Ssanyong Kyron
After the Bangkok International Motor Show this
year I wrote “Ssanyong sshould sshoot its sstylists!” Their entire
range was so ugly, I felt the only use for one was as a hearse, and
I would still say, “I wouldn’t be seen dead in one!”
 Ssanyong
Kyron
Unable to pass the local showroom without puking, I wondered just
how this marque was doing globally and was answered partly by a
review in Australia’s GoAuto, where some journalist had drawn the
short straw in the office and spent a week in one (probably wearing
a paper bag on his head, so he couldn’t be recognized).
His report was as follows: The Kyron has been on sale for just 18
months and Ssangyong has given an implicit acknowledgement that its
medium SUV was not a pretty sight. Kyron engines needed fettling to
pass Euro IV emissions, so Ssangyong grabbed the opportunity to give
its much criticized styling a pull-through.
Whittling down to the detail, changes have been made to the bonnet,
front guards, grille, bumper and lights. At the rear, the tailgate
is new, as are rear quarter panels, bumpers and lights. The 18 inch
wheels are also a far more simple, elegant design.
So the Kyron has been made cleaner and cheaper and is certainly much
better to look at. But is it any good?
 Kyron
rear view
Slide into the cabin and the black chequered seat trim looks better
than the unimpressive grey material used before and the general
impression is of a clear, very conventional well laid-out dash. The
only odd detail is the digital clock, which has the hours displayed
above the minutes in a vertical stack.
Look closely and you’ll notice that you don’t get a luxury SUV for
the price of an entry-level model. Some of the interior is a little
rough around the edges (the new illuminated vanity mirrors, for
example don’t quite have the expensive look of some of the other
parts of the dash), and the sword-shape handbrake lever is set over
to the left on the center console - not an ideal position for the
driver in right-hand drive cars. The cargo cover on the M270 XDi
looks cheap, too.
The Kyron’s seats are not remarkable in the class but are
comfortable nonetheless, seeming to be able to provide adequate
support for most shapes and sizes (no easy feat), and offers a sound
driving position aided by the height-adjustable steering wheel
(there’s no reach adjustment) and height-adjustable seat base.
There is no driver’s left footrest, even though there is the room to
fit one. Ssangyong in Australia says it would like to fit one here,
but faces problems with crash worthiness if it does so. (And that is
as difficult to believe as Santa Claus too.)
Rear seat comfort is quite good, with lap-sash belts for all
occupants, while cargo space is easy to access with the lift-up
tailgate that presents a tall and wide if not particularly deep load
space.
The view out of the Kyron is clear until you scan behind you, where
the thick D-pillars and small rear window (even though it’s supposed
to be larger) make seeing much harder. At least the Kyron has
rear-parking sensors to take some of the guesswork out of
reverse-parking maneuvers.
Both the 2.0 liter and 2.7 liter turbo-diesels are relatively quiet,
smooth performers but the muted rattle seeping into the cabin leaves
no doubt in anyone’s mind that they are diesels. The better
performer is clearly the 2.7 liter, which lacks the low rpm
tardiness that the 2.0 liter suffers from.
Neither engine feels all that punchy compared to the better
turbo-diesel efforts in the medium SUV sector, but there is enough
torque there once you look for it.
The automatic transmission, a Mercedes-Benz five speed unit, has
nicely spaced ratios and serves up a smooth gearshift. The new
gearshift buttons on the wheel are an easy, welcoming entrée to
self-shifting, quickly becoming second nature unlike other more
awkward set-ups.
The Kyron is a relatively old school SUV in its suspension and
chassis, with an independent coil spring front suspension and
five-link coil spring live axle at the rear. The separate chassis
and neatly tucked-up or bashplated underpinnings generally augur
well for the inevitable off-road biffs.
This design may promise a polished off-road performance but
unfortunately the Kyron borders on truculent when pushed on the
road.
It’s worth briefly revisiting the last Kyron’s suspension to
understand the new one. The superceded Kyron appeared as if
Ssangyong’s engineers set very narrow targets with ride, NVH levels
with the previous Kyron. Get it out on a relatively smooth highway,
and it was quieter and smoother than many competitors. But as soon
as sharp potholes or ripples became part of the equation though, the
Kyron’s soft springs and dampers left it thumping and bouncing
about.
The fix with Euro IV Kyron has been to install stiffer dampers,
which in tandem with fairly grippy tyres works well enough on smooth
roads, allowing the Kyron to be driven enthusiastically in twisty
sections of ripple-free road, even if the way it tracks and steers
doesn’t exactly have the driver begging for more.
