> Drivers intuitivly stagger left and right accordingly avoiding a huge pile up.
That is one skill that I picked up from the Germans, and I still use it to this day... :shades:
...and don't get me started about cell phones, drinking coffee, reading, etc. while driving. I have to keep my full attention on the road to watch out for drivers who are pre-occupied with everything except the road... :mad:
I believe they actually have to learn driving etiquette. I also watched a TV segment on PBS that cameras on certain stretches of the autobahn will cite drivers for tailgating. Imagine that here!
Really avi? I thought that the si sedan good good reviews, the test on edmunds said that they got almost identical numbers like they did on the coupe. I would take a sedan over the coupe any day! They said the extra weight wasnt an issue either. I dunno, no one lies sedans anymore i guess!
The thing about VTEC engines is they produce the power in the top of the power band, really making the car a performer at high speeds, because it does not run out of breath like most others do. The downside, they can get beaten off the line by mostly anything. This is evident in their high 14 sec low 15 sec 1/4 times, but yet, they trap at 93-95 mph, which is respectable. STi/EVO's trap at 100-105 mph. Mazdaspeed3 traps at 100mph
Many forget HP can keep you going, but you need TQ to GET you going. That is something VTEC cannot produce.
i don't think vtec is the problem. You can compare pretty much any car engine with and without variable valve timing and get increased hp AND torque on the one with the timing.
This is especially notable on hondas engines since they pretty much have the most amazing vv timing ever.
The problem lies in engine displacement. Put the k20 that resides in the si now into the old integra type r and that would be nice. Hondas have just gotten chubbier but they want to retain their small displacement trend. Granted a sub seven second car with a naturally aspirated 2.0 isn't all that bad, its just that its stregnth lies in horsies and not torque. (I'm pretty much conviced that honda made the new si for the aftermarket. The parts available and things done to the k20 in the past are just remarkable. The k series has an extraordinary resiliance to immense pressure be it turboed or supercharged.)
I think the solution to this (since honda seems very snubby when it comes to turbos) would be larger displacement. Nothing huge, but just like a 2.2 or 2.3. Now tune it like the si's engine and you got a 215-225 horspower engine that makes around 150-160 torque. That'll get things going and still make the car a nice gas sipper and retian their n/a values and make the car a bit more competitive as far as initial take off goes.
Whats more, the new type r engine is said to produce an additional 15-20 hp on the same engine with a few more lbs of torque. (its also in a lighter chassis!) Tune a k23 like that and the fun will really get going! (Plus you still retain hondas unique approach to engine tuning.)
Vtec makes torque avi. Larger displacement engines get more of it.
The problem lies in engine displacement. Put the k20 that resides in the si now into the old integra type r and that would be nice. Hondas have just gotten chubbier but they want to retain their small displacement trend. Granted a sub seven second car with a naturally aspirated 2.0 isn't all that bad, its just that its stregnth lies in horseies and not torque.
I think the solution to this (since honda seems very snubby when it comes to turbos) would be larger displacement. Nothing huge, but just like a 2.2 or 2.3. Now tune it like the si's engine and you got a 215-225 horspower engine that makes around 150-160 torque. That'll get things going and still make the car a nice gas sipper and retian their n/a values and make the car a bit more competitive as far as initial take off goes.
Haha, they have that. It's called an S2000, and they want $34,000 for it.
2.2L I-4
237 hp @ 7,800 RPM 162 lb-ft @ 6,800 RPM
Maybe a Civic Si - Type R with this engine, even if it means raising the price by $1,000 or $2,000? It'd be much more competitive.
The previous gen type r looked like our 02-05 si hatch, but it had the new si's engine. Its 0-60 is even faster than the current gti and si, simply due to the fact that it weighs less than the current si.
The new type r is a hatch too and it has a tweaked engine as well, like i said a few more horsies and torque, but its only available in europe. It looks AMAZING, and it would still cost less than the 3. Alas we do not get it here in the states!
I think our s2000 engine idea is better than even that though. Especially since the s2000 is nearing the end of its days...?
Lets see add 2000 to the msrp of a bare bones civic si, that makes it what about 23500? I'd defintely go for that!!!
in what sense? the s2000 is certainly not slow! It may not look gutsy on paper, but give me another naturally aspirated four banger that make that much horsies.(that isn't a lotus exige and is fairly affordable.) NOt to mention that that 2.2 give more torque than the 2.3 in the mazda 3!
