Any of the current crop of small cars actually fun to drive?
Discussion
stedaley said:
J4CKO said:
I keep rattling on about it but we have not long since bought the 100 ps ecoboost and had it remapped and its a hoot, indecently rapid for what it is, we have a C1 as well and the Fiesta is leagues ahead in absolutely every way.
Most on your list are a bit wooden, dont worry too much about weight and length, its all about the way it drives and 50 kilos either way isnt going to influence that so much that it will make the difference.
Dont bother with the 125, get the 100 and remap it for £399 from Superchips, basically the same engine.
125 and Mountune would be where id go with it, 165bhp and 245nm from a 1.0l....Most on your list are a bit wooden, dont worry too much about weight and length, its all about the way it drives and 50 kilos either way isnt going to influence that so much that it will make the difference.
Dont bother with the 125, get the 100 and remap it for £399 from Superchips, basically the same engine.
and cant be done with the 100hp variant
Torque wise the 100 and 125 seem to go to almost the same figure, the 100 starts with 170 Nm and goes to 245 and the 125 starts with 200 and goes to 247, the red edition goes from 210 to 287
I really want to know what the difference is with the 125 and 140 over the 100 that allows the higher power, other than the turbos being made of a different alloy I cant find anything else.
Mountune offer some good upgrades but are Ford warranty friendly so they wont do anything to upset Ford, it will all be signed off by Ford so the cynic in me thinks that they wont want to provide upgrades to the 100 bhp model as it could affect sales of the 125 and 140.
Pumaspeed do some other options, they reckon the engine internals are good for 190/200 bhp but over that need upgrading, the also dont seem to differentiate between the versions when installing their packages like the other suppliers.
J4CKO said:
Yeah, I meant rather than spending the extra on the 125 and keeping it standard, the 125 is comparatively rare and the Mountune kit is more than just a remap, though the Bluefin option goes to 150 plus and that is just the map.
Torque wise the 100 and 125 seem to go to almost the same figure, the 100 starts with 170 Nm and goes to 245 and the 125 starts with 200 and goes to 247, the red edition goes from 210 to 287
I really want to know what the difference is with the 125 and 140 over the 100 that allows the higher power, other than the turbos being made of a different alloy I cant find anything else.
Mountune offer some good upgrades but are Ford warranty friendly so they wont do anything to upset Ford, it will all be signed off by Ford so the cynic in me thinks that they wont want to provide upgrades to the 100 bhp model as it could affect sales of the 125 and 140.
Pumaspeed do some other options, they reckon the engine internals are good for 190/200 bhp but over that need upgrading, the also dont seem to differentiate between the versions when installing their packages like the other suppliers.
True, but i have a 98Hp clio atm, whilst im surely it would be slightly quicker i think i would still want the 215 with the upgrade options...Torque wise the 100 and 125 seem to go to almost the same figure, the 100 starts with 170 Nm and goes to 245 and the 125 starts with 200 and goes to 247, the red edition goes from 210 to 287
I really want to know what the difference is with the 125 and 140 over the 100 that allows the higher power, other than the turbos being made of a different alloy I cant find anything else.
Mountune offer some good upgrades but are Ford warranty friendly so they wont do anything to upset Ford, it will all be signed off by Ford so the cynic in me thinks that they wont want to provide upgrades to the 100 bhp model as it could affect sales of the 125 and 140.
Pumaspeed do some other options, they reckon the engine internals are good for 190/200 bhp but over that need upgrading, the also dont seem to differentiate between the versions when installing their packages like the other suppliers.
I think the 140 has a better map and not much else..
Just a special edition i must say,
the 125 i can have for 124 in titanium spec or 131 in zetec s spec, what is the difference?
I have added some of the recommendations to the shortlist. Thanks for these suggestions. Unfortunately the Audi A1 and the current model Hyundai I10 are over budget. The old I10 is a bit on the slow side and looks very bland. I chanced upon a Chevrolet Spark today. The seating position looked ridiculously high and not very sporty + a bit slow. I have pretty much discounted everything with less than 80bhp. The Citigo is about 13 sec to 60!
Swift Sport 1.6. 134bhp, 160Nm, 1045Kg, 8.4 sec 3890x1695mm. 44Mpg. £6500. Hard to find.
Renault Twingo 1.6vvt 133bhp, 160Nm, 1050Kg, 8.4 sec 3699x1949. 42Mpg. £5500. Hard to find one new enough.
Renault Twingo 1.2tce 98bhp, 155Nm, 980Kg, 9.5 sec 3600x1927. 49Mpg. £5000. Looks like a good option, but I have been driving a Renault for 8 years and I fancy a change.
