Apparently the R32 is selling quite well in Europe - even with the Peugeot and Renault hot hatch choices they have over there. VW is assuming a limited market for the R32 over here - the U.S. may suprise VW like Subaru and the WRX.
The U.S. has a huge market for high performance small cars - especially hatchbacks. I wish VW would make 4Motion an option on the Golf the way Audi does Quattro on the A4. I'd love to have 4Mo under my 240 HP 1.8t GTI. In fact I'd prefer a 4Motion 1.8t GTI to the R32. Although if the R32 is the only way we get a 4Motion Golf I guess I could learn to live with it :-) How about slapping an aftermarket supercharger on the R32 for 300+ HP.
2 basic rules for significant HP gains in a turbo GTI - chip and better breathing. I haven't dyno'd the car - I arrived at the HP by adding the claimed HP increase of the various mods. APR 93 octane ECU upgrade (I live in Fl), Neuspeed Turbo air intake (increases flow into the turbo 70%), Neuspeed downpipe, Eurosport exhaust and a K&N air filter in the factory airbox. I also installed an aftermarket diverter valve - no HP increase there. I opted for the APR racing gas program as well - just this ECU upgrade with racing gas and no other upgrades makes a stock 1.8t GTI as quick as a stock Audi S4 (per APR). These claims may be optimistic - all I know is it keeps up with a friends 2000 M Coupe up to 100 MPH.
I did everything but the chip in the first month and waited until 5k miles to do the APR chip. Just the breathing enhancements made the GTI significantly faster and added close to 30 HP to the stock 1.8t.
I also upgraded the suspension to handle the extra HP - Neuspeed: racing springs, 25mm rear sway bar, upper front stress bar (strut brace), lower front stress bar (ties lower front sheetmetal together), bilstien sport shocks and a removable rear tower brace just behind the rear seat. It handles like a go-cart, glued to the road - I'm trying to wear out the original Michelin Pilot's so I can put some Toyo Proxes T1-S's on it.
I like to AutoX - this GTI is an awesome track car and a decent daily driver. It's also rock solid dependable - It's driven really hard and hasn't had a problem in the first year and 12k miles.
both cars have excellent reviews from the number of magazines I've read. With the basic performance being equal, it comes down to three factors for me: aesthetics-retro vs. new edge, storage space-'mini'mal vs. moderate, and long term maintenance-who knows? This will be the first (and only) new car I will ever purchase...at 40 years old. Has anyone driven both? If the Edmunds guys are reading: your comparison of the hot hatches did not include the S since it was not available. I would love to hear that comparison!
I've driven them both - You couldn't be comparing two more totally different cars - You have to drive them both - take them for a spin. Personally if I had to choose between the two it'd be the S hands down. I'd have to tone it down with metallic gray paint (including top) no stripes etc - Sport package. If you need a back seat you'd have to go for the SVT - the MINI is practically a 2 seater with a huge trunk.
I think you'll be surprised. I take 3 passengers out to lunch in my MINI Cooper on occasion and have no trouble getting 4 guys total in the car. Would I want to travel in the back set on a 4 hour drive? No, but for short trips there is enough room for 4 people and some cargo.
The SVT will get you more room but there is no way I could get myself to like, or even mind the styling of the Focus. It is a Focus to me no matter what is under the hood and in the eye of this beholder, it ain't pretty.
Finally, the MINI is a car people will recognize as different right away. The SVT will be a wolf in sheep's clothing -- most will think it is just a ZX3. Do you want people to ask you what your car is or do you want people to say, "I can't believe that car goes that fast?" As others have said, comparing these two cars, or any two cars in this list IMO, is more a matter of personal needs and tastes than which car is better.
