Give Him TIme!!!

 

Brendan Rodger's league campaign could only have been slightly worse. One point from nine makes difficult reading for all those associated with Liverpool, who have begun to question the way Liverpool are heading.
Though the title may lead you to think I am one of the many fans who have jumped upon a bandwagon headed straight to failure, I can confirm now that I am not.
The majority of Liverpool fans have questioned our new manager, Brendan Rodgers. He has been thrown into the deep end and needs all the support he can get. While he cuts a confident figure in interviews, there is naturally a part of him that is still adjusting to the mechanisms of one of the biggest clubs in football.  He needs the faith of supporters in order to build the club up from the ground; so when supporters are calling for his head after less than 10 games, I can't help but feel for Rodgers.
He has been doing his best to implement his way of play, and the bad results are not his fault entirely.
Look at things this way.
Rodgers puts 11 players on the pitch. As soon as they leave the dressing room, their actions, regardless of instructions and training, are entirely their own. They don't pass every ball thinking "Rodgers said pass," shoot thinking "Rodgers said we should shoot" or dribble thinking "Rodgers would want me to do this."
If a player missed an open goal in the last minute and that lost us three points, fans tend to blame Rodgers too. Why?

The players miss the chances. The players lose possession. The players are more responsible for bad results and failure than the manager will ever be, at any club.
A second example: Let's say Gerrard is taken off at half time for Jordan Henderson.
If Henderson shoots and sees his shot fly in off the crossbar, Rodgers is a tactical genius.
If Henderson shoots and sees his shot go way over, Rodgers is a tactical flop.
Does that really sound right? It doesn't to me.
But that's the way of football and the majority of fans out there.
It's a sad state of affairs. To conclude, I might add that this does not apply to all of you. Those of you who are impatient, unrealistic and overly-critical, this was directed at you and I hope you considered all of it.

20 years of mistake ...when it will stop?

Waiting....
David Cannon/Getty Images

There are some things in life that seem to be "nailed-on," "home-bankers" or that sort of thing.  Birds will sing at sunrise, fish will be wet, bears do go toilet in the words and Liverpool FC always shoot themselves in the foot.
Why it has happened is open for a very, very long discussion. The best place to start would be after they won their last league title, 22 years ago, in 1990.

1989-90
Liverpool celebrate the title after a team with John Barnes, Ian Rush, Peter Beardsley and Alan Hansen romp to victory with ease.  You may remember the 9-0 demolition of Crystal Palace at Anfield, and then playing Norwich at Anfield in the next league game and only drawing 0-0.  They also beat Swansea City 8-0 in the League Cup that season.  All was well at Anfield in 1990, after 1989 had started so painfully after the Hillsborough disaster.

1990-91
Dalglish resigns after a 4-4 draw with Everton in February 1991.  This is swiftly followed by the retirement of Alan Hansen.  Ronnie Moran took over management duties for a while and did a good job, then was then pushed aside for the appointment of Graeme Souness.  The club’s form then fell away and Arsenal won the league by seven points.

Peter Beardsley - pushed out of Liverpool

Peter Beardsley was dropped for David Speedie halfway through the season and Beardsley was to leave the club that summer.

1991-92
Graeme Souness was manager for this season until he needed heart surgery in April of 1992.  He came back to watch the FA Cup Final in a blanket.
McMahon, Beardsley, Staunton, Venison and Gillespie all left the club that season.  In came Rob Jones, Steve McManaman, Mark Walters, Mark Wright and Dean Saunders.  The latter was the top league scorer in the end, with just 10 goals.  The Reds finished in sixth place after winning only four of their last 16 league games.
John Barnes suffered a career-threatening Achilles tendon injury in September and never fully recovered that season, or ever again.
Liverpool went out of the League Cup to Peterborough United.
It was also Liverpool’s return to European Competition since the Heysel disaster. It ended in Genoa dispatching Liverpool with consummate ease.

1992 FA Cup final, a recovering Souness

1992-93
The first season of the Premier League, an exciting new dawn.  We finished sixth again though.
Graeme Souness paid £2.3 million for Paul Stewart from Spurs.  Who?  Exactly.  A horrid transfer, meanwhile, Man United paid just £1 million for a certain Eric Cantona.
Ray Houghton and Dean Saunders also left the club this season.
Liverpool won three of their first 12 league games.  Also, between 19 December and 6 March, played 11 games and only won one, an away win at the mighty Arsenal.
Kenny Dalglish and Liverpool met once more. This time, he was manager at Blackburn and they spanked us 4-1.
The lowest home attendance was 12, 533 who turned up to watch Chesterfield in the League Cup.

1993-94
Another low attendance of 12,541 turned up at Anfield to watch us play Fulham in the League Cup, but these people saw the stunning debut of Robbie Fowler, who scored four goals.

Nigel Clough - it didn't work out

Liverpool spent almost £5 million on Julian Dicks, Neil Ruddock and Nigel Clough.  *winces*
Meanwhile, Man United spent £3.75 million on Roy Keane.  Job done.
Liverpool finished eighth this season, it was free-fall time after having just been the dominant force in English football for two decades.
This was the last season for Grobbelaar and Whelan.

1994-95
The all-conquering team of 1990 had now fallen away to the point where only Steve Nicol, John Barnes, Ian Rush and Jan Molby were left, and even Nicol left mid-way through the season.  The attempts to replace all those who had left until now was, frankly, awful.
Graeme Souness was shown the door and in his place, Roy Evans was appointed from within the club to take over as manager.
He immediately wasted £9 million on the average quartet of Phil Babb, John Scales, Michael Stensgaard and Mark Kennedy.  Julian Dicks was sold at a £1 million loss just a season after coming in—an utterly abject season.

Mark Kennedy - it didn't work out

Despite all the upset, there was a shining light and it was scouse.  This is part of the reason that scouse pride is so strong in Liverpool, when the hard times come-a-calling, it’s always a local lad who saves the day.  Robbie Fowler, Steve McManaman and a cockney/scouse youngster called Jamie Redknapp were the knights in shining armour and led the team to fourth place with Fowler netting 25 league goals.

1995-96
So, the times looked good, we were back in with a chance of challenging once more with a young, vibrant attacking team, albeit one still shaky at the back.
Robbie Fowler nailed another 28 league goals in. He was breath-taking. So where did it get Liverpool? Third place is the answer. Good, but not good enough.
Liverpool spent a combined £13 million on Stan Collymore and Jason McAteer.  Out went Molby, Rush, Walters and Paul Stewart on free transfers, and we sold Nigel Clough to Man City for a £1 million loss on what we paid for him.  Yet another terrific bout of transfer activity.
Liverpool turned up for the 1996 FA Cup Final against Man United but £1 million Eric Cantona scruffed the winning goal in a timid affair.

