Tuesday 26 September 2017

Volvo V90 Cross Country review (2017-on)

VOLVO KNOWS that not all drivers in need of a large family car want a big SUV. For the past 20 years, it has offered a large, four-wheel drive estate car with sufficient ground clearance to make it into a music festival campsite, and enough space onboard for five people, their tents, luggage and a ukulele or two.

The new V90 Cross Country is the latest incarnation and continues that line of go-anywhere – well, almost anywhere – estate cars that are more affordable than a large, luxury SUV. Not to mention more car-like to drive, easier for loading in dogs, antiques, or whatever else takes your fancy.

There’s also the personal matter of taste. In the minds of some drivers, big SUVs are statements of aggression, built to dominate the road, whereas an estate car could be considered a nondescript workhorse, as neutral as Switzerland.


Browse NEW or USED cars for sale


Is the V90 Cross Country a practical family car for those who only need five seats, though?

The price gets it off to a promising start. The most affordable V90 Cross Country is £40,350, for a D4 diesel model (meaning it costs £450 a year in road tax, from the second to sixth year of ownership). An XC90 leaves precious little change from £50,000, starting from £48,655 for the D5 diesel. A D5 V90 Cross Country, reviewed here, costs from £44,150.

However, at the business end of a family car – namely, the boot – the V90 Cross Country is at a considerable disadvantage to the XC90. It has a 560-litre boot, whereas the big SUV boasts 775 litres; fold all the seats down and load it to the gunnels and you get 1,526 litres in the estate, which is more than 400 litres less than the SUV.

You might have noticed from the pictures that the V90 Cross Country is one of the more handsome estate cars on the road. With its Scandi-chic style, it looks like a four-wheeled extra from an episode of The Bridge or Trapped.

But your Labrador won’t care one bit for such styling nuances when its face is pressed against the heavily sloped rear window, even if the load sill is nice and low. And there’s no cargo net integrated within the luggage cover.

A Mercedes E-class estate is considerably more accommodating, holding 640-litres. Happily, the Volvo’s seats fold flat at the touch of a button located in the boot, and the powered tailgate doesn’t open begrudgingly, like some; in fact, you’ll need to step clear sharpish if you’re not to get clocked on the chin.

Volvo fitted a Family Pack to our test car. For £450, this provides booster cushions that spring up out of the normal seats, child locks and a pair of sun blinds. It doesn’t seem like good value for money, given you could buy a pair of Isofix high-backed seats, with improved side-impact protection, and sun blinds for considerably less. And manually setting child locks is no hardship.

You could happily spend a couple of days at the wheel, with the family aboard, driving to the South of France or foot of Italy, without feeling fatigued

The rear seat space is generous, and the seats are comfortable on long journeys. Volvo includes air vents for back seat passengers in the door pillars, and the rear headrests can be lowered at the touch of a button on the dashboard.

In the front, this is one of the classiest interiors of any family car. Volvo is on a roll right now – only Mercedes is making nicer cabins.

The seats and driving position are comfortable. The touchscreen interface eventually becomes intuitive. And the materials used throughout – from the supple Nappa leather to the diamond-cut finish of controls for the engine start button and driving modes – are straight out of a interiors glossy magazine.

You could happily spend a couple of days at the wheel, with the family aboard, driving to the South of France or foot of Italy, for the summer holiday, without feeling fatigued.

Volvo V90 Cross Country review (2017-on)

That’s not just because the interior is so calming. The driving experience is soothing, too. Volvo’s engineers didn’t want the V90 Cross Country to be sporty, like a BMW, they wanted it to be relaxing. And it is.

So forget about the ‘High Performance’ driving mode, because it’s an oxymoron. Nothing will excite the driver if they floor the accelerator; this car is all about making calm, considered progress.

The D5, four-cylinder diesel engine provides acceptable performance (0-62mph in 7.5 seconds) and fuel economy (53mpg), and the eight-speed automatic gearbox shifts cogs quickly enough. The optional air suspension (£1500) is probably not worth paying for, but it was hard to tell, as Volvo had also fitted the optional, 19 inch allow wheels to our test car, which affected the ride comfort.

On the road, the four-wheel drive system is only likely to make its benefits felt if towing. The V90 Cross Country D5 can haul up to 750kg of unbraked trailer weight, or up to 2,500kg using a braked trailer.

Its four-wheel drive system uses a smart clutch system that allows it to operate in two- or four-wheel drive, helping save fuel in day-to-day driving conditions, or diverting power to the wheels with the most grip when venturing off the beaten track. Wisely, it is always engaged from a standstill, to help prevent wheelspin.

