If you buy a car with 24.000K on it, you only have very little left of the warranty, and who knows how much damage has been done to a used car?Not everyone takes care of their cars. Don't forget that the dealer marks used cars up a greater percentage than a new car. I have seen dealers clean up a badly abused car even to the extent of change of wheels and tires because they were so battered by curb hopping. What about all the parts you can't see? Buying a used car is not a very safe thing to do. I have seen dealers demos, that were in such bad condition after only 6 or 7 hundred miles that I would'nt have bought them for any price. Can you imagine what some careless person might have done to his used car? I remember what I did to several cars I owned, and was I ever glad to get rid of them. If I were to consider such a thing I would just keep the car that I bought new. At least it would be a devil that I know, and that idea might be an alternative to what I am doing. However I get more than l80 per month from the tax writeoff so why not use it to buy new? To sum up, I am only paying for the miles that I have used up when I trade, just a consumable. But I guess that I am not going this way to save money, but to save trouble and enjoy my life.
I kinda got the idea that you bought new, and I am not suprised. By the way where do you live/if you want to say, I just wondered where you drive? I live in a distant suburb of Dallas, Tx, and I have such a bunch of different roads to drive out in the country that I never will be able to exhaust them all. State hiway 4 is a coiled snake, and I keep trying to go around it faster and faster. Scared the hell out of me last time. The RSX does a good job compared to my other car. Z28 Camaro (2002), it has 22000 miles and is going to go away. I expect to get more than I paid for it. I bought it to sell, got a deal on it that you would not believe. Since I bought the RSX,it has mostly been sitting in the garage, sucks up too much gas(premium to boot)rattles like crazy but this thing RUNS.
I'm in Memphis. My fun drive is the Ozarks; enough grade and twist to have a good time. Most of my driving is city, though; and, as you might guess, I don't have much of a commute. Home and office are within a mile. Mine is an '02 Si. The car before was a '99 Si - stolen, stripped and totaled in the prime of it's life.
>>IMO, you're always going to pay more for products from certain markets, and Europe >>is one of them...
>Are you saying that your car should have cost $21-22k?
Sort of...had it been offered by someone else. There's a lot of factors that go into what a product ultimately costs. In addition to regional cost of living, economy and exchange rates, etc, you also have the variable of R&D costs (cost and extensiveness), plus then also how many units those costs get amortized across. The implication is that producers with higher production volume will predictably have lower MSRP's because of a larger denominator. Because some manufacturers have better dealership networks, market penetration and access, they sell more of their product. Since a product with their label on it will sell more units than the same exact product from Obscure Motors, their effective economy of scale advantages are translated into being able to ask a lower MSRP if they wish. So what this boils down to for me is that I generally expect that all products offered by the lower volume automakers will need to price their products 10-20% higher than the mainstream (assuming all other factors equal).
> If the Z had been available when you bought your car, would you have bought one?
No. The Z has no back seat and "no" storage (7ft^3), so it effectively duplicates my 911.
>>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.
Sure, but for one thing, the C does better than the more expensive 3-series in crash tests. And in terms of performance for the investment, there's usually a "knee" in the curve above which you get into (strongly) diminishing returns. The knee is usually the sweet spot to look for for best value.
>>Since the only other RWD I looked at was the BMW...
> 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.
RWD wasn't my #1 priority, but it was a consideration. It plays a part in that from an Engineering standpoint, we do know that when properly executed, RWD should generally outperform FWD (despite being slightly heavier), and that FWD is generally going to be less expensive to produce. FWIW, it is interesting that this comes up, as I suspect that FWD is assumed when most people try to define what is/isn't a "Hot Hatch".
you're right. That is kinda interesting. I think its just that most hatches are FWD because a hatch has typically been an economy car. And, like you pointed out, FWD is cheaper to manufacture. I really didn't even think of the benz as being the RWD model here. The subject just didn't occur to me.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
>So what this boils down to for me is that I >generally expect that all products offered by >the lower volume automakers will need to price >their products 10-20% higher than the mainstream.
That is true, but to me it just means you are getting less for more money.
>The knee is usually the sweet spot to look for >for best value.
Where do you get your crash test data? Can you do a comparison between the Si and your car? I'm curious how they compare.
>RWD wasn't my #1 priority, but it was a that >... >this comes up, as I suspect that FWD is assumed >when most people try to define what is/isn't >a "Hot Hatch".
I agree with you, and I would prefer RWD. If I didn't need something more practical, I might have bought a Miata. Do you consider the RWD of your car to be properly executed? I wish we could all take our respective cars to a track or autox course and take turns driving them. That said, I'm sure that there are going to be more hot hatches coming, with BMW and Audi bringing their respective vehicles over in the next few years.
