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

hpulley4 · May 2002

Actually, 2 passengers fit just fine. The seat behind the front passenger has a fair amount of room. Behind the driver is pretty tight though (useful with the 50/50 split folding seat for cargo however).

huntzinger · May 2002

Which, to stick on subject, is what I'm interested in the MINI for. OK, so its ridiculously small, but I did sit in it and I think its relatively comfortable as long as you don't need to carry more than one passenger.

I had been waiting for it as well and looked at it at the NYC car show in January 2001. What turned me aside is that the trunk was simply just too small - - I knew that I'd be constantly laying down the rear seat to carry anything.

From there, my search took me to several of the vehicles on this list, plus a few others. If I had been concerned about budget, I would have backed off and gone with the GTI. It was the best fit for my needs and personal philosophical opinions as to what constitutes the best design trade-offs. I ended up with a nearly bones-stock C230. For most people, its price difference puts it out of this candidate group.

-hh

qbrozen · May 2002

well, guess that all depends on who is in the passenger seat. Come to think of it, it depends on who is trying to fit in the back, too. If you had two people 5'5" or less each, then I guess I could see it happening, but I don't think it would be exactly comfortable. Actually, I was thinking that 3 taller people could fit. The 3rd just has to sit sideways in the back seat.

For reference, I sat in the passenger seat and (at 6'4") had to set it all the way back (where it leaves about an inch of legroom in the back) and a fairly average girl was in the driver's seat. She also had the seat back to where it left and inch or maybe 2 in the back.

qbrozen · May 2002

Out of curiosity, why did you pick that over, say, the GTI you mentioned?

huntzinger · May 2002

Out of curiosity, why did you pick that over, say, the GTI you mentioned?

It was a couple of factors:

- The room in the rear seat was a bit better

- The VW dealer wasn't all that outgoing (was more interested in selling off existing inventory, rather than helping me find exactly what I wanted)

- The NVH in the C230 was noticably lower (I have to do some business travel and am not getting any younger!)

- better safety features.

- The ~$5K difference was not a factor for me personally.

FWIW, the other cars that I was seriously considering included the Audi A4 Avant and the BMW 325 Wagon. I could easily have afforded either one of them, but I really didn't want to exceed $30K.

-hh

chmeeee · May 2002

Speaking of the C230, I just test drove one today and it really is a nice ride. The acceleration matches the SVT, and beats the Mini, the cargo area under the hatch is really quite large, and the sunroof is great.
Of course, alot of these features are not geared towards any kind of performance, but I think that it really offers the best balance of small car performance versus comfort, if you haven't at least sat in one, I recommend it. It also has a very solid feel to it on the road, and was able to take rough corners without compromising stability. I am leaning towards that right now as my next car, but I still need to drive the Mini and the GTI.

-Patrick

qbrozen · May 2002

Actually, the SVT slightly beats the C230 from 0-60. And the Mini S is quicker than both.

qbrozen · May 2002

I think this baby-Benz (i stole that term from Terry and need to point that out in case he reads this) is nice. Personally, I ruled it out for its lack of performance. But, of course, it wins out in many other categories. All depends on what you're looking for.

revdrluv · May 2002

http://www.brabus.de/fahrzeugangebote/geb_e.htm

Here is Merc sport coupe that has good performance numbers. Of course the hike ib price might make it less desirable.

qbrozen · May 2002

what are we looking at on that site, revdrluv? I see the home page, now what? Are you looking at the Showcars section? Maybe the SLK V8?

revdrluv · May 2002

I am talking about the Brabus version of the new Merc Sport coupe in the showcars section. I know the link doesn't take you right there but it was the best I could do. Also you would have to do some number conversions. 462hp
0-60 4.4
top speed 189mph
Now that is a hot hatch!

qbrozen · May 2002

Sorry. Still not seeing it.

The sports coupe I see is this one:

http://www.brabus.de/fahrzeugangebote/bb2e.pl?3

And that is 8.1 sec 0-60 (0-100km).

I would like to see the one you're referring to. Sounds nice. If you don't mind, you can right-click on the page you are looking at and select Properties. Then you can copy the link from the pop-up window. Thanks.

huntzinger · May 2002

...Personally, I ruled it out for its lack of performance...

In what way did it not perform adequately?

