|
PERFORMANCE
THE VAUXHALL AND VOLVO, EACH with 204bhp, are the most powerful
cars here, but the Saab and Jaguar, next up with 200bhp, have
more torque - 221 and 22Olb ft respectively, ‘peaking at an
impressively low 2000rpm in the Swedish turbo. Add weight to the
equation and the CDS, nearly 7cwt lighter than the XJ6, streaks
into the lead on acceleration. Given a grippy surface, it is the
only car here capable of clocking O-6Omph times in the high
sevens. Traction control is available to curb wheelspin on
manual-boxed cars, but not on the automatic, so smart starts
will burn rubber.. This surfeit of power over traction does not
afflict the Saab’s rivals, but then none of them can match the
CDS Turbo’s terrific mid-range punch.
At the other extreme comes the 15Obhp Ford, though the Scorpio
partially offsets its power deficiency with surprisingly modest
weight. Compared with the aggressively potent Saab, though, the
Granada feels leisurely, its snarly engine lacking in top-end
brio but hauling hard in the low and mid-speed ranges. All out,
the ageing 125mph Ford is also the slowest car, though lt
cruises as effortlessly at 85mph.
Performance is not really a deciding issue between the other
nine contenders. The Alfa’s 3.0-litre V6, retuned for the
automatic to give more torque and less power, is a wonderfully
lusty and vocal engine, its muscle more broadly spread than that
of the satin-smooth 2.5 BMW, which needs revving urgently if it
is to fly. The 525’s five speeds and eager shifting, of which
more later, compensate for any low-rev languor rather better
than in the four-speed box of the Mercedes, which gives away
nothing in smoothness but is down in power and torque, not to
mention shift eagerness.
The slippery Citroen belies comparatively modest engine muscle
with robust acceleration and a top speed that rivals the
Vauxhall’s - almost the fastest car of the group all out and
close to the Saab on acceleration. Subjectively, the 3.0 Peugeot
does not feel as lively as the like-engined Citroen, but that’s
perhaps because it is smoother and quieter than its inexplicably
throbbier PSA stablemate. indifferent refinement was finally to
prove the XM’s only serious flaw.
Low-rev lethargy that once penalised the V6 Rovers is no longer
a problem: the Sterling’s 2.7-litre engine is ultra-competitive
in this company. So, too, is the impressively flexible
long-stroke 3.0-litre twin-cam of the big Volvo, the performance
of which belies staid looks. Although torque peaks at a high
4300rpm, 80 percent of it is on tap at 1000rpm, 90 percent at
2900rpm. Torque is also the Jaguar‘s strength, the deep-chested,
24-valve 3.2 being such an emphatic advance on the limp,
eight-valve 2.9 it supersedes that the 4.0 is under threat.
ROADHOLDING, HANDLING
SWITCHINC FROM CAR TO CAR ON familiar Wiltshire roads (Castle
Combe was used largely as a handy photo location), we expected
to find a dramatic spread in handling abilities. That we didn’t
- at least, not in substance or security - meant withholding the
wooden spoon and
awarding the last-placed car with a grey rosette instead. The
Ford got that.
It is not a bad handler, the Scorpio, but it is not an uplifting
one, either. Hustled along, it feels stodgy, wallowy. lt does
what you ask of it faithfully enough, but it does not inspire
you to ask very much.
The consensus about the lack-lustre Ford was as clearcut as the
Jaguar’s superiority over most rivals. Even with standard
suspension, the XJ6 handles well; with its optional sports
set-up, it is remarkably sharp and agile for such a big car.
Steering response is a whisker away from nervous, but the car’s
low-roll poise and balance are impeccable, even allowing for
occasional tramline fidget. No rival is more entertaining or
tenacious, the Jaguar`s generous 225/60 rubber giving terrific
cornering and braking grip.
Between these two extremes, the order of merit for the other
nine cars was influenced as much by personal taste as objective
assessment. Alphabetically, they shape up like this:
- Alfa Romeo: wieldy, well-sorted chassis complements lovely
V6 engine. Highly rated for its agility and balance; runs wide
when pressed, but responsive steering less affected by torque
reaction than manual-boxed car. Ample grip, nicely weighted
brakes. Strong on driver appeal.
- BMW 525i: one of the best, most accomplished players. Feels
crisp, taut, stable, composed. Other than slight steering
stodginess, handling and grip are hard to fault. Lacks only
the Jaguar’s sharp turn-in bite.
- Citroen XM: Hydractive suspension engenders unique feel,
making XM like no other car. Sharp steering and limpet
cornering give uncanny responses, modest body roll and
terrific composure. Torque steer seldom a problem. Brakes
strong and sensitive.
- Mercedes 260: fluent and poised, but not as sharp or agile
as the Citroen or Jaguar. Clings on under power when
front-drive rivals might push wide. Feels immensely safe and
reassuring at all times. Fine brakes.
- Peugeot 605: excellent chassis marred by light, lifeless
steering that alienates sensitive hands. Otherwise, fluent
cornering, fine poise, no serious torque steer. Brakes light,
progressive.
- Rover Sterling: honest midfield player. After, say, Citroen,
steering feels sluggish, unresponsive, militating against
agility. Otherwise able car, cornering with alacrity. Good
feel to firm brakes.
- Saab: entertaining express, at its best on fast sweepers.
Tight corners betray sluggish steering, low-gear acceleration
strong torque reaction. Can get untidy, never unsafe. Brakes
soggy, poor on feel.
- Vauxhall Senator: steering woolliness masks able chassis.
Lacks sharpness, agility but clings on well and has no vices.
Brakes well weighted, very reassuring.
- Volvo: less ponderous than it looks. Steering a bit woolly,
body control looser than, say, Citroen`s, but glues itself
down well despite softish suspension. Uninspiring but safe and
predictable.
|