The Cross Country rides 65mm higher than a regular Volvo V90, and it comes with a protective skid plate under the engine and features such as hill descent control. We didn’t get to put it to the test off-road, however.

It may not be as accommodating as some rival estate cars, or indeed the XC90 SUV, but the V90 Cross Country has enough going for it to ensure that Volvo’s adventure-seeking estate car is likely to remain popular for another 20 years.

The post Volvo V90 Cross Country review (2017-on) appeared first on Sunday Times Driving.



source https://www.driving.co.uk/car-reviews/volvo-v90-cross-country-review-2017/

Monday 25 September 2017

The Guy Martin review: 2017 Ford GT

THE NEW Ford GT isn’t a supercar pretending to be a racing car — it is a racing car. It sounds vicious: you can’t escape the noise of the wastegates as you change gear and the cracking and banging of the exhaust on the overrun.

Ford built this car to win the Le Mans 24 Hours in 2016 and has now released a road-going version off the back of it. The company did the same thing in the 1960s when it made the GT40, and the new car was created to win Le Mans on the 50th anniversary of the original Ford supercar beating Ferrari — and everyone else — at the endurance race in 1966.

You know the story: Ford was set to buy Ferrari, but the Italians pulled out at the eleventh hour; the American firm got the hump and thought it would teach Ferrari a lesson by beating it in the biggest sports car race in the world. And that’s what it did.


Browse NEW or USED cars for sale


But don’t call this one a GT40, as I accidentally kept doing, because it’s just the GT. Amazingly for a company the size of Ford, it lost the right to use the name GT40 in 1999, when the trademark was bought by a company in Ohio that sells spares for the original cars.

Just opening the “butterfly” doors on the GT is something out of the ordinary and had me champing at the bit to get in it. Start the car and the dash reminds you — as if you needed it — of the machine’s racing roots, as it tells you much more than most road cars: oil pressure and temperature, gearbox temperature and gear position.

The GT had come from a track test at Silverstone and I noticed it was brimming with super-unleaded, but the dash said the distance to empty was 87 miles. That’s thirsty. It has a 57½-litre tank, and Ford’s own spec sheet reckons it should do 200 miles on a complete fill-up in normal driving conditions, which is about 16mpg. On the track it’s doing closer to 7mpg.

You can tell this car has a racing pedigree because of the aerodynamics — they’re really something else. There’s a rear spoiler that raises and lowers and tilts at different speeds. Then, when you slam on the massive carbon-ceramic brakes, it flips to act as an air brake. Another hangover from racing is the seats. They are bolted in position so they don’t compromise the strength of the chassis. You adjust the steering wheel and pedal box instead.

Ford launched a previous GT in 2004, and built just 4,000 [Jeremy Clarkson famously rejected his GT after just a month of ownership — read his review here]. This 2017 version doesn’t have much in common with that car, except the name. You could argue it’s got more similarities with another 50-odd-year-old Ford icon: the Transit van. The GT has a 3.5-litre twin-turbo V6 EcoBoost engine. The American-spec Transit has the same basic unit, but it doesn’t make 647bhp, as this GT does.

In fact, not even the track version of the GT that won its class last year at Le Mans produced that much power. Because of the world endurance championship’s handicap system, the Ford team had to lower the power to less than 500bhp to level the playing field. So, strangely, the road-going GT is much more powerful than its race-winning sister car. My GT also had the American-spec Transit’s headlight switch. I liked that about it.

The Ford delivery driver said it was my decision, but he’d prefer it if the GT didn’t go out in the wet, perhaps because of that 647bhp rear-wheel-only drivetrain.

All that power and acceleration, but it’s left-hand drive, so you can’t see to overtake

Ford also said this test car was a prototype, so while we waited for the rain to stop, the delivery driver showed me how the car switches to Track mode at the press of a button. The whole vehicle drops 2in on its suspension, to just 2¾in. It isn’t subtle when it does it — anyone standing by the car might want to watch their toes — and you’d struggle to drive it on most normal roads when it’s that low. Ford even sent out a note in capital letters saying it must not be driven on the road on the lower height setting. There are two modes where the car drops: Track and V-Max. The difference between the two is the spoiler stays hidden in the body in the latter setting because it would affect the top speed. Ford reckons the GT will do 216mph.