FWIW, please don't say "Acceleration"
(pet peeve/soapbox warning :-)

-hh

revdrluv · May 2002

The one I am speaking of must not be in the regular showcar section or something. The one I am speaking of I saw in a magazine ad and just assumed that this would be the same one. It had a merc V8 instead of the four cylinder stuffed in it.

qbrozen · May 2002

oh well. Thanks anyway, revdrluv.

huntzinger - well, go ahead and get on yer soapbox if you must. That is what I'm referring to. When I was researching my next car, I had a list of criteria. One of those was a 0-60 of under 7.5 secs (although I wanted under 7). That was just ONE factor. Of course, I wanted it to handle well, too. But I also wanted comfort (preferrably power leather seats, but I almost bought a WRX because the seats were very comfortable regardless and the performance for the money was hard to over look). Realistically, I was looking for a balance of everything (aren't we all?). And, considering the Merc was only in my pricerange with no options AND fell out of range in my acceleration number, I ruled it out. If it was 1 second faster, I might have been enticed to push my wallet further. If it was $23K with leather and moonroof, then I might have stretched my acceleration requirements a bit. But, as it stands, I wasn't interested.

Like I said, get on yer soapbox if you must. I can't stop you. Just remember that everyone is entitled to their opinions and criteria. If we weren't, then we'd all be driving the same car. And I would find that extremely boring.

By the way, in comparison, and to keep with the topic (although that Merc should be included here), my list is where the Mini S does best. Its relatively affordable, has all the ammenities including power leather, is quick, and handles great. I just find it a bit small to be really practical, though. Still really want one, however.

huntzinger · May 2002

One of those was a 0-60 of under 7.5 secs (although I wanted under 7)

I can understand not wanting to have a "dog", but how slow is a "dog", and how much faster do you need to go to get into "good enough" category? (and of course, there is also a "gratuitous ego" category that starts at some point).

Where exactly these numbers are is going to be a YMMV. Its not like any of us are literally taking these cars to the drag strip to make money, which really begs the question as to what the significance of a half or even a whole second or two really means, in terms of everyday driving enjoyment.

Plus, we haven't even touched on the question of if the driver is actually skilled enough to get out of the car what its manufacturer claims it can do, nor have we asked if the driver is willing to trash their clutch life with the type of launch that's required to post such numbers.

Maybe the easier way to express this is: when was the last time you chirped your wheels, and why? :-)

-hh

PS: FWIW, I consider anything <10 seconds for 0-60 to be "good enough".

hpulley4 · May 2002

A day without chirped tires and/or the stability/traction control light flashing is a very sedate day indeed ;-)

I would like to think people buy fun cars for a reason. The other day I was stuck (in my Cooper with too much opposing traffic to pass) behind a Jetta 1.8T whose driver both accelerated very slowly and did the speed limit or slower. I sincerely hope they were gently braking the car in or something -- otherwise they really should have saved themself the cost and premium gas requirement of the 1.8T (hmm, either that or they bought the NA 2.0 engine and just slapped a 1.8T badge on it). Do you have to accelerate hard or drive fast if you buy a hot hatch (or a hot sedan in the Jetta's case)? No, but I really wonder why people bother to buy a fun car and then drive it so slowly.

You can drive fun while still driving safely. Alone at a stoplight, chirping your tires for the heck of it doesn't do anyone harm.

qbrozen · May 2002

well, as hpulley stated, we buy fun cars for a reason. I gotta ask, huntzinger, why in the world do you have a Porsche? Do you never accelerate to 60 faster than 10 seconds?? I seriously doubt it. How slow is too slow? Well, how about my wife's Forester? I think that is in the 9 second range. I find that I have to change my driving habits drastically between my car and hers. Pulling out into traffic is much more of a waiting game in the subaru.

When is the last time I chirped my tires? Well, its been a few weeks I'd say (and then it is to get onto Rt. 9 at rush hour). Mostly because I don't. I can accelerate to 60 in my Volvo in less than 7 seconds and not chirp the tires.

The car I had before this was a V6 Mazda 626. I think that was in the 8 second range. So, you ask me what 1 second does? I can honestly tell you ALOT! 1 second can be the difference between getting up to highway speed on a short onramp. 1 second can mean me being able to get around a slow and sloppy driver before those 2 lanes merge into 1. And, most importantly, that is a fun second. That common and docile 8 seconds in my Mazda went to a quick, fun, and not terribly common sub-7 seconds in the Volvo.

I'm kinda shocked to see your profile says you live in Jersey. I was going to point out that driving on Jersey roads is like a battlezone and I don't feel safe in a car that I can't quickly avoid problems with.

huntzinger · May 2002

Do you never accelerate to 60 faster than 10 seconds?? I seriously doubt it.

Personally, I'd say that the number of times when I can do a 0-60 is almost never.

