I’m going to give you car comparison charts

 

 

In my last post I made a comparison between a Chevrolet Matiz and a Chevrolet Captiva. Crazy it might have been but I think car comparison charts are the way to go.

 

Because I’ve learnt – after 42 years – they’re probably your best way to understand cars.

 

You can read my charts, accept them, ignore them or say something by commenting.

 

To understand things we use comparisons, contrasts, examples, evidence and explanations. But do we?

 

We carry out these exercises in our thoughts. What usually happens is as the information comes at us from outside ourselves we meet it with preconceived thoughts. So the facts don’t get through and the truth is not known.

 

 I’ve been doing it for 42 years.

 

That is until I attended the Chevrolet Aveo and Epica product launch and we did car comparison charts on paper. You get a much clearer understanding. Then you can do the accepting, ignoring, arguing thing.

 

Imagine presenting a chart to an Audi A6 owner comparing their car with an Epica. Are they going to accept it? Compare a Chevy with a Merc and the Merc owner will ignore it. If we do the same with a BM’ owner an argument will follow.

 

The comparison chart still stands. Another thing I’ve learnt is differences are not important if they’re anything like similar. Differences have to be significant.

 

Take fuel consumption and performance figures; they’re measures useful for comparison. But in real life, in the hands of a real driver, on a real road, they will get varying results.

 

If writing stuff is about what readers should know or more fully understand, then car charts are good. You can’t meet charts half way with your ideas. The facts are the facts. The differences have to be real. There’s no room for copywriters or journalists similes and metaphors.

 

Like Chevy say, ‘Get Real.’

 

Car comparison charts can make a real difference.

 

When you’re presented with stuff you might say, ‘read it,’ or ‘knew that.’ It’s called the benefit of hindsight. At a weaker level it’s no more than slight recognition.

 

If you take my crazy comparison of the Chevrolet Matiz with their Captiva you could say you knew the size difference, and interior space difference. You knew the Captiva was more powerful but less economical. But did you? Could you have explained it in the detail presented in the chart?  Did you know the exact differences and the difference they make?

 

The magnitude of your judgements would have been way out. You had no more than an idea.

 

We act on our ideas. We buy cars based on ideas. Trouble is many ideas are mistaken. Mistakes cost and cars cost a significant amount of money.

 

What makes you tick – costs. So keep it clear with charts.

 

Regards

Ralph

www.chevroletreviewsandprices.co.uk

 

Why you should not rank a number of vehicles with similar fuel consumption figures

 

If you visit the VCA site www.vca.gov.uk you’ll find a data table for new car fuel consumption and emissions. Naturally you’d rank cars by their fuel consumption and emission figures.

 

However if you read how to use the table the VCA say it is not advisable to rank a number of vehicles for which very similar figures are quoted. They don’t say how similar.

 

The reason they give is the figures shown for different models will not necessarily be the same as the figures you actually achieve on the road.

 

They say the figures are for comparison only. But surely when you make comparisons you automatically rank those figures in your mind.

 

Let’s see what they mean.

 

Here are 5 upper-middle size cars with the smallest diesel engine option and a manual gearbox. The mpg is the combined fuel consumption figure. The fuel cost of driving 12,000 miles is based on diesel price of 113p/litre. I’ve left out the new BMW 5-Series 2.0D because it has a combined fuel consumption figure of 55.4 mpg. Seems to me it will prove the most economical and be £1-200 cheaper to run over 12,000 miles.

 

Make	Model	Engine	CO2	Mpg	£ per 12k
Saab	9-5	1910	174	44.1	1398
Chevrolet	Epica	1991	169	46.3	1331
Audi	A6	1968	159	46.3	1331
Mercedes	E-Class	2149	160	46.3	1331
Volvo	S80	1997	151	49.6	1243

 

I think the VCA are saying the Epica, A6 and Mercedes – in the hand of the same driver – won’t necessarily achieve the same figures whether they be higher or lower than their test figures. In the same way the Saab may not be that bad or the new Volvo that better. The other point is do the difference in CO2 emissions have any significance to car buyers other than which price band they’re in for vehicle excise duty. There’s about a 10% difference in the figures. So they might be similar.

 

Here are 5 medium size SUVs, again with the smallest diesel engine option and manual transmission.

 

Make	Model	Engine	CO2	Mpg	£ per 12k
Volvo	XC90	2400	219	34.0	1813
Kia	Sorrento	2497	209	35.8	1722
Land Rover	Freelander	2179	194	37.7	1635
Chevrolet	Captiva LS	1991	195	38.7	1593
Hyundai	Santa Fe	2188	190	39.2	1573

 

You have to watch SUVs because most are not as economical as the above. Here we’ve something like a 20% difference although the figures appear similar. This really does beg the question, what do the VCA mean by similar? Is there any real difference on the road between the Freelander, Captiva and Santa Fe? And will they be better than the Volvo and Sorrento?

