I won't get into it either, but rickrover comments about reaching power limits with FWD are right on. Up to 200-hp or so, there are some excellent-handling FWD cars out there and a well-driven FWD car should be able to hang with an equivalent RWD car. But beyond this, the issues of weight shift start to predominate and you really overburden the front tires to ask them to generate cornering loads and lay down 250-hp out of a turn.
In the GTI or similar cars, some minor-hop ups are fairly cost effective, but it seems pretty ridiculous to sink $15K into a 300-hp GTI when you could spend the $34K on some really fine RWD cars. I, for one, would much rather be in a RWD 225-hp 330ci vs. a FWD 300-hp GTI.
I'm getting a 337 and my plan is to leave the engine fairly stock, maybe chip it to low-200's after I've driven it a while. As others have stated, I'll take a car with more chassis than engine over the other way around any day. Car with appropriate balance between the two are just a blast to drive - Miatas are a good example.
"So, do you really think those vehicles wouldn't have gone faster with more oomph?? "
If you're talking about acceleration you're just plain wrong.
True. I wasn't talking about acceleration: "faster" is obviously descriptive of velocity.
If the top speed is drag limited, you're wrong again.
True, but that's an "if" that doesn't apply for the examples cited. You need <52hp for 80mph for most vehicles and all of the examples had higher HP ratings than that.
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).
Sorry - my confusion.
Have I taken my s70 to autocross? no. Why? I'm not racing it .... yet. Its my daily driver.
I really recommend AutoX for anyone who's sincerely interested in learning how to drive better. Its really an inexpensive way to learn in a safe environment...and a handful fo sessions is not really "abusive" to the hardware, either.
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.
No offense intended. My observation is that we've all got inflated ego's about how wonderful of a driver we are (myself included).
Consequently, when we get together to "talk cars", the inevitable temptation is that we try to ignore our individual contributions when trying to determine if X or Y will be the faster car and buy to the numbers, often rationalizing a couple of $K's here and there. The irony is that the biggest bang for the buck for "all" of us is not hardware, but driver training.
You simply can't say they are all equal because the slowest one would be driven by the best driver
You're getting there. If we were to go out and get some lap time in a bunch of different vehicles, what we'll find is that our times are going to vary all over the place, even within the same hardware.
Which means that for a reasonable set of similar cars, our learning curve is going to be a more significant contributor to our lap times than the actual hardware differences between the cars.
...You have to eliminate all other variables and take the machine for exactly what it is.
Yes, we can try to do this. The problem is that we can't ignore the contribution of the driver, and an analysis of variance is going to show that the car-to-car differences are probably not going to be statistically significant because there's too much "noise", due to the human factors contribution.
Anything else is subjective, pointless, and self-defeating.
What's pointless IMO is claiming that there's a huge significance between pragmatically close performance numbers. Find a friend who does Auto-X or Drag Races and ask them what the typical difference is between their best/worst times on the same day are like for 5 or more runs. Don't be terribly surprised if its a quick 5-10%.
Holy cow! I see the light! Ok, fellas, pack it up! We can all go home now! No need discussing performance numbers ever again! Woohoo! That's a load off my mind! Here I kept thinking I wanted a Ferrari before I die. Little did I know that, with a bit of training, my Forester is just as good. So, all comparison discussions here on Edmunds are pointless. We were wrong all this time. Thank goodness there are people like huntzinger around to straighten us out. Sorry, edmunds.com. Looks like you're out of business. You've been found out.
'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'm in Florida - there is a huge import performance scene here. We call our get together the Euro meet - don't remember where that came from, but it stuck.
I saw the 99 M Coupe that my friend picked up last week - he actually paid $23,300 for it! It is in excellent shape 29k, miles and has about a year of factory warranty left. It has a ton of factory accessories on it with some Dinan stuff thrown in as well. FYI - the market for M Coupes is exremely soft at the moment, apparently $5k below book is not uncommon. He thought an M Coupe was out of his price range, he was looking at E36 M3's and WRX. He was actually going to buy a WRX the next day when he found the Coupe on a Lexus dealers back lot, he was there looking at a very used M3 - the Coupe was on it's way to the auction. It's Estoril blue with the matching blue and black Nappa leather interior, sunroof, etc, etc... I had no idea M Coupes were so cheap - the other 2 guys with Coupes are not too happy by the way.
Holy cow! I see the light! ... Thank goodness there are people like huntzinger around to straighten us out
Glad to have obliged. But remember that advice is only worth what you paid for it :-)
BTW, since you seem to place so much significance on a half second difference between published 0-60's, how do you feel that they apply to real life driving? Does your car reek of toasted clutch liner? :-)
It seems that some people have a strange degree of difficulty understanding that "performance" under a given set of conditions is a function of 2 variables- the car and the driver.
There seem to be some folks (like huntzinger) around here who focus on only one input- the driver. They preach and preach and preach about how everyone else is guilty of focusing on only one input- the car. Even if they were correct (which they are not) at best it would be a pot, kettle, black situation.
BTW, since you seem to place so much significance on a half second difference between published 0-60's, how do you feel that they apply to real life driving? Does your car reek of toasted clutch liner? :-)
Did it ever occur to you that some people might want a car with a higher performance potential so that they could negotiate a difficult merge/short onramp *without* having to toast a clutch? That they *prefer* not having to drive a car to it's limits, and they choose a "faster" car so they can drive it at a lower percentage of it's potential and still squeeze out the same results?
There seem to be some folks (like huntzinger) around here who focus on only one input- the driver.
Wrong; that's not what I've been saying.
What I've said is that the contribution of the driver is generally so large that its foolhardy to ignore it when looking at the performance numbers.
Suppose C&D tested two different cars that you're really interested in buying. The test was done on the same exact day, with the same driver and so on. The one posted a 0-60 time of X seconds and the other posted X+Y seconds.
Obviously, if Y is really small, we're going to conclude that there's no significant difference between the cars for this test ...its a "wash".
Similarly, how large can Y become until we say that there now is finally a significant enough difference to pay real attention to?
For you personally, what is your threshold for significance? Is it 5 milliseconds? 50 milliseconds? 500 milliseconds? 5000 milliseconds?
Did it ever occur to you that some people might want a car with a higher performance potential...
Before I agree, I need to ask: are these "never going to flog" supposed to be the same people who are talking about chipping their cars for more HP? :-)
Might they also be the people who seem to always be carrying an extra 75lbs of junk in their trunk? :-)
I have no problem with wanting more performance.
I simply disagree that the "biggest bang for the buck" for us is that aftermarket chip, a low restriction exhaust, new tires/rims, or whatever. We collectively have a fixation on hardware at the expense of personal skills training, and its not something that's unique to automobiles. Its "immediate gratification". $500 for a day at the Panoz driving school isn't a lot of money for what it gives back, but too many of us will buy some goofy performance mod instead...while still lacking the skill to exploit the stock car to its potential.
