Archive for May, 2013
Duelling Diesels: RAV4 Cruiser versus Outlander Aspire
It’s been a dual diesel duel over the last week, between the revamped Mitsubishi Outlander Aspire 7 seater diesel up against Toyota’s new diesel entrant to the SUV competition, the venerable RAV4, with Cruiser AWD nomenclature. Both have undergone a substantial exterior reskin whilst the Outlander has received a moderate tickle to the interior. The RAV4 has gone a little further but it’s the under bonnet makeover that’s of most interest.
Mitsubishi has supplied its soft roader with an oil burner for some time now; Toyota has kept their diesels more for their Landcruiser and Prado range in a non-commercial sense. With diesel’s economic benefit being more widely appreciated along with the extra torque compared to petrol being part of that 
factor, Toyota has finally lobbed an engine powered by dinosaur juice into the vehicle that kickstarted the soft roader revolution.
Both have a 2.2L capacity engine with identical power and almost identical revs, 110kw at 3500rpm vs 3600rpm (Mitsubishi/Toyota), the Mitsi twisting out 360Nm of torque from 1500rpm to 2750rpm and the Toyota 340Nm (2800rpm) via an auto gearbox, in this case a Constantly Variable Transmission (CVT) for the Outlander and a traditionally slick self shifter for Toyota. Both have six ratios programmed in with the Outlander receiving 
F1 style paddles behind the tiller and the RAV a “traditional” gear lever change. Both are All Wheel Drive (no transfer case for low ratio dedicated off road work) and have a form of hill descent control plus an ECO mode to gauge how gently (or not) you’ve been driving and the RAV gets a Sports mode 
too. The Outlander and the RAV have an electronic lock system, allowing a change between a torque split (torque directed between front or rear) drive or a locked AWD setup. There’s a better measure of refinement on the Toyota though, with less engine chatter intruding into the cabin plus the Outlander had some vibration 
and shudder at low speeds at around 1500rpm. There’s a touch less lag on the Toyota as well, when the go pedal is depressed.
On the road both are well behaved, tracking truly on the straight. When asked to change direction both do so without fuss, with the RAV’s electronic assist to the steering somewhat without feel on centre but loads up on either side. The Mitsubishi offers a more even feel all the way through. Ridewise the Outlander was a touch harder; although supple enough on a flat road there was a little less give than the RAV, especially on humps’n’bumps. The front end would also “crash” over bigger speedbumps, with a seemingly shorter suspension travel feeling as if they would pull out. The Toyota, with a slightly more plush ride, would have tyre squeal and understeer more when pushed into a hard cornering situation; possibly to 
do with its slightly different wheel and tyre configuration, 
17 inch rims with 225/65 tyres as opposed to the Aspire’s 18/225/55s, which also may account for the slightly less level of rebound. The stop pedal on each on each was smooth and well weighted on the feel.
Both come with a 60L tank; somewhat strangely, the Toyota seemed LESS economical than the Outlander, even with a mere 50kg weight impost with the RAV reaching a quarter tank used first with similar distance and driving styles covered. Both came with keyless entry and start plus electronic tailgates. Operated via the remote fob, the Toyota’s seemed more successful in reading the signal, with both having a switch in the tailgate and Mitsubishi one on the dash. As expected, both had beepers to warn of gate up, gate down motions.