And don't prematurely limit your choices. We are living in the golden age of affordable sporty compact cars, and there are a ton of really attractive choices out there. I wen't with the RSX-S, but I had good things to say about the Celica GTS, Subaru WRX, Sentra Spec V, and even the Hyundai Tiburon. I didn't drive the Mini S (not available when I purchased in June) but that looks like a hell of a car also. There are no SVT Ford dealers near me (that I know of) but the SVT focus has gotten rave reviews. Especially if this is the first and only new car you ever intend to buy, take your time and find the perfect ride. Test-driving can be a heck of a lot of fun and you may discover a candidate you hadn't considered. I expected to buy a Celica GTS when I started shopping, but ultimately went with the Acura because it was the best fit for me. With such good cars on the market, you aren't going to find a car that's better than another, rather you'll find the car that suits your personality and driving style. Good luck and happy hunting.
I've driven the SVT and MINI S and am staying with the S which is on order, but it will be a second car. For me, the S had a higher fun factor and seemed more solid but the novelty might get old if it was my only car for a long time. All things considered, my pick in this segment for a "one and only car" to be driven forever would probably be the RSX-S. It's the most refined car in this segment, with a nice balance of luxury and performance. It should also hold up very well over the long run, especially if you don't go too crazy with aftermarket performance mods (like *someone* I know who foolishly supercharged his perfectly good '98 Integra GSR). The RSX-S was a close runner-up to my WRX wagon, but my bias for the outright "fun factor" gave the WRX the edge. The RSX-S reminded me of my former '98 GSR, one of the best cars I've owned, while the WRX offered up a totally different driving experience. Like they say, variety is the spice of life, and that's precisely why the MINI S will be replacing the WRX next month! Seriously, the RSX-S feels much like the GSR but with the "rough edges" smoothed out. It offers a smoother and a more powerful feeling drivetrain, an excellent gearbox, and good steering feedback. It's a bit heavier, but that translates into a smoother ride and you really don't give up much handling unless you're an autoX racer. With all the standard options, it's a great value for the money. The MINI S will be my seventh new car in the last five years, but I still think it's possible to find a car that can make you happy for a long, long time. In my case, it's turned out to be the SLK320 with an automatic tranny even though I really enjoy manual shift cars. It's not the fastest or the best handling thing out there, but it's a pure joy to drive (except in the snow) and it seems to get better as the miles roll up. This little car is still as rock solid after 20k miles as the day it was new and I plan to keep it forever. The only car in the "hot hatch" segment that I believe could offer as much long term satisfaction is the RSX-S, based on my prior experience with the GSR and another Integra before it. The RSX-S might not handle as well "at the limit" as the MINI S, or be as quick as the WRX, or a modded GTI, but it still does everything pretty well. If "novelty" cars like the MINI and WRX weren't available, the RSX-S would be my hands-down choice for a long-term "do it all" car.
I will be very curious how the ownership experience of the Mini S compares with the other cars you have owned, such as the WRX wagon.
It is rare to find someone who would have owned both cars for a considerable amount of time.
BTW, did you get a chance to compare the WRX sedan's driving ability with the Wagon's? Supposedly, Automobile magazine had stated in their long term test that the Sedan felt quicker and more agile.
The sedan felt more buttoned down than the wagon, which has a bit more body roll, but I wanted the headroom and practicality of the wagon, which can still hold its own pretty well. I was going to take a dealer-spec silver / black '02 MCS in Sept, but decided to wait until Nov to get a green / white '03 model.
The wagon only weighs 80 lbs more. You most likely felt the sway bar, which is thicker in the sedan. Of course, it's an $80 upgrade on the wagon, which costs $500 less to begin with.
The sedan has the flared fenders and a slightly wider track, but very slight. You can fit bigger tires, though, like 225/50s. On the wagon they might rub.
Good luck with the Cooper delivery. Let us know how you like it.
I test drove both cars extensively before choosing the '03 WRX sedan. I liked the RSX (taught ride, nice looks, good ergonomics) but thought the brakes felt a little soft. The low-end torque was lacking as well, though the engine came on smartly at higher revs. The Subie has AWD, whereas the Acura didn't offer traction control, even as an option (this may have changed for '03). Anyways, given Acura's superb reliability record, I think either car is an excellent choice...