Also scroll down to the lower section which has "Driver Injury Measures". The Civic has a net aggregate score of HCI=468, whereas the MB is HCI=251. I'm not sure why the Civic appears to do relatively poorly (it appears to do well in many of the catagories)...my guess is that what is intuitively "out of line" is the 126 g's of force on the left foot, which is way out of line with everyone else (at least 50 g's higher, and 100 g's higher than the MB).
For these tests, Euroncap claims that the MB provides a 91% performance value and the Honda gets a 79% score. You need to read the details of the website to fully comprehend what these numbers mean. Note also that the Euro website also rates the cars for how they perform when striking pedestrians.
Wow, fantastic info in that post, thank you. I even made a little excel out of them.
Does your car really weigh 649 pounds more than mine? You really do get good gas mileage for so much weight.
The US site rated both cars as Good in every category, and while the intrusion measures favored the Mercedes, but I didn't really see this reflection in the injury index (but I didn't understand all of it). Why would your peak Gs be 44 and mine 16? But that was a lot of fun to look at, and the Jetta/Golf did poorer than I thought it would.
After looking at every small car available, I think that the RSX is the best deal out there. I know that many of you do not think much of automatics, but for some people it is a necessity,and based on that need, what car do you all think is the best. All inputs appreciated.
I did not even consider the mini as I had read that it was lacking in power and had a very hard ride. I did not know that a CVT was available in this car. Have you driven this combination? What is it's price? Any other info??
Since you all have agreed to agree on automatics I wanted to throw out a vote for stick shift. I find it hard to believe, considering the topic "Hot Hatch", that an automatic transmission was even debated. I bought an '84 Civic 'S' new with a stick and then a '93 Si, also manual. Combined mileage on both was 450,000, all accumulated by me. Those were hot hatchbacks in their time. I test drove the RSX several times, both base and "S" models, and never did think I was driving a hatch. It is a coupe with a third utility door. The reason I was test driving them was to MOVE AWAY from the hatch. Sure, that is a debate in itself, but if you want a Honda product and also a hatch, you get a Civic Si. Try stuffing a Christmas tree in the back of an RSX like I did annually with my old hatches. The RSX didn't do anything for me visually, looking like the new Civic coupe (shape of a watermelon pit) coupled with a plain cockpit. Neutral looks, neutral handling. There are a million on the road, it seems, all silver, and impossible to tell from even a short distance which trim level. A little off topic: I did test drive the 2003 MR2 Spyder with sequential shifter. It took some getting used to, but basically I kept my left foot plastered to the floor and shifted with the stick using thumb and index finger. There are shift tabs on the steering wheel, front and back, but that was too alien. Shifting is super smooth once you get the hang of it, but it would be a lot of work keeping the car in "VVTI" mode with the current gear ratios. The salesman was VERY determined to sell it because they had to move it and no one else seemed to show much enthusiasm, meaning: I knew more about the car than he did. Eventually the 1.2 cubic feet of storage convinced me to look elsewhere, despite the offer to have a limo drive me to the dealer as a last ditch effort. Eventually purchased a slightly used lease return 2000 Integra GSR at the credit union. Super deal, beautiful condition, and the most driving fun I've had in a long time, for about $10,000 less than a new RSX-S, and NO salesman.
so you're voting for stick but almost bought a sequential MR2....
anyway, its not so much a voting issue. Just what folks prefer (or drive out of necessity), that's all. Neither is the wrong choice.
as far as the CVT Mini, no, I haven't driven one. I just really like the idea of a CVT and I LOVE the Mini. Yeah, I'm sure many folks think its underpowered, but try one out and decide for yourself. I think it may surprise you. And, if the ride is an issue, you can get it equipped many ways. I think (IIRC) there are 15", 16", and 17" wheels all available based on the packaging you get. The 15s will offer the softest ride, of course.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Also, the 15" are standard tires while the 16" and 17" are runflats on the MINI which makes the ride harder. You can get non-runflats for 16" and 17" wheels but then you're throwing away the new OEM tires.
The MINI CVT is an advanced transmission. It isn't as fast overall as the 5-speed manual since there is more parasitic drivetrain loss (not as much as a slushbox but still more than a gearbox) and the redline is lowered a bit with the CVT (5500RPM redline with 6000RPM limiter instead of 6750RPM redline with 7250RPM limiter on the stick) but max HP is around 6000RPM so you aren't losing as much in a way, especially since the CVT doesn't need the upper buffer like a regular gearbox does (you want to shift as high as possible with a gearbox since the next lower gear will come in below max HP but with a CVT you just sit at max HP until you are done accelerating).
