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?
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.)
The Jetsons becoming
reality?
Beware of
propeller!
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!
Flying car
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!
