RE: RIP the hot hatch: Tell Me I'm Wrong
Discussion
peter450 said:
A big reason for the change is buyers have changed
Young drivers today have to pay really big premiums just to get insured on the least powerful car in the range
Todays hot hatches are uninsurable to the average young lad, you need to be earning well above the average wage for the age group.
LOL. Trust me, hot hatches were uninsurable to young drivers in the late 1980s and early 1990s too.Young drivers today have to pay really big premiums just to get insured on the least powerful car in the range
Todays hot hatches are uninsurable to the average young lad, you need to be earning well above the average wage for the age group.
As for whether they were fast or not, we race a 1991 Golf GTI; at every track we go to we're quicker than the Porsche 944s that show up. The BMW E30s otoh...
Edited by Dr JonboyG on Tuesday 12th August 04:22
Dr JonboyG said:
As for whether they were fast or not, we race a 1991 Golf GTI; at every track we go to we're quicker than the Porsche 944s that show up. The BMW E30s otoh...
I don't doubt what you are saying, but it may be the type of owner/driver that each car attracts rather than the speed capability of the actual cars. A 944 Turbo is a very capable car, whether the typical owner can use that capability is another matter.TEKNOPUG said:
Classic hot-hatches should be light - sub 1000kgs. There is no real replacement for "lightness". Sure they all have massive power now to combat the weight but that also means massive wheels\tyres\brakes\grip\clever diffs etc. All to cope with demands of safety, toys, luxury and efficiency which has turned them all into lardy heavy-weights. Still, that's progress I guess....
I tend to agree. I think that modern cars are obese compared to the sporty cars of the late70s and early 80s. Anybody who remembers how much fun you could have in an Alfasud 1.5Ti or original Golf GTi or XR3 will know exactly what I mean. Kawasicki said:
I don't doubt what you are saying, but it may be the type of owner/driver that each car attracts rather than the speed capability of the actual cars. A 944 Turbo is a very capable car, whether the typical owner can use that capability is another matter.
Anyone of mild competence can extract everything a hatch can give. Hustling a FWD car is so easy and forgiving. It is a different matter with RWD, so it is not a given that every RWD example will be totally wrung out on a track.Ali_T said:
I'm in partial agreement with the sentiments of the article but from a very different viewpoint. I think the very nature of the hot hatch is being eroded by stupid quests for power, harsh diffs and Nurburgring records. Back in the '80s and early '90s, a hot hatch was a normal, practical car that was fast enough to be fun yet still completely usable day to day. It didn't loosen your fillings because the makers realised people drive these cars every day and the opportunity to use the fast part of the repertoire is far outweighed by the requirement for civility and liveability. Nowadays, they've become sportscar substitutes that just aren't substitutes at all. Too big, too heavy and require too much speed to be fun. Yet they've got such roughshod rides that they're no fun to own every day when you're not in the mood and so damned expensive you have to wonder why you'd buy one instead of a sports saloon or proper sportscar (and some spare money for a much more gentile used hatch to drive daily.
I've driven all the usual suspects in the past 4 months. A45, M135i, Golf R, Golf GTi PP, Focus ST3, Renaultsport Megane 265 and Giulietta QV TCT. Almost all of them impressed me. But the highest rated, the Golfs, just didn't raise a smile at all. The A45 was very loud and had a horrible ride and the M135i I just didn't gel with at all. It felt too soft and too harsh at the same time without the rather expensive optional adjustable suspension. Same with the Golf R. The stock suspension, on Edinburgh roads, was very jiggly and uncomfortable. I'm sure going flat out on a track or driving like a psychotic lunatic on public roads, they make sense and the ultra firm damping pays off. But is that what most people do with a hot hatch, day to day? Of the others, the Focus was a much more civilised daily driver and really impressed. The Renault was just too harsh and felt like another track day special that I don't really want. And the Alfa? The one that's received the worst reviews in the press for being too soft? Loved it! That softness on track and in the hands of journos that's been so criticised by most (at least in this country, others love it) turned into a massively enjoyable, fluid, old school hot hatch feel for me. Genuinely comfortable, usable, yet pointy and fun at sane road speeds. I may upgrade the dampers a little in time, but I wouldn't want to take away the civility pf it all. A genuinely likeable GT car in the shape of a hatch. In fact, I liked it so much that I've ordered one and sod the journos! It matches up to the car that the likes of the GTi Mk2, 19 16V, Tipo Sedicivalvole and 145 Cloverleaf used to be that's been slowly lost over time.