The MINI is surprising for speed. 115HP looks sucky but with a 0-60 of 8.5s for the manual I think the engine spec might be underrated. Some other cars with 140+HP are much slower (e.g. ION, Aerio). In some really tight autoX courses the CVT is faster than the manual and even the S due to gearing.
Go back a month or two and read some old posts, we didn't "agree" on anything. However, if somebody wants an automatic, there's no reason not to discuss which is the best one.
I have an 2002 Z28 LS1 Camaro Auto and an RSX base auto, and I am here to tell you that the Camaro is a HOT hatch. It outperforms all of the cars in this discussion which come near to it's price, ($19325 out the door loaded with everything Chevy makes except T tops. The only performance advantage of torqueless tiny cars is they get better gas mileage, and I like my RSX a lot, but I do not think it has the performance comencerate with it's price. Sure the Camaro rattles, but in 22000 miles it has only had oil changes, and no repeat no mechanical problems. It has never been back to the dealer and I have been offered a nice profit by several people who want to buy it. How much profit did you make on the last car you sold???? Torque is wonderful and it has so much that a one speed transmission would probably do, and what little torque is lost to the SLUSH BOX is never missed. Do you think that your Si will outperform this car in any way??
I am sorry but Camaro is too big to be a hot hatch, it is twice the lenght of the Si. LS1 is a 350 right? 350 is 5.7 liter. So a Camaro with 5.7 liter and Civic Si with 2.0 liter, hmmm. Let me see, 1/3 of displacement and IS threatening a camaro driver.
I AM IMPRESSED by the Si!!!!
Unfortunately Honda does not make big V8's to compare to LS1, but Nissan and Toyota do. Nissan 350Z with 3.5 liters will give LS1 run for it's money. Toyota Chaser will make Camaro blush with shame. Nissan Skyline with 2.5 liter will outperform Camaro in most aspects. Come on, push rods of yore can not compete with advanced and economical engines of today.
A VX45 ( I think this the engine code for Nissans engine) with 4.5 liters of displacement, 1.2 liters less than LS1, will outperform LS1 in all aspects and give you better fuel economy.
A Camaro LS1 with a 6 speed gearbox would have been a nice contender. I am sure there are numbers out there to prove that LS1 with 6 speed box is faster than LS1 with slush box.
Being a hot hatch is not about who is faster in 0-60 alone. Camaro being longer is not as agile as Si.
High performance is not about brute HP and Torque. A real HI-performance car in my eyes is a hybrid. To extract as much power from as little fuel as possible, that is HI-PERFORMANCE!!!!
This is where Si will definately outperform Camaro with LS1, at the gas station.
Come on now, the Camaro is l92 inches long, and the Si is l72, that does not seem like twice as long to me. Also, I said at the outset that the only advantage the Si has is good fuel mileage, and the 350Z costs twice as much as I paid for my Camaro. Most of the other cars you mentioned are not readily available at the Camaro price. Bang for the buck is my idea of HIGH performance. Take a look at the Calif Hiway patrol tests of the Z28 auto vs the 6speed. The auto won hands down. The CHP bought all autos. The Camaro pulls a higher g in the left right cone test than the Si, and the Camaro stops in 112 ft from 60MPH, again better than the Si. Where did you get your information in your last posting? It seems a little off to me, and does not square with the facts of reality. The Camaro Z28 is a half price Corvette with a back seat, and is one of the best buys on the market.
I think the Camaro is more of a fastback than a hatchback, like the Corvette and the 350Z. I don't think it truly fits in this category. That said, it has awesome performance and is an amazing value.
>I am sorry but Camaro is too big to be a hot >hatch, it is twice the lenght of the Si. LS1 is
I agree that the Camaro is not a hot hatch, but not because of its length. It
>a 350 right? 350 is 5.7 liter. So a Camaro with >5.7 liter and Civic Si with 2.0 liter, hmmm. Let >me see, 1/3 of displacement and IS threatening a >camaro driver.
An Si is in no way threatening a Camaro driver. 1/3 of the displacement, and 3 seconds slower in the 1/4. And I drive an Si.
>I AM IMPRESSED by the Si!!!!
I love my Si, but compared with any LS1 powered car, I am NOT impressed by it.
>Unfortunately Honda does not make big V8's to >compare to LS1, but Nissan and Toyota do. >Nissan 350Z with 3.5 liters will give LS1 run
Depends what you define as run for the money. The 350Z is significantly faster than the Z28/SS, and much more expensive.
