past couple of years and with more adding in-vogue electric-assistance to their fossil-fuelled drivetrains, what’s to bet against strong demand continuing this year. 

Conceivably, then, Ford New Zealand has timed its run nicely with the new Puma and next-size-up Escape.

Respectively aimed at the small and medium sectors, these are new models based off well-respected hatchbacks – the Puma off the Euro-centric Fiesta, Escape off the more globally-sorted Focus – landing with the attraction of fresh stylings and strong specifications.

 Though they are not quite sister ships in different sizes, they certainly arrive as a double act opportunity with good chance of drawing interest from SUV-hungry customers keen to venture beyond the usual Japanese and South Korean opportunities.

We’ve already tested the Puma and found it hugely likeable. Now the Escape comes under the spotlight. Same again in a larger serving?

Well, to a degree. Think of these less as blood brothers and more like slightly estranged cousins. There are various reasons why the larger model delivers a different ambience, mainly relating to the DNA. Escape, like the Focus, is more of a Ford for global consideration than Fiesta and Puma; the latter really being engineered and designed for Europe, within that market. Whereas Escape, like Focus, has felt the hand of influencers within the make’s home office, in Detroit.

So, regardless of high commonality in general design flavour, they do take different paths in all sorts of ways, well beyond the obvious disparities of North America’s favouritism for shiny leather, wider and less form-fitting front seats and allowance for some harder plastics than you tend to find in Euro fare.

Beyond that, there’s the on-road feel. Puma is very driver-centric and fun-focused; as much as compact crossovers often tailor to appeal as urban hard-roofed couples-suited sports cars, this one really does raise the bar. 

The Escape is more circumspect in how it delivers on that front. Some of this is probably due to it being a more family-minded product, but you cannot help sense that the car’s attitude is also reflective of it having to find acceptance in a place Puma doesn’t tread, North America.

It’s not as laidback as the even larger and now-departed (yes, after just two years here) Ford Endura, which came to us from Canada, yet neither does it have the Puma’s energetic vitality and, if measured against the Focus, might seem less involving. 

That’s a bit of a shame, but it doesn’t scupper the Escape’s changes, and not just because it’s highly probable the targeted customer might not really care about sportiness so much as good spec, spaciousness and sensibility.

If those are more important boxes to tick, then the Escape does look very worthy of further investigation. It has good chance of establishing coherent crossover competence because it avails in useful formats across a reasonably wide price span and has the option – across all but the base specification - of an all-wheel-drive element.  

While the relevance of this has to be tempered with the reality of how that will be used – frankly, it’s a provision more useful for on-road aptitude than in enhancing any ability beyond – it does at least give this model a degree of additional usefulness.

Beyond that, the attractions are that it builds, just as the preceding Kuga did, off the underpinning and mechanicals of a popular car with a good reputation, that it is usefully-sized – having grown 89mm longer and 44mm wider than the Kuga, yet becoming lithe (6mm lower, up to 80kg lighter) – that it shares strong styling similarity with the donor Focus and that it is stacked in respect to the specification.

The latter deserves consideration. As much as we’re used to ‘modern’ cars now coming out with features that were hardly a given for high-priced prestige products less than a decade ago, the Escape really does provision richly across a lineup representing in base (just called ‘Escape’), ST-Line and ultimate ST-Line X level that’s on test here.

At face value the base $42,990 car seems good enough to make the more expensive variants seem unnecessary, given it delivers with 17-inch alloy wheels, wireless phone charging, embedded satellite navigation, adaptive cruise control, blind spot monitoring, rear cross traffic alert, lane departure warning, lane keep assist, a reversing camera, traffic jam assist, traffic sign recognition.

It also features Ford’s embedded FordPass modem, which provides data connectivity to the car, and enables remote unlocking, a find-my-car feature, fuel level checking, and remote start with air-conditioning function, all from your smartphone. Not a function we could enable for this test, unfortunately, yet one that will be useful in genuine ownership expertience.

The additional expense of the ST-Line ($47,990 in front-drive, $50,990 with AWD) buys in a 12-inch digital instrument cluster that is a mine of information, plus it achieves ambient LED lighting, rain sensing wipers, an auto-dimming rear view mirror, keyless entry, tyre pressure monitoring, a rear spoiler, roof rails, an ST-Line body kit and 18-inch alloy wheels. Again, a really complete suite of sweet stuff.

So you’d go to the $55,990 ST-Line X because …? Well, basically to establish a ‘top trumps’ status.

The only edition that occasions without the front-drive option, it alone also achieves partial leather upholstery, clever “dynamic bending” LED headlights, a power tailgate, a 10-way power-adjustable driver’s seat with heating/memory for the front chairs, a panoramic sunroof, a 10-speaker B&O audio system, full self-parking ability and 19-inch rims.  

Worth the extra or simply over-egging an already rich recipe? You decide. Ford NZ concurs the flagship probably won’t be the biggest volume edition and, personally, though it is certainly handsome at the kerbside, there’s nothing here that I’d absolutely want. 

Whichever model is chosen, you’re sitting behind the same engine – a 2.0-litre petrol turbo four that produces 184kW of power and 387Nm of torque, hooked up to an eight-speed automatic transmission.

There’ll ultimately be an alternate choice plug-in hybrid version set to furnish across the mid and highest grades and offering 50km or so of pure electric propulsion. It’s a car Ford NZ is very eager to lay hands on, but unfortunately that’s not going to happen for some months yet; NZ hasn’t the priority status of key markets where such technology is incentivised and required to avoid emissions penalties, and now there’s an issue with the battery being subject to overheating issues.

In the here and now, then, it’s the ST-Line X carries the title of tech king and also stands as the best dressed of the family, having been loaded with all the body design enhancements.

Apart from having the largest diameter and best-looking alloy design, it achieves body-coloured plastic side cladding, which helps create the visual effect of a lower stance. Black window strips in lieu of chrome items, square-tipped exhaust shrouds are another element that lifts its perceived quality. 

Notwithstanding the iffy quality of some of the plastics, the cabin looks and feels well considered. That 12.3-inch digital instrument cluster is abetted by an 8.0-inch central infotainment screen, which features Apple CarPlay and Android Auto (usefully, the Escape has both wireless and USB-C device charging) and has crisp resolution and good colour. You get a head-up display that, unlike many, remains clearly visible through polarised sunglasses.

The Jaguar-esque circular gear selector, also a feature of the Puma and Focus, is a bit of a love-or-hate item; yes, I agree that it is brilliant for freeing up room in the lower console (and thus creating space for a large, open storage tray and decent-sized cupholders) but, as in those other recipient cars, over a week’s driving I never found it intuitive. I constantly found myself having to check that I’d engaged the correct drive mode.

Fortunately, the greater part of the technology provision isn’t so challenging. That’s a great thing to say, because this car really delivers excellent focus on driver assistance features, even beyond the … erm … Focus.