Mitsubishi colt Ralliart. 1.5 turbo 147Bhp, 210Nm, 1060kg, 7.2 sec, 3880x1695. 42Mpg. £7000. Hard to find.
Mazda 2 1.5 Sport 101bhp, 137Nm, 1030Kg, 0-60 in 10.1 sec 3895x1695mm. 49.6mpg. £6000. Looks like a good option.
Fiesta 1.0 ecoboost 98bhp, 170Nm, 1091Kg, 0-60 in 10.8 sec, 3969x1978mm, 65mpg. £7700. Excellent engine performance and the best drive so the reviews would have me believe. It is right at the upper end of my budget, but has a low tax band and good economy. Hideous dashboard design and is the biggest and heaviest car on my list.
The extra power of the Swift, Twingo 1.6 and the Colt is very tempting, but I drive about 70 miles each day so they would hit me in the pocket + the tax and insurance are higher too. They are also a bit more expensive to buy. The closer the car gets to the £7500 upper budget, the more sensible the company car option looks instead of the car allowance. The company car would most likely be a BMW 118d and would have to be an automatic. They are economical and have a reasonable turn of speed + RWD. Downside being the diesel and the auto box and I prefer to have my own car. My current daily driver is a Laguna 173 GT DCi, which is now too old for the car allowance criteria and the mileage is coming up to the maximum allowed too.
Looking at the similarities between the Mazda 2 and the Colt, I would not mind betting they are the same car
.
I will have to have a good think about this and perhaps test drive some of the slower cars on the list to see if I can be happy in them. I don't need it to be fast. As long as I reach 70mph by the time I get to the end of the slip road leading onto the M25 it should be good enough, or at least I hope so.
Swift Sport 1.6. 134bhp, 160Nm, 1045Kg, 8.4 sec 3890x1695mm. 44Mpg. £6500. Hard to find.
Renault Twingo 1.6vvt 133bhp, 160Nm, 1050Kg, 8.4 sec 3699x1949. 42Mpg. £5500. Hard to find one new enough.
Renault Twingo 1.2tce 98bhp, 155Nm, 980Kg, 9.5 sec 3600x1927. 49Mpg. £5000. Looks like a good option, but I have been driving a Renault for 8 years and I fancy a change.
Mitsubishi colt Ralliart. 1.5 turbo 147Bhp, 210Nm, 1060kg, 7.2 sec, 3880x1695. 42Mpg. £7000. Hard to find.
Mazda 2 1.5 Sport 101bhp, 137Nm, 1030Kg, 0-60 in 10.1 sec 3895x1695mm. 49.6mpg. £6000. Looks like a good option.
Fiesta 1.0 ecoboost 98bhp, 170Nm, 1091Kg, 0-60 in 10.8 sec, 3969x1978mm, 65mpg. £7700. Excellent engine performance and the best drive so the reviews would have me believe. It is right at the upper end of my budget, but has a low tax band and good economy. Hideous dashboard design and is the biggest and heaviest car on my list.
The extra power of the Swift, Twingo 1.6 and the Colt is very tempting, but I drive about 70 miles each day so they would hit me in the pocket + the tax and insurance are higher too. They are also a bit more expensive to buy. The closer the car gets to the £7500 upper budget, the more sensible the company car option looks instead of the car allowance. The company car would most likely be a BMW 118d and would have to be an automatic. They are economical and have a reasonable turn of speed + RWD. Downside being the diesel and the auto box and I prefer to have my own car. My current daily driver is a Laguna 173 GT DCi, which is now too old for the car allowance criteria and the mileage is coming up to the maximum allowed too.
Looking at the similarities between the Mazda 2 and the Colt, I would not mind betting they are the same car
.I will have to have a good think about this and perhaps test drive some of the slower cars on the list to see if I can be happy in them. I don't need it to be fast. As long as I reach 70mph by the time I get to the end of the slip road leading onto the M25 it should be good enough, or at least I hope so.
OP. The small car market is quite competitive, so the cars need to be good to sell. I'd drive as many as you can rather than look at the performance figures, it may be down to gearing that one gets a flattering figure and another doesn't.
My Jazz is not a fast car but it feels much nippier than the performance figures suggest and I love driving it because it is utter brilliant at doing what it does and it makes me wonder why anyone would want anything else, apart from having no spare wheel which gets on my tits.
My Jazz is not a fast car but it feels much nippier than the performance figures suggest and I love driving it because it is utter brilliant at doing what it does and it makes me wonder why anyone would want anything else, apart from having no spare wheel which gets on my tits.
