Luxury Small Cars

Author
Discussion

kambites

67,582 posts

222 months

Wednesday 7th October 2015
quotequote all
It's almost impossible to make a car with a short wheelbase ride really well because it's so much harder to control pitch over bumps.

Easternlight

3,432 posts

145 months

Wednesday 7th October 2015
quotequote all
regprentice said:
I hired a last gen corsa and everytime i changed gear my wifes arm got in the way because the seats were so close together. Borderline dangerous.

gizlaroc

17,251 posts

225 months

Wednesday 7th October 2015
quotequote all
Bill said:
Pretty much. You can paint a council house in Farrow and Ball and fill it with leather sofas and high end AV kit but it will always feel like a council house.
Are they not the things that define a council house anyway?

2.5pi

1,066 posts

183 months

Wednesday 7th October 2015
quotequote all
swisstoni said:
Are there such things?
I've been considering a s/h daily runabout but don't want to feel like I'm in a utility vehicle. I suppose Mini is the obvious answer but I don't like em that much tbh.
Mini park lane is ok ish, but an M135 with a few toys should suit?

Bill

52,799 posts

256 months

Thursday 8th October 2015
quotequote all
gizlaroc said:
Are they not the things that define a council house anyway?
wink

Dracoro

8,684 posts

246 months

Thursday 8th October 2015
quotequote all
Mark Benson said:
sealtt said:
Mark Benson said:
Or as someone suggested earlier, a Lexus CT, which is an Auris hybrid with a Lexus badge and a bit more bling. Not that highly rated, but certainly does the 'Luxury Small(ish) Car' thing.
Sorry MB, but that is a very bad suggestion. I was given one as a courtesy car and they are TERRIBLE!!! Harsh ride and a horrible place to be.
Fears confirmed then. Wife's car is up for changing next year and she likes the sound of them, but I haven't read much good about them from the little I've looked.
Had one for a few days last year, whilst the ride quality isn't great, I don't think it's any worse than other similar cars with "sport" suspension. The interior quality/feel, however, was definitely a step up from any other hatch I've been in (focus, golf, a3, 1series etc.).

Regardless, try one and make up your own mind.

red_slr

17,259 posts

190 months

Thursday 8th October 2015
quotequote all
If you don't need the space how about a Boxster? Or a Cayman?

sealtt

3,091 posts

159 months

Thursday 8th October 2015
quotequote all
Dracoro said:
Mark Benson said:
sealtt said:
Mark Benson said:
Or as someone suggested earlier, a Lexus CT, which is an Auris hybrid with a Lexus badge and a bit more bling. Not that highly rated, but certainly does the 'Luxury Small(ish) Car' thing.
Sorry MB, but that is a very bad suggestion. I was given one as a courtesy car and they are TERRIBLE!!! Harsh ride and a horrible place to be.
Fears confirmed then. Wife's car is up for changing next year and she likes the sound of them, but I haven't read much good about them from the little I've looked.
Had one for a few days last year, whilst the ride quality isn't great, I don't think it's any worse than other similar cars with "sport" suspension. The interior quality/feel, however, was definitely a step up from any other hatch I've been in (focus, golf, a3, 1series etc.).

Regardless, try one and make up your own mind.
Yes maybe the interior quality is actually reasonably nice for the class, i got it as a courtesy car for a full size luxury car so less easy to judge. I had the hybrid model and two key points - without a doubt the least responsive engine I've ever driven, dangerously slow, and as mentioned before, the car was a ridiculously harsh ride, for no good reason - it's a Lexus hatchback, why would they make it like that!?

But obviously go and see for yourself, as I say I drive a very different type of car, so maybe my expectations are off.

Mark Benson

7,521 posts

270 months

Thursday 8th October 2015
quotequote all
sealtt said:
Dracoro said:
Mark Benson said:
sealtt said:
Mark Benson said:
Or as someone suggested earlier, a Lexus CT, which is an Auris hybrid with a Lexus badge and a bit more bling. Not that highly rated, but certainly does the 'Luxury Small(ish) Car' thing.
Sorry MB, but that is a very bad suggestion. I was given one as a courtesy car and they are TERRIBLE!!! Harsh ride and a horrible place to be.
Fears confirmed then. Wife's car is up for changing next year and she likes the sound of them, but I haven't read much good about them from the little I've looked.
Had one for a few days last year, whilst the ride quality isn't great, I don't think it's any worse than other similar cars with "sport" suspension. The interior quality/feel, however, was definitely a step up from any other hatch I've been in (focus, golf, a3, 1series etc.).

Regardless, try one and make up your own mind.
Yes maybe the interior quality is actually reasonably nice for the class, i got it as a courtesy car for a full size luxury car so less easy to judge. I had the hybrid model and two key points - without a doubt the least responsive engine I've ever driven, dangerously slow, and as mentioned before, the car was a ridiculously harsh ride, for no good reason - it's a Lexus hatchback, why would they make it like that!?

But obviously go and see for yourself, as I say I drive a very different type of car, so maybe my expectations are off.
Well she currently drives an Up, which actually rides very well and feels bigger than it is (I really didn't want to like it, but a test drive converted me). We also have an XJ, so we're not expecting the small car to rival that, but a pet hate of ours is a harsh ride (the main reason the Up won me over, it's very compliant; low kerb weight I suspect) so the CT may not be a contender, we'll certainly give it a go though.

otolith

56,176 posts

205 months

Thursday 8th October 2015
quotequote all
When the VR6 was first launched, VW were adamant that it was not intended to be a sort of "super GTi" - it was meant to be a "luxury Golf" rather than a "sporty Golf". Didn't stop the journalists panning it for not being what VW said it wasn't meant to be, though, and subsequent generations of V6 Golf abandoned the concept.

I agree with the conclusion that you can fit a large engine, automatic transmission and every option on the list, but interior space, ride quality and the absence of NVH are another matter. Not much you can do about wheelbase or space, but I think you could probably do a lot better than has been done if your starting point was not a car intended to be inexpensive to buy and economical to run.


kambites

67,582 posts

222 months

Thursday 8th October 2015
quotequote all
I think one issue would be that a small luxury car would end up costing damned nearly as much as a big luxury car. Buyers associate "small" with "cheap" but in reality I think the size of the body is only a tiny factor in what a car costs to produce. If VW produced a Golf with the NVH of an S-class for 10k less than an S-class, everyone would laugh at it.

300bhp/ton

41,030 posts

191 months

Thursday 8th October 2015
quotequote all
jdw1234 said:
The old Mercedes 190 had this nailed!

Why are all new cars such disposable crap :-(
We had one for a few years. My Dad liked it, but I thought it was ever so bland and almost utilitarian inside. Functional, but a long way from luxury IMO.

otolith

56,176 posts

205 months

Thursday 8th October 2015
quotequote all
kambites said:
I think one issue would be that a small luxury car would end up costing damned nearly as much as a big luxury car. Buyers associate "small" with "cheap" but in reality I think the size of the body is only a tiny factor in what a car costs to produce. If VW produced a Golf with the NVH of an S-class for 10k less than an S-class, everyone would laugh at it.
yes

sealtt

3,091 posts

159 months

Thursday 8th October 2015
quotequote all
Mark Benson said:
Well she currently drives an Up, which actually rides very well and feels bigger than it is (I really didn't want to like it, but a test drive converted me). We also have an XJ, so we're not expecting the small car to rival that, but a pet hate of ours is a harsh ride (the main reason the Up won me over, it's very compliant; low kerb weight I suspect) so the CT may not be a contender, we'll certainly give it a go though.
Yes, give it a go, but I'd be very surprised if the CT is for you. If you are looking for something a bit different to the usual (german) suspects, do take a look at the Alfa models. I bought my fiancee a MiTo (1.4 entry model) as her first car and I am very impressed with how nicely it drives for such a small & relatively low price car, it's not luxury but it's comfortable and build quality is more than adequate. Your wife might like the model up from the MiTo - or even the MiTo itself if she likes super compact cars.

Tuvra

7,921 posts

226 months

Thursday 8th October 2015
quotequote all
300bhp/ton said:
A tidy Rover P6 3500 or Triumph 2.5Pi are still very nice places to sit.
I know you love throwing in stupid curve balls, but surely your taking the piss now?


sealtt

3,091 posts

159 months

Thursday 8th October 2015
quotequote all
kambites said:
I think one issue would be that a small luxury car would end up costing damned nearly as much as a big luxury car. Buyers associate "small" with "cheap" but in reality I think the size of the body is only a tiny factor in what a car costs to produce. If VW produced a Golf with the NVH of an S-class for 10k less than an S-class, everyone would laugh at it.
Sure, though think how much less materials would be used for a Golf sized car than an S class. I mean you are talking hundreds of kilos less of materials.

I don't know how much of the difference between NVH of the S-class and the C-class for example is down to cost restraints and how much is down to ensuring a notable quality gap between the models. I wonder how much extra it would cost Merc to build a C-class to the same NVH spec as the S-class? Is it a case that they could easily do it for just say a 10% increase in car cost, but don't want to as they want to preserve the desirability of the top models... would be interesting to know.

kambites

67,582 posts

222 months

Thursday 8th October 2015
quotequote all
Tuvra said:
300bhp/ton said:
A tidy Rover P6 3500 or Triumph 2.5Pi are still very nice places to sit.
I know you love throwing in stupid curve balls, but surely your taking the piss now?
Why is it any more ridiculous than the Merc 190?

kambites

67,582 posts

222 months

Thursday 8th October 2015
quotequote all
sealtt said:
Sure, though think how much less materials would be used for a Golf sized car than an S class. I mean you are talking hundreds of kilos less of materials.
But the materials costs are mostly trivial; I doubt the total materials bill for a car the size of an S-class is more than a few thousand pounds less than that for a Golf-sized car of equivalent quality.

otolith

56,176 posts

205 months

Thursday 8th October 2015
quotequote all
The lightest S-class seems to be about 8% heavier per unit of area covered than the lightest C-class - or 5% heavier per unit of volume if you treat them as a cuboid.

Jimmy Recard

17,540 posts

180 months

Thursday 8th October 2015
quotequote all
sealtt said:
Sure, though think how much less materials would be used for a Golf sized car than an S class. I mean you are talking hundreds of kilos less of materials.
So in other words if most of that is steel, about £30 different?