When finally the rain stopped and I did get the car going, the rear spoiler was moving about that much, I thought I’d left the boot open. I could hardly keep my eyes off it in the rear-view mirror. Another thing is, the Ford is made as left-hand-drive only, so for all that power and potential acceleration you’ve got under your right foot, you can’t push it on real roads because you can’t see to overtake anything.

That means as a road-going supercar in Britain it’s pointless. In a machine this quick there would never be a time when you weren’t about to overtake something. Another thing is that the GT is wide, quite a bit wider than the Honda NSX I tested last week. I felt as if I had to drive with two wheels in the gutter so the other side of the car wasn’t creeping over the white line.

In the end I didn’t do more than 100 miles in the GT in the time Ford let me have it, but that was enough to get the measure of it and to learn that, while it’s impressive, it isn’t for me. I’d be just as happy to drive the Transit that the Suffolk-based customiser Krazy Horse and Radical Sportscars of Peterborough built for me to race in the Silver State Classic Challenge road race in Nevada last year.

It had the same engine as the GT, but the one in my Trannie was even more powerful, producing 700bhp. Because of the difference in aerodynamics, the van would only do 155mph flat-out, which is good for a Transit. It didn’t take itself as seriously as the GT. Come to think of it, given a choice, I’d be happiest in the special edition Transit I’ve designed myself.

Ford is going to build 1,000 GTs, so it’s not enough to have the £450,000 asking price to buy one. A friend of mine has the previous GT and he was on the waiting list for one of these but wasn’t allocated one in the first round of sales. He asked if I could help him get one, as he doesn’t do any of that social media stuff and part of the application process is how many Twitter followers you’ve got.

Since when has it mattered how many followers you’ve got on Twitter, or even if you’re on it, when it comes to whether you’re the right person to buy a car? That puts me off it even more.

Head to head: Ford GT vs Krazy Horse Ford Transit

Ford GT Krazy Horse Ford Transit
Engine 3,497cc, V6, twin turbo 3,497cc, V6, twin turbo
Power 647bhp 700bhp
Torque 550Ib ft 530Ib ft
Top speed 216mph 155mph

Ford’s “application window” to buy the GT will reopen in spring 2018. The Guy Martin Proper Edition Transit is available now from guymartinproper.com

 

Second opinion on the new Ford GT:

First Drive review: 2017 Ford GT

 

And Guy’s view on the competition:

The Guy Martin Review: 2017 Honda NSX

The post The Guy Martin review: 2017 Ford GT appeared first on Sunday Times Driving.



source https://www.driving.co.uk/car-reviews/guy-martin-review-2017-ford-gt/

Wednesday 13 September 2017

The Guy Martin Review: 2017 Honda NSX

THE NEWSPAPER asked me to do a couple of road tests while Jeremy Clarkson is away, and offered me a couple of decent supercars that arrived at the lorry yard in Grimsby on the same day. Both were new versions of former flagship models: the Ford GT and the Honda NSX.

I saw the NSX pull up at the gates, and while I’d admit it is a good-looking car, it’s a Honda, isn’t it? I haven’t had the greatest experience with Honda’s racing bikes this year, and its performance in Formula One is embarrassing. It would be better for the brand if it were winning something.

And how can a Honda cost £144,765 (or £180,000 in this spec)? It makes great CR-Vs and Civic Type Rs, but the Japanese brand is not one I would associate with supercars.


Browse NEW or USED cars for sale


I quizzed the bloke who dropped off the NSX half to death and learnt about some of the technology the car is loaded with. I knew it was a hybrid, with a 3.5-litre V6 petrol engine and electric motor assistance. What I didn’t know was that it had three electric motors that combine with the V6 for an output of 573bhp.

I drove the NSX home from the yard and climbed out of it feeling the car was nice — nothing more. I thought it was like a fast Volkswagen Golf R: understated, though not as understated as a Golf R, but not very exciting. I reckoned I’d soon get to the bottom of it.

If I’d been busy, I might not have bothered getting in it again that evening, but I had nothing doing, so I decided to take it out for a spin on the north Lincolnshire back roads, which I know like the back of my hand. After half an hour I realised the NSX is a true supercar.

“A BMW M3 CSL was the quickest thing I’d driven on rural back roads in the last 10 years. Until now. The NSX is the next level”

With all its engineering and electronic gubbins, some people might think that it’s doing the driving for you, but it isn’t like that. I’m not one of those people who describe bikes or cars as having soul; they’re either good fun or they’re boring. And how this car works is just brilliant. The proof is that it is so manageable on rural back roads.