Great post! I'd love to be able to drive all those, just to confirm my own opinions of course (I'm tempted by an M135i).I've driven all the usual suspects in the past 4 months. A45, M135i, Golf R, Golf GTi PP, Focus ST3, Renaultsport Megane 265 and Giulietta QV TCT. Almost all of them impressed me. But the highest rated, the Golfs, just didn't raise a smile at all. The A45 was very loud and had a horrible ride and the M135i I just didn't gel with at all. It felt too soft and too harsh at the same time without the rather expensive optional adjustable suspension. Same with the Golf R. The stock suspension, on Edinburgh roads, was very jiggly and uncomfortable. I'm sure going flat out on a track or driving like a psychotic lunatic on public roads, they make sense and the ultra firm damping pays off. But is that what most people do with a hot hatch, day to day? Of the others, the Focus was a much more civilised daily driver and really impressed. The Renault was just too harsh and felt like another track day special that I don't really want. And the Alfa? The one that's received the worst reviews in the press for being too soft? Loved it! That softness on track and in the hands of journos that's been so criticised by most (at least in this country, others love it) turned into a massively enjoyable, fluid, old school hot hatch feel for me. Genuinely comfortable, usable, yet pointy and fun at sane road speeds. I may upgrade the dampers a little in time, but I wouldn't want to take away the civility pf it all. A genuinely likeable GT car in the shape of a hatch. In fact, I liked it so much that I've ordered one and sod the journos! It matches up to the car that the likes of the GTi Mk2, 19 16V, Tipo Sedicivalvole and 145 Cloverleaf used to be that's been slowly lost over time.
Edited by Ali_T on Monday 11th August 11:56
Enjoy the Alfa
Edited by Baz Tench on Tuesday 12th August 09:15
I think it's all pretty simple really. The current generation of small turbo units can be cranked up almost infinitely, and people love pub bore statistics. So why not crank up the engine to 300bhp? All you then have to do is add AWD to make it stay on the road (which helps justify a high price).
It's brainless but sells cars as long as the motoring journos don't break ranks and actually express an honest view - note how many of them buy the uber hatches that they praise. .Almost none despite being smack-bang in the middle of the target market.
I'm not thinking of the golf R here, which I think is a little better conceived. But the S3, for example - what is the point?!
It's brainless but sells cars as long as the motoring journos don't break ranks and actually express an honest view - note how many of them buy the uber hatches that they praise. .Almost none despite being smack-bang in the middle of the target market.
I'm not thinking of the golf R here, which I think is a little better conceived. But the S3, for example - what is the point?!
What's potentially even dafter is the forthcoming Civic R and Focus RS which are reportedly going to have well over 300bhp all through the front wheels. Now, I tested the last RS with 300bhp (which turned out to be more like 270bhp for most cars), LSD and revo-knuckle and that was still a torque steerer par excellence. What these will be like with the reported 330-340bhp is to be seen, but I suspect they'll be as far removed from a real world hot hatch as it's possible to get. And why buy a track day special for the road in the shape of a hatch when you can buy a genuine sportscar instead? The argument that you can still fit kids in the back becomes a moot point because your family will not want to go in the car unless they're all masochists!
As for cranking up the turbos, there is a very large thread on both the A45 forum and the Golf R forum about blown engines, some only a few hours old! The problems with Subaru's EJ25 and ring land failures is well documented and the weak rods on Evo X engines is already becoming a concern. Maybe it's time people realised you can't have something for nothing?!
As for cranking up the turbos, there is a very large thread on both the A45 forum and the Golf R forum about blown engines, some only a few hours old! The problems with Subaru's EJ25 and ring land failures is well documented and the weak rods on Evo X engines is already becoming a concern. Maybe it's time people realised you can't have something for nothing?!
Edited by Ali_T on Tuesday 12th August 12:37
ORD said:
- note how many of them buy the uber hatches that they praise. .Almost none despite being smack-bang in the middle of the target market.
I always wondered what these guys run so that's interesting they don't go out and buy these cars. But what the heck do they buy?I also think it's interesting a lot of car journo's seem to have an even bigger passion for motorbikes yet there are still more car enthusiast TV shows than for bikes
k-ink said:
Kawasicki said:
I don't doubt what you are saying, but it may be the type of owner/driver that each car attracts rather than the speed capability of the actual cars. A 944 Turbo is a very capable car, whether the typical owner can use that capability is another matter.
