What I want, they don't make!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have also been wondering why so many car makers abandoned not only the whole "pocket rocket" class of cars, but also the cheap 3 door hatchbacks too. There are a few left but they are rare. Hyundai has the 3 door Accent for instance (although it's no "pocket rocket"), but the Focus and the Fiesta now only come in 5 door hatchbacks and their price tag is thousands higher than the sedan versions.

I had a 95 Escort GT for a couple of years and it was a lot of fun to drive, and got pretty decent gas mileage to boot. We need more cars like this to return! Ford should offer the new Focus in a stripped down 3 door hatchback version and I bet it would be a hot seller.
 
Originally Posted By: Patman
I have also been wondering why so many car makers abandoned not only the whole "pocket rocket" class of cars, but also the cheap 3 door hatchbacks too. There are a few left but they are rare. Hyundai has the 3 door Accent for instance (although it's no "pocket rocket"), but the Focus and the Fiesta now only come in 5 door hatchbacks and their price tag is thousands higher than the sedan versions.

I had a 95 Escort GT for a couple of years and it was a lot of fun to drive, and got pretty decent gas mileage to boot. We need more cars like this to return! Ford should offer the new Focus in a stripped down 3 door hatchback version and I bet it would be a hot seller.


There is a 3 door version of the Fiesta and Mazda2. We don't get it. I don't think we bought enough of the ZX3 Focuses...Focii...whatever. Ford won't bring us that body style.

The EJ1/EJ8/EM2 Civic Coupes were better received than comparable year EH2/EH3/EJ6 hatchbacks. There was similarly little demand for the EP3 shrunken Odyssey Civic Si hatchback. Honda has a Civic 3-door. We don't get it.

There is still the Golf, but you can't get one with a good sporty naturally aspirated economic 4 cylinder. You have to get a 5-cylinder that doesn't really perform any better than the average 2.3-2.5 liter 4 cylinder...arguably worse in some cases. (ie: the ecotec 2.4, the Hyundai/Kia GDI 2.4, Honda KA24 in the Accord EX- TSX...etc...) The VW 5-cyl is as thirsty as many sixes and less powerful than many fours.
 
I agree with the OP.

Lets not forget one of the most IMPORTANT aspects of purchasing a new car...cost of ownership and that includes maintenance....fact is that even if that MPG for the 83 Rabbit GTI is about the same or less than the Fiesta I can promise you that it will cost much MUCH more to maintain and service that Ford Fiesta , or any other modern small car you can compare it with....

IF I COULD GO DOWN TO THE VW DEALER AND BUY A BRAND SPANKING NEW 83-84 RABBIT GTI FOR ABOUT TEN OR ELEVEN GRAND I WOULD BE RIGHT THERE..TAKE NOTE MANUFACTURERS!
 
You're missing the point.
Yeah, the Fit is quicker, but its not nearly as much fun to drive as the old Civics were.
Also, current Honda cable shifters tell you that Honda really doesn't care about three pedal cars anymore, while the Civics had light and positive rod shifters.
You could even shift clutchlessly without much effort, although the standard tach was a help.
On a tight course, the old Civic would give the Fit a run for its money, even on its stock 175/70/13s.
As I posted originally, you can't fool Father Physics.
Light weight cannot be faked.
 
Originally Posted By: JoeWGauss
EXACTLY!

LIGHT WEIGHT = MORE NIMBLE = BETTER HANDLING DYMANICS= WIN!


The Mazda 2 is 2300 lbs. This is only 200 lbs more than the 83 GTI. They could easily drop it down to 2,100 lbs and maybe $12,000 but you would have to give up the 6 air bags, power windows, side impact beams, power remote door locks, ABS, DSC, etc, etc.

Car and Driver quotes below:

"We love the 2’s light, direct steering and slick, precise shifter, which is reminiscent of the Miata’s."

"The Mazda 2 hustles through corners with Miata-like athleticism and plenty of steering feel."

0.82 g on the skidpad.

This car would run circles around an old GTI or Civic.
 
I think the Mazda 2 is a nice little subcompact...but it IS still quite a bit more expensive than the old Rabbit GTI would be in relative terms and it will still cost quite a bit more in maintenance costs compared to the old VW. On a side note I don't really care for the somewhat emasculated look of the 2 either.

BTW I was personally behind the wheel in an 84 VW Rabbit GTI and my car was T boned at the A pillar by a F-150 doing around 50+ mph... I came out of that accident without ONE scratch or ANY injury at all. (I was wearing my belt)
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: JoeWGauss
EXACTLY!

