Ford Ka Edge-What Is The Point?

[Juancho]

I've driven quite a few small cars over the years but never owned one. I'm 6ft 4ins and generally opt for more space. But my family, in laws, and hire cars have provided quite a selection over the years that has included: bread van Polo 1985, Polo Fox 1990, Nissan Micra 2000, Nissan Micra 2003, Hyundai Getz 2005, Citroen C3 2005, Fiat Panda 2009, Toyota Yaris 2003. And all of these cars provide a more pleasurable driving experience (and plenty of space and a comfy driving position for my 6ft 4ins frame), have more character, practicality and pizzazz than this 2015 Ka. All in that list have better, smoother engines except the Getz, whose engine is on a par with this Ka. So why bother making a car that is no more economical and has no improvements over a 1985 Polo?

The only hint of modernity is the stop start feature on the motor, which appears much like a stall and does not inspire confidence. More to the point there was no economy advantage over the 1985 Polo so why bother? OK, the CD player has an aux in, but the quality is so poor it's only marginally better than using the built in speakers of my I Pad. Worse perhaps is that with these built in /wired in units, it's much harder to swap a head unit than before.

So, yes, it can deliver mpg in the high 40s, and it handles OK, rides fairly badly and positively bucks over large road undulations. The pedal position is positively painful for a person of above average height, as you have to cock your ankle back into a wholly unnatural position, and it's almost impossible to make a smooth getaway.

So Ford back to the drawing board to produce something with character, practicality, or just an improvement on cars that have gone before. Failing that become the gearbox manufacturer of the world, because you sure know how to make a decent box.

 

[dangermouse]

The original Ka was a fun little car; noisy, but had that go-cart wheel at each corner driving appeal of the original minis.

The present model is a truly horrible mess.

 

[i_should_coco]

The original Ka was a fun little car; noisy, but had that go-cart wheel at each corner driving appeal of the original minis.The present model is a truly horrible mess.

:goodone:

My sister had one, no power, but was indeed like a big go-kart.

 

[Jezzer]

I absolutely agree that the original Ka was a decent little motor. The 1.3 was a little raw but the car was pretty good fun to drive.

 

[Guest]

I hired a sport ka for a week while the classic mini was being breathed on. Good fun with the hood down

 

[Hornucopia]

Seems to be the trend that new cars don't improve on older ones? Are just 'products' to attract the fashionistas.

 

[yoda900]

Our 1.3 Ka had far more power than it could handle, way over the standard spec. Wheelspins in 2nd and went like a go cart. Not quiet but great fun once the rot around the filler and the sills was dealt with that Ford should have designed out years before. Stonking car for £600 with one owner, known to me, and under 60K miles over 10 years. Two years later sold on to my colleague with full MOT, which required only a £12 tub of under-seal, after 2 years motoring cost £400 + consumables. So good that SWMBO/Daughter 2 made me buy an identical one but luxury trim with leather and air con which got chopped in for a new Up!

This is in a different class 60 mpg, capable of long distances, if you turn up the stereo, happily keep up with motorway traffic and huge room in the front for big people. Not the fastest mind you but willing engine and you can always drop a cog if it struggles with a full load up a long incline. Intended to be kept for 10 years or more as the family runabout.

 

[Juancho]

The Ka is returning about 37 mpg on mixed country runs

.......not sure what size engine as Ford don't say, but there's bugger all power!

 

[Juancho]

Luckily it's a hire car so was gladly returned. It was not really roadworthy with the front right disc grinding away metal to metal, multiple dents, torn upholstery, and a stereo that only worked on one channel. As hire car cos don't leave manuals in cars and Ford don't mark the engine I don't know what size it was. But gutless and overall scraping 40mpg are not a happy combo. Shame on you Hertz for the car's condition!

 

[Juancho]

Luckily it's a hire car so was gladly returned. It was not really roadworthy with the front right disc grinding away metal to metal, multiple dents, torn upholstery, and a stereo that only worked on one channel. As hire car cos don't leave manuals in cars and Ford don't mark the engine I don't know what size it was. But gutless and overall scraping 40mpg are not a happy combo. Shame on you Hertz for the car's condition!

 

[Ozexpat]

When I worked for Hertz UK we always left the paperwork in the glove box. If the car was in the poor condition which you describe then you should have reported it at the point of collection and asked for an upgrade. Failing that (although why anybody would take a chance on losing their excess is beyond me), report it when it is returned and any branch in the UK will offer refunded days if not more. Some car groups are turned around very quickly so they only have time for a cursory glance over them. If they don't know about the issues, how are they expected to repair them or make good ?

The "majors" have a pretty poor reputation for ripping people off by claiming existing damage was caused by the current renter. If you don't report existing damage BEFORE you leave, you open yourself up to losing a lot of money.

 

[Juancho]

When I worked for Hertz UK we always left the paperwork in the glove box. If the car was in the poor condition which you describe then you should have reported it at the point of collection and asked for an upgrade. Failing that (although why anybody would take a chance on losing their excess is beyond me), report it when it is returned and any branch in the UK will offer refunded days if not more. Some car groups are turned around very quickly so they only have time for a cursory glance over them. If they don't know about the issues, how are they expected to repair them or make good ?The "majors" have a pretty poor reputation for ripping people off by claiming existing damage was caused by the current renter. If you don't report existing damage BEFORE you leave, you open yourself up to losing a lot of money.

There's a lot of assumptions in your post. We did make them aware of dents and dust. They said they would sort something on return which they didn't. Obviously we discovered the stereo and grinding brake later. On return we had a plane to catch so clearly have sent them a full report and photos. My point stands: they should not be renting a car in that condition and a pre inspection should have caught dust and worn brake discs

 

[Ozexpat]

There's a lot of assumptions in your post. We did make them aware of dents and dust. They said they would sort something on return which they didn't. Obviously we discovered the stereo and grinding brake later. On return we had a plane to catch so clearly have sent them a full report and photos. My point stands: they should not be renting a car in that condition and a pre inspection should have caught dust and worn brake discs

No assumptions at all. Merely stating the usual situation. "Pre-inspection" is a misnomer. Most locations' (especially airports) staff take the car straight from the return bay, clean it, give it a cursory look over if they have time and return it to the ready bays. This may or may not turn up any faults. If a fault is reported by a customer, however, it is investigated.

I am not defending car rental companies. Some of their practices border on fraudulent. I got out of the industry 13+ years ago for many reasons amongst which was the business of charging customers for damage that wasn't their fault. This has also been covered in the press in great detail and still it goes on. Good luck.