mmarshall

http://www.daciagroup.com/en/car-models/new-sandero













(U.K./Japan/Australia right-hand-drive version)



Automobile Dacia S.A., a company now owned by French auto giant Renault, traces its roots to then-Communist 1966 Romania, behind the Iron Curtain. Its assembly plant in Mioveni, Romania is today considered the fifth largest European auto plant in terms of volume of vehicles produced. The Sandero, which comes from that plant, is a classic European subcompact economy car that, of course, is not sold in the United States. In Britain, where it is currently the country's least-expensive new car, the base 1.2L Access version starts at 5995 British Pound-Sterlings, which, at today's exchange-rate, would be roughly $9600 American dollars.

Since this car (or any of Dacia's other products) is not available domestically here in the U.S., I obviously can't do a typical MM static or full-review of it myself. But, from what I've learned of the car through research and other reviews, I'll share a few thoughts and reflections on something that seems to have passed us by here in America.

The Sandero, is some ways, is a classic time-machine. While including a reasonable number of modern-day safety-features (enough to legally qualify for sale in many countries), this car takes one back to a time when driving was DRVING , and not fooling around with a bunch of electronic gadgets......yep, kind of like the old 60s-vintage Plymouth Valiant I myself took my first driving lessons and practice in. You get into this car, shut the door, fasten the belt, start the engine, let the oil-pressure come up for a few seconds, slip it in gear, and go. No Bluetooth, no GPS, no touch-screens, no satellite radio, no MP3, no cameras, no buzzers, no I-Pod, no trip-computers, no I-Drive computer joysticks......in other words, no distrations.

The car's basic layout also shows how spoiled and dependent on modern conveniences we've become behind the wheel. In this car, what you see is basically what you get....simple buttons, simple controls. Want air-conditioning? Open a window......yes, with a simple old-fashioned crank that won't burn out its electric power-window motor or regulator. Want some entertainment?....then chat with your passengers. Time to lock the doors at night? Press the lock buttons down yourself...it's not that hard. Seat position not quite right? Slide it forward or back yourself...again, with no power-motors to fail. Side mirrors out of adjustment? Again, the left one is no big deal....simply push on the mirror-face lightly a little, though the one on the right can sometimes take a little more time (and stretching) to get it right without the power-motor. Sure, raising the hood means fooling with a manual prop-rod instead of nice struts, but at this price, who's going to complain?......I see top-level Ford Explorers, at roughly five times this price, with prop-rods.

Getting from Point A to Point B in this car (traffic-conditions allowing) also may take a little paitience, but given the constant fast pace of modern life and its toll on our psyche, patience can be considered a virtue. The 1.2L (1149cc) in-line four (in a simple, excellent, uncluttered underhood layout), with its 75 HP, 74 ft-lbs.of torque, 5-speed manual transmission and real clutch pedal scoots you from 0-62 MPH in 14.5 seconds. But....is 14 seconds THAT long? That's just about what the car I learned to drive on 45 years ago did...and I had no problems whatsoever with it. In fact, with todays near-constant traffic jams in many places, 60 MPH is simply not possible at all without running up someone's rear bumper. Of course, I'll admit that today's traffic jams, in many places, have made self-shifting (or at least clutchless) transmissions pretty much a must. The car's relatively short wheelbase and light weight (from lack of sound-insulation) probably make for a somewhat firm noisy ride, though the old-style, tall-profile tires would probably take at least some of the bump-harshness out. (I'm guessing here to some extent, since I haven't actually driven one).

The car's basic styling, roughly shoe-box, also shows how space-efficient a small-car interior can be if not compromised by a Mustang-style hump-roofline like on so many of today's sedans. Though the cargo area (with the rear seat up) is quite short from the truncated rear end, in general, is car was designed to sit in, hold things, and see out of clearly, without the big blind spots and headroom deficiency caused by low rooflines. Not just in Europe, but its popularity in the Third-World, where excuses for roads are often just that .....(Excuses).......shows that the car is at least reasonably well-built and not in constant need of repair.

So, in short, I'm not saying that this is the car you guys should be driving.....or, considering the ill-fated Yugo of almost 30 years ago, that it should necessarily even be offered in the U.S. But, IMO, it DOES show how dependent we've become on automotive gadgets and convieniences, why driving-distractions are a leading cause of accidents today in America, and perhaps why owning or driving a car like this could bring someone back to a sense of sobriety missing for too long. And, let's face it........if it WAS sold here in the U.S., that under-10K starting price would be pretty attractive to a lot of people who couldn't otherwise afford a brand-new car.

And, as usual.......Happy car-shopping.

MM

whoster

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

Simply basic transportation

mmarshall

Not sure what these guys are getting at in this video....except, of course, for some of Clarkson's typical joking about car reviews, and the fact that the car is basic transportation and they all seem to be making light of it.