Electra, FYI the 1st 500 miles on my base RSX I also thought the brakes were soft. The helpful people posting on this board told me that the braking responsiveness would improve after the break-in period, and it did. Stops on a dime now.
just got poor bumper crash ratings. No wonder since there is virtually no front or rear overhangs. This was just mentioned by the testing group on TV. It was on the news about 15 minutes ago, and lack of crush space was the reason noted.
Just remember though, those tests have nothing to do with safety during a crash, they measure how much it would cost to fix a bumper in low speed bumps into a barrier. I predict that the Mini's extensive crash design will allow it to protect the passengers in serious accident. Cars like the Mercedes A-class which are subcompacts do very well in crash testing despite its small size.
Are stylish so it is no surprise at all to me that they are expensive to repair. Chrome inserts; turning, running and fog lamps inside the bumper plus front temperature sensor, no overhang at all, etc. The Suzuki Aerio did worse. If you look at the list of all the cars they've tested the MINI is marginal (as is the Subaru Impreza) but is not as bad as some others which are rated as poor: http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/low_speed_smcars.htm
The Audi and Accord are midsized cars, not small cars so it is not a fair comparison against a MINI. A fairer comparison is the VW Beetle which does MUCH better, even better than the usually best-in-class polymer-clad Saturn.
This only really affects insurance rates as the damage done to most cars is over the average deductable anyways. We'll see what this does to the MINI's comprehensive/collision coverage next year.
Actually, I think there is no relation whatsoever to crash safety.
As an example. The Forester does extremely well in the IIHS bumper basher tests, while the CR-V does miserably.
Both are Best Picks in IIHS offset crash tests.
It does affect insurance rates, IIHS is run by the insurance industry, but it also affects your out-of-pocket expense if you carry a deductible on collision. Mine is $500.
from 5 mph with no damage to the bumper structure to 2.5 mph. The rationale was that the crumple zones more than made up for the loss in safety of the passenger from the bumpers.
Did you guys see the RSX Factory Performance package? I'd seen them on Civics, but lordy lordy the price totalled up some $23 grand, ouch. Looked cool, though, and all warranteed.
m/m, does traction control come as an option for the '03 RSX? I may be wrong about it not being available for '02, but I seem to remember this as a drawback. Also, are foglamps available as a factory option? The salesman said they could put them on as a dealer option, but the front fascia had to be cut. Still I swear I've seen an RSX recently with what looked like factory fogs...
It doesn't surprise me that the brakes tightened up on the RSX -- my WRX had a break-in (brake-in?) period as well. I talked to BMW salesman recently who said he'd just gotten in a '94 Integra with almost 300,000 miles as a trade. He said the thing drove so well (even the A/C was still "ice cold") that he tried to get the buyer to just keep it since the allowance was modest due to the mileage. My guess is that your RSX will be quite reliable.
Only comes in three trim levels: base, base (w) leather and type S. All of those trim levels come loaded with every factory option available for their respective classes (AC, premium sound, power everything, moonroof, etc). As far as I know the few "options" available for the car are dealer add-ons, including wheel locks, spoilers and fog lamps. All RSXs have two slots in the front fascia where fog lamps can be placed.
Traction control is not available in any U.S.-spec RSX.
These were the cars that made my final cut. The Celica was in last place due to dealer pricing issues. They wanted $3000 more for the GTS than the RSX-S...without leather and a Bose system...what kind of pipe are they smoking? So it was down to the RSX-S and the WRX. I went with a WRX wagon. 1. More power 2. Wagon was more practical for a 30-something 3. Cheaper insurance 4. Cheaper list price 5. Better financing options. As far as driving performance and feel, any three of these would have been great, which is why they were the final three.
Just saw the 2004 WRX at the Baltimore Auto Show. Besides the obvious styling changes to the front and rear fascia, they also embedded the antennae into the rear window. It's pretty neat, it just looks like a few extra rear defrost lines.
That plus the seats now have integrated headrests, and are a little wider. I didn't think there was anything wrong with the old ones, but the new ones offer excellent bolstering.
The sedan on the showroom had the newly optional moonroof. While it ain't big, it isn't as small as I thought, either. It also had the new all-weather package, which includes heated front seats.
They had the STi there too, and we got there early and they actually let us crawl around and in that car. Sweetness!
I think so. You can't tell but the headlight clusters have blisters, like the Celica, where the turn signal and round lights are.
The taillight is even better sorted, again the round light bulges out slightly. In both cases it's very subtle, you don't notice until you're up close.
The front fascia also seems to be better integrated. The hood scoop is bigger, and sort of bulges forward. The STi's is enormous, but even the WRX's sticks out more now.
I forgot - they moved the tach to the center, a la Porsche 911, which is cool. The STi got exclusive ecsaine fabric on the seats, it's that blue stuff. Thing is, photos with flash make it look bright blue, but it's actually a dark blue and sort of blends in well with the interior.
The STi also got a cruise switch with an integrated on/off button, but oddly the other Imprezas kept the seperate cruise switch on the left console.
You said, "Just saw the 2004 WRX at the Baltimore Auto Show. Besides the obvious styling changes to the front and rear fascia, they also embedded the antennae into the rear window. It's pretty neat, it just looks like a few extra rear defrost lines.
That plus the seats now have integrated headrests, and are a little wider. I didn't think there was anything wrong with the old ones, but the new ones offer excellent bolstering."
Hate to break the news to you, but the RSX has had an non-protruding antenna and integrated seat/headrest since its inception.
And its range is noticeably less than any of our other cars with vertical antenna. It also seems to be more sensitive to obstructions (e.g buses beside the car etc)
I prefer the Subaru by far. The Audi gets demoted to wife duty
I like the embedded antenna in the Audi, but on long trips it's a pain, just when you find a good station, the signal fades earlier. I heard they improved it on later Audis but it's too late for us.
On the other hand, I absolute despise power antennas, they just are just a pain to maintain.
I thought the previous Gen. A4 were more agile than the current Gen. of A4 due to the lesser mass and bulk.
I completely agree with you about power antennas. Having two break in two cars is enough! At least with the manual one, you just leave it alone, and it is cheap to replace.
Which other Subaru cars have had the integrated antenna, and since which model year? I wonder why Subaru didn't include the embedded antenna technology to the WRX as they do to their other cars, since it is more practical in the high performance WRX than a lower performing one.
"performance" stuff? While there might be a tiny tiny aerodynamic advantage to not having a whip antenna, I thought making integrated antennae was just a price point thing for convenience at the car wash: more expensive cars get it first, then less expensive cars later.
?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Less drag? Though I'm sure the difference is negligable. It's better because it's not in your way when you load the roof rack, that's a more tangible benefit.
beowulf was probably just thinking that the higher-end the car, the more likely it would be to have an in-glass antenna.
As far as actual performance goes, I'll take a mast antenna over the in-glass unit anyday. They have far better selectivity and are waaay less directional.
I should clarify. himiler, you are correct that I thought more expensive cars would have an integrated antenna. But my other thought was when a car is autocrossing (as WRXs are designed to do), the hard turning, braking, etc. can take a toll on the foundation from where the antenna extends.
I did notice that the FM sensitivity is a little reduced w/ the in-glass antenna, but not by that much. But as I mentioned before, I'm usually too busy enjoying my 6-disc CD changer. ;-)
We took a look up close at the antennae. It looked a lot like a 2nd rear defrost, basically. The hook-up was slightly different, but I'm sure it'll be just as reliable as a defroster.
You hit the nail right on the head. Not to mention that my subwoofer makes the music a *lot* of fun to listen to. I'm not talking about that Bose crap that came w/ the car.
Comments
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Apparently the R32 is selling quite well in Europe - even with the Peugeot and Renault hot hatch choices they have over there. VW is assuming a limited market for the R32 over here - the U.S. may suprise VW like Subaru and the WRX.
The U.S. has a huge market for high performance small cars - especially hatchbacks. I wish VW would make 4Motion an option on the Golf the way Audi does Quattro on the A4. I'd love to have 4Mo under my 240 HP 1.8t GTI. In fact I'd prefer a 4Motion 1.8t GTI to the R32. Although if the R32 is the only way we get a 4Motion Golf I guess I could learn to live with it :-) How about slapping an aftermarket supercharger on the R32 for 300+ HP.
I did everything but the chip in the first month and waited until 5k miles to do the APR chip. Just the breathing enhancements made the GTI significantly faster and added close to 30 HP to the stock 1.8t.
I also upgraded the suspension to handle the extra HP - Neuspeed: racing springs, 25mm rear sway bar, upper front stress bar (strut brace), lower front stress bar (ties lower front sheetmetal together), bilstien sport shocks and a removable rear tower brace just behind the rear seat. It handles like a go-cart, glued to the road - I'm trying to wear out the original Michelin Pilot's so I can put some Toyo Proxes T1-S's on it.
I like to AutoX - this GTI is an awesome track car and a decent daily driver. It's also rock solid dependable - It's driven really hard and hasn't had a problem in the first year and 12k miles.
This will be the first (and only) new car I will ever purchase...at 40 years old.
Has anyone driven both? If the Edmunds guys are reading: your comparison of the hot hatches did not include the S since it was not available. I would love to hear that comparison!
The SVT will get you more room but there is no way I could get myself to like, or even mind the styling of the Focus. It is a Focus to me no matter what is under the hood and in the eye of this beholder, it ain't pretty.
Finally, the MINI is a car people will recognize as different right away. The SVT will be a wolf in sheep's clothing -- most will think it is just a ZX3. Do you want people to ask you what your car is or do you want people to say, "I can't believe that car goes that fast?" As others have said, comparing these two cars, or any two cars in this list IMO, is more a matter of personal needs and tastes than which car is better.
Better yet, a WRX wagon if you can afford it (they go for well under $23k now).
The WRX sedan would work, or the upcoming Acura TSX.
-juice
The RSX-S was a close runner-up to my WRX wagon, but my bias for the outright "fun factor" gave the WRX the edge. The RSX-S reminded me of my former '98 GSR, one of the best cars I've owned, while the WRX offered up a totally different driving experience. Like they say, variety is the spice of life, and that's precisely why the MINI S will be replacing the WRX next month!
Seriously, the RSX-S feels much like the GSR but with the "rough edges" smoothed out. It offers a smoother and a more powerful feeling drivetrain, an excellent gearbox, and good steering feedback. It's a bit heavier, but that translates into a smoother ride and you really don't give up much handling unless you're an autoX racer. With all the standard options, it's a great value for the money.
The MINI S will be my seventh new car in the last five years, but I still think it's possible to find a car that can make you happy for a long, long time. In my case, it's turned out to be the SLK320 with an automatic tranny even though I really enjoy manual shift cars. It's not the fastest or the best handling thing out there, but it's a pure joy to drive (except in the snow) and it seems to get better as the miles roll up. This little car is still as rock solid after 20k miles as the day it was new and I plan to keep it forever. The only car in the "hot hatch" segment that I believe could offer as much long term satisfaction is the RSX-S, based on my prior experience with the GSR and another Integra before it. The RSX-S might not handle as well "at the limit" as the MINI S, or be as quick as the WRX, or a modded GTI, but it still does everything pretty well. If "novelty" cars like the MINI and WRX weren't available, the RSX-S would be my hands-down choice for a long-term "do it all" car.
It is rare to find someone who would have owned both cars for a considerable amount of time.
BTW, did you get a chance to compare the WRX sedan's driving ability with the Wagon's? Supposedly, Automobile magazine had stated in their long term test that the Sedan felt quicker and more agile.
I was going to take a dealer-spec silver / black '02 MCS in Sept, but decided to wait until Nov to get a green / white '03 model.
The sedan has the flared fenders and a slightly wider track, but very slight. You can fit bigger tires, though, like 225/50s. On the wagon they might rub.