Your last paragraph is finally more reasonable, huntzinger. Of course, we know you've been saying that and we have yet to disagree with you on that point. But what you've also been saying is that it makes no sense for someone to buy car A because it is faster than car B.
Its really a simple concept. You are you no matter what car you are in. It is only common sense to look at performance numbers from a source and say "ok, car A is faster than car B. Therefore, I can go faster in car A." Now, can you necessarily MATCH the numbers you are looking at? No. BUT, it is safe to assume that your abilities will carry through consistently from car A to car B. So, maybe you can only launch a car to 60 in 7 seconds when the source tells you they did it in 6.5. BUT, most likely, and given only a slight variance, you will only get 7.5 out of a car that the source says can do it in 7.0.
So, put it this way: wherever I am at a given point in time with whatever road conditions I'm faced with, whatever is in my trunk, barometric pressure, alignment of the planets, etc., if I am driving car A and it is faster than car B, then I will go faster in car A. NOW, what you are saying is that if I'm in car A at that point in time and someone else is next to me in car B, the driver is what makes the difference. And that, obviously, is correct and sensible.
Oh yeah. To answer your other question about the smell in my car. No. Like I said quite a while back, I can accelerate quite well without spinning my tires. Likewise, I don't need to burn clutch. But, what can I attribute this to? My hardware. It is a powerful enough car that I don't need to make a ridiculously hard launch to get what I need out of it. BUT, to use this as an example, if I had bought car B and it is 1/2 a second slower according to a professional source, then it would STILL be 1/2 a second slower for me in the real world when I launch it in my preferred manner.
'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
It is only common sense to look at performance numbers from a source and say "ok, car A is faster than car B. Therefore, I can go faster in car A
This assumes similar handling characteristics between vehicles so that driver skills are transferable - - not always true - - but I agree with you.
So, maybe you can only launch a car to 60 in 7 seconds when the source tells you they did it in 6.5. BUT, most likely, and given only a slight variance, you will only get 7.5 out of a car that the source says can do it in 7.0.
And we'll only get that with practice, because driver skills are perishable. The rest of the time, we'll probably launch both cars at ~8.5 sec.
And when we go away to college for 3 months, take a two week vacation, or drive the spouse's minivan for a month, this perishable skill will become even more stale and we'll be lucky to be under 9. The half second difference up front is now moot.
Problem is that you keep acting like EVERYONE is in the same boat.
Let's check that: how many readers here ever taken a professional performance driving course? Participated in an Auto-X? And equally relevant, have done this type of training this year? For those who have, you're the exception.
That, somehow, you are the end all and be all of a driver...
Oh, not at all. I'm merely an average driver, who, like everyone else, just THINKS he's vastly superior :-). I'm as full of "it" as the next guy.
... and everyone that has a car which exceeds the performance potential of your own must not know how to drive it. And that is just plain wrong.
Yes, that's a wrong interpretation. I've just seen really great drivers and really lousy ones. The one thing that you simply can't assume is that someone with a good car is also a good driver. Or vice versa.
And when it comes to discussions on cars, it seems that the ones who are fixated about the "numbers" are all too frequently the poorest of drivers. My personal reaction to this, which is my advice is to not to be too worried about what any of the individual numbers say: just use them for guidance and ignore anyone who makes profound claims about X vs Y. Ultimately what matters is how the car performs on a good, thorough test drive, not the numbers.
I get defensive when someone comes along and accuses me of something I didn't do, or lectures me as if I'm ignorant of something I already know.
Just so you know, I drive a Civic coupe. Auto. Stock, except for replacing the damn awful OEM Firestones. It's a commuter car, and most of the time I baby it (except I like aggressive cornering). Most of the time I couldn't care less about acceleration.
I don't think I'm the testorterone-poisoned, engine-blowing youth you're addressing. I don't have much sympathy myself for street racer types who feel a need to brag about how fast their car is, who abuse their cars terribly and then wonder why they blow engines and eat transmissions and clutches.
However, there are situations where what I consider safe driving requires somewhat more acceleration than I know (from long experience) my car can provide. I am also decently aware of my limitations as a driver. While short on formal traning, I've had lessons from an experienced auto-x'ing friend.
When I consider magazine 0-60 times for cars, I don't get excited about the # itself. I get excited comparing the 0-60 # to the posted 0-60 # for my car, knowing that other things (like my own skill) being equal, I'm likely to be that much faster getting up to speed trying to get to the bookstore in Clifton.
I think most of the people here think the same way. No need to preach to the choir.
We all do. My hot button was to respond to a claim that a performance difference of 0.34 sec was significant.
Just so you know, I drive a Civic coupe.
I used to have a Civic 1200. Fun car, despite its 52HP and skinny 12" tires.
I don't have much sympathy myself for street racer types who feel a need to brag about how fast their car is, who abuse their cars terribly and then wonder why they blow engines and eat transmissions and clutches.
Nor do I. Unfortunately, the general affordability of this segment does seem to attract them, so some preaching is going to occur. Personally, I'd like to see more of the Audi A3 and BMW 3xx-TI's be brought to the USA to give us (allegedly :-) "more mature" buyers some more upscale options. I've also recently learned what a pain driving with bifocals are (still trying to get used to the outside left mirror, etc).
I am also decently aware of my limitations as a driver... While short on formal training, I've had lessons from an experienced auto-x'ing friend.
Pointers help only if the student is willing to learn, and time behind the wheel putting theory into practice is invaluable. My wife was "put off" by my suggestion of going to the track, due to real or perceived speed issues, although we did have a friend who tracked motorcycles and died in a crash a few years ago. IMO, the best place to start "slow" around the cones, as your top speeds on a wide-open course will usually be <70mph. I just did some web searching and I think this URL looks like a pretty good start; it also has some links to clubs which aren't all marquee-specific.
huntzinger, when did someone "claim that a performance difference of 0.34 sec was significant."?
You went off when I said I ruled out the mercedes because it did not meet 2 major criteria of mine. I never said it was significant. Only that I had limits in my mind that it didn't meet. We all gotta draw the line somewhere. If we didn't, we'd all be driving Navigators around. Hell, I even said I might own one right now if a nicely loaded one at least fell in my pricerange. So I think that more than proves that acceleration wasn't the defining point of my purchase. Oh, and I said I wanted it to be a second faster, not .34.
'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
when did someone "claim that a performance difference of 0.34 sec was significant."?
Its a couple pages back for those who wish to kick sleeping dogs and "who struck John" instead of moving forward. Look for a Focus SVT vs C230 comparison, which if you then go and check Edmunds, compares out as 7.46 & 7.8 sec.
I never said it was significant.
I agree that it is banally meaningless, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder: only someone who considered that small difference to be significant would have bothered to mention it in the first place. If you want to debate its significance, please go argue with the guy who brought it up.