Anyone of mild competence can extract everything a hatch can give. Hustling a FWD car is so easy and forgiving. It is a different matter with RWD, so it is not a given that every RWD example will be totally wrung out on a track.We look back on 80s/90s hatches as something borne out of simplicity because compared to modern vehicles they are. I had an old school Sunbeam Ti in the early to mid eighties - Twin Weber 40s, ignition with points, RWD, 13" wheels. The new generation FWDs with fuel injection, contactless ignition, ECUs, bigger wheels with wider, lower profile tyres were a whole new breed of technology. Some were pretty rubbish at handling the power through the front wheels and had load of torque steer or simply had steering two heavy to be a dual purpose hatchback. Others were feats of engineering for the era like the Golf GTi and 205 GTi and made the Escorts, Sunbeams, 131 Sports primitive in comparison.
These were family cars of the era, not cars designed as sports specials. Over time as secondhand vehicles they became the province of the young who had little need for rear seats but they were bought new into families who wanted the best of both worlds - little has changed in that respect. If you are in the market for a sporty car, a modern hot hatch is a compromise, just as it was then.
These were family cars of the era, not cars designed as sports specials. Over time as secondhand vehicles they became the province of the young who had little need for rear seats but they were bought new into families who wanted the best of both worlds - little has changed in that respect. If you are in the market for a sporty car, a modern hot hatch is a compromise, just as it was then.
You could put it down to evolution, until Renault committed the ultimate crime in fitting a shonky flappy paddle gearbox into what could have otherwise been a good car.
the previous 192 was among the best of the modern hatches, how could they have hot the recipe so wrong only one generation on?
the previous 192 was among the best of the modern hatches, how could they have hot the recipe so wrong only one generation on?
At least cars which have been optimised for the ring will be consistent. Consistently over sprung and damped for UK roads.
The term "Hot Hatch" is still valid imo. The 'problem' with them is their every expanding wastelines and unachievable performance, due to roads that haven't grown to accommodate them.
A lot of people can't even drive a Fiat 500 within their lane boundaries these days, at the speed limit, let alone someone doing twice the limit - and faster - in a hot hatch, who's using the whole road to get his chassis to 'move under him' in a fun and nostalgic way.
The term "Hot Hatch" is still valid imo. The 'problem' with them is their every expanding wastelines and unachievable performance, due to roads that haven't grown to accommodate them.
A lot of people can't even drive a Fiat 500 within their lane boundaries these days, at the speed limit, let alone someone doing twice the limit - and faster - in a hot hatch, who's using the whole road to get his chassis to 'move under him' in a fun and nostalgic way.
j_s14a said:
You could put it down to evolution, until Renault committed the ultimate crime in fitting a shonky flappy paddle gearbox into what could have otherwise been a good car.
According to the Alfisti of yesteryear the ultimate crime was fitting front wheel drive... It is evolution and the original article is just a nostalgia trip and driver involvement in small sporty vehicles goes back way further than hot hatches of the 80s/90s IMHO.the traditional models that were hot hatches are grown up sports cars now. fast but without the fun.
as others have said, it's the sub 1000kg models that need to fill this space with small high revving naturally aspirated engines and small tyres. surprised manufacaturers aren't actively pushing this, they would do wonders for the corporate average CO2 figures
as others have said, it's the sub 1000kg models that need to fill this space with small high revving naturally aspirated engines and small tyres. surprised manufacaturers aren't actively pushing this, they would do wonders for the corporate average CO2 figures
skinny said:
the traditional models that were hot hatches are grown up sports cars now. fast but without the fun.
as others have said, it's the sub 1000kg models that need to fill this space with small high revving naturally aspirated engines and small tyres. surprised manufacaturers aren't actively pushing this, they would do wonders for the corporate average CO2 figures
I think they are more "performance cars" than sports cars. They have more in common with the hugely powerful estate cars and barges than they do with sports cars.as others have said, it's the sub 1000kg models that need to fill this space with small high revving naturally aspirated engines and small tyres. surprised manufacaturers aren't actively pushing this, they would do wonders for the corporate average CO2 figures
Ali_T said:
Now, I tested the last RS with 300bhp (which turned out to be more like 270bhp for most cars),
So you tested them all did you?Edited by Ali_T on Tuesday 12th August 12:37
Anyway.
I've just picked up a 55 plate Alfa 147 Lusso and although it's diesel it has a decent amount of poke, and with it's small (for these days!) dimensions and skinny tyres it's really good fun to drive. It's grippy and chuckable just like an Alfa shoudl be.
Tony33 said:
ccording to the Alfisti of yesteryear the ultimate crime was fitting front wheel drive...
And most of those Alfisti seem to have completely forgotten about the Sud and Sprint while moaning about modern FWD Alfas. Even Marchionne made that error in his recent future strategy report.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff