Hyundai i30 vs Kia Cee'd vs Toyoya Auris

Henry Ford III

Road test

here

Bad news for the all new Auris.

colm_mcm

yawn.

it's all over for Toyota. quit job. start selling Kias, blah blah

zilog_jones

Sure look how well the Tiida is selling here, and that was slated by the press as a dull boring pensioner's car. People aren't gonna stop buying the Auris and Corolla any time soon...

E92

zilog_jones wrote:

Sure look how well the Tiida is selling here, and that was slated by the press as a dull boring pensioner's car. People aren't gonna stop buying the Auris and Corolla any time soon...

...unfortunately. I guess thats what happens when you have brand loyalty. I know people who buy Toyotas, without even test driving them, never mind the competition, they just buy them because of the badge.

When you are on course to be the worlds largest carmaker, and already one of the most profitable, what we say hardly matters.

I dont hate all Toyotas, I very much like the Avensis(post 03 model, the old one was a reskinned Carina, which was absolute rubbish), but the Auris/Corolla has to be the dullest new car of the year. Actually when I saw the new Corolla at first, I didnt even know it was, it was only when it was pointed out to me that they had changed it that I realised that there was a difference. The new Corolla looks exactly the same at the end as the Corolla the sold from 98-02, and the side exactly the same as the 02-06 Corolla.

What I find hillarious about the Auris/Corolla is that they delayed the launch of the thing by a year, because they told us the original was too dull after they had seen sneak previews of the current Honda Civic.

When you think that this is a company that produced the completely mad Supra, and the brilliant looking Aygo(and even the original Yaris though not the best car in the world, was revolutionary for Toyota in terms of looks when they lauched it), it really does make you wonder what Toyota are at sometimes.

colm_mcm

to be fair, the Tiida is being very heavily discounted and dealers are giving massive trade ins just to shift them. i regularly get blown out of the water on trade ins against them.

bazz26

The Tiida like the Almera before it is a favourite with the car hire companies which must account for alot of registrations too.

The Corolla is admittedly nothing special to look at but the Tiida saloon is just plain horrible looking imo.

colm_mcm

It has most things right, price is good, equipment is good, but it just looks so silly. Nissans association with Renault and poor residuals on Almera and Primera have lost them a lot of their Irish core buyers.

Henry Ford III

I think anyone who buys an Auris wants hospitalisation. Being UK built means it wont even be too reliable.

Apart from that it offers zilch.

Spit62500

Henry Ford III wrote:

I think anyone who buys an Auris wants hospitalisation. Being UK built means it wont even be too reliable.

Apart from that it offers zilch.

So are you saying that all British built cars are badly built or that Toyota UK specialise in employing incompetent workers? If its the former its going to be bit of a shock for Mini owners....

RobAMerc

colm_mcm wrote:

It has most things right, price is good, equipment is good, but it just looks so silly. Nissans association with Renault and poor residuals on Almera and Primera have lost them a lot of their Irish core buyers.

I kind of see your point here but do you think most Irish drivers no that Renault have such a large stake in Nissan ?

Would Nissan still be around only for them, and lastly do you not think that Renault has already had a good effect on Nissan ? I mean the 350z - Note - Quashqai and Tiida are infinitely better products than the Almera and Primera before them (even if the tiidas styling is a bit naff).

Carlos Goshen might be partly the reason behind their revival and some of the models they've started producing but do you not think if Toyota had got hold of them they'd have installed some lad whos only consideration was to build lots of cars rather than one interesting one ?

Henry Ford III

Spit62500 wrote:

So are you saying that all British built cars are badly built or that Toyota UK specialise in employing incompetent workers? If its the former its going to be bit of a shock for Mini owners....

Neither.

What I'm suggesting is that Toyotas heretofore excellent reputation for reliability may be under pressure.

The truly sad thing is that people will carry on buying these deeply average and utterly bland cars regardless.

maidhc

Henry Ford III wrote:

Neither.

What I'm suggesting is that Toyotas heretofore excellent reputation for reliability may be under pressure.

The truly sad thing is that people will carry on buying these deeply average and utterly bland cars regardless.