...I even said I might own one right now if a nicely loaded one at least fell in my price range.
I'd take a gift horse too, but that doesn't have much to do with what type of vehicle I might be shopping for and what my budget plan is. For example, with your current ride being the T-5, I would have assumed you to be looking at ~~$30K. So what is your general budget, what are you looking for the car to do, how seriously are you shopping, and what are your (other :-) personal design biases?
"Actually, the SVT slightly beats the C230 from 0-60" is what gbrozen said. To me "slightly" doesn't imply he ever thought it was a significant difference.
And in reality, the C230 can actually be launched slightly faster to 60 than the SVT Focus anyway. Mercedes claims 7.2, a number confirmed by Motor Trend, whereas the fastest SVT Focus time I've seen has been 7.4 if I remember right.
To me "slightly" doesn't imply he ever thought it was a significant difference.
Suggest you read Chmeeee's statement immediately prior (#207), which puts the remark in context.
And in reality ... Mercedes claims 7.2
And 7.5 with the Automatic. BTW, now that mine is getting some broken in (and I'm staying out of the throttle), the Stick's EPA 28mpg Highway seems pretty close to reality. I'm also pleasantly surprised by how well the dashboard computer's mpg prediction is correlating, too.
sorry. Thought you were going off something I said.
And, gotenks, I was going off Edmunds number for the C230 which is 7.8.
hunt - the T5 is what I bought. Its a '98 with 30K miles for $20K and it is like new (got it back in August). My budget was slightly negotiable, but I really needed to keep it around $22K. Problem is that I'm very picky about my cars. I always get bored quick and want to change. My wife said I had to find something this time that I would want to keep for a LONG time. Given that, I knew I wanted an upscale car (i.e. power leather seats, good build quality, powerful, etc.). Like I said before, though, I did come close to a WRX. Rather than upscale, in that case, I was just so enamored with how at home I felt driving that car. Like it was a part of me. But, anyway, after some time I realized that I would probably regret spending almost $25K on a car just for its drivetrain. So it was back to the drawing board. Anyway, I realized it would probably be used. Other than the luxury aspects, I wanted good resale numbers, reliability (I know, I know, I've heard all the S70 naysayers and I decided it was negligible), and the acceleration and passing power which we've already covered, and decent handling, all for under $22k.
Well, as you can see, this is why I like the Mini so much. Granted, the reliability and resale have yet to be seen, but I have faith. I would have looked at the GTI, too, but my wife has got a thing against VWs (don't ask).
'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
If you actually look at the various magazines that have tested both of these cars, you will see that they both range from about 7.2 seconds to 7.8. Thus, some are saying the SVT is faster while others slower. This really kind of proved Huntsinger's point that is does all comes down to driver ability, and just as importantly, local conditions (not to take sides ;-) Just my $.02
For those who aren't aware, the Focus SVT just won ANOTHER magazine comparo. New Road and Track, on newsstands now... So that would be a clean sweep of the top spot in comparos from R&T, Car and Driver, and Automobile.
For all I know they've done the same in the pages of Motor Trend, but I can't quite bring myself to read that particular publication anymore (puberty having been long since left behind and all).
Not to start the debate fully raging again, but all it proves is that driver ability is a variable that affects times.
Agreed. What it does do is give us a handle on the magnitude of its contribution to performance, so that we then know what's a small enough variation to ignore.
It most definitely doesn't prove that "it all comes down to driver ability".
Sure; nothing is ever going to be an absolute. It just means that we can have numbers that are close enough to be considered a tie, so we'll have to go find some other factor if we're determined to pick a winner/loser.
...the Focus SVT just won ANOTHER magazine comparo...
I don't know if it applies to the SVT, but I thought I read in last Sunday's newspaper that the Focus is now the subject of two more recalls and that brings the total to date to eight. Is this correct?
the T5 is what I bought. Its a '98 with 30K miles for $20K and it is like new (got it back in August)... Problem is that I'm very picky about my cars. I always get bored quick and want to change.
Bored in just 9 months? (Egads!)
FWIW, what's the longest you've ever owned an individual car, and what was it?
My wife said I had to find something this time that I would want to keep for a LONG time.
I'll agree with your wife :-). Cars are a huge financial drain and if you're rotating through them this quickly, you're doomed to a downward spiral of what level of car you can afford to afford.
Other than the luxury aspects, I wanted good resale numbers, reliability [...] and the acceleration and passing power which we've already covered, and decent handling, all for under $22k.
In thinking about this some, have you considered addressing your "boredom problem" by having two cars? Namely a daily driver and a toy car?
I'd be inclined to suggest keeping what you have, and spending $10K on a used fun car. Maybe an older GTI, perhaps a Miata, etc. Whatever floats your boat.
And on the insurance front in NJ, if you're with the right company and pick your options carefully, you won't get taken to the cleaners. For example, my 911 is under $900/year.
I'm not being too clear. I don't want to change now. The T5 is what I bought when I was last looking. I did a tremendous amount of researching and test driving. I'm glad I did because I found what I want. I love this car and won't give it up (I hope). BUT, yeah, in the past, I have changed often. My first vehicle was a Jeep CJ7. I probably would have had that for a while, but the black ice took its life for me after about 15 months. Had a beater car in the interim for about a year before getting an '87 4Runner. That proved to be the longest lasting vehicle for me so far. Had that 4 years. Of course, I was in college during that time so changing cars wasn't really an option. When I got out and got a job, I bought a new '97 Dakota Extended Cab V8. That was a really nice truck. BUT, after getting into an accident 2 years later, it woke me up to the fact that a car is much more manuverable and if I wasn't driving a truck I could have avoided that accident. So I traded that in on a '99 Mazda 626 LXV6 automatic. In this case, I really settled. Just wanted out of the truck. Was pleasantly surprised by the Mazda, but I would have been much happier in the long run if I had held out and found myself an ESV6 with a stick. So 2 years later I wanted out of the Mazda (not to mention it was a lease and I was heading to go WAY over on the miles and I didn't want to have to buy it in the end). This is where the Volvo came in.
Altogether, I've owned 11 vehicles in 11 years (but some never saw the road, so they really shouldn't count ).
I do, as a matter of fact, have a toy. Its an '86 Alfa Romeo Spider Veloce. I have NJ Manufacturers Insurance, so I only pay $400 a year for the Alfa. Still needs a good deal of work, though. But it runs good. I just finished replacing the floors in the Spring. Nees a great deal of interior work and a trip to the paint shop. Then it will be a nice driver. I have had it for about 3 years, i think.