Stan Collymore and Jason McAteer - Expensive

1996-97
Fowler’s goal return dropped to 18 this season, with a four-game suspension for being naughty, but still it wasn’t a stellar season by his standards.
Only £3.2 million was wasted this season, with Patrick Berger coming in.  I’m being harsh on Berger; in his day, he was a lovely player.  Probably the best buy we made in five years.
John Scales was sold this year as well, yet another preposterous signing.
Liverpool finished fourth, unable to capitalise on the good work of the previous season.
Meanwhile, Man United bought Ole Gunnar Solskjaer for £1.5 million and Teddy Sheringham for £3.5 million. They continue to make our recruitment policy look like a bad joke.

1997-98
Again, when the fates scowl on Liverpool, it’s the local boys who come to try and save the day.  This time, Roy Evans is given the helping hand in the shape of midget prodigy Michael Owen and the emergence of Jamie Carragher.  However, Robbie Fowler breaks his leg and is out for half the season or more.

Oyvind Leonhardsen - it didn't work out

Evans also spends cash in the traditional Liverpool way, this time blindly throwing millions at Oyvind Leonhardsen from Wimbledon, the German veteran Riedle and Paul Ince, by now on the other side of the hill to what he was at United.
This time a third-place finish, it was by now getting a bit repetitive and people were losing patience.

1998-99
A new dawn, this time for real, and Gerard Houllier is announced as a joint manager with Evans.  This crazy venture ends in November as Evans shakes his head and walks away from the mess.  In the meatime, we strengthen our ranks with the signings of Rigobert Song, Sean Dundee, Jean Michel Ferri and Brad Friedel. *shakes head* You think it can’t get any worse…don’t you?
In the meantime, the City of Liverpool squeezes another diamond from the academy, this time it’s Steven Gerrard.  A young Danny Murphy, bought from Crewe last season, is also progressing nicely.
Bestowed with the natural youth talent of Owen, Fowler, Gerrard, McManaman, Carragher, Murphy and cockney rebel Redknapp, the team should by now be doing something very special.  Instead, it splutters to a seventh place finish.

Rigobert Song - it didn't work out

1999-2000
This season is a bit of watershed for a few reasons.  First, the outgoings.  We lose Steve McManaman on a free transfer to Real Madrid.  Stunning.
We also sell David James for £1.8 million and we buy Sander Westerveld for £4 million and tread a goalkeeping hinterland for a few years because of it.  Also leaving the club are recent additions Ferri, Dundee, Ince and Leonhardsen.  In, out, shake it all about.
On the plus side, we spend £33 million this season, including the additions of future club legends like Hamann, Hyypia, Henchoz and Heskey.  We also bring in Westerveld, Smicer, Camara and "mad" Eric Meijer.
A fourth-place finish is achieved, though it could have been so much better had we picked up more than the three points that we accumulated over the final six games of the season.

2000-01
Another season of promise, another season of poor transfers.  In comes Bernard Diomede for £3 million, Christian Ziege for £5.5 million, Igor Biscan for £5.5 million, Daniel Sjolund for £1 million, Nick Barmby for £6 million and Gregory Vignal for £500,000.  That’s £21 million wasted. It’s like a tradition; we MUST waste money.  At the same time, we bring in Litmanen and McAllister on free transfers.  Unbelievable.

Sander Westerveld - it didn't work out as well as Gerrard did

Out go the recent failures Camara, Meijer, Song, Friedel, Babb, another huge loss financially and nothing new.
Again, we finish third, a season of nearly and maybe in the league, but a season of huge success in the cups.  Despite finishing 11 points behind Man United in the league, we win the UEFA cup, the FA cup and the League cup.  Now is the time to really kick on and spend well, we could really push United for the title if we just get this right.

2001-02
So in come Milan Baros, Jerzy Dudek and Chris Kirkland for a combined £14 million.  Riise also comes in for another £4 million, and we get Nicolas Anelka on a loan deal for part of the season.  We also sell Robbie Fowler for £12 million and we sell recent flops Ziege and Westerveld, like clockwork.  Between 22 January and the end of the season, we win 13 out of 15 games.
Considering that we finish in second place, it goes to show how bad the first half of the season was.  Gerard Houllier is admitted to hospital after falling ill during a game and later needs heart surgery which keeps him out for five months. During which time, Phil Thompson takes over.  Another massive setback.  Upon coming back, Houllier never seems the same again.

2002-03

Chris Kirkland - it didn't work out

We bring in five players, and when I tell you that they are Diouf, Diao, Cheyrou, Diarra and Luzi, you won’t be in the least bit surprised to hear we spent £18.4 million in amassing this brilliant quintet of players.  Yet again, we are our own worst enemy.
We finish fifth and we also sell Barmby at less than half what we paid for him and let Litmanen go on a free.  Great times.
We didn’t lose a game until November, and at that point we then only collected one point from a possible 18.  There’s always next year though.

2003-04
We sign Anthony Le Tallec, Florent Sinama Pongolle, Harry Kewell, Steve Finnan and Carl Medjani for a combined £11.5 million.
*sigh* Fourth, no run in the cups, despair.
Out go Berger, Heskey, Diomede, Heggem, Sjolund, Arphexad and Xavier.  Meanwhile, Man United sign Ronaldo for £12 million.

E H Diouf - it really, really didn't work out

2004-05
Enter the Benitez.
In come Alonso and Garcia for £16 million.  Also dragged behind them are Josemi,  Morientes and Carson for £9.3 million. Also, a certain Djibril Cisse, who had already agreed to a deal with the departing Houllier, who was signed for £14 million.  *ouch*
We also lose Michael Owen for a miserly £8 million.
We finish fifth in the league, but win the Champions League. Unbelievable stuff.

2005-06
Can Benitez spend wisely?  It’s a mixed bag; in comes Kromkamp, Agger, Crouch, Sissoko, Zenden and Gonzalez.
It’s not good enough, but it’s a start. The defence needed shaking up and the loss of Owen is still crucial.  We only manage a third place finish, but we win the FA cup and the UEFA Super Cup and get to the last 16 of the Champions League.

