Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

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

1568101118

Comments

  • huntzingerhuntzinger Member Posts: 356
    Here's a snapshot...


    Brake dimensions (Diameter): N/A


    Size is useful, but what you really want are the 60-0 Braking Performance test values. Here they are:


    Mini: 112.1 feet Edmunds source


    RSX: 129.59 feet Edmunds Source


    FWIW, that 15% difference is just over 17 feet. Almost two car lengths :-)


    -hh

  • drivinisfundrivinisfun Member Posts: 372
    Thanks HH, I missed that critical piece of info.

    No matter how you look at it, the MINI is a serious performing vehicle at Econocar prices...can't beat it..
  • muffin_manmuffin_man Member Posts: 865
    drivinisfun - "There is no comparison folks." "the MINI is a serious performing vehicle..."

    I just don't agree with these statements. Time will tell if the Mini is safer than the RSX, I would love to see it do well, because I would definitely get one. But I don't believe it quite yet.

    As far as performance goes, the base Mini is hardly a serious performing vehicle. It is a serious handling vehicle, but it's engine is more like an Echo than an RSX. However, underpowered Chrysler engine and (possibly unfounded) safety concerns aside, it is definitely a better package than the RSX.

    This is not an argument you can win on paper, even if the Mini is better, it's not all going to be as clear cut as its significant braking advantage.

    qbrozen - fair enough, the Mini certainly could be safer than the RSX, I would love to see it. Competing to increase safety helps everyone. Heck, having the Mini built helps everyone.

    HH - "The only time that an SUV's mass really does itself any good is, as you stated, when they striking a significantly smaller vehicle. However, this is nothing more than risk transfer which IMO is unethical to purposefully pursue. "

    That is exactly it. When that significantly smaller vehicle is you in your Mini, there is a problem. Admittedly, I don't (and we may never) know how much less safe, if at all, it is then the RSX.
  • huntzingerhuntzinger Member Posts: 356
    As far as performance goes, the base Mini is hardly a serious performing vehicle. It is a serious handling vehicle, but it's engine is more like an Echo than an RSX.

    It depends on how you define "performance", and to ignore handling unfortunately sounds like the typical American bias that only cares about straight-line performance.

    When you look at the racing heritage of the Mini, the thing that jumps out at you is that while it was short on raw power, it excelled in handling, and when you consistently win, you become a popular racer.

    The same holds true for Porsche 911's versus 914's on the Autocross: the 911's sets the FTOD (Fastest Time of the Day) when its an "open" course layout because of their greater power. But on a "tight" layout, the 914's better handling beats the 911's, despite the 914's significant horsepower handicap.

    IIRC, there was a very similar history with the early AC Cobras: they passed everyone on the straightaways - - and then got passed by everyone at the first curve.

    -hh
  • muffin_manmuffin_man Member Posts: 865
    If I'm going to drive my car on the street, the slight edge that the Mini is going to give me in handling is not going to make any difference whatsoever over the RSX. (brakes aside) So if I'm not going to race it, how much concern should I be paying to the slightly better handling Mini, when the RSX is significantly faster? The ability to do a slightly faster 600' slalom is not quite as significant as taking your acceleration from the slow to moderate range - in street driving.

    That being said, I don't know if the Mini could beat the RSX on a track unless there were no straightaways whatsoever.

    And it seems like horsepower is pretty popular the world over, not just America. True, the Camaro/Firebird/Mustang are pretty American phenomenons, but I believe it's Germany where there are no speed limits.
  • huntzingerhuntzinger Member Posts: 356
    And it seems like horsepower is pretty popular the world over, not just America.

    Outside the USA, fuel costs are much higher, with the result being that there are a lot fewer big SUV's and high-HP vehicles. In Europe, most vehicles on the road I've seen on the roads typically have displacements of 2.0 liters or less. Ditto for a lot of rentals I've had in the Caribbean.

    True, the Camaro/Firebird/Mustang are pretty American phenomenons, but I believe it's Germany where there are no speed limits.