Good luck with the Cooper delivery. Let us know how you like it.
-juice
Bob
http://www.highwaysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/low_speed_smcars.htm
$800 average damage for the Mini. I don't see the Tib or RSX, but the Subie does better.
-juice
Bob
The Audi and Accord are midsized cars, not small cars so it is not a fair comparison against a MINI. A fairer comparison is the VW Beetle which does MUCH better, even better than the usually best-in-class polymer-clad Saturn.
This only really affects insurance rates as the damage done to most cars is over the average deductable anyways. We'll see what this does to the MINI's comprehensive/collision coverage next year.
As an example. The Forester does extremely well in the IIHS bumper basher tests, while the CR-V does miserably.
Both are Best Picks in IIHS offset crash tests.
It does affect insurance rates, IIHS is run by the insurance industry, but it also affects your out-of-pocket expense if you carry a deductible on collision. Mine is $500.
-juice
As a result, Juice is totally correct.
(Doing a project on bumpers finally pays off!)
Did you guys see the RSX Factory Performance package? I'd seen them on Civics, but lordy lordy the price totalled up some $23 grand, ouch. Looked cool, though, and all warranteed.
-juice
It doesn't surprise me that the brakes tightened up on the RSX -- my WRX had a break-in (brake-in?) period as well. I talked to BMW salesman recently who said he'd just gotten in a '94 Integra with almost 300,000 miles as a trade. He said the thing drove so well (even the A/C was still "ice cold") that he tried to get the buyer to just keep it since the allowance was modest due to the mileage. My guess is that your RSX will be quite reliable.
Traction control is not available in any U.S.-spec RSX.
As far as driving performance and feel, any three of these would have been great, which is why they were the final three.
That plus the seats now have integrated headrests, and are a little wider. I didn't think there was anything wrong with the old ones, but the new ones offer excellent bolstering.
The sedan on the showroom had the newly optional moonroof. While it ain't big, it isn't as small as I thought, either. It also had the new all-weather package, which includes heated front seats.
They had the STi there too, and we got there early and they actually let us crawl around and in that car. Sweetness!
-juice
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The taillight is even better sorted, again the round light bulges out slightly. In both cases it's very subtle, you don't notice until you're up close.
The front fascia also seems to be better integrated. The hood scoop is bigger, and sort of bulges forward. The STi's is enormous, but even the WRX's sticks out more now.
I forgot - they moved the tach to the center, a la Porsche 911, which is cool. The STi got exclusive ecsaine fabric on the seats, it's that blue stuff. Thing is, photos with flash make it look bright blue, but it's actually a dark blue and sort of blends in well with the interior.
The STi also got a cruise switch with an integrated on/off button, but oddly the other Imprezas kept the seperate cruise switch on the left console.
-juice
That plus the seats now have integrated headrests, and are a little wider. I didn't think there was anything wrong with the old ones, but the new ones offer excellent bolstering."
Hate to break the news to you, but the RSX has had an non-protruding antenna and integrated seat/headrest since its inception.
Is this true, or a myth?
Just curious, since I know you have a WRX (sedan?)
I prefer the Subaru by far. The Audi gets demoted to wife duty
I like the embedded antenna in the Audi, but on long trips it's a pain, just when you find a good station, the signal fades earlier. I heard they improved it on later Audis but it's too late for us.
On the other hand, I absolute despise power antennas, they just are just a pain to maintain.
I completely agree with you about power antennas. Having two break in two cars is enough! At least with the manual one, you just leave it alone, and it is cheap to replace.
I do like the seats in the base RSX and the Civic Si, actually better than the leather covered RSX-S seats. The WRX offers more side support, though.
-juice
Bob
-juice
?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
-juice
As far as actual performance goes, I'll take a mast antenna over the in-glass unit anyday. They have far better selectivity and are waaay less directional.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I did notice that the FM sensitivity is a little reduced w/ the in-glass antenna, but not by that much. But as I mentioned before, I'm usually too busy enjoying my 6-disc CD changer. ;-)
-juice