Kewell and Morientes - more pain

2006-07
In come another mixed bag with Bellamy, Kuyt, Aurelio and Arbeloa being the highlights and costing us £17.5 million, but that is offset by the captures of Pennant and Paletta who cost us £8.7 million.
We always seem to be one signing away from making the push, and this is no different.
Sixteen players are sold or released this season.
The best signing of the season is Javier Mascherano in on a loan.
We finish third and reach another Champions League final. It’s a positive season, but it’s still not quite right. We need that extra quality.

2007-08
Here it is, Fernando Torres for £20 million.  Unfortunately, it’s also melded with the signings of Babel for £11 million, and we make the Mascherano deal permanent but have to pay £17 million for the privalege.  We also bring in Lucas for £6 million and Skrtel for £6.5 million.
After all that, we still only finish fourth and reach the semifinals of the Champions League.  It’s very disappointing and there are murmurings of discontent. We seem to be letting another golden opportunity pass us by again.

Jermaine Pennant - it didn't work out

2008-09
In come eight players and only one of them I can really say was a success: Albert Riera (and even that’s a contentious argument).  We spent £39 million on players that summer, but the signing of Riera was only £8 million.  The others were Dossena, Keane, N Gog and Cavalieri, with Flora and Gulasci into the youth team.
It is for this botched spending that people do not agree that the Rafa experiment was worth trying again after Hodgson or Dalglish left.  Some of his horror signings were very damaging.
Despite all this, we still finished second in the league.  If only the extra £30 million was spent wisely.  But hey, why break the traditions of Liverpool FC?

2009-10
Oh dear.

Conclusion
Right, I think we’re all well versed on what happens for the next few years.  Turbulent times on and off the field, millions spent on horrible players by Hodgson and Dalglish and a league cup to show for it.
Failure is as much of a tradition as success at Liverpool FC, and it’s all borne of mistakes in the transfer market.  We’ve always been able to compete, we just got lazy and didn’t do our homework.
I hope Rodgers can buck this trend, and the signings of Allen and Borini look promising, but there’s a long, long way to go and a familiar expectation of doom and gloom around this club.

Audi A7 and Mercedes-Benz CLS...compared

EQUALLY APPEALING: Depending on the price and features that you look for, the A7 and CLS offer their own style and level of comfort

THE four-door coupe has become an overused cliché to inject sex appeal to carve the image of a traditional three-box sedan as anything but dour.

An exception to this cliché is the Mercedes-Benz CLS, which, after all, was the very model which got the ball rolling in the first place.
For more than half a decade, the CLS had the market all to itself as affluent individuals, looking for all the practicality and comfort of a sedan wrapped in the irresistible shape of a coupe, lapped it up.
Recently, the CLS lineage was succeeded by its second generation, but this time around, Mercedes doesn’t have the market all to itself.
Audi has entered the ring with its striking A7 Sportback, which touts the "four-door coupe" brief, similar market positioning, and brimmed to the roof with toys.
Every king has his reign, but could the new CLS uphold Mercedes’ place in this exclusive market with the dawning of the four rings of Audi?
Design
Normally looks wouldn’t be a defining selling point for a four-door car, but since the whole point of buying a coupe is for its looks, design could make or break either car here.
With its bold new family grille, the CLS looks more distinctive than its predecessor, with futuristic organic looking LED tail light clusters paying homage to the original.
While some labelled its predecessor as "The Flying Banana", the new CLS’ looks have more aggression with its lean-forward stance and bold lines which swoop from the front wheel arches and clearly define its hips.
The big Audi on the other hand comes off as the most conservative looking of the two.
Clean cut lines and flat surfaces of the A7 feel like an antithesis to the swooping lines and slightly flamboyant styling of the CLS.
Do not think that the A7 looks boring, if anything it is one of the most interesting cars on sale today.
Where the CLS sticks to its founding formula of a sedan layout draped around a coupe silhouette, the A7 bends some norms to its liking.
It looks conventional from the front, but walk around to the sides and the A7’s C-pillars seem to extend all the way past the tail, but end abruptly with a Kammback tail.
The A7 is more of a hatchback rather than a sedan, but don’t let those various design cues put you off - the design works surprisingly well in the metal.
Parked side-by-side, it is the sharp Tectonic looks and ground-hugging stance of the A7 which draws the most attention and commands the most respect.
Perhaps in the world occupied by more business suits rather than socialites, the CLS opinion-dividing looks still come across as a little too adventurous for some.
That said, neither will ever be looked upon as a mongrel at the local golf and country club.
Performance and handling
Another expectation that comes with the "coupe" title is in the area of performance and handling.
Gladly, power and cornering ability is where both the A7 and CLS have in no short supply, though the method of how both cars deploy their power couldn’t be any more different.
The A7 comes with the smaller engine here at 3 litres, but its supercharger manages to screw out 440Nm of torque from as low as 2,900rpm, 70Nm more and 600rpm earlier than what the CLS’ bigger 3.5-litre naturally-aspirated unit could deliver.
Though the CLS only manages to extract two more extra horses than the Audi’s engine, peak power is only reached at a heady 6,500rpm, compared with the Audi’s peak power which is more readily accessible between 5,250rpm and 6,500rpm.
Couple the Audi’s muscular torque punch at low engine revs with its quattro four-wheel drive system and seven-speed dual clutch, and the A7 could easily leave the CLS in the dust with its 0-100km/h time of 5.6 seconds.
The CLS with its lighter rear-wheel drive layout, and seven-speed automatic which is tuned for refinement and comfort, could only manage a respectable acceleration time of 6.1 seconds.
However, should both cars arrive at a corner, it is the grille with the three-pointed star mounted to it that will be emerging ahead.
With its quicker steering rack, the A7 has a sharper turn-in and feels livelier to directional inputs from the steering wheel.
While it is all good news with the front, we can’t say about the manners displayed with the A7’s tail.
It feels strangely aloof in the corners, as if both ends of the chassis aren’t on the same page, its nose bites but you get the distinct feeling that it is dragging its rump.
The CLS on the other hand feels more balanced and surefooted in the corners, it might not have the four-wheel drive traction of the A7, but its chassis gives you more confidence and feels more rewarding.
Though the A7 would leapfrog the CLS in the straights by a small margin, the CLS will deliver the bigger smile on our faces.


Comfort and practicality
Vanity always comes at the expense of practicality, and even though these cars have four doors and plenty of legroom, thanks to their premium executive car underpinnings, they aren’t going to be the ideal choice for families.
The ultimate price of having a rakish and ravishing coupe profile is that both the A7 and CLS are compromised when it comes to everyday usability.
The CLS’ thick A-pillars meant that negotiating tight junctions were tricky, while its narrow rear windows left the job of reversing largely up to guess work.
That said, the A7 isn’t as compromised a package as the CLS.
With its hatchback shape, judging the space you had in the back was slightly easier, and the A7 felt more airy with better forward visibility in the cabin.
Furthermore, where the CLS has a centre console that runs from the dashboard to the back, providing that tight cosseting feel of a coupe, the A7 doesn’t have such a restrictive "aesthetic" addition, thus giving rear seat passengers more legroom.
However, it must be pointed out that the absence of a third set of rear seat belts makes the A7 a four-seater legally rather than strictly one as in the CLS.
Open the boot and the A7 hatchback not only allows for easier loading of luggage, but also gives it far more luggage space than the constrictive boot aperture from the CLS.
Both cars have rear view cameras to aid drivers in manoeuvring, though the A7 does it better by not only displaying a clearer and wider image, but projecting guide lines onto the image.
Strangely enough, while we felt that the A7’s air suspension delivered a smoother ride, being in the CLS felt more soothing and relaxing.
This is probably due to the excellent noise suppression and refinement felt in the Benz, where the A7’s supercharged V6 warbles with a "polite" war cry, the CLS’ naturally aspirated V6 hums and purrs, barely audible or noticeable from behind the wheel.
Though the A7’s cabin is a button-fest of techno-glitz that is great to look at, its myriad of buttons can get confusing and operating its MMI system can get frustrating when you are on the move.
The CLS’ apparent lack of buttons and straightforward menu interfaces makes it easier to operate and navigate.
Also, the CLS’ leather swathed interior and quality switchgear gives it a more luxurious feel than what you would get in the A7.

Verdict
So, given the directive and budget to blow on these opulent four-door coupes, which of the two should the well-heeled buyer consider?
The A7 would be the instant choice, it is the more practical of the two, and you can get the A7 and still have enough money to buy a Volkswagen Golf and treat yourself to a holiday with the budget for a CLS.
Looking at both on the dealer forecourt, you would immediately think that the CLS is the overpriced option.
That said, the CLS’ price does add a number of features that a normal showroom test drive won’t reveal.
Features such as airbags for your pelvis, night-vision display, drowsiness detection system, radar-limited cruise control, lane-keeping assistance, blind-spot warning systems, automatic high beam, navigation and ambient lighting with three soothing colour themes all come as standard on the CLS.
Should you prefer driving, and deem those additional features as important in your four-door coupe, then by all means, the CLS is the one to go for.
However, we felt that the additional features, while nice to have and toy around with, weren’t strictly necessary or enough to change the outcome of our earlier verdict.
It would be crude to say that the A7 wins as a value for money proposition, considering its price range, but it succeeds in expanding the traditional four-door coupe recipe, instead of merely following the leader.
And for that, we have to bestow the crown onto the A7 - every king has his reign and this time around, it is the A7’s time.

Specifications of the Audi A7 Sportback 3.0TFSI quattro
Engine: 2,995cc V6 direct-injection, supercharged
Max power: 300hp @ 5,250 – 6,500rpm
Max torque: 440Nm @ 2,900 – 4,500rpm
Transmission: Seven-speed dual-clutch, four-wheel drive
Safety features: Eight airbags, ESP with traction control, electronic differential lock, ABS, EBD, brake assist, LED daytime running lights, Isofix child seat anchor points, parking aid plus with park display and reverse camera
Price: RM599,000 OTR without insurance
Specifications of the Mercedes-Benz CLS350
Engine: 3,498cc V6 direct-injection
Max power: 302hp @ 6,500rpm
Max torque: 370Nm @ 3,500 – 5,250rpm
Transmission: Seven-speed automatic, rear-wheel drive
Acceleration 0 – 100km/h: 6.1 seconds
Safety features: 11 airbags, BAS Plus brake assist, ESP, pre-safe radar assisted braking, night view assist plus night vision, attention assist drowsiness detection system, Distronic Plus radar-guided cruise control, active lane keeping assist, active blind spot assist, intelligent light system, LED daytime running lights, automatic child seat recognition, reverse camera
Price: RM760,888 OTR without insurance

Mazda CX-5...reviewed

WHEN a manufacturer says they have taken a revolutionary approach to car making, we expect something different, the likes the world has never seen before.
So pardon our sigh of disappointment when Mazda launched the new CX-5 SUV, which it says, is built with the full suite of their revolutionary SkyActiv range of fuel saving technologies.
From the spec-sheet there isn't anything that immediately stands out as revolutionary. Its engine is still naturally aspirated, transmission is still an automatic, and body is still made from steel.
It is also the first model to adopt Mazda's new ìKodoî design language, which looks bolder, but its proportions looks less balanced than those drawn up from the previous ìNagareî designs.
Nothing remarkable about the interior, though quality is top notch and it comes well equipped with front seat warmers, dual-zone climate control, reverse camera, Bose sound system, and a navigation system courtesy of TomTom.
Pause and look closely at Mazda's explanation of SkyActiv technologies and you would find that the engine's components has been entirely revised to allow it to run at a compression ratio of 13:1, which is rated as the world's highest ratio for a mass-production model.
Despite the high compression, the engine has a minimum octane rating of RON95, thanks to ingenious engineering designs to reduce residual heat in the engine.
Furthermore the engine is 10 per cent lighter with 30 per cent less mechanical friction.
In practice the engine feels like any other engine, not remarkable, just smooth and refined with the naturally aspirated power delivery where pace is built gradually rather than effortlessly.
Our test unit's trip computer logged a fuel consumption figure of 10.6l/100km, figures that are only seen from the on-board computers of smaller family cars, never in any other SUV that we have tested.
Where the biggest difference in the CX-5 is felt is to be found with the transmission.
Taking off from a standstill its automatic transmission feels like very much like any other automatic with its creep. However, once the car is on the move, the transmission has a very direct ìmanual transmissionî like feel thanks to its larger lock-up range.
Shifts are quick, with little or no discernable interruption in power delivery, and free from any shock when downshifting.
Lift the accelerator pedal and the transmission's clever computers will free wheel the car rather than letting it be bogged down by a cog.
Not as fun as a manual, by our own stubborn opinion, but definitely one of the best self-shifters that isn't a dual-clutch.
It is good news too in the CX-5's ride and handling department.
Despite being a tall riding SUV, the CX-5 feels very car-like in its manners, it feels light on its feet, corners with sublime ease and minimal body roll, and a has very well behaved nature.
Part of its handling finesse is also thanks to its new body structure which is 30 per cent more rigid and eight per cent lighter than before, as well as lightened suspension components which shed another 14 per cent of weight over a conventional system.
Behind the wheel the CX-5's steering and controls has just the right chunky weight and feel, giving it a solid impression and making even the shortest journeys a small indulgence.
For something that rides on massive 19-inch rims, the CX-5 glides remarkably well over rutted surfaces, yet it feels planted solidly to the road.
The CX-5 doesn't do with big shouty numbers to impress, but there is something charming about the way the CX-5 carries itself.
We cannot explain it or put our finger on it, but after a long drive the CX-5 has a soothing yet youthful nature, something rare on this end of the SUV market.
It is amazing that despite all the engineering fine-tuning it has under the skin, Mazda zengineers have taken time to engineer in that rare quality of character and fun.
And we congratulate Mazda for that.
Specifications of the Mazda CX-5 2WD
Engine: 1,997cc four-cylinder direct-injection
Max power: 153hp/114kW @ 6,000rpm
Max torque: 200Nm @ 4,000rpm
Transmission: Six-speed automatic, front-wheel drive
Safety Features: Six airbags, ABS with electronic brake-force distribution (EBD) and Brake Assist, dynamic stability control (DSC), traction control system (TCS), tyre pressure monitor, ISOFIX child seat anchor points
Price: RM159,500 OTR with insurance

The Ultimate Golf

As much as the GTI is the daddy of the hot hatch genre, it wasn’t always Volkswagen’s ultimate Golf.
That bragging right belonged to the Golf which wears the "R" designation, and the new Golf R is the first of two products from Volkswagen’s new wholly owned subsidiary, R GmbH.
Similar to Audi’s quattro, BMW’s M and Mercedes-Benz’s AMG, R is responsible for the creation of Volkswagen’s hottest and sportiest models, albeit both in the looks and performance department.
Despite its huge front air intakes and dominant 19-inch rims, the Golf R’s stylish yet sombre gloss black finishing on the grilles and wing mirrors gives it a look of restrained aggression rather than boy-racer aspirations.
Unlike its over-endowed R32 predecessor, its nose packs a 2-litre 4-cylinder direct-injection turbocharged engine, rather than the old 3.2-litre VR6 powerhouse.
Modest in size it may be, but not in power figures as the new engine is stoked to produce 252hp and 330Nm of torque, 2hp and 30Nm more than its predecessor did.
With all four wheels driven and gear swapping duties done by a snappy six-speed dual clutch transmission, the Golf R can launch itself to 100km/h from a standstill in 5.7 seconds.
Though the figures say that peak torque is only reached at 2,400rpm, fairly high up the rev range for a turbocharged unit, the drivetrain still manage to pull like a train from across the rev range.
At idle and low speeds, the engine produces a lusty growl, but swing the rev counter’s needle past 4,000rpm and the engine really starts to clear its vocal chords to deliver an audio audacity that would melt the sternest hearts.
Even with so much power at play, the Golf R feels benign to drive at any speed, thanks in part to the copious amount of grip derived from its wide 235-width performance tyres and 4Motion system.
You don’t need race driver’s reactions to fully appreciate the breath of the Golf R’s abilities and extract big speeds from it.
Its stiffer and lowered suspension settings gives the Golf R excellent cornering stability, while its precise steering allows you to carve up any road with supreme ease.
It is so tractable, so impeccable in its manners and so refined inside that you wouldn't think that it has enough pace to give sports car drivers something to think about.
Though a proper hatchback with space in the back for passengers and luggage, the Golf R is somewhat compromised when it comes to day-to-day tasks.
The steering for example is deliciously weighty to maximise the reward you get out of stringing a series of fast corners, but it will prove a tiresome chore when negotiating a tight parking space.
The R’s front bucket seats will provide all the lateral support you need for hard and fast corners, but it becomes bothersome when getting in and out of it in a hurry.
Of course, few will question the useability of the ultimate performance Golf, but many will question if it reclaims the hot hatch crown.
Unfortunately, the Golf R doesn’t quite clinch the crown.
Though this is the best top tier Golf ever made, with its downsized engine and more manageable thirst of RON97 fuel compared with its R32 predecessors of old, it doesn’t quite make the driver feel "heroic".
Hot hatches should reward driver effort, but the Golf R’s “sports car hunting cruise missile for the whole family” repertoire does leave us a little cold.
It doesn’t engage like the Megane RS, or dance like its sister, the Scirocco R, though we have to say that calling this blue missile a "hot hatch" would be downplaying its true nature.
With its power, pace and practicalities, the Golf R has transcended that title, and is a bargain for anyone looking for a superb motorway companion with enough ability to challenge the sports car fraternity, yet without any compromise in everyday sensibilities.
Specifications of the Volkswagen Golf R
Engine: 1,984cc 4-cylinder direct-injection turbocharged, EA113
Max power: 252hp (188kW) @ 6,000rpm
Max torque: 330Nm @ 2,400 – 5,200rpm
Transmission: 6-speed dual-clutch, four-wheel drive
Acceleration (0-100km/h): 5.7 seconds
Fuel consumption (Combined): 8.4L/100km
CO2 emissions (Combined): 195g/km
Safety features: Five airbags, ABS with EBD and brake assist, electronic stabilisation program (ESP), traction control system, LED daytime running lights, Isofix child seat anchor points
Price: RM270,060 OTR without insurance

Mercedes-Benz A-class tested

A is for attack. That was how Johann Buss, the strategic project manager for the new A-Class, began proceedings at the global market launch of the new Mercedes-Benz A-Class in Portoroz, Slovenia.
Aside from an initial impulse to duck, it very quickly became obvious to a room full of international Press where the “aggression” was directed at and who the true opposition is.
You see, the market for premium compact cars has been heating up in the last couple of years, with demand (and sales figures) almost doubling over the last two in Europe alone – a fact that has caught the attention of the famous three-pointed-star. The rising demand is coming from a young breed of buyers with a penchant for a hatchback that is sporty, classy and reeking with premium flavour.
The thing is, the “other” German carmakers are already in the game, and Buss freely admitted that the premium compact segment is not one that Mercedes has paid full attention to in the past.
Of course, this isn’t the first A-Class, but the last generation has been infamously accused of being a little lost – it wasn’t sure if it was targeting young buyers, small families, retirees (or all of the above). But that, said Buss, is all about to change with the new model.
In order to have any sort of real game plan going, and a genuine shot at “attacking” a market that has so far heavily favoured cars like the Audi A3 and the BMW 1 Series, the ideology behind the A-Class would have to take a paradigm shift. And it has.
The new A-Class takes a quantum leap forward in terms of look, feel and having a clear-cut direction. With a façade that is undeniably contemporary, a drive that is decidedly more sporty and plenty of hi-tech features to play with inside, the new model leaves no doubt that Mercedes is aiming to lead the market with its latest offering.
It is what young buyers today are looking for - chic looks and high quality wrapped up in an energetic compact package.
Exterior and interior
If you had a peek at the concept version of the A-Class from the Shanghai Motor Show last year, and you liked what you saw, then the good news is the production version doesn’t deviate much.
The side profile still features the prominent character line that starts at the bottom of the front door and dramatically darts upward at the rear door. The front fascia features Benz's now familiar two-bar grille and LED daytime running lamps, while there's a boxier look and a standard roof spoiler at the rear, with the hatch attaining a slippery, class-leading drag coefficient of just 0.26.

Opting for the AMG Sport trim will render the car larger 18-inch wheels, aggressively styled bumpers, sporty red accent pieces, and a “diamond-look” for the front grille mesh.
As opposed to the previous generation, which was accused of being “not Mercedes enough”, the new A-Class is plenty of it. Muscular where it counts and lithe where it needs to be.

It is obvious that great care has been taken to fashion the interior to look and feel like the real deal. The layout and styling is reminiscent of the marque’s larger and more expensive offspring. Though a compressed adaptation, there is still little to complain about with regard to legroom.
There is also a stark difference in driving position compared with earlier A-Class models, as it feels considerably lower and less upright – a sportier feel, but luxuriously comfortable and ergonomic at the same time.
Worth mentioning is the luxurious finish on the dashboard and centre console, which highlights a unique “chequered” finish, five classic Mercedes-styled round air-cond vents and free-standing display screen.
Behind the sporty three-spoke steering wheel, which comes with 12 function buttons and an electroplated bezel, is the simple but eye-fetching instrument cluster comprising two large round instruments with small dial sets within each.
The high mounted dashboard lends a “cockpit” sensation to those sitting up front, and while the sports styling in the rear makes it seem like a two-seater, it actually fits three quite comfortably.
Overall, there is no denying that the new A-Class emits a classier aura than other cars competing in the segment and it comes off feeling far more expensive than the 1 Series and the A3. At 341 litres, however, its boot is smaller than the BMW and Audi premium compacts.
The drive
With plenty of long flat straights and scenic curves to play with, it is little wonder why Mercedes chose Slovenia to be the venue for its exciting new premium compact. The route between the nation’s capital, Ljubljana, and the seaside city of Portoroz provided many highways and twisty hillside roads to aptly test the A-Class’ performance on a variety of terrains.
The A-Class is offered in six key variants, and judging by the range of engines it is dishing up, it is evidently aiming for wide appeal with this new breed. See the list of model range and options here.

There are three petrol and diesel versions to opt from, each with different engine capacities, but the initial word from Mercedes-Benz Malaysia is that only two variants will make it to our shores – the petrol powered A200 and the A250 (Sport), inline-fours with seven-speed dual-clutch automatic gearboxes.
Naturally, we focused on these and got our hands on the range-topping 211hp A250, which proved to be incredibly athletic and quick off the mark from the get-go.
Mercedes engineers also made sure the A-Class would be a more engaging drive by lowering the centre of gravity and revising the four-wheel independent suspension. The chassis also features a combination of front MacPherson struts and a multi-link rear which endows it with more agility than any entry-level Mercedes that has come before.
The outcome is dynamics that are monumentally improved compared with the A-Classes of yore. Those who’ve experienced previous generations will appreciate the new found fluency and eagerness that comes with the latest generation, with light but accurate electro-mechanical steering.
With just 1,370kg to haul, the 1,991cc engine is never really challenged and the result is smooth acceleration with plenty of punch even on demanding slopes. It also felt quick on the straights, boasting a 0-100km/h figure of 6.6-seconds, which according to the people at Mercedes, rivals the Golf GTI.
There is a good spread of low-end torque that makes the dial on the speedometer climb in a lively but refined manner, and shifting through the gears is a seamless and smooth affair that’s hardly detectable.
Taking on corners was surprisingly satisfying, the A-Class tackled them with more competence than you’d expect from an entry-level car. The improved chassis proved its worth on tight turns, being nimble but also planted and firm, with very little body roll to complain about.
Three shift programmes are selectable at the centre console, with the “sports” shift adding more grunt to your drive, the “economy” softening the aggression and the “manual” putting you in full control of the up and down shifts via a column shifter behind the steering wheel.
While the A-Class offers a radically enhanced driving experience from its predecessor, on first experience some might argue that it does not boast the same dynamic appeal as the I Series, or ride with the same authority as the A3.
But that, by no means, says that it isn’t highly competitive in the same arena. It is a well rounded car that offers the type of balance between drive dynamics and driver comfort that only Mercedes can provide – a fact that could endow it with broader appeal among a wider spectrum of young buyers.
Conclusion
With athletic looks, modern connectivity features, healthy balance between comfort and dynamics, as well as sensible cabin space, the new A-Class has a wide appeal that could reach beyond its target market to also attract young families and second car hunters.
Its well-rounded character and delivery of comfort, connectivity and prestige without compromising in the performance and handling department will reach young male and female professionals equally effectively. And addressing the female market in a way that some of its rival can’t is a big deal, especially in Malaysia where women represent more than 50 per cent of all drivers.
Will it top the segment? Only time will tell, but it certainly has all the right attributes to be a very strong contender.
Specifications of the A250 (Sport)
Engine: 1,991cc, 4-cylinder turbocharged
Max power: 211hp (155kW) @ 5,500rpm
Max torque: 350Nm @ 1,200 – 4,000rpm
Transmission: 7-speed dual-clutch
Acceleration (0-100km/h): 6.6 seconds
Fuel consumption (combined): 6.4L/100km
CO2 emissions (combined): 148g/km
Price: To be confirmed

KL ... MPV battle royale

If you are looking for a family bus with seating for seven, space for luggage, and car-like dynamics and refinement, then your list of choices will never be more varied then it is now with these four contenders.
The Mazda 5, Peugeot 5008, Proton Exora Bold, and Volkswagen Cross Touran are among the latest MPVs to step into what is arguably the most dominant and vibrant segment for MPVs in Malaysia.
The four MPVs are big on space for the family, flexible seating for cargo, and small engines as to not squeeze the average family travel budget.
But beyond those traits, these MPVs are as different as chalk and cheese.
Interior
All of the four vehicles come with seven foldable seats, including middle row seats that collapse to maximise cargo space.
The Exora may be the largest in terms of overall size, measuring in at 4,592mm in length and 1,809mm in width, but surprisingly, it didn’t feel like it was the most spacious.
By comparison, the Mazda 5 and the Peugeot 5008 felt more roomy, and even the Cross Touran – which is the smallest of the four with a length of 4,406mm and a width of 1,799 – felt like it offered about the same amount of space as what the Exora offered.
The 5008 and the 5 also had a better access to the third row seats, with handy mechanisms in place to make the manoeuvre a less painstaking task.
We also have to mention that the Mazda 5 is the only one that comes with automated sliding doors, which is a welcomed convenience for those who often find themselves with their hands full and need to herd children in and out of the vehicle.
Hands down, the most comfortable interior award goes to the 5008.
It must be said that when it comes to interior design, few can top the French.
With leather on the seats, a glass panel incorporated into the roof (which sadly can’t be opened), a heads up display, and its cosy interior ambience makes it our firm favourite in this respect.
A close second, though, was the Mazda even with its simple elegance, while the Cross Touran’s interior lived up to its German roots by offering a sensible cabin, and firm and supportive seats.
A point goes to the Proton Exora, however, as it is the only one that offers an air-conditioning vent for the third row – despite being the cheapest vehicle of the four.

On board entertainment
We agree that this not the most important of factors to consider, but a good entertainment system certainly helps on those long drives as it keeps the younger occupants occupied.
Because of the shape and size of MPVs, audiophiles have a penchant for converting them entertainment centres on wheels, if done correctly you could make it almost as good as a home theatre system.
Some manufacturers give you the basic set, whereas others try to hard with too many speakers and gadgets, while a few get it just right.
All four MPVs offer great media packages, with USB ports, CD and DVD players, and everything in between. Some come with extra screens; the 5008 and the Exora, for example, have a screen in the middle for DVDs to keep the kids busy.
No matter how many speakers you have, at the end of the day the quality of the music played back to your ears in the most important. Unfortunately, the Exora is at the bottom of the hierarchy where this is concerned. Its sound system barely manages to tick the box for what can be installed in car, though not properly integrated to optimise its quality.
The 5 had a clearer system, but the lack of speakers on the dashboard made it sounded like music was emitting from beneath your legs (not a pleasurable sensation for everybody).
In the end, our winner in this category a tossup between the 5008 and the Cross Touran.
The 5008 provides a thumping good sound system, while Cross Touran’s would appeal to those preferring a mellow-toned approach to enjoying music.
Driving
To set the record straight, we weren’t on the lookout for an MPV that could take corners like a McLaren F1, but good handling is a definite plus in a vehicle that is tasked to lug big families from point A to B because this can go a long way in boosting the driver’s confidence and the occupants’ safety.
Additionally, the ride has to be comfortable enough for the whole family. It’s a hard balance to hit, but if you quickly jump from one driver seat to another you'll notice the sportiest of the four is the CroassTouran which drives more like a car thanks to the short wheelbase.
The Exora felt like a bus compared to the other three and the 5 felt okay, but the best balance between comfort and ease of driving is easily the 5008’s to claim.
Powerplant
Last but not least, we took a close look at the engines of the MPVs. The manufacturers have to supply enough “oomph” to make moving a full house easy, but also be frugal in the long run.
The Mazda 5 had the largest capacity with its 2-litre engine, but it wasn’t the most powerful. With the only naturally aspirated engine among the four, it manages 142hp.
Nobody two decades ago would have believed that the solution for adding a bit of excitement and improving fuel efficiency of the family bus was by means of turbocharging.
The Exora finally gets the engine it deserves with the turbocharged 1.6-litre CFE engine, which churns out 138hp and 205Nm of torque.
Volkswagen’s Cross Touran might pack a tiny 1.4-litre engine, but thanks to the complicated method of twincharging (putting together a turbocharger and supercharger), this tough looking MPV makes do with 138hp and 220Nm of torque.
Topping the power charts here is the Peugeot 5008 1.6-litre direct-injection turbocharged engine that delivers 156hp and 240Nm of torque.
Not only is it powerful, but it is refined and is arguably one of the greatest engines for its displacement of the modern age.
Verdict
After a long discussion between our panel of testers, coming in at last place – but in many ways, not the least – is the Proton Exora.
A good try it may be by the local manufacturer, but still some room for improvement, especially in the drivetrain and interior feel department.
Its attractive pricing and air conditioning system make this the ideal budget buy here.
Our third pick would be the Mazda 5; the Nagare flow design on the sides was a bit too much for us, and the engine felt dated in this company to modern turbocharged downsized engines.
In second place is the Volkswagen Cross Touran. It drives very well and has a firm feel to it, but that is also its downfall. It drives too much like a car, all sharp and sporty, and this doesn’t make it feel like a true blue MPV.
That leaves one MPV at the top spot, and that’s the Peugeot 5008. It gets our vote because it is an MPV that comes with the complete balance of performance, comfort, styling and space.

Specifications of the Proton Exora Bold Premium
Engine: 1,561cc 4-cylinder turbocharged CFE
Max power: 138hp (103kW) @ 5,000rpm
Max torque: 205Nm @ 2,000 – 4,000rpm
Transmission: CVT, front-wheel drive
Acceleration (0-100km/h): 13.3 seconds
Fuel consumption (at 90km/h): 7.8L/100km
Safety features: Dual airbags, ABS with EBD
Price: RM84,491 OTR without insurance
Specifications of the Peugeot 5008
Engine: 1,598cc 4-cylinder direct-injection turbocharged
Max power: 156hp (115kW) @ 6,000rpm
Max torque: 240Nm @ 1,400rpm – 4,000rpm
Transmission: 6-speed automatic, front-wheel drive
Acceleration (0-100km/h): 10.8 seconds
Fuel consumption (EU combined drive cycle): 7.9L/100km
CO2 emissions (EU combined drive cycle): 169g/km
Safety features: Six airbags, electronic stability program (ESP), ABS and EBD with EBA, anti-skid regulation (ASR), dynamic stability control (DSC), ISOFIX child seat mounting point
Price: RM159,888 OTR with insurance
Specifications of the Volkswagen Cross Touran
Engine: 1,390cc 4-cylinder direct-injection twincharged
Max power: 138hp (103kW) @ 5,600rpm
Max torque: 220Nm @ 1,250 – 4,500rpm
Transmission: 7-speed dual-clutch, front-wheel drive
Acceleration (0-100km/h): 9.8 seconds
Fuel consumption (EU combined drive cycle): 7.1L/100km
CO2 emissions (EU combined drive cycle): 164g/km
Safety features: Six airbags, ABS with EBD, electronic stabilisation program (ESP), anti-slip regulation (ASR), electronic differential lock (EDL), engine drag torque control (EDTC), LED daytime running lights
Price: RM167,608 OTR without insurance
Specifications of the Mazda 5
Engine: 1,999cc 4-cylinder MZR
Max power: 142hp (106kW) @ 6,500rpm
Max torque: 180Nm @ 4,500rpm
Transmission: 5-speed automatic, front-wheel drive
Safety features: Six airbags, ABS with EBD, traction control and stability control
Price: RM153,020 OTR without insurance

New Elantra Tested in KL

Our test car comes with a body kit that is still under development and is currently not yet available to the public.

Most industrial designs, including cars, are constrained by the same trio of design evils, material and manufacturing cost, regulations and user habits.

Surmounting these is not difficult. There is always one optimal design that two engineers working separately will eventually develop.
But following this mantra of 'form follows function' also means all cars will look very similar to one another. In fact, in the eyes of a regular person, many of today's cars already look too similar.
Marrying these conflicting ideals of achieving an optimal engineering design while maintaining sufficient product differentiation has always been a challenge for car makers.
At the same time, harmonising the two also implies a radically different design that consumers may not be ready to accept. The first generation three door Honda Insight is one such example. More than ten years later it is still one of the most fuel efficient cars. But the controversial wind cheating shape, though highly efficient, sealed its commercial fate.
In the 1930s, American industrial designer Raymond Loewy was one of the first non-coach builder to provide design consultancy services to car companies.
Loewy first coined the term Maya, short for 'Most Advanced Yet Acceptable.'
Which brings us to Hyundai's latest C-segment sedan, the Elantra.
Older readers may associate the Elantra nameplate with cars that are as interesting as a spinning washing machine.
With this Elantra however, it is the heads of passersby that will be spinning. Like all radical designs, it will polarize opinions.
You may like it or dislike it, but one thing you can't do is to ignore it, for it looks like nothing else on the road.
This Elantra just screams for attention. It's a rolling Korean pop artist on wheels.
Against the sea of drab looking econo-boxes on our roads, our test car painted Creamy White, looks as if it's chiselled by the goddess of wind herself.
With its coupe-like silhouette and a one-piece side window that does away with a conventional rear three quarter window, it can almost be passed off as a poor man's CLS or CC.

The Elantra's radical design treatment continues inside.
Highlight of the cabin is a beautifully contoured dashboard. The centre cluster has a feminine like form to it and is flanked by a pair of faux aluminium-like trimmings, almost appearing like a heavenly being with outstretched arms.
Our test model is of the 1.8 Premium variant, so it comes with black nappa leather seats, dual zone climate control, GPS navigation with reverse camera and sunroof.
Fire up the engine by hitting the push-start button, the cabin comes alive with soothing electric blue backlit instruments.
If you are in the mood for some natural lighting, push the roof mounted sunroof control switch to either tilt open the sunroof or retract it fully.

Slot the transmission into Drive, the Elantra pulls away smoothly. Power comes from a 148 hp (at 6,500 rpm) and 178 Nm (at 4,700 rpm) 1.8-litre D-CVVT Nu engine.
90 per cent of torque is available from 2,500 onwards so in-gear acceleration is more than sufficient. However, compared to its Japanese competitors, the Elantra's engine sounded less refined at higher speeds, which is a shame because ride comfort is excellent.
If not for the engine noise, it would have been a very capable highway companion.
Hyundai's dedicated a full page of its brochure expressing virtues of the Elantra's low NVH (noise, vibration, harshness), but frankly, we find a similarly price but bland looking Nissan Sylphy more than matches the Elantra's quiet cabin.
While the Hyundai in-house developed six-speed automatic may keep fuel consumption low, the transmission is not smoothest in the daily traffic grind.
When coasting to a stop or feathering the throttle, occasionally there may be a slight shift-shock like jerk when the transmission shifts down. However, it is smoother than some European dual clutch transmissions we've sampled in the past.
It's only a minor irritation that will not bother all but the most fussy drivers.
The Elantra's low slung silhouette also means that some headroom were traded off for better looks. One of our rear passenger actually knocked her head against the roof line while exiting, just before we could tell her to watch her head.
Our main gripe has less to do with how the Elantra ride or drives but rather it is regarding the car's human-machine interface (HMI) and ergonomics.
Right at the top of our complain list is the touch screen audio visual navigator. The centre cluster's sweeping lines may look good but they also meant that some basic ergonomics for the touch screen were sacrificed in the name of fashion.
Rather than positioned upright for easy reach, the screen is angled upwards, directly under the sun. Half of the time while driving in the daytime, we could hardly read the screen, rendering functions like reverse camera and GPS navigation redundant.
The GPS unit was also very slow to receive inputs. The turn by turn voice direction was also tied to the radio, so you can't turn down the radio if you want to use the GPS.
Eventually, we resorted to the 'traditional' Google Maps on a smartphone/tablet solution.
Second has to do with the Elantra's air-conditioning vent's knee level placement. Personally, this author has little problem as he usually drives with vents pointed away.
However two of our passengers said they felt uncomfortable. One of our passengers said she couldn't feel any air blowing to her side.
This doesn't mean the Elantra's air-conditioning is not up to par. Far from it, the air-conditioning is more than up to task to deal with our hot climate. But occupants who need to feel cool air blowing directly at them will not like the current layout.
Curiously, the European market i30, which is essentially an Elantra hatchback designed in Germany, has a slightly different centre cluster with conventional top mounted air-conditioning vents.
The fact that Hyundai's design staff in Russelheim, Germany, is able to justify putting in additional resources to re-design the Elantra's American penned layout says something.
The Elantra sedan is designed in Hyundai's North American Design Center in Irvine, California.
The Elantra is best suited for young families looking for something more stylish than the usual run of the mill sedans driven by their fathers.
If you are carrying young children rather than full size adults most of the time, rear headroom isn't an issue. Plus, the Elantra comes with childseat friendly ISOFIX hooks.
Its 420-litre will do well to serve most young families.
Around a mix of highway and city driving, the Elantra consumed around 9 litres of RON95 petrol per 100 km.