Well, back in the day there was very little difference between the interior quality of audi and vw, it was in more recent years (and yet when i say this i mean before this current generation) that a more 'luxorious' difference was made...but that audi and vw, not vw and bmw. Granted bmw's ten years ago were still pretty plain looking on the inside in my opinion, but i don't mind that tuetonic look. I'm just saying it doesn't seem like a far cry from vw at the time, the outside of the cars would have been a different story, but the interiors, aside from leather, don't seem worlds apart.(oh man commence arguing now. )
The evidence is right in front of you just look at all the Mazdaspeed 6 sitting in the lot.
Well, since I am a dealer, I will look at my lot and see....ut oh...wait...I don't see any! I seem to have sold them all!
That shows WHO really doesn't understand marketing and that's Mazda or you because I am not sure that Mazda really did market their car against luxury brands. Who in the right mind will cross shop BMW and Mazda?
Well, they did. It's called extending the brand. Their aim was the BMW 325xi, Audi A4 2.0 Quattro, Legacy GT, and Infiniti G35x. Now, yes the lux cars are more refined, however, they do not offer the same performance in power, or handling. Mazda's goal was "performance/dollar" with some lux features.
As a matter of fact, Mazda is getting loads of people to look at their cars, and we are seeing that they are also looking at entry leval lux cars.
VW R32 doesn't compete with STI and EVO more than a Mazdaspeed 6. In fact is Mazdaspeed 6 that has more similarities with this two ( poorly finished exterior and cheap looking interior). That GOLF(R32) looks like a luxury car by comparison and if 0 to 60 is not all you want from your car there is nothing that can match the amount of fun per dollar in the auto industry.
Actually, the R32 is a direct competitor to the STi/EVO, they have very similar customer demographics. Same size, same class. Yes, the R32 is a hatch, but it's a compact hatch. Your assessment on the MS6 being "cheap" is subjective, there are many other to disagree with you, including well respected publications. Oh, and there is PLENTY out there for $30,000 that have BETTER luxury, and MORE fun to dive then a VW R32. But, then again, that is subjective as well. I do not see the R32 as any more refined then the GTI,actually has a harder ride the then GTI, which is considered a "hot hatch". If you want refinement, go with the Audi A3. That is more refined.
Sorry everyone, I'm done with the MS6 now!! Back to the GTI, MS3 and Si
Does smaller and lighter make a car better? Better for who?
Lighter makes a car better for everyone living on the planet. When asked what advice he would give to auto makers to improve their cars, David Champion, senior director of the Automotive Test Centre at Consumer Reports, replied: "Make them lighter." For more information, see Autoline Detroit's Nov. 12, 2006 episode http://www.autolinedetroit.tv/autoline/archives.php
I don't consider the RSX to be luxury, nor the Audi A3 (cloth seats and manual A/C doesn't scream luxury, IMO). The other vehicles you talk about aren't currently available in the United States, though I have seen them when traveling in Europe.
Apparently you and I share different ideas of "luxury."
Maybe not luxury, but the A3 all decked out (leather, sports package) is pretty darned refined.
Yep, and MUCH more expensive than the value-smart A3 base model ($26k). Recently saw a "short take" in Motor Trend or C&D which had a loaded A3; it was over $40k! Luxurious, yes, but that's then well into 330i territory, or even an Infiniti M35.
It would be interesting to see which weight savings would translate into improved small car performance. Obviously, in the small car sector, cost is a key driver. What Mazda has been doing with its Miata, Protege and Mazda3 models is showing that a small car can have spirit without breaking the bank. Decontenting a car can reduce cost and weight but then one risks "cheapening" the vehicle. On the other hand, shaving pounds off a vehicle can add cost (example, alloys are lighter and more expensive than steel wheels). I like the example of the BMW roof: it's lighter than the traditional one, it contributes to the stability of the vehicle by lowering the centre of gravity and it's not expensive (at least when compared to the overall cost of the car). I'm looking forward to the day when there is more in a vehicle (as in plastic) and less (as in parts overall).
well, this can all get a bit techical, the a3 and rsx are made by luxury brands and you can get a type s rsx with leather for under 30k easily. But we'd still have to define what luxury is. Someone mentioned a manual a/c. The civic hybrid has automatic climate control but does that make it luxurious? Maybe more so than the standard civc but that does not make it a luxury car. I, though, wouldn't call an rsx a amazingly luxurious car, but it is made by a brand that is associated with making those kinds of cars.
True, it is basically a Si with leather and a different body. Personally, I have thought the RSX is not really worthy of the Acura name due to lack of luxury, and carried a very steep price tag for the Type-S model.
doesnt the fact that it offers leather technically make it more (even if its just a tiny amount) luxurious than the si? It may not offer more performance, but at least about as much.
"... worthy of the Acura name due to lack of luxury..."
Side topic: could someone give me a good definition of "luxury" and how it relates to small sports coupes?
Is "luxury" JUST features? (ie. leather seats, automatic climate control, etc. etc.) Or is "luxury" something harder to quantify?
I mean, it's a bit easier to discuss "performance" because we can talk acceleration/braking, handling, steering response etc. etc. and get at least SOME objective measure of how certain cars stack up in the "performance" arena.
But "luxury"? I dunno; isn't that kinda like "style" (the beauty is in the eye and all that jazz).