My downfall is that I absolutely love cars. Its my biggest passion in life. What would make me truly ecstatic is to have an 8 car garage with 6 of the bays occupied by 6 different cars. 1 for my wife and 5 for me (1 for each day of the week). The 7th bay is for a lift and the 8th is for my tools. :-)
Oh yeah. We actually are still looking for a change, though. This time, its not for me. Its for my wife. She is tired of the Forester after less than 2 years. Is it any wonder we're married? She was even pricing out a MINI after we got back from the auto show this year. But we decided that's just too small to put next to the Volvo. We really need something to haul people with and make those trips to Home Depot and Lowes.
'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 definitely in consideration. We both only like the MPV, though.
We also looked at used Land Rover Discoveries. I'm just worried about repair costs on that one. Not to mention that you have to get one with more than a few miles to bring it into the $20K range.
We're way off topic now.
Well, I still like the hot hatches. It would give some utility. But would it be any better than the Forester? Seems like we'd kinda be sidestepping. Same number of passengers and even less cargo room. If the larger sport wagons jumper seats like the discovery, then that would be a consideration.
'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
Well, I still like the hot hatches. It would give some utility. But would it be any better than the Forester? Seems like we'd kinda be sidestepping. Same number of passengers and even less cargo room.
Yes, that would be a sidestep. But does your household really need two vehicles that are both roughly equally capable (ie, ~4 adult passengers, etc)?
FWIW, our basic configuration is one commuter sled (hot hatch), and one 4-door sedan. After work, it depends on what we're planning on doing as to which car we'll take.
Insofar as "utility stuff" like Home Depot, you don't need an SUV. Most hatches can haul the basic stuff and for larger loads, their truck rental only ~$20. If you don't like their time restriction, or want to haul more, Ryder panel truck start at under $50/day.
And if its a big job, it absolutely pays to pay for delivery, if for no other reason that it leaves you fresh to do the job itself. You'll also find that its less expensive buying by the ton or pallet of rock/stone/sod than by the 50lb bag (or roll of sod).
Also check out your local County's recycling center: some offer free compost or wood chips, and some others will send a full 8 yard dump truck to your house with a load for under $100 (Morris County, NJ).
this is my wife I have to argue with on this. She would like to have 7-passenger capability. My argument is that we would only use that capacity twice a year when her sister comes with the kids and we pick them up at the train station, go to great adventure, etc. Of course, I don't completely believe that you should buy a vehicle strictly for that once or twice a year event. Kinda silly IMHO. But, it is going to be her vehicle, so there is only so much I can push my opinions on her. As far as the Home Depot trips go, I hear what you're saying. Problem is that I find myself doing things like picking up 2 pieces of sheetrock or half a dozen bundles of insulation. Its not worth it to have that kinda stuff delivered or rent a truck for it. I've found that, even with the Forester, we have been forced to use the roofrack many times. I'd say about once a month on average.
Well, maybe when the time comes I can steer her to test drive a mini and we'll see what happens. Problem is that she doesn't drive stick. I really have to remedy that soon. The Alfa is not the easiest thing to learn on, though.
Still waiting to hear from anybody here when they get to test drive a MINI S.
Got another question. Anybody checked out the Base MINI with the CVT??? I would really like to hear about that as well.
'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
At least according to Mazda's advertising department -- ZOOM ZOOM.
It does have the soul of the Miata.
Besides with the stow-away (honda odessey) rear seat, you've have a large station wagon for most of the year. Or take the middle seats out, and you have a rear seat with enough legroom for Shaq
I was on the list for a MINI S for a year and a half. I took one for a test drive a couple of months ago. It handles really well but doesn't seem fast - I'm used to my GTI with the abundance of torque low in the rev range. The MINI S torque arrives much higher so you have to keep RPM's up for it to feel at all responsive. I thought it felt rather sluggish actually - not too impressed. I'm sure the aftermarket will have a fix for this, with a little massaging and upping the HP to 220 or so it will be just fine. Unlike my GTI I wouldn't do anything to the MINI S suspension, it is perfect as is. It is a small car though - no rear seat legroom and no trunk to speak of with the rear seat up, not nearly as functional as something the size of a Golf.
I got my deposit back on the MINI S - My MINI dealer has seen their waiting list evaporate. I didn't like how they were treating their customers - I had a chance to buy 3 S's all had a ton of accessories added on and were priced $2,000 to $3,500 above MSRP with accessories. About a month ago there was no waiting for a MINI and the MINI S list was down to a 9 month wait from a year and a half - these jokers constantly lied so I don't know how true anything they said was. I was supposedly 14 on the S list but they offered me the first S's that they got in. A classic example of a dealer taking all the fun out of a purchase.
As for switching vehicles I get tired of cars too - the niche the GTI fills for me usually lasts a couple of years - I plan to revisit the MINI in a year and a half or so. I'm not at all tired of the GTI, at the moment it's a keeper. Some vehicles I keep and some I tire of after a year or so - I kept a 92 Range Rover County for 9 years and a 170k+ miles - great vehicle, I got a really reliable one. Traded it last year for a BMW X5 that's definately a keeper as well. Performance cars are another story all together for me though.
They are available now? I hadn't heard anything about them actually arriving. I thought they were still only selling the base MINIs.
If they are widely available, I'm amazed that a true road test has yet to appear in any mags. Sure, they all keep writing about it and saying how it feels, but I've been waiting to see some specific performance numbers and have yet to run across any.
As far as MINIs in general, I've only seen 2 or 3 on the road. I guess I shouldn't be too surprised, though. I've only seen maybe a dozen WRXs since they arrived.
'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
You need to get out to your newsstand more. All the major car magazines have published Cooper S road tests in the last issue or two. And they all say the same thing: great chassis, cramped (but given the overall dimensions, what can you expect?), engine a little thrashy but scoots pretty well in the S if you keep it revved, style and charisma out the wazoo. Of course, the New Beetle had style and charisma out the wazoo when it first appeared too and now sales are WAY down.
Another issue on the Mini - there is no way I'd trust BMW not to have major, major bugs in a completely new platform the first year. I might trust Honda, but not BMW. The X5 is a great vehicle, but the first year problems are out of sight. And the Mini started completely from scratch.
I've collected every article for about a year and a half - I have a shelf full of MINI articles. A bunch of articles on the S have hit in the past couple of months. You can walk right into your local MINI dealer and test drive an S today - probably buy one too. My local MINI dealer has seen their waiting lists evaporate.
As for buying a first year BMW - BMW takes really good care of it's customers. I bought a 92 BMW 3 series when they first came out - I had the 3rd E36 325is that was delivered to my dealer back then. I didn't have anything major go wrong with it, it had some minor issues in the beginning but ended up being an extremely reliable car for over 100k miles.
I have a 2001 X5 I purchased last November that hasn't had a single problem in 10k miles. X5's had a couple minor issues when they first came out that were quickly fixed - by the time I bought mine the few minor bugs were worked out. My X5 is the most reliable new car I think I've ever had. BMW will take really good care of you in any case - I wouldn't be too concerned about first year issues.
My GTI has had a couple of minor issues - no big deal - the dealer took care of them and all is well.