The closest I probably come is when I hit a red light at a stoplight on a local road that's ~1/8th of a mile from the entrance ramp onto the local interstate. Assuming I'm first in line, of course. Even then, I'm going to be modest while crossing the intersection and the short chute to the ramp. Once on the ramp, it can be opened up even though there's really no need.

Most of my accelerations 0mph-up accelerations that might be flat out would be to pull back onto a major local road after having stopped at a local business. In virtually all of these circumstances, however, there's a traffic light within a mile that will create a break in traffic if I'm patient enough to wait for the light cycle.

What's far more common IMO is the old engine flexibility test, namely accelerating from ~30mph up to ~65mph. The key here is what gear you're in. And let's not forget that being in the right gear with a manual is a function of the driver's brain to anticipate conditions ahead of time: just crushing the gas pedal takes no more brains than the average Neanderthal (who doesn't know what a Hot Hatch is, in the first place - they're too busy grunting away on the latest Mustang vs. F Body debate :-)

How slow is too slow? Well, how about my wife's Forester? I think that is in the 9 second range.

At 9 seconds, its 2 seconds faster 0-60 than the old VW Scirocco, which had a reputation for being a surprisingly quick little car. Perhaps there's more to it than what the simplistic 0-60 numbers allege to show (as was the case for the Scirocco).

1 second can be the difference between getting up to highway speed on a short on ramp

If it repeatedly does make for a big difference, then IMO, you're relying on your hardware too much to be a crutch (note: no personal attack intended).

While I do recognize that there's always going to be that one "bad" on ramp that requires going all out, my personal opinion is that if one needs Emergency Power all the time while in a decent performer, then the shortcoming is not in the car, but in the driver.

I'm kinda shocked to see your profile says you live in Jersey. I was going to point out that driving on Jersey roads is like a battlezone and I don't feel safe in a car that I can't quickly avoid problems with.

It can be a challenge at times, but there are places that IMO are a lot worse than NJ for driving. Offhand, I'd have to say that I prefer NJ over Minneapolis, Los Angeles, or Northern Italy.

-hh

qbrozen · May 2002

If it repeatedly does make for a big difference, then IMO, you're relying on your hardware too much to be a crutch

I'm missing your point here. What else are we talking about here at Edmunds besides hardware?? If a car can't get up to speed quickly, there's not much you can do to change that through just driving.

A crutch? No. An ally? Yes.

Did it ever occur to you that I'm just an insane driver and like to go fast and get going fast as fast as fast can be? I'm not saying this is the case, but I'm not denying it either. I don't like slow vehicles. Its that simple.

If 11 seconds (referring to the Scirocco you mentioned) is considered quick by some folks, I'm not one of them.

You still didn't tell me why you have a Porsche. And, while we're at it, let me ask why you are so concerned with everyone else's opinion on what is fast? For someone who seems to talk down to or about people so much, you certainly care alot about what they are doing and what they think. I'm not getting defensive, just pointing out that you often make derogatory comments (the one about "neanderthal" mustang and f-body grunters being the most recent).

And, another question, what drew you to the "hot hatch" discussion when you care so little about speed and quickness?

huntzinger · May 2002

I'm missing your point here. What else are we talking about here at Edmunds besides hardware??

Why limit yourself to just the hardware? Can't driving be a holistic exercise?

If a car can't get up to speed quickly, there's not much you can do to change that through just driving.

You should go up to Pocono sometime when the NNJ PCA is renting the track - - there's a fine old gentleman with a 1970's vintage 2.0 914 who routinely embarrasses the heck out of the young rich guys with their 911 Turbo's.

My point is that "Speed" is not merely your car's 0-60 time. The aforementioned 914 driver beats the 930's despite having a fraction of the power because he knows how to drive better, period.

A crutch? No. An ally? Yes.

Yes, more is good, but only if you're fully capable of exploiting it. My point here is that when we have excess capacity, we can afford to be lazy, and we will more than likely will be.

If 11 seconds (referring to the Scirocco you mentioned) is considered quick by some folks, I'm not one of them.

There is always more to the story. First off, this is going back almost 20 years, when cars simply weren't as quick as they are today. The reason that the Scirocco was considered quick was because it was able to beat 5.0 Mustangs off the line, roughly the 0-30 sprint. And the reason why it had such a lousy 0-60 time was because the gear ratio for 2nd: 60 required a shift to 3rd, which eats into your times.

You still didn't tell me why you have a Porsche.

Gosh, you're right.

