Suzuki Alto (Celerio)

Suzuki Alto
Suzuki Alto – By OSX – Own work, Public Domain

When working in Qatar, at one point I decided to stop using taxis 4+ times a day and to rent a car. So I rented the cheapest car I could. I was given a Suzuki Celerio – a tiny subcompact.

This will be another of my historical reviews. I don’t even have a photo to hand of this car, so a stock photo will have to do.

The car I rented was a Celerio – at that time, this was a rebadged Suzuki Alto, although since that time the Celerio is now a real car alongside the Alto. It was powered by a 1l 3-cylinder engine, linked to a 4-speed automatic gearbox. The 1l engine makes 67 bhp (50 kW) and 66 lb-ft (90 Nm) of torque, and, when connected to the 4-speed auto, has an incredible 0-60mph time of 17 seconds.

Ok, so let’s dive right in.

The bad parts – this car is slow. Not just because I’m used to driving much more powerful cars now – even at the time, it was slow. The automatic gearbox is incredibly unresponsive, and the small engine struggles considerably to move the car around. Pulling out of side roads in Doha was coupled with having my foot flat on the floor, a lot of noise, and very little movement, resulting in a pretty terrifying experience every time I drove. In addition to this, there is prodigious body roll, despite the small size of the car, so cornering is also exciting.

In addition, this car is tiny. This means you take up very little road space, and are generally both not very visible and not that well protected. When coupled with the dearth of performance, that made for an unpleasant driving experience.

Because the car is tiny, it has very limited space – it had 5 doors, but the rear passengers are very squashed, and the boot is miniscule. A small suitcase laid on its side would fit in the boot, but nothing else.

Finally, the 1l engine with the auto ‘box mean the car should be relatively efficient, but having to drive on the limit all the time to not get squashed countered that considerably.

So, the good parts? Ok…

You can, in fact, get four people into this car – as a five door vehicle, everyone has a door to themselves. If you really hate the people in the back, you could even fit a fifth person, though they will not appreciate it.

If the car was placed in a more suitable environment – say a European city not filled with giant American trucks – then it would work as a small runabout to get around the inner city, and would be very light on the wallet.

The car is cheap. This is demonstrably because it’s tiny and not great to drive, but if you need a new car for less than the price of most 4 year old used cars, this would have been the car for you.

In summary:


+5 doors


-Not great to drive



Efficiency I’ve left off the rating, because while it was bad for me, in a city better suited to the car, I suspect it wouldn’t be so bad.

This was a car that, at the time, filled a market segment. It was cheap. These days, people expect more.

An open letter to Avis

I am no longer your customer. I used to be. In fact, I rented with you enough to reach Avis Preferred Plus status, not that that matters.

I have found better alternatives. Individually, at airport rental locations, the experience was wildly variable – from the best service I’ve ever received to by far the worst. This, I accept, is down to the local employees.
But the reason I left? Your customer service is the worst customer service I have ever received, from any company. Every time I had to call, whether to book a car, change a reservation, complain, or even just find out some information… Every time, I had a dreadful experience. Regularly, I would end up stuck in a circular path where an advisor redirected me to ‘the right phone number’ which just booted me back to the menu at the start of the phone call, meaning I’d have to go around again – with an average of 20 minutes waiting every single time. Trying to call a rental desk would almost always result in being redirected to the call centre, where nobody could help.

The single worst experience I had, and the one that started my dislike of your company, was when I was forgotten for an hour and a half. A staff member put me on hold, and I ended up driving back to the rental agency to continue the conversation in person – when she hung up the phone after I had arrived, the call ended on the phone I held in my hand. Then I called to complain. I was redirected to several different people, and eventually determined that the only way my voice would be heard – that Avis would listen – was to write a letter to HQ. I still have that email. I never wrote – it seemed if Avis were that scared of feedback they’d simply dispose of the letter and pretend it never arrived.