The interior of both is comfy, with the RAV’s seating a little more padded and supportive; the Outlander’s give you a sitting on rather than in impression. The Aspire has the extra row of seats with the simple “pull strap” to raise or lower but has lost the tumble fold and roll middle seats. The Cruiser has a five seat setup, a touch compromised by the RAV’s ten centimetre shorter overall length although, oddly the wheelbase is just a centimetre less. There’s well over 400L of cargo space for each with the rear seats (not including the third row in the Outlander) up plus 
each have a cargo blind. Overall width is a winner to the Toyota, by just 45mm but the Outlander feels a wider cabin although the RAV has a sunroof. Both dashes are easy to read, with a logical layout whilst taking slightly different routes with the placement of the Start/Stop button. The Mitsi’s is to the lower right of the steering wheel and the RAV to the upper left….neither are clearly visible to the driver. Toyota wrap the centre console and door trim in a carbon firbre look and some handsomely stitched leather on the centre dash. Outlander gets a tastefully contrasting wood trim (doors) 
and pianoblack highlight (centre dash) and both get heated seating. A minor ergonomic issue with the Aspire was the placement of the interior door handle, feeling as if it should be an inch or two higher. Both came with touchscreens for the satnav/entertainment system and steering wheel controls; the Mitsubishi won out with a more user friendly control system and, more importantly, did NOT have the utterly intrusive voice system saying a driver was over the limit…especially when the GPS was a bit lost. The sound from the audio system in each was 
wonderful, with the Aspire copping a Rockford Fosgate setup, although the Toyota’s bass was a little more defined. Naturally, connectivity is not an issue with USB/Bluetooth and Auxiliary ports available, with the RAV proffering two USBs, one in the head unit and one below.
It’s the exterior where these two have a more clearly defined delineation: the RAV cops the new angular family design brief, with the sharper, pointier nose and headlight cluster, LED running 
lights and a slightly less rounded rear than before. The Outlander has the now, more familiar, rounded and slightly bulbous look; it’s one that is slowly growing on me. There’s the familiar rubber touchpad for the keyless entry on the Aspire with the Cruiser getting a touch sensor embedded in the door handle plus has a nifty “blind spot” sensor with each exterior mirror lighting up a graphic if another vehicle appear to be in a tricky position to see.
Pressed to find a clear winner here, I can’t; both have their pluses and 
minuses enough to cancel each other out. And that’s great news for prospective buyers that aren’t brand locked. Both are competitively priced, the RAV starting at $48490 (auto) plus on roads and metallic paint whilst the Outlander starts at $45490 plus on roads and metallic ($495 + the electric tailgate, sound system and a couple of other items are a $5500 option) which, on dollars only, would have the Toyota only just ahead.
For more information click here: http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com.au/vehicles/outlander/specifications/outlander-2-2l and here: http://www.toyota.com.au/rav4/specifications/awd-cruiser-diesel-auto
Make Your Own Car Cleaning Products
We’ve all heard about the drive towards more environmentally friendly motoring. Hybrid vehicles seem to be coming onto the market left, right and centre, and (as I’ve mentioned in earlier posts), fuel economy figures are getting just as much attention as power and torque figures in car reviews these days.
But what about the other aspects of car ownership? Going green goes way beyond buying a nice shiny new Nissan Leaf or some other hybrid or electric vehicle. It goes beyond using ethanol blends (which come from a sustainable and renewable source) or biodiesel (ditto) to power your vehicle. It also applies when it comes to keeping that new vehicle shiny.
A lot of commercial car cleaning products contain a lot of fairly ferocious chemicals. These have a number of environmental problems associated with them. First up, there’s making them. If it’s made here in Australia, it probably has to comply with all sorts of regulations regarding emissions, so that’s OK, but if it gets made in some third-world country, the factory could be a bit dodgy for the environment. Next comes using the stuff. Some car cleaning products can be pretty rough on your skin or on your lungs. And last of all comes disposal – all that stuff goes into the water system and can take quite some time breaking down.
So making your own out of natural cleaning bits and pieces can be a good option. They can save you a couple of cents, into the bargain. A couple of recipes are given below:
Car body wash
- 1 cup soap gel (make by dissolving old bits of soap in boiling water and letting it cool – it makes a goopy sort of sludge)
- ½ cup baking soda or washing soda
- bucket of warm water
Dissolve the soap gel and the washing/baking soda in the water. Apply to the car body with a soft brush. Rinse off with plain water. This is a mild wash that gets the grub off but doesn’t hurt the wax or the paint – or your hands.
Window and glass cleaner
- 1 cup ordinary white vinegar
- 1 cup of plain water (preferably unchlorinated)
Shake together and spray onto the glass with a soft cloth (e.g. an old towel or a tatty old T-shirt). Buff off with another soft cloth.
