|
THE
danger of petroleum resources running out in the next
decade or so gave auto manufacturers the opportunity to
push products that can travel the farthest with the
least consumed fuel. Hybrids, diesel-powered
four-wheelers and alternative fuel-powered vehicles
aside, these fuel-sippers have generated the most
interest among consumers for obvious reasons.
With so
many subcompact cars available, the question is
this—which one is the best for you? BusinessMirror
realizes that many have done comparisons between
vehicles with displacements of between 1.2 to 1.5 liters
such as the Chevrolet Aveo, Kia Rio, Honda’s City and
Jazz, Toyota Vios, Suzuki Swift and Hyundai Getz. So, it
takes this opportunity to compare subcompact sedans,
albeit with an extreme twist.
The
comparison (or comparo) followed these guidelines: 1)
The cars must have a 1.0- to 1.1-liter displacement; 2)
They must tote manual transmissions (M/T’s); and 3) They
must have gasoline-fed engines. Only three made the
criteria—the 1.0L Chevrolet Spark, the1.1L Kia Picanto
LX Deluxe and the 1.1L Hyundai Getz GL. Unfortunately,
the only Getz available for testing was the 1.5L CRDi
version, which left just the Spark and Picanto as the
combatants.
This is
how we did it
Both
cars were handed over to the writers for five days of
testing. Two days were spent by each tester with the
cars, with over eleven parameters—engine performance;
fuel economy; transmission; braking; steering and
handling; ride comfort; noise, vibration and harshness (NVH);
exterior, interior ergonomics/space/layout; convenience;
safety features and price—set for comparisons. A comparo
score sheet was procured for each tester, who rated the
eleven parameters of each car on a scale of five (best)
to one (worst).
Testing
the different parameters was open, but for the fuel
consumption aspect testers had to top up each unit with
fuel at the Petron service station along Macapagal
Boulevard.
The cars
were then driven normally—econorun style-driving, with
the thermostat on and the air conditioning (A/C) blower
at setting two—by each tester through predetermined
routes and returned to the Petron station, where the
units were topped up again, noting the number of liters
added after a single click of the pump gun.
To
determine highway consumption, the cars were driven to
the southern end of the SLEX (South Luzon Expressway),
93.3-km long and without use of the Skyway or other
shortcuts. To determine city consumption, the cars were
taken on a 37.5-km route around
Manila.
This
writer and BusinessMirror would like readers to know
that the way used in determining a vehicle’s fuel
consumption used in this comparo is not the most
accurate and is only an approximation. However, it is
the most readily available way for the average motorist
to measure fuel consumption.
Let the
scuffle begin…
Kia
Picanto
By the
looks
Morte:
The Picanto adopts a two-tone colorway to its interior,
with the dashboard in black and light gray for the doors
and seat cloth trim. Seating is good for four but
cramped for five, and gets tighter for rear passengers
if the front occupants are six-footers. The Clarion head
unit is serviceable and rather easy to operate. There’s
power-assisted central locking. For occupant storage the
Picanto has only two cup holders for the front and just
one for the rear, but offers a bevy of areas on the
doors, under the dashboard and behind the front seat
backrests.
Outside
the Picanto front fascia is similar to the current
Hyundai Starex, with large headlights and the equally
large grille employing a waterfall look. In contrast the
rear provides a bit of sportiness, thanks to a rear
glass-mounted spoiler with a short overhang. Normally
white doesn’t go well with certain vehicles, but the
Picanto is an exception.
Roces:
Since the end of its production, many enthusiasts had
hoped for a resurrection of the famed Mini Cooper. Way
before its time, the Cooper introduced the sheer
practicality and fun in owning a small car, not to
mention raising the bar for handling among front-wheel
drives.
These
days, with the streets getting more crowded and fuel
prices rising, the small car’s value is once again on
the rise. Though practicality is foremost in most
buyer’s minds, Kia injects something a little extra into
its Picanto to sway buyers to its side. Though it’s
advertised as a fun and youthful car, many don’t realize
just how fun it really is.
For such
a fun car, the Picanto is rather staid when it comes to
design. The front grille definitely lacks imagination,
while the interiors are about as basic as they get.
While
the Picanto may lack a great deal of comfort options,
its low entry price definitely makes it a steal. This
only leaves you with more cash with which to customize
it to your delight.
Under
the hood
Morte:
Just
because the Picanto totes a 1.1-liter engine means that
the subcompact is slow. Power is linear but attainable,
and the engine is torquey considering the displacement.
Fuel economy is exceptional but expected—30.3 km/l
highway consumption, 14.64 km/l city consumption—and the
154 kph top speed attained by this writer was
surprising. Unfortunately third and fourth gears are
tall, but the solid construction of the M/T made this
writer want to push the car to its utmost engine and
handling limits.
Roces:
Fuel economy isn’t much of a worry as its 1.1-liter
engine ensures at least 15.38 km/l within the city, even
with spirited driving. The figure is much higher in the
highway (20.69 km/l). And though it has a short ratio
transmission, its top speed of 155 kph is more than
enough for those brief moments of overtaking.
On the
road
Morte:
In the handling and ride department, the Picanto does
fairly well in everyday circumstances, despite riding on
a MacPherson strut front and a torsion beam rear
suspension. It handles like an old Austin Mini Cooper
but at 70-plus kph there’s significant traction loss.
The steering is a bit off-center but precise when
needed. There’s a smattering of NVH when the car runs
over broken tarmac and the tires emit a lot of noise.
