|
|
Post by racingteatray on Nov 13, 2017 17:32:55 GMT
Was over in Milan again at the end of last week for a short visit and was treated to a 500X. This is the second 500X I've driven, having previously been given a rather nice "City-look" 1.6d (120bhp) Lounge in a passing approximation of "Racing-spec", (dark green metallic with a dark brown interior) in Milan about a year ago.
This 500X, also "City-look" and in a rather more nondescript silver with a black interior, was rather more basic both in terms of trim level (Pop) and engine (95 bhp turbodiesel, rather than 120bhp version).
It's still a tidy-looking car in basic Pop-spec and still overall has a cohesive well-planted look. It's a useful size, being not too large to make nipping through Milanese rush-hour traffic nerve-wracking, and as mentioned before, it looks pleasantly SUV-ish without being too overly "lifestyle". But I would definitely recommend going for the Lounge version as a "no-brainer" as the added styling tinsel and spec (climate, nav, xenons etc) just ensure it feels sufficiently more upmarket to justify the added price.
It's similar inside – the basics are good but you feel that you are in the basic version. The plastics are not quite old-school German standard (what is these days?) but the bits you touch are typically soft-feel and tactile enough. The overall design is smart, cohesive and blessed with sufficiently interesting detailing to make you feel like somebody actually bothered to design it. The ergonomics are pretty good. Decent visibility too with just enough of the high driving-position so beloved of SUV drivers. Plenty of space and comfort up-front and ok space in the back. Boot space was good with what looked like a deeper floor than the Lounge version we previously tried.
The standard equipment levels on the Pop model is ok. You get front and rear electric windows, electric mirrors, blue-tooth, manual air-con and a smallish built-in touchscreen which doesn't provide navigation functionality (at which point you wonder why have it at all). At least it is mounted high-up and not tablet-style. That's about your lot. It could have done with rear parking sensors. Again worth upgrading to the Lounge.
Drive-wise it was much as I remember from the previous 500X I tried, and indeed the Renegade, just with the noticeable absence of 25 stout horsies. Light easy controls without much feel but equally they didn't feel too flimsy or loose. It handles well enough for the type of car it is with less body roll than I expected and proved an easy car to place and drive. The engine, however, struggles even with just two people and two suitcases, meaning a lot of gearbox stirring is required, and it's an indifferent 5spd box whereas the 120bhp version gets a much slicker 6spd box. You have to flatten the accelerator to make decent progress and you'd never describe it as pokey. Once you are up and running, motorway performance is ok with some semblance of turbodiesel mid-range but it's always noisy. Get the 120bhp version. Or better still a petrol. We didn't do very many miles in it, but the economy in mixed use seemed pretty good.
To repeat what I said last time, despite not being SUV fans, I actually like the 500X, as does my wife. It manages to be several leagues more desirable as an object than most of the competition in its class, thanks to having a large dose of the smartly detailed exterior and interior styling, and general desirability of the standard 500. Pop-spec slightly takes the shine off that by virtue of lacking some of the FG and design titivations that spruce up the ritzier versions nicely. Regardless of whether it is a good car, it has bags of consumer appeal (in a way that the ugly sister 500L just doesn't). Like the standard 500, it feels like a car you might actually actively choose to buy because you like it and it fits into your life, not merely because it was what you could afford and needed (provided you spec it right and you avoid the 95bhp turbodiesel donkey).
No pics - lack of time and it was dark!
|
|
|
|
Post by PG on Nov 16, 2017 17:26:56 GMT
As you say, with 95hp you must really have to thrash it to within an inch of its life. OK with a hire car, but if it was your own, you'd worry that one day bits of the engine would fly in all directions. Downsizing engines (and power) has gone too far, methinks....
|
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Nov 17, 2017 13:40:52 GMT
A "non-car" friend of ours is looking at getting a 500X and considering diesel, despite being a London dweller - he points out that it has lower emissions and (currently) tax than the petrol. I made him promise under no circumstances to get the 1.3 95bhp diesel. I told him that the 1.6 120bhp diesel was not remotely exciting but it did at least move.
|
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on May 20, 2019 13:22:27 GMT
Got treated to our third 500X this past weekend as an upgrade from our "Clio or similar". I literally only drove it about 30kms as I was only in Italy for 36hrs to go to a wedding just outside Bologna on Saturday evening, but my wife has the use of it for the rest of this week, so be interesting to get her feedback as she'll do at least 500kms in it and she likes the 500X.
