I'm not usually comfortable with the idea that anyone should buy a car primarily because of its looks, but I would fully understand if that happened with the Peugeot RCZ. It's a remarkably pretty machine, and in some ways rather a surprising one, since apart from the immediately recognisable treatment of the front lights and bumper/grille there is very little about it to suggest that it came from Peugeot. I imagine that the stylists had an awful lot of fun coming up with this one.Appearance isn't everything, of course, and the RCZ's looks are backed up by several other positive features. The one that still causes me the most astonishment is the interior room. There's a lot of this for front occupants, more of it than you might expect for those in the rear (it's not exactly cavernous back there, but it will carry two people as long as they're no more than about five feet tall) and if you open the tailgate expecting to find barely enough room for a washbag you're in for a big shock.Luggage volume is actually 384 litres, or about the same as a Ford Focus hatchback provides, and if you fold down the rear seats it rises to 760 litres, which is pretty impressive for a low-slung sports coupé.Part of the reason for this unexpected amount of space is the fact that the RCZ wasn't designed from the ground up, even though it looks like it was, but is based on the same platform used in the 308 hatch and the 3008 SUV (and, in extended form, in the 308 SW and the 5008). In these circumstances it would almost have been difficult not to make the RCZ as practical as it is.It would also have been difficult, though not impossible, to hide the RCZ's distinctly non-sporty origins, and to be honest this hasn't happened. The driving experience isn't as obviously sportscar-like as it is in, for example, the Audi TT, which Peugeot reckons is the RCZ's closest rival.The ride and handling are certainly good, and the weighting of the major controls has been well-judged, to the point where it was a distinct pleasure during this test to cover around 400 miles in the course of two days, but I was never tempted to go out for a blast when the roads were quiet just for the fun of it.I might have been slightly more likely to do this in the 156bhp THP petrol turbo car, but the version reviewed here was the 163bhp diesel, which has roughly similar straightline performance but suffers from the extra weight of its engine. That weight has not fully been compensated for by stronger springing, and the result is that the diesel needs a little more persuading to get round corners.Given the choice, though, I would have to think hard about the diesel, and I suspect it's the one I would go for in the end. The mid-range performance is so much better than that of the petrol that it is easier, if less interesting, to drive, and at 53.2mpg its official combined fuel economy is about 10mpg than that of the THP 156. The diesel is £1800 more expensive to buy, but I suspect owners will get at least that amount back at resale time. Engine 1997 cc, 4 cylinders Power 163 bhp @4000 rpm Torque 240 ib/ft @2000 rpm Transmission 6 speed manual Fuel/CO2 53.2 mpg / 139 g/km Acceleration 0-62mph: 8.7sec Top speed 134 mph Price From £24564.00 approx Release date 04/01/2010
Our Rating