AlexC1981 said:
I have added some of the recommendations to the shortlist. Thanks for these suggestions. Unfortunately the Audi A1 and the current model Hyundai I10 are over budget. The old I10 is a bit on the slow side and looks very bland. I chanced upon a Chevrolet Spark today. The seating position looked ridiculously high and not very sporty + a bit slow. I have pretty much discounted everything with less than 80bhp. The Citigo is about 13 sec to 60!
Swift Sport 1.6. 134bhp, 160Nm, 1045Kg, 8.4 sec 3890x1695mm. 44Mpg. £6500. Hard to find.
Renault Twingo 1.6vvt 133bhp, 160Nm, 1050Kg, 8.4 sec 3699x1949. 42Mpg. £5500. Hard to find one new enough.
Renault Twingo 1.2tce 98bhp, 155Nm, 980Kg, 9.5 sec 3600x1927. 49Mpg. £5000. Looks like a good option, but I have been driving a Renault for 8 years and I fancy a change.
Mitsubishi colt Ralliart. 1.5 turbo 147Bhp, 210Nm, 1060kg, 7.2 sec, 3880x1695. 42Mpg. £7000. Hard to find.
Mazda 2 1.5 Sport 101bhp, 137Nm, 1030Kg, 0-60 in 10.1 sec 3895x1695mm. 49.6mpg. £6000. Looks like a good option.
Fiesta 1.0 ecoboost 98bhp, 170Nm, 1091Kg, 0-60 in 10.8 sec, 3969x1978mm, 65mpg. £7700. Excellent engine performance and the best drive so the reviews would have me believe. It is right at the upper end of my budget, but has a low tax band and good economy. Hideous dashboard design and is the biggest and heaviest car on my list.
The extra power of the Swift, Twingo 1.6 and the Colt is very tempting, but I drive about 70 miles each day so they would hit me in the pocket + the tax and insurance are higher too. They are also a bit more expensive to buy. The closer the car gets to the £7500 upper budget, the more sensible the company car option looks instead of the car allowance. The company car would most likely be a BMW 118d and would have to be an automatic. They are economical and have a reasonable turn of speed + RWD. Downside being the diesel and the auto box and I prefer to have my own car. My current daily driver is a Laguna 173 GT DCi, which is now too old for the car allowance criteria and the mileage is coming up to the maximum allowed too.
Looking at the similarities between the Mazda 2 and the Colt, I would not mind betting they are the same car.
I will have to have a good think about this and perhaps test drive some of the slower cars on the list to see if I can be happy in them. I don't need it to be fast. As long as I reach 70mph by the time I get to the end of the slip road leading onto the M25 it should be good enough, or at least I hope so.
I see where you're coming from OP. Not many very small, light hatches with decent power around these days.Swift Sport 1.6. 134bhp, 160Nm, 1045Kg, 8.4 sec 3890x1695mm. 44Mpg. £6500. Hard to find.
Renault Twingo 1.6vvt 133bhp, 160Nm, 1050Kg, 8.4 sec 3699x1949. 42Mpg. £5500. Hard to find one new enough.
Renault Twingo 1.2tce 98bhp, 155Nm, 980Kg, 9.5 sec 3600x1927. 49Mpg. £5000. Looks like a good option, but I have been driving a Renault for 8 years and I fancy a change.
Mitsubishi colt Ralliart. 1.5 turbo 147Bhp, 210Nm, 1060kg, 7.2 sec, 3880x1695. 42Mpg. £7000. Hard to find.
Mazda 2 1.5 Sport 101bhp, 137Nm, 1030Kg, 0-60 in 10.1 sec 3895x1695mm. 49.6mpg. £6000. Looks like a good option.
Fiesta 1.0 ecoboost 98bhp, 170Nm, 1091Kg, 0-60 in 10.8 sec, 3969x1978mm, 65mpg. £7700. Excellent engine performance and the best drive so the reviews would have me believe. It is right at the upper end of my budget, but has a low tax band and good economy. Hideous dashboard design and is the biggest and heaviest car on my list.
The extra power of the Swift, Twingo 1.6 and the Colt is very tempting, but I drive about 70 miles each day so they would hit me in the pocket + the tax and insurance are higher too. They are also a bit more expensive to buy. The closer the car gets to the £7500 upper budget, the more sensible the company car option looks instead of the car allowance. The company car would most likely be a BMW 118d and would have to be an automatic. They are economical and have a reasonable turn of speed + RWD. Downside being the diesel and the auto box and I prefer to have my own car. My current daily driver is a Laguna 173 GT DCi, which is now too old for the car allowance criteria and the mileage is coming up to the maximum allowed too.