It was the recently facelifted version in dark metallic grey with large fancy alloys, the new Firefly 1.3 150bhp turbo petrol engine and an automatic gearbox. It was in "T4" spec, which seems to be a European spec name we don't use over here, but probably approximates to Lounge. Reasonably well-equipped without being any to get overly excited by. So for example it had Carplay but not reversing sensors.
Otherwise all much as I remember it and wrote above. Some of the plastics on the doorcards looked a bit cheaper than I recall, but the touchpoints are well finished and someone has thought about the design detailing, making it a generally attractive cabin. Smaller boot than you'd expect is probably my biggest gripe.
Engine seemed fine although my wife commented that she thought the Easter A1 had more instant get-up-and-go despite having 30 fewer gee-gees. Rode surprisingly well given the almost comically large wheels though.
No pics I'm afraid.
|
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jun 4, 2019 16:46:03 GMT
Post-script on this one...asked my wife what she thought only to be told it was terrible and she’d never have one in a month of Sundays.
Upon enquiring further it turned out this was because it drank petrol “like it had a hole in the tank”. Ok diesel costs less than petrol in Italy but we worked out she spent the same amount on fuel to go about 600kms in the 500X as we did to go over 1,500kms in the Mito. That’s quite shocking considering that the petrol engine in that particular 500X is a brand new design.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Jun 4, 2019 16:58:02 GMT
The 500X is quite a wide and tall car, and you do need to spend a lot of energy to push it through the air. What sort of mpg was she expecting to get from it ??
|
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jun 5, 2019 15:41:51 GMT
Well I made that point, but she wasn't having any of it.
It did seem to use remarkable quantities of fuel even in the short distance I drove it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roadsterstu on Jun 11, 2019 11:17:07 GMT
Maybe the auto doesn't help or maybe she just reverted to driving like an Italian and hammered it everywhere?
Mrs R has been making noises about the 500X to replace the Craptur. This isn't going to happen for a while because we currently can't afford to change it (despite it's increasing desire to start falling to bits at only 45k miles).
The 95bhp sounds rather like the 90bhp diesel in the Renault - shit.
|
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jun 11, 2019 22:25:29 GMT
My wife isn’t particularly a speed demon by Italian standards so I don’t think it was that.
When we were in the south of France avec MiTo the other day, other friends turned up from Marseille airport in the same spec of petrol auto 500X (after fighting for an upgrade from a Dacia Duster) that we’d had in Bologna and when I asked about the fuel economy, he commented that in fact he’d also noticed that it was a bit heavy on fuel.
How old is your Captur?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jun 12, 2019 8:50:53 GMT
The 95bhp sounds rather like the 90bhp diesel in the Renault - shit. I presume that's the same engine I have in the Micra and I've been pleasantly surprised by it. The throttle response when pulling out from a junction is superior to the 320d, even wghen that's on 'Sport' (I always press that now) and I thought it was quite revvy too. I'm not so impressed by the shunting it does at a steady throttle and low engine speeds such as 30 in 4th. |
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Jun 12, 2019 11:17:44 GMT
The 95bhp sounds rather like the 90bhp diesel in the Renault - shit. My Captur was delivered in July 2014 (made about 6 weeks beforehand) and I've no complaints about how the 90 bhp diesel sounds or pulls. Sure it would be nice if it had more power but I Knew what I was letting myself (and the wife) in for when I bought it.... it's certainly a nicer, quieter, smoother, more economical engine than the 100bhp 1.9dTi that was fitted to the Renault it replaced in our household (Scenic Mk 1) |
|
|
|
Post by bryan on Jun 12, 2019 15:23:17 GMT
The 95bhp sounds rather like the 90bhp diesel in the Renault - shit. Have you got the Eco button pressed on the Captur - that made a difference but oddly Mrs M preferred the lethargic response with it switched on! |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jun 12, 2019 16:24:20 GMT
The 1.5 Renault diesel is a brilliant little engine, with refinement that embarrasses more expensive marques efforts. We had the 110bhp version in our last Qashqai and our latest has the slightly tweaked 115bhp version. Despite the relatively low power output it performs very well and delivers good economy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roadsterstu on Jun 20, 2019 8:46:43 GMT
Perhaps I just expect too much from it. To be fair it coped better than I thought it would, fully laden and with a heavy roof box, on a two week trip to Cornwall last summer and it is economical. I just find the 5 speed box is mismatched, needing a 6 speed with closer ratios in my opinion. If the rest of the driving experience was more enjoyable I might see it differently. Bryan, it is NEVER in Eco! Racing, it's a 2013 63 55k miler. She likes it. That's all that really matters.