There’s neither ABS nor airbags and front tires lock up
too quickly during hard braking. Lighting is wide enough
and bright enough to see at night. The gauges and driver
controls are easy to read and reach, but the dashboard
gauges look too much like those on the Hyundai Starex.
Roces:
The Picanto truly shines in the city, zipping in and out of
small gaps in traffic and finding room to breathe even
in the tightest spaces.
You
can’t help but drive spiritedly when in it. The snickety
shift lever and driving position put you in such a
sporty mood. The engine, handling and transmission combo
are encouraging as well. Though the suspension is rather
stiff, this makes for excellent cornering, putting good
use to the car’s diminutive size.
Chevrolet Spark
By the
looks
Morte:
The P 490,000 Spark shares its exterior design with the
current Daewoo Matiz, as seen in its bulbous front end
and overall outside styling. Unfortunately, to this
writer the Spark’s exterior looks too plain and close to
uninspired.
Inside,
seating is cramped for four and most likely can only
accommodate three if one of the occupants has long legs.
The JVC head unit is hard to operate, its buttons are
hard to read, there’s no manual frequency locking
feature and there are only two speakers for listening
pleasure.
It
doesn’t help that the Spark’s A/C housing can be a bit
intrusive to the driver’s knee, and the somewhat flimsy
door latches are hard to find. Speaking of the A/C, the
rotary vents are a big plus in focusing cold air to a
particular spot. Also, there are lots of storage areas
for front occupants, including four cup holders, a canal
under the dashboard and a box above the glove
compartment.
The
steering wheel looks homely and the gauges (located in
the center of the dashboard) are a bit small. Also, it
would be better if the fuel and rev counter indicators
(located on the leftmost and rightmost parts of the
instrument cluster, respectively) change places. Why?
The gas pedal has a stiction that makes gentle inputs
tough and the driver will really need the rev counter to
be placed closer in order to get a decent launch from
rest (1500 rpm onwards).
Roces:
The Spark’s exterior is certainly quite eye-catching.
Dynamic lines and an adorable fascia truly make it stand
out in the crowd. In the interior, the little accents
and dials are quite attractive as well. Unfortunately,
they’re not as functional as they are formidable.
Mounting the instrument cluster in the center of the
dashboard is steadily growing popular among small cars
but the Spark’s is also center-facing, making it
difficult for the driver to read accurately. The
steering angle and tall shift lever are also a bit
awkward with regards to reach and positioning.
Visibility is fair, although the A-pillars can be quite
huge blind spots for bikes. Of course, there’s also the
issue of the car’s comfort options: no power locks, and
only two front-mounted speakers.
Under
the hood
Morte:
The 1.0L engine takes a while to get into the powerband
(3,500 rpm onwards), but offers very good benefits when
it comes to fuel economy. This writer registered a
whopping 54 km/l on the highway and a 21.68 km/l in city
driving.
There
are other knocks against the Spark that made this writer
rate it low in terms of performance. The five-speed
M/T’s gear ratios are too high, and the M/T stick feels
like it could break with every throw.
Roces:
Now Chevrolet isn’t particularly known for designing
small cars. The brand is more likely to bring images of
large and imposing SUV’s, or sleek and sexy Corvettes
rather than that of the pint-sized Spark. That being
such, you’d hardly expect the Spark to score high on
economy given its Detroit muscle (borrowed) heritage.
Yet the
Spark seems to be tailor-made for city use. Its short
ratio tranny (much shorter than the Picanto), grants it
some fairly impressive economy in the city (16.34 km/l).
On the highway, however, its short ratio seems to be its
downfall as at higher speeds—like cruising at 100 kph—seem
to have a heavy toll on economy (18.07 km/l).
On the
road
Morte:
The steering is woefully imprecise, with a tendency to
wander at 80-plus kph. The 80-plus kph magic number also
is a signal for road noise, wind noise and NVH to
permeate the cabin and amplify, making occupants other
than the driver dizzy. At 100-plus kph the car can be
thrown about by crosswinds. The tires lose traction at
60-plus kph and there’s excessive body roll during hard
cornering. There’s neither ABS nor airbags should one
meet another by accident. The good news is that the
brakes have decent feel and the car’s dimensions make
parallel parking and shooting into tight parking slots
very easy.
Roces:
While the Picanto shines in the driving department, the
Spark is one of the few cars that makes parking
pleasurable. It’s just as long as the Picanto, but is
exactly 100-mm narrower. Tight spaces truly aren’t a
problem when you’re 1,495-mm wide. Its height, however,
paired with its tiny tires, serve as a disadvantage when
it comes to handling.
Despite
that, the Spark has a few delightful surprises. One such
surprise is the low rumble of the Spark’s engine. It
grunts more like an American four banger than its
Japanese counterpart. Another added treat is its tight
turning; making parallel parking a tactile joy.
And the
winner is...
Morte:
The Chevrolet Spark gets kudos for its fuel consumption,
braking and its ability to squeeze itself into tight
parking spaces. But the Kia Picanto wins overall, in no
small part due to its exterior styling, power delivery,
solid m/t construction, handling, roominess and
easier-to-use audio entertainment.
Roces:
While on paper, the Spark and Picanto seem like
practically twins, on the road they’re as unique and
quirky as two individuals can be. Both present novel
approaches to the small car category that really serve
to convince you to make your next car a small one.
However, when the aspect of value is underscored, one
car truly stands out. The Picanto, though sparse and,
admittedly, a bit dull, more than makes up for it in the
driving experience. And with a very low price tag, one
will at least have some change to add the necessary
extras.
 |