And, while we're at it, let me ask why you are so concerned with everyone else's opinion on what is fast?

Because we all think that we're such fabulous drivers, when the truth of the matter is that for 99% of us, our "Biggest Bang for the Buck" when it comes to most performance indexes is to not spend it on the hardware, but to spend it to improve ourselves.

This is one thing I've learned firsthand from the Porsche: the car does not the driver make.

I'm not getting defensive, just pointing out that you often make derogatory comments (the one about "neanderthal" mustang and f-body grunters being the most recent).

I have no reservations in calling a Spade a Spade. This is a famous and longstanding debate that will never be resolved because while it allegedly revolves around horsepower, its really an example of Marquee loyalty, combined with the frequent (dare I say juvenile?) ignorance about the contribution of torque.

...what drew you to the "hot hatch" discussion when you care so little about speed and quickness?

Ah, but I do care about speed and quickness. I simply disagree that the only (or best) way to measure it is by comparing 0-60 times.

-hh

hpulley4 · May 2002

Otherwise the power is wasted. With poor handling, you're forced to back off while accelerating up the ramp to the freeway or in the twisties for fear of losing it. With good handling you can power it all the way through the curve/twistie while maintaining control. I'd much rather have a hot hatch that out handles its engine by a bit than one that out engines its handling by a large margin but balance is best.

qbrozen · May 2002

I said it before, we're all looking for the best balance.

I never said 0-60 was the only thing. If you'll recall, I pointed it out as just one criteria. But now you are just talking about handling and leaving the rest out. It is a combination of everything. One is no more important than the other.

Of course the driver makes a difference. An obvious point. Given 5 cars with 5 equally great drivers, though, the best hardware will win. And this all started because I feel the C230 was not the best hardware I could get for my money. Pretty simple, really. Do i get all I can out of my car? Yup. And I love every minute of it. Isn't that ultimately the point?

joe249 · May 2002

I keep my golf clubs in back in a cargo tray. Dealer says not to do it because subwoofer is on top of doughnut .I guess I'm screwing up the sound system as far as listening.
Isn't that a dumb place to put a woofer?What do other hatches do?

muffin_man · May 2002

You are just dancing around instead of making a point, I'm not getting involved in the actual argument, I just wanted to say that.

ranald · May 2002

I think qbrozen explained himself and his purchase criteria very well.

I'm not sure what you're adding to the discussion, aside from gratuitous smugness. Perhaps prejudice, or ignorance.

A cars ability to accelerate is definitely worth measuring and mentioning. Try driving on 3 or 4 or 17, where there often are no merging lanes at all, sometimes not even onramps- you go direct from a stop sign to the highway. Good luck, brother. When trying to get onto Rt 4 alive, Speed very much *is* 0-60 time.

huntzinger · May 2002

A cars ability to accelerate is definitely worth measuring and mentioning.

Sure - but we have to remember that such objective measures only have finite applicability to the real world. Witness for example the Jeep Liberty that AutoWeek rolled while conducting a slalom test recently - - and more importantly, the difference between their test procedure and DC's procedure that was determined to be the likely cause.

Try driving on 3 or 4 or 17, where there often are no merging lanes at all, sometimes not even onramps- you go direct from a stop sign to the highway. Good luck, brother.

Been there, done that; IMO you're exaggerating how bad it is - BTW, do you recall the intersection of Rt 4 & Rt 17 before they rebuilt it? Its a heck of a lot safer/better now. IMO, Rt 3 is no worse that I-76 through Philadelphia.

When trying to get onto Rt 4 alive, Speed very much *is* 0-60 time.

Speed is meaningless without good driver judgement.

-hh

qbrozen · May 2002

Really?? Wow. That is ridiculous. How are you supposed to carry ANYTHING under the hatch if you are setting it right on top of the woofer?? Can you relocate it? Hell, I'd be more worried about crushing it than just smothering some of the sound. And what do you do when you need your spare? Do you have to remove that thing or is it attached to the cover?

qbrozen · May 2002

Well, it looks to me like this discussion is over. You aren't disagreeing with anything important and I certainly don't disagree with you concerning driver ability (an old topic that has been beat to death around Edmunds). So that be that.

nippononly · May 2002

IMHO, it is much more fun to have a car that outhandles its engine than an engine that outdrives the car. Ideal would be to have them equally matched, but unfortunately, in my experience, this so rarely happens in any car under $50K. And if I had enough money for a super-expensive sports car...I would still have a hatch!

huntzinger · May 2002

IMHO, it is much more fun to have a car that outhandles its engine than an engine that outdrives the car.

