Best Hot Hatch - SVT, Civic Si, GTI, RSX, Mini, Beetle...

muffin_man

VR6 GTI and C230 have soul? Two overweight pigs focused on luxury. The C230 is just plain slow, and the manual stinks. Is there any car with more weight in the front than the VR6 GTI? That car plows like a bulldozer, and if you are doing anything but going in a straight line, is as much fun to drive.

If you like German engineering and a nice interior, you picked good cars. But most driving enthusiasts know that there are plenty of better cars out there for the money. I think those might be the two worst, the 1.8T GTI would have been a much better choice.

wetwillie

Yes, they do have soul. Maybe not in your world but I cant speak to that, other than what color is your sky?

I have a VR6 GTI and your characterization of it gives me a pretty good idea what you know.
the 1.8 is a nervous little chihuahua with no on tap torque (boy, I cant wait till it revs up - then I'll show 'em!)YuK!

The Mercedes is well executed - with largest moonroof in the world! - oops, sorry, that's a dreaded LUXURY item. Damn, will they ever learn?

blah, blah, blah...

muffin_man

So what do I know? The plowing pig you call a "GTI" makes a Mustang feel light on its feet. Of course, the non-independent rear suspenion (almost like a Mustang!) doesn't help. A real testament to the original.

So the Mercedes has soul because it has the largest moonroof in the world? Yes, that really captures the essence of a hot hatch.

I won't bother mentioning that no magazine even bothers putting the VR6 GTI in comparisons, because the handling is so poor, and the straight line advantage over the 1.8T is so slim, and the price is so high, and well, you get the picture. The Mercedes not only has the strangest looking rear wheel well I've ever seen, it is almost universally reviewed as an overweight, mild performer with a cheap faux-mercedes interior. All that and no leather starting at $26,000? Where can I sign up?

revka

because they were not appropriate for our Town Hall discussions. Lets keep the focus on vehicles, and avoid making each other the topic of discussion. Its okay to take issue with someones comments, as long as you can keep the debate friendly/civil.

In accordance with our Town Hall Member Agreement guidelines, further off topic posts or personal swipes will be automatically deleted. Feel free to email me if you have any questions regarding this matter. And let's get back to the subject of the Best Hot Hatch - SVT, Civic Si, GTI, RSX, Mini, Beetle.... Thanks!

Revka
Host
Hatchbacks & Wagons Boards

muffin_man

Maybe we need a better definition of what a hot hatch is, in my mind, a hot hatch has decent power (the more the better), handles well, reasonable price, and of course, a hatchback. Am I the only one here who things the Mercedes hatch is a very poor hot hatch? Or that the 1.8T is the better of the two GTIs?

In my (possibly deluded mind) the weight, lack of grunt, poor shifting, and high price put the Benz at the back of the pack.

The GTI is a great car, it just almost seems more like a grand tourer than a hot hatch to me. The stock suspension setup of the GTI doesn't seem properly equipped to deal with either the amount of power, or the weight of the engine. The poor shift feel compounds the problem, and I found that the car was not nearly as nimble as its 1.8T brother.

qbrozen

The mercedes is too slow and too expensive. A luxo-hatch, yes, a hot hatch, no.

The 1.8 is better in my book, but not necessarily in stock form. The reason I would get it is because, with a few bucks invested (less even than the premium charged for the V6), you end up with an engine that blows the doors off the V6.

don't know where these stick driving cops are, but they aren't in Jersey.

flasvt

Sorry for not answering sooner.
Coping with a manual transmission after having an automatic was never an issue for me. Actually it was the other way around. The only reason I had the automatic was because it was virtuallt impossible to find the ZTW with a 5-spped manual down here in SoFla, but I always had manuals before. Feels great returning to manual shifting.
I hope you can solve your car purchase

nippononly

hot hatches are also high-revving, and manual trans. Yes, I would agree that the GTI 1.8T is more "hot hatch" than the VR6. I think hot hatches should also have exceptional handling, and from my experience the stock GTI (either engine, VR6 is worse) is marginal in this area.

muffin_man

I agree, I don't think either GTI handles that well, and the VR6 is definitely worse. I also don't like the shifting on either model. Nice cars, not hot hatches.

dudka

I drove the C230 when it first came out couple year ago. It is nowhere near being hot. The engine vibrates violently, and ths shifter is worse than ols escort shifter. For $26K they were asking I could buy something beter. Heck, compare Cooper S to C230, and Cooper S is way better for the same money, and you can get just as big a sunroof if one desires.

Driving Subaru 2.5RS reminded me of that Mrec 230 test drive, engine vibration in the steering wheel and shifter. Not something I am looking for in a car.

As far as driving stick for a living, UPS trucks are all manual, most FedEx truck are manual too. 95% of 18 wheelers out there are manual too, with 16 speed manual tranny nontheless.