 Adaptive cruise control, lane-keeping assist, traffic sign recognition, and blind-spot monitoring with rear cross-traffic alert all feature as standard. As a colleague pointed out it would be even better with a 360-degree camera, but overall you have a host of useful assists that are easy to understand, operate and adjust to suit your preferences. It’s just a shame a touch more effort wasn’t put into making the cabin aesthetic as smart as the tech. Even though the materials feel durable and hard-wearing, it lacks the quality seen in some rivals. 

Kuga proved to be a good choice of car for family use but Escape might be even better; the doors open that little bit wider and there’s just so much more room in the back – considerations that will appeal to those who need to fit in a couple of child seats.

In terms of adult occupant space, it’s also good. The back of the front chairs has been scalloped to provision optimal legroom and the boxy roof line allows for decent head room. While I just couldn’t get the front driver’s chair quite low enough for my taste – that’s a major change from the Puma, which offers much more adjustment - had I been sitting behind it I would not have complained about the generous foot room that results from the slightly high-set placement.

Rear seat occupants also achieve access to a fast-charging USB-C and regular USB port but might wish for more storage options. The rear door pockets are far from generous and the absence of a centre armrest means no cupholders or ski-flap.

The boot’s storage space varies between 412–526 litres depending on how deeply you adjust the sliding second row. The cavity is wide, though the load sill is high. 

Driven with four aboard or simply with a driver, the Escape doesn’t lack for power. It’s a strong engine from the get-go and has decent mid-range torque attributes; the elasticity of the delivery means so rolling on the power in higher gears doesn't always require dropping a gear. All in all it evidences as a brisk SUV.

The transmission gear changes are positive and the all-wheel-drive goes about its business unobtrusively, primarily sending power to just the front wheels, decoupling the rear axle for fuel saving until it is required. This setup means that for the vast majority of day-to-day driving it’s a front-wheel drive SUV, but should you hit a slippery surface – not just mud but even seal affected by torrential rain - drive is instantly sent to the wheels with the highest grip levels. Most drivers will never notice the system operating as it does so seamlessly, and it is always active, so there is no particular need to select a particular mode, though some are provided.

In Ford-speak, the ST-Line designation is only expected to signal ‘sporty’ in look rather than feel; if you want the full-out performance experience, the idea is to look to the ST model line, which means either a Fiesta or a Focus.

With that in mind, the ST-Line crossovers shouldn’t be expected to come across as hot hatch alternates. And, yet, for all that … well, the Puma in that form really could.

It’s a different story for Escape. It’s not too bad, but even with a firmer suspension setting than the base edition, there’s no Puma-esque corner-challenging cheekiness to be found here and, all in all, the chassis feels less polished.

When you slip into the Puma, it takes very little time to discern that everything about how it drives has been very carefully calibrated. You can drive it quickly, and appreciate the fun factor, but it can also be operated entirely normally and you’ll still come away thinking it’s just a bit special.

The Escape lacks that element and so struggles to be memorable in the way the Puma does, largely because it just doesn’t communicate anything like as coherently through the chassis and the controls.

The ride quality is an awkward subject. Obviously, with the lowest-profile tyres and the largest wheels, the ST-Line X is set to be most prone to being beset by road noise and even jitter from our notoriously unforgiving coarse chip surfaces. And, sure enough, those factors are evident. Yet, even on smooth tarmac ride quality seems a bit hit-and-miss.

Given the performance pep, it’s a pity the Escape wasn’t a bit more intuitive and interesting. You sense this factor could well undermine the pluses, not least that great packaging and tech credentials, which would be a pity. Yet, as is, if you pitted this car against the likes of the Toyota RAV4, a car which has really stepped up considerably in respect to driving character, and the Mazda CX-5, it’d deliver less driver enjoyment.

Still, in overall terms, even though it lacks the Puma’s spunk, the Escape is very much a good consideration for crossover and SUV fans. If the ST-Line X seems a bit rich – and it might be, unless you intend to cross-ship against the VW Tiguan and Volvo XC40 – then the $5000 cheaper ST-Line would be a decent choice.

Once the PHEV includes, Ford’s hand will be all the stronger, notwithstanding that it is set to carry a $11k premium over the ST-Line X. There’s always a stern price to pay for savings at the pump when batteries are included, sadly.

Even so, having this car and the Puma at least gives Ford a chance to divorce from being known for selling Rangers, some Mustangs and little else. As much as the ute and the Pony car have done the Blue Oval proud, there’s nothing wrong with having a properly full house hand.

Nissan Juke Ti: Working those quirks

The second-generation Juke has finally reached us, but is entering a far more crowded sector than its predecessor fronted up to on arrival all those years ago.

Price:  $44,990

Powertrain and performance:  1.0-litre three-cylinder DOHC 12-valve turbocharged petrol engine. 84kW/5250rpm, 180Nm/2400rpm. Front-wheel-drive. Combined cycle fuel consumption 5.8L/100km (claim), 6.5L/100km (road test).

Vital statistics: Length 4210mm, height 1595mm, width 1800mm, wheelbase 2636mm. Luggage 422 litres. Wheels: 19-inch alloys with 225/45 R19 Hankook Ventus S1 Evo3 tyres.

We like: Supportive front seats, stylish interior, high-grade specification and generous load space.

We don’t like: Low-speed dual clutch hesitations, becomes quite pricey in the Ti grade.

 NOT many years ago a 1.0-litre car riding on 19-inch diameter wheels was unheard of.

With the trend toward engine down-sizing and compact SUVs taking hold of the market that combination becomes a reality with the new Nissan Juke.

The original Juke was a pioneer of the compact SUV segment a decade ago and the recently launched second-gen has increased dimensions to enable a more useful family configuration with enlarged boot space.

And it introduces Nissan’s ‘down-size’ 1.0-litre turbocharged engine and seven-speed dual clutch transmission.

There are three models – all with 1.0-litre turbo power and front-wheel-drive - with the ST providing a $32,490 entry point.

Priced at $44,990 the Juke Ti delivers the flagship specification. The Ti gains multi-spoke Akari-style 19-inch alloys, rear privacy glass, snug-fitting sports seats with combination leather and Alcantara trim, a shark fin antenna, tyre pressure monitoring and an eight-speaker Bose audio system which includes speakers integrated with the front headrests.

The mid-grade Juke ST-L with its $38,750 price point looks like the strongest value equation with content including 19-inch alloys, satellite navigation, an Around View camera with 360-degree and left-side view options, single-zone auto climate control, rain sensor wipers, LED fog lamps, two-stage heated front seats, auto fold and heated door mirrors plus Intelligent Key access with push button start.

In design the new Juke evolves the unique look of the original with the ultra-slim indicators and daytime running lights mounted high and large round headlights integrated into the bumper.

But it’s more conventional in its lines and proportions, particularly at the rear, while retaining the floating roof, high waistline and slim glasshouse themes of the original.

The dimension increases have boosted space and practicality. The new Juke sits on a wheelbase that is extended by 106mm while the overall length increases by 75mm.