And its probably safer, too. I personally refer to cars as being either engine-limited (IMO, the desirable condition) or chassis-limited. A chassis-limited design is begging for trouble.

-hh

qbrozen · May 2002

And there are many cases where it is severely unbalanced. Take, for instance, a '79 Z28 my father decided to rebuild one time. He started out saying that he just wanted to remove the manual transmission and replace it with an automatic so that my mother would drive it (yeah, right!). Well, while he was at it, he swapped in a homebuilt 454. Turned out to be one of those cars you see on the dragstrip that raises the front wheels off the ground on takeoff. Absolutely ridiculous. Nice to listen to, but that thing scared the hell out of me when I tried to drive it. I give him all the credit in the world for building such a powerful machine, but there is a car that was absolutely useless on the street.

Speaking of a nice balance, though, I would love to get my hands on a broken in MINI S real soon. If anyone here gets a chance to really drive one, I'd love to hear about it.

muffin_man · May 2002

Miata, Mr-S?

orcinman · May 2002

I saw a Civic Si yesterday. Wow, what a guppy of a car. No respect for this vehicle whatsoever.

Why is Honda/Acura so insistent on dumbing down all their products lately?

Some other thoughts about the other vehicles here:

Love the Celica's interior, and the ergonomical layout. Hate the Sheetmetal.

The RSX is vaguel sexy from some angles, but resembles a droid from others. Yuck. Nice interior, though. Honda/Acura has the lock on lower-end car interior ergonomics and quality.

Starting to really like the Mini...she's a good value, too. Wish I had more experience with the vehicle.

SVT Focus has the credentials, no doubt. Has the recalls, too. Still can't trust Ford's ability to make a reliable small car, but one might argue that no one is buying a hot hatch for rock solid reliability, either. Still don't like the sheetmetal on this one, either.

GTI: Nice car, with a big car feel. To me, that's a missed point on the part of VW. I don't buy small cars to pretend I'm in a Buick.

Tiburon: My favorite car company has produced a vehicle with great styling, then hampered its own efforts with a clean but dull interior, too much weight, and the ever-present suspension hardness. Engine is strong. Love the presence of respectable Torque. Hate the fact that HP isn't higher than it is.

One thing I am tired of is magazines ripping this vehicle (and a couple other hatches) for backseat comfort and space. I sincerely doubt the average person will really be hauling around four people in these hatches. In this way, they're kinda like SUVs.

huntzinger · May 2002

One thing I am tired of is magazines ripping this vehicle (and a couple other hatches) for backseat comfort and space.

I think that it is reasonably valid criticism, with caveats.

For example, there are some hatches that have successfully made reasonable accommodations for back seat passengers, so if some can do it, why can't more? Afterall, it does appear that many designs over the years have trashed any possibility of back seat utility simply in order to have the desired styling lines. Seems silly when all that's often needed is just another inch or so, here or there.

Probably related to this are the claims that I have heard over the years that the nasty back seats aren't really supposed to be used by humans, but was included as a technicality so that the insurance company couldn't hit the car up with the higher charges that would normally apply for a 2-seater.

I sincerely doubt the average person will really be hauling around four people in these hatches.

The same can probably be said about a lot of conventional sedans, too. A large percentage of most people's driving is spent commuting, and probably 95% of us do it solo instead of car pooling.

Personally, I want to have a reasonable back seat because I frequently drive coworkers to meetings and/or to lunch, or whatever. Yeah, I could let someone else drive, but considering:

* several of these coworkers have poor driving skills,

* it often involves uncomfortably "jouncy" rides in their SUV's,

* plus there's the wonderful prospect of being asked to sit in or around a half ton of trash that they've filled their vehicle's interior with,

...my conclusion is that I would generally prefer to volunteer to be the driver.

-hh

joe249 · May 2002

Yes,it's about 14 inches a Richbass woofer on top of doughnut . You remove if you get a flat.

rickrover · May 2002

I've owned a few performance cars an older 911, a couple BMW's - been there done that - I vastly prefer a hot hatch. As Huntzinger pointed out all these cars have their drawbacks manufacturers have to make their cars all things to all people. The only solution I've found is to turn to the aftermarket to address the areas of a particular car that need work.

I did a lot of looking when I got my 2002 turbo GTI 7 months ago - not only for the car itself, but for what I could do to fix my percieved shortcommings of it without spending a pile of money on it.

For me the 2002 GTI 1.8t was the perfect choice, it has tons of that european character/ feel.