>for it's money. Toyota Chaser will make Camaro >blush with shame. Nissan Skyline with 2.5 liter >will outperform Camaro in most aspects. Come on, >push rods of yore can not compete with advanced >and economical engines of today.
Don't start with push rods vs. overhead cams. That argument is as pointless as import vs. domestic. The important thing is the end result, not the method used. And the only Skylines that are faster than the Camaro are much much more expensive, and heavily turbocharged. I am not that familiar with the Chaser, I know what it is, but I don't know anyone who has driven one.
>A VX45 ( I think this the engine code for >Nissans engine) with 4.5 liters of displacement, >1.2 liters less than LS1, will outperform LS1 in >all aspects and give you better fuel economy.
In what car? There is no Nissan sold in America that is faster than the Camaro was.
>A Camaro LS1 with a 6 speed gearbox would have >been a nice contender. I am sure there are >numbers out there to prove that LS1 with 6 speed >box is faster than LS1 with slush box.
It is faster, but there are plenty of people who drag race Camaros with auto boxes, because they are well made and consistent.
>Being a hot hatch is not about who is faster in >0-60 alone. Camaro being longer is not as agile >as Si.
That is true. A car that size isn't agile, it would do better on a track.
>This is where Si will definately outperform >Camaro with LS1, at the gas station.
True, but it doesn't get 3 times the gas mileage, even though it's engine is a third the size. I've spent some time in an LS1 powered camaro, and I consistently got around 20mpg. (although it was easy to get less, through methods you can imagine). My Si consistently gets 27-28.
The whole point here is that my Camaro cost the same as the Civic Si, and about 200 dollars more than my Base RSX Auto. Why do you guys keep comparing cars of such vastly different prices? The end result is the important thing. I do not know of another l9000 dollar car that is a better performance value than my Z28. I may have to reconsider selling it as I cannot replace it's performance/price ratio. Name a car that compares.
Yes, I did compare the two cars, but as I stated, they are very close in price, and the other cars in the discussion are WAY more expensive. And the Camaro is NOT twice as long as the Si. as was claimed by Dudka. The Camaro is the same size as the Honda Accord. I do not hear anybody saying that the Accord is twice as long as the Si. My whole point was the performance/price ratio, not how big it was or what kind of mechanicals were involved, but the end result on the track or street. The Camaro Z28 Ls1 wins except for fuel mileage.
Perhaps the title of the thread should be revised to say "Best Hot Compact Hatch" if it shouldn't include all hatchbacks? The Celica is also a hatchbox, but not in the same utilitarian sense as the others being discussed here are. How about "Best Hatch That Resembles a Minivan"? ;-)
i think we've been through something like this before, but not sure.
anyway, the camaro is dead, so it doesn't matter. HOWEVER, I just wanted to chime in on the hatchback vs. fastback. If the Camaro is not a hatchback, then neither is the RSX. As a matter of fact, the Camaro rear window was even more upright than the Acura's.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Sales did dwindle and were the ultimate reason for being dropped from the lineup.
In a way the Camaro was a victim of its own success in earlier years. It wasn't a very practical car and a buyer needed to sacrifice some things to get the raw performance the cars were really all about. Between the car's performance, reputation and buying demographic it became more costly to insure, particularly for young males.
The performance market has migrated down to more affordable and practical imports and thus the Hot Hatch idea.
No, good things are not always determined by popularity. BUT, the camaro had great bang for the buck but lacked the public support such as the Mustang has consistently received since its creation back in 1965.
Let me chime in here. The Camaro wins on paper interms of straight line acceleration and perhaps a few other areas over the Si. But, that doesn't necessarily have much to do with the driving experience. The Camaro is a disaster in terms of build quality, ergonomics, refinement, ride quality, winter driving and crashworthiness which is why it can be had for $19k. Fuel economy is bad on the Si because of a short 5th gear and pretty good on the Camaro because its engine can loaf around 1500 rpm at highway speeds.
No matter what you do, you'll be FWD and have no warranty. No warranty probably ups the TCO on the Si. What does a LS1 Camaro run, low 13s? Even with the top turbo kit out there (Cybernation), you'd be hard pressed to lay down those kind of numbers. You could swap in a JDM type-R engine for the same price, and maybe hit 13.9.
I think $7 grand is not enough to match the speed of a Camaro. If I wanted to, I wouldn't have started with an Si anyway.