LIGHT WEIGHT = MORE NIMBLE = BETTER HANDLING DYMANICS= WIN!


That was certainly the case with the '79 gas powered Rabbit I owned. The tiny power plant under the hood didn't put out much in the way of HP, but owing to the avoidance of bloat and unnecessary weight as part of its ethos, it was extremely responsive and nimble. No sports car by a long shot, yet felt sporty to drive and it was a lot of fun to drive with its 4 speed manual tranny.

There was also something about the car, the way it was put together I guess, that never made it seem like any kind of 'cheap' ride and took a lot of pride in owning it. Even though I've more recently begun to preference, and buy, smaller sedans, I still use the Rabbit as the gold seal to compare every purchase too.

If/when I see another hatchback come along that embodies the spirit of that '79 Rabbit, even with the necessary weight added to comfort to the demands of today's safety standard, I'd consider - very seriously - another hatchback.

-Spyder
 
Last edited:
The original C170 Ford Focus platform was fun. They softened up a bit in later years, but the 2000 to 2004 models (US) were fun to drive. If you got lucky and got the 2.3l duratec motor, they were really fun to drive (03-04)
smile.gif

Weight was about 2600lbs IIRC...probably heavier then you are looking for, but they had over 140hp (2.3l). The MTX75 transmission was also a dream to use. They handled great, and stopped on a dime.

The new Fiesta is also pretty fun. I was a bit disappointed with how large the new Focus has grown. 3000lbs is just too heavy for a hatchback, but it has tons of new features.
 
This is why I love my Ford ZX2.
Light and slippery.
A few mods makes it about 7.0sec 0-60, and can get over 40 mpg on a great day.
Normal is 32 town, 36 highway.
 
Agreed, cars today are too heavy, sloppy, high riding, and design to prevent low skilled drivers from doing much.

I want a lightweight, nimble handling low to ground car, that gets good mileage, and has a manual transmission and is reliable.

I don't want a pile of gizmos and electronic [censored]. I want to drive, not use a Playstation 3.

I also don't look at ESC/DSC as a positive. an overly complicated system that long term is not reliable, nor cost effective to maintain, nor is effective in its purpore.

Trying to play God with handling using software, when it has so many variables such as driver judgment, weather, road conditions, load, and driver's expectations of what the car SHOULD do is crazy. the "safety" benefits are not remotely worth the tradeoffs.

People do not understand that one cannot write an "app" to make a car safer. You actually have to understand the whole system as a human.

Unfortunately, it is a government mandate that cannot be turned off over 35 mph by people who don't understand driving technique.

I have one of the first cars (1997) with ESC that is defeatable - and it is a pain in the neck long term.
 
Originally Posted By: mva
CB - I think your memory is failing you. Cars today are as good or better. Cars back then might have been lighter but they were slower, got same or worse fuel economy and they were more dangerous to travel in. Check out braking distance (Car and driver data):

1983 Rabbit GTI

BASE PRICE: $7995 (1983 dollars) = $18,000 in 2011 dollars

90 hp

Wheelbase: 94.5 in Length: 155.3 in
Curb weight: 2100 lbs

Zero to 60 mph: 9.7 sec

Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.78 g

Braking, 70–0 mph: 194 ft

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway: 26 mpg/37 mpg


2011 Ford Fiesta

(base price: $15,795)

118 hp

Wheelbase: 98.0 in Length: 155.5 in
Curb weight: 2462 lb

Zero to 60 mph: 8.7 sec

Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.84 g

Braking, 70–0 mph: 170 ft

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway 28/38 mpg

I would much rather travel in a current Fiesta (with airbags, antilock brakes, etc) than an 83 GTI.



mva,
I couldn't agree with you more! And that's a decent comparison that you made. Although, I have other comparisons myself. I'm not saying that we haven't come a long way in 30 years, I am saying that I'd like to seem more!

Cars today are much, much better in all ways in terms of refinement, power/weight ratio, solid/tight body structure, quiet, great ride & handling and as RELIABLE as ever! And the STUFF that one can get in a vehicle today is astonishing to say the least. And their fast, fast, fast! Although, I'm not quite sure if we're there yet on the fuel economy even if the EPA numbers suggest so. Meaning, it should be better still! Fuel economy is a matter all on it's own!

Even though we are receiving higher HP #'s in heavier, safer vehicles while still achieving the same MPG #'s as in yesterdays vehicles, we still need better MPG #'s today, not more and more and more power/speed. Although I like the speed/power
smile.gif
It does show what the engineers and modern technology can achieve though.