Car itself: I like the styling, extremely high quality interior materials and top notch fit and finish. The 1.8t engine is a gem, gobs of power and no turbo lag, very smooth power delivery with lots of low end torque where it's really useful. Safety features standard not found in anything in it's class - 6 airbags (front, side and head) ASR (Anti Slip Regulation) that's defeatable and excellent crash scores. I like the size - I'm 6'2" and fit nicely inside, decent back seat and excellent cargo room that's downright huge when the rear seat is folded - and the price is right - under $20k for all the basics I was looking for plus a 17" wheel package for a bargain $400!

What I didn't like:
Soft suspension - it does feel somewhat like a Buick, leans in turns - way too compromised.
Somewhat vague shifter - long throws between gears, kind of rubbery feeling.

Aftermarket solutions:
Engine:- notice it isn't a shortcomming above - it is easy and cheap to get significant performance gains from this engine. went from the factory 180 HP to 230-240ish for a little over $1k - ECU upgrade from APR and getting more air in and out of the turbo (exhaust, intake, downpipe) - huge gains for not a lot of $$$. It still has all the attributes of the stock engine smooth power delivery, miniscule turbo lag, gobs of low end torque (now up to 235 lb ft!!!) amazing.

Suspension - It was easy and cheap to totally transform the handling, another $1k or so - I went really agressive with racing springs (2"lower), Bilstien shocks and 25mm rear swaybar. increadable - no sway, it handles like a go kart and still has a decent enough ride. VW sells aftermarket Eibach springs that aren't as aggessive as what I did that do a great job of tightening up the suspension and have basically no penalty in ride - not harsh at all - I wanted mine to handle like it's on rails and it does.

Shifter - there are a lot of aftermarket shifters for the GTI - I went with the best - a dieselgeek shifter for about $150, it reduces throw and side to side - amazing it snicks between gears now, all the sloppyness is gone - perfect - www.dieselgeek.com.

So for a total of around $22k I have a pocket ROCKET - talk about getting on an on ramp holy moly - I embarrass a lot of so called performance cars and can keep up with the really fast ones like S4 and M Coupe - this thing is tight!

My little GTI eats the posers in their sport package BMW 330i's and IS 300's for lunch - no contest.

hpulley4 · May 2002

Another good question for this thread is stock vs. modded, which do you want? Which cars have the most potential for modding, which are best stock?

I wanted something that was under warranty and that level of modification will not be under warranty. I wanted that go-cart feeling without having to touch my car: thus I got the MINI Cooper. I know people are modding their MINIs too but that isn't for me.

huntzinger · May 2002

Another good question for this thread is stock vs. modded, which do you want? Which cars have the most potential for modding, which are best stock?

Agreed. Personally, I have to wonder how much of VW's "problem" with the reliability of the 1.8T's is due to aftermarket chipping. Audi doesn't seem to have the problem, despite it being literally the same exact motor. As such, the inference is the customer base.

I wanted something that was under warranty and that level of modification will not be under warranty.

Same here. And notwithstanding my desires for performance, my first priority is extremely pragmatic: it needs to be my rock-solid reliable daily driver that I can hop in on a moments notice for a 400 mile same-day business trip.

I wanted that go-cart feeling without having to touch my car...

I'm similar, but I would have to add that its not because I'm unwilling to work on my car: its that the number of hours in the day are finite, and this stuff never floats to the top of the list to get done. It pains me to sometimes have to pay someone for work as trivial as an oil change, but its Time Management 101.

-hh

shov6 · May 2002

I know I am going to hate myself for asking this, but why, exactly, are drivers of BMW's and Lexus IS-series cars "posers"? Sounds to me like you have an inferiority complex with people that simply have more money than you do to spend on a car.

Before you go off on a rant, realize that I did the modded-VW thing myself ten years ago, though the starting point was nothing quite so wonderful as a new GTI (in fact it was an '90 8V Jetta)... Engine work, suspension work, stress bars, wheels, you name it. It was a great car to begin with, and did indeed handle like a go-kart by the time I was done with it, but the downside was occasional bottoming, greatly increased impact harshness, and occasionally spooky handling (progressive-rate springs can sometimes feel a little "off"). And yes, they were Eibachs.

I understand your points for purchasing your car, because they were pretty much the same reasons I purchased that Jetta way back when. European feel (and in fact mine was one of the last German-built Jettas), tons of room for aftermarket fiddling, and so on and so on. However, by the time you've done enough work on your car it has become something else entirely... And that something is a huge compromise of reliability and everyday usability as compared to stock. Not everyone wants to have to do all that work, and not everyone is willing to deal with the consequences of the extensive changes you mention.

I think it's also fair to say that many who are looking at a GTI don't want to end up being associated with the "F&F" crowd with the big exhaust, down-to-the-deck ride height, etc. Like it or not, that is a concern when doing some of these mods as well. Heck, we all know a "Neuspeed" sticker across the windshield adds thirty horsepower.

But back to my original point... No need to be nasty towards the owners of BMW's. If anything, all of us in our FWD hatchbacks are the posers. Everyone knows REAL sporting cars have rear-wheel drive, right?

-SHOV6

qbrozen · May 2002

Um... Don't get me wrong, Rick, I respect what you've done and everything, but keeping up with an M-coupe? You're exagerating a bit, right? You said you are up to 225 hp? The M-coupe is 315! And its only about 150 lbs. or so heavier than your GTI. We're talking a 0-60 of 5 secs! Now, I could see you keeping up and probably edging out a 330i sedan, but even the 330Ci coupe should be tough competition for you. But, that's just acceleration. If you're talking about going around a track, comparing a stock suspension setup (even a "sport" one) against a lighter car with an aftermarket setup just isn't quite fair.

BUT, I get your point about the money you've spent and what you have. Like I said, that's respectable and even smart if all you are looking for is bottom line performance. I just wanted to point out those BMW numbers.

huntzinger · May 2002

If you can't go fast with 90hp, 900hp won't help you.
- Bob Hall

qbrozen · May 2002

My sister's first gen. s-10 Blazer had 95hp. Couldn't get past 85mph with it and it took about 15 seconds to get to highway speed.
My '79 CJ7 had about 110hp. Wouldn't break 75 and forget about getting to highway speed without about a half mile of open road.
My 4Runner had 125 (and I'm being generous here) and topped out at 95.

So, do you really think those vehicles wouldn't have gone faster with more oomph?? C'mon, gimme a break already, will ya? Let's face it, we know it starts with the driver, but there is just so far you can go before you gotta take a look at your equipment. Now, granted, in your example, 90hp is a helluvalot ... on a bike or in a 2200 lb. roadster. But that amounts to no more than getting out and pushing the vehicle when you actually have some weight.

huntzinger · May 2002

So, do you really think those vehicles wouldn't have gone faster with more oomph??

Without a higher engine redline? Without a change in gearing? Absolutely not.

BTW...have you ever heard of Bob Hall? (the guy I quoted)

"

Let's face it, we know it starts with the driver, but there is just so far you can go before you gotta take a look at your equipment.

Sure. Now let's find an example. What percentage of your S70's ultimate performance potential do you think you're personally capable of getting out of the car? Sure, you might get 90% of acceleration (who doesn't?), but how about the full package? Have you ever taken it to an Autocross to safely learn where its limits are?

FWIW, since you know where Rt 3 is, then you've probably have seen some of the local clubs out running the Autocross cones out in the parking lots at Giants Stadium. If you haven't, take a drive by in 3 weeks, on June 15th, to see one.

There are few things more humbling and ego-brusing than to run the course nice and clean, and then see some guy in some "LOSER" car beat your lap times by a healthy margin.

As such, I don't find it at all surprising that a modified GTI could "keep up" with even an M-coupe. There are so many variables other than simple horsepower to consider.

-hh

ranald · May 2002

Is there any point in even attempting a discussion with you when all you do is spout what amount to irrelevent platitudes?

I think people would agree with most of what you say. The problem is that it has precious little to do with the thread you latched onto as your venue to preach to the ignorant masses.

Aside from matters of topicality, your attempts at pedantry(?) fail. If you're going to descend to nit-picking and technicalities, you'd better be right.

So, do you really think those vehicles wouldn't have gone faster with more oomph??

Without a higher engine redline? Without a change in gearing? Absolutely not.

Assuming you're talking strictly about top speed for rev-limited cars.

If you're talking about acceleration you're just plain wrong. If the top speed is drag limited, you're wrong again.

Also as a tip, it's generally a bad idea to baslessly assume the people you're talking to are completely ignorant. Not sure why you'd do that, but it certainly is irritating.

revdrluv · May 2002

I wish Ford would get their build quality issues under control (which I sincerely believe they can and will do over the next four years).
Then I wish they would offer the Focus RS over here at a price competetive to the WRX and RSX-S. They would sell it in small numbers of course. They probably worry about product overlap with the Mustang GT, but I think it is worth it. Ford is known as the dynamic leader in the UK and I would love to see them fill that role here.

domingos35 · May 2002

Just picked up a TIBURON GT V6 AUTO,CARBON BLUE.what a blast,great ride,fast,fun to drive.paid $18069 for it.another guy bought a red GT V6.

qbrozen · June 2002

Ranald is absolutely right. These vehicles I'm referring to couldn't hit their redline in top gear even if going down a steep hill. And, for acceleration, more power would absoultely have helped those cars.

actually, I don't know where Rt. 3 is. You're confusing me with another poster (I'm not going to look back to find his name).