|
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jun 20, 2019 10:04:52 GMT
She likes it. That's all that really matters. Amen to that! |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jun 20, 2019 10:47:06 GMT
Perhaps I just expect too much from it. To be fair it coped better than I thought it would, fully laden and with a heavy roof box, on a two week trip to Cornwall last summer and it is economical. I just find the 5 speed box is mismatched, needing a 6 speed with closer ratios in my opinion. If the rest of the driving experience was more enjoyable I might see it differently. Bryan, it is NEVER in Eco! Racing, it's a 2013 63 55k miler. She likes it. That's all that really matters. Ours have had the 6 speed box and now the dual clutch auto so you may have something there. |
|
|
|
Post by Roadsterstu on Jun 21, 2019 12:27:23 GMT
Perhaps I just expect too much from it. To be fair it coped better than I thought it would, fully laden and with a heavy roof box, on a two week trip to Cornwall last summer and it is economical. I just find the 5 speed box is mismatched, needing a 6 speed with closer ratios in my opinion. If the rest of the driving experience was more enjoyable I might see it differently. Bryan, it is NEVER in Eco! Racing, it's a 2013 63 55k miler. She likes it. That's all that really matters. Ours have had the 6 speed box and now the dual clutch auto so you may have something there. I just find the engine and gearbox hopelessly mismatched - you're always either in too high a gear or too low a gear and it feels like it needs one in between. For example, it urges you to change up to 4th from 3rd in a 30 but when you do it feels like it's sat in too high a gear and it hasn't got the torque to pull it off, so you change down again. I'm always getting told off for constantly changing gear! |
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jun 21, 2019 13:30:14 GMT
Our Micra needs to be in 3rd at a steady 30 because otherwise it shunts.
Its the first car I've had that issue with, the 320 can sit in 5th at 30 on the flat, although obviously you wouldn't want to accelerate anywhere!
The Micra isn't happy being in 4th, at a constant speed, until its doing nearly 50.
Perhaps its just a characteristic of that engine and gearbox combo?
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Jun 21, 2019 13:55:38 GMT
Stu, the EDC auto is far better and it's 6-speeds !
|
|
|
|
Post by Boxer6 on Jun 21, 2019 22:53:10 GMT
Our Micra needs to be in 3rd at a steady 30 because otherwise it shunts. Its the first car I've had that issue with, the 320 can sit in 5th at 30 on the flat, although obviously you wouldn't want to accelerate anywhere! The Micra isn't happy being in 4th, at a constant speed, until its doing nearly 50. Perhaps its just a characteristic of that engine and gearbox combo? On a level road at 30mph, the Octavia is telling me to change up to 5th! |
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jun 24, 2019 9:11:34 GMT
I bet it won't judder if you do!
My old 530d would happily sit at 30 in 5th (top) and then actually pull away if you wanted to, albeit not exactly quickly to start with.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jun 24, 2019 10:16:02 GMT
Our Micra needs to be in 3rd at a steady 30 because otherwise it shunts. Its the first car I've had that issue with, the 320 can sit in 5th at 30 on the flat, although obviously you wouldn't want to accelerate anywhere! The Micra isn't happy being in 4th, at a constant speed, until its doing nearly 50. Perhaps its just a characteristic of that engine and gearbox combo? Surely the actual gear it is in at 30 is irrelevant - all that matters is that it's in an economical rev range? If it's comfortable at 30mph in 3rd I wouldn't have a problem - less gear changes around town and better torque if you need to squirt the throttle to make a gap. Some people seem to race to get their car into top gear and up into 5th at 30mph, thinking that somehow that is the most economical, with the engine being completely out of it's optimum performance range, and with no flexibility. They then get caught out as they press the throttle and nothing happens. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jun 24, 2019 12:08:34 GMT
Our Micra needs to be in 3rd at a steady 30 because otherwise it shunts. Its the first car I've had that issue with, the 320 can sit in 5th at 30 on the flat, although obviously you wouldn't want to accelerate anywhere! The Micra isn't happy being in 4th, at a constant speed, until its doing nearly 50. Perhaps its just a characteristic of that engine and gearbox combo? Surely the actual gear it is in at 30 is irrelevant - all that matters is that it's in an economical rev range? If it's comfortable at 30mph in 3rd I wouldn't have a problem - less gear changes around town and better torque if you need to squirt the throttle to make a gap. Some people seem to race to get their car into top gear and up into 5th at 30mph, thinking that somehow that is the most economical, with the engine being completely out of it's optimum performance range, and with no flexibility. They then get caught out as they press the throttle and nothing happens. You're right of course but it somehow feels unnatural to be in 3rd at 30 rather than 4th (I only try 5th to see if the car will do it). |
|