It’s also 35mm wider and 30mm taller. There’s a little more cabin width and decent headroom front and rear while load space is one of the new Juke’s main benefits with an increase of 68 litres to offer generous 422 litres capacity.

With its slightly raised seating position, large door mirrors and slim A-pillar shape the Juke offers excellent visibility from the front seats. But the narrow glasshouse and large front seats do restrict the visibility from the rear.

The Ti cabin will be a talking point with its smart combination of leather and alcantara surfaces including soft-touch alcantara dash and door trim, front armrest and knee pad surfaces.

There’s a flat bottom steering wheel with paddle shifters and an 8.0-inch dashtop touchscreen display with Apple Car Play and Android Auto connectivity.

The 999cc direct-injected and turbocharged triple develops 84kW at 5250rpm with peak torque of 180Nm at 2400rpm. It’s a free-revving triple with a lively engine note when it worked harder.

Close ratio seven-speed gearing allows the engine to settle at 2100rpm in top gear at 100km/h with paddle-prompted downshifts to 2500rpm in sixth gear and 3100rpm in fifth.

During parking manoeuvres, and when making a momentary stop at a roundabout or give way sign, there can be delayed response from the dual clutch transmission. But once up to speed the shifts are quick with minimal interruption to the power flow as the little engine delivers its overtaking response.

On ST-L and Ti models Eco, Standard and Sport drives modes adjust the throttle response and gear shift protocols. Nissan claims combined cycle fuel consumption of 5.8L/100km and road testing revealed a 5.6L/100km average on a relaxed highway run and 6.5L/100km as an overall efficiency number.

The small turbo engine requires 95-octane premium fuel.

It’s efficient and responsive but in the same size, price and sporty compact crossover category the Juke Ti is out-performed by the new Peugeot 2008 GT with a slightly bigger 1199cc triple that develops 114kW and 240Nm.

On the road the Juke holds true to its wide tyre and wide track appearance by putting a confident footprint on the road. It steers accurately and rides firmly with plenty of grip from the 225/45 R19 Hankook tyres.

Encounter some corrugated surfaces and the large wheels and tyres will produce some abrupt bump-thump responses, mainly from the twist beam rear suspension. And the wide tyres generate some intrusive coarse surface road noise at highway speeds.

Along with increased dimensions and down-sized displacement the other significant change for the new Juke is its enhanced safety and driver assist roster.

All models have LED headlights with High Beam Assist plus LED tail lights and daytime running lights.

ST-L and Ti models also boast intelligent lane intervention, adaptive cruise control and the Around View camera system but all three grades have intelligent braking assist with pedestrian and cyclist detection, traffic sign recognition, lane departure warning, blind spot warning and rear cross traffic alert, driver alert and forward collision warning.

With almost a decade of hindsight it’s interesting how far ahead the original Juke foresaw the growth of the small SUV segment. And while it’s been a long time coming, the gen-two Juke gives Nissan a stylish and competitive alternative to the more recent arrivals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But it still doesn’t make it an SUV.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hyundai Venue Elite: Passenger car by any other name

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VW T-Roc R-Line: Golden child crossover

First taste of this key small SUV comes in a premium serving sure to interest style (and badge)-conscious buyers.

Price:  $51,990.
Powertrain and performance:  2.0-litre four-cylinder DOHC turbocharged petrol engine; 140kW/4200-6000rpm, 320Nm/1500-4177rpm. All-wheel drive.
Vital statistics: Length 4234mm, height 1573mm, width 1992mm, wheelbase 2593mm. Luggage 392 litres. Wheels: 19-inch alloys with 225/40 R19 tyres.
We like: Chunky styling, seating comfort, handles better than you’d expect a crossover to.
We don’t like: Some interior plastics, rigid ride.

BE honest now: Who hasn’t felt a hankering over the past few years to take the wheel of a compact wannabe four-by-four with a countryside-ready stance yet none of the actual off-road gumption of a proper, actual, real SUV? 

Even if the customer queue stretches for kilometres more in literal than actual sense, perhaps the selection of ready-and-able candidate vehicles really now might if they were to be collected and lined up nose to tail.

Yet, as much as the crossover catalogue might seem to already be crammed to bursting, brands with ability to add another one or two into the mix are rushing to do just that.

Covid-19 notwithstanding, this sector is an automotive Klondike. Everyone who mines it seems to strike paydirt. 

Volkswagen is having two goes, with some fresh product they seem to so believe will suit consumers to a ‘T’ they’ve used that letter in the naming convention. (actually, that’s not the reason. The letter is to associate with the Touareg and Tiguan). 

Today’s test focuses of the larger of the two, the T-Roc, which the maker reckons will help sales grow from 6.4 million globally to 10.6 million in just 10 years. This car will sit alongside the smaller T-Cross, but don’t go looking for it quite yet. The baby is here but the slightly bigger bro is not. Well, not officially. Confused about what I’ve just said there? All will be explained.

The ‘Roc’ – from ‘rock’ and apparently to establish the car’s off-roading bone-fides (yeah, that’ll rattle Suzuki and Jeep … not) - is of course built on the modular transverse matrix (MQB) platform that underpins others of its ilk, from the Audi Q2 to the Skoda Kodiaq and Karoq. You might need to be a particular student of VW Group architecture application to also twig to a further DNA association.

Which is to … ? Well, the car that, despite the erosion caused on hatch interest by these crossovers, is still very vital to VW: The Golf. The T-Roc can claim DNA association not just to the Golf as we know it now but also the new one coming at the end of the year (or early in 2021). 

That’s not to suggest complete triplet-ship. The distinctions between the crossover and the road cars are diverse in detail, if less so in basic design and mechanical application. Still, familial links are so cemented and market trends being what they are it seems probable one will be examined as an alternate to the other.

Where to put your money? Well, there’s another twist to consider, and that’s to do with the T-Roc itself. When saying that this car doesn’t launch for another couple of months, I mean in its full NZ market spec. The scheduling is a reminder that this ‘latest’ arrival is also a late one. 

T-Roc has been in production for almost three years and, in fact, there’s a 150-strong colony here already. This comprises flagship R-Lines ordered by another right-hand drive market and snapped up by our distributor when they became surplus stock. The test car is the last of that lot, so its residency status is well sorted. However, getting more has proven a challenge to VW NZ. It seems the car has been so well received in other places we’ve been pushed down the queue. The perils of being small? Well, sometimes that works to advantage, too (for instance, our modest uptake of Touareg V8s has allowed us to achieve that car ahead of many larger countries).

The early arrivals deserve mention because they might well yet differ slightly to the incoming fully-accredited local market versions that were supposed to land next month but, on latest talk, might not now arrive until November, thanks of course to Covid interruption. Nothing major; but talk is that ‘ours’ could well have a more upmarket audio unit and perhaps a less plasticky trim.

What’s also important to note is that in addition to the 2.0-litre all-wheel-drive on test, the NZ range will include a pair of 1.5-litre front-drive Life and Style editions in a lower price positioning, at $39,990 and $44,990 respectively.

