Ford Ka 1.3 TDCi Zetec review
by David Finlay (22 May 2009)
I believe that public speakers are advised never to start their speeches with an apology, and since this strikes me as good advice which could work equally well for road test reports I'll leave my apology until the end. It will all make sense when you get there.
So. The car under discussion is the Ford Ka, or specifically the range-topping Zetec 1.3 TDCi. This is the only diesel in the range (all other models use a 1.2-litre petrol unit) and, since diesels are costly blighters to build, it's also the most expensive by some margin.
The TDCi has about 10% more power than the 1.2, but it's also heavier, so there is barely any improvement in straightline performance - excepting the fact that it will pull strongly from much lower in the rev range - though fuel economy and CO2 emissions are much better at 67.3mpg combined and 112g/km respectively. Fuel price differentials being what they are, of course, you would have to drive the diesel Ka many thousands of miles further than the 1.2 petrol Zetec equivalent to regain the £800 extra you paid when you bought it.
In fact, having driven examples of both at the press launch, I'd go for the petrol engine every time, but the diesel is what was offered for this test. It's a good little motor, and not especially loud, though the Ka's willingness to transmit road noise into the cabin means that there are always lots of decibels flying around.
The lack of peace isn't helped by the fact that Ka ride quality is quite jerky, particularly if you pay an extra £650 for 16" wheels. Do not do this. The wheels - or rather the low-profile tyres fitted to them - register every lump and bump that the suspension may have missed, and are best avoided unless you value looks over driving comfort.
There are other snags. The steering wheel is, unbelievably, not adjustable for reach, there's very little space for rear passengers (though Ka owners may not be too concerned about that), you can hardly see anything behind you because of the ridiculous lack of glass area in the rear of the car, and loading shopping or other accoutrements into the luggage compartment is hindered by the narrow tailgate and high sill.
But here's the thing. Apart from different body panels, a couple of technical changes and slightly better load volume, the Ka is almost exactly the same thing as a Fiat 500. You'll guess from this that the 500 has all the same problems, and you'll be quite right, and perhaps you will also assume that I therefore rate the two cars more or less equally.
But I don't. I wouldn't buy a Ka, but I would have a 500 tomorrow.
And that's because I think the 500 looks wonderful (its styling is, after all, based on that of the cutest car built during the entire 20th century) and the Ka looks like what would result if you did the same thing to a Fiesta as you do to make a prune from a plum - which would be okay, except I don't think the Fiesta is especially beautiful either.
In other words, even though the cars are almost identical, and the Ka is if anything slightly better, I prefer the 500 because it looks cute. It shouldn't be that way, but it is. Sorry.
Add new comment