Ten years ago I had a BMW M3 CSL. It wasn’t that impressive in terms of top speed, but it handled so well and was so predictable, I reckon it was the quickest thing I’d driven on those roads. Until now. The NSX is the next level. I can’t think of any car that could keep up with it on my local lanes.

To give it a proper workout as The Sunday Times requested, I spent a full day on the track last week with racing instructors, and still I could not get this thing into bother.

Guy Martin Honda NSX review for Sunday Times (Jeremy Clarkson is away)

If you really wanted to, you could drive the NSX so hard it would be jumping out of line, the back end coming out, and you wouldn’t need to do anything to correct it: the systems sort everything out. The car was just laughing at me. After a couple of days I was struggling to think of anything I’d driven that was better than this.

A lot of it is down to the powertrain. Honda has been making V6 engines for the US IndyCar series for several years, but the unit in this car has nothing to do with that, even though the NSX is made in Marysville, Ohio. The NSX’s 75-degree V6 uses blocks and heads developed by the British company Cosworth.

V6s may not sound exciting in a world of V8s, V10s and V12s, but the NSX’s engine is spot-on. It sits in the middle of the aluminium body, with a nine-speed double-clutch gearbox bolted to the back, driving the rear wheels. Between those two is an electric motor that increases the torque and helps to fill in any turbo lag. At the front end, two more electric motors drive a front wheel each.

Entering villages, I’d drive at 30mph and the engine would turn itself off, and we’d roll through on electric power; then, as I accelerated, the petrol unit would cut back in, but it was so quiet, smooth and seamless that, as a passenger, you probably wouldn’t notice.

“Cars like this are bought as much for what they say as what they do. And in that sense the Honda isn’t going to cut it in the golf club car park”

There is a driving mode that allows you to hear the exhaust more, but it’s never popping and banging like a racing car. I like the subtlety of the NSX. I also like that I went from Caistor in Lincolnshire to Abergavenny in Monmouthshire on about half a tank, as the NSX averaged 29mpg. That’s good in a supercar.

The other thing the NSX has is four-wheel drive, or Super Handling All-Wheel Drive if you swallow Honda’s pill. The setup includes torque vectoring. As far as I understand it, torque vectoring is adjusting the drive delivered to each wheel to aid the handling. If you had a chassis with four wheels that were fixed pointing straight ahead, torque vectoring could make it go round corners just by altering the speed of the individual wheels. And it helps the NSX go round corners in a way I hadn’t experienced.

Guy Martin Honda NSX review for Sunday Times (Jeremy Clarkson is away)

With all that good news, there must be some bad. One thing is that all the on-board technology makes the NSX weigh much more than purely petrol-powered supercars such as the McLaren 570S. The Honda and McLaren have a similar power output, but the NSX has a lower top speed: Honda claims 191mph and McLaren says the 570S does 204mph.

The difference is mainly down to the power-to-weight ratio. Even though the NSX has what is described as a “multi-material space frame”, it has a kerb weight of 1,776kg, compared with the 1,440kg of the McLaren.


Browse NEW or USED cars for sale


Another thing is that cars like this are bought as much for what they say as what they do. And in that sense the Honda isn’t going to cut it in the golf club car park. Everyone has an idea of a Ferrari driver in their mind. Or a Lamborghini owner, or even an Aston Martin driver. You’ve got a box to put them in. But what is a typical NSX owner?

None of that matters, because the NSX is amazing. When people ask me what I drive, I say: “A Trannie van and a Volvo estate, mate.” I like the fact that if you had an NSX and someone asked what you drove, you could say: “I’ve got an old Honda.”

Yes, it’s understated, but if you’ve chosen an NSX, you know your stuff. It’s a proper doer’s car without screaming about it. And possibly the greatest car I’ve driven.

Head to head: Nonda NSX vs Porsche 911 Turbo S

Honda NSX Porsche 911 Turbo S
Price £144,765 £147,540
Power 573bhp 572bhp
0-62mph 2.9sec 2.9sec
Top speed 191mph 205mph

Read more Guy Martin at guymartinproper.com

Jeremy Clarkson is away

Write to us at driving@sunday-times.co.uk, or Driving, The Sunday Times, 1 London Bridge Street, London SE1 9GF

The post The Guy Martin Review: 2017 Honda NSX appeared first on Sunday Times Driving.



source https://www.driving.co.uk/car-reviews/guy-martin-review-2017-honda-nsx/