I've seen several articles that are just talk. That's not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for a real test that will give us numbers. I want to know the acceleration data, road handling data, real world gas mileage, etc. I don't want to just read about how a writer "feels" about the car.
If you have a mag on hand that has this kind of data, please post it or at least tell me which one I have to go buy to find out. Thanks.
'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
gbrozen, like I said earlier, you need to get out to your newsstand more. July 2002 Car&Driver, pg. 138 - a complete "real test". I believe all three of the major car magazines have published full tests of the Cooper S recently, although C&D is the only one I subscribe to and have in front of me.
then c'mon with the stats already. What do I gotta do around here? Do you work for C&D? Are you going to make me go out and find it?
Who are the majors? The only one I get to my house is Motor Trend and they still have no hard data. Only a road test from the creative writing standpoint.
C&D hasn't updated their website if they did get some real data. Estimates and Not Availables all over their MINI S data. But, the car mags are usually slow with their web updates.
'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 have read comments that claim the Cooper 'S' model feels slower than the Base MINI model. I think the MINI is best enjoyed with the 115HP engine and a 5 speed manual. It saves at least $2K from the purchase price and don't have to put up with the long waiting lists of the Cooper S model.
160HP in the MINI is overkill IMO. I expect better relibility and durability in the 115HP base version.
After all, MINIs were meant to be simple. lightweight and fuel efficient cars, right?
Kinda makes you wonder what the engineers did wrong. What is the base Mini quarter mile? Maybe the S has much more passing power??
As far as handling, does the S really have anything over the base model with the sport suspension plus option? (aside from the 17" wheels which, personally, I wouldn't want) I guess I could read all the specifics and compare. Maybe I'll get around to it if nobody else knows offhand.
'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've read two tests of the Mini and Cooper S. One (C&D) said the S was worth the extra dough - throttle response was much improved and the engine was much less thrashy. The other (forget, but probably Road & Track) had the opposite view - the S is putting lipstick on a six-year-old and the car is best enjoyed not as a fast performance machine, but a funky economy car with go-kart handling.
For me, I wouldn't consider either until BWM has at least a year to exorcise the bugs and the hoopla dies down. I also heard a rumor that BMW is quite unhappy with the Chrysler-built engine and work is already underway to replace it with a BMW design - the current engine may only last two model years.
All in all, I think waiting a year or so on a Mini makes sense. In the interim, drive what you have now, or get the SVT or GTI, depending on whether you want a great-handling hatch or a muscle hatch.
I'm trying to get a bit of both in a GTI 337 on order, but VW is having a devil of a time getting them to dealers - all kinds of rumors are floating around about recalls and missing parts with cars sitting at the ports for a month or more gathering dust while awaiting repairs or parts - VW is saying absolutely nothing. This sorta confirms to me what I've heard about VW's for awhile - great designs, flawed by a miserable distibution/dealer network and lousy customer support.
This is the first time I'm hearing this. Where did you get that info? Everything I had read early on suggested this was pure BMW design. Was that info all wrong?
'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 drove both - The MINI seems to have more low end torque than the S. The S feels sluggish unless you keep the revs up which gets annoying after awhile. The base MINI has a more responsive relaxed feel to it - these are all seat of the pants observations by me. The only MINI I haven't driven is the CVT, I want to check one of those out. I did drive a CVT Audi A4 with the 1.8t and 3.0 engines and was very impressed. If a CVT MINI performs the way the A4 does with CVT it will be an excellent choice for someone who doesn't like to shift for themselves.
Sorry, I don't have a hard reference for the rumor that BMW is going to change the Mini engine, but I recall reading something about it in print, perhaps in one of the BMW owner magazines like Roundel.
If you hold off on the Mini because there might be a new engine in a few years, don't get an SVT in the interim - it WILL have a new engine within 3 years. Probably. The regular Focus will have the duratec by the 2004 model year (in fact, some areas of the US will have the PZEV duratec in 2003).
I've seen a few Minis on the road, but saw my first parked one. I walked around it and it is bigger than I expected. I think it's about the same size as the old Civic hatchback I used to have. The paint job was very nice, the wheels were very nice, the interior was ok. I'm not a big fan of the speedo in the middle of the dash. I would consider buying one, though.
Comments
In the GTI or similar cars, some minor-hop ups are fairly cost effective, but it seems pretty ridiculous to sink $15K into a 300-hp GTI when you could spend the $34K on some really fine RWD cars. I, for one, would much rather be in a RWD 225-hp 330ci vs. a FWD 300-hp GTI.
I'm getting a 337 and my plan is to leave the engine fairly stock, maybe chip it to low-200's after I've driven it a while. As others have stated, I'll take a car with more chassis than engine over the other way around any day. Car with appropriate balance between the two are just a blast to drive - Miatas are a good example.
- Mark
If you're talking about acceleration you're just plain wrong.
True. I wasn't talking about acceleration: "faster" is obviously descriptive of velocity.
If the top speed is drag limited, you're wrong again.
True, but that's an "if" that doesn't apply for the examples cited. You need <52hp for 80mph for most vehicles and all of the examples had higher HP ratings than that.
-hh
Sorry - my confusion.
Have I taken my s70 to autocross? no. Why? I'm not racing it .... yet. Its my daily driver.
I really recommend AutoX for anyone who's sincerely interested in learning how to drive better. Its really an inexpensive way to learn in a safe environment...and a handful fo sessions is not really "abusive" to the hardware, either.
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.
No offense intended. My observation is that we've all got inflated ego's about how wonderful of a driver we are (myself included).
Consequently, when we get together to "talk cars", the inevitable temptation is that we try to ignore our individual contributions when trying to determine if X or Y will be the faster car and buy to the numbers, often rationalizing a couple of $K's here and there. The irony is that the biggest bang for the buck for "all" of us is not hardware, but driver training.
You simply can't say they are all equal because the slowest one would be driven by the best driver
You're getting there. If we were to go out and get some lap time in a bunch of different vehicles, what we'll find is that our times are going to vary all over the place, even within the same hardware.
Which means that for a reasonable set of similar cars, our learning curve is going to be a more significant contributor to our lap times than the actual hardware differences between the cars.
...You have to eliminate all other variables and take the machine for exactly what it is.
Yes, we can try to do this. The problem is that we can't ignore the contribution of the driver, and an analysis of variance is going to show that the car-to-car differences are probably not going to be statistically significant because there's too much "noise", due to the human factors contribution.
Anything else is subjective, pointless, and self-defeating.
What's pointless IMO is claiming that there's a huge significance between pragmatically close performance numbers. Find a friend who does Auto-X or Drag Races and ask them what the typical difference is between their best/worst times on the same day are like for 5 or more runs. Don't be terribly surprised if its a quick 5-10%.