    Speed limits in Germany are 50kph in town, 100kph in the countryside, 130kph "recommended" for the Autobahn on those sections that haven't had firm speed limits applied.

    And while there are the big E-Class and 5/7 Series who go "poof!" past you, most of the cars out there are 1.6 liter Golfs and the like, and cruise along at around 120-140kph in the right lane. I was over there earlier this month and we did just fine with a Mercedes A Class that had a 1.4 liter motor (BTW, it nevertheless could hit 170kph). But at 1,07 Euro's per liter (do the math), I much preferred that it delivered 41 mpg than "neck breaking" acceleration.

    -hh
  • muffin_manmuffin_man Member Posts: 865
    Well, I'm not an SUV fan, but just the same, most big motor Chevys can get pretty good gas mileage as long as you are driving sanely. But either way, I don't think that arguing for the RSX over the Mini marks me as a gas guzzler.

    However, this doesn't address my points about the Mini, do you agree with my last comments.
  • drivinisfundrivinisfun Member Posts: 372
    Well, the 3800 Series II V6 engine in my 2001 Impala is rated at 200HP and 225 pounds feet of torque @ 4,000 RPM. On regular 87 octane fuel (Albeit I always use midgrade 89 Octane gasoline), the car returns 21MPG in the city and 32MPG in the highway at a steady 70 MPH. The car weighs 3,400 pounds and takes me to 60 in about 7.8 seconds.

    The Impala is faster than our MINI, yet the MINI handles like a champ (But the Impala also handles very well for a full size American sedan).

    So what's your point?
  • hpulley4hpulley4 Member Posts: 591
    I find taking corners fast, being able to ignore ramp-speed signs, etc. is fun. For that, you need good handling and braking more than you need straight-line speed. Driver is still more important than the car in the end but when the driver is hitting the car's limits it is time to move on.

    When I used to drive a 1.0L 3-cylinder Geo Metro, I accelerated faster than most people. I went up hills faster than GTI 1.8's. Is the Metro a faster car than a GTI??? NO WAY!!! I just drove it faster. It's all about attitude. To me, the Cooper has more of a fun attitude than the RSX but others will certainly disagree with me.

    To return to one of my earlier points, I've never driven an RSX and don't really consider it or the Tiburon to be vehicles people would actually cross-shop along with the MINI. They are all vehicles that make a statement more than anything else and you don't cross shop statements. For your money the best straight-line speed you can get is a RWD V8 Camaro (5.3s to 60MPH for under $23K) but I don't think many MINI, RSX or Tiburon shoppers are looking at Camaros. It says a very different thing than these hatchbacks, along with being a much bigger car which makes it feel and handle very differently (less fun, IMO).
  • huntzingerhuntzinger Member Posts: 356
    If I'm going to drive my car on the street, the slight edge that the Mini is going to give me in handling is not going to make any difference whatsoever over the RSX. (brakes aside)

    The same can be probably said about most of the Hot Hatches in the subject category.

    So if I'm not going to race it, how much concern should I be paying to the slightly better handling Mini, when the RSX is significantly faster?

    For the same reason that we're discussing the worth of any "sporty" car, hot hatch or otherwise?

    The ability to do a slightly faster 600' slalom is not quite as significant as taking your acceleration from the slow to moderate range - in street driving.

    What's more/less significant really comes down to duty cycle, as well as driver skills and personal preference. Personally, I prefer an engine-limited design rather than a chasis-limited design, as I'd prefer to have a vehicle that's more capable of getting me OUT of trouble than INTO trouble. YMMV.

    That being said, I don't know if the Mini could beat the RSX on a track unless there were no straightaways whatsoever.

    The better braking means that the Mini can go deeper into the corners, and the better handling should mean that it should be able to carry more speed through the corners. Easiest thing to do is to wait a few years and see how they both do at SCCA events.

    In the meantime, either one would have a better "fun quotient" than a lot of other products out there, and would be a suitably practical daily driver.