And now, back on topic: of what POSSIBLE relevance is "luxury" when talking about the Speed3 vs. GTI vs. Si??? Good lord, you guys remind me of the minivan owners comparing slalom numbers or large SUV owners comparing real world mpg......
And now, back on topic: of what POSSIBLE relevance is "luxury" when talking about the Speed3 vs. GTI vs. Si???
Luxury has everything to do with this forum, if you look for luxury features in this size of a car. Size of the vehicle does not constitute whether luxury is relevant or not. Just because these are considered performance compacts, does not rule out everything besides the drive.
Good God that would be so friggen redundant to talk about performance numbers over and over and over and over....geeze, they are not going to change for quite sometime, considering they are all new models!
"Luxury has everything to do with this forum, if you look for luxury features in this size of a car."
Okie dokie......so what are "luxury features"?
See, person 'A' may feel that "luxury features" are stuff like power seats, all leather seating surfaces, auto climate control, trip computers, etc. (basically, stuff and doohickeys). Person 'B' may feel that "luxury features" has to do with the feel of the materials (shape/compliance of armrests, look/feel of headliner, quietness of the cabin, suppleness of the ride, etc.).
So, unless person 'A' and person 'B' (or, in this forum persons 'C' thru about 'W') can AGREE on just WHAT "luxury" is, it's kinda pointness making vague comments like "the A4 had/has more luxury than the RSX" or "the GTI is more luxurious than the Speed3".
To me (and this is just me), luxury IS a consideration when buying a car in this class (just like performance, value, utility, reliability, style, etc. are also considerations). But what counts as luxury TO ME is probably completely different from what someone else looks for.
agreed rorr. I didnt mean to assist the sidetracking of this thread. Even though the 'luxury' features on all these cars may be something many of us will consider, i'm pretty sure that the MAIN reason this thread was created was to compare them mosltly along the lines of performance and that is NOT redundant. Personally i respect all three cars, i love the gti, the si chassis is great and the mazda seems to have great value though i have no desire to own it.
I would not say that any of these cars are luxury, however, one may think one is "more luxurious" then the other's, if you consider leather, climate control, xenon headlights, things like that. However, it is all subjective.
Hmmm. The interior is decent though below the level of the car's direct competitor the 4 door GTI and about on par with the Mazda3. Of course in the 3 and GTI I could find a comfortable seating position quickly. Not so in the Civic sedan. Controls were logical, if a tad on the cheap side. Again, the GTI stands out here by a longshot. All told the SI is a bit behind the Mazda3 and a massive gap behind the GTI. Even the Mark IV GTI had a better interior.
The gauges. Ick. The digital speedometer looks goofy and it's fairly worthless as it was registering odd speeds. I'd pull out of a side street and coast to the next light, yet the speedo would read 16 mph the whole time...until I was at a dead stop. Weird. The odd dash layout didn't help matters as the driver feels like he's looking out an old Pontiac Transport. With the tach and speedo at two totally different sightlines, you can really only glance at one. Unfortunately, the tach is hidden behind the wheel while the worthless speedo is in plain sight. The massive a-pillars and weird b-pillars make sightlines out the front and front sides, difficult.
The shifter feel wasn't bolt-perfect Honda. What the blazes? Did someone give me an LX with SI badging? The 6 speed did the job but felt oddly dettached and more like something from my cruddty 06 BMW than a Mazda/Honda tranny. Here the Mazda3 wins with the GTI/A3 coming in second. I never would have expected a vague tranny in a Honda but then again the SI coupe I drove did not feel vague. Maybe it was a bum unit in this SI sedan?
Maybe the unit's feel had something to do with that high-revving 2.0? The engine revs forever. But below 4-5k it's got zero gumption. Above that, with two adult males the car moved but not with much verve. Not sure where to place the engine's tach to get motivation but I couldn't find it. I fully believe the 0-60 times of 7 seconds plus.
On the road the suspension soaked up bumps nicely and the car held corners with aplomb. No real body roll. Tracked true. Quite a bit of understeer on hard corners. Far better roadfeel than I got out of the SI coupe. Really amusing to toss it around as it's so light and responsive. The Mazda3 feels better but may not return the same high cornering numbers. Ditto the GTI.
With more power, better interior materials and a better seating position, the SI would be a great little car for me.
At this point, I'd still stick with an 07 GTI. Now if only I could get rid of my 330i without losing thousands...
"Stability at very high speed is exemplary, too. As it is on fast country roads. The chassis has bags of grip, fine body control and, amazingly, hardly any torque-steer. Trouble is, travelling quickly in the 3 MPS just isn’t much fun. At least, not by the standards of a Golf GTI or (MkII)Focus ST. And especially not by the standards of the latest Renaultsport Mégane competing in this year’s eCoty.
The steering, while reasonably direct and well weighted, feels numb and is very short on detail feedback, the engine note is persistently dull and occasionally unpleasant, and although grip and body control are good, the chassis’ act as a whole is distinctly two dimensional, the mild understeering balance being only minutely adjustable with the throttle. Ride comfort is rather fidgety, too.
I'm a 37 yr. old professional banker and drive an '03 Lexus LS430 that has left me somewhat yearning for a fun daily driver. Though I have no complaints about my LS430 in terms of comfort and beauty, it has given me that "monotonous" feel. The car has no soul or character in my opinion. Thus, my research for a fun <$30k car has begun. 3 cars immediately come to mind, the 4dr. GTI, the Mazdaspeed3, and the Si Sedan.
