|
ACCOMMODATION, COMFORT
HERE AT LAST, THE SCORPIO EXCELS, the big Ford disputing the
space race with the Citroen XM. You can stretch out in the back
of both, knee room to spare, embraced by comfortable
leather-wrapped seats. Chauffeur-driven loungers would be better
off in either of these cars than the Jaguar, even though the XJ6
is bigger; generous legroom is poorly served by a shapeless rear
bench.
Other rivals are not so roomy, but all have better back seats.
Tightest of all for kneeroom are the BMW and Mercedes,
signifying that overall length is a poor guide to accommodation.
The Citroen, for instance, is shorter than the BMW, though it is
very much roomier, and the capacious Ford is the second shortest
car here (after the Alfa). Wheelbase length and packaging
efficiency are what count, V6 engines, in line or (better still)
transverse, occupying less space than straight-six ones. Tight
packaging makes the surprisingly roomy Saab a more accommodating
car than the larger Volvo.
From best to worst, we rated the cars for rear-seat comfort in
this order: Citroen and Ford first; next up Peugeot, Saab and
Vauxhall; trailing, but not badly, the Jaguar (which would be
equal first with the Sovereign’s individual back seats), Alfa
(its rear seats reclineable), Rover and Volvo; last and least,
the BMW and Mercedes, both with shapely seats but poor legroom
if the fronts are pushed back.
The drooping tail of the Jaguar denies it the box-room boot of
wedge-rumped rivals (Alfa and Saab, for instance). On the other
hand, its low-lipped well is easily loaded. Luggage
accommodation is not a big issue here as all 11 cars have
generous boot space - extendable by folding the back seats in
the Citroen, Ford and Vauxhall, the three most versatile
carriers.
Up front, comfort ratings again reflect personal tastes. For
instance, the supple suspension of the Volvo was condemned as
wallowy by one driver, praised for its resilience by another;
all agreed, though, that even with sports settings, the Jaguar
was peerlessly composed, the Citroen brilliant at ironing out
foundation irregularities, if not surface ones.
There was a consensus, too, about the firm Alfa’s agitated ride.
Saab and Rover are also harsher, thumpier than the more
absorbent Ford, Peugeot and Vauxhall. The BMW and Mercedes ride
well, though the 260 is flawed by rowdy tyre roar on coarse
surfaces, undermining refinement.
Driven with restraint, which does not mean slowly, all 11 cars
will make haste quietly. Only when extended does the Saab betray
its four-cylinder engine with a hard-edged thrum, though it is
at least as smooth as the Citroen and Ford, neither notable for
mechanical refinement by six-cylinder standards. All the other
sextets - vee and in-line - are sweeter, none more aurally
pleasing than the Alfa. Although vocally classy, the Jaguar’s
engine suffers from top-end tingle that’s absent from the smooth
but willing BMW and Mercedes.
At this level, perceived luxury - let’s call it ambience - is a
key issue. Least well endowed with it is the Volvo,
architecturally unimaginative and old fashioned inside, even
rather cheap looking, despite acres of leather upholstery - also
standard in the Citroen, Ford, Rover, Saab and Vauxhall. How
different is the attractive Saab, which reflects Swedish design
flair, inside and out, much better than the Volvo.
The cloth-trimmed Alfa is too spartan inside to elicit much
attention. So, too, is the neat BMW and Mercedes, though the
tvvo Germans compensate for design conservatism vvith impeccable
finish. Neither can match the opulence of the Citroen and Ford,
though the impressive boudoir decor of these two cars, closely
rivalled by the Rover if not the understated Peugeot or
Vauxhall, does not reflect the sort of deep~rooted quality found
in the Mercedes. The greatest sense of well-being and
superiority is enjoyed in the Jaguar, the polished ambience of
the XJ6 being rivalled only by the Saab.
|