I believe they actually have to learn driving etiquette. I also watched a TV segment on PBS that cameras on certain stretches of the autobahn will cite drivers for tailgating. Imagine that here!
That would be nice - and would take nothing short of a major miracle to make it happen...
I agree. Look at the Mazda RX-8. They get 232hp at 8,500 RPM's and 159 lb-ft at 5,500 RPM's out of a 1.3L (N/A eldaino). Once you are going, it's fast...really fast(148mph top speed). But, off the line..not so much...
Vtec makes torque avi. Larger displacement engines get more of it.
No, they do not.
The Mazda3 MZR 2.3 makes 150 lb-ft 160 hp for $16,000, not having a VV-T system that is sophisticated as VTEC. Honda's VTEC is superior to Mazda's VV-T. But, it only produces HP.
If you take VTEC out of the Honda engines, yes, the TQ and HP will both go down, but Honda has engineered VTEC to produce HP, not TQ.
I know the k20 series engines are very durable engines, very compatible to modification, and get wonderful horsepower out of such small displacement. There is no disputing that. Personally, I like torque. Honda VTEC performance engines just does not provide it.
The Mazda3 MZR 2.3 makes 150 lb-ft 160 hp for $16,000, not having a VV-T system that is sophisticated as VTEC. Honda's VTEC is superior to Mazda's VV-T. But, it only produces HP.
If you take VTEC out of the Honda engines, yes, the TQ and HP will both go down, but Honda has engineered VTEC to produce HP, not TQ.
I know the k20 series engines are very durable engines, very compatible to modification, and get wonderful horsepower out of such small displacement. There is no disputing that. Personally, I like torque. Honda VTEC performance engines just does not provide it.
It also gets something on the lines of 26/33 MPG to the Civic's 30/40 MPG. VTEC keeps the engine using less fuel when it isn't wound up. The expense is lower low-end power.
Some want the compromise for the extra economy, some don't.
Civic's 30/40 MPG. VTEC keeps the engine using less fuel when it isn't wound up. The expense is lower low-end power.
As another member brought up earlier, the 2.2L VTEC produces 162 lb-ft of torque (yes, with impressive 237hp), however, it only gets 20-26mpg. Compare that to the MZR 2.3L Turbo in the Mazdaspeed3 that gets 20-28mpg while producing 263hp and 280ft-lbs
To each their own. We all have different views on what we value important in vehicles.
really? I didnt think it was available for that cheap, since it only comes in the hatch version and in the upper trim levels of the sedan.
Unless ofcourse you are talking used and not new.
And isn't it more like 156 hp and 148lbs of torque? (i know picky picky! )
Personally, I like torque. Honda VTEC performance engines just does not provide it.
I kinda look at hondas approach to tuning an engine akin to lotus. They just haven't been as good of late as far as weight saving goes. You don't need huge engines and gobs of torque to go quickly, even the 'anemic' si has proven that. (you gotta row it but it goes.)
I like torque too, which is why i like the gti and veedubs in general so much. Honda give me the revs', vw gives me the oomph.
As another member brought up earlier, the 2.2L VTEC produces 162 lb-ft of torque (yes, with impressive 237hp), however, it only gets 20-26mpg. Compare that to the MZR 2.3L Turbo in the Mazdaspeed3 that gets 20-28mpg while producing 263hp and 280ft-lbs
i seriously doubt that anyone with an ms3 will get those numbers.
And isn't it more like 156 hp and 148lbs of torque? (i know picky picky! )
Actually, the new SAE rating is 156hp 150lb-ft. Close enough.
I like torque too, which is why i like the gti and veedubs in general so much. Honda give me the revs', vw gives me the oomph.
One thing I like about the GTI is that it does sustain constant power all the way to redline. It does have a pretty good power curve. If the Mazdaspeed3 had a dual scroll turbo, it would have a larger power curve.
I just wish that it would have a different engine.Although the k20 in it is tuned to over 200hp, the only real difference i suppose this would make would be in the version they are releasing that has certain anemities left out to save weight.(And then we are talking about a very low 0-60 which still is not shabby for a na vehicle.)