I was just remembering the thrill of some of those small hatchbacks as I remember the thrill of a Chevelle 396.
I too would rather spend time in a new Fiesta over a Rabbit(I think) and maybe, just maybe, in a new Camaro over a 396 big block. I don't know, it remains to be seen as of yet. I haven't sat in or driven either in a side by side comparison. I know the new ones are not only faster but, get better MPG.

Again, not sure where I'm going in this subject, just reminiscing.
 
Last edited:
Don't forget ALL the aspects of simplicity. It weighs less, is easier to work on, corners and brakes better and almost always achieves higher mpg numbers.


I think the average age of a vehicle nowadays is 150-175k. Because anything more than that and the repairs become more intensive due to A) more stuff to go wrong aka electrical, unneeded doo-dads.
B) bigger engines in compact cars require cab forward designs and sloppy packaging which means you cant get to stuff without getting a headache and busted knuckles and without taking stuff off to get to stuff.


Personally, all the options I care for is a decent radio, cruise control and AC. A radio keeps you awake, cc keeps you legal and safer since you don't have to stare down the speedometer all the time and AC keeps you presentable when going to work. Everything else IMO is unnecessary, complicated, heavy, unreliable, gets in the way and just makes working on your car a chore and not a money saving hobby.


Ever notice all these new car adds. GPS, Navigation, crank your engine with your phone. If it were me, I'd sale my cars on cost of ownership only. Its a car for the people and we are middle class and not looking for a cheap Mercedes. Initial cost, ease/cost of repairs and mpg....well, safety too.

Leave the power windows, keyless entry, power steering, stability control, not sure about ABS, leather, sunroof, AT, fancy wheels, trunks for the midsize cars. C'mon automakers give BITOG what we want and enjoying the simple things is sometimes best.
 
I'm totally on-board with the OP.

Maybe they aren't as safe, or as fast, but the old econo-hatches and pocket-rockets had character that most cars today don't have - they 'felt' much faster and 'spunkier' than maybe they were.

I grew up with these cars - step-mom had a 1978 Honda Civic that we used a lot before it rusted out, it got replaced later on by a 1989 Toyota Tercel 3-door hatch - 4 speed, no radio or options. Learned to drive on that car - it had a great, 'direct' driving feel.

My mom had a 1984 Civic Hatch I was in a lot and loved; I loved it so much that years and years later I bought a 1986 Civic hatch just like it, and it had the same great feel as a DD. I also had a 19993 Mazda 323 3-door hatch for a few years later on.

I've often though car makers are geeting closetr to these kinds of cars with the new Mazda 2, honda fit, and Fiat 500. My priorities in life have changed, so I drive a small SUV, BUT if I ever needed a small car just for me to tool around in, one of these would be where I started for sure!
 
I agree. Modern econoboxes are just no fun to drive, IMO. I'd be even happier if they went back to RWD, like the early '80s Corollas and such (I won't own an FWD car).
 
Originally Posted By: rslifkin
I agree. Modern econoboxes are just no fun to drive, IMO. I'd be even happier if they went back to RWD, like the early '80s Corollas and such (I won't own an FWD car).

Some FWD cars are fun, I just bought a set of tires off a guy with a 1980 Scirocco track toy that weighs 1600lbs and will put about 220hp to the wheels... Set up well that got to run with a Z06 on a fast track and lap it on anything tight. A stock Scirocco was about 1800lbs back then, which I find hard to believe, but I guess cars were very light back then...
 
How dare you want a small car that has high mpg, and decent performanace, while also being safer than a beer can in a crash, having a better radio than a tin can with a 1" speaker at the end,having PROVEN safety features such as front and side impact airbags, ABS, and overall much less [censored].

(Aimed at those who would rather have a modern car)
 
Last edited:
Don't ever buy a car "just for kicks". Cars are like Marriages:The fewer you have,over your lifetime;The better off you are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
2021 Chrysler Pacifica - Impressions after driving it for 3 weeks.
Replies
16
Views
1K
Wolfshead
Thermo1223
Firestone Complete Autocare Centers, worth a visit IMO.
2 3
Replies
45
Views
2K
nthach
V
  • Locked
2017 Camry V6 | Valvoline 0w-20 | 77,200mi | 5000mi
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
KEVINK0000
wings&wheels
Electric Boat Fun
Replies
19
Views
1K
wings&wheels
Vil_Riker
Interesting observation of BMW X5 hybrid
Replies
17
Views
1K
Ws6
Back
Top