The traditional impression of Volvo cars, besides being solid as tanks, are their thirsty appetite for fuel. Whatever virtues the likes of the 144 and 244 had, fuel economy certainly did not rank among them. Times have changed considerably since.

For a start, new Volvos are no longer solid as tanks. In a head-to-head, the old 240 would crush an S40 like a tin foil. Of course, that’s because new approaches in vehicle structure engineering means that a car’s body needs to have more deformable structures in order to absorb energies of impacts. So, the adage that Volvo cars are safe still holds true.

Fortunately, what is also true is that modern Volvos also sip considerably less fuel than their predecessors. In Europe, Volvo has a range of ‘green’ cars wearing what they call the DRIVe badge, similar in vein to Merc’s BlueEFFICIENCY, or BMW’s EfficientDynamics. This badge is given only their cars with the best environmental credentials i.e. lowest consumption and emission.

Models currently with the DRIVe badge include the C30 (99 g/km CO₂), S40 (104 g/km CO₂) and V50 (104 g/km CO₂). Now, they are joined by the V70 wagon and S80 sedan, both boasting 119 g/km CO₂, translating to a claimed fuel consumption figure of 4.5 litres/100km.

Volvo V70 DRIVe

Put into perspective, 4.5 litres/100km in the V70 DRIVe and S80 DRIVetranslates to 1,750 km of travel per full tank. Even if we dismiss that figure as a lab figure, how much worse could the real life figures be? Say 1,300 – 1,400 km/tank good enough for you?

Techniques used to achieve these remarkable figures include intelligent recharging of batteries i.e. charging only on downhill descent or braking, and also an active reduction in friction for the air-con and alternator belt.

Volvo S80 DRIVe

So what drives the V70 DRIVe and S80 DRIVe? A 1.6-litre diesel engine producing 109hp and 240Nm coupled with a manual transmission, as per the setup in the DRIVe versions of the C30, S40, and V50. It goes without saying that this does not run on Euro 2M.

KON

The Captiva has been Chevrolet’s best seller since it arrived at our shores, though it still loses out to more popular choices, namely the Honda CR-V and Nissan X-Trail. Hicom-Chevrolet certainly sees these two as the Captiva’s natural rivals, with their marketing team aiming their crosshairs at these two established Japanese players. The Chevy is an interesting preposition, with a far lengthier specs sheet than both its designated competitors going at the same price.

Recently, Chevrolet can be seen ramping up their promotion of this highly capable SUV, but they are still losing out in terms of badge value. Undeterred, Chevy raises the game by introducing a facelifted version of the Captiva with even more features at the same price. In response, we quickly arranged for a demo car to review Chevy’s prospects.

Chevrolet Captiva

Our Test Car

There are two engine options for the Captiva, 2.0-litre diesel or 2.4-litre petrol, both featuring 5-speed automatic transmission as standard with an on-demand all-wheel drive system optional. Chevrolet markets the diesel version as the higher-end model, offering more toys like auto headlight control, power folding side mirrors, cruise control, hill descent control, traction control, and brake assist, all of which are omitted in the petrol model.

Hicom-Chevrolet loaned us the top spec diesel version, painted in Black Sapphire on the outside, with the interior finished in a two-tone black and beige colour scheme. In the showrooms, our test car would sell at RM161k OTR with insurance. In addition, it also came with the Captiva Sporty Package which would add RM7.7k to the purchase price. It includes a front bumper guard, black chrome bezel headlamps, side step, chrome wind deflector and clear lens taillights.

Enhancements of the Captiva Sporty Package.

The front bumper guards and bezel headlamps gives an added edge to the front fascia, but the wind deflectors and tail lights hardly do much to lift the Captiva’s already handsome looks. This is especially true of the clear lens tail lights, which have a very aftermarket look about them. The deflectors, meanwhile, adds too much chrome to the car, giving a ‘bling-bling’ infusion to a classy and elegant shape.

Getting Inside

The Captiva did not give me a wonderful first impression when I collected it. As the Chevy PR rep drove the car up the Wisma DRB-Hicom lobby, the diesel clatter of the engine was as loud and unrefined as a bus in Pudu Raya. The doors sounded as if as they were made by separate manufacturers. While the ones in front close with a solid and convincing thud, those at the rear slam shut with a hollow feel. I was caught a few times believing I did not close the door properly.

The Captiva’s cabin.

Initially, things didn’t get much better inside. The dashboard mounted digital clock looks woefully out of date, and decidedly out of place. In addition, the four-way adjustable headrests, even after being pushed furthest back sticks out a little too much for comfort. The interior is actually very well put together, but the beige coloured finishing in these 2009 models simply stain too easily. Our test car, less than a month old with under 3,000km on the odo, already has stains all over the lower parts of the dashboard when we received it. Chevrolet should seriously consider reverting back to the black interior of the 2008 cars.

Clock looks outdated, headrest sticks too far out, and panels stain too easily.

Fortunately, the bad news ends there. The ergonomics of the dash are rather good. Most of the controls are well-positioned and easy to reach for both driver and passenger. Buttons and stalks had a solid tactile feel about them, with the exception of the gear lever which felt a loose when being slotted into position. There were also plenty of storage spaces and cubby holes, but surprisingly, there really isn’t a suitable space on the centre console to chuck your mobile phone. The best solution I came up with was to put it in the slot under the multifunction display with the cover open.

Controls are well laid-out. Surprisingly, engine can be switched off with gear lever at neutral.

A comment is reserved for the GPS unit supplied by Gophers, retrofitted into the Captivas by HICOM-Chevrolet after they come in from Thailand. Because it is a retrofit, the GPS, a detachable and portable unit, runs on power drawn from the cigarette lighter. Our test car came with the power cable plugged into the lighter and the cable running under the dashboard and emerging from the A-pillar, with the GPS unit cradle mounted on the windscreen alongside the A-pillar as well.

While this is a neat solution to obviate the unsightly view the power cord dangling around the dashboard, it is not the most user-friendly position, as it makes it impossible for the driver to call on the passenger’s help to operate the GPS. A better solution is to find someway to mount the GPS unit in the middle.

Our suggestion

The rear seats are a strong point of the Captiva’s interior, allowing for switching of multiple configurations quickly and painlessly. The mechanism slots solidly at the end points, yet disengage easily. Many such folding mechanisms are either flimsy, or too stiff, the ones in the Captiva combine solidity with user-friendliness. For most of our journey, we had the Captiva configured as a five seater, with the third row function as a luggage compartment. Our test car came without the optional luggage shade, which we feel is one accessory worth ticking for, to keep your valuables out of plain sight.

Various possibilities of seat configurations

Luggage shade definitely an option you should tick.

Getting Going

When viewing the car at the showroom, some of you might get turned off by the (admittedly very) truck-like clatter of the diesel engine and scrap the idea of a test drive. You would be making a mistake, for the 1,991cc four-cylinder variable geometry turbodiesel is an absolute gem of a powerplant on the highways. Figures from Chevrolet’s specs sheet claims peak power of 148hp at 4,000rpm and peak torque of 320Nm at 2,000rpm.

2.0-litre turbodiesel idles like a truck, but becomes civilized on the highways.

A five-speed automatic transmission and an electronic on-demand all-wheel drive system completes the setup of a powertrain capable of breaching the national speed limit with only 2,100rpm registering on the tacho. A test drive which excludes a clear run on the highways will not do this engine justice. Folks accustomed to the instant on-demand throttle response of Japanese cars will find this engine sluggish, but it most definitely is not.

5A/T pairs well with torquey powerplant.

Its acceleration is not likely to snap your neck, but don’t be fooled. The wave of torque coming from the engine comes so smoothly and seamlessly, you would easily find your speedo deep in the triple digit zone. It’s not rev-happy engine, but it is certainly very very torquey.

A point to note, which was highlighted to me by the Captivians, whom we followed to Penang recently, was that our test car was already spewing white smoke whenever we accelerated hard. Some of the Captivians also claimed that such occasions are reduced when pumping from Esso or Mobil, though we could not ascertain any improvement after switching to Esso on our second tank of diesel. On the consumption front, we recorded an overall figure of 10.4 litres/100km on a journey which was mostly on the highways, but had some urban and up the hill drivings thrown in.

The five-speed auto comes with Tiptronic manual override, but you’re not likely to need it for normal daily driving. It was, however, useful when we took on the twisted roads at Balik Pulau. Indeed, the Captiva acquainted itself well with the roads on the undeveloped side of Penang island. With the GPS activated and the transmission in manual mode, we were able to anticipate up coming curves and prepare to downshift for additional traction, almost negating the need for even braking at all but the sharpest corners.

We were impressed by the Captiva’s composure at corners, as it responded astonishingly well to direction changes. However, flip side to this was a rather busy ride. While it doesn’t crash through bumps or potholes, the suspension telegraphs almost every imperfection and undulation of the road surface to the cabin. We were given massage chair treatment on certain stretches of the North-South Highway.

Most of the so-called SUVs these days have the looks of SUVs, but not the capability. This cannot be said for the Captiva. Although it’s no Land Rover, it’s four-wheel drivetrain is still very capable. It climbed the 40 degree slopes of Bukit Genting without so much as a hint of drama. On the way down, the Hill Descent Control (HDC) system kept the Captiva’s descent firmly in check. The HDC does not sound very refined, but it works brilliantly. Show it a slope, press the HDC button, slot into gear, foot off the pedals and watch how the Captiva inch its way down on its own effort safely and effectively.

Hill Descent Control

How is it for the passengers?

The Captiva is ideally set up for five passengers, but can be converted to a seven seater by opening the back row of seats. Passengers at the middle row have the option of reclining their seats by an additional 10 degrees without much compromise on the third row’s leg room. The middle row seat backs split-fold in a 60:40 pattern, and has a centre armrest with a small storage compartment inside.

If the need to carry 7 people arises, the rear can sit two adults in reasonable comfort. There is a slight compromise in legroom, but the headroom is as good as the rear most full-sized sedans. However, because the rear windows are rather small, claustrophobics should remain up front. On our return trip from Penang, we had one person sitting on each row. Much to our surprise, the one sitting at the back had little complaints of discomfort. In fact the driver and rear-most passenger was able to engage in an extended chatter, demonstrating the excellent sound-proofing of the Captiva.

Gathering my thoughts from the back seat.

At highway speeds, intrusions of noise, as much as we can make out, were limited to wind-noise, of which we suspect the chrome deflectors  are the main culprits. Otherwise, we were able to engage in conversation and listen to music from the audio unit without too much trouble.

The final word

The Captiva’s model range starts with the RM143k 2.4L FWD petrol, but we believe that’s the entry level version just to attract the attention of those looking at the RM147k CR-V or the RM145k X-Trail 2.5. The one to really have, is the one we tested here, the RM161k 2.0L AWD diesel, though you may wish to forgo the Sporty Package that came with it. Instead, we would suggest that you tick the option boxes for the luggage shade and the convenience netting, which would be useful to keep items from falling off when you need to keep the tailgate open.

We thoroughly enjoyed our time with the Captiva and we liked it a lot. It looks like an urban-only SUV, but Chevy has actually taken the trouble to arm it with a proper 4WD system. The diesel engine, despite its truck-like clatter is an absolute gem while cruising. To be honest, we expected a very ordinary drive from the Captiva. We got a pleasant surprise.

KON

Specifications: Chevrolet Captiva 2.0L Diesel AWD

Price (OTR incl insurance, Peninsula): RM161,442.30
Engine: 1,991cc, inline-4 cyl, SOHC 16V, variable geometry turbodiesel, common rail direct injection.
Max Power: 148hp @ 4,000rpm
Max Torque: 320Nm @ 2,000rpm
Emission Compliance: Euro III
Drivetrain: 5-speed automatic, electronic on-demand all-wheel drive.
Brakes (front / rear): Vent disc / Vent disc
Suspension (front / rear): MacPherson / Four-links with Self Leveling Dampers
Tyres & Wheels: 235/60 R17, 17″ ×7J
Length × Width × Height: 4,635mm × 1,850mm × 1,720mm
Wheelbase: 2,705mm
Weight: 1,915kg (kerb), 2,505kg (gross)
Fuel Tank Capacity: 65 litres

(+): Rear seats easy to configure. Superb drivetrain, excellent refinement at highways.
(-): The excellent refinement is replaced by diesel clatter at idle. Beige interior stains way too easily.

Verdict: An urban SUV with a properly good four-wheel drive system. It’s a lot more capable than it appears.

Discuss about the Chevrolet Captiva in our forum here.

Best New Engine of the Year

The category of newcomer engines, which included two from BMW was won by Porsche with their new 3.8-litre naturally aspirated flat six. It is rated at an impressive 385bhp max power, but that was not the factor that clinched its award. What impressed the judges most was how Porsche also got the engine to sip less fuel than its predecessor.

According to Marc Noordeloos of Automobile magazine, “Leave it to Porsche to build a near-400bhp engine that returns such impressive fuel economy. Enthusiasts should take comfort in the fact that the naturally aspirated engine may not be dying after all.”

Porsche attributes the impressive economy of this engine to the fact that it uses direct injection, brought over from the Cayenne. That, and a 200cc increase in engine capacity saw the 3.8 gain a healthy 30bhp over the outgoing 3.6 but emit 15% less CO₂.

Green Engine of the Year

VW introduced the 1.4-litre twincharged EA111 engine back in 2006, but today the engine is still good enough to fend off challenges from Mercedes and BMW diesels in addition to hybrids from Honda and Ford.

The 1.3-litre IMA from  Honda pushed it real close, but ultimately lost out because of its massive power deficit in comparison to the TSI, which can be tuned to output as much as 178bhp.

FC and emission figures ultimately clinched it for the VW. When used in the Golf, the TSI emits 144 grams of CO₂ for every kilometre traveled and consumes 6.2 litres of petrol for every one hundred. The Insight betters both these figures, but falls way short of the TSI’s impressive power output.

Best Performance Engine

Taking the title of the Best Performance Engine is none other than the famous 6.2-litre V8 M156 of Mercedes-AMG, which powers everything currently slapped with the 63 AMG badge.

This naturally aspirated high-revver (7,200rpm redline) had to beat two BMW engines, and one each from Jaguar, Porsche and Ferrari to claim its prize.

Best Performance Engine: Mercedes-AMG M156 6.2 V8.

Sub 1-litre

The Sub 1-litre category is actually the best place for Japanese manufacturers to cari makan in these awards. As the Europeans tend to look at the bigger capacities, it leaves room for the Japanese to attack this segment unhindered.

Look no further, the only Japanese winner in this year’s award is here – Toyota’s 1.0-litre three-cylinder 1 KR-FE, which it also shares with the PSA Group. After narrowly winning this segment last year, the three-potter returned to trounce smart’s 799cc diesel into a distant second place.

Sub 1-litre: Toyota 1KR-FE

1-litre to 1.4-litre

The 1.0-1.4 segment sees a VW one-two finish, with two of its 1.4 TSI powerplants occupying the top two berths in this category. The very same engine that took home the Green Engine of the Year award, the EA111, now bags the 1.0-1.4 category as well.

1.4-litre to 1.8-litre

A piece of news that is certain to excite our 308 forummers in Autoworld, the turbocharged version BMW-PSA Prince 1.6-litre engine under their hoods havs won this segment for the third year running, comfortably beating the Toyota Prius 1.8-litre hybrid.

For this award, the version of the engine tested churned 175hp of power and 260Nm of torque, which is the specification level for the 308 GT and the Mini Cooper S.

Third place is taken by another engine that has also seen a reasonable amount of action in Malaysia, Audi’s 1.8-litre TFSI found in the likes of the A4, TT, Skoda Superb and VW Passat.

1.4-litre to 1.8-litre: BMW-PSA Prince

1.8-litre to 2.0-litre

Last year’s winner of the 1.8-2.0 category, Audi’s EA 113 2.0-litre TFSI engine, was finally deposed of its crown, ironically by its successor, the EA 888, another 2.0-litre TFSI engine available in power outputs ranging from 178 to 208bhp, and capable of up to 350Nm of torque.

The EA113, meanwhile, occupies third place, with the BMW N47 2.0-litre twin-turbo diesel of the 123d sits between the two Audi powerplants at second. A special mention goes to Subaru for having its first diesel engine even nominated in the category.

1.8-litre to 2.0-litre: Audi EA888 2.0 TFSI

2.0-litre to 2.5-litre

Winning in the 2.0-2.5 category was the new 2.1-litre diesel from Mercedes-Benz introduced in the W212 E-class. Featuring twin-turbos, piezo-electric direct injection, Stuttgart’s latest oil-burner is available in three states of tune – 134bhp, 168bhp and 201bhp.

In second place is the 2.5-litre five-pot motor found in the Audi TT RS, recently previewed here in Autoworld Blog, capable of producing 340bhp and 450Nm. Also among the nominees, but finishing last, is the Honda 2.4-litre K24 engine, which in Malaysia’s market sees action in the Accord and Odyssey.

2.5-litre to 3.0-litre

Here is a category dominated by BMW for the past three years. Two time overall winner of the International Engine of the Year Award (in 2007 and 2008), the BMW N54B30 3.0-litre direct injection twin turbo engine continues to dominate this category for the third year running.

The N54 was BMW’s first turbocharged petrol engine since 1980, but it certainly was worth the wait. Lag free turbo response ensures a healthy 302bhp on tap with 400Nm of peak torque available pretty much all the time.

A distant second is another BMW 3.0-litre twin turbo engine, but a diesel powered variant, one that has seen action in the 335d, 535d, 635d, X3, X5 and X6, the M57. In the 35d state of tune, this engine outputs 282hp peak power and a whopping 580Nm of peak torque.

2.5-litre to 3.0-litre: NMW N54

3.0-litre to 4.0-litre

After being upstaged by the Mercedes-AMG 6.2-litre monster in the Best Performance Engine category, the S65B40 4.0-litre V8 of the BMW M3 redeems some pride by comfortably beating two Porsche 3.8-litre flat six engines to take the 3-to-4 litre category.

Producing 414bhp at its 8,250rpm redline, the S65 replaces the highly successful S54B32 of the E46 M3. The S54 has left a tough act to follow, having walloped this category for no less than six times during its career. For the S65, this is its second victory in this category after winning it in 2008, ensuring BMW’s continued dominance in this segment.

3.0-litre to 4.0-litre: BMW S65B40

Above 4.0-litre

Mercedes and AMG reassume centerstage for the Above-4 category, with the 6.2 V8 M156 returning to shrug off challenges from two BMW powerplants, a Jag, a Cadillac, and a somewhat darkhorse in the form of a Lexus hybrid.

INTERNATIONAL ENGINE OF THE YEAR 2009

After deciding the respective categories, judges then form a shortlist from the winner of each category to ultimately decide the winner of the International Engine of the Year award.

For 2009, the tiny 1.4-litre EA111 TSI powerplant from Volkswagen took on defeated the mighty N54 from BMW, ending the Bavarians’ four-year monopoly of the top prize. It wasn’t easy for the little guy though, as the defending champion fought it all the way, in the end losing only by four judging points.