Looking at the similarities between the Mazda 2 and the Colt, I would not mind betting they are the same car
.I will have to have a good think about this and perhaps test drive some of the slower cars on the list to see if I can be happy in them. I don't need it to be fast. As long as I reach 70mph by the time I get to the end of the slip road leading onto the M25 it should be good enough, or at least I hope so.
Glad to see the Swift, Mazda 2 and Fiesta have made the shortlist. Not much bigger really.
For what it's worth, my wife and I were in a similar situation about 5 years ago. She wanted a brand new car (scrappage scheme), budget 10k but something that was going to be decent fun. Our shortlist came down to three cars: Suzuki Swift 1.3 (old model), Mazda 2 1.3/1.5 and Fiat 500 1.2. We also considered a Peugeot 107 but it wasn't in the same league and a VW Polo, which was too expensive (the Up had not yet come out at the time).
The Swift was probably the best drive and even the 1.3 had 90bhp (I believe that even the new-shape 1.2 has 90bhp) and it's a great looking car IMHO and probably would have been my first choice. Of course, the Sport would be the one to have if you can find one and they should be within budget but you'll have a bigger choice of 1.2s and I think they would still be great fun.
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2015...
The Mazda 2 is another great choice. It's very light and dynamic looking and the 1.5 in particular very lively (100bhp?) but it felt a bit more grown up i.e. not quite as fun as the other two.
Predictably, my wife fell for the Fiat 500 and even though it was just a humble 1.2, it felt like a more expensive car than the others. Very solidly built, never had any problems with it and although the ride was a bit bouncy and the steering a bit numb, it had a snickety gearchange, enjoyed being thrashed (and sounded quite rorty in the process) and happily cruised at 90 leptons on the motorway whilst being refined and stable and averaging 50mpg. Although the chassis was a bit flawed (the ride is much less bouncy on the newer ones apparently), I did really enjoy driving it despite it sharing the driveway with my Impreza WRX. On a road where you would have to be doing double the speed limit in the Impreza for things to get exciting, you were involved and busy within the speed limit in the 500! Don't get me wrong, I preferred the Impreza overall though!
A bit girly for you, you say (unlike most of the cars in the OP)?...weren't you comparing this to a Metro?!... I would urge you to give one a try. My wife's was red with a red and ivory interior, so about as girly a spec as you can get but I really think that in something like gunmetal grey with black wheels, it wouldn't look that girly at all and yes it probably won't be as economical as the 1.2 but if we were to have another, i would probably go for a Twinair and free RFL.
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2015...
Having said that I like the Panda too but I think the 500 is lighter and more compact and if you're keeping it for only 2-3 years, the residuals on the 500 will probably be better. Ours only lost 50% of its value in 3.5 years and 30k trade. If we had sold it privately, we could probably have got 70% of our money back. Less than 1k a year in depreciation on a new car is pretty good these days.
If you could go a little bit older, a decent, low mileage Abarth 500 would be within reach though!
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2015...
Other suggestions that haven't been mentioned yet.
Why not a MINI? 7500 pounds should get you a decent MINI One with 98bhp.
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2015...
How about the new Twingo? Rear-engined and RWD sounds pretty interesting, although I don't think 7500 will get you the Turbo (90bhp vs 70bhp) but this is practically new.
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2015...
You mentioned the Picanto. For my money, an 85bhp Rio would be a much nicer place to be. IMO a very nice looking little car and great value with a very long warranty.
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2015...
My only other suggestion is a VW Polo 1.2 TSI. I haven't driven this engine in a Polo yet but I hear that it's the pick of the range. I was very impressed with it in a 5 door Golf rental. Plenty of performance 4-up with luggage and an average of 45mpg and that car only had 85bhp I believe. 100bhp in the Polo, should be pretty lively, although you may have to go a bit older than 2012.
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2015...
Or the SEAT equivalent?
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2015...
Hope that helps a bit and let us know how you get along!
Edited by white_goodman on Thursday 20th August 05:49
Edited by white_goodman on Thursday 20th August 05:54
Edited by white_goodman on Thursday 20th August 05:55
white_goodman said:
Having said that I like the Panda too but I think the 500 is lighter and more compact and if you're keeping it for only 2-3 years, the residuals on the 500 will probably be better. Ours only lost 50% of its value in 3.5 years and 30k trade. If we had sold it privately, we could probably have got 70% of our money back. Less than 1k a year in depreciation on a new car is pretty good these days.