Have I taken my s70 to autocross? no. Why? I'm not racing it .... yet. Its my daily driver. I'm not putting it through that kind of punishment till its much older and I have another car to take its place on the highways. But, aside from that, I don't recall ever saying I am the best driver I can be. We weren't talking about me. We were talking about vehicles.

And, when we are talking about cars and comparing them, such as here in this forum. You simply can't say they are all equal because the slowest one would be driven by the best driver. You have to eliminate all other variables and take the machine for exactly what it is. Anything else is subjective, pointless, and self-defeating. If you want to go and start a discussion titled "Given any variable parameters you want to dream up, which vehicle is the best?" then be my guest.

rickrover · June 2002

shov6 My poser comment really wasn't meant to describe all BMW and Lexus owners - but we all know there are people that "wear" their cars rather than drive them - I was referring to that contingent. As a matter of fact my other "car" is a 2001 BMW X5 that is a fantastic all around vehicle. The X is my 6th BMW- I was actually intent on a new E46 M3 when I bought the X5 and GTI about a month apart last year. I decided that the X and GTI were a better fit for my needs than the M3 alone. So even as a long time BMW owner many of my fellow BMW owners make me cringe.

gbrozen - You are correct - I couldn't touch a 2002 MCoupe with the 315 hp engine. Two of my freinds have 99 and 2000 M Coupes with the 240 HP engine - those are the ones I keep up with. The guy that has the 99 also has an 01 M3 convertable with 333 HP that leaves us all in the dust. AND I just found out another guy I know purchased a 99 M Coupe yesterday with 30k miles on it for $25k - I'll see it for the first time this afternoon. As for the 330ci - another guy we all hang with has a 2001 with sport package automatic that my GTI beats every weekend. Plus 2 S4's one basically stock that I keep up with and a modified one that can hang with the M3 convertable pretty well. In fact the 2000 M Coupe is in my garage right now with the X and GTI it's been there over a month while my freind gets his new house built.

Probably the most outrageous guy we all hang with is Sam - he's got a highly modified supercharged VR6 Jetta that is capable of smoking everything above - no kidding - he beats C5 Vettes.

We are a close knit bunch that meet every Saturday night - we ususally go to a deserted tech center industrial park with winding roads to beat on our cars and test the latest mod on someones car. Sometimes we put an autoX track together with cones in a well lighted parking lot for fun - I usually make it back home around 4am on Sunday. All of our significant others are really understanding. The cops pretty much leave us alone, we know all the cops that patrol this area - we've even had one join us on one of our autoX tracks in his Crown Vic - that was a hoot. I've even taken my X5 to these events on occaison - it does very well on the track. We know the guy that owns the industrial park and have his permission to hang there which helps.

As far as handling goes - RWD does have an advantage over my GTI to a point, it really comes down to the skill of the driver though. What I like about autoX is it has more to do with driver skill - equipment really plays a minor roll - unless you set a track up that has some room to accelerate.

One last point - huntzinger - the 1.8t is extremely reliable, it's massively over-engineered in typical german fashion. I don't know anyone that's had problems with a modified 1.8t - it can easily handle up to 300 HP. I won't take mine past it's current level with FWD. I hang on VW vortex a lot and know the service manager at my VW dealer well - 1.8t's are very reliable modified or not.

qbrozen · June 2002

Ah, ok. Makes sense. Wow. $25K for the m-coupe. I'm really jealous. If i could have found a deal like that when I was shopping for a car, I definitely think I could have convinced my wife to let me go for it. Of course, she doesn't really like the looks of that car - i love it.

The "club" sounds like a lot of fun. I won't ask you to give too much away, but can you say at least what state you live in?

As far as RWD vs. FWD, we won't get into that too much here. Its a neverending battle, to say the least. But, rick is right, the driver has alot to do with it. The handling characteristics are obviously different and its the driver's experience and ability to make it work for him that really makes the difference. I'm sure many of us have seen the races on speed channel where the Integras are beating out the BMWs, so I don't see how there is a definitive answer.

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

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles