Last post on Sep 11, 2005 at 9:20 PM
You are in the Hatchbacks - Archived Discussions
This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Lost? Ask the Hatchbacks Host for directions! discussion.
What is this discussion about?
MINI Cooper, Hyundai Tiburon, Acura RSX, Subaru Impreza, Hatchback
Aug 31, 2005 (5:54 am)
Keep in mind the WRX now has a 2.5T engine, not only is that 25% more displacement but also it has AVCS (variable valve timing) to help power off boost. This engine has almost no lag and produces an incredible amount of power.
C&D took a Forester with this powertrain to 60mph in less than 5 seconds, so the lighter WRX (with shorter gearing due to smaller diameter tires) should be even quicker.
WRXs are already here, too.
Is the Civic really coming that soon? That should be fun...
#290 of 298 My apologies for this long post. i actually test-drove all of these...
Aug 31, 2005 (7:39 am)
... and stayed the heck away from the GTI while I was making a decision for buying this year. I owned a 72-73 Fastback, and had 2 friends who later owned a Scirocco and a Golf. Of the 3 Volkswagens, the Fastback seemed to be the best car. The Scirocco and the Golf both developed electrical problems - the worst was when both cars' power windows got stuck during the winter time. I'll never buy any car made in Mexico - including any Audis that are built south of the border. (And I used to scoff at Consumer Reports - now I understand the value of a longevity report coupled with a user base of a quarter of a million people. And what about that JD Power initial quality study from 2004? Volks ranked just above Hummer - second to last.)
the Mini is cute, and possibly the Cooper S with the Works package is something, but my hour-long commute into Philadelphia means playing tag with hulking SUV's . There are quite a few EXTREMELY bad drivers out here in Philly, and the Mini is just small enough to be 'ignored' while lane switching. There is no denying that parking a Mini in the city is much easier than parking practically any other car, but then again, surviving the commute in order to park would be my main concern. Otherwise, paying close to $30K (Works package and options) for a car with about 200 horses seems a little pricey, especially with a Mustang GT only costing about $25K. But cute sells...
Couldn't easily get into a 2005 Tiburon. I'm 6 foot, with a 32 " inseam, and getting out of the car required a near limbo-like maneuver.
The Acura RSX is a wonderful machine. I test drove a Type S, but the salesguy was hesitant to let me get the car to redline. I felt more safe in it at highway speeds than the Mini; it is bigger, and harder to ignore. Interior was very nice and relatively comfortable, and my wife liked it. Problem was, my previous car was a Toyota Solara, and being in a smaller coupe didn't make me feel like I had made much of a 'switch' in getting a new car.
I also testdrove a Civic Si - neat car, but the clutch on both cars I tested engaged very high off the floor for me. I have a bad ankle, which made shifting gears a little difficult with such a high engage point. (I also test drove a Focus SVT - fun car, but I had to keep saying... it's a Ford.)
So I bought a WRX. Car does well by most consumer and driving mags, and its hood scoop actually does keep SUV's off me. I have friends who own (seperately) a Forester, a Legacy wagon, and a WRX wagon - all are happy with their cars. The all-wheel drive means a lot to me when it rains on my commute, and I'll be happy for it come winter time. I don't see a problem with the turbo in the future; I'm an adult and my racing days are over. But that doesn't mean I can't enjoy my car.
Aug 31, 2005 (8:45 am)
I think the Civic will be trickling in through the month of September, and won't be properly stocked until October at the earliest. There are still a lot of '05s to sell. But at least the '06 will be available to see and drive very soon now.
Yes, the WRX becomes a MUCH more attractive option now that the engine has grown in displacement and off-boost power. I wonder how much the price will increase for '06? Among the group listed here, it is edging away to become the most expensive. The only one that might challenge it for price when it finally arrives is the new GTI. That car will have a more aggressive handling package standard than the WRX does. But of course, it will be FWD too.
Aug 31, 2005 (9:54 am)
I'm not so sure, VW usually softens them up for the US, and they tend to have a high center of gravity. We'll see what they do in US tune.
#293 of 298 RSX Type S vs WRX (Practicality Issue/Cost of Operation)
Sep 05, 2005 (11:28 pm)
Some of my friends told me that I should have bought the WRX. I bought my RSX Type S for about $25k and my friend bought his for almost the same price. I really considered the WRX since I wanted to get a sedan after owning a coupe for 8 years. I also liked the WRX's agressive styling, handling, and turbo boxer engine. The only thing that I didn't like was the gas mileage. I drive approximately 35miles+ one way to work and I believe having a turbocharged engine with premium fuel required would be too costly for me. Gas mileage is what I consinder a serious factor in owning a car and this led me to own an RSX Type S. Although I didn't get 4-doors and a turbo, I got the leather seats and other stuff that comes optional in a WRX (moonroof, spoiler, etc.). And with the Type S, I got better gas mileage that would be impossible to get in a WRX. Now the gas prices has gone up, I really felt that I made the right decision. Also, I heard that turbocharged engines are more costly to maintain (like quicker timing belt replacement and all). Is this true? Your opinion would be greatly appreciated.
Sep 06, 2005 (8:22 am)
Subaru's intervals are faily long, it's 105k miles on my Forester. 8 years later I still haven't had to do that.
Your Type S takes premium fuel also, right?
#295 of 298 Re: Belts [ateixeira]
Sep 06, 2005 (12:19 pm)
Oh, then it's not bad then. I was under the impression that turbocharged engines are too costly to operate. Well I guess it all goes down to the gas mileage for me then. Yes, my Type S uses premium fuel with 26/31 mpg. I once thought of trying to feed it with regular fuel considering the hiking gas prices, but my friend told me that there's a huge possibility of damaging a premium-fuel-required engine due to the piston knocking caused by lower octane fuel. Have you actually tried this? Well, I am just willing to pay extra for gas rather than to pay for parts and labor later on a damaged engine because of improper fuel type. I did read an article about fuel grades don't make much of a difference. But in my understanding, this only works for engines that do not require premium fuel.
Sep 06, 2005 (8:21 pm)
.. congrats on your Type S. They really are a decent car. I also have a 35 + mile commute - one way. the gas price gauging in south/central jersey has stabilized due to a number of lawsuits, but i can't remember the last time i had to pay almost $3.50/ gallon for gas... and i remember the 70's...
maybe i should get out of the rare book trade and get into the oil business... or better yet a more honourable profession like strongarming or graft...
Sep 07, 2005 (6:34 am)
Yeah, stick with premium. The difference usually amounts to $100-150 per year, not all that much.
#298 of 298 Re: Fuel [ateixeira]
Sep 11, 2005 (9:20 pm)
Yeah,that's what I'm doing now. Thanks for your feedback. $100 - $150, or even $200 per year is okay for me compared to paying labor and parts for repairs. Not to mention the possibility of the dealership voiding the warranty of the car for using the wrong fuel type.