Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





2001-2002 Edmunds Sport Coupe Review

Let me start off by saying I liked the review overall and thought it was very informative. There was one aspect of it though that made me nuts, the review of the GTI. The specs of its 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are way off. All the reviews I read of this car showed an average of about a 0-60 time between 7.2-7.8 none of them as bad as edmunds 8.5. Also the quarter mile for that car is around 16 sec even under 16 sec not 16.5. This made a little bit upset since i love this car and think it one of the best pocket rockets out today.
Tagged:

Comments

  • revkarevka Posts: 1,750
    Hi endor - I had also linked this article to Hot Hatchbacks discussion, and in some other discussions here, but if you want to try this here... that's fine.

    And for those that have not yet read this review, here's a direct link to Edmunds' 2001-2002 Sport Coupe Comparison Test. Some of you may find it interesting that most of the vehicle in this review are also hatchbacks!

    Revka
    Host
    Hatchbacks / Station Wagons / Women's Auto Center Boards
  • Interesting how the 2 fastest cars were segregated into their own category. Based on Liz Kim's sneer, "excuse me while I go frost my hair, buy some spandex outfits and date Joey Buttafuoco" I guess it must be the "lower-middle-class moron" category, although "fastest sport coupes" might be less prejudicial.
  • boomn29boomn29 Posts: 189
    I was interested to see that they downgraded cars because of the options offered, or they upgraded ones because of the amount of options. Just kind of odd for the category I thought.
  • They could have called this cars-that-don't-fit-in-other-categories. This is not like comparing the Accord to the Camry to the Taurus to the Passat. The GTI, Celica, and Cougar are different cars. The GTI is a box (wasn't a requirement fancy styling?) and the Cougar doesn't have a sports car engine (another supposed requirement). I was surprised not to see the New Beetle here - wouldn't the 180 hp version (same as GTI) better fit the category? If the GTI gets in, what about a Focus SVT or Sentra Spec-V? They are all small cars with the simple addition of a more powerful engine. An Audi TT would fit their description and match many of the other cars. So it's more expensive - isn't the RSX Type-S a significant amount over the others? And how about coupe/sporty versions of sedans. The Grand Prix GT coupe parked next to me yesterday has a more sporty look than the RSX, a huge increase in torque to make up for the weight, all the same features, and a lower sticker price.

    I would have pulled the Cougar and replaced the GTI with the Beetle, and called the category Small Front-Wheel Drive Sports Cars. Because that's what they are really trying to be.
  • bill_1bill_1 Posts: 97
    Well with respect to the Beetle versus the GTI, I think in practical terms if they are testing the base 150hp engine, it makes little difference which one you choose. However in general the 2002 GTI will be a much more serious driver's car than the beetle (180hp Turbo and the VR6 will be updated late in the Model year to 201 hp). (for the record, I like the boxy shape of the GTI).

    As for the Cougar, what defines a sportscar engine? The biggest problem with the Cougars performance probably was the odd gearing.

    Regarding Price, actually the RSX is not really much more expensive than a GTI if it is equipped similarly nor that much more than a fully equipped Celica GTS.
This discussion has been closed.