Toyota Aygo- Opinions?

[Brian Reay]

We are considering replacing our Smart Car.

One of the options is the Toyota Aygo. We hired one some years back and
quite liked it. We popped into a local dealer yesterday and the current
model (a 'facelift') looks much the same. Numbers for fuel consumption
look most impressive etc. Kerb weight is low but not a decider as I can
tow more. Build quality looks good and the 5 year warranty is attractive.

Does anyone on the group know the car and can give actual owner
opinions, please? Looking at new or very near new, under a year old.

We also looked at a VW UP but that was much heavier and less impressive
price etc wise.

[Theo]

Post by Brian Reay
We are considering replacing our Smart Car.
One of the options is the Toyota Aygo. We hired one some years back and
quite liked it. We popped into a local dealer yesterday and the current
model (a 'facelift') looks much the same. Numbers for fuel consumption
look most impressive etc. Kerb weight is low but not a decider as I can
tow more. Build quality looks good and the 5 year warranty is attractive.
Does anyone on the group know the car and can give actual owner
opinions, please? Looking at new or very near new, under a year old.

Had one (18 plate I think) as a courtesy car. Quite loud and rattly. That
one had a semi-auto gearbox (ie a computer controlling a conventional
clutch) which meant you essentially had to drive it as a manual with the
paddle shifters else it would always be changing gear just when you wanted
power.

Getting the Yaris Hybrid back was a relief.

It's the same platform as a Peugeot 108, and I think that means it's on a
different parts/etc system to most Toyotas.

Theo

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Post by Theo
Had one (18 plate I think) as a courtesy car. Quite loud and rattly.
That one had a semi-auto gearbox (ie a computer controlling a
conventional clutch) which meant you essentially had to drive it as a
manual with the paddle shifters else it would always be changing gear
just when you wanted power.

If it changes gear by itself, it's an auto. Lots of varieties of those,
though.

But what you describe is very odd for any auto. Even early ones. Long
before computers.

[Chris Bartram]

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Theo
Had one (18 plate I think) as a courtesy car. Quite loud and rattly.
That one had a semi-auto gearbox (ie a computer controlling a
conventional clutch) which meant you essentially had to drive it as a
manual with the paddle shifters else it would always be changing gear
just when you wanted power.

If it changes gear by itself, it's an auto. Lots of varieties of those,
though.
But what you describe is very odd for any auto. Even early ones. Long
before computers.

I drove one as a courtesy car. Toyota call it MMT. It is, as Dave says,
to all intents and purposes an auto, but it is, without doubt, the worst
I have ever driven.

https://www.piglet-net.net/pigblog/?p=3479

TLDR: Jerky at low speed, noisy at high, gutless. Theo's comments are
pretty accurate IME.

I'd imagine a manual one would be OK.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Post by Chris Bartram

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Theo
Had one (18 plate I think) as a courtesy car. Quite loud and rattly.
That one had a semi-auto gearbox (ie a computer controlling a
conventional clutch) which meant you essentially had to drive it as a
manual with the paddle shifters else it would always be changing gear
just when you wanted power.

If it changes gear by itself, it's an auto. Lots of varieties of those,
though.
But what you describe is very odd for any auto. Even early ones. Long
before computers.

I drove one as a courtesy car. Toyota call it MMT. It is, as Dave says,
to all intents and purposes an auto, but it is, without doubt, the worst
I have ever driven.
https://www.piglet-net.net/pigblog/?p=3479
TLDR: Jerky at low speed, noisy at high, gutless. Theo's comments are
pretty accurate IME.
I'd imagine a manual one would be OK.

If it is a robotised manual (ie, with a conventional but auto clutch) the
losses in that transmission will be no greater than a manual. So
basically, a pretty crappy car? ;-)

That type of box which does work well has basically two layshafts with
alternate gears on them. And a clutch for each one. So a normal shift - ie
say 2nd to 3rd - just involves disengaging one clutch while engaging the
other. And can be smooth as silk. This doesn't suit some who have this on
a high performance car, as they prefer a snatchy change. ;-)

[Chris Bartram]

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Chris Bartram

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Theo
Had one (18 plate I think) as a courtesy car. Quite loud and rattly.
That one had a semi-auto gearbox (ie a computer controlling a
conventional clutch) which meant you essentially had to drive it as a
manual with the paddle shifters else it would always be changing gear
just when you wanted power.

If it changes gear by itself, it's an auto. Lots of varieties of those,
though.
But what you describe is very odd for any auto. Even early ones. Long
before computers.

I drove one as a courtesy car. Toyota call it MMT. It is, as Dave says,
to all intents and purposes an auto, but it is, without doubt, the worst
I have ever driven.
https://www.piglet-net.net/pigblog/?p=3479
TLDR: Jerky at low speed, noisy at high, gutless. Theo's comments are
pretty accurate IME.
I'd imagine a manual one would be OK.

If it is a robotised manual (ie, with a conventional but auto clutch) the
losses in that transmission will be no greater than a manual. So
basically, a pretty crappy car? ;-)

It is a robotised manual. The manual and auto boxes are essentially the
same, then they bolt some electronics on.

It wasn't so much the losses under power- this is, after all, a economy
city car; it was the poor control and ponderous changes compared to...

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
That type of box which does work well has basically two layshafts with
alternate gears on them. And a clutch for each one. So a normal shift - ie
say 2nd to 3rd - just involves disengaging one clutch while engaging the
other. And can be smooth as silk. This doesn't suit some who have this on
a high performance car, as they prefer a snatchy change. ;-)

Yes, that's what I am used to. I've had a Leon with VAG's wet-clutch
DSG, currently drive a Scirocco withthe same box, and my OH has just had
an Ibiza with the dry-clutch 7-speed variant. Instant changes, and
smooth behaviour under nearly all circumstances. If ypu put the Scirocco
into Sport and floor it, it will snatch the changes a bit more.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Post by Chris Bartram

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
If it is a robotised manual (ie, with a conventional but auto clutch) the
losses in that transmission will be no greater than a manual. So
basically, a pretty crappy car? ;-)

It is a robotised manual. The manual and auto boxes are essentially the
same, then they bolt some electronics on.
It wasn't so much the losses under power- this is, after all, a economy
city car; it was the poor control and ponderous changes compared to...

Perhaps they have deliberately used poor software to make their next model
up seem better?

Post by Chris Bartram

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
That type of box which does work well has basically two layshafts with
alternate gears on them. And a clutch for each one. So a normal shift
- ie say 2nd to 3rd - just involves disengaging one clutch while
engaging the other. And can be smooth as silk. This doesn't suit some
who have this on a high performance car, as they prefer a snatchy
change. ;-)

Yes, that's what I am used to. I've had a Leon with VAG's wet-clutch
DSG, currently drive a Scirocco withthe same box, and my OH has just had
an Ibiza with the dry-clutch 7-speed variant. Instant changes, and
smooth behaviour under nearly all circumstances. If ypu put the Scirocco
into Sport and floor it, it will snatch the changes a bit more.

Mine is a 7 speed. Compared to a conventional torque converter auto, it's
not quite as silky when moving off from rest or creeping in heavy traffic.
And not quite so easy to maneuver when parking etc. But other than that,
near perfect.

I'm told Honda make a version which uses a torque converter. Just for
moving off, etc.

[Chris Bartram]

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Chris Bartram

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
If it is a robotised manual (ie, with a conventional but auto clutch) the
losses in that transmission will be no greater than a manual. So
basically, a pretty crappy car? ;-)

It is a robotised manual. The manual and auto boxes are essentially the
same, then they bolt some electronics on.
It wasn't so much the losses under power- this is, after all, a economy
city car; it was the poor control and ponderous changes compared to...

Perhaps they have deliberately used poor software to make their next model
up seem better?

I think it's a limitation of cheaply made robotised manual gearboxes. As
you say:

[snip]

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Chris Bartram

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
a normal shift
- ie say 2nd to 3rd - just involves disengaging one clutch while
engaging the other.

in A dual-clutch box, but the MMT has to disgengage the clutch, shift
the cogs, and re-engage the clutch, and this feels like a very long
process when you pull out onto a steep hill and run out of revs in 1st :-)
[snip]

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Mine is a 7 speed. Compared to a conventional torque converter auto, it's
not quite as silky when moving off from rest or creeping in heavy traffic.
And not quite so easy to maneuver when parking etc. But other than that,
near perfect.

Yes, that mirrors my experience.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Post by Chris Bartram

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Perhaps they have deliberately used poor software to make their next model
up seem better?

I think it's a limitation of cheaply made robotised manual gearboxes. As
[snip]

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
a normal shift
- ie say 2nd to 3rd - just involves disengaging one clutch while
engaging the other.

in A dual-clutch box, but the MMT has to disgengage the clutch, shift
the cogs, and re-engage the clutch, and this feels like a very long
process when you pull out onto a steep hill and run out of revs in 1st :-)

True - but no slower than a manual box and clutch? But the single clutch
ones I've driven were all pretty clunky.

[Chris Bartram]

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
True - but no slower than a manual box and clutch? But the single clutch
ones I've driven were all pretty clunky.

It feels positively glacial!

[Andrew]

Post by Chris Bartram

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
True - but no slower than a manual box and clutch? But the single clutch
ones I've driven were all pretty clunky.

It feels positively glacial!

A more serious issue if the metal is so thin that any sort
of accident damage is difficult to repair using convetional
panel-bashing and filler (according to my ex MOT tester neighbour)

It's termed a 'throw-away' car in the trade.

Throw it away after about 7 years .....

[Theo]

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Perhaps they have deliberately used poor software to make their next model
up seem better?

It's a phase they went through:

Honda Jazz I-Shift 2008-2011
Honda Civic I-Shift 2006-2012
Honda CR-V I-shift 2006-2012
Toyota Yaris MMT 2005-2011
Toyota Aygo MMT 2005-
Toyota Corolla MMT 2004-2009
Toyota Auris MMT 2007-2013

I don't know if anything beyond the Aygo is still shipping with it.

Theo

[Andrew]

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Theo
Had one (18 plate I think) as a courtesy car. Quite loud and rattly.
That one had a semi-auto gearbox (ie a computer controlling a
conventional clutch) which meant you essentially had to drive it as a
manual with the paddle shifters else it would always be changing gear
just when you wanted power.

If it changes gear by itself, it's an auto. Lots of varieties of those,
though.
But what you describe is very odd for any auto. Even early ones. Long
before computers.

It's an automated manual transmission. Quite a few manufacturers
have sold them including Vauxhall, where it is called Easytronic.

It's effectively a manual car with a conventional clutch but
clutch activation and gear changes are controlled by servo motors
and a dedicated ECU.

They tend to be very lurchy unless you second guess when
the upchange it about to occur and ease off the throttle
while the change happens.

On the plus side, there are no torque converter losses so
ultimate fuel economy is better, though this might be a
side-effect of being forced to drive more carefully anyway.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Post by Andrew

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
If it changes gear by itself, it's an auto. Lots of varieties of those,
though.
But what you describe is very odd for any auto. Even early ones. Long
before computers.

It's an automated manual transmission. Quite a few manufacturers
have sold them including Vauxhall, where it is called Easytronic.
It's effectively a manual car with a conventional clutch but
clutch activation and gear changes are controlled by servo motors
and a dedicated ECU.

Indeed.

Post by Andrew
They tend to be very lurchy unless you second guess when
the upchange it about to occur and ease off the throttle
while the change happens.

Sound like a bit more computer control is needed. Not difficult these days
to cut the power just before the gearchange and restore it afterwards.
Same as a decent driver does with a manual.

Post by Andrew
On the plus side, there are no torque converter losses so
ultimate fuel economy is better, though this might be a
side-effect of being forced to drive more carefully anyway.

It would seem in practice you have to go to a twin layshaft design.
Obviously more expensive to make. They can give seamless changes. While
retaining the efficiency.