-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
I saw the 99 M Coupe that my friend picked up last week - he actually paid $23,300 for it! It is in excellent shape 29k, miles and has about a year of factory warranty left. It has a ton of factory accessories on it with some Dinan stuff thrown in as well. FYI - the market for M Coupes is exremely soft at the moment, apparently $5k below book is not uncommon. He thought an M Coupe was out of his price range, he was looking at E36 M3's and WRX. He was actually going to buy a WRX the next day when he found the Coupe on a Lexus dealers back lot, he was there looking at a very used M3 - the Coupe was on it's way to the auction. It's Estoril blue with the matching blue and black Nappa leather interior, sunroof, etc, etc... I had no idea M Coupes were so cheap - the other 2 guys with Coupes are not too happy by the way.
Glad to have obliged. But remember that advice is only worth what you paid for it :-)
BTW, since you seem to place so much significance on a half second difference between published 0-60's, how do you feel that they apply to real life driving? Does your car reek of toasted clutch liner? :-)
-hh
There seem to be some folks (like huntzinger) around here who focus on only one input- the driver. They preach and preach and preach about how everyone else is guilty of focusing on only one input- the car. Even if they were correct (which they are not) at best it would be a pot, kettle, black situation.
BTW, since you seem to place so much
significance on a half second difference
between published 0-60's, how do you feel
that they apply to real life driving?
Does your car reek of toasted clutch
liner? :-)
Did it ever occur to you that some people might want a car with a higher performance potential so that they could negotiate a difficult merge/short onramp *without* having to toast a clutch? That they *prefer* not having to drive a car to it's limits, and they choose a "faster" car so they can drive it at a lower percentage of it's potential and still squeeze out the same results?
Wrong; that's not what I've been saying.
What I've said is that the contribution of the driver is generally so large that its foolhardy to ignore it when looking at the performance numbers.
Suppose C&D tested two different cars that you're really interested in buying. The test was done on the same exact day, with the same driver and so on. The one posted a 0-60 time of X seconds and the other posted X+Y seconds.
Obviously, if Y is really small, we're going to conclude that there's no significant difference between the cars for this test ...its a "wash".
Similarly, how large can Y become until we say that there now is finally a significant enough difference to pay real attention to?
For you personally, what is your threshold for significance?
Is it 5 milliseconds? 50 milliseconds? 500 milliseconds? 5000 milliseconds?
Did it ever occur to you that some people might want a car with a higher performance potential...
Before I agree, I need to ask: are these "never going to flog" supposed to be the same people who are talking about chipping their cars for more HP? :-)
Might they also be the people who seem to always be carrying an extra 75lbs of junk in their trunk? :-)
I have no problem with wanting more performance.
I simply disagree that the "biggest bang for the buck" for us is that aftermarket chip, a low restriction exhaust, new tires/rims, or whatever. We collectively have a fixation on hardware at the expense of personal skills training, and its not something that's unique to automobiles. Its "immediate gratification". $500 for a day at the Panoz driving school isn't a lot of money for what it gives back, but too many of us will buy some goofy performance mod instead...while still lacking the skill to exploit the stock car to its potential.
-hh
Its really a simple concept. You are you no matter what car you are in. It is only common sense to look at performance numbers from a source and say "ok, car A is faster than car B. Therefore, I can go faster in car A." Now, can you necessarily MATCH the numbers you are looking at? No. BUT, it is safe to assume that your abilities will carry through consistently from car A to car B. So, maybe you can only launch a car to 60 in 7 seconds when the source tells you they did it in 6.5. BUT, most likely, and given only a slight variance, you will only get 7.5 out of a car that the source says can do it in 7.0.
So, put it this way: wherever I am at a given point in time with whatever road conditions I'm faced with, whatever is in my trunk, barometric pressure, alignment of the planets, etc., if I am driving car A and it is faster than car B, then I will go faster in car A. NOW, what you are saying is that if I'm in car A at that point in time and someone else is next to me in car B, the driver is what makes the difference. And that, obviously, is correct and sensible.
Oh yeah. To answer your other question about the smell in my car. No. Like I said quite a while back, I can accelerate quite well without spinning my tires. Likewise, I don't need to burn clutch. But, what can I attribute this to? My hardware. It is a powerful enough car that I don't need to make a ridiculously hard launch to get what I need out of it. BUT, to use this as an example, if I had bought car B and it is 1/2 a second slower according to a professional source, then it would STILL be 1/2 a second slower for me in the real world when I launch it in my preferred manner.
'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
This assumes similar handling characteristics between vehicles so that driver skills are transferable - - not always true - - but I agree with you.
So, maybe you can only launch a car to 60 in 7 seconds when the source tells you they did it in 6.5. BUT, most likely, and given only a slight variance, you will only get 7.5 out of a car that the source says can do it in 7.0.
And we'll only get that with practice, because driver skills are perishable. The rest of the time, we'll probably launch both cars at ~8.5 sec.
And when we go away to college for 3 months, take a two week vacation, or drive the spouse's minivan for a month, this perishable skill will become even more stale and we'll be lucky to be under 9. The half second difference up front is now moot.
Problem is that you keep acting like EVERYONE is in the same boat.
Let's check that: how many readers here ever taken a professional performance driving course? Participated in an Auto-X? And equally relevant, have done this type of training this year? For those who have, you're the exception.
That, somehow, you are the end all and be all of a driver...
Oh, not at all. I'm merely an average driver, who, like everyone else, just THINKS he's vastly superior :-). I'm as full of "it" as the next guy.
... and everyone that has a car which exceeds the performance potential of your own must not know how to drive it. And that is just plain wrong.
Yes, that's a wrong interpretation. I've just seen really great drivers and really lousy ones. The one thing that you simply can't assume is that someone with a good car is also a good driver. Or vice versa.
And when it comes to discussions on cars, it seems that the ones who are fixated about the "numbers" are all too frequently the poorest of drivers. My personal reaction to this, which is my advice is to not to be too worried about what any of the individual numbers say: just use them for guidance and ignore anyone who makes profound claims about X vs Y. Ultimately what matters is how the car performs on a good, thorough test drive, not the numbers.
-hh
Just so you know, I drive a Civic coupe. Auto. Stock, except for replacing the damn awful OEM Firestones. It's a commuter car, and most of the time I baby it (except I like aggressive cornering). Most of the time I couldn't care less about acceleration.
I don't think I'm the testorterone-poisoned, engine-blowing youth you're addressing. I don't have much sympathy myself for street racer types who feel a need to brag about how fast their car is, who abuse their cars terribly and then wonder why they blow engines and eat transmissions and clutches.
However, there are situations where what I consider safe driving requires somewhat more acceleration than I know (from long experience) my car can provide. I am also decently aware of my limitations as a driver. While short on formal traning, I've had lessons from an experienced auto-x'ing friend.