    -hh
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 32,889
    Even with some straightaways, having a faster entering and exiting speed more than makes up the difference in acceleration we are talking about here. [Which, by the way, is a statistically insignificant .2 seconds from 0-60 according to Edmunds numbers for the RSX-S and Cooper-S (a single source for both is very helpful).] Exactly why the MINI has historically done so well in the racing world. The idea is that the MINI will exit a turn fast enough that its momentum will give it an equal or better peak top speed on a straightaway than a more powerful car which has to accelerate longer to reach that same speed because of its lower corner exiting speed. Get it?

    '11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S

  • kevin111kevin111 Member Posts: 991
    Celica GT-S 0.88 on the skid pad, Mini S 0.86.
    0-60 7.2 for the Celica, 0-60 7.0 for the Mini S

    qbrozen, by your analogy, we should all be considering a Celica over both these cars!

    Also, the car is not a new model, so the quality is known. Finally, the Celica's looks are superior to either car. Dealers are also discounting the Celica a great deal as well.

    Finally, the weight is still a little heavier than a Mini, but still close.

    Per Edmunds:(Weight: 2315 lbs. for Mini, Weight: 2425 lbs for the base Celica)

    Hey, I think I just found the bang for the buck here! (I would still rather have an RSX, thank you!).
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 32,889
    First off, I never said "you should buy this car because..." I was merely contradicting a point made that a car would be better on the track just because it has slightly more straightaway potential.

    Second, if you're concern is strictly performance numbers, then buy yourself a bike. That's the best bang for the buck you could hope for.

    Finally, I do, in fact, think a GTS gives great performance for the money. Lets just forget for a minute the fact that I don't find it attractive, can't fit in it, and find that it feels rather cheap. But, yes, driver ability being equal, if it can outbrake and outcorner all else with just a marginal acceleration difference, then it will win at the track.

    '11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S

  • kevin111kevin111 Member Posts: 991
    The Mini is a good value, and offers the German driving and performance experience at a price that most drivers can afford. For this, I find what BMW and Mini did is laudable.

    It is all a matter of preference. Buy which car you like the best. It sounds like you have decided to go with the Mini. Happy motoring! !-)
  • drivinisfundrivinisfun Member Posts: 372
    "Also, the car is not a new model, so the quality is known. Finally, the Celica's looks are superior to either car. Dealers are also discounting the Celica a great deal as well."

    Sorry, but the Celica is an aweful car in terms of interior space and comfort. I disliked the driving position, the akward instruments and other ergonomic interior glitches. The looks are subjective. I think the Celica looks better in white, but if I were to chose between the RSX and Celica, I would get the RSX instead.

    The "Fastback" design on both of these cars are enough for me to not considered them at all. I like "boxy" practical, roomier hatchbacks like the MINI or the VW Golf to name a few.
  • kevin111kevin111 Member Posts: 991
    It all comes down to preference. I was just pointing out the Celica, in that you could make an argument on just about all these cars as to one being superior to the others. It just depends from what angle you are looking at them.

    I am assuming you have a Mini, I wish you the best of luck with it, and a great deal of driving enjoyment. The Mini is just not for me.
  • muffin_manmuffin_man Member Posts: 865
    #359 - drivinisfun - I don't understand this message

    #360 - hpulley - Fair enough, those are fun, but having some power is also fun. You could have added racing suspension to your Metro for less than the cost of buying a new car, if that was all you cared about.

    #361 - HH - "engine limited design" that is a good point, although I think that both RSX and Mini are engine limited designs. (obviously, since they both have upgraded engines available)

    #362 - qbrozen - "don't find it attractive, can't fit in it, and find that it feels rather cheap"
    When comparing the Mini to the RSX, you stated the importance of numbers, and when comparing the to the GT-S, you're stating your opinions of style and cheapness.

    It's obvious that you simply aren't interested in any car but the Mini, there is nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't make the Mini better. It's just what you wanted.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 32,889
    I'm sorry, maybe I'm slipping, but where did I stress the importance of numbers? As a matter of fact, I've been downplaying the numbers ... especially the 0-60, remember? You point to message 362 where I commented that handling can make up for slightly less power. Do you interpret that to mean that I believe a good handling car is acceptable if it has plastic seats and zero storage space?

