Articles by CarsGuide team

The 520d Gran Turismo priced from $89,900 gives a new entry point into the 5-Series GT models, sitting below the $102,500 530d GT and $108,900 535i GT. The Gran Turismo was unveiled in 2009 as a cross between a 5-Series and a 7-Series...with a hatchback the Hatchback of Notre Dame. But it holds some appeal for a number of punters who have plopped down their dosh for one of the big luxo' hatches. It's a good thing to drive and offers a degree of versatility not available with a sedan. Luxury levels inside approach the 7-Series. ENGINE UPGRADES The 520d Gran Turismo comes with a 2.0-litre diesel engine featuring TwinPower Turbo technology (variable twin turbo principle with common rail direct injection). This four-cylinder engine delivers 135kW/380Nm. The sprint from 0 to 100 km/h takes 8.9 seconds with an excellent 5.3 litres/100km fuel economy. The diesel six-cylinder 530d GT gains more power, now 190kW with 560Nm of torque. It too has excellent fuel economy rated at a mere 5.8 litres/100 km. All GT models gain start/stop function and electronic power steering. SAFETY Occupant safety is upgraded with the standard inclusion of the Active Protection Safety Package. This driver assistance system becomes active at a speed of 18 kmh by automatically tightening the seatbelt in order to eliminate slack. In a critical situation, the front seatbelts are tightened and the side windows and sliding sunroof closed. Active Protection identifies a potential collision either by means of a front-mounted camera or radar, through deliberate emergency braking or distinctive understeering or oversteering of the vehicle. In the event of an unavoidable collision, the system automatically slows the vehicle down. Following the collision, the vehicle is brought to a halt using maximum braking force and then held for an additional 1.5 seconds, significantly reducing the likelihood of a secondary collision.  

A new frontal crash test in the US has marked down several luxury cars. The Mercedes C-Class, Audi A4 and Lexus IS 250 and ES 350 were all rated as ‘poor’ in the crash test developed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The ‘small overlap’ test replicates the impact and effect of a car hitting another vehicle -- or a stationary object such as a tree - with 25 per cent of a car's front end crashed into a barrier at 60km/h. Another four cars - the BMW 3 Series, Volkswagen CC, Acura TSX and Lincoln MKZ - were rated as ‘marginal’ in the test. The IIHS said poor and marginal ratings indicated the cars would not protect occupants well in a real crash. Eleven cars were put through the test, with only the Volvo S60 and Acura TL being rated as ‘good’, while the Infiniti G earned ‘acceptable’. The new test showed that side air bags may not go off in time or extend far enough to protect occupants in an offset frontal crash, the organisation said. The results showed that the BMW, Mercedes and Volkswagen seat belts spooled out too far, allowing the test dummies to strike hard surfaces. The Volkswagen's door was completely sheared off during the test. IIHS said it developed the small overlap test following the analysis of years of the real-world frontal crashes that account for more than 10,000 fatalities annually in the US. "Small overlap crashes are a major source of these fatalities,” Institute president Adrian Lund said in a statement. “We think this (new crash test) is the next step in improving frontal crash protection." The organisation, which is funded by the US insurance industry, says it will next subject non-luxury models to the test. IIHS says it will start including the test next year in its annual criteria for top safety car choices, which is considered an important gauge by both the industry and consumers. The small overlap test is not currently used by other crash test organisations in the US, Europe or here, but the Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) says it will be looking at the US results to see if they are relevant for our conditions. “We’re waiting to examine the results in detail and then we will consider them,” ANCAP chairman Lauchlan McIntosh told Carsguide. “The small overlap test is different to what we’ve been doing, but there will always be some tests to push the margins for all cars. I don’t think it will make a massive difference to what we are doing, but we are always looking for continual improvements in our testing. “We already have good correlation with real world results long-term in ANCAP testing,” McIntosh said. “We have to be careful not to generalise the US results. In Australia 45 per cent of our crashes are single vehicle and the question is how many of those are 25 per cent overlap. The results may be relevant...but they may not be.” Mercedes-Benz has issued a statement disagreeing with the test ranking, saying the crash criteria was severe and uncommon, and that the brand had “full confidence in the protection that the C-Class affords its occupants - and less confidence in any test that doesn't reflect that”. A spokesman for Mercedes-Benz Australia said the results would be examined closely here before further comment could be made.  

Driving up the East Coast is so 2012. For our next trip we’ll be planning to go much further afield.As scientists ponder the possibility of sending a manned spaceship to the lonely little red planet, Carsguide decided that driving one of our beloved earth-based vehicles (i.e. a car) would be more enjoyable.We’ve been inspired by a Nissan US comparison that looked into how much it would cost to get there in their Altima – which is not available here. So, we tweaked their infographic with some local research, thinking the results might point the way to the right vehicle for our own interplanetary road trip.We’ve calculated the costs for some popular cars based on an average fuel cost of $1.40, and used the official highway fuel economy figure for each – reasoning that while it might take some extra fuel for lift-off, once we’re out there in zero-gravity the fuel economy should be considerably better than on a choked Friday afternoon Highway 1.So we figure that – compared with the cost of NASA’s Mars program, estimated to be somewhere north of $2.5 billion – this might be a pretty economical way to get there. However our calculations soon revealed our planned trip is probably going to suck the Carsguide petrol budget dry in a matter of minutes, with a fuel bill starting above $4 million.Of course fuel economy won’t be the whole story. We also have to factor in living in the car for the entire trip – at 110km/h that’s about 57 years. Without a single supermarket or cafe. So we’ll have to balance fuel economy against having enough space to pre-pack half a century’s worth of pizza and enough coffee beans for 20,805 espressos. Houston, we have a problem.