F1 style shifting on IS300 and others is not sequential box. These are electronically controlled autos with torque converter and manual override. I drove my boss' Freelander with autostick. She thought it was cool, I though it was useless. And the worst was that when you stopped it would not shift back to 1st, you have to do it manually, but you can not tell what gear you are in with out looking at the little number on the speedo. Later that tranny died and she had a new one installed at the dealership. The car was 6 months when tranny failed. Anyway, autostick is nto the same as manual with the gates and clutch that you control and can feather in or simply drop. Autosticks still have that rubber feeling when you step on the gas.
oh well, to each is his/her own. If that is what tickles your fancy go ahead.
I just can't stand being disconnected from the car, but some people can drive for hours with check engine light on(high beams/parking brake/door ajar light/under inflated tire/leaking struts/hole in exhaust/the list can go on) without realising.

muffin_man

I nominate the C230 as the WORST hot hatch. Any seconds?

snakerbill

When the CHP was evaluating pursuit cars they tested Z28 Camaros with sticks and autos. The autos wonevery test they made and CHP bought all autos. My Z28 (2002) Auto, and my friends vet (auto) seems fast enough to me. However if a person THINKS a stick is better, or he just likes it, then more power to him...but do not demean others who want the convenience and durability of the late model automatics. One does not have to be old or disabled to want an easy drive in todays impossible traffic, and the performance of the two cars mentioned are far from slushy.

muffin_man

"However if a person THINKS a stick is better, or he just likes it, then more power to him"

This implies that you believe an automatic is better, and that the advantage of stick is an illusion. I have no problem with that, however, virtually every automotive enthusiast in the world (myself included) will disagree.

snakerbill

A thing is what you THINK it is in your head, but an auto is better under certain conditions, especially in heavy traffic. Why do you believe that those automakers of high performance super cars offer automatics? Why do the sales of autos far outstrip sticks? How often are you able to use the perceived advantages of sticks on the street ?. Is there no traffic where you drive, no cops? Have you ever driven one of the new autos? Especially one of the new five or six speeds? The CVT? Do you deny that automatics outlast syncros and clutches? I also have an RSX auto and the five speed auto on this car is super.

capitano

Automatics have only one advantage over sticks: convenience. Since convenience is one of the reigning deities in our pantheon of conspicuous consumption it is only natural that auto trannies outsell sticks in this country.

Anyone can drive a car with an AT. That the modicum of skill it takes to operate a car with a MT is simply too much for most Americans speaks volumes. Perhaps is more Americans were even in a position to make a real choice when they were buying a car, MTs would be more appreciated.

Europe is a haven of MT cars. The ratio of MT to AT is almost the inverse of what it is here. There are many reason for that. One is that everyone gets a license on a manual.

What makers of high-performance super cars makes them with auto trannies?

In my book, corvettes and their ilk are not super cars.
   
An average MT driver will be able derive benefits on the street. It is not all about acceleration and efficiency. Being able to modulate speed better without constantly using the brake is a simple, tangible benefit to driving a car with a clutch.

Durability. Somehow I do not think AAMCO built their business on the repair of manual transmissions.

muffin_man

even though Capitano refuted everything you said, I disagree with you so strongly, that I will too.

"A thing is what you THINK it is in your head, but an auto is better under certain conditions, especially in heavy traffic."

The way you used THINK, directly implied that it was something that only _I_ believe, and that it was something untrue. Re-read what you wrote.

I agree, for most people, an automatic is better in heavy traffic. But personally, I don't mind a stick in heavy traffic at all.

"Why do you believe that those automakers of high performance super cars offer automatics?"

They build to fit the market. In Europe they'll offer the same cars with manuals.

"Why do the sales of autos far outstrip sticks?"

3 reasons
1. People are inherently lazy
2. There is a learning curve for a manual
3. Most people think of a car as an appliance.

"How often are you able to use the perceived advantages of sticks on the street?"

Every time I drive. I can more easily stay in my powerband, I can moderate my deceleration without the brakes, I can come out of a hard turn in the proper gear, and of course, I get better gas mileage. Have I left anything out?

"Is there no traffic where you drive, no cops?"

I live in Los Angeles.

"Have you ever driven one of the new autos? Especially one of the new five or six speeds?"

I have a friend with a fairly new tiptronic Boxster which I borrow occasionally. It drives very well. But the computer and I rarely agree on what gear we should be in when in full auto. The manu-matic mode isn't too bad, but the shifts are slow, and I can feel the toqrue converter sucking away the power. I love the car, but would it be 10 times better in a manual (and $1500 cheaper)? Definitely.

"The CVT?"

I have never driven a CVT, but I do not consider it an automatic. There is no torque converter, and the engine is theoretically always in its peak torque range.

"Do you deny that automatics outlast syncros and clutches?"

Without question.

"I also have an RSX auto and the five speed auto on this car is super."

I have a 2002 Civic Si, but I drove both a stick and auto RSX base before I purchased. It's hard for me to describe to you what you are missing with an auto, but the experience is very different.

rivertown

We had an auto tranny in the family for a while, and so I got a read on my own preferences. The one place I actually liked the auto (not more than a manny, though) was long distance highway driving. That 'converter sucking away the power' (nice description, Muffin_man) feeling wasn't an issue. In city driving, that was a constant irritant to me.

qbrozen

The Enzo Ferrari does not come with a stick.

No, its not a full automatic, but its not a manual either. I would consider it MORE automatic than manual when it comes to driver input. This is my ideal tranny. Easy for the traffic but does what I want it to when i want it to.

muffin_man

I haven't driven a sequential manual, so I can't really comment about it. But if I bought a Ferrari, it would definitely have a gated shifter.

huntzinger

Maybe we need a better definition of what a hot hatch is...

Yes, that's always been a problem. While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, we're also all equals, so it will never be resolved.

in my mind, a hot hatch has decent power (the more the better), handles well, reasonable price, and of course, a hatchback.

This is a good start. Personally, I'd place higher emphasis on handling (agility) than power, and I'd refine price into value... the hatch itself reflects this, as its a nod towards practicality.

Am I the only one here who things the Mercedes hatch is a very poor hot hatch?

I hope so! :-)

In my (possibly deluded mind) the weight, lack of grunt, poor shifting, and high price put the Benz at the back of the pack.

On weight, a lot of this comes from safety systems design, and YMMV, but I trust MB's Engineering in this specialization a lot more than Honda. The net result is that the C230K is only ~15% more than the RSX, and the RSX is ~60% more than an old '79 Civic I owned years ago. I mention this Civic because it was a really cheap and fun car to drive, but by today's standards, it was a hellaciously dangerous 'tin can'.

On "grunt", people fawn over horsepower numbers and generally ignore torque. The C230K's supercharger system acts much like a turbo in boosting low end torque. My C230K is an '02 with the older 2.3K (not the current 1.8K) and I've found it to be a perfectly acceptable performer, and a lot better than a lot of other cars that I've owned or driven over the years. Meantime, I can tell you that the car gets up to its speed limiter quickly enough, and that its definitely the best hatch I've ever driven for its performance at extended speeds for extended periods, in terms of everything overall: handling/poise/control, interior noise/comfort and fatigue resistance, fuel economy, etc, makes it an excellent American 'Bahn Burner' hatchback.

On shifting, yes, its very stiff initially and this is a frequent source of complaints. Its not set up for immediate gratification. By 10K miles, it will have broken in quite nicely.

On price, this is a hard one. The car really is aimed at a different segment than what is typical for the hhatch market, which is more "youth oriented". I'm no spring chicken anymore, so I'm not about to tolerate a car with horrible NVH characteristics. Similarly, a rear seat with no head or legroom is a joke: either take the rear seat out, or make it usable by adults, dangit!

I considered the RSX briefly, but its rear seat's shortcomings, along with bad personal memories of its Integra roots struck it off my list. Ditto for a lot of other interesting-but-no-cigar hhatch products that often get favorable comments here. I waited for the Mini, but it went because its almost complete lack of any "trunk" in the hatch.

And while you may balk at prices, the pickings for what I was looking for were so slim that I even looked at the Audi A4 Avant, and BMW 325 wagons! These were both around $32-$4K, so I'd say that a $26K C230K was a relative bargain.

Overall, this is why it ended up at the top of my list. I'd say that 2nd was tied between the GTI and the 325 Wagon. Of course, what bothers me is that BWM still makes their 3'er hatch, but they don't import it to the USA, and that similarly, Audi has the S3, also not available in the USA. Since I was looking at a "niche within a niche" in the hatch market, it would have been nice to have double the options to choose from.

-hh

wetwillie

Kudos for offering your definition of "hot hatch". MY requirements for said vehicle are closely aligned with yours (surprise, surprise).

I'd given up on this forum, as it seems to have been taken over by members of the nervous 'high-revvin', 'rough ridin' club. It's nice to here from someone who has actual EXPERIENCE behind the wheel of the despised merc.

Some of the 'contributers' here have not even driven most of vehicles listed here, much less spent any appreciable time with them.

I also value NVH as well as the 'grace under pressure' behavior of a vehicle.

For me, each time I wring out my VR6 it brings a smile!

You've made a 'solid' choice!

snakerbill

First, we live and drive in THIS COUNTRY I think that the main reason for manny's in Europe is the price of gas, and most cars have torqueless tiny engines, cars that have no performance anyway so they need all the help they can get. Have you ever driven a Porsche tiptronic? But perhaps you don't think that is a performance car. If you want to get really close to your car, why don't you take the electric starter off of it and have a crank installed so you can have an all manual car? How many times have you outrun a Vet or an LS1 Z28 Camaro?? In other words most people in other parts of the world just cannot afford the choices we have here. Sure a stick is a different drive, but the word different does not mean worse.or better, so lets hear it for the USA where we can afford to be lazy and this country is the envy of the rest of the world for just those reasons. I like to be able to drive different kinds of cars and as the traffic has increased to epic proportions I switched almost exclusively to auto trans. By the way a CVT is an automatic just a DIFFERENT type, and in my opinion it is the coming thing. Especially the Audi design. Check this out before you decide that sticks are the only way to drive.

huntzinger

...this forum...seems to have been taken over by members of the nervous 'high-revvin', 'rough ridin' club. It's nice to here from someone who has actual EXPERIENCE behind the wheel of the despised merc.

Talking big is part of growing up. I'm glad that there's some good handling "go carts" for the next generation to have fun with, but at the same time, I'm really concerned about the prospects of "too much" in the hands of young drivers too soon. A lot of these 150+HP sleds can get insufficiently seasoned drivers into a heap of trouble.

There's a professional drag racer out there (who's name I forget) who's famous for a statement on the subject. Its underlying message is that its dumb to go buy a 500HP machine when the driver can't even make 50HP go fast.

And the US marketplace is such today that's its almost downright scary as to how prevalent and easy it is to hook up with a vehicle with a Power:Weight ratio of better than ~1:20 (HP:LBS).

Some of the 'contributers' here have not even driven most of vehicles listed here, much less spent any appreciable time with them.

Dealership test drives aren't a help here: they're often under very well controlled circumstances, so as to conceal any flaws the vehicle has. This is particularly the case in the hhatch market segment: going to a dealership and being given a set of keys for a solo hour-long test drive is a rarity.

I also value NVH as well as the 'grace under pressure' behavior of a vehicle.

My personal vehicle design philosophy is that I want an "Engine Limited" design (vice "Chasis Limited"). This means that the suspension outperforms the Horsepower, and the basic philosophy is that its more valuable to be able to get yourself OUT of trouble (via suspension) than INTO trouble (via engine). Think of it as a safety feature :-)

For me, each time I wring out my VR6 it brings a smile!

My favorite remains running out 3rd gear in my '85 911. Second gear's acceleration impresses first time riders, but its not until you get to third that you get the full combination of sensation of speed, the engine hitting its stride pulling strong, a great exhaust note, and what I can only describe as the car getting "hunkered down" - - you finally have enough speed for the spoilers and whaletail to do their thing, and you can feel the whole car get sucked down closer to the road.

You've made a 'solid' choice!

Yes, the doors go *THUNK*. The car's not perfect, though: it doesn't have a rear window washer, and IMO, the exhaust note is lousy. I also would have liked to have had a 6CD changer, but in '02, they had a wierd proprietary Becker digital fiber optic job that they were asking a whopping $800 for. That didn't bother me too much, until I took a trip to Southern Germany and had a cute little Mercedes A140 as a rental car (MSRP ~$14K...really a great car for the price): lo and behold, it had a CD player in its dashboard radio!

-hh

dudka

"How many times have you outrun a Vet or an LS1 Z28 Camaro??"
-------I may not be able to outrun a Camaro, but with half the cylinders (4 vs. 8) and quater of (2.0 vs 7.5L 350 c.i.) displacement I can hang on his tail.

"In other words most people in other parts of the world just cannot afford the choices we have here."
-------I think Germans, British and French earn as much per capita (when adjusted to their cost of living, and they get 4-6 weeks vacations from start not after 10 years), they make these choices because they know what is good for them and the environment. And the government knows it too, by taxing the displacement.

"so lets hear it for the USA where we can afford to be lazy and this country is the envy of the rest of the world for just those reasons."

---------- This is why we have our soldiers in Baghdad dying daily, to let people drive their gas guzzling behemoths. Because WE refuse to pay $4/gallon for gas. Don't get me started on SUVs.

"I like to be able to drive different kinds of cars and as the traffic has increased to epic proportions"

---------- If the government made people take their driving tests with manual tranny only, there would have been no traffic jams. As it is, people fail their driving tests at a rate of 40% on the first take. I imagine that if the government said that you can only get your licence if you can parallel park a car with manual transmisison without stalling, the failure rate would go up to 85-90%. To me that is the solution to traffic problems. Some people were not meant to be drivers.

Just like a joke goes "Anyone can make Pea soup" anyone can drive an auto.

muffin_man

>>Am I the only one here who things the Mercedes >>hatch is a very poor hot hatch?
>I hope so! :-)

I would like to clarify this statement by saying that my judgement of the Merc (and the VR6) is NOT that they are bad cars, they are both great. I was only commenting on their hot hatchiness.

>On weight, a lot of this comes from safety >systems design, and YMMV, but I trust MB's >Engineering in this specialization a lot more >than Honda. The net result is that the C230K is

I'm not going to go look up the crash ratings of these cars, but I agree that if 2 cars have equal crash rating, the heavier car is safer. However, at a certain point, the weight begins taking away from the agility of the car, and a compromise has to be made.

>I've owned or driven over the years. Meantime, I >can tell you that the car gets up to its speed >limiter quickly enough, and that its definitely >the best hatch I've ever driven for its >performance at extended speeds for extended >periods, in terms of everything overall: >handling/poise/control, interior noise/comfort >and fatigue resistance, fuel economy, etc, makes >it an excellent American 'Bahn Burner' hatchback.

What mpg do you get? (just curious)

>On shifting, yes, its very stiff initially and >this is a frequent source of complaints. Its not >set up for immediate gratification. By 10K >miles, it will have broken in quite nicely.

I'd like to try that.

>On price, this is a hard one. The car really is >aimed at a different segment than what is >typical for the hhatch market, which is >more "youth oriented". I'm no spring chicken >anymore, so I'm not about to tolerate a car with >horrible NVH characteristics. Similarly, a rear >seat with no head or legroom is a joke: either >take the rear seat out, or make it usable by >adults, dangit!

The price I think, is the cars biggest weakness, as a hot hatch. Technically, a 350z is a hatch, and it can be had for only slightly more than the Benz.

>And while you may balk at prices, the pickings >for what I was looking for were so slim that I >even looked at the Audi A4 Avant, and BMW 325 >wagons! These were both around $32-$4K, so I'd >say that a $26K C230K was a relative bargain.

Again, at $26k (with cloth seats), you are paying a lot of money. Let's skip magazine numbers, style, amd everything else that can be construed as personal opinion, and just look at content. The only thing your car has that mine doesn't, is a 6th gear and climate control (I think), but I paid $16k for my car, $10,000 less. So when you bring up value, I have trouble seeing it. Again, that should be construed as no insult to you or your car, but $10,000 is a HUGE difference.

capitano

The reason I make a point about this country is because Americans have this nasty habit of assuming that their preferences are universal, that everyone loves McDonald's.

Go ahead an celebrate your choices in the United States of the Obese where "we can afford to be lazy." I like the European model where they make more of an effort to make the cost of fuel reflect more than just the cost of production. Mineral water costs more than gasoline in this country.

I have never driven a Porsche. Period. If I had the opportunity, I would never ask for a tiptronic version. It is a compromise for the people who want a sporty car, but don't want the "hassle" of a clutch. To me it is truly strange for someone to plunk down that much for a sporty car with a stiff ride, negligible room and versatility and then skimp out on the real performance option: the manual transmission. Why these people don't go the extra 10% and learn to drive the car the way it was originally designed is beyond me. Oh, wait, it's the traffic, right? If the traffic is so bad, why didn't they get a barge for commuting like everyone else?

I have never outrun a vet or a z28 of any stripe. I have never tried. It is simply not one of my goals in life. I don't feel the need to boost my self esteem by racing people at stoplights. Besides, I don't think my decrepit Buick Regal is up to the task. The engine is nice, but that damn automatic transmission strangles it.

I never said squat about the CVT. I agree it is a form of automatic tranny. Which of course means that it will be as boring as any other auto tranny. It has its advantages over conventional autos and may well be the wave of the future in that regard. But for a technology that is 80 years old, it hasn't made many inroads in that time. I think it has a ways to go to demonstrate its long-term durability.

I have no intention of checking it out. Firstly, I have no interest in the vehicles that come with one. Secondly, having driven enough auto trannies out of necessity or lack of options (ever try to find a rental with a stick?) I know there is no way an AT would ever provide me with what I want.
For me sticks are the only way to drive. It's too bad there are so many drivers in this country who can't even make a real choice because they can only drive the autotranny.

hpulley4

With V8 engines, those cars can afford to lose a little with the torque converter. Hot hatches generally have small, high revving 4-bangers which need all the torque they can muster for performance while at the same time getting all the gas mileage they can get when driven lightly for europe where the hot hatch originated. Autoboxes on Camaros beat sticks at the drag strip (unless you shift without clutching) which is what many people buy those cars for. A real pro with a stick can beat a slush box on the drag strip but most people just floor it and hang on.

For me, the stick is about being involved and in control. No waiting for kick down, even though that is much better on modern slushies than before. Never in the wrong gear unless it's my fault.

muffin_man

>I'd given up on this forum, as it seems to have >been taken over by members of the nervous 'high->revvin', 'rough ridin' club. It's nice to here >from someone who has actual EXPERIENCE behind >the wheel of the despised merc.

I'm 25. I've driven the Merc in automatic, and I've driven the VR6 GTI in stick. I've lived out of the country for years. I'm a graduate student. I've been on these forums for over 3 years. I love cars. Don't belittle those who disagree with you.

>Some of the 'contributers' here have not even >driven most of vehicles listed here, much less >spent any appreciable time with them.

I'm sorry that you feel the need to be so condescending and hostile in your posts just because your car isn't universally loved. Why don't you tell us what you like about your car and why?

muffin_man

Please respond to my previous post.

>Have you ever driven a Porsche tiptronic? But >perhaps you don't think that is a performance >car.

I have, and have spent MANY hours behind the wheel. It is definitely a performance car, it would just be much improved by a manual.

>If you want to get really close to your car, why >don't you take the electric starter off of it >and have a crank installed so you can have an >all manual car?

This has nothing to do with it. I love my power windows.

>How many times have you outrun a Vet or an LS1 >Z28 Camaro??

It's irrelevant. I don't "streetrace" and of course my 2 liter engine doesn't compare with an LS6. It's all relevant, and a person who knows how to drive a manual Camaro will be faster than a Camaro with an automatic.

>In other words most people in other parts of the >world just cannot afford the choices we have >here. Sure a stick is a different drive, but the >word different does not mean worse.or better, so >lets hear it for the USA where we can >afford to >be lazy and this country is the envy of the rest >of the world for just those reasons. I like to >be able to >drive different kinds of cars and as >the traffic has increased to epic proportions I >switched almost exclusively to >auto trans.

I love the USA, I love having choices, I am happy that you can drive an automatic! We are not trying to convince you to switch, just explaining the advantages of a manual. But I wish gas was more expensive and licenses were harder to get.

>By the way a CVT is an automatic just a >DIFFERENT type, and in my opinion it is the >coming thing. Especially the Audi design. Check >this out before you decide that sticks are the >only way to drive.

I will.

snakerbill

I do not think that a 350 small block is 7.5 ltrs. Perhaps the Germans make the same amount of money but everything they buy costs more than it does here. Therefor they do not get as much for their labors as we do. How did you get the idea that I cannot drive a stick? I got my permit in a 356C Porsche many years ago, and most of the old cars I had were sticks. At that time autos were not too good so the stick was the only way to go. I stand behind my contentions that autos have a place in performance cars, and I consider the Camaro Z28 and the Corvette to be performance cars as well as my RSX. A friend of mine had an E type Jag which he bought new in the 60's and he blew it up in less than 20,000 miles. Being the kind of nut he was, he had the Jag fitted with a
Chev small block with automatic. He drove this car over 230,000 miles and when it was sold it had the original automatic which had never been taken apart. Everyone who drove this car liked it better with the conversion.

snakerbill

I used the word think in the conotative sense and was not implying anything about a delusion. More likely I was defending your right to have a different opinion, and at the same time I was trying to get the point across that most things are not just one way. I actually like sticks as well as autos but I like newer technologies so my interest in CVT;s and 5 and 6 speed non simpson gear train transmissions has led me to try various new style transmissions. Try one for grins, with an open mind, and perhaps you will not be so didactic.

muffin_man

My first two cars were automatics, and my current car is a manual. While there are bound to be people on this board that have driven millions of miles, I've logged well over 150,000 on several automatic transmission cars.

I've never driven a CVT or a 6-speed automatic, but I've spent plenty of time in a Porsche Boxster 5-speed Tiptronic. And it's very nice, but I would rather have a manual.

I will admit, I was able to take some very tight turns in the boxster that required a downshit with smoother steering, because I had both hands on the wheel. I'm sure that the SMTs out there are even better for that sort of thing.

I'll simplify my argument by saying that in my experience, I have driven no 4-spd or 5-spd automatics, tiptronic or not, that equals the driving control allowed by a true manual. I have never driven a 6-spd, a CVT, or an SMT.

npaladin2000

And no, I don't mean Tiptronics... those are automatics with a manual override. The sequentials have no torque converter and a computer-controlled clutch. IMHO, that's the ideal compromise between convenience and utility... the future will be a choice between a CVT and a sequential box, probably. Autos are en vogue for CAFE standards reasons too.. they can control the shift points and therefore the emissions from the car, helping to comply with laws or something, I think.

I drive an automatic, I admit it. It strangles my engine a bit: I admit that too. They have advantages and disadvantages. In stop and go, it's just the thing so you don't wave to worry, and you can pay more attention to the idiots you have to avoid hitting. But other times it's so boring that one can fall asleep at the wheel on long drives. But back when I bought the car (early 97) the only choice in my price range was an auto or a manual.

I WANT to drive some of these hot hatches, but I can't buy any of the manual-only ones, because I have recurring problems with my left knee (old injury). If it starts giving me trouble, there's no WAY I can play with a clutch pedal. "My knee hurts, so I can't drive, so I won't be in to work today" doesn't fly far with a sit-down job.

I loved it when I first heard about gearboxes like the sequential in the Toyota MR2, or the BMW SMGs (ESPECIALLY the BMW ones... you can even hit a button to put it in automatic shifting mode, and get a 90% automatic tranny experience... the shifts are supposedly a bit rougher, but there's less torque loss). I started thinking that finally I might be able to buy a car with more of a manual tranny, and I wouldn't have to worry about getting someone else to drive it for me if my knee acts up. I'd LIKE to see these become more widespread in the market, but what's taking them so long?

Next step: A sequential manual gearbox, with a button to override the computer-controlled clutch and activate the clutch pedal, depending on what you're in the mood for. Who knows?

So far as I know, there's only 2 sequential boxes available in the US, unless you want to count exotics (correct me if I'm wrong, please). The Toyota MR2, and the BMW box. Umm... more please? Pretty Please?

Anyway, I saw all kinds of people talking about autos and manuals, and had to chime in with my views a bit. Besides, no one really talked much about the TRUE sequential manual gearboxes much (Just autos with manual overrides instead) so I thought I'd cause trouble.

But also keep in mind that some people are stuck with automatic trannys of some sort due to physical limitations too, and not due to any laziness or lack of "driving passion" in their part.

snakerbill

Oh, come on, get started on SUV's. I hate the Stupid Ugly Vehicles myself, but the Bagdhad thing is not about the price of oil. It is about controlling the oil, and who will get richer from the situation. I can't wait for all the responses this open can of worms will get. Go

rivertown

In a discussion like this we're comparing cars with differing purchase prices (and TCO's). To ignore the money differences doesn't make sense, but it also seems legit to compare the cars.
Let's see what happens when we make the cost equal, the cost variable standard.
Edmunds TCO's:
SVT: $33,666
Si: $25,233
GTI: $30,707
RSX-S: $30,166
Mini S: $31,024
Beetle Turbo: $30,919
So, for examples -
An Si with $8K in mods vs. a SVT. A Mini S with $2.5 in mods vs. a SVT.

To me, the leaders are the Honda products - tied in 1st, with body style being the deciding factor. The loser? That's a no brainer.

(LOL, this leaves us comparing an Si with $12K in mods to the C230.)

muffin_man

Can this NOT turn into a discussion of SUVs, oil, or anything else related. Don't do it. I'd rather trade in my car for a C230 and have to pay the difference!!!

rivertown - I love that list!

snakerbill

Where did you get those prices? I paid l8900 for my RSX Base auto. The Ford dealers in this area are selling Focus SVT's for the same price and if you wrestle them for somewhat less. The Honda Si's are going for l5800. These are real prices offered to me. As stated I bought the RSX but I liked all three of these that I looked at and drove. These were all new cars with less than 9 miles. The RSX had 3 miles on it. I now have 34000K on it and have had zero problems except 3 rattles which the dealer fixed. Amazing.

rivertown

The those are Edmunds TCO estimates of the "true cost of ownership" for 5 years @ 15K miles per year taking into account depreciation, repairs, maintenance, fuel, insurance, financing, etc.

TCO is bound to be off to some degree, but I would think comparing TCO on various cars is valid.

snakerbill

I see what you mean, but I can not remember when I kept a car for five years. I trade as soon as I get close to the end of the warranty, so I have to use the prices I quoted for any comparison.
Also, I have had my RSX since Feb 03, and as stated I have 34200 miles as of today. I can't imagine only driving 15,000 per year, as Texas is a big state with more roads than any other state, and I am trying to drive them all. (:

rivertown

LOL, I'm on the other end of the spectrum - 8-10K miles a year and expecting to keep a car 8-10 years. So, I don't fit the TCO assumptions, either.

Even so, I like comparing TCO's because the puchase price is only one factor in the total cost.
(And then . . . there's the permission to put $8.5K into mods for my Si and go SVT hunting, LOL.)

snakerbill

Hi, If you put 8.5k into mods on your Si, do you think that you will come out when you trade? Also, when I think about the car I had 10 years ago, there is really no comparison to a more up to date car. The way I do it is: I look for the best deal to be had, called triple net, which is the exact price the dealer pays the factory, and I pay cash difference. I just shopped my RSX for trade in value, and was offered 15500 by my Acura dealer, trade or outright buy. I put a few thousand with this car and get a new one. Now taking your 8.5K number, I could make three trades for that amount, and still have a new car to sell if I had to. I admit that it took me a while to get to the point where I paid cash, but I was willing to drive junk cars and add a few bucks to get a better one, sometimes trading three or four times a year, until I finally wound up with a new car paid for. I know that this would not work for everyone, but it did for me. And a few of my friends have done the same thing, and they all think it is a better way than keeping a car until it dies or gets so old that it is only worth a token trade in. What think??Also, remember that you get a new 50000K warranty with each of the three trades.

rivertown

You bought your RSX in Feb for $18.9K and you can trade it six mo later for $15.5. So, you take a $3.4K hit in 6 months and, repeated, that's almost $7K a year in depreciation alone and not counting sales tax, etc. I can't think of a more expensive way to buy transportation. A car's 1st months and miles are the most expensive in depreciation, and those are the ones you're repeatedly buying.
It's true, you're not paying anything in repairs; but the pro's say an RSX needs only about $600 in repairs, on average, during the first 70K miles.
It like the guys in the watermelon business, buying at $3.00 a melon and selling at $2.50 a melon. They're losing money but decide the solution is to buy a bigger truck so they can sell more melons.
It sounds like you're happy with your buy and trade plan; that's what matters. You get the latest car and the best miles in it, but at a price.
Me? In your circumstances, I'd buy a two-three year old car and drive it 70K miles, let someone else take the expensive months/miles, and put the extra $2-3K a year in my pocket.

The $8K in Si mods? Store the stock equipment, put it back on the car in year 5, sell-trade the car. Even if you throw the mod equipment away, the worst you do is spend the same amount as for an unmodded SVT. You oughta be able to do better than that, though, since you'd be selling a car with factory perfect wheels, tires, exhaust, etc.; and you oughta be able to get something for some of the aftermarket equipment.

I dunno. Maybe I'm missing your point.

hondasellertx

Rivertown, your choice of TCO is an excellent one. It levels the playing field and gives the clearest picture of what one should expect when looking at various vehicles. If one goes to the TCO numbers and looks at the first three years the results are:

SVT $22,588
Mini S $18793
Honda SI $16086

Since I sell Honda I am partial to the SI for one extra reason beyond it's a truly fun car to drive and by far the best value among this segment. It's hard to justify an extra $6500 in my mind to go to the SVT, although it is a very nice car. That's an extra $180 per month or half the monthly payment. Even the Mini is an extra $75 per month in true cost.

I'm debating which model Honda I want next and the SI is on the short list. The problem is that too many of them are too nice.

rivertown

Nice prob to have, huh?

About the only thing I'd like to see added to the Honda line is a RWD roadster priced in the Si range.

huntzinger

Muffinman wrote:
[I]I'm not going to go look up the crash ratings of these cars, but I agree that if 2 cars have equal crash rating, the heavier car is safer. However, at a certain point, the weight begins taking away from the agility of the car, and a compromise has to be made. [/I]

Sure. And when it comes to crashworthiness issues, you need to look beyond the standard tests...MB has actually criticized the IIHS for allowing companies like Mazda "cook the books" with products like the Miata that were optimized for the test.. My specific recollections are getting fuzzy, suggest some web searches.

[I]What mpg do you get? (just curious)[/I]

At what cruising speed? :-) I've been pleasantly surprised that its continuing to improve - - its starting to push 30mpg on long highway cruises when I've not been in a hurry. Overall, I'm getting ~24mpg combined cycle, which is pretty typical...the last car that I had that did any better than this only had 90 horsepower :-)
 

[I]The price I think, is the cars biggest weakness, as a hot hatch. Technically, a 350z is a hatch, and it can be had for only slightly more than the Benz.[/I]

IMO, you're always going to pay more for products from certain markets, and Europe is one of them. If this same car was made in Japan, it probably would cost $4-5K less.

[I]Again, at $26k (with cloth seats), you are paying a lot of money. Let's skip magazine numbers, style, amd everything else that can be construed as personal opinion, and just look at content. The only thing your car has that mine doesn't, is a 6th gear and climate control (I think)...[/I]

Hung up on Cloth-vs-Leather? Sorry to hear that.

You're missing some measurables, such as headbags, traction control, and RWD.

Also, the C230K has lower NVH and is the more crashworthy vehicle: amongst other things, it has 5-10cm less occupant compartment intrusion in nearly every category in IIHS tests: how much is four inches of less passenger compartment intrusion worth to you? YMMV, but my life is worth a heck of a lot more than $10K.

[i]but I paid $16k for my car, $10,000 less. So when you bring up value, I have trouble seeing it. Again, that should be construed as no insult to you or your car, but $10,000 is a HUGE difference.[/i]

And yet your car is still FWD, and this is the problem with the dollars game: how much is that one characteristic worth to you? How much is it worth to me?

Since the only other RWD I looked at was the BMW, even with European Delivery it would have run at least another $6K, that's at least one basis of defining what is or is not a "value" within that niche.

Since all vehicles satisfy the most basic need of transportation, I could have saved $16K and you could have saved $6K if we both would have bought a Kia Rio instead.

Finally, another factor that I consider when buying a car is its overall lifecycle, and this gets deeply into the quality of service afforded by the local dealership: the product gets skipped no matter how good it is in initial quality if I can only reasonably get it from a lousy dealership: in my case, this took Audi, Saab, Toyota, Nissan and Honda completely off my list of contenders.

-hh

muffin_man

Double-H says:

>IMO, you're always going to pay more for >products from certain markets, and Europe is one >of them. If this same car was made in Japan, it >probably would cost $4-5K less.

Are you saying that your car should have cost $21-22k? If the Z had been available when you bought your car, would you have bought one?

>Hung up on Cloth-vs-Leather? Sorry to hear that.

Actually, I'm not a fan of leather seats, I'd rather have good sports seats. But I think a car (of a certain price range) should have one or the other.

>You're missing some measurables, such as >headbags, traction control, and RWD.

I agree. Except for the traction control, I don't think it's worth much on a small front wheel drive car (mine) anyway, especially in Los Angeles.

>intrusion worth to you? YMMV, but my life is >worth a heck of a lot more than $10K.

So why didn't you buy an even more expensive car? Again, the compromise.

>And yet your car is still FWD, and this is the >problem with the dollars game: how much is that >one characteristic worth to you? How much is it >worth to me?

Fair enough. But this forum isn't strictly playing a dollars game, it's playing a performance game. RWD alone doesn't make a great performer.

>Since the only other RWD I looked at was the >BMW, even with European Delivery it would have >run at least another $6K, that's at least one >basis of defining what is or is not a "value" >within that niche.

It wasn't clear before this email that your #1 priority was RWD, in which case you didn't have a lot of choices in the 'hot hatch' category.

>Since all vehicles satisfy the most basic need >of transportation, I could have saved $16K and >you could have saved $6K if we both would have >bought a Kia Rio instead.

I'm sorry, I wouldn't touch a Rio. But lemme tell you, there are new Hyundai Accents for sale here for under $7k all the time, and I'll trade in if you will!

snakerbill

I think you did miss my point. Miles that you use are like a McDonald Hamburger. They are consumables. If you take half of what the taxman allows, .l8 cents a mile. that is gone. It is what it costs to drive and is not recoverable. Now, deduct your used mileage from what you paid for the car and put that money back into another car and you will see that the costs are the same for keeping a car for a long time but you have a car that is getting worse over that time. With my method, there is no repair or tire replacement, and again at the end of the time you still have a new car worth more. You cannot drive for free no matter what you do, so if you deduct the mileage charge you will see that it comes very close to what you have invested in the old car, and you can be happy with anything you get for it as it is just a bonus. At .l8 cents a mile for 34200 miles is $6156, so by trading while the car is nearly new, I lower my per mile cost to about half, and start over with no miles and a new warranty. You can't ride the bus for less. Also reliability with a new car is worth a lot. I remember when I had old cars, and how many times I got stranded, and I now have reduced that problem to nearly zero. Plus, it is great fun to be able to have a new car every 6 months to a year, and that too is worth something.

rivertown

I am missing your point, if it's more than "new car miles are worth the extra cost to you".

FWIW, you may have the cheapest way to drive new car miles. I dunno.

snakerbill

I think that you forget that I am a high mileage driver. and if I kept a car for 5 years that I put 75K per year, that would be 375K and the damn thing won't last that long. Also, the best miles (new) are worth a lot more than the end miles where you push the thing more than you drive. My heavy useage is another reason that a lease would be stupid. But you can bet that if the tax man allows .36 per mile (last years tax return) It probably costs a lot more to drive a car in reality, so useing my conservative of .18 cost per mile is a realistic way to determine when to trade. Also, remember that resale values are different for different cars, and I only buy cars that have very good resale. I know that it will be hard to believe, but I have actually MADE money on some of my trades: i.e., the Miata, the first new body Z28 Camaro, the first year Acura CL, and a Honda Civic Si that I bought only to sell, I only drove it l200 miles, made 300bucks, and drove it for free. Of course, that is not the normal way things work, but I feel that I usually get my dollar's worth. Also, remember that if you keep the mellons too long, they will be worthless and you will lose $3.00 each instead of .50. Look at it from the mileage point of view and let me know what you think.

rivertown

Snaker, is that if you buy a 2 year old car with 24K miles on it, put 34K miles on it in six months, and then trade you spend less money than if you buy a new car, put 34K miles on it in six months, and then trade.

Dunno how to test our hypotheses beyond checking TMV's. Doing that for a '01 GSR bought and sold privately, the hit is $2,070 vs. the $3400 on your RSX.
It's worth $188/mo to you drive new and not mess with used cars? I got no prob with that.