On rough roads, it is a very different story. While the prior model
would absorb the initial bump shock and take a while to recover from
it, the new dampers don’t entertain such road shocks at all well.
The initial damping seems too firm and once it actually gets past
this initial stiff compression point, the springs seem too soft. The
net result is that the suspension feels uncomfortably firm and
causes the vehicle to feel unstable as it skitters over bumps.
The Kyron is a worthy alternative to the Japanese mainstream with
its blend of packaging and performance and, now it can be said, its
innocuous styling.
But its suspension is its downfall.
While a good aftermarket set-up would probably sort it out, other
Koreans with similar chassis and suspension design such as the Kia
Sorento and Hyundai Terracan show that it can be done better than
this, straight out of the box.
Likes: Flexible, smooth 2.7 liter engine, smooth transmission,
comfortable seats, good value for money.
Dislikes: Ride quality, lack of suspension control, lack of low rpm
response in 2.0 liter model, no driver’s footrest, no trip computer,
poor rear vision.
(Reading that, means that Ssanyong sstill has a long way to go.)
|
|
Autotrivia Quiz
Last week I mentioned that a transverse engine and front
wheel drive immediately brings Sir Alex Issigonis’ Mini to mind. This came out
in 1959 and stunned the world. But he was not the first with this concept. I
asked in what and when did this first appear? The answer was the twin cylinder
DKWs of 1931.
So to this week. Which racing car was the first Lotus rear-engined single
seater?
For the Automania FREE beer this week, be the first correct answer to email
[email protected]
Good luck!
The Jetsons becoming reality?
Flying personal transport has been the norm in cartoons for
years, but the reality seems to be lagging far behind. There have been
attempts over the years, with a spectacular propeller-driven device with
detachable wings being touted as the next wave. Where you actually stored
the wings was not given much thought, or the fact that the propeller would
mow down anything in its path, but it certainly would stop motorcycles
wending their tortuous way through the stopped traffic in Bangkok!
However, there are people out there with the concept and wrestling with it,
such as Dr. Paul Moller who continues development of the M400 Skycar.
Another of them is Italian Gino d’Ignazio Gizio, a helicopter pilot and
designer whose Cell Craft designs are reminiscent of the Skycar with a few
touches of his own.
The evolving stable of Cell Craft designs - including the G416ef designed
specifically for civilian commuter use, the G420 “flying-sportscar” and the
Search and Rescue focussed G500e - have culminated in the G440 - a new
design which aims to become the key concept design to showcase the
technology and function as the primary example of what a CellCraft
represents.
The G440 design uses a seven seat format (including the pilot) and is based
on the quad-turbine Vertical Take Off and Landing (VTOL) design shown in the
G416ef. The turbines force air through and push it out the back, either
straight through for horizontal flight, or at a directed downward angle (to
allow vertical takeoff, landing and hovering) through a tilting exhaust tube
at the rear of each turbine.
Gizio’s intention with the Cell Craft series is to capitalize on the easy
access, take-off, landing and hovering abilities of a helicopter, and
combine them with the high speed potential, relative safety and stability of
regular airplane designs. It also has to be easy and intuitive enough for
the average car driver to operate. Mind you, I’ve seen some apparently
brain-dead helicopter pilots too!
The control system features twin joysticks mounted to the armrests of the
sportscar-like pilot’s seat. The left joystick handles power level control
and the right handles tilt and direction. Press it forward, and the Cell
Craft tilts forward from a stable hover and begins moving forward, gradually
tilting the thrust tubes until the vehicle is moving forward at a rapid
rate. Similarly, it is possible to tilt the vehicle sideways for lateral
movement from a hover, or to steer while in horizontal flight.
A trigger-style lever on the left control allows the pilot to rotate the
Cell Craft from a stable hover, in much the same way as a helicopter pilot’s
foot pedals allow rotation around the central axis - except with this
vehicle the rotation is attained by slight adjustments of the directional
thrust tubes.
The history of the different Gizio G series designs can be viewed at his
personal website, which also details his exploits in music, photography and
next-generation cell phone design. He’s yet to make the prototype, needing
significant investment of non-flying cash, but he is ready to drop what he’s
doing at a moment’s notice to bring his Cell Craft dream to reality.
So bad luck, it’s only an artist’s rendering, but it certainly looks good!
Beware of propeller!
Flying car
|
| |
|
|
|