INTERNATIONAL ENGINE OF THE YEAR 2009: Volkswagen EA111

Hopefully we will see more future green steps

The Government recently announced that the new fuel regime which consist of RON97 for premium petrol buyers, RON95 replacing RON92 for motorists on a budget or driver of older cars and Euro 2M grade diesel replacing the current DERV standard.
Of course this is still pie in the sky because we have heard this announcement many times in the past few years, only to be told that some obstacle or other is in the way of its implementation.
I hope that the wind of change that is sweeping through our political landscape will strengthen the Government’s resolve to give us better quality fuel so that the environment suffers less from our motoring and transportation needs.
RECAP
For those who have not read about this new rule, this is how it works: RON97 is suppose to float according to market price while RON95 will get subsidies to keep it stable, Diesel Euro 2M will be sold at the same price as the current oily fuel.
The six-month waiting period is apparently normal as fuel companies need time to work out the correct formulation at the local refinery and mixing plant and build up stock for roll out.
With the introduction of this new fuel regime we certainly hope that the Government will continue to take incremental steps to implement higher environmental standards for our cars and trucks.
While we are talking about the environment, I hope the RM5000 scrapping policy will be a permanent feature of our automotive industry and not just a recession mode.

 According to Business Times, the Government has briefed oil companies about the move but then again teh oil companies weer also briefed about implementing cleaner diesel some two years ago but we still ahve to buy dirty DERV.

Anyway, if this is true, then we may finally have a system that reflects the real cost of fuel. For a time, If the current economic depression continues to move south, Ron 97 may be cheaper than the other fuels, if just for a few months.

US oil consumption continues to decline in January so expect crude to fetch less this month and next as weather improves and the need for heating oil evaporates with rising spring temperatures. US oil demand rises again in summer to take care of air conditioning needs as well as covering demands for increased holiday travel.

However, if the US economy fails to respond to teh USD800 bilion stimulus package, RON97 may be cheaper than the other regulated fuels… strange but true.

Below is the Business Times article.

Business Times Story

RON 97 petrol price to be floated
By Mustapha Kamil
Published: 2009/02/19

THE price of premium grade petrol RON 97 will be floated according to international oil prices from July.

It is understood that oil companies briefed their retailers this week that there will also be changes to grades of fuel sold at pumps.

Several retailers said the “regular” grade RON 92 fuel would be phased out and a new grade, RON 95, would be introduced, in addition to RON 97.

The retailers said there would be a subsidy on the price of RON 95 fuel used by a majority of cars in Malaysia.
Diesel would be upgraded to European standards, most probably the Euro 2, allowing the introduction of more vehicle models with advanced diesel engines in Malaysia, they added.

While it remains below the Euro 4M class of diesel fuel, the Euro 2 diesel has significantly lower sulphur content.

National oil company Petronas is expected to lead the way in selling biodiesel fuel.

The other oil companies are expected to follow later.

Malaysia spent some RM40.5 billion on fuel subsidies from 2005 to last year.

The government has been working on a formula to reduce the amount of government subsidy on petrol while keeping negative impact from the swaying international crude oil prices to the minimum.

The retailers said it was also possible that taxes imposed on the premium grade fuel would be used to subsidise the RON 95 price.

I support petrol floor price because I love my children and hope to see my future grandchildren live happily.

Let’s face it, the level of pollution in our atmosphere now is quite high and apart from causing various health problems, it is also wreaking havoc with the weather and climate.

On top of that, oil is a non-renewable source of energy and it is finite. Some experts say we may run out of the black stuff within 50 years, more optimistic estimates say that we have 100 years of reserve.

If we continue to enjoy really low fuel price then we will foget the need to develop technology that improves fuel efficiency and we will also forget the need to develop alternative source of energy.

We can see how car companies are struggling to develop alternative drivetrain that offer real and significant fuel efficiency benefit without relying on the internal combustion engine.

All the fuel efficient designs such as direct petrol injection, low pressure turbo, clean diesel all rely on oil.

Meanwhile hybrid technology is stil too expensive and offer questionable benefits in terms of fuel economy.

The hydrogen economy seems eons away.

We know that most scientists believe that the future is hydrogen btu the question is how fast should we move towards the hydrogen economy.

Should we walk slowly and only run when we are out of time or should we run now and arrive at teh Hydroogen economy at our own pace so that we can dictate comfortably what our future should be.

If we arrive at the hydrogen economy before we run out of oil, then we have two sources of energy…. ad that is not really a problem is it?