    I don't believe I ever said performance numbers were the end-all and be-all of a car decision. Maybe you can point me to a message where I said performance numbers should dictate a car-buying decision.

    The only thing I've been doing here is debating statements made by other posters. It was mentioned the MINI was unsafe. I argued against that. Then it was suggested the MINI suffered performance-wise and I argued against that.

    Yeah, I do like the MINI. All of us have our preferences. Fact is, I like it for many many reasons. Like I said, if it was all about performance, then I'd buy a bike. If it was all about content and comfort, I'd buy a Grand Marquis (don't ask, just the first thing that popped in my mind). If it was all about utility, I'd buy a Subaru Forester (oh yeah, I have one).

    kevin - hey, we're all here for fun, right? That's what these discussions are all about. by the way, it sounds like you own an RSX. Maybe you said that before and I missed it. Anyway, what else did you test drive before deciding on it. Just curious.

    '11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S

  • kevin111kevin111 Member Posts: 991
    I think I said that earlier, if not, I said that on another board. These discussions are a blast, keep me on my toes. Unfortunately, with all the Mini owners jumping aboard, I do not have the time to properly research responses.

    I ended up getting the Subaru WRX. I need a primary car for every day use, and enough room in the back for carpooling and when the folks come over. Mainly test drove the Altima, Maxima, RSX, BMW 328i with sport suspension (2000 model). Was not interested in the Mini due to the perceived size and safety issues, and that it was a new model with unknown reliability. Did not consider the Celica GT-S due to back seat, reviews, and price (for what you get). Did not consider the Volkswagons for bang-for-the-buck, lack of performance and quality issues (also, the reviews did not help).

    That basically sums it up. I have been thrilled with my purchase though.

    The reason for my backing of the RSX is two fold. First, the unabated bashing on this board of the RSX by Mini owners, and what I perceive as a solid car. A friend of mine has one, and another is looking into getting one. The interiors are very well done on these cars!
  • muffin_manmuffin_man Member Posts: 865
    maybe I'm wrong, but I thought it was you was talking about Mini 600' performance when you were calling it superior to the RSX, and then saying that it was inconseuqential, when comparing it to the Celica. But maybe I have the wrong impression. There have been a number of simultaneous arguments going on, and I no longer have the will to keep going back and reading peoples' posts.
  • kevin111kevin111 Member Posts: 991
    He did. This board has been going nuts with Mini owners. I agree it is tough to keep track.
  • hpulley4hpulley4 Member Posts: 591
    Sure, I could have added racing suspension to my Metro, could have gotten a 100HP 1.3L 16V DOHC engine for it from the Swift GT, or just traded my '95 Metro for a '94 Swift GT and improved the suspension. In fact, I considered doing this. A 100HP engine in a 1900lb car would fly but would be very unsafe; heck 55HP was unsafe with the stock suspension, as I could do 4-wheel drifts around corners easily with brand new tires. And it would still be a Metro/Swift. Only me and some sort of geeky enthusiast would see the potential of it. The MINI is fun for its looks AND its drive.

    Think the base MINI doesn't have any guts? Wind it up, just wind it up! Its redline is 6750 and like the high revving NA Honda/Acura engines it really pours it on at the high end. In first gear you can really feel it. If you just use a normal takeoff it is kind of slow but if you dump the clutch a little then you feel the power climb in its power band from 3000 up. From 5000 RPM to redline it really goes!

    If I was a real speed demon I'd have gotten the supercharged Cooper S but I much prefer the looks and color selection (IndiBlue isn't available on the S until 2003 MY) of the Cooper and I find it fast enough (more than enough power to spin the wheels on takeoff and in cornering, S 'just' adds more straight-line speed) so that's what I got.
  • gotenks243gotenks243 Member Posts: 116
    I've gone back 4 pages, and I don't see Gbrozen mentioning a slalom speed or skidpad number for anything. In 362, all he mentioned was that a car that has a faster corner entry and exit speed (which the Mini likely has over the RSX), can make up for a slight acceleration difference easily. He never said "The Mini has a much higher corner entry/exit speed than the RSX and the Celica!!!" He didn't say that because none of us know that. However, from having taken a test drive in both the Mini and the RSX, it's highly likely.