(BTW, some of my own comments about the car were influenced by the Top Gear magazine write-up on it. That's why I stated it was not a true MM review....I obviously couldn't sit in it or drive it myself)

spwolf

There are plenty of cars like Sandero in 3rd world markets like China, India, Brazil, from all of our standard manufacturers.

Problem is not that it is lacking features, you can get a lot of stuff in it... problem is that it is based on car from 90's, and that interior is absolutely appalling... Imagine 1999 Echo interior - well it was a lot better than Dacia.

They also have poor reliability record even if they are advertising the cars as very reliable.

Europe has a lot of fleet sales - many companies provide cars to their salesmen and such... this is significant part of the market in Europe and I think this is where Dacia sells well.

Otherwise, I would rather buy 2yr old proper car than Dacia - and we have many of them around here too.

mmarshall

Yes, I'm aware of that.....but, like the Nano, some of them are more like four-wheeled motorcycles than what I would call a true automobile.

Basically, I was reflecting on both the good and bad in a car like this. It probably won't be sold in the U.S., but it is an example of a machine that is built for simple driving where you pay attention and don't screw around with electronic toys. To some extent, we could use a car like that nowadays.


Yep, the used-car option is always there. But some people just like the smell of a new car....and want something that has not has a previous owner.

SW17LS

Because its a terrible, basic car that no enthusiast would have any interest in, and Dacia kept sending them information and press releases about it assuming someone would care. Thats why its funny.

Top Gear is a comedy show about cars.

mmarshall

Unfortunately, I have to agree. While Top Gear's James May and Richard Hammond sometimes write good articles (such as May's excellent columns on automotive physics and how components work), Clarkson, in general, strikes me as being as much of a clown as a serious auto reviewer.

SW17LS

It's not an "unfortunately". I love TopGear, it's a hugely entertaining show and Clarkson is a big part of that as well as Hammond and May and their interactions together. If you want factual auto reviews TopGear is not the program for you.

There are PLENTY of outlets and articles out there for both video/TV reviews and print reviews. What's wrong with TopGear being different?

mmarshall

Actually, Top Gear, in some ways, is not all that different. Tom and Ray Magliozzi (a.k.a. Click and Clack) mixed humor with serious auto-repair advice (they were both mechanics themselves) for decades. And Reality TV has several programs about car guys who travel around who talk a lot of B.S., but actually run nice legit auto-restoration businesses.

Like some other shows, I just find Top Gear a curious mixture of the relatively serious (James May, Richard Hammond), with the not so-serious (Clarkson). May, in particular, prints an excellent column in each magazine-edition of how car systems basically work and the physics behind it. Although most of us here on CAR CHAT are probably car-intelligent enough to be able to write a similar column, May, in particular, has a very interesting way of how he words it.

SW17LS

I think you'll find though that a lot of the Reality TV that you talk about came about after the reworked TopGear came on the air and became successful. Remember that on the BBC "TopGear" has been around a LONG time. We're talking...30 years...40 years even. It was originally a magazine type show kind of like MotorWeek, Clarkson and Hammond were regular contributors. The show was cancelled. Clarkson had a big role in coming up with the new format for TopGear that came out in 2002 (I think)...which is more or less the same today. TopGear is a huge phenomenon, its like one of if not the most downloaded series ever, its easily the BBC's biggest import, even bigger than Doctor Who.

As a car guy who also has a good sense of humor and likes things that are silly-funny, I LOVE TopGear. The three of them make it though, I've tried to watch the US TopGear and find it almost unwatchable.

There is some comedic formula to this. James May is the straight man, Hammond and Clarkson play off of him. Hammond is pretty goofy too, May can be goofy too. If you've ever seen any of the epic road trip episodes where the three of them drive across India in $3,000 luxury cars or the latest one where they each buy a truck and drive across Burma you'll see they're all pretty funny guys. They are also all very smart, Clarkson included. You'll find that many people who are really funny are actually also really smart.

I watched one last night where May tries to see if a London double decker bus can be a suburban vehicle. It was hilarious...and Clarkson and Hammond weren't even in the segment.

I find it funny that you say that about May (doesn't surprise me), because the others are always pretending to sleep through his droning explanations of physics and whatever else...the editors fade out to "3 hours later" and then fade back into May still talking LOL.

If you like May, you should try his new miniseries "Cars of the People". Its very good:

spwolf

Nano is poorly selling PR fluff.

Here is what Toyota has for 3rd world countries, similar to Dacia. All of them have something similar, designed to be cheap. It sells in Brasil, India, Africa. It is not selling that well because Toyota made it look ugly, but they had gazillion facelifts to improve it.