Guardian i20 review

There's an uncompromisingly negative review of the Hyundai i20 1.2 in today's Guardian (via www.hyundaibuzz.com). While its i10 and i30 sisters have mainly broken past the lingering doubts in European minds over Korean cars, the i20 still gets a decidedly mixed bag of reviews.

To me, they fall into two main camps. Some are glowing with praise and, tellingly, a slight sense of shock. Others, like this one, at best dutifully list the standard features, performance and warranty, then mysteriously conclude with a rating of average, saying, effectively, "nice car - but of course you wouldn't want to buy one".

As the keen owner of an i20 this second type do slightly get on my nerves.

I do agree with the basic point here that with the i20, Hyundai once again missed an opportunity to make a strong statement. They had a car which, had it been sold as a Ford, Vauxhall/Opel or VW, would have been praised as extremely accomplished and a great buy. But as Hyundai they needed to avoid the trap of seeming to be copying everyone else. And it's in that, subtle secondary sense, that they arguably messed it up.

Hence there's no shortage of sour reviews like the Guardian's where the reviewer can clearly find nothing at all to dislike, but fundamentally doesn't want to like the car, so instead falls lazily back on the familiar narrative of poor Korea trying to be more European - and failing, of course (ha ha).

A few facts then that the reviewer left out: Best in class standard features, near best in class performance, solid handling and driveability, best in class fuel economy and emissions, German-level build quality, best in class warranty and reliability, best in class safety and NCAP rating, and - best of all - best in class price.

Whilst I know better than to take mainstream car reviews too seriously, it seems a particularly wild piece of journalistic theatre to ignore these facts, spin a mildly xenophobic yarn about nuclear weapons, and conclude with a smug verdict of unremarkable.

One thing that irritates me in particular is the double standards in reviewing the 1.2 model and then complaining that its performance is lacklustre. Of course it is - it's the 1.2. They miss the point that the 1.2 engine is a brilliant piece of engineering: a direct injection, variable valve timing, all-aluminium masterpiece that is the best engine of its size available, in practically any score you can think up.

For some reason, few bother to review the 1.4 model. This may have something to do with the fact that Hyundai themselves push the 1.2 as the clear best seller (although a glance at AutoTrader suggests there are as many 1.4s about as 1.2s). The 1.4 too is among the most fuel efficient engines on the market in its capacity, yet, at 100 bhp and 100 lb ft, outperforms similar engines from almost any competitor (including Seat, VW, Opel, Mazda and Ford).

Instead, the i20 seems to be implicitly judged against the larger engined or turbo versions of competitor cars. For that reason it would help a lot if there were similar performance versions of the i20 available here -- even if few were actually sold (something Hyundai seems to not yet have understood about the European market).

Lastly, the complaints about the shape. This has always mystified me. The car, to my eye, is actually better looking than some (though granted not all) of its rivals. Only a mother, and all that, but it does grow on you and it took me a while to really 'get' it. It's true that it borrows too much and adds too little, and its most unique feature - the curve of the character line at the rear haunches - strikes me as uncomfortable and overdone. Still it's by no means ugly.

If anything the i20's mistake is to be too smoothly good and too subtle - it lacks a strong key feature to make it stand out. But don't let that, or half-assed reviews like the Guardian's, put you off.