    I'm not some Mini-owner/RSX-basher btw. The Mini is too small for me to consider for my next car, even though I am casually looking into it still. I am simply impressed with it enough to defend it here.

    Mike
  • rickroverrickrover Member Posts: 601
    I considered WRX wagon, GTI, MINI S during my last car search. All 3 are sweet cars, I had been on a MINI S waiting list for over a year and a half ($1k deposit) #12 on the S waiting list. If the dealer experience hadn't been so deplorable I'd probably be driving the S right now, I got my deposit back.

    For me the GTI won out over the WRX, I like to modify my cars so aftermarket performance options were a big consideration.

    I have my GTI set up for autoX and track events, although it is still a fantastic daily driver. I've modified the suspension (racing springs, bilstien shocks, larger rear sway bar) and engine (APR chip, modified intake bits and exhaust) for a total of 230 HP and 240 lb ft of torque. All for a total of approx. $22.5k.

    The GTI and MINI have the best fit, finish and material quality in this group IMO. The Japanese entries have cheap feeling interior materials and design. I don't feel like I'm driving an econobox in the GTI, extremely high quality material content throughout. No problems in 10k hard miles either, not a single warranty issue outside of a broken floor mat clip.
  • kevin111kevin111 Member Posts: 991
    There are so many mods out for the WRX, it isn't even funny. There are a couple of mods and upgrades that will significantly boost your power.

    Heck, at the dealership, the manager was telling me about a Subi mod guy that would be more than happy to boost the power of my WRX to 350 hp.

    For an approx $22.5, that is pretty good for the power output you have. My only question is in regards to the warrenty. Usually, when you do mods (like what you have mentioned) you void the warrenty.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 32,889
    At least somebody is paying attention.

    Ya know, I am also not a MINI owner. Just defending it because I think its a great car. If I had about $20K laying around and room for a 4th car in my driveway, I'd probably have one.

    I also don't bash the RSX. No, I don't care for it. But I don't have any objective reasons why, merely subjective. And I don't tell people who like it that they are wrong for liking it. I think its a solid performer. I never said otherwise. I've only offered up facts (and maybe opinion on occasion) to defend the MINI when the RSX folks have risen up against it with one excuse or another.

    '11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S

  • 8u6hfd8u6hfd Member Posts: 1,391
    Technically (according to the magnuson-moss act) the modified part is the cause of the problem, the warranty is voided.
  • seminole_kevseminole_kev Member Posts: 1,696
    the announcement of the 5-door SVT Focus. Very tempting, and the original car I wanted, but was only available as a 3-door then. Very tempting.

    Even though I really, really prefer a 5-door hatch to a 3-door, the MINI is also very tempting. And there will actually be a MINI dealership in Oklahoma City in about 6 months.
  • kevin111kevin111 Member Posts: 991
    In this post he replies to post 354 and 356 (along with a few other people) to Muffin_man's peformance posts.

    All Muffin_man is saying is that if one car is superior because it handles better, even though it is slightly slower, than do not point to totally different category to say the same car is superior to another car even though this 3rd car handles even better, but is slightly slower as well.

    Also, you sound exactly like me, except in regards to the RSX. I did not buy one, but like the car enough to defend it against unabated RSX bashers. If you read some of the posts from 4 pages ago, you will see why, and how it got ugly.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 32,889
    You folks are just looking for any excuse now. gotenks DID look at 362 and even said so in his post:

    I've gone back 4 pages, and I don't see Gbrozen mentioning a slalom speed or skidpad number for anything. In 362, all he mentioned was that a car that has a faster corner entry and exit speed (which the Mini likely has over the RSX), can make up for a slight acceleration difference easily.