When I consider magazine 0-60 times for cars, I don't get excited about the # itself. I get excited comparing the 0-60 # to the posted 0-60 # for my car, knowing that other things (like my own skill) being equal, I'm likely to be that much faster getting up to speed trying to get to the bookstore in Clifton.
I think most of the people here think the same way. No need to preach to the choir.
We all do. My hot button was to respond to a claim that a performance difference of 0.34 sec was significant.
Just so you know, I drive a Civic coupe.
I used to have a Civic 1200. Fun car, despite its 52HP and skinny 12" tires.
I don't have much sympathy myself for street racer types who feel a need to brag about how fast their car is, who abuse their cars terribly and then wonder why they blow engines and eat transmissions and clutches.
Nor do I. Unfortunately, the general affordability of this segment does seem to attract them, so some preaching is going to occur. Personally, I'd like to see more of the Audi A3 and BMW 3xx-TI's be brought to the USA to give us (allegedly :-) "more mature" buyers some more upscale options. I've also recently learned what a pain driving with bifocals are (still trying to get used to the outside left mirror, etc).
I am also decently aware of my limitations as a driver... While short on formal training, I've had lessons from an experienced auto-x'ing friend.
Pointers help only if the student is willing to learn, and time behind the wheel putting theory into practice is invaluable. My wife was "put off" by my suggestion of going to the track, due to real or perceived speed issues, although we did have a friend who tracked motorcycles and died in a crash a few years ago. IMO, the best place to start "slow" around the cones, as your top speeds on a wide-open course will usually be <70mph. I just did some web searching and I think this URL looks like a pretty good start; it also has some links to clubs which aren't all marquee-specific.
-hh
You went off when I said I ruled out the mercedes because it did not meet 2 major criteria of mine. I never said it was significant. Only that I had limits in my mind that it didn't meet. We all gotta draw the line somewhere. If we didn't, we'd all be driving Navigators around. Hell, I even said I might own one right now if a nicely loaded one at least fell in my pricerange. So I think that more than proves that acceleration wasn't the defining point of my purchase. Oh, and I said I wanted it to be a second faster, not .34.
'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
Its a couple pages back for those who wish to kick sleeping dogs and "who struck John" instead of moving forward. Look for a Focus SVT vs C230 comparison, which if you then go and check Edmunds, compares out as 7.46 & 7.8 sec.
I never said it was significant.
I agree that it is banally meaningless, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder: only someone who considered that small difference to be significant would have bothered to mention it in the first place. If you want to debate its significance, please go argue with the guy who brought it up.
...I even said I might own one right now if a nicely loaded one at least fell in my price range.
I'd take a gift horse too, but that doesn't have much to do with what type of vehicle I might be shopping for and what my budget plan is. For example, with your current ride being the T-5, I would have assumed you to be looking at ~~$30K. So what is your general budget, what are you looking for the car to do, how seriously are you shopping, and what are your (other :-) personal design biases?
-hh
And in reality, the C230 can actually be launched slightly faster to 60 than the SVT Focus anyway. Mercedes claims 7.2, a number confirmed by Motor Trend, whereas the fastest SVT Focus time I've seen has been 7.4 if I remember right.
Mike
Suggest you read Chmeeee's statement immediately prior (#207), which puts the remark in context.
And in reality ... Mercedes claims 7.2
And 7.5 with the Automatic. BTW, now that mine is getting some broken in (and I'm staying out of the throttle), the Stick's EPA 28mpg Highway seems pretty close to reality. I'm also pleasantly surprised by how well the dashboard computer's mpg prediction is correlating, too.
-hh
And, gotenks, I was going off Edmunds number for the C230 which is 7.8.
hunt - the T5 is what I bought. Its a '98 with 30K miles for $20K and it is like new (got it back in August). My budget was slightly negotiable, but I really needed to keep it around $22K. Problem is that I'm very picky about my cars. I always get bored quick and want to change. My wife said I had to find something this time that I would want to keep for a LONG time. Given that, I knew I wanted an upscale car (i.e. power leather seats, good build quality, powerful, etc.). Like I said before, though, I did come close to a WRX. Rather than upscale, in that case, I was just so enamored with how at home I felt driving that car. Like it was a part of me. But, anyway, after some time I realized that I would probably regret spending almost $25K on a car just for its drivetrain. So it was back to the drawing board. Anyway, I realized it would probably be used. Other than the luxury aspects, I wanted good resale numbers, reliability (I know, I know, I've heard all the S70 naysayers and I decided it was negligible), and the acceleration and passing power which we've already covered, and decent handling, all for under $22k.
Well, as you can see, this is why I like the Mini so much. Granted, the reliability and resale have yet to be seen, but I have faith. I would have looked at the GTI, too, but my wife has got a thing against VWs (don't ask).
'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
It most definitely doesn't prove that "it all comes down to driver ability".
For all I know they've done the same in the pages of Motor Trend, but I can't quite bring myself to read that particular publication anymore (puberty having been long since left behind and all).
-SHOV6
Agreed. What it does do is give us a handle on the magnitude of its contribution to performance, so that we then know what's a small enough variation to ignore.
It most definitely doesn't prove that "it all comes down to driver ability".
Sure; nothing is ever going to be an absolute. It just means that we can have numbers that are close enough to be considered a tie, so we'll have to go find some other factor if we're determined to pick a winner/loser.
-hh
I don't know if it applies to the SVT, but I thought I read in last Sunday's newspaper that the Focus is now the subject of two more recalls and that brings the total to date to eight. Is this correct?
-hh
Bored in just 9 months? (Egads!)
FWIW, what's the longest you've ever owned an individual car, and what was it?
My wife said I had to find something this time that I would want to keep for a LONG time.
I'll agree with your wife :-). Cars are a huge financial drain and if you're rotating through them this quickly, you're doomed to a downward spiral of what level of car you can afford to afford.
Other than the luxury aspects, I wanted good resale numbers, reliability [...] and the acceleration and passing power which we've already covered, and decent handling, all for under $22k.
In thinking about this some, have you considered addressing your "boredom problem" by having two cars? Namely a daily driver and a toy car?
I'd be inclined to suggest keeping what you have, and spending $10K on a used fun car. Maybe an older GTI, perhaps a Miata, etc. Whatever floats your boat.
And on the insurance front in NJ, if you're with the right company and pick your options carefully, you won't get taken to the cleaners. For example, my 911 is under $900/year.
-hh
Altogether, I've owned 11 vehicles in 11 years (but some never saw the road, so they really shouldn't count
I do, as a matter of fact, have a toy. Its an '86 Alfa Romeo Spider Veloce. I have NJ Manufacturers Insurance, so I only pay $400 a year for the Alfa. Still needs a good deal of work, though. But it runs good. I just finished replacing the floors in the Spring. Nees a great deal of interior work and a trip to the paint shop. Then it will be a nice driver. I have had it for about 3 years, i think.