That’s a positive, too. It would not be fair to call the R-Line overly expensive, simply because there are others in its price level. For instance, Mazda’s CX-30 Limited is exactly lineball with this $51,990 VW. YEt it’s fair, surely, to suggest anything sitting above $50k tends to to be considered an almost premium purchasing experience.

Having basically handed in Hiroshima’s new baby just days before driving the T-Roc, it seemed to me the Mazda only has clear advantage on content, but would be beaten on spaciousness and have to concede a touch on performance – they’re all but lineball on power but VW’s engine has almost 70Nm more torque than CX-30’s 2.5-litre. 

You could quibble about the styling for ages; the VW is less daring and potentially less ‘modern’ in its look, but that’s not to say it loses appeal for it. If anything it’s a bit beefier with its flared arches and a wide grille, and there’s something more macho in its stance (regardless that it has just 2cm more ground clearance than a Golf). Those pronounced wheel arches and plastic cladding around the lower sections don’t seem false and it looks swollen in most of the right places, while the extra touches coming with R-Line - additional brightwork along the top of the plastic-clad sills, those anodised roof rails and the 19-inch alloys - add flair. Really, it’s aged quite well for a car that has been around in its home market for almost three years.

As you’d expect from VW there are plenty of safety and tech features, with a hefty focus on safety. So, Front Assist with city emergency braking and lane assist, adaptive cruise control, road sign display, blind spot monitor, park assist and a reversing camera all feature on the R-Line.

The design also delivers a useful amount of room for a family of five. The boot has enough space to swallow up bulky items though going all-wheel-drive clearly also erode capacity, with 392 litres’ boot space quoted for the R-line against 445 litres for the front drivers. Of course, you can drop the rear seats to create a significantly large cargo volume, though again it’s 1232 litres versus 1290. Throughout the rest of the interior there are several storage areas for placing oddments. 

Notwithstanding that detail change seems likely, the infotainment system as I saw it was very neat and is slick and intuitive to inputs. Crucially, it also supports Android Auto and Apple CarPlay, and the USB ports for this are within easy reach at the base of the centre console.

An adjustment to the trim quality would be welcomed, though. The leather is very good and it ergonomically sound but there are hard surfaces and scratchy plastics, that, for me, don't fully reflect the price tag. For sure, those surfaces are wipe clean and durable, which is a good thing if you have kids, but overall VW could do well to see how Mazda has introduced much nicer surfaces to lend impression of a far more premium ambience.

Actually, you needn’t even go that far: As much as the T-Roc’s interior space and big boot could stand as good reasons to go for it over a Golf, the hatch in the here and now (and certainly, it seems, in its next execution) is better in terms of perceived quality. 

Curiously, they’re less far apart in respect to the driving position than I’d imagined they might be, in that the T-Roc’s is more car-like than SUV-like. So much so that those that like a higher, more commanding placement may be a little disappointed. However, this does make for a more relaxing and comfortable experience and enhances the sense that it is more fun to drive that you might initially give it credit for.

As good as the Golf? For the most part, yes. Even on a winding road, where you’d think it would simply have to feel feel more top-heavy, the T-Roc surprises in retaining plenty of composure. The well-judged steering allows you accurately choose a line through the bends. It’s not an overtly sporty car, but when you push it harder it doesn't get flustered.

The ride quality might not appeal to everybody, in that it’s a little on the firm side, even when avoiding the Sport mode that obviously reduces the damper yield. If you automatically think that a crossover means a plush ride, it’s out to demonstrate otherwise. In saying that, it is certainly not so rigid as to be unacceptable and you certainly won’t find any shortcoming with other elements, such as its very sure-footed traction. If anything, it is a ‘grower’, in that the deeper under its skin you get, the more rewarding it becomes. I’d put some of that down to that well-engineered feeling that Volkswagen imbues into its cars.

The top line engine has more than enough performance to cope with the daily commute and gets up to open road speed comfortably and quickly. In all honesty, the smaller unit en route might suit its role even more comfortably. Yet the 2.0-litre’s not going to disappoint easily, either. There’s more than enough torque to not only pull its mass along quite comfortably but to also ensure the seven-speed direct shift gearbox retains its decorum even when you find sudden need to hurry up the pace. On the other hand, it is also rather economical if you light-foot the throttle. 

VW is definitely a magnet brand for style-conscious buyers and those looking for looks, practicality and the latest tech in an urban four-wheel-drive (of sorts) are surely going to see plenty to like here, starting with the package’s sizing. If you think a Tiguan is too big, then the T-Roc might be for you, given it has the immediate advantage of being 252mm shorter, which – along with a tighter turning circle - makes it more manoeuvrable around town. It’s a better looking car, too.

Of course, as said, this is a very congested segment and even if you’re particularly wed to VW Group design and engineering approaches, it’s possible to shop for an alternate without leaving the broader family. The SEAT Arona and the Karoq, which play to a lower budget yet also build on the same underpinning, are equally practical and, in the Skoda’s case, slightly roomier. Alternately, you could await that new Golf – it does seem to be extremely swish. 

Or go electric? Ultimately, too, VW’s boots and all foray into battery-dedicated motoring is set to deliver a plug-in equivalent of sorts, in the form of the ID.4. But that’ll be a couple of years away yet.

 Meantime, there’s likelihood the T-Roc family might expand further, not to include the fatuous and climatically-inappropriate Cabriolet that’s already selling overseas but another model that outwardly seems a touch oxymoronic but will doubtless prove to be exactly to market taste. This being the R edition, which borrows all it go-fast gear from the Golf R; so a 220kW 2.0-litre mated to a DSG automatic transmission and 4Motion all-wheel drive, delivering 0-100kmh in under five seconds and a top speed of 250kmh. Grrrr.

Mazda CX-30: Equality through the ranks

Time for a second look at this new baby Mazda crossover, this time checking out the base model as well as the flagship.

The CX-30 GSX (above) is quite unfazed being compared to the richer-trimmed Limited flagship (below).

Prices:  $41,490 GSX, $50,990 Limited.
Powertrains and performance:  2.0-litre four-cylinder DOHC petrol (GSX) with i-Stop, 114kW/6000rpm, 200Nm/4000rpm. Front wheel drive, 6.4 litres per 100km; 2.5-litre four-cylinder DOHC petrol engine with i-Stop and cylinder deactivation, 139kW/6000rpm, 252Nm/4000rpm. All-wheel drive. 6.8 L/100km.
Vital statistics: Length 4395mm, height 1540mm, width 1795mm, wheelbase 2655mm. Luggage 430 litres. Wheels: 16-inch alloys with 215/65 tyres; 18-inch alloys with 215/55 R168 tyres.
We like: Feels crafted, surprisingly emphatically driver-centric attitude, fun attitude, strong warranty.
We don’t like: Little practicality benefit over a Mazda3, 2.5 getting gruff with age.

 “Well, it looks nice, but I like my little car; this one seems a bit too big for me.” 

So, less interest than I’d expected from the friend who owns a CX-3. Moving on, then, to two with CX-5s, mainly driven short distances and solo. Surely they could see the appeal of something of similar ilk, yet smaller, lower and more stylish?

Erm …

Positivity about the car’s overall style and the instrumentation improvements was mutual; but from one uncertainty about whether the rear seat would be comfy enough for fast-growing grandkids. And the other? “The one thing I really like about the CX-5 is that I sit high. I can’t get that from this, it’s more like a car.” 

Okay, so on basis on that hardly scientific poll, the potential for the newest addition to Mazda’s quasi soft-roader lineup, the CX-30, to simply create its own empire from in-house conquest alone seems challenging. 

Is all that effort to ensure every dimensional metric – save front headroom, which is more modest – sites the CX-30 between the larger and smaller alternates seems wasted if those with existing commitment to the lines sandwiching this new meat aren’t going to stand to be easily cannibalised? 

Well, no.  Even if CX-30 finds more success poaching customers new to Mazda than converting existing brand fans, that won’t inhibit progress. The small to compact sports utility sector is a big place in its own stead. In great health before we know about coronavirus, it seems so far to have come through the challenges of lockdown and diminished car sales activity pretty well, too. On top of all that, there’s this new twist of a crossover hatchback. That’s not without attraction, either. 

today’s challenge: Pick the base interior. Not easy, right?

As much as Mazda’s CX model plan has always represented something of a boundary push, with the only consistent being a tailoring to trend softly insofar as the sports utility side of operability, CX-30 presents particular commitment to what might be called crossover chic. 

This doesn’t mean it lacks eagerness for driving the mild side of ‘wild’ – it’s a confident car on gravel, regardless of whether all four or just the front set of wheels are laying down the power, and is as unfazed by steering onto dirt, sand and grass as the CX-3 and CX-5. Yet you immediately sense the newly-emerged middle child is sassier in different ways.

Certainly, it is particularly well polished in respect to presentation. Describing it as the best-looking CX model yet is bound to trigger enthusiast argument, given the Hiroshima design department has been smashing out hit after hit in this Kodo-influenced styling period. Comparing against rivals is suggests just two – the Toyota CH-R and incoming Nissan Juke - are as intricate in design and finish, but also debatedly do so with an outrage Mazda’s carefully-judged 'beauty through subtraction’ process carefully sidesteps.

Anyone who has been checking out recent Mazda interiors will understand, already, how these have become as ‘crafted’ as the exteriors. Here, you’re looking at the best yet. It’s an exemplar to the industry about how to lend a sense of premium expensiveness using materials that probably cost out effectively for mainstream duty. In many respects, the entry GSX offers better example of the execution than the Limited, not because the latter isn’t plush enough – it really is – but more because the base car lends very little obvious sign of the cost-cutting that allows it to fly $10,000 in the price stream.

Those lowballing on spend aren’t cutting themselves short on kit, either. Automatic headlights, an 8.8-inch infotainment screen, a head-up display, an eight-speaker audio system and the i-Activsense safety package - which includes lane-keep, active cruise control, blind-spot monitoring, rear cross traffic alert and active emergency braking that detects cyclists and pedestrians – come as standard fare, plus even base buyers also get a reversing camera, rear parking sensors sat nav and various electronic handling assists.

Spend more and there’s a swap from 16-inch to 18-inch wheels (which, admittedly, look better), autonomous rear braking which acts to inhibit, by jolting the brakes, potential to inadvertently reverse into something solid and more electric assists like 'Intelligent Speed Assistance' which is linked to the cruise control system and provides additional speed limiting warnings. There are also parking sensors on the nose and an off-road traction assist feature for the AWD system. The Limited also has LED rather than halogen headlights, gets leather trim and achieves a 12-speaker Bose sound system. Oh, yes, and Mazda has set a high standard with a five year, unlimited kilometre warranty and a very good scheduled servicing setup.

Whatever the fitment, the basics are the same. There’s positivity about the latest version of  Mazda Connect; the controls are clearer and operability more finessed. The addition of a head-up display in all levels is good; so too that it now projects onto the windscreen rather than a fragile looking pop-up gunsight … just the realisation that even all instrument fonts have altered a touch, to become sharper, there’s more change than might first seem warranted, and a lot that takes time to appreciate. But the overall impact will appeal to the faithful or newcomers alike.

Clearly, there’s one area where its shape and lower roofline impinges. It’s … cosy for overall space. Tjat’s not to say the rear section isn’t a wholly tough spot for adult passengers, but it’s obviously less spacious than a CX-5. The boot is deep but markedly narrower than the CX-5’s and, even with 430-litres’ capacity, really only competitive within the bounds of the class. Basically, growing families intent on giving the CX-30 consideration need to be careful for what they wish for. I’d personally judge it as being better suited to a couple who might just occasionally offer the back seat to occupancy.

The sense of its intimacy also shows in a driving position far more in keeping with the Mazda3 (or even an MX-5) than any other CX edition, simply by virtue that you’re still sitting just as you would in a normal car, not an SUV. That’s what jinxed it for my pal Lisa; she’s a big fan of a command driving position, so never sensed the CX-30 felt ‘high’ enough.  Obviously, it really is elevated – just plant it alongside a Mazda3 to see how much - however, I get her point. The increase in ride height is subtle enough that there’s never a sense you’re stepping up into this cabin.

Still, there’s as positive from this that undoubtedly plays well for the driving feel, where playful nimbleness is a common trait whether driving a GSX with a 2.0-litre engine powering the front wheels only or a Limited, where a 2.5-litre and Mazda's i-Activ all-wheel drive system fits. Both paired with a six-speed automatic transmission only.

That mechanical fitout is pretty much Mazda ‘101’ these days and, certainly, it’s in line with CX-5, too, save here there’s no diesel. Yet, simply because the CX-30 is smaller and rather more trim in its kerb weight, it seemed to me that the logics that determine the larger petrol being preferable in the larger car aren’t really fair to apply with this one.

the 2.0-litre has less punch than the 2.5, but delivers a sweeter note and evidences thrift more easily.

For sure, GSX's output being 25kW and 52Nm less than that from the larger engine is obvious at step off and the 2.5 feel more muscular in the mid-range, so it doesn’t have to put in as much effort when accelerating or overtaking.

Yet the entry unit shouldn’t be discounted simply because of that. For one, it earns marks for being more obviously economical. From this experience, the maker-claimed optimal returns (which don’t seem too major at 6.4 versus 6.8 litres per 100km) are much easier to close in on with the smaller unit – as Rob Maetzig reported in his own story about taking the Limited on a long-distance drive, the 2.5-litre ain’t so easy to rein into its thrift zone. 

The other reason for considering the 2.0-litre is that it has a sweeter, less intrusive, note. And it’s still zesty enough that, basically, if you intend to employ the CX-30 simply for urban driving, occasional open road bursts and never in a more robust SUV involvement, then it’s more than an okay choice.

Not that the CX-30 deserves to be kept on a city beat. It’s just too delightful to drive for that. I’m not suggesting the MX-5 is under threat, yet within the crossover quarter it delivers well above the average expectation. 

It’s not so much the suspension design – Macpherson strut front end and a torsion beam around the back is fairly simplistic – as the finessing.

As in the Mazda3, it is rewarded by Mazda's G-Vectoring torque control system. This senses when you're turning into a corner and pulls back the engine's torque output for a fraction of a second, to transfer weight onto the outside front wheel. That gives better turn-in. The same system then adjusts the torque output as you steer through, helping to balance the car all the way through to corner exit. Subtle stuff, assuredly, but work it does. 

Mazda credits some of its dexterity to a new concept tyre, which has a smaller side wall and rigid tread that allows the tyre to distort when hitting a bump, which in turn has effect of reducing the load on the suspension and translating to a smoother ride for occupants. I’m not so sure the last part of that ambition is delivered entirely successfully, in that coarse chip alone will erode any serenity and it is fairly firm, in either spec format, around town.

Obviously the additional traction that the Limited’s drive system is beneficial – and, to me, the added pluses in the wet or slippery conditions would make it my choice. But to be fair to the GSX, in its own right it is fluid, confident and good fun on a twisting road. And both models lend a better driving involvement than any other CX, regardless that steering feedback could be sharper.

Perhaps this on-road dexterity becomes another recognised talent for CX-30 when a proper owner pool forms. In the here and now, it relies more on being acknowledged as the best beneficiary of the current styling language. All from just taking the Mazda3 and making it taller? The main points are the same - simple, elegant lines, a big bold grille, narrow lights – but maybe that’s too simplistic an analysis. 

Winner? Well, it’s not going to be as easy as that, perhaps. Yet, if you want to experience the best of Mazda design, and can cope with losing some degree of practicality in the process, then there’s no better place to start. And, assuredly, as comfortable as life at the top is, starting at the bottom is absolutely no penalty.

Mazda CX-30 Ltd: Chocks away in best-dressed baby

A flying visit allows new smooth to meet vintage industrial

Base Price:  $50,990
Powertrain and performance:  SkyActiv-G 2.5-litre four cylinder DOHC petrol engine with i-Stop and cylinder deactivation, 139kW/6000rpm, 252kW/4000rpm. All-wheel drive. 6.8 L/100km.
Vital statistics: Length 4395mm, height 1540mm, width 1795mm, wheelbase 2655mm. Luggage 430 litres. Wheels: 18-inch alloys with 215/55 R168 tyres.
We Like: Very attractive styling, sophisticated level of specification, secure and safe drive.
We don’t like: Slightly lumpy ride at the lower speeds. It’s not a coupe, Mazda.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder – a phrase that came to mind during this stint with Mazda’s swish new compact SUV, the CX-30.

That’s because we used the vehicle to head to Tauranga and introduce it to a machine 77 years its senior – a Boeing Stearman biplane.

When we parked the smooth Mazda in front of the more industrial American aircraft, the contrast between the two was starkly apparent, because one was streamlined to the extreme, while the other was definitely not.

Of course they are totally differences pieces of transport technology in that one is a new-age motor vehicle and the other is a vintage aircraft, but they are both the result of industrial design excellence of the day.

And visually, they are both highly attractive.

Maybe you ask: How can a 1943 biplane, with its big undercarriage, wings made of wood and fabric that are joined together using struts and wire, and which is powered by a nine-cylinder radial engine that burns through 46 litres of fuel and up to three litres of oil an hour, be considered attractive?

Well…- it just is, that’s how. With its bright yellow wings, silver fuselage and red tail (the US Navy painted them those colours so they were easier to spot whenever one crashed), the Stearman is one of those aircraft that simply looks like it is meant to fly.

And it did too – in its thousands. More than 10,000 of them were built in the 1930s and 1940s as primary trainers, and following the end of World War II a large number were sold on the civilian market for recreational flying. As a result there are a number of them in New Zealand, this example operated by Classic Flyers New Zealand.

Mind you, it has to be said that the Stearman doesn’t offer particularly comfortable flying. It’s interior is spartan to the extreme. An open cockpit means the environment is noisy and windy. When taxiing forward visibility is so limited the pilot has to weave from side-to-side to see where to go.

But once the biplane is in the air, the experience is a joy. As the aircraft trundles along at not much more than New Zealand’s open road speed limit, you appreciate the fact that the Stearman was designed and built for a purpose. As a primary trainer, introducing thousands of young pilots to the world of aviation.

And that makes you wonder if these days, with so many vehicles registered for use on New Zealand’s roads that we have among the world’s highest car ownership statistics, can motoring also still be a joyful experience?

Mazda certainly thinks so. It believes it is still possible for an emotional bond to be created between car and driver. It’s all to do with personal freedom, travel, and the appeal of actually being behind the wheel of a car.

As a result, the Hiroshima-headquartered company aims for autonomous technologies to support, not replace, the driver. While other carmakers might be heading towards ‘machine-centric’ automation, Mazda takes what it calls a ‘human-centric’ position by developing all sorts of electronic aids that are there to help, not dominate.

All of that is the reasoning behind a vehicle design philosophy the company calls Kodo – Soul of Motion.  Call it marketing hype if you will, but it’s a fact that in recent years this philosophy has resulted in creation of some outstanding vehicles.

The latest is this new CX-30. In essence this vehicle is the SUV version of the new Mazda3 hatch. As such it plonks itself into a gap on Mazda’s SUV fleet between the smaller CX-3 and the larger CX-5.

That gap needed to be filled, too. The new vehicle enters a market segment officially known as SUV Compact, which is growing so quickly it is due to take over from SUV Medium as New Zealand’s most popular vehicle segment.

As at the end of April both these segments held a 19 percent market share. But in April itself – albeit a very bad sales month due to the Covid-19 shutdown – SUV Compact claimed a massive 26 percent market share, while SUV Medium held 14 percent.

CX-30 cabin rather more comfortable than Stearman’s …. .but comes second-best for all-round visibility.

The CX-30 has been designed using the Kodo principle, and as a result it has perhaps the best exterior simplicity of form of any of the compact SUVs currently available in this country. In stark contrast to the old Stearman biplane which could hardly be described as streamlined, this Mazda is very smooth to the eye.

It offers a smooth drive, too. Our model for test was the top CX-30, a $50,990 2.5-litre Limited. That’s quite a bit of money for a compact SUV, but it does  carry a lot of kit, particularly from a safety perspective – including Mazda’s i–Activ electronic all-wheel drive system, and a wealth of passive and active driving aids.

These include lane-keep assist, active cruise control, blind-spot monitoring, front and rear cross traffic alert, and active emergency braking that recognises cyclists and pedestrians.  Little wonder then that all this has contributed to the CX-30 being awarded a five-star Ancap rating which included a 99% score for adult occupant protection, the highest ever recorded.

Powering the CX-30 Limited is Mazda’s 2.5-litre SkyActiv-G engine that a lot of New Zealanders have already experienced aboard such product as the CX-5, Mazda3 and Mazda6. In this application it offers 139 kilowatts of power and 252 Newton metres of torque which is ample for a vehicle of this size.

Mazda’s SkyActiv technology has been developed with economy in mind, and as such the 2.5-litre engine features an i-stop system which automatically stops the engine running at places such as the traffic lights, and cylinder deactivation which runs the vehicle on two cylinders when circumstances permit.

All this helps the CX-30 boast an official fuel consumption of 6.8 L/100km – which seems a bit low to me. I rate myself as a careful driver and I couldn’t get better than 8 L/100km. But still, it has to be said even that is very good for a vehicle that is all-wheel-drive.

The CX-30 sits about 45mm higher than a Mazda3, but despite that higher ride the vehicle still offers a secure ride. This is helped along by Mazda’s G-Vectoring Control Plus system that helps make cornering as smooth and comfortable as possible by tweaking engine torque and gently braking the outer front wheel.

The vehicle is also shod with a new concept tyre which has smaller sidewalls and a more rigid tread, which Mazda claims helps give a smoother ride because the tyre distorts less when hitting a bump.

A feature of the new CX-30 is its interior, which is very good. It’s slightly different in design to the Mazda3’s, but offers the same level of specification, including an Active Driving Display with a wide-screen centre display, and a rotary Commander Control on the centre console.

At the Limited specification level the vehicle has a black cabin theme that includes black leather seat trim, which is pretty much the same as that aboard the hatch/sedan.

All in all, the new Mazda CX-30 appeals as an outstanding new entry in the compact SUV market, and it should immediately play a major role in taking that market segment to the lead in the new vehicle sales statistics.

The MMNZ marketing people are advertising the vehicle as combining coupe styling with SUV practicality. I wouldn’t go quite that far, even though the CX-30 definitely appeals as a very good-looking vehicle.

 That’s especially the case when you park it alongside something as lumpy as an old WWII biplane. But then again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, huh?

Kia Seltos, Hyundai Venue: Don’t sweat the differences

The Kia Seltos has stormed into the compact sports utility sector, but let’s not forget Hyundai has a contender in that arena as well.

HYUNDAI VENUE ELITE
Base price: $33,990 full RRP ($31,990 on test)
Powertrain: 1.6-litre petrol four, 90kW/ 151Nm, six-speed automatic, FWD, fuel economy 7.2 litres per 100km, CO2 160g/km CO2.
Vital statistics: 4040mm long, 1565mm high, 2520mm wheelbase, 17-inch alloy wheels.
We like: Strong spec, versatile cabin.
We don't like: Harsh and underwhelming drivetrain, challenging price position.

 KIA SELTOS LX
Base price: $30,990 full RRP ($26,990 on test).
Powertrain: 2.0-litre petrol, 110kW/ 180Nm, eight-step constantly variable, FWD, fuel economy 6.8 litres per 100km, CO2 157g/km.
Vital statistics: 4370mm long, 1615mm high, 2630mm wheelbase, 16-inch alloy wheels.
We like: Strong value, roomy cabin, perky performance.
We don't like: Secondary ride needs sorting, poor front seats.

WHENEVER Kia and Hyundai contest a common segment with a common kind of car you’d be brave to bet against their respective products not being related. 

Brand-specific styling inside and out surrounding core common parts (the chassis, engines, transmissions and other gear) … that’s been the recipe for years. 

Yet anyone considering the Kia Seltos and the Hyundai Venue and expecting more of the same will be in for a surprise.

Even though these cars draw from other, already-established family members, what they lack is a direct relationship. 

Here’s how it goes. Venue bases on Europe’s i20 hatch, plucking the floorpan and 1.6-litre six-speed auto transmission. Seltos? It actually has a lot more in common with the 2.0-litre Hyundai Kona than you’d ever possibly imagine.

Yet insofar as finding any direct chromosonal link? Some say you’d have better luck looking for the lost city of Atlantis. They’re not only disparate in DNA, but Hyundai asserts – quite strongly – that the Venue is not a Seltos competitor.

Who’d bet on car buyers either (A) thinking as Hyundai does or (B) giving a jot regardless? Not I.

For all the technical disassociation and regardless that there’s also a degree of price disparity – less noticeable during now discontinued launch price promotions that were shaving $2000 from Venue’s recommended retail and up to $5000 from that entry Seltos LX) – they’re still two city slick front drive petrol crossovers of similar size chasing much the same crowd. So I’d suggest cross-shopping is going to be something of a certainty.

Straight out, both brands can take a bow for delivering a pair of interesting natural urban adventuring fits. On top of this, Kia can take extra kudos for its especially aggressive pricing strategy. It is possible to consider the base Seltos not only against the most expensive Venue but even the cheapest Kona.

For sure, Venue’s Elite designation means it packs more comfort and safety features. On the active and passive safety side, Venue stands well-sorted with a SmartSense package that includes Forward Collision Avoidance, Lane Keep Assist, Driver Attention Warning, Hill Start Assist, and automatic high beams is. Seltos is also looking strong, though be aware that automated emergency braking at this level is tailored for vehicle-versus-vehicle scenarios and so lacks the pedestrian-sensing ability provisioned further up in the Seltos family and standard to the Venue.

Enough blanked switch locations to be impossible to ignore, a less creative interior, manual air con and old-school ‘key in the lock’ ignition also signal why the spending gap between a Seltos LX and next-up LX Plus is so wide. Stick at LX also asks for you to control any envy felt about the more expensive Seltos derivatives having a better, touch-activated media screen  But, hey, as much as keyless start would be nice – given its so commonplace nowadays - that’s not to say that it outright shouts out for more technology.

In fact, when you come to box-ticking what might be regarded as ‘essentials’, it really isn’t shown up to be way miserly. The most pressing imperative would be to negotiate putting in onto the dearer versions’ factory 17 inch rims. The 16-imchers the LX arrives with are fine for ride and fair for dynamics, but they just look too small for the body.

If the LX has any particular weak point, it is being cursed by pretty mediocre front seats. Anyone who appreciates the merits of good lower back support won’t be at all satisfied by the driver’s chair; it’s too soft and shapeless and not a patch on the one that goes into the other variants. In this test, too, if you had to pick which had the better driving position, Venue wins out. Hyundai just delivers a better span of  seat and steering wheel adjustment, accommodating all shapes and sizes.

Even so, Seltos through simply being a slightly larger car – appreciably so for wheelbase and overall length, a little less evidently for width and height – makes a more convincing choice if you’re carting stuff, including other people.

The cabin is simply roomier and the extra few millimetres it provisions in key areas, like rear seat lower legroom, is going help sell it. The Venue was also capable of carrying four adults in comfort, proved incredibly adept at swallowing some large, awkward objects and earned points for good storage space for bottles and paraphernalia in the centre console and doors. However,while lower leg and headroom is good, it hasn’t the same shoulder room and that might be telling with all-adult ensemble.