    And, for reference, here is 362 again:

    Even with some straightaways, having a faster entering and exiting speed more than makes up the difference in acceleration we are talking about here. [Which, by the way, is a statistically insignificant .2 seconds from 0-60 according to Edmunds numbers for the RSX-S and Cooper-S (a single source for both is very helpful).] Exactly why the MINI has historically done so well in the racing world. The idea is that the MINI will exit a turn fast enough that its momentum will give it an equal or better peak top speed on a straightaway than a more powerful car which has to accelerate longer to reach that same speed because of its lower corner exiting speed. Get it?

    I don't understand where the confusion comes in. Where in that post did I say the MINI only offers good performance and nothing else? Where did I say that performance was all that mattered to me? Is it so wrong that the MINI performs well AND provides good content and comfort in their cars? Hell, there are many cars that outperform the MINI. So what? I never said the MINI was the best performing anything. Someone else (I believe it was muffin) said the RSX would beat the MINI on a track. I didn't start that thread. But I did respond to it to point out, once again, that acceleration isn't everything on the track.

    Also, I never said the MINI was superior to the RSX. Please read that post again. I said that a faster cornering speed makes up for slightly slower acceleration. I'm not sure how you interpret that statement as meaning one car is superior to another. Like I said before, if performance is all you're concerned with, get a bike. If you want to compare vehicles based on one set of criteria and throw everything else out the window, then I feel sorry for you because you will never be fulfilled.

    I, however, take many things into account. As does just about every other shopper out there.

    Besides, why can't I say "this car is better in this respect but this car is better in another"? What is wrong with that? I don't understand the problem. Maybe you can explain it better to me.

    '11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S

  • kevin111kevin111 Member Posts: 991
    Qbrozen, I was not singling you out, and did not mean to. Your posts have been informative and lively. The issues I was having were by other posters who specifically stated:

    "I would take a Mini in a heartbeat over an RSX. I can't really think of any reason to get an RSX over a Mini. Honda reliability, maybe?"

    "2. Reading posting by people who hate or diss the MINI Cooper S... they seem to know little of the car, and merely hate it cause they either A: can't get one B: think its too small or C: are just closed minded "

    It gets worse, but those were due to the back and forth volleying that was going on.

    You got a heck of a car. It is just not for everyone. Let's just leave it at that.
  • gotenks243gotenks243 Member Posts: 116
    "I would take a Mini in a heartbeat over an RSX. I can't really think of any reason to get an RSX over a Mini. Honda reliability, maybe?"

    To clarify my statement there, I was not RSX-bashing, I was stating a fact. In weighing the RSX vs. Mini equation in my head, I did not find any things positive the RSX had to me over the reliability. Despite my subjective opinion being the matter in question, I was stating a fact about my opinion. Make sense? I said "I" would take a Mini over an RSX, not "You should take a Mini over an RSX and if you do otherwise you're a moron."

    And what's wrong with expressing opinions to begin with? They're your own to have and share. All I care about is clearing up misinterpretations of other people's statements.

    Again, qbrozen was talking about entry/exit speed in a hypothetical manner. He never said the Mini was better or worse than anything. Muf misinterpreted this and acted like qbrozen said the Mini was better than the RSX, and then introduced skidpad numbers into the discussion, which have nothing whatsoever to do with corner entry/exit speed. I was correcting Muf's misinterpretation. I thought I did it rather well, but obviously you're still misinterpreting it, so I guess I didn't do that well...

    Mike
  • kevin111kevin111 Member Posts: 991
    expressing opinions. I expressed mine and was flamed. Thus it became interesting.

    I do not think I misinterpretted you statements, just thought you came to a different conclusion to what was being stated than what Muffin_man and myself came to. I still stand by my analysis. The way it came up, it sounded like a my car performs better than yours analogy. Yes he goes into great detail about the benefits of handling versus straight-away time, but that is how it sounds. Obviously, if I was looking at it from a different angle (pro Mini vs. pro RSX), I can see how his post can mean an explanation.
  • gotenks243gotenks243 Member Posts: 116
    Oops, I just realized I said Muf brought the skidpad numbers up when it was Kevin. My mistake.

    Okay, so now that we've decided you're going to think that way and I'm going to think this way, now what? Someone say something else controversial soon, please.