I agree, and I probably wouldn't want the end-product anyhow. A stock Si pleases me a great deal as it is, and I can't imagine doing much more than a Hondata chip, some intake and exhaust work, and some tires (maybe wheels, too). If I could find a shop that wanted to work out a CAI with a small scoop on the hood, I'd consider going there, too.
My point is that in these comparisons, the cost needs to be factored in. I'm saying this as a former Mustang 5.0 hatch owner who loved that torque and overall performance package. Given the cost of the Si, you can do a whole lot to it and still come out ahead bucks and quality wise.
Yeah, ever since the 6th gen and its rediculously large headlights, owners have been attempting to minimize the size by painting part of the headlight to match the body. Same thing with the Focus and the worst offender is the Celica, whose headlights almost seem to replace the front fenders they're so big.
hmmm... where to begin. Let's see, the Mini gets penalized for being small (pssst... its a MINI!!).
And I found this odd: However, the Focus' suspension tuning allowed the inside wheel to maintain contact with the pavement when powering out of corners. The Mini's just went up in smoke. Add in the Mini's inherent lack of low-end torque and you're left with a car that has to be hammered on for maximum performance.
So, let's see, the Mini could turn quicker lap times yet this is saying the Focus was better in the corners ..... ummmm.... ok. Then we have the comment about having to hammer on the Mini to get maximum performance. Ok, here's a tip, to get maximum performance from ANY car, you have to hammer on it. If you aren't hammering on it, you aren't getting maximum performance. So does this mean they weren't hammering on the Focus? You mean the Focus was not being driven to its absolute limits? If that's true, then maybe we need some more agressive drivers to test these 2 on the track again, huh?
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I think what they meant was that you could get more out of the SVT in daily driving situations, and more out of the Mini at the track when you are really pushing it.
Insurance for the younger persons who really wanted a Z28 was the major cause of it's demise. However the terrible ergonomics and poor build quality were contributing factors. Think about it's replacement the Pontiac GTO. Will it sell at $35.000?? The Z28 was a better bargain, and the insurance problem will be with us on this car as well. With the rise in gas prices, the cost to run this car will be more than most buyers of this type car will put up with. I think the GTO will go away very soon after it's introduction. GM just does not get it. The Solstice is the car that they should be introing now, and not wasting time with the GTO. When gas prices really go up (3.00) or more, big cars and SUV's and most large pick-up trucks will also be dead. Remember the 70's when people were trying to give away their Cadillacs and other full size cars? This time the price of gas will not go down, the law of supply and demand tells us that this will only get worse, and I predict that small cars will take over the car market. Be happy with your Civic Si's. That is the reason why I am keeping my RSX Auto, and selling my Z28 while the thing is still worth something.
Yeah, I hate SUVs just as much as everyone here, but the demise of the "big" car has been predicted for the last 30 years. Hasn't happened. Won't happen. Even if gas is at $3/gal, it'll still be cheap when adjusted for inflation and of relatively little cost relative to today's $40k SUV. Gas prices are starting to drop NOT increase. Another thing is that the difference in fuel economy between "Cadillacs" and "Civic Si s" is closing. Many small cars today have city mpg numbers that have been dropping over the years to the mid twenties. Many mid/large cars have had city mpg numbers increasing. Tha gap is closing.
What do you mean big cars are still with us? The largest cars that you can buy today are what would have been termed mid=sized in the 70's. The only surviving almost big car is the Ford Crown Vic, and I understand that it is being replaced soon. My Acura RSX Auto, gets 33 to 36 MPG. The lowest MPG I ever got was 29 MPG. My Z28 Camaro gets about 21 MPG, and the lowest it ever got was l3 MPG, plus it uses premium fuel which raises its fuel cost by approx. 20%. If you just drive to work and go to the grocery store I suppose that fuel mileage would be of little concern, but for a high mileage driver like me, the cost adds up quick. Besides, any real gap closing is due to better technology and it applies to all cars, even those horrible SUV's. Now think about the fact that 50% of the new cars sold are SUV's or trucks of some kind, it costs one hell of a lot less to operate a small car such as the Civic or RSX than the average car or truck. Also, you can buy a lot of gas for the price difference between say, a Civic and an Explorer. Less expenditures all around, and the average person who works for a living will not, IMHO, keep buying these gas suckers that weigh 6000 lbs. What gas station do you go to that has declining prices. Forget inflation, the Government says we have none, just like gas prices are falling. We are about to be shocked by energy prices and every economist in the world says that energy prices will be the third largest expenditure for the average family, behind housing and food, and only rich people will have the wherewithall to do as you suggest.