I still say stick the k23 turbo into it. Or just give us an si with a turbo!!
A little off topic but has anyone read motor trends review of the r32? 0-60 in 5.8; right on par with the ms3.
I know! I think i read a review on edmunds about the previous gen r32 and they got better times than vw claimed then as well, and they suspected the same would be for gen V.
I thought i mis-read it at first but no, they got 5.8. Can't wait to see edmunds take on it.
That'd be nice! Even though i think too much emphasis is put on four door mkV's. The room is exactly the same. They just shortened the front doors to add the back ones. But to some people moving seats is a pain i know.
Moving the seat forward is not an option. At all. I drive people around and I personally want access to the back - which is not possible with a 2 door. Finally, a kid is in the cards for me in the next few years, so 4 door is a must. Honestly, I'd be all over a 4 door R32. Done deal if it were offered.
whoa so grim. You simply CAN"T access a back seat with a 2 door? Maybe not super easily but its not horrendous chore either. I take my brothers and sisters with my wife and i all the time; they love it in the back, say its cozy. (do wish it had a flat floor.)
whoa so grim. You simply CAN"T access a back seat with a 2 door? Maybe not super easily but its not horrendous chore either. I take my brothers and sisters with my wife and i all the time; they love it in the back, say its cozy. (do wish it had a flat floor.)
I'm glad it works for you. I can't physically get into the backseat of a GTI or most coupes. Thus, putting a baby in a babyseat would be a nightmare for me. The 4 door provides easy access to the back. No fuss.
"Thus, putting a baby in a babyseat would be a nightmare for me. The 4 door provides easy access to the back. No fuss."
Agree.
I went through this with my Celica and two infants. Yes, the front passenger seat flips/slides forward. You've STILL got to manuever an infant carrier through a fairly small opening and then actually GET IN the back of the car to make sure the carrier (and later on the toddler) is latched in correctly. And if you include a typical parking lot scenario (with other cars close in on both sides and longish coupe doors) it REALLY makes loading infants/toddlers a major PITA. Thank god for my sunroof (kidding.....)
Is it physically doable with a 2-door coupe? Well, yes, for me it was (but then I'm skinny and limber), but I'm afraid my days of 2-door coupes is drawing to a close. :sick:
Yeah i gotcha, i keep talking about the ease of the backseat when i think about my younger brothers getting into the back, and they are both 8 and six and have those sit up car seats so its no prob, but infants...whole nother story.
Not to start an argument or anything, but why buy a GTI/SI/MS3 for kids? These are not family cars. Buy a SUV or mini van. I mean buying an R32 to carry kids? Give me a break, LOL!
I mean buying an R32 to carry kids? Give me a break, LOL!
Not sure what's LOL about that? I grew up with a mother who always owned muscle cars and sports car. Two kids and we got along fine with cars that had much smaller backseats, little trunk space and lots of power.
What I don't understand is why anyone would get a minivan or suv with only 1 or 2 kids. Makes no sense to me. Again, I grew with my parents driving Mustangs, Camaros, Thunderbirds, etc. We never had a reason to have some giant vehicle like an SUV. My mother didn't sell her soul or become something she isn't - living life in the abject misery of an SUV/minivan. Why would you wish that upon someone? Why would you pigeonhole someone like that? Did she suddenly lose her love of convertibles and RWD because she had kids? I'll let her know a guy on Edmunds thinks it's funny that a person didn't become a bland suburbanite because she had two kids...maybe she'll sell off her miata, 56 and 55 t-birds?
So, the R32 is extremely attractive to me and with 4 doors it'd be a no-brainer option as that would give me the performance I want for day-to-day drivings, while allowing easy access to the rear of the car for a baby. It's got far more interior space than my current e90 and the trunk is more versatile too. I'd get a zippy, compact car with big interior dimensions and the ability to swallow a whole car load of people while still giving me something that can whip through a slalom or do 100 mph effortlessly.
The Mazdaspeed3 is positively massive compared to my e90's interior/trunk. The GTI 4-door ample and most likely my number 1 choice even though my fiancee really wants the near identical A3. The Civic SI 4 door sedan, likewise, has a massive trunk and pretty good interior space. Right now we're using a 2006 Civic hybrid - her mom's extra car - to do some stuff around town and it's got plenty of room for just the two of us; a baby would fit without batting an eye.