[Brian Reay]

Post by Theo

Post by Brian Reay
We are considering replacing our Smart Car.
One of the options is the Toyota Aygo. We hired one some years back and
quite liked it. We popped into a local dealer yesterday and the current
model (a 'facelift') looks much the same. Numbers for fuel consumption
look most impressive etc. Kerb weight is low but not a decider as I can
tow more. Build quality looks good and the 5 year warranty is attractive.
Does anyone on the group know the car and can give actual owner
opinions, please? Looking at new or very near new, under a year old.

Had one (18 plate I think) as a courtesy car. Quite loud and rattly. That
one had a semi-auto gearbox (ie a computer controlling a conventional
clutch) which meant you essentially had to drive it as a manual with the
paddle shifters else it would always be changing gear just when you wanted
power.

We are only looking at Manuals.

While I'm not snobby re-autos, I just prefer manuals. Our Outlander has
good auto system but that is the only one I really like.


Our Smart Car is an Auto with a manual function but we rarely need to
use Manual. I only recall needing to use it a few times on serious hills
in France.

Post by Theo
Getting the Yaris Hybrid back was a relief.

I'd quite like a little hybrid but as the main use is when we are
travelling and campsites simply don't have the facilities to charge them
(at least in Europe- available current on pitches can be a little as 6A
compared with 16A in the UK, so charging would be an issue.

Post by Theo
It's the same platform as a Peugeot 108, and I think that means it's on a
different parts/etc system to most Toyotas.

Fingers crossed, that wouldn't be an issue for a new(ish) car as only
service parts should be needed.

[Theo]

Post by Brian Reay
I'd quite like a little hybrid but as the main use is when we are
travelling and campsites simply don't have the facilities to charge them
(at least in Europe- available current on pitches can be a little as 6A
compared with 16A in the UK, so charging would be an issue.

Hybrids don't need charging. Plugin hybrids (PHEV) can be charged and run
electric-only, and once they run out of battery they use petrol. These are
usually larger cars (space for ICE and many kWh battery).

Regular hybrids (what Toyota marketing calls 'self-charging hybrids') just
use the battery as a reservoir to capture energy when braking, and to
provide extra power when accelerating - more efficient and can be a bit
nippier when engine and motor work together (PHEV also do this). Batteries
tend to be tiny - 900Wh (~9 laptops) for the Yaris Hybrid - because you
aren't going to run it in EV mode for long distances.

I think the Yaris is as small as they come though, which might be too big
for you, I don't know.

Theo

[Andrew]

Post by Brian Reay

Post by Brian Reay
We are considering replacing our Smart Car.
One of the options is the Toyota Aygo. We hired one some years back and
quite liked it. We popped into a local dealer yesterday and the current
model (a 'facelift') looks much the same. Numbers for fuel consumption
look most impressive etc. Kerb weight is low but not a decider as I can
tow more. Build quality looks good and the 5 year warranty is attractive.
Does anyone on the group know the car and can give actual owner
opinions, please? Looking at new or very near new, under a year old.

Had one (18 plate I think) as a courtesy car.  Quite loud and rattly.
That
one had a semi-auto gearbox (ie a computer controlling a conventional
clutch) which meant you essentially had to drive it as a manual with the
paddle shifters else it would always be changing gear just when you wanted
power.

We are only looking at Manuals.
While I'm not snobby re-autos, I just prefer manuals. Our Outlander has
good auto system but that is the only one I really like.
Our Smart Car is an Auto with a manual function but we rarely need to
use Manual. I only recall needing to use it a few times on serious hills
in France.

Getting the Yaris Hybrid back was a relief.

I'd quite like a little hybrid but as the main use is when we are
travelling and campsites simply don't have the facilities to charge them
(at least in Europe- available current on pitches can be a little as 6A
compared with 16A in the UK, so charging would be an issue.

CAT thieves like them :-(

Post by Brian Reay

It's the same platform as a Peugeot 108, and I think that means it's on a
different parts/etc system to most Toyotas.

Fingers crossed, that wouldn't be an issue for a new(ish) car as only
service parts should be needed.