This was the beginning of the end, but the final straw came when I asked Avis to move my account (with its status and perks) to the USA, because I had moved from the UK and it made no sense to have an account in a different country. I was told by three separate people including managers, that this could not be done. My account would need to be recreated and my loyalty status would be erased – I’d have to start again. This is appalling. A global company should not have ‘regional’ loyalty programmes. I have not rented with Avis again.

In fact, and I feel this is required, I now rent with Hertz. They have a global loyalty programme. This meant when I contacted them to say I now lived in the USA, they just changed my address. Same loyalty level, same level of reward points, just a new address. Equally, when I need to contact Hertz – which is very rare – there is always someone on the line within 10 minutes and they are helpful, supportive, and clearly attentive to the fact I’ve called a phone number.

This is how a rental company should operate. Your customers are the most important part of your business – how they’re treated at the rental counter is only part of the relationship. Learn from your mistakes, Avis. It might stop others from leaving.

Škoda Fabia

The Skoda Fabia I drove in Qatar
The Skoda Fabia I drove in Qatar

Another different review week this week – older cars that I drove many years ago. First in line, the 2014 Škoda Fabia.

When based in Qatar, one weekend I rented a car and was given a 2014 Fabia – the last year before a new version of the car was released in 2015. This Fabia I had was powered by a 1.6l engine making 103hp (77kW) and 113lb-ft (153 Nm) of torque. This was mated to a 6-speed automatic gearbox. The Fabia’s 0-60 time is around 11.1s and has a top speed of 115mph (185km/h).

Before I start in detail, a caveat. With these older reviews, I drove the car a long time ago (in this case, 3 years), often not for all that long, so there will be much less detail than my recent reviews.

So, the bad:

The car is underpowered. 105bhp is not very much, and it’s noticeably not very much. The car accelerates slowly (a 0-60 time of 11s is almost unheard of in 2017, and feels sluggish) but it does get there.

Fuel economy isn’t great – because of that 1.6l engine, fuel economy is not particularly good. By 2014, Škoda had actually addressed this and most Fabias came instead with a 1.2l turbocharged engine, making the same power but with better economy and much lower emissions. However, the car I had with the 1.6 didn’t experience these benefits.

Manual shifting was laggy – if the car was in manual, it was possible to shift gears yourself rather than let the car do it. However, the car I had used a 6-speed auto ‘box, not the 7-speed DSG that replaced it. This was laggy when manually shifting, so I just let it do its own thing.

The good:

The car was remarkably nice to drive. The 6-speed gearbox shifted nicely in D, and could be put in S to eke more out of the rev range. The car handled very well and was planted in corners – the fact it didn’t make much power meant the power it did make could be used to its full potential, which was a lot of fun.

Practicality was good – comfortable seats, a decent amount of space for the rear passengers and a good-sized boot.

Equipment was not bad for the age – the replacement model in 2015 had many more techy things included but the outgoing model wasn’t especially bad for its place in the market.

+ Driving more fun than expected

+ Practicality

+ Equipment level

– Underpowered

– Fuel economy

In summary – from what I recall of driving the Fabia, I remember enjoying it. It was a nice place to be, and it drove well. The swansong of the mk2, my particular car was equipped with the worst engine and gearbox and still was fun, so a 1.2l with either a manual or the DSG would improve my view considerably.

Tesla Model S

The one on the right is the Tesla I drove.
The one on the right is the Tesla I drove.

Hello everyone! This week, it’s the Tesla Model S.

In early 2016, I had the chance to test drive a Tesla Model S. Specifically, the 90D. Tesla model names are pretty straightforward: ‘P’ before the number indicates a performance model, the number is the size of the battery in kWh, and ‘D’ after the number indicates AWD, provided through dual electric motors, one at the rear, one at the front. I had, as can be surmised, the 90kWh car with AWD. This car makes 518bhp (386 kW) and 485 lb-ft (658 N·m) of torque, making it by a large margin the most powerful car I’ve ever driven. Because the car is electric, it can out-accelerate almost anything except supercars, and has a 0-60mph time of 4.2s, with a top speed of 155mph (250km/h). And this isn’t even the performance model!