These are 4 door hatches/sedans in this thread and they'll easily work for the first 5-6 years of a kid's life. Maybe about 11-12 it could get cramped but then again I have friends with kids that age and they still drive e46s.
You mean there's no middle ground between a 2-door coupe and a minivan? Get a grip.
The point is that it was very DIFFICULT hauling 2 young children with a 2-door coupe. Getting a 4-door like a GTI/Si/MS3 means being able to ENJOY DRIVING while ALSO making it EASIER to load kids in the back.
Or, as a 'carfanatic' would YOU give up on enjoyable driving JUST because you had a couple of kids?
BTW - already got an Ody. It's great for family trips; but occasionally I need to take the kids somewhere in my car and I'd like to have the CAPACITY to get them in/out a bit easier. If I can have all the driving enjoyment of a 2-door coupe in a 4 (or 5) door vehicle, why not?
Good: Gobs of power Fairly tight handling Crazy low price
so-so: Car felt squirrelly on bumps/undulations burble from exhaust might get old as it's loud even at a stoplight sitting still No heated seats but yet the car has a dorky navi system? no sunroof - yeah it'd hurt the structure but at 25k plus, let us get some lighting into a very dingy interior Understeer galore! The car's front end refused to get repointed.
Downside - Horrible mazda gearing - can't hold third to 100, first is not real friendly and 6th is a joke as rpms go up fast at cruising speeds of 75-85 Gas mileage is atrocious. They claim 20/28 but considering the gearing, good luck Mushy brakes worthless clutch with no obvious pick up point Bad gauges - why is the speedometer front and center instead of the tach? Vague, lousy, un-Mazda-like manual tranny (this thing even made my BMW's joke of a manual seem decent)
Overall a fun car for the money. But I think it's a tad too boy racer for me. The GTI still seems to be the front runner but I gotta say that power and the car's flingablity were fun.
Guy pushed me to drive the CX-7. No thanks - what a massive, removed, lousy hunk of junk. I wouldn't dream of that car if I had to go SUV. X3 wins that world by a landslide.
My point is that a Civic SI, a VW GTI and a MS3 are not family cars. A mini van and an SUV are. That is my point. If you don't agree that is your right, as is mine to think your wrong.
That's horrific. And given Mazda's awful gearing there's little chance of ever seeing 25-26 mpg running normal freeway speeds - 75-100. I've owned Mazdas, my sister has, my mom has and my family in general adores Mazdas. but one thing Mazda almost always does wrong is gearing. My 03 Protege did not have a freeway gear. It's sad that a light 4 cylinder car wouldn't be used for long freeway drives expressly because the manufacturer had no idea how to gear for freeways. I'd get 30-31 with my 330i running 90-100 all day, yet with the Mazda if I ran 85 on a night drive to Tucson I'd get 26 tops. That's bad gear as the car would be turning well over 4k rpm at those speeds. My old school 91 Stanza with a manual would get my high 20s, low 30s on long freeway drives because its 5th gear was super tall.
I agree with you on gas mileage. I had a 2000 Protege ES. It only had 122 hp, but got barely 30 MPG, usually around 27 mpg which was way below a Civic.
And I disagree with you about Mazda gas mileage, based on personal experience. I have a 2006 Mazda 3i with a manual transmission, and my highway gas mileage has always been above the current(old) EPA estimates (28/35). Averaging 75mph I get around 36-37 mpg.
"My point is that a Civic SI, a VW GTI and a MS3 are not family cars. A mini van and an SUV are. That is my point."
And my point is that some of us (with families) don't feel the need to eliminate a fun car JUST because we've got a couple of trike motors running around the house. And we appreciate the fact that some manufacturer's offer 4-door variants to compliment their 2-door sporty coupes.
Comments
That is one skill that I picked up from the Germans, and I still use it to this day... :shades:
...and don't get me started about cell phones, drinking coffee, reading, etc. while driving. I have to keep my full attention on the road to watch out for drivers who are pre-occupied with everything except the road... :mad:
In my area, the Si sedan is not selling. However, the coupe remains a hot seller.
