What sporty new compact should I get?

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: televascular
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
But "sporty" or not, think of how folks drive 95% of the time. Its not all that pleasant to be between 5000-8000 RPM in daily driving. Heck, its not that pleasant to be above 3000 in cars designed for it, like our integra.


Not meaning to cause offense, but you just made it painfully obvious that you have never driven a Honda K-Series at the limit. The K20 is far more rev-happy than the B18B1 or B18C1 that you may be used to.


Youre right, I dont have real experience with the latest greatest. But I did drive a co-worker's Si hatch a few times, and it was, as you put it, unnervingly high strung in benign conditions, let alone traffic, etc.

He actually got rid of it because he couldnt stand to drive the thing in heavy traffic... traded it for a regular, AT civic.

But to each their own. To me, commuter car 'performance' means that it shold do all things decently, but nothing all that out of the ordinary. for me, that is an E30 BMW 318i for the commuter daily driver, though I have other cars for other uses. For others, it is other things.

JMH

 

[RTexasF]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: RTexasF
Of the choices given pass on the VW and go with the Honda. The VW products are just too trouble prone to consider.


on what basis? there are two posts just above that highlight nagging issues with acuras as well...
honda seems to be going down while VW is going up.

Im not trying to propagate a honda vs. VW war, but two of us just made claims based upon our own vehicles, which claim that isses will be had by all. Its at least a little better than a blanket statement. So what can you base your blanket statement on?

JMH


Ownership of both. You simply could not give me another VW product. I certainly don't view Honda as total perfection but if you just do a little googling you can see which brand is more reliable.

 

[JHZR2]

But my point is that some folks are giving data, experiences. Searching the internet is not data. Speak experiences and cite reasoning, or else the comment has no credibility.

JMH

 

[rpn453]

I'd almost certainly buy another Mazda3 if I were buying a new car right now. Definitely consider it in whatever trim level suits you and take one for a drive.

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
But "sporty" or not, think of how folks drive 95% of the time. Its not all that pleasant to be between 5000-8000 RPM in daily driving. Heck, its not that pleasant to be above 3000 in cars designed for it, like our integra.



With what engine would you have to regularly use those revs in daily driving? That Civic would have plenty of torque for regular drivers, and the extra revs are nice to have when you want them. I'm a fairly aggressive driver and I'd have no problem staying below 4000 rpm all the time if I wanted to in that car. The only time my girlfriend's 2.0L engine has seen over 4000 rpm since she bought it is when I've driven it!

However, it would be ridiculous to buy the Si if you didn't like to hit 8000 rpm occasionally. That engine provides no benefits, and quite an increase in fuel consumption, for most drivers. Personally, I'd go for the LX over the Si.

 

[televascular]

Everything about the K20 is designed to operate at high RPMs. I can go into great detail but I will not do so unprovoked.

Honda recommends that you shift at 4000rpm, except in 5th-6th, where they recommend 3500rpm. I usually swap gears at 3000 because there's enough pep there, and return about 30mpg in a day of driving (I have a ScanGaugeII). Of course, add some redlining, and it drops to about 26mpg, which is still great. It's fuel efficient when going to work but screams with gusto when you put your foot down. The R18 engine (in regular Civics) generally gets about 34-38mpg, so I feel the extra power in the K20 completely justifies the lower economy.

But like you say, if you don't enjoy spirited driving, there's no point in buying an Si. It's a driver's car.

 

[DmanWho]

Just wanted to share this short video of the latest "Sporty" hatchbacks... Includes the new GTI, and an old one. Fascinating. Sporty Hatchbacks

 

[buster]

Quote:
After reading the Car & Driver Long term 40k test of the GTI, I was surprised at all the little things that went wrong, so I am not sure if i can go from a reliable car to something unknown.


I like German cars, but not sure I would buy one. All of my friends that have bought VW's have had nothing but problems. Cabrio's, GTI's, Jetta's and Audi's. All very problematic. :???:

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: DmanWho
Just wanted to share this short video of the latest "Sporty" hatchbacks... Includes the new GTI,

That's not a new GTI, anymore. That episode is quite old.

But it's true. The point he's making is that the new cars, even the smaller ones, are so heavy nowadays, that they just can't keep up despite having more powerful engines.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: rpn453
However, it would be ridiculous to buy the Si if you didn't like to hit 8000 rpm occasionally. That engine provides no benefits, and quite an increase in fuel consumption, for most drivers. Personally, I'd go for the LX over the Si.


right, that is my point. For a daily driver, you can have a "sporty" fun to drive vehicle that doesnt have to be taken to 4000, 6000, 8000 RPM for full benefit. For a sporty daily driver a bit of extra low end torque is more enjoyable than having to go to ridiculous engine speeds to get some decent power. In my use, by the time Im at 8000 (even in 1st or 2nd), Im likely going too fast. Im sure the Si is cruising along pretty swiftly at 6 or 8000 RPM in first gear...