Are you saying that there's been no inflation since 1973? So that means I should be able to by a Snickers bar for 5 cents right? Gas would have to go up much higher than it is now to be back at 1973 values. That's a fact not my opinion.
Honda's 240hp V6 gets 30mpg highway - same as the Civic Si's highway mileage with 80hp less.
As I said before, if someone can afford a $40k SUV, the price of gas is of little concern. Sad but true.
And gas prices are predicted to fall now that summer is almost over.
The only way to get people out of SUVs is to heavily tax gasoline (as is done in Europe) up to about the $5/gal level. Why not run for office with that as an issue you support and see if you get elected.
Comments
>>is one of them...
>Are you saying that your car should have cost $21-22k?
Sort of...had it been offered by someone else. There's a lot of factors that go into what a product ultimately costs. In addition to regional cost of living, economy and exchange rates, etc, you also have the variable of R&D costs (cost and extensiveness), plus then also how many units those costs get amortized across. The implication is that producers with higher production volume will predictably have lower MSRP's because of a larger denominator. Because some manufacturers have better dealership networks, market penetration and access, they sell more of their product. Since a product with their label on it will sell more units than the same exact product from Obscure Motors, their effective economy of scale advantages are translated into being able to ask a lower MSRP if they wish. So what this boils down to for me is that I generally expect that all products offered by the lower volume automakers will need to price their products 10-20% higher than the mainstream (assuming all other factors equal).
> If the Z had been available when you bought your car, would you have bought one?
No. The Z has no back seat and "no" storage (7ft^3), so it effectively duplicates my 911.
>>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.
Sure, but for one thing, the C does better than the more expensive 3-series in crash tests. And in terms of performance for the investment, there's usually a "knee" in the curve above which you get into (strongly) diminishing returns. The knee is usually the sweet spot to look for for best value.
>>Since the only other RWD I looked at was the BMW...
> 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.
RWD wasn't my #1 priority, but it was a consideration. It plays a part in that from an Engineering standpoint, we do know that when properly executed, RWD should generally outperform FWD (despite being slightly heavier), and that FWD is generally going to be less expensive to produce. FWIW, it is interesting that this comes up, as I suspect that FWD is assumed when most people try to define what is/isn't a "Hot Hatch".
-hh
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
That is true, but to me it just means you are getting less for more money.
>The knee is usually the sweet spot to look for >for best value.
Where do you get your crash test data? Can you do a comparison between the Si and your car? I'm curious how they compare.
>RWD wasn't my #1 priority, but it was a that
>...
>this comes up, as I suspect that FWD is assumed >when most people try to define what is/isn't >a "Hot Hatch".
I agree with you, and I would prefer RWD. If I didn't need something more practical, I might have bought a Miata. Do you consider the RWD of your car to be properly executed? I wish we could all take our respective cars to a track or autox course and take turns driving them. That said, I'm sure that there are going to be more hot hatches coming, with BMW and Audi bringing their respective vehicles over in the next few years.
Honda Civic...basic ratings:
http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/00031.htm
Intrusion Measures:
http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/imcompoutc.asp
Go to this page and work your way down through the menu choices.
Or go to this page which has the hard numbers:
http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/grey_small.htm
For reference, here's the URL for 'midsize luxury cars', which is where the MB C-Class is listed:
http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/grey_midlux.htm
Also scroll down to the lower section which has "Driver Injury Measures". The Civic has a net aggregate score of HCI=468, whereas the MB is HCI=251. I'm not sure why the Civic appears to do relatively poorly (it appears to do well in many of the catagories)...my guess is that what is intuitively "out of line" is the 126 g's of force on the left foot, which is way out of line with everyone else (at least 50 g's higher, and 100 g's higher than the MB).
There's also a European crash data website at URL:
http://www.euroncap.com/index.htm
I'm not sure if these are the same as the USA models, but here's the two pages:
http://www.euroncap.com/details.php3?id=honda_civic_2001
http://www.euroncap.com/details.php3?id=merc_cclass_2001
http://www.euroncap.com/details.php3?id=car_127_2002
For these tests, Euroncap claims that the MB provides a 91% performance value and the Honda gets a 79% score. You need to read the details of the website to fully comprehend what these numbers mean. Note also that the Euro website also rates the cars for how they perform when striking pedestrians.
There's also http://www.nhsta.gov
The website http://www.crashtest.com points to both of these, once you figure out their webpage interface.
-hh
Does your car really weigh 649 pounds more than mine? You really do get good gas mileage for so much weight.
The US site rated both cars as Good in every category, and while the intrusion measures favored the Mercedes, but I didn't really see this reflection in the injury index (but I didn't understand all of it). Why would your peak Gs be 44 and mine 16? But that was a lot of fun to look at, and the Jetta/Golf did poorer than I thought it would.
