Electric drivers and passenger front seats. Half leather alcantara/half leather interior. Adaptive/radar cruise control. Few other small cosmetic touches. There doesn’t seem to be much of a premium on the G spec by dealers, but it’s the superior spec and IMO more desirable.
gunhand,
Jul 25, 6:49am
OUt of all the garbage they put in cars these days i reckon radar assist cruise would be quite jolly good.
motig,
Jul 26, 3:20am
Got the non G still a good car, cruise control sounds good but never having had one before it wasn't really something I was worried about.
jay248,
Jan 20, 6:21am
Do they use a lot of petrol being a 2.3 engine?
sw20,
Jan 20, 6:36am
Define what a lot means to you.
They will do about 6.5 litres/100km at best on open road. Allow up to 10 litres/100km around city.
The 3.5 litre Blade Master is only marginally more thirsty yet provides nearly twice the power.
bwg11,
Jan 20, 8:15am
Fuel used is in most cases, with a modern computer controlled engine, almost directly proportionate to work done. This is why, provided they are driven in the same manner, a 2.4 Blade will use little more fuel than a 1.8 Corolla, and as sw20 says , a 3.5 liter Blade Master will use little more, unless the extra 100 kW are being used constantly.
kcf,
Jan 21, 12:36am
Also check the oil consumption history on the car if you can, as it's not uncommon for those to burn a bit of oil.
franc123,
Jan 21, 7:47am
The solution is to buy the Master G. You will be too busy smiling during and after driving it to be concerned about fuel or oil consumption.
mimik3,
Jan 23, 9:59am
Yeah, nothing like lurching from corner to corner as the nose dives in due to the large mass of engine over the front axles, straight line they're okay, the rest is exceptionally average.
franc123,
Jan 23, 9:15pm
That's your opinion, not everybody is satisfied with a wheezy four over the front axles either. Especially when there is a much more powerful and smoother option available.
john1623,
Jan 24, 2:34am
Great imagination.
kazbanz,
Jan 24, 2:56am
Ain't it great how everyone has a solid opinion. Personally I feel the 3500cc engine is overkill but I love all the extra bits n bobs that the 3500cc comes with.
carstauranga001,
Jan 24, 3:27am
I did about a 600km trip in a 2.4 recently did NOT try for economy and when refilled took about 45 litres. My calcs make that under 7.5 km per 100km or if ya old then 38 MPG. I thought that was good.
sw20,
Jan 24, 3:41am
My first trip in my Blade Master from Auckland to Wellington 600km, 48 litres. 8 litres/100km, 35mpg.
carkitter,
Jan 24, 4:43am
I drove one briefly expecting some sort of Japanese Golf R32 and was very disappointed. If you really want a well trimmed V6 powered car get a Mercedes-Benz CLK 240/320/350. Far superior car and very reliable.
ianab,
Jan 24, 6:51am
I'm not going to compare a Blade Master to a MB CLK, totally different kettle of fish.
The V6 Blade is a bit of an odd-ball, like you say, maybe a Golf R32 sounds comparable, but the Golf has better handling, while the Blade is more a baby luxury car. Most of the bit's seem to be borrowed from the Lexus range?
Like Sw20 says, the fuel economy is only slightly worse than the 4cyl if you drive sensible. I can pull away sedately and get up to 100ks without the revs going over 2,000.
It's true that they only handle "OK". No worse than any Corolla. I guess one issue is that you can easily find yourself going into corners a LOT faster than a Corolla, and the handling is only normal Japanese hatchback standard. The upgraded suspension, bigger alloys / low profile rubber make up for the extra weight up front, but no one ever called it a "Sports Car".
What I like is that it's a "sleeper". Unless people know what it is, I'm Grandad in a Corolla. But if I need to get past that camper van, logging truck etc, it's got power to spare. Reliability is regular Toyota as it's the same engine and transmission as the later V6 Camry and several Lexus models.
toenail,
Jan 24, 10:11am
stay away - 2.4 consumes oil, be prepared to top up between oil changes.
carkitter,
Jan 26, 1:42am
And yet the same price $7K to $12k Blade is not a sleeper, it's numb.
meow_mix,
Jan 26, 4:07am
The Blade is a great car, yes it is a good example of a hot-hatch, big engine in small car. Golf R32 is crap, too heavy and the AWD system just slows down any real performance the 3.2L engine may have.
carkitter,
Jan 26, 5:00am
The Blade is NOT a great car it is a forgettable car. It is NOT a great hot hatch but a mediocre one, described by Autocar as a small GT rather than a hot hatch. The Blade won't make anybody's best car awards list. It is an Auris with better interior trim and paddle shift which has delusions of grandeur. The Camry V6 is unremarkable in the Lotus range how can it be any better in an overdressed shopping basket.
redrum67,
Jan 26, 5:46am
. mk4 r32= hot hatch. awd, recaro sports interior, 6 speed manual, capable chassis. blade= oversteering fwd, front heavy,auto only, under developed chassis, its a corolla that's a luxury cruiser. it's not a hot hatch.
phalanax,
Jan 26, 5:54am
HMM ,Im thinking the Merc CLK doesnt look like a hatchback too me . Correct me if im wrong but isnt the Golf a turbo? Wouldnt the 3.5 Toyota engine be used in a wider model range than any of the Mercs ? Id imagine spare parts would be cheaper for the Toyota. Yep I see the r32 Golf was replaced by a 2 litre turbo 'R'.
meow_mix,
Jan 26, 6:05am
The Golf GTI has a turbo 4 cylinder engine and looks quite fun, but the Golf R32 uses a wheezy old Germanic 3.2L non turbo V6.
carkitter,
Jan 26, 6:21am
It's actually a coupe or a convertible. Spare parts are widely available all over the world. I challenge you to find a better spec V6 for under $10K 120,000km is nothing on a CLK mine's at 177,000km without issue.
jmma,
Jan 26, 8:00am
Well back to the Blade, how can you go wrong. :o)
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.