012013_FN 15_7_04

19/11/04

12:24 pm

Page 1

GROUP TEST: DIESEL HATCHBACKS

Hatches lock horns in fight for fleets

Forget any preconceptions about this trio of hatchbacks. Steve Moody and Simon Harris find
out how the new diesels introduced by Mazda, Vauxhall and Volkswagen this year measure up

PHOTOS: CHRIS LOWNDES. THANKS TO PETERBOROUGH GREYHOUND STADIUM

MAZDA3 1.6 D TS

accused of being too expensive,

but in this comparison thats
not necessarily true, as its BIK
price is only 200 more than
the Astra. But no doubt
specification is poor? Well,
again thats not quite true. The
only major piece of equipment
it doesnt have is air
conditioning, which costs 495.
It doesnt have alloy wheels,
but for fleets at the cheaper end
of the lower-medium spectrum,
thats hardly a deal-breaker.
All are well-matched on
safety, with front and rear
curtain airbags and a plethora
of electronic wizardry to keep
the car on the road.
But its the same old story

MAZDA3 1.6 diesel TS

when it comes to depreciation,

where the Golf beats its
competition to the ground and
then stands on their necks for
good measure.
To those who spend their
lives peering into footwells and
tugging at door bins, the latest
Golf might have a few wobbly
interior pieces and some of the
plastics are not quite up to
standards of the past, but the
public at large arent seeing it
and, even if they do, they dont
seem to care.
It should be as popular on the
secondhand market as ever for
its robust and classless image,
according to our figures,
despite the obvious cost-cutting

VAUXHALL ASTRA 1.7 CTDi CLUB 100

MAZDAS lowermedium challenger has

the smallest engine on
test, but its the most
powerful. Well-optioned
and cheap P11d makes it
a strong competitor.
Delivered price,
standard car (P11d value)

14,647

CO2 emissions (g/km)

138

BIK % of P11D in 2004/05

18%

Graduated VED rate

115

Insurance group

Delivered price,
standard car (P11D value)

Maintenance 2.12 pence

per mile x 60,000

CO2 emissions (g/km)

1,272

Fuel 7.28 pence per

mile x 60,000

4,368

Combined mpg

Wholelife cost 24.12

pence per mile x 60,000

CAP Monitor residual value

Typical contract hire rate

56.5

5,225/36%

14,472

319 per month

14,742
135

BIK % of P11D in 2004/05

15%

Graduated VED rate

115

Insurance group

July 15, 2004

Maintenance 2.20 pence

per mile x 60,000

CO2 emissions (g/km)

1,320

Fuel 7.28 pence per

mile x 60,000

4,368

Combined mpg
CAP Monitor residual value

Typical contract hire rate

56.5

4,700/32%

THE Golf deals in known

quantities: the diesel TDI is
well-proven, the looks are
classic Golf sharpened up
and the interior echoes
Touran and Polo. Residuals
are as strong as ever.
Delivered price,
standard car (P11D value)

9,402

15,090

302 per month

the lowest possible tax bill, the

135g/km Astra and 143g/km
Golf are the clear favourites as
they are Euro IV compliant and
therefore 15% while the
138g/km Mazda3 isnt yet and
is therefore rated at 18%.
The Astra and the Golf
would cost a 22% taxpayer
only 41 a month in this
financial year, while the
Mazda3 would result in a
monthly charge of 48, which
makes all three pretty good
value. But as it isnt severely
hampered by miserly
specification, wins on running
costs and has good BIK tax
levels, the Golf wins this
section of the group test. SM

VOLKSWAGEN GOLF 1.9 TDI S

Depreciation 15.67 pence

per mile x 60,000

Wholelife cost 25.15

pence per mile x 60,000

Fuelling Britains fleet industry

12 FLEET NEWS

and the Golf last at 2.29ppm,

but the difference between first
and last is only 102. Much the
same can be said of the fuel
costs, where the Mazda3 and
Astra are locked together at
7.28ppm while the Golf is rated
at 7.71ppm. Thats a gap of
258 over 60,000 miles.
So its no shock that the Golf
wins on running costs, which is
entirely due to its residual
performance as it comes last in
the other two categories. At
23.48ppm it would cost
14,088, while the secondplaced Mazda3, at 24.12ppm,
costs 14,472 and the
25.15ppm Astra is third at
15,090. For a driver wanting

THE Astra finally gets a full

range of common-rail
diesels which, alongside
sharp styling, good build
quality and a decent
chassis, make the Astra the
best Vauxhall there is.

Depreciation 14.72 pence

per mile x 60,000

8,832

internally. The Astra, on the

other hand, is its match in terms
of quality but still loses more
than 2ppm more in
depreciation, while the Mazda
sits in the middle.
The result is that a figure of
13.48ppm sees the Golf lose
8,088 over three years/60,000
miles while the Mazda3, with a
figure of 14.72ppm, loses
8,832 and the Astra at 15.67
ppm sees 9,402 lopped off its
value. Its the only running cost
area where any one car gets
much of a lead over the others.
The Mazda3 is marginally
better on service, maintenance
and repair at 2.12ppm, while
the Astra is next best at 2.20

14,942
143

BIK % of P11D in 2004/05

15%

Graduated VED rate

115

Insurance group

Depreciation 13.48 pence

per mile x 60,000

8,088

Maintenance 2.29 pence

per mile x 60,000

1,374

Fuel 7.71 pence per

mile x 60,000

4,626

Combined mpg

Wholelife cost 23.48

pence per mile x 60,000

CAP Monitor residual value

Typical contract hire rate

53.3

6,375/43%

14,088

312 per month

www.bpplus.com
www.fleetnewsnet.co.uk

The diesel engine in the

Mazda does the most with the
least in one sense. It produces
107bhp, but the 16-valve unit
at 1.6 litres is the smallest of
the three on test. It is also the
quietest. Weve become used to
the Volkswagen pumpe duse
clatter and the Mazdas engine
seems much quieter under
acceleration and does not
sound anywhere near as brash
as the Vauxhall.
Sitting on the motorway at a
steady 70mph is a stress-free
experience with the engine
whirring away quietly in the
background and, when driving
away from the main roads, it
only becomes intrusive above
about 3,000rpm.

The Mazda3 has exemplary

road manners, reacting quickly
and precisely to steering inputs,
and only unruly use of the
throttle prompts the front tyres
to temporarily lose traction
with the road surface.
The Mazda will not carry as
much in the boot as the Golf or

Astra the figures suggest a

deficit of about 50 litres with
the rear seats in place but
there is little to choose between
the three for passenger space.
But the overall impression is
of a car with fine road manners,
good performance and
excellent build quality.
SH

AT A GLANCE
Engine refinement
Well equipped
Fuel economy

Smallest boot
Interior too dark
Awkward styling details

VAUXHALL ASTRA 1.7 CDTi CLUB 100

WHAT a transformation. With
bold yet conventional styling,
the new Astra is comfortably
the best-looking vehicle on this
test. The large headlamps, neat
tailgate and attention to detail
shows Vauxhall was aiming to
give the new Astra the same
level of perceived quality as the
Volkswagen Golf.
The solid feel continues
inside with well-chosen
materials, a robust feel and
meticulous fit and finish.
The Astra has the measure of
the Volkswagen for interior
finish and is probably slightly
better. There seem to be fewer
areas where cost might have
been surreptitiously stripped
out and the result is a pleasant

and stylish interior.

It comes with the same
indicator/windscreen wiper
functions as the Vectra and
Signum, which we know how
to operate but still cant see the
point of.
More importantly, the new
Astra comes with a range of
Euro IV-compliant
common-rail turbodiesel
engines and the 100bhp 1.7
CDTi tested here performs
well, as well as being
competitive on running costs.
Its a shame it is the noisiest
by some margin from inside the
cabin. It rattles like diesels of
old, making the whole car
vibrate. Vauxhall can do better
than this the Vectra diesels

are as quiet and refined as

anything in their class.
The Astra makes up for the
engines rudeness by being
enjoyable to drive. The old
Astra was never that bad, but
was overshadowed by the more
purposeful Ford Focus. The
new Astra needed to be as good

as the Ford Focus, the longtime class benchmark for ride

and handling.
It is impressive enough to
edge out the other two cars on
test, good though they are, with
better steering than the Golf
and a better ride than the
Mazda3.
SH

AT A GLANCE
Smart styling
Quality feel
Good to drive

Poor depreciation
Noisy engine
Those indicator stalks

VOLKSWAGEN GOLF 1.9 TDI S

All figures based on 3yrs/60,000 miles. Monthly rental quote from HSBC DriverQuote

HIS is the key head-tohead-to-head of new cars

in the fleet industry in
2004. All three of these diesel
hatchbacks came on to the
market this year, with two the
Astra and the Golf vital cars
in fleet, while the third, the
Mazda, comes from a firm with
big ambitions in that area.
The Astra has the strongest
chance of being voted the
sectors best of any mainstream
Vauxhall saloon or hatch in
years and now has a range of
common-rail diesel engines,
while the Mazda3, it is hoped,
will follow the same meteoric
path taken by the Mazda6.
The new Golf has been

IF you were expecting the

Mazda3 to be a smaller version
of the Mazda6, then you would
probably be disappointed.
It doesnt have the clean
styling of the 6 and even the
sporty details like the angled
C-pillar and rear light clusters
cant draw attention away from
an overall appearance that is
just a little clumsy.
Inside, the Mazda3 continues
its sporty theme with its cowled
dials and red LED Knight
Rider illuminations on the
audio system.
While the interior seems
drab in black do Japanese car
interiors ever stray from black
and dark grey tones? it is all
very well assembled.

WHILE the Volkswagen Golf

has stood head and shoulders
above rivals on running costs in
recent years, the bread-andbutter models could never be
described as fun to drive.
The latest model changes all
that. Still set up with a comfort
bias, but with far more
involving handling, getting
behind the wheel of the Golf is
now an enticing proposition.
The 1.9-litre pumpe duse
diesel in its latest incarnation is
Euro IV compliant and while
its 105bhp might be a few less
than the Mazda3, its more than
the Astra and its 184lb-ft is
ahead of both rivals. It endows
the Golf with more than
adequate performance for

relaxed motorway cruising or a

sudden burst of speed for
overtaking.
All three feel pretty evenly
matched benchmark figures
suggest the Mazda does the 062mph dash 0.2 seconds slower
than the Golf and Astra and
while the Astra is probably the
most satisfying car to drive, it
isnt by much.
The Golfs electromechanical steering does offer
an artificial feel in the way it
changes weight and resistance
with speed, but using it in
favour of an electrohydraulic
system saves fuel. It can also
perform clever tricks like
compensating for the camber of
the road.Steering aside, the

Golf is pleasant to drive in

most conditions.
The Golfs usual dependable
quality is apparent inside and
out, but where it used to be the
class leader many of its rivals
have caught up.
Both the Mazda3 and Astra

cabins seem well screwed

together, with some expensivefeeling materials, so its no
longer the case that other cars
arent built as well as a
Volkswagen. It feels solid
inside, but at 15,000 it should.
SH

AT A GLANCE
Peerless residuals
Classy image
Dependable feel

No standard air-con
Highest fuel consumption
Not a class apart any more

VERDICT
FROM the drivers perspective, all three cars are
closely matched, but there can be only one overall
winner. The Golfs 1,000 running cost advantage over
the Astra puts it in an unassailable position. The
Mazda3 carries a wholelife cost benefit of nearly 400
over the Vauxhall. We like the Astra. It is thoroughly
competent on the road, but it is let down by residuals
that are uncompetitive against its two rivals. Choosing it
makes more sense if you can get a significant discount.
WINNER: Volkswagen Golf 1.9 TDI S

Fuelling Britains fleet industry

www.bpplus.com

www.fleetnewsnet.co.uk

July 15, 2004

FLEET NEWS 13