My downfall is that I absolutely love cars. Its my biggest passion in life. What would make me truly ecstatic is to have an 8 car garage with 6 of the bays occupied by 6 different cars. 1 for my wife and 5 for me (1 for each day of the week). The 7th bay is for a lift and the 8th is for my tools. :-)
Oh yeah. We actually are still looking for a change, though. This time, its not for me. Its for my wife. She is tired of the Forester after less than 2 years. Is it any wonder we're married? She was even pricing out a MINI after we got back from the auto show this year. But we decided that's just too small to put next to the Volvo. We really need something to haul people with and make those trips to Home Depot and Lowes.
'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
We also looked at used Land Rover Discoveries. I'm just worried about repair costs on that one. Not to mention that you have to get one with more than a few miles to bring it into the $20K range.
We're way off topic now.
Well, I still like the hot hatches. It would give some utility. But would it be any better than the Forester? Seems like we'd kinda be sidestepping. Same number of passengers and even less cargo room. If the larger sport wagons jumper seats like the discovery, then that would be a consideration.
'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
Yes, that would be a sidestep. But does your household really need two vehicles that are both roughly equally capable (ie, ~4 adult passengers, etc)?
FWIW, our basic configuration is one commuter sled (hot hatch), and one 4-door sedan. After work, it depends on what we're planning on doing as to which car we'll take.
Insofar as "utility stuff" like Home Depot, you don't need an SUV. Most hatches can haul the basic stuff and for larger loads, their truck rental only ~$20. If you don't like their time restriction, or want to haul more, Ryder panel truck start at under $50/day.
And if its a big job, it absolutely pays to pay for delivery, if for no other reason that it leaves you fresh to do the job itself. You'll also find that its less expensive buying by the ton or pallet of rock/stone/sod than by the 50lb bag (or roll of sod).
Also check out your local County's recycling center: some offer free compost or wood chips, and some others will send a full 8 yard dump truck to your house with a load for under $100 (Morris County, NJ).
-hh
Well, maybe when the time comes I can steer her to test drive a mini and we'll see what happens. Problem is that she doesn't drive stick. I really have to remedy that soon. The Alfa is not the easiest thing to learn on, though.
Still waiting to hear from anybody here when they get to test drive a MINI S.
Got another question. Anybody checked out the Base MINI with the CVT??? I would really like to hear about that as well.
'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
It does have the soul of the Miata.
Besides with the stow-away (honda odessey) rear seat, you've have a large station wagon for most of the year. Or take the middle seats out, and you have a rear seat with enough legroom for Shaq
I got my deposit back on the MINI S - My MINI dealer has seen their waiting list evaporate. I didn't like how they were treating their customers - I had a chance to buy 3 S's all had a ton of accessories added on and were priced $2,000 to $3,500 above MSRP with accessories. About a month ago there was no waiting for a MINI and the MINI S list was down to a 9 month wait from a year and a half - these jokers constantly lied so I don't know how true anything they said was. I was supposedly 14 on the S list but they offered me the first S's that they got in. A classic example of a dealer taking all the fun out of a purchase.
As for switching vehicles I get tired of cars too - the niche the GTI fills for me usually lasts a couple of years - I plan to revisit the MINI in a year and a half or so. I'm not at all tired of the GTI, at the moment it's a keeper. Some vehicles I keep and some I tire of after a year or so - I kept a 92 Range Rover County for 9 years and a 170k+ miles - great vehicle, I got a really reliable one. Traded it last year for a BMW X5 that's definately a keeper as well. Performance cars are another story all together for me though.
If they are widely available, I'm amazed that a true road test has yet to appear in any mags. Sure, they all keep writing about it and saying how it feels, but I've been waiting to see some specific performance numbers and have yet to run across any.
As far as MINIs in general, I've only seen 2 or 3 on the road. I guess I shouldn't be too surprised, though. I've only seen maybe a dozen WRXs since they arrived.
'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
Another issue on the Mini - there is no way I'd trust BMW not to have major, major bugs in a completely new platform the first year. I might trust Honda, but not BMW. The X5 is a great vehicle, but the first year problems are out of sight. And the Mini started completely from scratch.
- Mark
As for buying a first year BMW - BMW takes really good care of it's customers. I bought a 92 BMW 3 series when they first came out - I had the 3rd E36 325is that was delivered to my dealer back then. I didn't have anything major go wrong with it, it had some minor issues in the beginning but ended up being an extremely reliable car for over 100k miles.
I have a 2001 X5 I purchased last November that hasn't had a single problem in 10k miles. X5's had a couple minor issues when they first came out that were quickly fixed - by the time I bought mine the few minor bugs were worked out. My X5 is the most reliable new car I think I've ever had. BMW will take really good care of you in any case - I wouldn't be too concerned about first year issues.
My GTI has had a couple of minor issues - no big deal - the dealer took care of them and all is well.
If you have a mag on hand that has this kind of data, please post it or at least tell me which one I have to go buy to find out. Thanks.
'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
- Mark
Who are the majors? The only one I get to my house is Motor Trend and they still have no hard data. Only a road test from the creative writing standpoint.
C&D hasn't updated their website if they did get some real data. Estimates and Not Availables all over their MINI S data. But, the car mags are usually slow with their web updates.
'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
160HP in the MINI is overkill IMO. I expect better relibility and durability in the 115HP base version.
After all, MINIs were meant to be simple. lightweight and fuel efficient cars, right?
0.86 gs on the skid pad (feels like it handles better than these numbers imply)
Quarter mile - forgot, but think it is in the mid 15s.
As far as handling, does the S really have anything over the base model with the sport suspension plus option? (aside from the 17" wheels which, personally, I wouldn't want) I guess I could read all the specifics and compare. Maybe I'll get around to it if nobody else knows offhand.
'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
For me, I wouldn't consider either until BWM has at least a year to exorcise the bugs and the hoopla dies down. I also heard a rumor that BMW is quite unhappy with the Chrysler-built engine and work is already underway to replace it with a BMW design - the current engine may only last two model years.
All in all, I think waiting a year or so on a Mini makes sense. In the interim, drive what you have now, or get the SVT or GTI, depending on whether you want a great-handling hatch or a muscle hatch.
I'm trying to get a bit of both in a GTI 337 on order, but VW is having a devil of a time getting them to dealers - all kinds of rumors are floating around about recalls and missing parts with cars sitting at the ports for a month or more gathering dust while awaiting repairs or parts - VW is saying absolutely nothing. This sorta confirms to me what I've heard about VW's for awhile - great designs, flawed by a miserable distibution/dealer network and lousy customer support.
- Mark
'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
'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
- Mark
I've seen a few Minis on the road, but saw my first parked one. I walked around it and it is bigger than I expected. I think it's about the same size as the old Civic hatchback I used to have. The paint job was very nice, the wheels were very nice, the interior was ok. I'm not a big fan of the speedo in the middle of the dash. I would consider buying one, though.