That said, 650 pounds says a lot in an accident.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I bought an '84 Civic 'S' new with a stick and then a '93 Si, also manual. Combined mileage on both was 450,000, all accumulated by me. Those were hot hatchbacks in their time.
I test drove the RSX several times, both base and "S" models, and never did think I was driving a hatch. It is a coupe with a third utility door. The reason I was test driving them was to MOVE AWAY from the hatch. Sure, that is a debate in itself, but if you want a Honda product and also a hatch, you get a Civic Si. Try stuffing a Christmas tree in the back of an RSX like I did annually with my old hatches.
The RSX didn't do anything for me visually, looking like the new Civic coupe (shape of a watermelon pit) coupled with a plain cockpit. Neutral looks, neutral handling. There are a million on the road, it seems, all silver, and impossible to tell from even a short distance which trim level.
A little off topic: I did test drive the 2003 MR2 Spyder with sequential shifter. It took some getting used to, but basically I kept my left foot plastered to the floor and shifted with the stick using thumb and index finger. There are shift tabs on the steering wheel, front and back, but that was too alien. Shifting is super smooth once you get the hang of it, but it would be a lot of work keeping the car in "VVTI" mode with the current gear ratios. The salesman was VERY determined to sell it because they had to move it and no one else seemed to show much enthusiasm, meaning: I knew more about the car than he did. Eventually the 1.2 cubic feet of storage convinced me to look elsewhere, despite the offer to have a limo drive me to the dealer as a last ditch effort.
Eventually purchased a slightly used lease return 2000 Integra GSR at the credit union. Super deal, beautiful condition, and the most driving fun I've had in a long time, for about $10,000 less than a new RSX-S, and NO salesman.
anyway, its not so much a voting issue. Just what folks prefer (or drive out of necessity), that's all. Neither is the wrong choice.
as far as the CVT Mini, no, I haven't driven one. I just really like the idea of a CVT and I LOVE the Mini. Yeah, I'm sure many folks think its underpowered, but try one out and decide for yourself. I think it may surprise you. And, if the ride is an issue, you can get it equipped many ways. I think (IIRC) there are 15", 16", and 17" wheels all available based on the packaging you get. The 15s will offer the softest ride, of course.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
The MINI CVT is an advanced transmission. It isn't as fast overall as the 5-speed manual since there is more parasitic drivetrain loss (not as much as a slushbox but still more than a gearbox) and the redline is lowered a bit with the CVT (5500RPM redline with 6000RPM limiter instead of 6750RPM redline with 7250RPM limiter on the stick) but max HP is around 6000RPM so you aren't losing as much in a way, especially since the CVT doesn't need the upper buffer like a regular gearbox does (you want to shift as high as possible with a gearbox since the next lower gear will come in below max HP but with a CVT you just sit at max HP until you are done accelerating).
The MINI is surprising for speed. 115HP looks sucky but with a 0-60 of 8.5s for the manual I think the engine spec might be underrated. Some other cars with 140+HP are much slower (e.g. ION, Aerio). In some really tight autoX courses the CVT is faster than the manual and even the S due to gearing.
I drive an 02 Si, with a stick.
I AM IMPRESSED by the Si!!!!
Unfortunately Honda does not make big V8's to compare to LS1, but Nissan and Toyota do.
Nissan 350Z with 3.5 liters will give LS1 run for it's money. Toyota Chaser will make Camaro blush with shame. Nissan Skyline with 2.5 liter will outperform Camaro in most aspects. Come on, push rods of yore can not compete with advanced and economical engines of today.
A VX45 ( I think this the engine code for Nissans engine) with 4.5 liters of displacement, 1.2 liters less than LS1, will outperform LS1 in all aspects and give you better fuel economy.
A Camaro LS1 with a 6 speed gearbox would have been a nice contender. I am sure there are numbers out there to prove that LS1 with 6 speed box is faster than LS1 with slush box.
Being a hot hatch is not about who is faster in 0-60 alone. Camaro being longer is not as agile as Si.
High performance is not about brute HP and Torque. A real HI-performance car in my eyes is a hybrid. To extract as much power from as little fuel as possible, that is HI-PERFORMANCE!!!!
This is where Si will definately outperform Camaro with LS1, at the gas station.
I agree that the Camaro is not a hot hatch, but not because of its length. It
>a 350 right? 350 is 5.7 liter. So a Camaro with >5.7 liter and Civic Si with 2.0 liter, hmmm. Let >me see, 1/3 of displacement and IS threatening a >camaro driver.