I had the opporunity to test drive the GTI and MS3. I would have to say after driving both, the feel, quality, and overall satisfaction hands down goes to the GTI w/DSG. The interior quality, looks, and features are second to none when comparing the GTIs to the MS3. The MS3's looked cheap and "plasticky".
On the road, though the MS3 had more HP, the GTI seemed more eager to rev and so much more responsive. The DSG was such a joy to use and made me feel like an F1 driver. The convenience of an auto with a manual feature seems to be more practical in the everyday traffic and commute world of NorCal. The MS3 felt anemic in the lower revs and didnt feel to have the same "scoot" as the GTI at higher revs either. Both rides were firm and tight, something I have to get use to coming from the plush Lexus.
In terms of how the cars made me felt while driving, the GTI gave me a "grown up/I'm a professional but can play too" feel, while the MS3 gave me a "boy racer" feel. Definitely, not in favor of the latter. The Si sedan, just from the image Civics have made for itself in the past, also falls under the latter. I think I don't even have to test drive one.
So here is just a short write up on the 2 cars I've tested. Hopefully this helps someone else who is trying to decide between the cars. So now, it just comes down to which aftermarket parts to go with the GTI. :shades:
I am a 43 year old IT Consultant and think you really owe it to yourself to drive the Si Sedan whether or not there's a "boy racer" image, before deciding. Having driven both a GTI (albeit a 6 speed and NOT the DSG) and the Si Sedan, I will be picking up the Civic this spring (after the Chicago winter subsides). The GTI can not hold a candle to the Civic's handling. It does present a more "mature" interior image, but the exterior of the 4 door GTI is somewhat bland and stubby when compared to the sleek appearance of the Civic. The GTI's turbo does somewhat alleviate the need to downshift (6 speed specific), but it feels artificial in its power delivery (the boost is not gradual enough). It all comes down to personal preference in the end.
The Civic's handling is nice. But matched to a woefully underpowered engine and a really low-rent interior it's not worth my cash. That buzzy, anemic engine requires lots of coaxing to get very little out of it.
But, the Si will easily hold its value better than the GTI and it'll probably be infinitely more reliable too.
In the end, I'll take the GTI's superior poweer, xenons and great interior. I can mod the suspension for a few hundred dollars (thousands for a coil-over). Really, VW reliability is the only big worry for me.
Personally I found the GTI to be way better than the SI aesthetically. The GTI has a much more classic feel while the SI layout and materials looks asexual and kinda 'star trek next generation' to me. Some people may really go for that look, but I'm not really into adding curves and odd design shapes for the heck of it. Sitting behind the wheel just didn't feel right either. The whole dash was too low...I want to feel like I'm in a cockpit, not sitting at a picinic bench! In addition the split level gauges was disappointing. I want to see that speedometer arm climb! Not watch a digital display flick around. The last thing that really bothered me was the climate controls. Huge and ugly knobs. WHY?
The SI was lots of fun to drive at speed on windy roads, but seemed on the short end in style and low end torque. I forgive the GTI for any handling shortcoming's in exchange for the interior. Clean, quality, and just a pinch mean!
I'm 52 and I drive a '04 Lexus LS430. What I tested these last few days were the 4-Door GTI;the Civic Si Sedan;the MS3;the scion TC and god knows what else. The same thing about these Japanese Lexus cars, after a while they do nat have the feel of German cars-the uumph! The best of the lot could either be the GTI or a 200HP/184 ft-lbs scion TC. The SI is just too low on the torque at 139 ft-lib and the MS3 just doesnt feel like a rocket when it should be at 263 HP/280 ft-lbs (maybe because of the transmission feels like loosely put together). The problem is the TC is 2-door (around $23,000) while the 4-door GTI ($24,700) is the most ideal for me because I have two kids in the back.
MS3 just doesn't feel like a rocket when it should be at 263 HP/280 ft-lbs (maybe because of the transmission feels like loosely put together).
There is a torque management system that reduces the torque in 1st and 2nd gears to eliminate torque steer. That is why you don't feel it right away. Once you hit 3rd, you can out run almost anything. It has nothing to do with the tranny. The tranny is actually well put together.
Although i will always have a soft spot for hondas' my addiction to torque will never being quenched unless i'm driving somthing with a k24 in it. I'd go the gti.
Where did you find a stock 200hp scion tc? They are rated at 160 hp. Just a camry engine if i'm not mistaken.
Hey guys i am 17 years old and i have a nissan pathfinder currently. I have been having problems and would like to get a new car that beets the great 12mpg's i get. I also would like the car to be manual with some power. From the homework and visits to the dealerships i have found the 2007 gti 4 door DSG vw to be the most attractive to me. It is a little on the expensive side but i am willing to spend the extra for the power and reliability (if any).\ would I have had may discussion with my grandpa about this car and he thinks that this is a impractical buy for me. I do not agree. It is hard to tell because i am 17 and want to drive fast.
I have had bad experiences with used cars soo i am wondering if this car would suit my needs.
I know the reliability is hard to guess but i have heard a lot of good and a little bad but only from the ones that just want to fu** up the hole company of VW.
the main reason is that my moms boyfriend is the manager of a vw dealership in toledo, ohio. Soo i could get this car idk about 3-4 under sticker. please give me your feedback and tell me what to buy.. I am open for anything..
