For a first car, go for the Mark X; it beats the Avensis in every respect

Hello Baraza,

I have been toying with the idea of buying my first car for some time now, but I am confused by the many opinions I have received from friends.

I am a great admirer of the Toyota Mark X and Avensis. What’s your opinion and advice on a first-car buy between the two models, especially for a new driver and owner? Gilbert

I’d say get the Avensis. It is cheaper, which is always a good thing for a first car. It is cheaper to maintain, is available as an estate/station wagon and also a lot easier to drive.

But, let’s hold on to that thought for a moment as I explain what I mean by “easier to drive”.

The Avensis is one of the blandest cars known to man. It is as anonymous as anonymous gets, and what it portrays in appearance is reflected in its driving characteristics.

A front-drive chassis shuffled along by a limp-wristed engine channelling whatever lazy power it generates through an even lazier slushmatic wimp-box is just what a first car owner needs.

It is very safe. Even when you are crashing, it is still safe. In order not to crash, just take your foot off the accelerator. You are unlikely to lose control of this vehicle under any circumstances. It just isn’t active enough to get to that point.

The Mark X is something else. Engine sizes begin from 2500cc and six cylinders, which for the past three million years, has been the enthusiast’s recipe for a sporty vehicle.

Sporty vehicles are expensive, to start with. The Mark X’s good looks place it in the high-demand area of the demand-supply curve, so prices won’t drop in a hurry.

Add to this a rear-drive chassis and we will end up talking about something called oversteer. Corralling oversteer calls for some skill in the driving department. I’m not saying that you lack these skills, but when oversteer gets the better of you, you will crash.

Crashing a Mark X is very hard on the wallet, and as a first-car owner and potential petrolhead, we wouldn’t want you cursing the motor vehicle for being a harbinger of woe and/or making you gnash your teeth and wear sack-cloth now, would we?

You know what? Get the Mark X. It is a lot more fun to drive, it is bigger, faster, prettier, better specced, more imposing and a far superior car overall.

--------------------------------------

Dear Baraza,
My employer has a 2006 petrol engine AT Toyota Townace whose average consumption is 6.67-6.93 Km/litre. We have been fuelling full tank and analysing it every time we fuel.

The car picks very well but sometimes feels as if you must press the accelerator hard for it to perform normally. This happens at any time, and not just in the morning.  

We use the vehicle to carry light weights averaging half a tonne on most days.1. What could be the reason for the outrageous consumption?2. How do I fix it before I propose its disposal?GM

Hello Sir/Madam,
1. This one is very easily explained. Your words are those of a zealous driver (“...the car picks very well...”, “...sometimes feels as if you must press...hard for it to perform normally...”).

I think you have a heavy foot, and the effects of this leaden hoof are further exacerbated by that half-tonne payload you mention. Half a tonne is not as “lightweight” as you might think.

It is the equivalent of six grown men sitting inside the car – not counting the driver. That vehicle is very heavy, aggressively driven and is, therefore, thirsty.

2. Simple. Get rid of whatever material you have half a tonne of still rolling about inside the car (even if it is six grown men) then propose its disposal. Trust me, the economy figures will be more to expectation then.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Baraza,
Thanks a lot for your motoring advice.

In your column of June 18, I read about David’s Toyota Mark X problem. I have a Toyota Noah 2004 model and it had the same problem.

Prepare for a rather long read, but here’s how I was able to get the alternator fixed – for Sh200.The alternators in today’s modern vehicles are fitted with some kind of “magnetic alternator”, meaning the pulley and the main hub shaft are separate, unlike what we’re used to.

When the battery’s charge is below 10 volts or thereabouts, an extra charge is sent to the electric magnet so that it connects the alternator’s interior shaft with the pulley. And as time goes by, this charging and discharging process tends to wear out.

Like David, I tried to change my battery but that didn’t work. I also tried to pinpoint what was wrong, so my specialist removed the alternator and tested it, and it was working just fine.

But when he returned it, it refused to work, so he went to a welder, and did a “spot” weld to connect the shaft and the pulley. This time when he put it back, it worked; and it is still working two years later! I even sold the new battery I had bought.

I thought it was best to share my experience. Different mechanics have different solutions, and I’m glad mine had the least expensive option. Fellow petrolheads should help each other, no? Kimathi

Hey, thanks for the tip!

--------------------------------------

Dear Baraza,

Great job you are doing.My question is: what’s wrong with the Toyota Platz, apart from its ugliness, of course?

I have come across some cheap ones, which even I can afford (years 2000 to 2003). I would like to get one as my first car. Any particular problems you can point out? Andy

The problem with the Platz, apart from its ugliness, is its lack of good looks. Some say it is unsightly. That just about sums up its biggest problems.

Other ...er... shortcomings are cramped interior space, lack of power from the small engine, horrendous body roll when cornering and poor handling because of the cheap chassis and suspension and skinny tyres.

Those skinny tyres are sworn generators of understeer. But worse still, they make hard braking a hit-or-miss affair. If you get a car without ABS, you will most likely be dead within a week, or sooner if it’s raining. The tyres do not grip at all.

These are some of the reasons the car was cheap originally, but there are further reasons that account for its increased after-sales cheapness.

It is a hard car to love, no matter how hard you worked for the Sh250,000 or so you shell out for a used example.

This lack of affection occasioned by its blob-like countenance and bottom-rung characteristics means that it almost always finds its way into service as a car hire vehicle (they are abused/misused just as much and by just as many people) or as a taxi, which is equally mishandled.

Long story short, a cheap car to begin with will be even cheaper on the used market for the reasons indicated above.

Get one if you really must have a car immediately. Otherwise, shop around for a little hatchback. Same price but higher quality... and not as ugly.

--------------------------------------

Dear Baraza,
I have a Subaru Impreza with a very high consumption of fuel – 106kms/16.8ltrs (Sh2000). What could be the cause(s)?

You do realise how vague your email is, don’t you? The fuel economy figure you give is about 6.3 km/litre. This might or might not be a worrisome statistic depending on a variety of factors, the first one being: which Impreza model you are driving.

If it is a WRX STi, then yes, you are right where you would expect to be: 300hp does not come easily, especially where fuel consumption is concerned.
Secondly, and related to the point above, is driving technique.

If you wedge your foot against the floorboard and refuse to relent until the last possible moment, then don’t expect mercy from your engine. It will guzzle, more so in the aforementioned WRX STi.

Driving environment matters too. Driving in thick traffic, involving stop-start manoeuvres and full-bore standing starts from the lights, then your economy will suffer.

If you spend most of your time going uphill, your economy will suffer. If you drive on rough roads that demand first and second gear manoeuvres only, your economy will suffer.

Third is weight. How many of you were in the car when it was doing 6.3 km/litre? Any luggage/load? Next is aerodynamics.

Driving with the windows open and adding things to the body work of your car will affect wind resistance when driving along, and this will affect consumption.

Running with the air-con at full blast also hurts economy by as much as 10 per cent or more (extremes of 25 per cent have been recorded).

What is the mechanical condition of your car? Is it completely sound? If you have a Check Engine Light then this is a prime suspect in the poor economy.

Then again, your 6.3 km/litre figure could be a combination of all these factors....

--------------------------------------

Hi Baraza,

I have been looking for a car to buy that will give me good gas mileage, not necessarily great, and performance as well.

I am a fan of German cars, so I’ve been considering either the Volkswagen Golf or the Audi  A3. Is there a big difference in consumption between the Golf FSI and the GTi? Please advise.

Hello,
The Volkswagen Golf and the Audi A3 are essentially the same vehicle under the skin, so it mostly boils down to which badge you prefer. The A3 is not as common as the Golf, so if you want to stand out of the pack, then that is the car to go for.

It also has a slightly better interior, though this is a purely subjective approach: I am talking about my own preference. There are those who might think otherwise.

The fuel economy difference between the FSI and the GTi depends on how they are driven. If these two vehicles are driven as they were intended, then the consumption figures will be poles apart.

The FSI is built specifically with fuel economy in mind, so most of its buyers tend to be careful, mile-counting, penny-pinching “thinking” people. Fuel economy will hover around the 16km/litre mark.

The GTi is a performance vehicle and is meant to be driven hard. Couple this with the turbo lurking somewhere under the hood and what you get is roughly 6-7km/litre.

Nobody buys a GTi with fuel economy as the primary purpose. You can see how large that disparity is.

However, this doesn’t mean that a GTi can’t or won’t do 16km/litre. It will, quite easily, but if what you want is 16km/litre, then why on earth would you buy a GTi to start with? I hope you follow my train of thought here.

--------------------------------------

Hello Baraza,
In keeping with the current national penchant for dialogue, I had a “dialogue” with my car (old shape Harrier) and it has demanded to be “sexed” up with offset tyres to replace its current factory-installed rims.  

However, a dealer warned me that installing offset rims/tyres could have an adverse effect on brake drums, vehicle stability and safety.

Is there any merit in this? What’s your take? It’s not that I want large offsets, just rims that protrude an inch outside the body of the ride.
Please advise.

Nick

The integrity of the brake drums (are you sure the Toyota Harrier doesn’t have disc brakes all round?) will depend on the rim size, whether or not the rims fit over the equipment properly.

There might be an effect on vehicle handling, seeing how the off-set rims effectively widen the track of the car. Widening the track, especially the front track, does things to the steering geometry that may lead to unpredictable steering characteristics.

The severity of this condition will depend on how much you increase the track; in other words, how far out you push the tyres. An inch doesn’t sound like much, but remember, this is an inch on either side, so it is actually TWO inches.

Another way of going about this would be to get wider rims with a smaller dish factor (the distance of the rim centre/mounting point from the rim edges along the rim width, not along the rim diameter).

Having car trouble? Send your questions to [email protected] for absolutely free expert advice.