Give me a little low end grunt and good mileage, as then you get an easy to use, think nothing of traffic, scooting around, etc. vehicle that is enjoyable to drive normally, as one does 95% of the time.

Of course others are free to their opinions as well.

JMH

 

[DABEAR95]

My opinion...

If you like to work on your own cars the small things that pop up with the VW will not be an issue. If you take your car to the shop for oil changes and such it may not be the car for you.

I just can not stand the feel of the civic so the VW wins hands down for me. But if I did not enjoy tinkering I would stay away from the VW.

Jason

 

[Quattro Pete]

Is the fit and finish and material quality of the new Civic still not as nice as the Rabbit's? I know this was true some 6-7 years ago, but I haven't sat in the new Civic, so I'm just wondering.

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
right, that is my point. For a daily driver, you can have a "sporty" fun to drive vehicle that doesnt have to be taken to 4000, 6000, 8000 RPM for full benefit. For a sporty daily driver a bit of extra low end torque is more enjoyable than having to go to ridiculous engine speeds to get some decent power. In my use, by the time Im at 8000 (even in 1st or 2nd), Im likely going too fast. Im sure the Si is cruising along pretty swiftly at 6 or 8000 RPM in first gear...


I would hope the gearing is short enough in that Civic to still feel powerful at lower speeds. My Mazda feels quick in first, but loses a lot when you shift to the too-tall second gear.

Obviously you prefer a turbo, but I'll take either. I love that linear climb to redline with a free-revving engine, but the rush of a turbo can be just as good. So yes, it's just a personal preference and either method of having more power available than I really need would work for me. I'd make my decision based on what the rest of the car offers. For me, I wouldn't even have to drive them to pick the Civic. Everyone I know with a Honda has had a good ownership experience, but those I know who have had VWs and Audis haven't been impressed with their reliability. No major mechanical problems, but some of the electrical problems have been major: my friend's TT was in the dealership for four months and they had the entire interior stripped down to find the electrical glitch! If I didn't have that bias, I have a feeling - based on car reviews and rides I've taken in VWs - that the GTI would win me over when I actually drove them. I'd also prefer a 4-door hatchback, or even a 2-door hatchback, to the coupe.

I don't think either would pull me away from the Mazdaspeed3 though!

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: rpn453
My Mazda feels quick in first, but loses a lot when you shift to the too-tall second gear.

To be quick at higher gears, you would need more displacement or a turbo.

Quote:
I also think that most drivers would not use or need the turbo on the engine of that GTI. Take the turbo from the GTI, or the high revs from the Si, and the average driver would not be bothered. Obviously you prefer a turbo, but I'll take either. I love that linear climb to redline with a free-revving engine, but the rush of a turbo can be just as good.

Actually, the purpose of having a low pressure turbo, such as the one in Saabs, Volvos, VWs, and some other cars, is just that: to make the torque curve more linear across the whole rpm band. That is one of its greatest benefits, and you can experience it anytime - the car feels faster at lower rpms where a small-displacement engine with no turbo would struggle and would require you to downshift in order to raise the rpms.

 

[televascular]

The general feeling I get from a lot of people is that low-revving turbo engines are better than high-revving N/A engines because "you don't have to downshift in order to get decent power". Honda undoubtedly has the ability to make high-torque turbo engines but they choose not to, since an 8000rpm motor is more fun!

For instance, at 5800rpm on the Civic Si, the cam profile changes to the high-lift lobes for extra power. When the light blinks at redline (8000rpm), you shift into the next gear and the revs drop back down to 5800rpms, so you always stay in the high-lift profile for peak power. This is one of the reasons why the Si will post faster times than the GTI on a technical track, better handling aside. Due to the qualities of the VW 2.0T and Honda K20, the GTI has the slightly faster 0-60, but the Si has the faster 0-120.

For production passenger vehicles that implement a small turbo for smoothing the torque curve, peak power is not the goal. Personally, I am a proponent of natural aspiration since I feel using forced induction is "cheating"; the manufacturer can spend less time developing the engine's power since HP/TQ can be instantly increased by slapping on a turbo and tuning it properly. In the case of the GTI, it tries to make up for the engine's low output. The 2.0T without the T would be a yawn. But that is my own view, and I'm sure plenty of people have counterpoints.

