Let down by lack of safety
ROAD TEST/ Renault could show more responsibility when it comes to safety in its Kwid, writes Lerato Matebese
Renault has been riding the crest of the wave recently, having launched a raft of key models, including the Kadjar and Megane, which are sterling products in their own right.
Most recently, the car maker launched the entry-level Kwid hatchback, which comes to the market to duke it out with the likes of the Datsun Go, Suzuki Celerio, Toyota Aygo and Volkswagen Up to name a few. On face value all these models pander to a market where first-time car buyers are looking for an inexpensive, no-frills vehicle in which to get around.
Playing in this segment might seem easy for those dabbling outside this realm, but to get the best package at the price definitely takes some doing. Most manufacturers skimp on convenience items and some even on safety equipment. Many have come under fire in recent years, not the least of which was the Datsun Go, which scored poorly in the Global NCAP crash test.
The Kwid seems to take a leaf from the Datsun Go book — not surprising as it shares the same platform and is built at the same factory in India as the Go, thanks to the Renault-Nissan alliance.
There has been a great deal of debate around whether some manufacturers are using SA as a dumping ground of sorts for unsafe, new cars masquerading as value-for-money propositions. The vehicle on test here is without ABS brakes and has only a driver’s airbag in its safety arsenal, which saw it score only one star at the Global NCAP crash test safety rating agency.
Renault SA says it is working on an updated model with better safety items, but we are not particularly certain about the rating it will receive.
The diminutive Kwid looks decent, however, particularly when viewed from up front, while the cabin is well laid out, if rather sparse. Bluetooth connectivity is standard, as is a superb touchscreen Renault infotainment system, while the build quality is good.
There is no denying that the manufacturer has skimped on some items. Bizarrely, there are no window adjustment knobs, not even those tiny stalks on the inside of the A-pillar from the 1980s. You literally have to prod the mirror glass to make any adjustments.
Cabin space is what you would expect from a vehicle of this size, but competitors such as the Suzuki Celerio offer a bit more in this regard.
While the ride height is good for poor road conditions such as those in India and many parts of SA, I found that the vehicle wallowed at the national speed limit, exacerbated by the narrow 255/80 13-inch tyres, which look like space saver wheels. I reckon a slightly wider tyre could remedy the situation.
The 1.0l engine feels sufficient during cut and thrust urban traffic, but does run out of puff at three-digit speeds and on inclines, so you find yourself rowing the gearbox to a lower gear to maintain any meaningful momentum. Economy is good, but the 28l petrol tank means long-distance trips will require frequent refuelling. Then again this is a city car suited to those confines, and you can expect about 500km on a tank.
Many will argue that the very reason for the Kwid and the Datsun Go is to offer cheap motoring and independence. To that end I agree. However, there is no denying that these models are pitched mostly at young, inexperienced drivers who are arguably more likely to be involved in a crash. I strongly believe that having the requisite safety items in a new vehicle of any form and at any price is imperative, particularly with the high prevalence of traffic lawlessness and accidents.
It would be an injustice for me to recommend the Kwid as I know Renault can offer a much safer vehicle at the price than is the case here.
Suzuki’s Celerio is priced on a par with the Kwid, but offers slightly higher safety levels. Or spend a fraction more on the Volkswagen Up, although it does offer slightly less practicality.