Tar remover
- Cooking oil (any sort)
Tar is oil-based, and any good oil will soften it enough for you to be able to pick and peel it off the paintwork very, very gently, or scrub it off with an old toothbrush. If the tar is very old or stubborn, a little kerosene should do the trick, with the emphasis on “little” or you’ll wreak havoc with the paint.
Homemade wax (for enthusiasts only)
- 2 cups carnauba wax (found in some auto and hardware stores – look carefully or ask one of the sales staff)
- 2 cups beeswax
- ½ cup vegetable oil (olive, linseed, etc.)
Melt the waxes in the oil in a double boiler. While it’s still hot, pour it into a suitable tin or container ready for use. Then use as normal. It’s not tinted, but it will do. Carnuba wax is derived from a Brazilian palm tree and is the basis of a lot of commercial car waxes – make that most of them.
You could also give a microfibre cloth a go (e.g. an Enjo cloth). These are great if you are on water restrictions, as you only need enough water to get the cloth damp. The wee fibres get into those microscopic cracks in the paintwork (yep, they’re there) and grab the dirt. Because you don’t use any product, there’s no residue left behind, so the paintwork doesn’t go streaky.
Holden's Triple S Barina; Smart, Small, Slow.
Much like a birthday sneaking up on you, it’s a bit of a shock to realise that the Barina nameplate has been around for nigh on thirty years. Coming from a variety of manufacturers such as Suzuki and Opel, the current model is brought in from Korea. The current model has a two level strategy, the Spark being an “entry level: and the slightly bigger version sedan and hatch, CD and CDX. The main seller is the hatch, with a 1.6 litre petrol engine and six speed automatic transmission with electronic manual shifting, via a toggle button on the gear lever. There is a five speed manual option. I say option as most of these will be sold with the auto. Sadly. More on that later…
The CDX tested comes with Holden’s new MyLink system (http://www.holden.com.au/vehicles/barina/interior) 
allowing you to connect to Apple’s Siri voice assistant, Pandora internet based radio and more. It’s smart and fun and looks good on the seven inch touch screen. The driver’s dash view is of a motorcycle style readout (highlighted in electric blue at night time) whilst the layout is clean and simple to use. The heated leather wrapped front seats are ok in side and back support but would be a little lacking in comfort for a long drive. Bearing in mind it’s a city car long drives are not its forte. Nor is calling it a five seater a wise thing, unless the rear seat is populated by dolls. It’s a small car, just on four metres total length for the hatch (the sedan is slightly longer) whilst interior front shoulder room is 1360mm, giving more weight to a rubbing shoulders argument. Bootspace, unsurprisingly, isn’t huge, with the foldable rear seats up and won’t take a new flatscreen TV above 40 inches in size. On the outside it’s good enough, with a family resemblance to the Captiva by virtue of the quad headlight cluster, leading to a pert backside via some smooth sheetmetal on the four passenger doors.
The wheelbase is just on two and a half metres whilst the track (distance between wheels left and right) is 1495mm; this, plus the wonderful Continental tyres, sourced from Europe, give the Barina CDX a decent enough handling package and allow the car to run hard into a corner with a surprising level of ride comfort and grip. It’s certainly more capable on the road that the drivers that will buy it. It brakes well, handles well enough and is quiet enough around town……except 
when pushed hard…..the engine shows the lack of refinement with a buzzy, raucous cacophony, sounding like it’s giving you plenty of urge when, in fact, a drunken snail would win a drag race.
It’s a 1.6L fuel injected engine, needing 6000 revs to produce peak power and 4000 revs to give you peak torque. Matched with an electronically controlled six speed auto, it’s zero to one hundred in a calendar week. Using the gear lever mounted manual switch doesn’t help either, with a shift from gear to gear measured in tenths of a second, rather than blinks of an eye. In a market crowded with small cars, it’s unforgiveable. And sad, as the chassis provides a decent ride, the new MyLink system is pretty smart and economy is ok for what it is. In the market segment it sits in though, the buyers won’t be fussed by the lack of refinement and added aural assault, being swayed by its looks and chicness.
Click here: http://www.holden.com.au/forms/view-brochures?Vehicle=Barina for a downloadable brochure.
Level 2, 9 Help Street