I think that is a fair point. I have often documented the problems with our (british built) Toyota Avensis. Some of these (e.g. rust) can only be arrtibuted to poor workmanship and QC.

Balfa

Henry Ford III wrote:

What I'm suggesting is that Toyotas heretofore excellent reputation for reliability may be under pressure.

Do you really think that UK manufacturing is going to put a bad name on Toyota quality when all these countries can have a say in it? Toyotas have been made all over the world for years and years, and the Corolla still has top notch reliability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Corolla wrote:

Corollas are currently manufactured in Japan, the United States (Fremont, California), the United Kingdom (Derbyshire), Canada (Cambridge, Ontario), Malaysia, China (Tianjin), Taiwan, Pakistan, South Africa, Brazil, Turkey, Philippines, Thailand, Venezuela, and India.

Henry Ford III

Balfa wrote:

Do you really think that UK manufacturing is going to put a bad name on Toyota quality....

It certainly won't enhance it

maidhc

Balfa wrote:

Do you really think that UK manufacturing is going to put a bad name on Toyota quality when all these countries can have a say in it? Toyotas have been made all over the world for years and years, and the Corolla still has top notch reliability.

I think the view of most people is that while toyotas are very good, they are no where near being as far ahead of the likes of Ford, GM, BMW or the others that they once were.

Indeed the Corolla saloon is made in Turkey... prompting my local mechanic to say "did you every ****ing hear of anything good come from Turkey".

colm_mcm

The Corolla Verso is generally regarded as being a very well built car "despite" being built in Turkey!

Henry Ford III

Luna or Strata?

zilog_jones

Balfa wrote:

Do you really think that UK manufacturing is going to put a bad name on Toyota quality when all these countries can have a say in it? Toyotas have been made all over the world for years and years, and the Corolla still has top notch reliability.

It's only in the last 10-15 years or so that we've been getting non-Japanese Toyotas. The first was the UK-built Carina E (not sure if it was all of them or if they started in '92) which supposedly did have quality issues (though saying that there's still loads still going as taxis), and then the 5dr Corolla hatchback (the fugly one) in '97. Our Camrys became US-built at some stage too.

colm_mcm

Henry Ford III wrote:

Luna or Strata?

Henry Ford III

Still slagging apart it's shocking to see the all new Auris beaten by a Hyundai and a Kia in an impartial road test.

BrianD3

I had a close look at the Kia a few months back and compared it to most of its class rivals. I'd say it's ahead of all of them including the Auris, Golf and Focus. It has very few weaknesses.

The Hyundai looks worse than the Kia but is supposed to be even better in some areas.

The Kia has just scored 5 stars in EuroNCAP too. Korean cars have tended to do poorly in crash tests so that's another change.

colm_mcm

Henry Ford III wrote:

Still slagging apart it's shocking to see the all new Auris beaten by a Hyundai and a Kia in an impartial road test.

I'd say you're devastated!

Henry Ford III

I'm somewhat shocked, as I said above.

colm_mcm

If it's any consolation, I read that the Focus is better than both the Cee'd and the I-30, think it was Auto Express as well. who if I remember correctly said the Focus was dated when they revealed a drawing of what the facelifted model MIGHT look like! (which turned out to be way off!)

E92

Well Auto Express is the motoring equivalent of the Oirish Sun, so this is hardly a surprise.

McSandwich

Most of the British reviews (with the exception of Honest John and one or two others) are very critical of the Auris, leaving me with the impression that they just don't like the car or even want to test it.

I'm driving one, the 1.4 d4d mmt model, for nearly 2 months. I quite like the design and don't find it 'boxy' or 'bloated'. The 6 speaker audio system sounds great. I've had no issues with the controls feeling 'cheap', though the ipod integration (extra) could be better. I find the interior finish, which is mostly matt black, to be of good quality and do not consider it to be overly 'shiny' (the brits are obsessed with that one!).

As for ride and handling well I didn't buy the car for it's rally driving qualities - it's a 1.4 diesel ffs!!! Saying that, I found it lively and entertaining to drive on some of Kerry's most challenging mountain roads where the paddle gear shift came into its own. No problems on motorway drives either, once the engine wore in a bit (it was a bit sluggish for the first 500Km when accelerating above 100kph).