    Mike
  • muffin_manmuffin_man Member Posts: 865
    gotenks243 - actually, I thought this was probably the most relaxed internet discussion about cars I've ever been in. Congratulations to everyone, I don't think I've seen any multiple exclamation points yet.

    And while I'm enjoying this, I don't think we're getting anywhere, so I will sum up my views now.

    I think that both the Mini and the RSX are great cars, I am a fan of both. I have no problems with the Mini, the reason I got involved in the first place was because some people (and I don't dare name names, because I sure don't remember who is who anymore) were (in my mind) making the Mini out to be the vastly superior car, and I disagreed. I think they are very comparable.

    But since we need something controversial before this discussion dies...

    Cars so good in their price range that I don't think they can necessarily be ranked:
    Mini/S, GT/S, RSX/S, GTI

    Cars in the second tier:
    Si, SVT

    Cars in the third tier:
    Tiburon

    Now we've got something to talk about, I think.
  • gotenks243gotenks243 Member Posts: 116
    The SVT probably belongs up on the first tier. I haven't even seen one in person, much less taken a ride in one, but any car that wins every comparison test it has been in must be pretty damn good.

    By the way, why put the Si in the second tier if the RSX (base) is in the first tier? Styling preferences? They're pretty much the same thing.

    Mike
  • revkarevka Member Posts: 1,750
    Thanks for the interesting reading.... ;-)

    Revka
    Host
    Hatchbacks & Wagons Boards
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 32,889
    I was also thinking this is one of the most lively discussions I've ever been part of here on Edmunds. And I also congratulate everyone for not dragging it down to the level of name calling or anything so pitiful.

    On some of these, it just seems like we speak different languages or something. Just crossed wires, methinks. Its all good, though.

    muffin, you beat me to bringing in something controversial. Arg!

    Anyway, if we factor in looks, I would actually rank the Si in the first tear and bump the base RSX down to 2nd. BUT, based on performance, I'd keep the RSXS in the first. Not really sure about that 3rd tier at all. I think the Hyundai gets alot of flak just because its a Hyundai. It is the only one here with a V6, after all. I think that should count for something. But, I guess I can't say much since I've never been in one. For performance, I think maybe the base MINI should be bumped down .... but that brings me to my new issue .....

    '11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S

  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 32,889
    OK. For a change of pace, how about I voice my concerns over the MINI. Can anybody explain to me why several reviews have stated the MINI S does not feel significantly faster than the base model? I mean, with a claimed increase of 48 hp and 52 lb-ft along with another gear thrown in, I would think this should be a significant jump. OK, so its got an extra 200 lbs. That is something, but it shouldn't be enough. We're talking a less than 10% increase in weight vs. an almost 50% increase in power. So where is the problem? Is it that the base model is so much better than projected or claimed? Or is it that the S model is not living up to its intentions? I'm almost waiting to see an article come out that contradicts the manufacturers power claims on the S.

    '11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S

  • hpulley4hpulley4 Member Posts: 591
    I really dislike the styling of the Focus hatchback so the SVT would never be first tier for me. The butt end of the hatchback just looks awful IMO. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder so I'm sure some of you hate the MINI but to me, the Focus hatch is not nice looking. Neither is the Si or SiR, just to bland and unimaginative. I find the MINI, RSX and Tiburon all look waaay better. The Celica is variable to me -- in some colours, I hate it (silver, white, light ones I guess) but in others (black, red, blue, darker ones) I think it looks really sharp.
  • drivinisfundrivinisfun Member Posts: 372
    I am with hpulley4 on this one as well. I can't stomach the looks of the Focus either. After seeing so many of them on the street everyday, the car tends to look overcooked big time.

    Too bad, as the Focus platform is excellent as well as its handling dynamics, but the build quality and expected reliability fall well below the standard of its immediate competitors. The SVT Focus at $18K could be considered a bargain, but upon close inspection, the build quality and the prospect of receiving poor service (And lots of recalls) from Ford dealerships, makes the Focus in any form a pretty questionnable proposition.

    If you love the looks and have to have a Focus, lease it for 3 years and at the end of the lease get rid of it.

