DACIA Sandero Review

After successfully delivering the cheapest modern sedan in the world in 2004 and probably the cheapest modern seven-seater in the world in 2006, Dacia turned its eyes on young people with wallets thinner than a piece of paper. The result is called the Sandero, and since 2008 it basically represents a Logan sedan with its rear end chopped off and a lower price. That is, if we look at it with only one half-closed eye, naturally.

The Sandero IS based on the same platform as all the other Logan variants, but the differences are a little more than subtle, and we're not just talking design-wise. Compared to the Logan sedan, the wheelbase is approximately four centimeters (1.6 inches) shorter on the Sandero, while the overall design is quite a bit different. The family resemblance can only be seen in the extraordinary height and the flat side windows (flatter windows are less expensive to manufacture).

We got the chance to put the 1.6 MPI version of the Sandero to an extended test drive, in the optimistically-named Prestige trim level. Translation: the car benefits from a 1.6-liter four-cylinder engine with two-valves per cylinder and is at the top of the Dacia food-chain when it comes to equipment. Beige and aluminium-like plastics adorn the interior, while the exterior benefits from alloy wheels.

Truth is, the Sandero can overturn a lot of preconceptions, just like pretty much the rest of the Dacia range, but at same time it can also enforce some. For example, the saying that quality needs a hefty amount of dough is partially true after driving a Dacia. The car seems very well built, but only if we take into account its very low price. Otherwise, the poor-quality of some of the buttons and the horrendous ergonomics couldn't stand a chance against almost any other car in its class (we're looking at the Renault Clio, Opel Corsa or the Volkswagen Polo for good measure). Still, when you think that the aforementioned models all cost quite a bit more than the Sandero, it starts to became more than a bargain.

The Dacia car brand has been known for providing the opposite of "eye-candy" since 1968. Even after Renault took over the company, bringing its own designers with it, a beautiful model leaving the Dacia factory gates is yet to appear. That's not to say they make ugly cars as a tradition, it's just that design was probably the last thing on their agenda whenever coming out with a new model.

The Sandero is far from being a horrifyingly-looking car. The front looks quite nice actually, from most of the views in our Autoevolution office. The "happy-frog" look suites it just fine. It's not exactly modern-looking, but for the small amount of money it demands it isn't from the 1980s either. At least compared to its interior, some parts of the exterior look rather good.

The side view is pretty OK-looking until you reach the rear quarter-panels, which make the car look like it used to be a sedan and it's been chopped by a half-blind designer. Either that or it's been rear-ended by a car with a perfectly flat hood. Not pretty at all.

The rear on the other hand is probably the best looking bit of the Sandero, with probably the most beautiful taillights ever seen on a Romanian car. In other words, this Dacia actually looks quite good from certain angles, with the keyword here being "certain". Its ginormous roof height ruins even the last bit of proportion left on it.

The Sandero shares around 99.97% of its interior with the regular Dacia Logan, but our test car had a little extra compared with the Logan MCV we tested earlier. A somewhat stylish piece of design is the addition of the beige inserts on the dashboard, the seats and the doors, making the whole interior look much brighter and almost classy.*

Benefitting from the same design improvements as the facelifted Logan and the MCV, the Sandero's interior still looks a bit unrefined compared to its class (not price!) competitors. On the plus side, it also exhibits an almost identical interior space with its sedan counterpart. That comes as a bit of a surprise considering Sandero's wheelbase is about four centimeters (1.6 inches) shorter than that of its Logan big brother. This makes the smallest Dacia one of the most spacious cars in its class.

The space available for the passengers' feet isn't exactly spectacular, but the headroom and overall sensation of space is pretty much what you'd expect a small SUV/crossover/family van to have. Also, the 320 liters (11.3 cu ft) of luggage volume in the trunk is a bit above its class average.

When it comes to the overall ergonomics and the quality of materials inside the Sandero isn't exactly class leading. The quirky arrangement of the center console-placed buttons for retracting the front side windows are only beaten in the non-ergonomic game by the ones for the rear side-windows, which are placed between the front seats, which is a difficult place to reach by pretty much all passengers.

Although the center console has been redesigned in more aesthetically-pleasing way, the knobs and buttons are still bulky-looking, with each of them having a area the size of a whole group of buttons from the competition. It's like Dacia/Renault engineers designed the Sandero cockpit with the help of people who suffer from acromegaly (enlarged body extremities).

Also, the quality of the plastics inside is still pretty much coming from the '90s era. There are improvements compared to the non-facelift-ed Logan and MCV, but it still smells like a brand new Renault Megane from 1995 in there. The biggest improvement has to be the steering wheel, taken straight out of the Clio III facelift.

With an archaic four-banger with two valves per cylinder and running on gasoline under the hood, the Sandero shouldn't provide much of a surprise in the fuel economy department, especially in the city. Truth is, the in-city fuel-consumption isn't that bad considering the circumstances. We first managed an average of about 12 liters per 100 kilometers (US 19.6 mpg), which is a bit higher than the official 10 liters per 100 kilometers (US 23.5 mpg). These numbers were achieved in highly congested traffic though, and the final fuel consumption rounded itself to a somewhat decent 10.5 liters per 100 kilometers (US 22.4 MPG) during more casual traffic and a lighter right foot.

Obviously, the 1.5 dCi diesel mill would have fared much, MUCH better from this point of view, but taking into account this is a very old engine with a pretty simple design, the in-city fuel consumption is average. The best part about it is the power and the torque curves, which don't have a really high peak, but are very smooth, which makes this a very pleasurable engine to get you around town.

About 90% of its torque is available from under 2000rpm, thus offering a pretty smooth acceleration response. The linear torque delivery makes the engine behave like it's not having any flat spots at either low or mid revs. Contrary to what you'd expect from a gasoline engine though, it doesn't feel very powerful at high rpm, behaving more like a diesel. While in theory that means this should be a pretty economical mill, it only manages to be average from this point of view.

The overall in-city feel for the Sandero 1.6 MPI isn't a bad one, mind you. Especially if you live in a city filled with tram lines and/or bad roads, since the elevated suspension is extremely adequate for rougher roads.

The all-round visibility is very nice, especially since the Sandero is one tall little bugger. Compared to the first version of the Logan sedan, its facelift (and its MCV and Sandero brothers, ed) benefits from the enlarged exterior rearview mirrors, which provide quite a big chunk of rear visibility. Also, the almost upright windows all around the car are ugly as hell, but they are more than enough to let you see almost everything around you.

The JH five speed gearbox is probably the least fortunate piece of technology to make its way on the Sandero 1.6 MPI. The thing is, this isn't such a terrible transmission, it's just that its ratios are too long, especially for an engine as "powerful" as this. Another downside is probably the fact that the gearshifts aren't the most precise in the world and you might find yourself missing third from time to time.

Other than that, the highway performance isn't TOO shabby, even though it's nothing to brag about. The 11.5 seconds needed to go from naught to 100 km/h (62 mph) aren't exactly slow, but the real numbers seem to be a bit lower (keyword here is "seem") because of the long ratios for the gearbox. There is no perceptible extra oomph from the engine either at lower or at higher revs, so don't expect too many surprises from this point of view outside the city.

Still, on the whole, the Sandero 1.6 MPI isn't fast nor is it slow, and its behavior at higher speeds – although far from sporty – is pretty relaxed and easy to predict. The noise levels on the other hand are pretty high. We expected a car this cheap to feature less sound-proofing, but apparently the Sandero actually beat our expectations. And we mean that in a bad way. Apart from the aerodynamic wind noise at highway speeds, inherent from its hatchback, non-aerodynamic shape, the engine is also pretty intrusive from the noise point of view.

Of course, by having a lighter right foot you can keep most of the unwanted cabin sounds away, but that would only mean traveling at a highway speed similar to circa 1970s. This whole situation made us think the Sandero is made for mostly city driving, but obviously equipped with one of those slow-but-economical 1.5 dCi engines. Speaking of economical, the "antique" but faithful 1.6 MPI is OK(ish) from this point of view outside the city. We didn't exactly achieve the official numbers (5.9 liters per 100 kilometers, or US 39.9 mpg), but the 6.5 liters per 100 kilometers (US 36.2 mpg) showed by the onboard computer aren't that far of.

The almost SUV-like suspension height didn't help much with the car's dynamics around corners, but contrary to what you would think just by looking at it, the Sandero is actually pretty stable. Yeah, the rear suspension isn't multilink or anything, but the overall setup is actually much better than we expected. The ground clearance is high enough to pass over a lot of optimistic potholes with a decent amount of comfort, but its settings never let the car wobble around at high or, let's say more... dynamic speeds.