So, let’s talk bad parts. The car is expensive. There’s no getting around it – the Model S is a BMW 5-series competitor, and therefore sits at a comparable price point.

It’s also electric, which means no quick stop at a petrol pump to fill up and you’re on your way. Even at a Supercharger, you’ll have to wait a while to charge enough juice to continue your journey, and if you’re not using a supercharger, that wait time gets exponentially longer.

Range isn’t great compared to a modern turbocharged petrol, and especially not compared to a diesel. A Model S will get 200 miles from a charge on the highway, but a new turbocharged petrol will comfortably go 400+ miles and a diesel even further. Range anxiety is a thing of the past, mostly, but that doesn’t mean the range is all that great in comparison, especially coupled with the fact you must plot stops at Superchargers or overnight stays to charge up on long journeys.

However, that about covers is for the bad parts, so, the good?

It’s electric. This has to be the headliner, because the fact that car is electric changes so much about the driving experience. The car is insanely fast at accelerating. But not only is it fast, it’s also completely silent. It is an incredibly eerie experience to put your foot down and accelerate to 70mph without really hearing any noise. Additionally, because of that electric motor, there is no such thing as a torque curve – it’s a straight line, from 0rpm. The second you press the accelerator, you’re already at peak torque, and remain there forever. This means that, no matter what speed you’re doing, you can always accelerate at an absurd pace because there is always so much torque available. Driving the Tesla Model S has been rightly described as like driving a spaceship – it’s silent, absurdly fast, and it seems impossible that 4-door sedan of that size could ever accelerate that fast. Getting your head around that is unexpectedly hard.

Aside from the driving experience, being electric does afford the car one additional giant benefit over traditional cars – cheap driving. No more fuel costs. The car can be charged at electric charging stations all over the place, often for free. Charging it in your own home adds to your electricity bill, but is still cheaper than buying petrol. Additionally, with no emissions at all, the car is exempt from emissions based charges in places like San Francisco and London.

So, the driving experience is like nothing else on the road, what about the interior? Thanks to the fact the Tesla Model S has a giant touch screen instead of a centre console, this just adds to the spaceship feeling. There is a huge portrait touchscreen where the radio, climate control, navigation, and car settings are accessed. The screen is responsive and quick, and features intuitive menus as well as Google Maps for navigation. The car also features radar cruise control, whereby the cruise control can set a maximum speed, but will slow the car down if the car in front does so. There is a myriad of technical wizardry here, all within the touch screen’s giant glow.

There is one feature that deserves a section all to itself. Autopilot. Autopilot is Tesla’s autonomous driving mode, which enables the driver, on highways, to almost remove themselves from the driving experience. It’s essentially a super-advanced version of cruise control, where you set your speed and following distance, then enable Autopilot and the car will stay in the current lane, at the appropriate follow distance or the speed you defined, until you turn it off. It will steer the car around bends and slow down/speed up as the situation requires. It is an unbelievably surreal experience to remove your hand from the steering wheel and pedals and watch the car continue on, entirely automated. If you indicate, the car will even change lanes for you automatically, without disabling Autopilot. This is an incredible feature, and it’s starting to be seen in other high-end luxury cars across the market now, but Autopilot got there first.

Finally, in brief, automatic updates. Like your computer, the Tesla will automatically update itself with the latest from HQ. This is how autopilot was added to the car, as well as Ludicrous Mode in the Performance models. The cars continuously improve themselves.

+ It’s electric. It’s like driving a spaceship.

+ The interior is incredible

+ Autopilot

+ Cheap fuel costs

– It’s electric. Charging takes time and requires special equipment, and range anxiety is not 100% resolved.

– It’s expensive.

In summary, if you live in a place where you can charge one for everything you need, and you have the money to buy one… The Tesla Model S is a phenomenal vehicle. I cannot emphasise enough how different the driving experience is compared to traditional vehicles.

Nissan Versa

Nissan Versa
Nissan Versa

Ok, so I admit, I’ve managed not to achieve two blogs a week. Sorry. I’ll manage one a week though. Promise. Kind of.

A few months ago, I was given a Nissan Versa as a rental car. I’ve not driven a Nissan for many years, and it seemed fine from the outside. The Versa is equipped with a 1.6l petrol engine making 107bhp (80 kW) and 107 lb-ft (145Nm) of torque, sent to the front wheels. This might seem like not a lot compared to my previous reviews, and you’d be right. The 0-60 time is around 9.2 seconds, and the car has a top speed of 110mph. The engine was connected to a CVT (continuously variable transmission – a ‘gearless’ automatic) gearbox. The model I had was the SV, which is the mid-range vehicle.

So, the bad. Unfortunately, that can really be summed up with three words: The whole car. Let’s elaborate on that point, though, else this wouldn’t be much of an article.

Let’s start with that engine. A 1.6l motor making only 107bhp is not a good start. Coupled with a CVT transmission, this means the entire driving experience feel sluggish. Acceleration is poor, and accompanied by a lot more noise than one would expect is possible. With no gear control, the car spends a lot of time not going anywhere very fast, and in simulating gear shifts, spends a lot of time at high revs and making a very loud noise. This makes driving a really miserable experience. The brakes are spongy and ineffective, which is not what you want out of any car, even one that’s not going very fast. I’m not sure if this was just the particular car I had, but it was not pleasant to need to slow down. Finally, as regards the driving experience, the steering is light and very disconnected – there is very little feedback from the wheels, and occasionally I actually lost their position and couldn’t work out whether they were turned or not, which is very disconcerting when parking. Adding to the steering’s weightless feel is the enormous amount of body roll in corners. The best summation I can come up with is ‘spongy’: the entire car felt like everything was being dampened enormously for some reason, like I was driving a giant sponge.

Next, let’s talk interior. ‘Bare bones’ is an accurate statement. There is A/C and cruise control, but that’s standard on every car I’ve driven in the USA. The closest to modern tech I could find was the fact I could Bluetooth my phone to the radio, but only as a phone. No music streaming facilities at all. Beyond that, there were no features to speak of, and the interior feels incredibly cheap – accurately, since the Versa is one of the cheapest cars on the US market. The car’s interior is very bland, with lots of cheap plastic and hard surfaces. There is a higher trim level that addresses some of these concerns, but that does not help the overall package very much.

Finally, fuel economy around town is not especially great, and I found that I was averaging around 25mpg (30mpg UK, 9.4l/100km) on most of my driving with the car in a combination of city and highway driving.

Ok, so that’s the entire car written off in the bad section, so what’s good?

Price. The Versa is cheap. One of the cheapest cars on the market.

Space. Because the car is so bare bones, there is plenty of space for both passengers and luggage – there is a large boot and four people can fit easily into the car.

+ Spacious

+ Cheap

– Spongy to drive

– Very little equipment in the cabin

– Cheap feeling interior

– Not great fuel economy

In summary… If you have no interest in driving and want the cheapest possible new car, this is it. Alternatively, if you want to drive a sponge, this is your car. For everyone else on the planet, look elsewhere.

Mazda MX-5 NC

It’s a new week, and a new blog post. The first car this week is the Mazda MX-5 Mk3, also known as the NC.

I had the MX-5 with the 1.8l engine – there were very few trim levels in the UK – although it was also available as a 2l, which featured a few other upgrades. My particular car was a 2007, making it an original Mk3, not what would later arrive, the Mk3.5 or the Mk 3.75, which were facelifts to the model. The 1.8l car made 126 bhp and 123 lb-ft of torque (94 kW and 167 Nm), sent to the rear wheels. With this engine, the 0-60 time is around 7.9s with a top speed of 122mph. The car was mated to a 5 speed manual gearbox.

As usual, the bad parts come first. The NC, particularly the early versions, have an incredibly sparse interior that feels really cheap. This was improved as the car was facelifted, adding padding and soft touches here and there within the cabin, but the first version of this MX5 is very utilitarian, especially as the 1.8l base model without extras. There are no fuel economy measures or anything of the sort here, just a simple trip-meter in the dash. The radio also shows its age, with just AM/FM and CD playback. A/C was not standard either in the base model, so I didn’t have that, nor did the car have cruise control. It was very back to basics. Much of this was improved for later generations with cruise control and A/C more or less coming as standard, and the interior was improved.

Additionally, albeit obviously, the car is incredibly impractical. A small boot with a large lip around it made getting items in or out awkward, although it could fit a medium sized suitcase if you could get it past the lip.  As a roadster, the car only had two seats, although there were two tiny storage areas behind the seats and a reasonable size glovebox. But two people and one suitcase was pretty much it, storage wise. Visibility is highly restricted with the roof up – not appalling, but nowhere near as good as with the roof down for obvious reasons!


So that’s the bad. What about the good? Well, first and foremost, the MX-5 is an absolutely superb car to drive. As a small, light, rear wheel drive roadster, the MX-5 is at home in small twisty European roads. It’s a blast to drive, and is light and nimble in the corners while being able to be pushed harder than you’d expect – because it’s not overly powerful, anyone can use its full potential on a country road. This makes it a really nice car to play with, even for a less experienced driver. Fun is the name of the game with the MX-5. The manual shifter in the MX-5 is an absolute joy to use, with short, snickety shifts that are very satisfying. The car’s seats are also comfortable and, although not particularly adjustable, well suited for most people. The seats are also bolstered relatively well so they hold the passengers decently in the corners.

The other main positive is the roof. The MX-5 is one of the last cars on the market with a manual soft top roof, and the NC model has a roof that can easily be operated with one hand. Unlock the large middle catch and throw the roof back, and you’re done. It’s beautifully simple and brilliantly fast. Once the roof is down, the car really comes into its own. There’s very little wind buffeting in part due to the little diffuser between the seats that does a lot to reduce backdrafted air after it’s come over the car. With the windows up, the car is remarkably windproof, although of course there is a lot of wind noise. Putting the roof up is a similar experience in simplicity, and can even be done one handed from within the car, although that requires a bit of stretching. Driving in the sunshine with the roof down is one of the most gloriously sublime driving experiences I’ve ever had.

One small addition to the good list is that even the first NC had media controls on the steering wheel, which continued to work after I replaced the radio. That was definitely a plus.

Finally, fuel economy was better than I’d expected. I would achieve around 25mpg (30mpg UK, 9.4l/100km) in city driving and 32mpg (38mpg UK, 7.5l/100km) in freeway driving.


+Glorious to drive

+Manual gearbox is one of the best gearboxes I’ve used

+Convertible top is superbly simple


-Mk3 suffers from very bare bones equipment and cheap trim.

So, in summary. The NC is a great car to drive that’s incredibly fun to drive, and works at its absolute best when the roof is down and it is flying through the countryside. It’s not practical, but it doesn’t pretend to be, and the equipment and trim was improved over the years.

Dodge Challenger – The Green Missile

The Dodge Challenger R/T I was given
The Dodge Challenger R/T I was given

Recently I was given a Dodge Challenger R/T to drive for 5 days. I enjoyed it immensely, so I decided that should be my next review.

The Dodge Challenger R/T is the mid-range Challenger, above the SXT and SXT Plus, but below the T/A, SRT, and Hellcat. There are a lot of trim levels on the Challenger. It’s powered by a 5.7L Hemi V8 (yep, really) making 375bhp and 410lb-ft of torque (280kW and 556Nm), sent to the rear wheels. This is not the most powerful vehicle I’ve driven, but it’s close.  The Challenger in this guise has a 0-60 time of 5.1s, and a top speed of 155mph, electronically limited. The lower model cars have a 3.7L V6, while the top of the range features a 6.4L V8. Features between version of the car are much the same across the range. The car I had was fitted with the 8-speed ZF automatic. It had something I still find odd, but which seems quite normal on many cars – a footbrake. Instead of a handbrake or an electronic parking brake, the ‘handbrake’ is one pressed on/off with your foot. I still find these very peculiar, although it is common enough.


As with my last review, the first thing to talk about is the bad parts. Let’s address the elephant in the room. My car was bright, eye searing green. It looks loud in photos, but I can tell you that photos do not do it justice. It was incredibly bright. There are several other colours available that I feel would be much better choices, but there’s a certain charm to the car being green.

The next thing is that this car is enormous. It’s the size of an SUV in length and width, so it takes up a massive amount of space on the road, and it is incredibly heavy. Which leads to…

The Challenger is horrendously impractical. Yes, it has an enormous boot. But the rear seats (it’s a 2+2) are tiny and completely unusable, which is incredible given the size of the car. The boot, despite being massive, is very far off the ground, no low access at all. The car is also about 50% blind spots – somehow, despite everything, it’s just hard to see out of. My car didn’t have a reverse camera, just parking sensors, so I reversed it as little as possible because I didn’t want to damage it. Coupled with the size, this generally makes parking it an interesting experience.

The last point is fuel economy. This is a difficult one for me, because the fuel economy of the car is bad, but it’s in fact comparatively good for a V8, and so compared to other V8 powered cars making similar power, it’s actually pretty good. The car, over the days I had it, averaged 18mpg around town (21.5mpg UK, 13L/100km) and 24mpg (29mpg UK, 9.8L/100km) on the freeway. This is not bad fuel economy for a V8, in part due to the car having cylinder deactivation – when cruising, half the cylinders are disabled, making the car a 4cylinder, and therefore much more efficient. The on-the-spot efficiency of the car in this mode is around 30mpg (36 mpg UK, 7.8L/100km) which is remarkably good. But, since this is a general car blog, I have to say that comparatively, the fuel economy wasn’t that great.

The Challenger's profile and interior
The Challenger’s profile and interior

So, it’s huge, impractical, and mediocre levels of efficient. Let’s talk about the good stuff.

The Challenger may be massive, but the enormous engine makes up for this in so many ways. First, the thing you notice before you even move, is the noise. The V8 roar is one of my favourite sounds on Earth, and the Challenger’s sound is masterful. Absolutely sublime, and I would put my foot down whenever possible just to hear the V8 roar up the rev range. The other part about it is just how much power there is on tap. Because the car isn’t turbocharged, the power is available in a much more linear fashion, so when you put your foot down there’s no lag, just a building of relentless power pushing you along. It was very, very easy to spin the wheels when pulling off from a traffic light. Equally, because there’s so much power available, overtaking others even at freeway speeds is completely effortless – put your foot down at any speed, and there’s still more power in reserve to get you going. This is intoxicating. The entire time I was driving the Challenger I had a massive grin on my face. It’s not especially grippy in the twisty mountain passes – it’s not a small German hatchback – but I was surprised by how well it handled.

The Challenger is also eminently comfortable. I drove 500 miles in two days, and the Challenger is a perfect vehicle for freeway cruising. The (front) seats are large, nicely adjustable, and very comfortable. I feel that you’d probably not want to cram two people into the back seats for that duration, as they might wish to kill you once their limbs have unfurled.

In terms of equipment, I have to say that the Challenger surprised me with what was available. The R/T has dual zone climate control as standard, and comes with uConnect, an 8.4” touch screen featuring a very complete infotainment system. My car had nav included, and it’s one of the best navigation systems I’ve used. uConnect also supports both Android Auto and Apple CarPlay, which is nice to see as a standard feature. The system supports SiriusXM satellite radio, as expected, and has full Bluetooth compatibility including control of music from the system. There is a USB port and an Aux in, too. One interesting quirk about this particular system was that on the rear of the steering wheel, where one might expect to find paddle shifters, was in fact the next/prev and volume rockers. This was incredibly confusing, and since they’re not visible I continuously forgot which side was which. I don’t understand why they were placed there, but I thought it was a silly location – why not on the front of the steering wheel in a logical fashion?

The Challenger, as a modern car, featured a great multi function screen in the middle of the dash that displayed all kind of useful information, although I, as usual, set it to display fuel economy and left it at that. The Challenger has a TPMS that actually tells you the tyre pressures of each wheel. On the electronic gizmos, the car features Cruise control, of course, and automatic headlights, but manual wipers.  I tend to prefer this as I don’t generally get on with automatic wipers. The Challenger I was driving had the optional sunroof, which was a great addition to the car.

To summarise:

+Incredible amounts of power

+Very well equipped


+That V8 noise


-Not practical

-Not very fuel efficient

Overall, though, I absolutely loved my time with the Challenger. The intoxicating V8 was completely addictive and it was much more fun to drive than I was expecting. I feel the Challenger could benefit from a reversing camera, however, to help counter the visibility problems.


VW GTI – The first review

My 2011 VW GTI
My 2011 VW GTI

I think it probably makes sense to talk about my current car first. For the past year, I’ve been driving a 2011 VW (Golf) GTI. In the US the Golf name is dropped for the GTI.

The 2011 GTI is powered by a 2-litre turbocharged Inline 4 engine, making 200bhp and 207lb-ft of torque (155 kW and 280 Nm), with a 0-60mph time of 6.9s and a top speed of 149mph (240km/h). Mine is a 5 door, although a 3-door variant exists. The GTI is the ‘mid-range’ hot hatch – sportier than the Golf, but sitting below the Golf R. All three cars share much of the same equipment, although the Golf R is AWD rather than FWD. My car is fitted with the 6-speed DSG automatic gearbox with paddle shifters on the wheel.

First, let’s talk about the bad. Usually people start with the good, but I feel understanding the bad parts of a car is almost of more use. I will say that I love my GTI, but it’s a 6 year old car and it rattles an enormous amount. Half the time it seems like most of the internal parts rattle. Also, as a 6 year old car, the radio is touch screen (resistive rather than capacitive) and supports Bluetooth and A2DP (Bluetooth Streaming) but does not support AVRCP (BT Control) so I cannot control my phone’s music from the car.

Finally, and by far the biggest thing, is that servicing costs are not especially cheap. It’s a German car, so things don’t go wrong often, but when they go wrong, they really go wrong in spectacular fashion. About 2 months after I bought the car (with around 65,000 miles on the clock) the engine essentially exploded. This was traced to a fault in the cam chain tensioner, which had stopped working, causing the cam chain to get out of timing sync, which essentially grenaded my engine. That was a very expensive thing to learn. PSA: get your timing chain tensioner inspected before 60k miles, and make sure your car has if you’re buying on of similar mileage.

Honestly, though, that is about it for the bad. So let’s talk about the good.

The GTI is a fantastic car to drive. 200bhp doesn’t sound like a lot in the modern era of supercars reaching 700+ and even hot hatches having more than 300, but it is plenty enough. The car is quite capable of hustling down your favourite nearby country road, glued to the corners, putting a massive smile on your face. And then if you need to cruise 300 miles on the freeway, it’s perfectly comfortable for longer journeys too. The seats are enveloping but not tight, incredibly adjustable, and remarkably comfortable. And you can fit five people in the car! The car’s DSG is one of the fastest shifting gearboxes I’ve ever used, and paddle shifters mean you don’t even take your hands off the wheel if you’ve decided to change gear manually.

So, practicality. The GTI is a hatchback, so there’s plenty of boot space – enough for a full week’s shopping, or a few small suitcases. The rear seats fold down when you need more space. Under the boot floor is a space saver spare wheel, as well as a polystyrene tray with loads of cubby holes – useful for storing stuff like a first aid kit out of the way! As mentioned, 5 people can fit in the GTI – although maybe not on a 300 mile road trip, the people in the back might get a bit cramped. There are air vents to the back seats so your rear passengers can get some air conditioning in the back. The 5 door is obviously much more accessible to passengers since the rear passengers get doors to themselves. Fuel economy is pretty good, averaging 25mpg (30mpg UK, 9.41l/100km) around town in stop/start traffic, and 33mpg (39.5mpg UK, 7.13l/100km) on the highway.

In terms of features and equipment, the GTI is relatively well equipped although not exactly by modern standards. It features manual a/c, electric windows with auto up/down on all four windows (seriously, why is this not standard everywhere? It should be universal!), a decent enough touch screen radio with support for Sirius XM, Bluetooth, a 3.5mm aux in, and the strange proprietary VW Media Port of that era, which supports iPod cables and the like. The latter is stored under the central armrest. There’s a nice trip computer in the dash that features all the standard things you’d expect. The car includes a tyre pressure monitoring system, although it will only inform you if pressure is too low, not the exact tyre pressures. The car does not have automatic headlights or wipers, and lacks parking sensors or a reversing camera. In 2017, this seems surprising, but in 2011 it was less so. It includes a sunroof that honestly is my favourite feature of the entire car. I don’t think I’d have a car without one ever again.

The car has a few electronic driving aids – ABS, and a few Traction Control systems, which can be partially disabled by a button on the centre console, although not completely disabled. For all but the most hardcore, this will be fine.

To summarise:

+Perfect mix of practicality and sportiness

+Fabulous to drive

+Relatively well equipped


Yes, that seems like an odd negative, but that really is it, in my opinion. The car is great, but as the last generation car from 2011, it suffers from the fact that there have been technological innovations since 2011 as other things have become more standard.

Please let me know what you think, reader. Your feedback is appreciated and will help me to write this blog!

An Introduction

Hello, reader! My name’s Oli, and I love cars. Figured it was best to get that out the way first. I’ve loved cars ever since I was very small, and love driving. I’ve had the privilege of travelling for work quite a lot, which means I’ve had a lot of experience driving a lot of different cars – many for only a few hours or days, but often that has been enough to give a good outline of the vehicle.

I’ve wanted to talk about the cars I’ve driven for many years – so this is going to be a starting point.

So, for the very first post, a list. This will be grouped by how much time I’ve spent driving the cars.

Long term (multiple months or more)

  • Mk1 Renault Clio – 1998
  • Mk1 Ford Ka – 2001
  • Mk6 Ford Fiesta – 2007
  • Mk3 Mazda MX-5 – 2006
  • Mk3 Ford Focus – 2016
  • Mk6 VW (Golf) GTI – 2011

Short term (multiple hours or more)

  • Germany
    • Opel/Vauxhall Adam – 2014
    • Mk7 Ford Fiesta – 2014
  • Qatar
    • Skoda Fabia – 2014
    • Suzuki Alto – 2015
    • Suzuki Swift – 2015
  • UK
    • Hyundai i40 Touring – 2016
    • Renault Kadjar – 2016
    • Mazda 2 – 2016
    • Nissan Primera – 2000(?)
    • Mini Cooper Convertible – 2012
    • Mk4 Mazda MX-5 – 2016
    • Jaguar XE – 2016
  • USA
    • VW Jetta – 2016
    • Ford Mustang – 2016 (V6, V8)
    • Chevrolet Cruze – 2017
    • Mitsubishi Lancer – 2017
    • Nissan Versa – 2017
    • Toyota RAV4 – 2017
    • BMW 528i – 2017
    • Hyundai Sonata – 2017
    • Dodge Challenger – 2017

Test Drives (less than 1 hour)

  • BMW i8 – 2016
  • BMW i3 – 2016
  • Toyota GT86 – 2016
  • Audi TT Convertible – 2016
  • Tesla Model S – 2016

Eventually my hope is to have written reviews of all the cars listed here, but that’s quite a long term goal!