To be fair, the Autoexpress review commented positively on engine performance. if I was to believe some other 'reviews' , I'd be quicker getting a tow from a tractor rather than driving the thing on its own power... I'm pretty sure many so called 'reviewers' make assumptions based on paper performance figures rather than driving experience. My last car was a 1.6 petrol, with 20 bhp more, and it never felt as lively or willing as the 1.4 diesel.

So far I've put up 2500Km and I'm just 1/4 way through my 3rd fill of diesel. Fuel consumption is noticeably dropping as the engine wears in so.

The semi automatic MMT gearbox (my model) took a bit of getting used to and is not as refined as a full auto box. On the plus side it's much lighter on fuel (auto mode is optimised for this) and allows manual mode gear change via paddles or gear stick.

Overall, I find the Auris to be a great car, much better than the reviews would have you believe. I haven't tested the Hyundai or Kia. Design wise, they don't look a whole lot different to the Auris, yet they both score much higher in terms of styling/ image (???)

Henry Ford III

90bhp from a 1.4d is a very respectable output.

I'm delighted you like your car, and would have been very surprised had you said otherwise.

There's not much wrong with the Auris, other than it being dull and bland and relatively uninteresting to drive.

The thing is quite a few competing cars can do everything an Auris can, only quite a bit better.

McSandwich

Henry Ford III wrote:

There's not much wrong with the Auris, other than it being dull and bland and relatively uninteresting to drive.

The thing is quite a few competing cars can do everything an Auris can, only quite a bit better.

It's a matter of opinion when it comes down to it. I agree that the Auris is less than inspiring to look at, but it's not nearly as dull as some reviewers would have you believe.. The problem is that reviewers are so biased as to be unhelpful when it comes to deciding on a car. They rarely review a new car on it's own merits, instead forming an opinion based solely on personal preference or the perceived 'coolness' of a brand. Most of the British reviewers would be better suited to test driving this seasons hand bags.

For example, most reviewers love the VW Golf to the point of not mentioning some of it's faults . I test drove a 1.6 Golf which I found to be underpowered and awkward to drive due to lack of leg room (I had someone in the back..). Handling was nothing special and it's incredibly dull looks wise (more so that he Auris imo). It's also way overpriced and the base model isn't far off an '80s spec in terms of extras!

Henry Ford III

Not getting into this. No real point nor benefit.

Res ispa loquitur however.

yellow012

McSandwich wrote:

For example, most reviewers love the VW Golf to the point of not mentioning some of it's faults . I test drove a 1.6 Golf which I found to be underpowered and awkward to drive due to lack of leg room (I had someone in the back..). Handling was nothing special and it's incredibly dull looks wise (more so that he Auris imo). It's also way overpriced and the base model isn't far off an '80s spec in terms of extras!

You accuse the english press of biased reporting, but you've just thrown out a statement about the Golfs spec level thats based on what they used to be like in the past. The base Golf comes with air conditioning, loads of airbags, cd/mp3 player, electric windows, central locking thats hardly '80s car spec level?
What does the base model Auris come with that makes it so much better than the Golf?

McSandwich

yellow012 wrote:

You accuse the english press of biased reporting, but you've just thrown out a statement about the Golfs spec level thats based on what they used to be like in the past. The base Golf comes with air conditioning, loads of airbags, cd/mp3 player, electric windows, central locking thats hardly '80s car spec level?
What does the base model Auris come with that makes it so much better than the Golf?

'Base model' was probably the wrong term to use, I drove the standard 1.6 (auto) comfortline without any extras. At the time, last February, this model did not come with air-con or alloy wheels which the comparable Auris did for less money. If I remember correctly it also had a bog standard stereo. None of the VW dealers seemed interested in a trade and offered laughable trade in for my old car compared to Skoda and Toyota. I'm not anti VW or Golf, by the way, otherwise I wouldn't have considered buying one , but based on reviews I was expecting a lot more.. I believe the Golf spec has been upgraded since then.

My "'80s" comment was of course an exaggeration, in the vein of many auto reviewers.