For reliability, the Volkswagen would be at the very bottom of my list for vehicles. Not just out of these three, but out of ALL makes of cars. They are expensive to repair, and many reports (Consumer Reports Magazine and many other reports) have shown the Volkswagen to be in need of repair early on in life.
I'd take your grandfather's advice and shop another one of these vehicles, with better reliability.
I also know of a personal experience with a family friend who spent $2,200 on her VW New Beetle Turbo because of Electrical Problems and A/C problems at 40,000 miles and 4 years of age.
I know it isn't the answer you want to hear, but mark me on your tally as one for the "no" column for the question "Should I buy this Car?"
I certainly recommend you the GTI. It is a great car and you are not going to regret purchasing it. Reliability is questionable only from the point of view of Honda fanatics(like the one that commented in the previous post) so I would not be worried about that if I were you. Gas mileage is stellar(32 on highway, 28 mixed), power delivery is tremendous at very low RPM(1800 maximum torque)and the car is solidly built in Wolfsburg, Germany. Best in class hands down. Go for it...it is the best car you can buy below 30000 dollars.
No doubt the car is solid - but there are plenty of people who will tell you VW's reliability is questionable at best. Consumer Reports didn't give it their lowest ratings lately for no reason - people report more problems with them.
I'm no Honda fanatic - I would take the MazdaSpeed 3 before the Si anyday. The Honda is likely more reliable than the Mazda, but I've never heard the horror stories of big $ repairs early in the life of the car from Mazda like I've heard from various Passat, New Beetle, and Jetta owners.
I have had may discussion with my grandpa about this car and he thinks that this is a impractical buy for me. I have had bad experiences with used cars soo i am wondering if this car would suit my needs.
You'll probably have much, much, much worse luck reliability-wise with the GTI than with ANY Honda product. Used civic or accord is the way to go with teens.
GTI is totally impractical for a teenager.
1. The 200 hp will get a very high insurance rate. Teens crash often...insurance companies do not want to pay to repair a 27k VW.
2. Premium gas and about 24-25 mpg realistic gas mileage for a leadfoot teen.
3. Upkeep and maintenance - turbo engines require synthetic oil and often.
4. Already mentioned, reliability is horrible.
5. New car depreciation. Not worth buying a new car for a teen who will wreck the car and further damage depreciation.
6.Tickets. quite honestly, a GTI is easy to speed in and will result in tickets. up goes insurance too then.
2002-2003 Honda Accord with a 4 cylinder = safe car, uses regular fuel, good gas mileage, runs well, not a speed demon, won't take new car depreciation hit, will run well all through college and beyond.
I do find all this talk about reliability to be somewhat interesting since it seems most people on here are trading in their cars within 3 years of purchase anyway. Under such circumstances, the car will always be under warranty.
I've had 3 VWs over the past 8 1/2 years, and have not had any real reliability problems. My first Passat had some window and electrical issues that were covered under warranty. The work was done at the time of my 5000 mile interval service. No biggie...
the GTI has too much power for a teenager. Hell, I got speeding tickets in my 85 horsepower Daihatsu as a teen. I can only imagine what it would have been like if I were in a GTI.
Also, the insurance on the GTI isn't cheap. I just did an online quote with my insurance provider, and insurance for the GTI is $410 more a year than for a Passat. Even the Audi A3's insurance is cheaper than the GTI, even though the A3 is a more expensive car...
Obviously, the GTI's "target demographic" is wrecking this car a lot... Check out the VW Vortex sometime, and it seems like there is a "I wrecked my car!" thread posted every other day.
My first Passat had some window and electrical issues that were covered under warranty (at 5,000 miles or less).
May I ask what year this car was? If you still have it I'd get rid of it before the warranty expires. Those electrical problems are expensive to repair!
Best in class hands down. Go for it...it is the best car you can buy below 30000 dollars.
I would not agree with that statement. The Mazdaspeed3 out performs in every performance category, also can be found for relatively the same price. Mazda also has a much better track record for reliability. I would say the Honda Civic Si is a better buy as well. Similar performance, much better reliability record as well.
Really, the only thing the GTI may have better is the interior, which is subjective.
Bottom line, not "Best In Class" or best under $30,000.
May I ask what year this car was? If you still have it I'd get rid of it before the warranty expires. Those electrical problems are expensive to repair!
It was a 1999. I turned it in for a newer model, which then got turned in for another newer Passat. So basically, I'm never off warranty. Never had any significant issues while on warranty.
I wonder if people complaining about all the problems are the same ones who are sticking all those after market mods on their engine/turbo and such?
Never modded my VW's engine. Or touched the electricals. Car was a nightmare. And from the CR stats it appears VW has never fixed the issues. Ditto BMW (god, my BMWs have been horrendous).
Well, I can speak for the two that I know of, and neither have modded them.
One is a 2.0L 2004 Jetta 5-speed MT, completely stock, owned by a college-friend of mine. The other is a 2000 New Beetle Turbo owned by a friend of the family in her 60s. She doesn't drive hard at all.
Sounds like you don't keep your cars long, so you will probably be ok driving a VW. Keep one longer and be careful! :shades:
I'm going to sidestep the whole reliability issue and hit on some other points...
If you're 17 I would go for a used car before the GTI.
Don't get me wrong, I own a GTI and I think it's a great car. But when I look back to the first car I had, and how much I beat on it ... I think I owe that Plymouth a debt of gratitude.