 

Here’s a more complex table. These are all small cars – the smallest – city cars.

 

Make	Model	Engine	CO2	Mpg	£ per 12k
VW	Fox	1198	144	46.3	1249
Ford	Ka	1299	141	47.9	1207
Citroen	C2	1124	138	48.7	1187
Fiat	Panda	1108	135	49.6	1166
Proton	Savvy	1149	134	49.6	1166
Renault	Twingo 60	1149	130	51.4	1125
Hyundai	Getz	1086	130	51.4	1125
Chevrolet	Matiz S 5dr	796	119	54.3	1065
Fiat	500	1242	119	55.4	1044
Daihatsu	Sirion	998	118	56.5	1023
Hyundai	i10	1086	119	56.5	1023
Kia	Picanto	999	117	57.6	1004
Daihatsu	Charade	989	114	58.9	982
Citroen	C1	998	108	61.4	942
Peugeot	107 68bhp	998	108	61.4	942
Toyota	Aygo	998	109	61.4	942

 

There’s a real difference in the fuel economy. And from the Chevrolet Matiz down you only pay £35 a year for vehicle excise duty. From the Getz up you pay £120. Seems to me in this case ranking is worthwhile – there’s a £300 fuel difference from top to bottom on top of the tax difference.

 

Question is, do you pay the £120 and go super-size.

 

Make	Model	Engine	CO2	Mpg	£ per 12k
Fiat	Grande Punto	1242	133	47.9	1207
Renault	Clio	1149	139	47.9	1207
Vauxhall	Corsa	1229	139	48.7	1187

 

 

I can see why they say, don’t rank similar results. But what’s similar mean.

 

I can say there is a real difference in the manufacturers recommended retail price for cars in the same class.

 

Regards

Ralph

www.chevroletreviewsandprices.co.uk

The differences between a tiny city car and a large family car like a SUV

 

 

In my last post I made a comparison between the fuel costs of a Chevrolet Captiva and a Chevrolet Matiz over 12,000 based on their combined mpg as calculated by the VCA.

 

MAKE	MODEL	CC	CO2	MPG	£
Chevrolet	Captiva LS	1991	195	38.7	1593
Chevrolet	Matiz S 5dr	796	119	54.3	1065

 

And concluded if you want a SUV why not get one?

 

Colleagues pointed out to me it’s a 50% increase in fuel costs. They said you could buy 4 or 5 Matiz for the price of one Captiva LTX. They reminded me about the difference in Vehicle Excise Duty and insurance. Servicing even costs 50% more. You can buy 3 years 30,000 miles servicing on a Matiz for £199. It’s £299 for a Captiva.

 

I still think the comparison was worthwhile because:

• Drivers with old fashioned SUVs built like trucks come into the showroom furious about their running costs and buy a Matiz. An emotional purchase. Funny thing is when I follow-up to see how they’re getting on – they’re delighted.
• Motorists who run a small car and become grandparents can trade up to a modern crossover SUV – built like a car – and are happy to accept the cost.

 

So what are the differences between a tiny city car and a large family car like a crossover SUV? Here we compare a Chevrolet Matiz 0.8 S with a Chevrolet Captiva 2.0 LS.

 

n = standard

 