While the Seltos shape has a slightly more modern, appealing sharp-lined air, I really warmed to the Venue’s chiselled, upright body and stance and excellent visibility. Both cars are enhanced by a range of colour options; the two-tone, grey with green highlights and contrasting roof scheme applied to the Venue I drove also provisions with the Kia and lends a pleasing look to both. 

Out on the road, they’re similar in driving feel yet as far apart for performance as you’d imagine. Neither is what you’d call muscled, yet there’s simply no dispute about which has more zest.

It’s not that the Hyundai unit is utterly puny, yet the 20kW power and 29Nm torque that Kia’s bigger engine delivers is telling at kick-off and … erm, everywhere else. Really, though, what irks most about the Venue unit isn’t so much its more limited reactivity as its lack of refinement; it’s much more vocal and raw-edged and seems in constant dispute with the transmission. The Seltos would be better with paddle shifters to better engage with its eight-speeder, but it just operates more effectively and enthusiastically.

The dynamics are interesting. If you want something approaching youthful and sports-tinged, go straight to Seltos; it’s no outright GT, but drives with a level certainty not usual for this grade . For a more grown-up and measured feel, Venue is the place to be. It’s not vague or unduly remote, but there’s far more of an air of laidback amiability. 

Dimensional pertness and tight turning circles ensure they both work well around town and neither feels at all overawed by open road running, either, though it’s in the latter environment where the Seltos’ secondary ride seems a touch busy. It’s nothing a slight suspension retune couldn’t remedy.

Would you off-road? Venue’s provision of Sand, Snow, and Mud traction modes activated by a dial controller suggests it’s up for something, though we’d say keep it ‘lite’. Seltos has a control just like it, but turning it simply puts the transmission into a sports mode. So, yeah. There’s your answer from Kia.

Crystal ball gazing these cars’ futures is easy; consumer swing to crossovers and SUVs ensures each will find a ready audience. Venue does a reasonable job, but it lacks the Kia’s character and Kia’s value edge is much sharper. If you’re seeking to chase an ascending star, Seltos is definitely the one.

RAV4 Hybrid: A better kind of Prius

A winning formula for Toyota’s world famous petrol-electric hardware.

Price: $39,990
Powertrain: 2.5-litre four-cylinder petrol hybrid, 131kW/221Nm (163kW total system output), continuously variable transmission, AWD, fuel economy 4.8L/100km, CO2 112g/km (Toyota NZ), 0-100kmh N/A.
Vital statistics: 4600mm long, 1685mm high, 2690mm wheelbase, 18-inch alloy wheels.
We like: Improved dynamics, refined powertrain, roominess.
We don't like: Austere GX trim, CVT, road noise.

TIME to give up on the Toyota that delivered pioneering technology to average suburban driveways all over the world?

Maybe. Not so much because hybrids are no longer the tip of the technology spear – yes, they’re old-hat, but there’s still a role – but more because the ground-breaking Prius is surely no longer crucial to Toyota and Lexus petrol-electric placement.

Those Corollas, Camrys and CH-Rs, RXs and UXs and so on are increasingly becoming the product that allow Japan’s No.1 to make ever more hybrid hay while the sun of environmental concern shines. 

Implanting a battery-assisted drive-set into the RAV4 creates the most socially relevant petrol-electric Toyota of the moment.

The only mystery is why Toyota waited so long. Sports utilities of this size have become consumer favourites and the RAV4 has been a giant since its inception in 1994, with more than 8.5 million units sold globally.

What sells the nickel hydride battery-included model line is that it improves efficiency while pretty much maintaining all the positives of the non-hybrid line – a sharp chassis, aggressively rugged new styling, improved specification and more comfortable, roomier cabin.

Toyota build quality is superb and the car’s tech lift, notably with the Toyota Safety Sense package (that now includes an emergency braking system that can spot pedestrians and cyclists day and night) is a winning asset.

That’s not to say this is a product exempt from criticism. Even though it’s another new-age Toyota to display premium touches within, you cannot help but notice unfortunate cost constraint. A front passenger seat fixed awkwardly high, a touch screen with fiddly menu functions and utterly outdated sat nav graphics and, in this entry GX, trim hues that – notwithstanding this is often a fleet grade – from the bargain bin; all could surely be improved without significant effort.

The driving delivers more positively, save that it asks acceptance of a constantly variable transmission. Toyota’s is better than some, thanks to a smart ‘launch gear’ - a physical first gear that "changes up" to the CVT after 40kmh – which helps minimise flaring at kick-off. Yet there’s still irritating high-rev thrash and, overall, it demands an easier-going approach that is at odds with the car’s overall character.

The powertrain itself is otherwise quite pleasant. As per usual convention, it’ll reverse and crawl forward under electric impetus alone, but anything more than a feather-light prod will generally incite the four-cylinder petrol engine to kick in.

A 2.5-litre is relatively large capacity unit for this class of car nowadays and the output from it in isolation is fairly impressive. Add in the impetus from the electric motors and the combined output is all the more of a turn-on. Performance is punchy and the torque flow is solid from low to medium revs. It’s only when you really start to push that it loses its cool; but as said, the CVT will crack first.

You might like to push the envelope, though, because the vehicle dynamics this time around are impressive. The platform is rigid and hanging off it is a well-sorted MacPherson-strut front and multilink rear suspension that’s compliant enough to cope with bumps and uneven surfaces yet firm enough to provide tidy cornering. The electromechanical power steering delivers well, too. Only the brakes raise a flag; they don’t lack for ability but the feel is wooden, as it goes with regenerative braking.

The all-wheel-drive comes from using a 40kW electric motor mounted directly to the rear axle. That’s a far cry from hardcore tradition, but even though RAV spells out to ‘recreational activity vehicle’, Toyota never intended it to be a junior Land Cruiser.

It can run all four wheels or alternately divert power to the rears alone, uses the brakes to mimic the effect of a limited slip differential and can even handle towing. Just 1500kg, mind, so don’t get carried away at the garden centre.

Is 6.1 litres per 100km economy from my week worth crowing about? Not if you have any faith in the maker-claimed optimal of 4.1L/100km being even remotely achievable outside of a laboratory. A colleague burned a touch more from a long, exclusively open road run, whereas mine included a fair mix of urban tootling and I’m confident it could have improved if more gently driven.

Of course, it’s fair to argue that, with hybrid, the RAV4 is merely catching up with the Toyota norm and might have made more impact had it matched the Mitsubishi Outlander and gone to a plug-in rechargeable set-up.

Good news is that this expectation might not be far from being fulfilled. Talk is that a RAV with the same hardware that goes into the Prius Prime PHEV will be revealed at a motor show before too long. That’ll conceivably give us a RAV with capability of travelling up to 50km on battery juice alone. Game set and match, Outlander?

As for a fully electric Toyota? Well, one of those is coming as well. But probably not in this format.