Also If you're 17, odds are your going to be driving this car a lot around other inexperienced drivers at high school/college. While you may be a fine driver, you'll be around a lot of sucky drivers. If you have a GTI and one of them tags you, it's going to cost a bit to repair. VW maintenance in general costs more than other makes, so I would get something else as your first car.
I know it's not as sexy, but I'd go for a used mazda 3 or civic. This way insurance rates are a bit lower, costs less to maintain, and if someone bumps you...no big deal. You can still have plenty of fun in a good handling car.
Having a car takes a lot of money. Best to start with something affordable rather than trying to stretch it. Only chumps go into debt over car ownership, and at your point in life a it's quite the whammy.
1 Hondas have higher insurance rates than VW. I own a GTI and the insurance rate is not higher than for a regular Accord. That's probably because you have a lot more safety features in the VW. 2 Gas mileage is WAY better than the 4 cylinder Accord which gives EPA ratings of 23(city) and 34(highway) but gets way under (18-19 city). 3 Turbo engines need synthetic oil for best performance but everybody knows that you don't need to change as often as you would change a regular one. VW recommends every 10,000 miles. 4 Reliability for VW is better than for newer American built Honda's(known as rattle traps and needing new transmissions at 50000 miles.). 5 According to Forbes GTI has one of the best resale values 6 I have to agree about the tickets ..The car is incredibly fun to drive ..is hard to keep it under the speed limit. Not impossible though. GTI won "2007 Automobile of the year" and if is a car out there you will not regret buying this is the one. GTI is the type of car that makes you look for reasons to drive. If you are only 17 maybe you should drive a VW Rabbit(looks the same just a little down on power, still a lot of fun) for a year or two before you get in the GTI. Anyway, don't settle for some garbage like Civic or Accord. I had cars from Subaru STI to Cadillac. I can tell there is nothing worse than owning a Honda or Toyota. Have you ever seen a happy person driving one of these. Reserve owning Hondas for when life feels meaningless to you.
Mazdaspeed 3 feels cheap and is not only the interior. The power delivery is weird(narrow band), transmission is not precise, it is very noisy when driving on highway, has turbo lag, it is unrefined. VW has a history in making hatches , it is the benchmark for hatches. It won even in comparisons with BMW(130). In my opinion If somebody is looking for an unrefined fast car the best choice is the Subaru WRX(for under 30000)not Mazdaspeed 3 but If you are looking for quality, class, fun, and even good fuel economy GTI is the hands down winner.
Mazdaspeed 3 feels cheap and is not only the interior
Must have a thing against Mazda, it is anything but cheap.
The power delivery is weird(narrow band), transmission is not precise, it is very noisy when driving on highway, has turbo lag, it is unrefined.
The tranny is precise, is refined, "weird" power delivery? I do not follow, unless you are talking about the torque limmiter computer, which is a benefit to reduce torque steer. And you mean to tell me there is no turbo lag in the GTI, pu-lease!
I'm thinking that you just had a bias about VW's when (more like if) you drove the Mazdaspeed3. You seem to be one opinion who differers from almost every well respected, well regarded authors who have published otherwise.
I believe Edmunds did a comparo with these vehicle's and found the GTI to be near the bottom. I guess if you are looking for a nice looking interior with average performance, the GTI is the hands down winner.
Comments
Well, since I am a dealer, I will look at my lot and see....ut oh...wait...I don't see any! I seem to have sold them all!
That shows WHO really doesn't understand marketing and that's Mazda or you because I am not sure that Mazda really did market their car against luxury brands. Who in the right mind will cross shop BMW and Mazda?
Well, they did. It's called extending the brand. Their aim was the BMW 325xi, Audi A4 2.0 Quattro, Legacy GT, and Infiniti G35x. Now, yes the lux cars are more refined, however, they do not offer the same performance in power, or handling. Mazda's goal was "performance/dollar" with some lux features.
As a matter of fact, Mazda is getting loads of people to look at their cars, and we are seeing that they are also looking at entry leval lux cars.
VW R32 doesn't compete with STI and EVO more than a Mazdaspeed 6. In fact is Mazdaspeed 6 that has more similarities with this two ( poorly finished exterior and cheap looking interior). That GOLF(R32) looks like a luxury car by comparison and if 0 to 60 is not all you want from your car there is nothing that can match the amount of fun per dollar in the auto industry.
Actually, the R32 is a direct competitor to the STi/EVO, they have very similar customer demographics. Same size, same class. Yes, the R32 is a hatch, but it's a compact hatch. Your assessment on the MS6 being "cheap" is subjective, there are many other to disagree with you, including well respected publications. Oh, and there is PLENTY out there for $30,000 that have BETTER luxury, and MORE fun to dive then a VW R32. But, then again, that is subjective as well. I do not see the R32 as any more refined then the GTI,actually has a harder ride the then GTI, which is considered a "hot hatch". If you want refinement, go with the Audi A3. That is more refined.
Sorry everyone, I'm done with the MS6 now!! Back to the GTI, MS3 and Si
Lighter makes a car better for everyone living on the planet. When asked what advice he would give to auto makers to improve their cars, David Champion, senior director of the Automotive Test Centre at Consumer Reports, replied: "Make them lighter." For more information, see Autoline Detroit's Nov. 12, 2006 episode http://www.autolinedetroit.tv/autoline/archives.php
Unless your hit by somebody who drive an Excursion and doesnt think lighter is better. Then your not on the planet anymore and it doesnt matter. :P
----
VW R32, Audi A3, BMW 1-series, Mercedes B-class, Volvo C30, Saab's in general...
Just because the US and Japanese luxury automakers don't make them doesn't mean they don't exist. (though Acura does make the RSX)
Apparently you and I share different ideas of "luxury."
Yep, and MUCH more expensive than the value-smart A3 base model ($26k). Recently saw a "short take" in Motor Trend or C&D which had a loaded A3; it was over $40k! Luxurious, yes, but that's then well into 330i territory, or even an Infiniti M35.
Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any Abrams A1 tank dealers near me. Looks like I'm outta luck!
Still felt like a gussied-up Civic once inside, to me.
Side topic: could someone give me a good definition of "luxury" and how it relates to small sports coupes?
Is "luxury" JUST features? (ie. leather seats, automatic climate control, etc. etc.) Or is "luxury" something harder to quantify?
I mean, it's a bit easier to discuss "performance" because we can talk acceleration/braking, handling, steering response etc. etc. and get at least SOME objective measure of how certain cars stack up in the "performance" arena.
But "luxury"? I dunno; isn't that kinda like "style" (the beauty is in the eye and all that jazz).
And now, back on topic: of what POSSIBLE relevance is "luxury" when talking about the Speed3 vs. GTI vs. Si??? Good lord, you guys remind me of the minivan owners comparing slalom numbers or large SUV owners comparing real world mpg......
Luxury has everything to do with this forum, if you look for luxury features in this size of a car. Size of the vehicle does not constitute whether luxury is relevant or not. Just because these are considered performance compacts, does not rule out everything besides the drive.
Good God that would be so friggen redundant to talk about performance numbers over and over and over and over....geeze, they are not going to change for quite sometime, considering they are all new models!
Okie dokie......so what are "luxury features"?
See, person 'A' may feel that "luxury features" are stuff like power seats, all leather seating surfaces, auto climate control, trip computers, etc. (basically, stuff and doohickeys). Person 'B' may feel that "luxury features" has to do with the feel of the materials (shape/compliance of armrests, look/feel of headliner, quietness of the cabin, suppleness of the ride, etc.).
So, unless person 'A' and person 'B' (or, in this forum persons 'C' thru about 'W') can AGREE on just WHAT "luxury" is, it's kinda pointness making vague comments like "the A4 had/has more luxury than the RSX" or "the GTI is more luxurious than the Speed3".
To me (and this is just me), luxury IS a consideration when buying a car in this class (just like performance, value, utility, reliability, style, etc. are also considerations). But what counts as luxury TO ME is probably completely different from what someone else looks for.
I would not say that any of these cars are luxury, however, one may think one is "more luxurious" then the other's, if you consider leather, climate control, xenon headlights, things like that. However, it is all subjective.
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/u/r0a9f0811324f75a7t/carreviews/firstdrives/204554/- - - honda_civic_v_vw_golf.html
The gauges. Ick. The digital speedometer looks goofy and it's fairly worthless as it was registering odd speeds. I'd pull out of a side street and coast to the next light, yet the speedo would read 16 mph the whole time...until I was at a dead stop. Weird. The odd dash layout didn't help matters as the driver feels like he's looking out an old Pontiac Transport. With the tach and speedo at two totally different sightlines, you can really only glance at one. Unfortunately, the tach is hidden behind the wheel while the worthless speedo is in plain sight. The massive a-pillars and weird b-pillars make sightlines out the front and front sides, difficult.
The shifter feel wasn't bolt-perfect Honda. What the blazes? Did someone give me an LX with SI badging? The 6 speed did the job but felt oddly dettached and more like something from my cruddty 06 BMW than a Mazda/Honda tranny. Here the Mazda3 wins with the GTI/A3 coming in second. I never would have expected a vague tranny in a Honda but then again the SI coupe I drove did not feel vague. Maybe it was a bum unit in this SI sedan?
Maybe the unit's feel had something to do with that high-revving 2.0? The engine revs forever. But below 4-5k it's got zero gumption. Above that, with two adult males the car moved but not with much verve. Not sure where to place the engine's tach to get motivation but I couldn't find it. I fully believe the 0-60 times of 7 seconds plus.
On the road the suspension soaked up bumps nicely and the car held corners with aplomb. No real body roll. Tracked true. Quite a bit of understeer on hard corners. Far better roadfeel than I got out of the SI coupe. Really amusing to toss it around as it's so light and responsive. The Mazda3 feels better but may not return the same high cornering numbers. Ditto the GTI.
With more power, better interior materials and a better seating position, the SI would be a great little car for me.
At this point, I'd still stick with an 07 GTI. Now if only I could get rid of my 330i without losing thousands...
I'm not saying the Mazdaspeed3 is anymore boring than the Si/GTI, but here's what Europe's EVO said about it:
http://www.evo.co.uk/u/r0a9f0811324f75a7t/carreviews/evocarreviews/204243/mazda_- - - - 3_mps.html
"Stability at very high speed is exemplary, too. As it is on fast country roads. The chassis has bags of grip, fine body control and, amazingly, hardly any torque-steer. Trouble is, travelling quickly in the 3 MPS just isn’t much fun. At least, not by the standards of a Golf GTI or (MkII)Focus ST. And especially not by the standards of the latest Renaultsport Mégane competing in this year’s eCoty.
The steering, while reasonably direct and well weighted, feels numb and is very short on detail feedback, the engine note is persistently dull and occasionally unpleasant, and although grip and body control are good, the chassis’ act as a whole is distinctly two dimensional, the mild understeering balance being only minutely adjustable with the throttle. Ride comfort is rather fidgety, too.
evo RATING:
+: Speed, grip, stability
-: Strangely uninvolving, dull styling"
After driving the Mazda3 a zillion times, I kept leaning toward the meaty-steering Focus SVT.
I had the opporunity to test drive the GTI and MS3. I would have to say after driving both, the feel, quality, and overall satisfaction hands down goes to the GTI w/DSG. The interior quality, looks, and features are second to none when comparing the GTIs to the MS3. The MS3's looked cheap and "plasticky".
On the road, though the MS3 had more HP, the GTI seemed more eager to rev and so much more responsive. The DSG was such a joy to use and made me feel like an F1 driver.
In terms of how the cars made me felt while driving, the GTI gave me a "grown up/I'm a professional but can play too" feel, while the MS3 gave me a "boy racer" feel. Definitely, not in favor of the latter. The Si sedan, just from the image Civics have made for itself in the past, also falls under the latter. I think I don't even have to test drive one.
So here is just a short write up on the 2 cars I've tested. Hopefully this helps someone else who is trying to decide between the cars. So now, it just comes down to which aftermarket parts to go with the GTI. :shades:
I am a 43 year old IT Consultant and think you really owe it to yourself to drive the Si Sedan whether or not there's a "boy racer" image, before deciding. Having driven both a GTI (albeit a 6 speed and NOT the DSG) and the Si Sedan, I will be picking up the Civic this spring (after the Chicago winter subsides). The GTI can not hold a candle to the Civic's handling. It does present a more "mature" interior image, but the exterior of the 4 door GTI is somewhat bland and stubby when compared to the sleek appearance of the Civic. The GTI's turbo does somewhat alleviate the need to downshift (6 speed specific), but it feels artificial in its power delivery (the boost is not gradual enough). It all comes down to personal preference in the end.
But, the Si will easily hold its value better than the GTI and it'll probably be infinitely more reliable too.
In the end, I'll take the GTI's superior poweer, xenons and great interior. I can mod the suspension for a few hundred dollars (thousands for a coil-over). Really, VW reliability is the only big worry for me.
Personally I found the GTI to be way better than the SI aesthetically. The GTI has a much more classic feel while the SI layout and materials looks asexual and kinda 'star trek next generation' to me. Some people may really go for that look, but I'm not really into adding curves and odd design shapes for the heck of it. Sitting behind the wheel just didn't feel right either. The whole dash was too low...I want to feel like I'm in a cockpit, not sitting at a picinic bench! In addition the split level gauges was disappointing. I want to see that speedometer arm climb! Not watch a digital display flick around. The last thing that really bothered me was the climate controls. Huge and ugly knobs. WHY?
The SI was lots of fun to drive at speed on windy roads, but seemed on the short end in style and low end torque. I forgive the GTI for any handling shortcoming's in exchange for the interior. Clean, quality, and just a pinch mean!
But hey, that's just me...
The best of the lot could either be the GTI or a 200HP/184 ft-lbs scion TC. The SI is just too low on the torque at 139 ft-lib and the MS3 just doesnt feel like a rocket when it should be at 263 HP/280 ft-lbs (maybe because of the transmission feels like loosely put together).
The problem is the TC is 2-door (around $23,000) while the 4-door GTI ($24,700) is the most ideal for me because I have two kids in the back.
There is a torque management system that reduces the torque in 1st and 2nd gears to eliminate torque steer. That is why you don't feel it right away. Once you hit 3rd, you can out run almost anything. It has nothing to do with the tranny. The tranny is actually well put together.
Where did you find a stock 200hp scion tc? They are rated at 160 hp. Just a camry engine if i'm not mistaken.
would
I have had may discussion with my grandpa about this car and he thinks that this is a impractical buy for me. I do not agree. It is hard to tell because i am 17 and want to drive fast.
I have had bad experiences with used cars soo i am wondering if this car would suit my needs.
I know the reliability is hard to guess but i have heard a lot of good and a little bad but only from the ones that just want to fu** up the hole company of VW.
the main reason is that my moms boyfriend is the manager of a vw dealership in toledo, ohio. Soo i could get this car idk about 3-4 under sticker. please give me your feedback and tell me what to buy.. I am open for anything..
I'd take your grandfather's advice and shop another one of these vehicles, with better reliability.
I also know of a personal experience with a family friend who spent $2,200 on her VW New Beetle Turbo because of Electrical Problems and A/C problems at 40,000 miles and 4 years of age.
I know it isn't the answer you want to hear, but mark me on your tally as one for the "no" column for the question "Should I buy this Car?"
I'm no Honda fanatic - I would take the MazdaSpeed 3 before the Si anyday. The Honda is likely more reliable than the Mazda, but I've never heard the horror stories of big $ repairs early in the life of the car from Mazda like I've heard from various Passat, New Beetle, and Jetta owners.
You'll probably have much, much, much worse luck reliability-wise with the GTI than with ANY Honda product. Used civic or accord is the way to go with teens.
GTI is totally impractical for a teenager.