The thing about VTEC engines is they produce the power in the top of the power band, really making the car a performer at high speeds, because it does not run out of breath like most others do. The downside, they can get beaten off the line by mostly anything. This is evident in their high 14 sec low 15 sec 1/4 times, but yet, they trap at 93-95 mph, which is respectable. STi/EVO's trap at 100-105 mph. Mazdaspeed3 traps at 100mph
Many forget HP can keep you going, but you need TQ to GET you going. That is something VTEC cannot produce.
This is especially notable on hondas engines since they pretty much have the most amazing vv timing ever.
The problem lies in engine displacement. Put the k20 that resides in the si now into the old integra type r and that would be nice. Hondas have just gotten chubbier but they want to retain their small displacement trend. Granted a sub seven second car with a naturally aspirated 2.0 isn't all that bad, its just that its stregnth lies in horsies and not torque. (I'm pretty much conviced that honda made the new si for the aftermarket. The parts available and things done to the k20 in the past are just remarkable. The k series has an extraordinary resiliance to immense pressure be it turboed or supercharged.)
I think the solution to this (since honda seems very snubby when it comes to turbos) would be larger displacement. Nothing huge, but just like a 2.2 or 2.3. Now tune it like the si's engine and you got a 215-225 horspower engine that makes around 150-160 torque. That'll get things going and still make the car a nice gas sipper and retian their n/a values and make the car a bit more competitive as far as initial take off goes.
Whats more, the new type r engine is said to produce an additional 15-20 hp on the same engine with a few more lbs of torque. (its also in a lighter chassis!) Tune a k23 like that and the fun will really get going! (Plus you still retain hondas unique approach to engine tuning.)
Vtec makes torque avi. Larger displacement engines get more of it.
I think the solution to this (since honda seems very snubby when it comes to turbos) would be larger displacement. Nothing huge, but just like a 2.2 or 2.3. Now tune it like the si's engine and you got a 215-225 horspower engine that makes around 150-160 torque. That'll get things going and still make the car a nice gas sipper and retian their n/a values and make the car a bit more competitive as far as initial take off goes.
Haha, they have that. It's called an S2000, and they want $34,000 for it.
2.2L I-4
237 hp @ 7,800 RPM
162 lb-ft @ 6,800 RPM
Maybe a Civic Si - Type R with this engine, even if it means raising the price by $1,000 or $2,000? It'd be much more competitive.
The previous gen type r looked like our 02-05 si hatch, but it had the new si's engine. Its 0-60 is even faster than the current gti and si, simply due to the fact that it weighs less than the current si.
The new type r is a hatch too and it has a tweaked engine as well, like i said a few more horsies and torque, but its only available in europe. It looks AMAZING, and it would still cost less than the 3. Alas we do not get it here in the states!
I think our s2000 engine idea is better than even that though. Especially since the s2000 is nearing the end of its days...?
Lets see add 2000 to the msrp of a bare bones civic si, that makes it what about 23500? I'd defintely go for that!!!
162 lb-ft 6,800 RPM
That's still anemic, IMHO.
That would be nice - and would take nothing short of a major miracle to make it happen...
You beat me to it..lol
162 lb-ft 6,800 RPM
That's still anemic, IMHO.
I agree. Look at the Mazda RX-8. They get 232hp at 8,500 RPM's and 159 lb-ft at 5,500 RPM's out of a 1.3L (N/A eldaino). Once you are going, it's fast...really fast(148mph top speed). But, off the line..not so much...
I prefer the TQ to be on par with the HP...
No, they do not.
The Mazda3 MZR 2.3 makes 150 lb-ft 160 hp for $16,000, not having a VV-T system that is sophisticated as VTEC. Honda's VTEC is superior to Mazda's VV-T. But, it only produces HP.
If you take VTEC out of the Honda engines, yes, the TQ and HP will both go down, but Honda has engineered VTEC to produce HP, not TQ.
I know the k20 series engines are very durable engines, very compatible to modification, and get wonderful horsepower out of such small displacement. There is no disputing that. Personally, I like torque. Honda VTEC performance engines just does not provide it.
Agreed.
If you take VTEC out of the Honda engines, yes, the TQ and HP will both go down, but Honda has engineered VTEC to produce HP, not TQ.