Date	JULY 2008	JULY 2008
Make	CHEVROLET	CHEVROLET
Model	MATIZ	CAPTIVA
Body	5-DOOR HATCH	5-SEAT SUV
Trim	S	LS
Engine	0.8	2.0 VCDi
Transmission/speeds	MANUAL/5SP	MANUAL /5SP
OTRRR price	£6,265	£18,295
Metallic paint	£325	£400
DRIVETRAIN
Front wheel drive	n	n
MEASURES AND WEIGHTS
Length (mm)	3495	4635
Width ex door mirrors (mm)	1495	1850
Height incl roof rails (mm)	1500	1755
Wheel base (mm)	2345	2705
Track width front/rear (mm)	1310/1275	1562/1572
Min. turning radius (m)	4.6	5.7
Load (l) all seats up	170	465
Load (l) 2nd row down	845	930
Load (l) all seats down		1565
Headroom front/rear (mm)	1004/959	1025/1020
Shoulder room fnt/rr (mm)	1250/1250	1455/1455
Legroom front/rear (mm)	1022/900	1035/940
Fuel tank (l)	35	65
CHASSIS AND BRAKES
Steering	Hydraulic PAS	Hydraulic PAS
Brakes front/rear	Solid disc/drum	Ventilated disc
Suspension front		McPherson strut
Suspension rear		Independent 4link
ENGINE AND TRANSMISSIONS
Engine type	SOHC 6 valve	Single Ohead Cam
Engine displacement	796	1991
Cylinders	3	4
Fuel injection type	Multi-point injection	Hi-pressure direct
Compression ratio	9.3	17.5
Power output (PS)	51	150
Max. Torque (Nm)	71.5 at 4400 rpm	320 at 2000 rpm
Transmission	Manual/5	Manual/5
Emission class	Euro IV	Euro IV
WEIGHTS
Kerb weight (kg)	775	1770
Gross weight (kg)	1250	2505
Trailer with brakes (kg)		2000
PERFORMANCE / FUEL CONSUMPTION & EMISSION FIGURES*
Top speed (mph)(5/7 seat)	90	111
Acceleration (0-62mph)	18.2	11.5
Fuel type	Petrol	Diesel
Urban (mpg(l/100km))	40.9 (6.9)	32.1 (8.8)
Extra urban(mpg(l/100km))	67.3 (4.2)	43.5 (6.5)
Combined  (mpg(l/100km))	54.3 (5.2)	38.7 (7.3)
CO2 emissions g/km	119	195
£ of 12,000 miles	1065	1593
Noise level dB(A) (moving)	71.4	73.7
SAFETY & SECURITY
ABS	n	n
Brake assist		n
Level ride suspension	X	n
Dual front airbags	n	n
Front curtain airbags	X	n
Front seatbelt pretensioners	n	n
Front seatbelt reminder	n	n
ISOFIX	n	n
Rear child locks		n
Remote central deadlocking	Manual central	n
Engine immobilser	n	n
Car alarm	x	n
CLIMATE & HEATING
Air conditioning	x	n
COMFORT AND EASE OF OPERATION
Power assisted steering	n	n
Tiltable steering column	X	n
Glass flip tailgate	X	n
Electric door mirrors	x	n
INTERIOR
Woven seat fabric	n	n
8way adjustable driver seat	x	n
60/40 split second row seat	n	n
Reclining second row seat	x	n
STORAGE
Load restraining net	X	n
F&R armrests storage	X	n
Luggage cover	X	n
5-storage luggage boxes	X	n
AUDIO/INFORMATION SYSTEM
RDS radio/CD/MP3 jack	No MP3	n
Steering wheel controls	X	n
Number of speakers	2	6
Aerial integrated in glass	X	n
EXTERIOR
16” alloy wheels	13” steel	n
Roof rails	X	n
Tinted glass	X	n
INSURANCE GROUP	1A	10E

 

*Fuel and CO2 data above copied from tables compiled by the VCA www.vca.gov.uk Also see www.dft.gov.uk/ActOnCO2/ . Every effort has been made to ensure accuracy. The VCA and I cannot accept liability for its accuracy. Users who rely entirely on the information do so at their own risk. Wheel size and the number of driven wheels will make a difference to the above figures.

 

Comments

To correct my colleagues, you can only buy 3 Matiz for the price of one Captiva, maybe 4.

 

DIMENSIONS

The Matiz is over a metre shorter than the Captiva and near a foot narrower. This means where parking is tight the Captiva may have to pass whilst the Matiz just nips in. The Captiva needs an added metre to turn a circle. The wheelbase and track suggest a difference in interior space.

 

Both cars have high rooflines, so are easy to enter and exit.

 

There is not a huge difference in interior space on paper. The 6 inches in interior width makes a huge difference in practice. The Matiz has amazing interior space for its overall size. Tha Captiva has luggage space in addition to seating. However the Matiz looks OK with the rear seat down.

 

ENGINE, TRANSMISSIONS & WEIGHTS

There’s and enormous difference in performance and muscle to carry weight. Having said that the Matiz is equally efficient for what it promises.

 

FUEL CONSUMPTION & EMISSION FIGURES

The Captiva costs about 50% more to fuel and emits 50% more CO2s which makes its vehicle excise duty 6 times the Matiz cost of £35 a year. Cars with CO2 emissions 186-225g/km are Band F and pay £210 for 12 months vehicle excise duty.

 

The VCA calculated the fuel cost of driving 12,000 miles using the combined fuel consumption figure and an average fuel price of 113p/litre for diesel, petrol 106p/litre. The fuel consumption and CO2 figures are for comparison and will not necessarily be those actually achieved on the road.

 

SAFETY, SECURITY, COMFORT & AUDIO

The Captiva has more of everything. But this does not make it a winner when it comes to ease of operation. The Matiz is easy to park and manoeuvre. It has good interior space without being bulky. Whilst it does not have the strong performance of the Captiva, the Matiz quickly jumps away from a standing start. Life is also easy when you don’t have to worry about fuel, vehicle excise duty and insurance costs.

 

A note on pedestrian safety. If a pedestrian were to be hit by a Matiz they would most likely be thrown over the car where a SUV will most likely knock them down and run over them. A point worth considering if most of your driving is in urban areas. The Captiva does give a more elevated view of the road which helps anticipation to avoid accidents.

 

As always, it depends which car suits your pocket and lifestyle.

 

Regards

Ralph

www.chevroletreviewsandprices.co.uk