    I know some here have had positive Focus experiences. Again I think this is one of the best cars to come out from Ford in a very long time, but the shoddy long term quality, recalls and poor resale values are a fact of life with this model, unfortunately.
  • muffin_manmuffin_man Member Posts: 865
    It didn't occur to me at the time I wrote that to seperate RSX/RSX-S, GT/GT-S, Mini/Mini-S, but maybe we should? Ugh.

    And I don't know about the SVT, I guess I was somehow mentally attaching it to the normal ZX3.

    I don't know why the Si was on the second tier, magazines seemed dissapointed, I guess. I haven't driven one. Actually, the only cars on this list I've driven are the GTI and RSX-S.

    Let's try again, and I'm not factoring in style, since that's personal preference anyway.

    1st:
    GTS, Mini S, RSX-S, SVT, GTI
    2nd:
    Si, RSX, GT, Mini
    3rd:
    Tiburon

    That is hardly different from before. The thing with the Tiburon, is it just doesn't seem to have the same sporting aspirations as the other cars. It's very good looking (from pictures), but the engine and handling seem to lack the urgency of the others.
  • seminole_kevseminole_kev Member Posts: 1,696
    oddly enough I like the focus style. It is the Celica's that I cannot stand. So go figure ;-)

    I do know that when you buy a SVT product, you get different perks than the average, joe shmoe Ford driver. I have no clue how it works in practice though.
  • kevin111kevin111 Member Posts: 991
    As far as I am concerned, they have yet to address the quality issues significantly. Acording to the L.A. times, the Elantra (isn't that what the Tiburon is based on?) had 5+ recalls last month alone!!!!!

    Hyundai did a nice job on the exterior. I actually like the interior (seats hold you in very well, and the stereo is really nice!), but the Tiburon V6 is even slower than the Ford SVT Focus.

    The Focus had at least 6 recalls last year (2001 model), so I question the long term reliability on a Souped up Focus (what the SVT basically is).

    Also, Ford always seems to have little quirks about their products that other manufacturers do not seem to have. (Electrical problems that need to be recalled in a variety of models, possible fire starters). One of the reasons that Arizona as a state will no longer buy Crown Vic. Police cruisers.
  • kevin111kevin111 Member Posts: 991
    I personally really like the RSX Type-S interior. To me the Mini's seems at little odd, with too much plastic.

    If you want controversy, this should help.
  • drivinisfundrivinisfun Member Posts: 372
    Both interiors are made of plastic....
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 32,889
    we're talking about economy cars here, essentially. Much plastic going on in all.

    I like the MINI interior for its originality in this group.

    My one major complaint about the RSX is the dash vents. They are DIRECTLY out of my Alfa Spider and I HATE them. Over time they have loosened up and fail to stay in the position you put them. Granted, in a convertible, it really doesn't matter, but it would drive me nuts in a closed car like the RSX. Aside from that, I also find the dash layout rather bland and nondistinctive. Same goes for the GTI.

    I think the Tiburon is downright unattractive on the inside.

    The Celica isn't too bad. I think its probably the most "sportscar" like with the high center console and low seating position.

    The dash layout on the SVT is more what I would call funky. It definitely stands out, so I have to give credit there. I just can't say that I find it visually appealing.

    '11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S

  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 32,889
    According to a recent article, they found the Tibby fell between the RSX-S and GTS in both acceleration and braking. And they said handling was pretty good, too.

    Wish I could remember what mag. Anyone else remember? I think it was Motor Trend.

    '11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S

  • kevin111kevin111 Member Posts: 991
    They compared the Tiburon V6 with the Acura RSX-S, the Celica GTS, the Mitsu Eclipse V6, and the Beetle Turbo S.

    BTW, guess which car was ranked last by C&D?
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 32,889
    I was thinking of an article where they drove the Tibby V6 and a racecar version of the Tibby.

    On that C&D article, I would hope it was the Mitsu that finished last. If not, it should have. OK, so I'm a little biased against Mitsus due to personal experience with a POS Galant. ARRGGG .... ok, enough of that.

    '11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S

This discussion has been closed.