I know the k20 series engines are very durable engines, very compatible to modification, and get wonderful horsepower out of such small displacement. There is no disputing that. Personally, I like torque. Honda VTEC performance engines just does not provide it.
It also gets something on the lines of 26/33 MPG to the Civic's 30/40 MPG. VTEC keeps the engine using less fuel when it isn't wound up. The expense is lower low-end power.
Some want the compromise for the extra economy, some don't.
As another member brought up earlier, the 2.2L VTEC produces 162 lb-ft of torque (yes, with impressive 237hp), however, it only gets 20-26mpg. Compare that to the MZR 2.3L Turbo in the Mazdaspeed3 that gets 20-28mpg while producing 263hp and 280ft-lbs
To each their own. We all have different views on what we value important in vehicles.
really? I didnt think it was available for that cheap, since it only comes in the hatch version and in the upper trim levels of the sedan.
Unless ofcourse you are talking used and not new.
And isn't it more like 156 hp and 148lbs of torque? (i know picky picky!
Personally, I like torque. Honda VTEC performance engines just does not provide it.
I kinda look at hondas approach to tuning an engine akin to lotus. They just haven't been as good of late as far as weight saving goes. You don't need huge engines and gobs of torque to go quickly, even the 'anemic' si has proven that. (you gotta row it but it goes.)
I like torque too, which is why i like the gti and veedubs in general so much. Honda give me the revs', vw gives me the oomph.
i seriously doubt that anyone with an ms3 will get those numbers.
Actually, the new SAE rating is 156hp 150lb-ft. Close enough.
I like torque too, which is why i like the gti and veedubs in general so much. Honda give me the revs', vw gives me the oomph.
One thing I like about the GTI is that it does sustain constant power all the way to redline. It does have a pretty good power curve. If the Mazdaspeed3 had a dual scroll turbo, it would have a larger power curve.
Or an S2000....
IMHO, fuel economy takes a back seat when talking about these types of vehicles...if this was the Mazda3 vs Civic vs Rabbit it would hold more stock.
I think the new type r LOOKS amazing.
I just wish that it would have a different engine.Although the k20 in it is tuned to over 200hp, the only real difference i suppose this would make would be in the version they are releasing that has certain anemities left out to save weight.(And then we are talking about a very low 0-60 which still is not shabby for a na vehicle.)
I still say stick the k23 turbo into it. Or just give us an si with a turbo!!
A little off topic but has anyone read motor trends review of the r32? 0-60 in 5.8; right on par with the ms3.
They got 5.8?? wow. VW claimed it would do 6.4.
I thought i mis-read it at first but no, they got 5.8. Can't wait to see edmunds take on it.
Not flaming just thought it sounded funny!
I'm glad it works for you. I can't physically get into the backseat of a GTI or most coupes. Thus, putting a baby in a babyseat would be a nightmare for me. The 4 door provides easy access to the back. No fuss.
Agree.
I went through this with my Celica and two infants. Yes, the front passenger seat flips/slides forward. You've STILL got to manuever an infant carrier through a fairly small opening and then actually GET IN the back of the car to make sure the carrier (and later on the toddler) is latched in correctly. And if you include a typical parking lot scenario (with other cars close in on both sides and longish coupe doors) it REALLY makes loading infants/toddlers a major PITA. Thank god for my sunroof (kidding.....)
Is it physically doable with a 2-door coupe? Well, yes, for me it was (but then I'm skinny and limber), but I'm afraid my days of 2-door coupes is drawing to a close. :sick:
Great image!
Yeah i gotcha, i keep talking about the ease of the backseat when i think about my younger brothers getting into the back, and they are both 8 and six and have those sit up car seats so its no prob, but infants...whole nother story.
Not sure what's LOL about that? I grew up with a mother who always owned muscle cars and sports car. Two kids and we got along fine with cars that had much smaller backseats, little trunk space and lots of power.