An Si is in no way threatening a Camaro driver. 1/3 of the displacement, and 3 seconds slower in the 1/4. And I drive an Si.
>I AM IMPRESSED by the Si!!!!
I love my Si, but compared with any LS1 powered car, I am NOT impressed by it.
>Unfortunately Honda does not make big V8's to >compare to LS1, but Nissan and Toyota do.
>Nissan 350Z with 3.5 liters will give LS1 run
Depends what you define as run for the money. The 350Z is significantly faster than the Z28/SS, and much more expensive.
>for it's money. Toyota Chaser will make Camaro >blush with shame. Nissan Skyline with 2.5 liter >will outperform Camaro in most aspects. Come on, >push rods of yore can not compete with advanced >and economical engines of today.
Don't start with push rods vs. overhead cams. That argument is as pointless as import vs. domestic. The important thing is the end result, not the method used. And the only Skylines that are faster than the Camaro are much much more expensive, and heavily turbocharged. I am not that familiar with the Chaser, I know what it is, but I don't know anyone who has driven one.
>A VX45 ( I think this the engine code for >Nissans engine) with 4.5 liters of displacement, >1.2 liters less than LS1, will outperform LS1 in >all aspects and give you better fuel economy.
In what car? There is no Nissan sold in America that is faster than the Camaro was.
>A Camaro LS1 with a 6 speed gearbox would have >been a nice contender. I am sure there are >numbers out there to prove that LS1 with 6 speed >box is faster than LS1 with slush box.
It is faster, but there are plenty of people who drag race Camaros with auto boxes, because they are well made and consistent.
>Being a hot hatch is not about who is faster in >0-60 alone. Camaro being longer is not as agile >as Si.
That is true. A car that size isn't agile, it would do better on a track.
>This is where Si will definately outperform >Camaro with LS1, at the gas station.
True, but it doesn't get 3 times the gas mileage, even though it's engine is a third the size. I've spent some time in an LS1 powered camaro, and I consistently got around 20mpg. (although it was easy to get less, through methods you can imagine). My Si consistently gets 27-28.
anyway, the camaro is dead, so it doesn't matter. HOWEVER, I just wanted to chime in on the hatchback vs. fastback. If the Camaro is not a hatchback, then neither is the RSX. As a matter of fact, the Camaro rear window was even more upright than the Acura's.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
In a way the Camaro was a victim of its own success in earlier years. It wasn't a very practical car and a buyer needed to sacrifice some things to get the raw performance the cars were really all about. Between the car's performance, reputation and buying demographic it became more costly to insure, particularly for young males.
The performance market has migrated down to more affordable and practical imports and thus the Hot Hatch idea.
More bang? More and different, vs. the Si, I'd say.
More buck, too, by about $7K over 5 years.
Hmmm, what can I do to an Si for $7K? If I want a Camaro beater?
I think $7 grand is not enough to match the speed of a Camaro. If I wanted to, I wouldn't have started with an Si anyway.
My point is that in these comparisons, the cost needs to be factored in. I'm saying this as a former Mustang 5.0 hatch owner who loved that torque and overall performance package. Given the cost of the Si, you can do a whole lot to it and still come out ahead bucks and quality wise.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Revka
Host
Hatchbacks & Wagons Boards
And I found this odd:
However, the Focus' suspension tuning allowed the inside wheel to maintain contact with the pavement when powering out of corners. The Mini's just went up in smoke. Add in the Mini's inherent lack of low-end torque and you're left with a car that has to be hammered on for maximum performance.
So, let's see, the Mini could turn quicker lap times yet this is saying the Focus was better in the corners ..... ummmm.... ok.
Then we have the comment about having to hammer on the Mini to get maximum performance. Ok, here's a tip, to get maximum performance from ANY car, you have to hammer on it. If you aren't hammering on it, you aren't getting maximum performance. So does this mean they weren't hammering on the Focus? You mean the Focus was not being driven to its absolute limits? If that's true, then maybe we need some more agressive drivers to test these 2 on the track again, huh?
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
SVT - $33,666
Mini S - $31,024
Si - $25,233
Honda's 240hp V6 gets 30mpg highway - same as the Civic Si's highway mileage with 80hp less.
As I said before, if someone can afford a $40k SUV, the price of gas is of little concern. Sad but true.
And gas prices are predicted to fall now that summer is almost over.
The only way to get people out of SUVs is to heavily tax gasoline (as is done in Europe) up to about the $5/gal level. Why not run for office with that as an issue you support and see if you get elected.