1. The 200 hp will get a very high insurance rate. Teens crash often...insurance companies do not want to pay to repair a 27k VW.
2. Premium gas and about 24-25 mpg realistic gas mileage for a leadfoot teen.
3. Upkeep and maintenance - turbo engines require synthetic oil and often.
4. Already mentioned, reliability is horrible.
5. New car depreciation. Not worth buying a new car for a teen who will wreck the car and further damage depreciation.
6.Tickets. quite honestly, a GTI is easy to speed in and will result in tickets. up goes insurance too then.
2002-2003 Honda Accord with a 4 cylinder = safe car, uses regular fuel, good gas mileage, runs well, not a speed demon, won't take new car depreciation hit, will run well all through college and beyond.
I've had 3 VWs over the past 8 1/2 years, and have not had any real reliability problems. My first Passat had some window and electrical issues that were covered under warranty. The work was done at the time of my 5000 mile interval service. No biggie...
but your mileage may vary!
the GTI has too much power for a teenager. Hell, I got speeding tickets in my 85 horsepower Daihatsu as a teen. I can only imagine what it would have been like if I were in a GTI.
Also, the insurance on the GTI isn't cheap. I just did an online quote with my insurance provider, and insurance for the GTI is $410 more a year than for a Passat. Even the Audi A3's insurance is cheaper than the GTI, even though the A3 is a more expensive car...
Obviously, the GTI's "target demographic" is wrecking this car a lot... Check out the VW Vortex sometime, and it seems like there is a "I wrecked my car!" thread posted every other day.
May I ask what year this car was? If you still have it I'd get rid of it before the warranty expires. Those electrical problems are expensive to repair!
I would not agree with that statement. The Mazdaspeed3 out performs in every performance category, also can be found for relatively the same price. Mazda also has a much better track record for reliability. I would say the Honda Civic Si is a better buy as well. Similar performance, much better reliability record as well.
Really, the only thing the GTI may have better is the interior, which is subjective.
Bottom line, not "Best In Class" or best under $30,000.
It was a 1999. I turned it in for a newer model, which then got turned in for another newer Passat. So basically, I'm never off warranty. Never had any significant issues while on warranty.
I wonder if people complaining about all the problems are the same ones who are sticking all those after market mods on their engine/turbo and such?
One is a 2.0L 2004 Jetta 5-speed MT, completely stock, owned by a college-friend of mine. The other is a 2000 New Beetle Turbo owned by a friend of the family in her 60s. She doesn't drive hard at all.
Sounds like you don't keep your cars long, so you will probably be ok driving a VW. Keep one longer and be careful! :shades:
If you're 17 I would go for a used car before the GTI.
Don't get me wrong, I own a GTI and I think it's a great car. But when I look back to the first car I had, and how much I beat on it ... I think I owe that Plymouth a debt of gratitude.
Also If you're 17, odds are your going to be driving this car a lot around other inexperienced drivers at high school/college. While you may be a fine driver, you'll be around a lot of sucky drivers. If you have a GTI and one of them tags you, it's going to cost a bit to repair. VW maintenance in general costs more than other makes, so I would get something else as your first car.
I know it's not as sexy, but I'd go for a used mazda 3 or civic. This way insurance rates are a bit lower, costs less to maintain, and if someone bumps you...no big deal. You can still have plenty of fun in a good handling car.
Having a car takes a lot of money. Best to start with something affordable rather than trying to stretch it. Only chumps go into debt over car ownership, and at your point in life a it's quite the whammy.
2 Gas mileage is WAY better than the 4 cylinder Accord which gives EPA ratings of 23(city) and 34(highway) but gets way under (18-19 city).
3 Turbo engines need synthetic oil for best performance but everybody knows that you don't need to change as often as you would change a regular one. VW recommends every 10,000 miles.
4 Reliability for VW is better than for newer American built Honda's(known as rattle traps and needing new transmissions at 50000 miles.).
5 According to Forbes GTI has one of the best resale values
6 I have to agree about the tickets ..The car is incredibly fun to drive ..is hard to keep it under the speed limit. Not impossible though.
GTI won "2007 Automobile of the year" and if is a car out there you will not regret buying this is the one. GTI is the type of car that makes you look for reasons to drive. If you are only 17 maybe you should drive a VW Rabbit(looks the same just a little down on power, still a lot of fun) for a year or two before you get in the GTI. Anyway, don't settle for some garbage like Civic or Accord. I had cars from Subaru STI to Cadillac. I can tell there is nothing worse than owning a Honda or Toyota. Have you ever seen a happy person driving one of these. Reserve owning Hondas for when life feels meaningless to you.
Must have a thing against Mazda, it is anything but cheap.
The power delivery is weird(narrow band), transmission is not precise, it is very noisy when driving on highway, has turbo lag, it is unrefined.
The tranny is precise, is refined, "weird" power delivery? I do not follow, unless you are talking about the torque limmiter computer, which is a benefit to reduce torque steer. And you mean to tell me there is no turbo lag in the GTI, pu-lease!
I'm thinking that you just had a bias about VW's when (more like if) you drove the Mazdaspeed3. You seem to be one opinion who differers from almost every well respected, well regarded authors who have published otherwise.
I believe Edmunds did a comparo with these vehicle's and found the GTI to be near the bottom. I guess if you are looking for a nice looking interior with average performance, the GTI is the hands down winner.