What I don't understand is why anyone would get a minivan or suv with only 1 or 2 kids. Makes no sense to me. Again, I grew with my parents driving Mustangs, Camaros, Thunderbirds, etc. We never had a reason to have some giant vehicle like an SUV. My mother didn't sell her soul or become something she isn't - living life in the abject misery of an SUV/minivan. Why would you wish that upon someone? Why would you pigeonhole someone like that? Did she suddenly lose her love of convertibles and RWD because she had kids? I'll let her know a guy on Edmunds thinks it's funny that a person didn't become a bland suburbanite because she had two kids...maybe she'll sell off her miata, 56 and 55 t-birds?
So, the R32 is extremely attractive to me and with 4 doors it'd be a no-brainer option as that would give me the performance I want for day-to-day drivings, while allowing easy access to the rear of the car for a baby. It's got far more interior space than my current e90 and the trunk is more versatile too. I'd get a zippy, compact car with big interior dimensions and the ability to swallow a whole car load of people while still giving me something that can whip through a slalom or do 100 mph effortlessly.
The Mazdaspeed3 is positively massive compared to my e90's interior/trunk. The GTI 4-door ample and most likely my number 1 choice even though my fiancee really wants the near identical A3. The Civic SI 4 door sedan, likewise, has a massive trunk and pretty good interior space. Right now we're using a 2006 Civic hybrid - her mom's extra car - to do some stuff around town and it's got plenty of room for just the two of us; a baby would fit without batting an eye.
These are 4 door hatches/sedans in this thread and they'll easily work for the first 5-6 years of a kid's life. Maybe about 11-12 it could get cramped but then again I have friends with kids that age and they still drive e46s.
You mean there's no middle ground between a 2-door coupe and a minivan? Get a grip.
The point is that it was very DIFFICULT hauling 2 young children with a 2-door coupe. Getting a 4-door like a GTI/Si/MS3 means being able to ENJOY DRIVING while ALSO making it EASIER to load kids in the back.
Or, as a 'carfanatic' would YOU give up on enjoyable driving JUST because you had a couple of kids?
BTW - already got an Ody. It's great for family trips; but occasionally I need to take the kids somewhere in my car and I'd like to have the CAPACITY to get them in/out a bit easier. If I can have all the driving enjoyment of a 2-door coupe in a 4 (or 5) door vehicle, why not?
Good:
Gobs of power
Fairly tight handling
Crazy low price
so-so:
Car felt squirrelly on bumps/undulations
burble from exhaust might get old as it's loud even at a stoplight sitting still
No heated seats but yet the car has a dorky navi system?
no sunroof - yeah it'd hurt the structure but at 25k plus, let us get some lighting into a very dingy interior
Understeer galore! The car's front end refused to get repointed.
Downside -
Horrible mazda gearing - can't hold third to 100, first is not real friendly and 6th is a joke as rpms go up fast at cruising speeds of 75-85
Gas mileage is atrocious. They claim 20/28 but considering the gearing, good luck
Mushy brakes
worthless clutch with no obvious pick up point
Bad gauges - why is the speedometer front and center instead of the tach?
Vague, lousy, un-Mazda-like manual tranny (this thing even made my BMW's joke of a manual seem decent)
Overall a fun car for the money. But I think it's a tad too boy racer for me. The GTI still seems to be the front runner but I gotta say that power and the car's flingablity were fun.
Guy pushed me to drive the CX-7. No thanks - what a massive, removed, lousy hunk of junk. I wouldn't dream of that car if I had to go SUV. X3 wins that world by a landslide.
That's horrific. And given Mazda's awful gearing there's little chance of ever seeing 25-26 mpg running normal freeway speeds - 75-100. I've owned Mazdas, my sister has, my mom has and my family in general adores Mazdas. but one thing Mazda almost always does wrong is gearing. My 03 Protege did not have a freeway gear. It's sad that a light 4 cylinder car wouldn't be used for long freeway drives expressly because the manufacturer had no idea how to gear for freeways. I'd get 30-31 with my 330i running 90-100 all day, yet with the Mazda if I ran 85 on a night drive to Tucson I'd get 26 tops. That's bad gear as the car would be turning well over 4k rpm at those speeds. My old school 91 Stanza with a manual would get my high 20s, low 30s on long freeway drives because its 5th gear was super tall.
And my point is that some of us (with families) don't feel the need to eliminate a fun car JUST because we've got a couple of trike motors running around the house. And we appreciate the fact that some manufacturer's offer 4-door variants to compliment their 2-door sporty coupes.