Again, they are two opposing methods of power production, each with their own faults, and neither one is inherently superior to the other. Pick which one fits your daily driving style.

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
To be quick at higher gears, you would need more displacement or a turbo.


Of course you would. I'm just saying that the gearing should provide plenty of acceleration at lower "daily driving" speeds with these high-revving engines. I'm also off-topic-rambling that Mazda should have made 2nd gear about 15% lower on my car to make it more suited to city driving. The gap from 1st to 2nd is unnecessarily large. I can only guess that it has something to do with fuel economy tests, like GM's infamous skip-shift, or that they wanted you to be able to hit 60 mph in second for fractionally better results in magazine 0-60 tests.

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Actually, the purpose of having a low pressure turbo, such as the one in Saabs, Volvos, VWs, and some other cars, is just that: to make the torque curve more linear across the whole rpm band. That is one of its greatest benefits, and you can experience it anytime - the car feels faster at lower rpms where a small-displacement engine with no turbo would struggle and would require you to downshift in order to raise the rpms.


What I mean is that, as the revs climb, the higher revving engine will build power linearly to its redline while the torque of the turbo will begin to fade before redline. You know redline is coming up on those turbo engines because the power build begins to slow, while the high-revving engines require a closer eye on the tach so you don't hit the rev-limiter.

Basically, the point that those with a preference for power at lower rpms make is that you can have power available in a more relaxed way than high revs provide, and that's certainly true. I'm just saying that most people don't use that extra power, no matter what rpm it's available at. And if I have to wring a 197 hp engine in a compact car out to 8000 rpm to get the power I want, I'm enjoying the process!

I would prefer a turbo when I'm not already shifting gears anyway; I'd much rather let the turbo spool up to take me up a hill than have to downshift for it or let the engine struggle on a highway cruise. But in the city, an occasional extra down-shift or briefly holding a lower gear while anticipating a burst of acceleration doesn't bother me. I'll take either option.

 

[Tornado Red]

Nothing wrong with either the GTI or the Si -- two very different cars that are both fun to drive.

 

[thr_wedge]

I really like my Subaru Legacy GT.

Think STI with a little less power, a LOT lower insurance premiums and you don't have someone trying to race you at every single stoplight.

Stock they will pull 14.0 to high 13s with a good driver. Non-stock with just bolt ons and you are talking low to mid 12s.

Stock tires and brake pads are more middle of the road, but I just upgraded to some Kumho SPTs and Hawk HPS pads with ATE Super Blue and that solved that problem.

The car likes Pennzoil Platinum, easy to change out all the diff and manual tranny fluids (Castrol Syntec 75W90 in it now) and maint. has been pretty easy.

I get 23mpg mixed city/hwy.

 

[lovcom]

It would be very foolish to draw conclusions about the reliability of either car based on "a few posts above" type idiotic mentality.

Back in college, we were taught statistics, and how to apply them to a sampling. Sure, one can point to a VW with no issue,s but that is just ONE VW.

The smart money looks across THOUSANDS of Hondas and VW's not not just at Uncle Willy's GT-I.

And if one makes an informed decision, well, the answer as to which is the car to get is very, very simple.

To apply some of the logic presented in this thread, one would think that smoking provides no health risks, because Uncle Willy lived to be 108 years old and he smoked 4 packs of unfiltered Chesterfields since age 8. In other words, don't look at a few examples, look at thousands, and if you do, you will find a new Honda SI in your driveway.

The VW's are made in Mexico, with less then ideal quality controls, and although they're getting better, they are still [censored] behind Honda.

FAR, FAR, FAR behind.

 

[berge]

Originally Posted By: Dohc98vteC
I have a 98 Prelude but miss the new car smell.

Here is what I am considering, 08' Civic Si or GTI. After reading the Car & Driver Long term 40k test of the GTI, I was surprised at all the little things that went wrong, so I am not sure if i can go from a reliable car to something unknown.


if you're going to lease and then return, doesn't matter. if you're going to keep it you have much better odds of being happier with a Honda over a VW. and that's a fact.

 

[Tornado Red]

Originally Posted By: lovcom
The VW's are made in Mexico, with less then ideal quality controls, and although they're getting better, they are still [censored] behind Honda.


Jettas, Boras, and New Beetles are built in Puebla Mexico.

The Rabbit, GTI, Passat, Touareg, and Eos are all built in Germany.

My 2003 Golf was built in Brazil, and has been extremely reliable. Tomorrow the odometer will roll past 250k miles, and it should be good for at least another 250k.

I do not have an opinion on whether the Honda SI is better than the GTI -- I have never driven either one. I suspect that they are both a lot of fun to drive, and with proper care either one will last a long, long time.