Bear in mind that the 500 is actually just a Panda in a pretty dress. Good points on the residuals though. Edited by white_goodman on Thursday 20th August 05:55
I have had a lhd Panda for about 7 years - (I had intended trading it every 3 years just to avoid hacking it back to UK for an MoT but can't bring myself to sell it). The tyres squeal around corners which make it feel like you're going faster than you are so it's a real hoot, but it's also ridiculously practical too.
Thanks for all those suggestions, I have been having a look through. The VW 1.2TSI engine sounds good, it's a shame they don't put it in the Citigo/Up/Mii. I like the Ibiza that has been linked to.
I don't think the Panda is going to cut it with only 79bhp/tonne. No doubt Fiat are resorting to a very long second gear to get it to 60mph so quickly. Being as I can't test drive them all, I think bhp per tonne is a fairer way of comparing the performance than the 0-60 stat.
Something weird is happening with the laws of physics.
The Ibiza is 94bhp/tonne, which interestingly is very close to the Picanto at 91bhp/t, yet the Ibiza is listed as 9.5 seconds to 60 compared to the Picanto at 11 seconds.
The MINI is an interesting one and the handling is great apparently. The 118bhp 1.6 litre is surprisingly economical, getting an average 52mpg. I wonder how that stacks up in the real world? I find it hard to believe as the Mazda 2 is lighter, has 100 fewer CCs and 20bhp less than the MINI, but gets worse mpg. Something else to think about now.
And no, my Metro was not as girly as a Fiat 500 even if the seatbelts and carpet were red.
I don't think the Panda is going to cut it with only 79bhp/tonne. No doubt Fiat are resorting to a very long second gear to get it to 60mph so quickly. Being as I can't test drive them all, I think bhp per tonne is a fairer way of comparing the performance than the 0-60 stat.
Something weird is happening with the laws of physics.
The Ibiza is 94bhp/tonne, which interestingly is very close to the Picanto at 91bhp/t, yet the Ibiza is listed as 9.5 seconds to 60 compared to the Picanto at 11 seconds.
The MINI is an interesting one and the handling is great apparently. The 118bhp 1.6 litre is surprisingly economical, getting an average 52mpg. I wonder how that stacks up in the real world? I find it hard to believe as the Mazda 2 is lighter, has 100 fewer CCs and 20bhp less than the MINI, but gets worse mpg. Something else to think about now.
And no, my Metro was not as girly as a Fiat 500 even if the seatbelts and carpet were red.
Edited by AlexC1981 on Thursday 20th August 22:12
AlexC1981 said:
Thanks for all those suggestions, I have been having a look through. The VW 1.2TSI engine sounds good, it's a shame they don't put it in the Citigo/Up/Mii. I like the Ibiza that has been linked to.
I don't think the Panda is going to cut it with only 79bhp/tonne. No doubt Fiat are resorting to a very long second gear to get it to 60mph so quickly. Being as I can't test drive them all, I think bhp per tonne is a fairer way of comparing the performance than the 0-60 stat.
Something weird is happening with the laws of physics.
The Ibiza is 94bhp/tonne, which interestingly is very close to the Picanto at 91bhp/t, yet the Ibiza is listed as 9.5 seconds to 60 compared to the Picanto at 11 seconds.
The MINI is an interesting one and the handling is great apparently. The 118bhp 1.6 litre is surprisingly economical, getting an average 52mpg. I wonder how that stacks up in the real world? I find it hard to believe as the Mazda 2 is lighter, has 200 fewer CCs and 20bhp less than the MINI, but gets worse mpg. Something else to think about now.
And no, my Metro was not as girly as a Fiat 500 even if the seatbelts and carpet were red.
They will all get pretty similar mpg, so don't worry about that. The numbers of nonsense. I would expect the Mazda to do about the same, if not more miles to the gallon. I don't think the Panda is going to cut it with only 79bhp/tonne. No doubt Fiat are resorting to a very long second gear to get it to 60mph so quickly. Being as I can't test drive them all, I think bhp per tonne is a fairer way of comparing the performance than the 0-60 stat.
Something weird is happening with the laws of physics.
The Ibiza is 94bhp/tonne, which interestingly is very close to the Picanto at 91bhp/t, yet the Ibiza is listed as 9.5 seconds to 60 compared to the Picanto at 11 seconds.
The MINI is an interesting one and the handling is great apparently. The 118bhp 1.6 litre is surprisingly economical, getting an average 52mpg. I wonder how that stacks up in the real world? I find it hard to believe as the Mazda 2 is lighter, has 200 fewer CCs and 20bhp less than the MINI, but gets worse mpg. Something else to think about now.
And no, my Metro was not as girly as a Fiat 500 even if the seatbelts and carpet were red.
Just to add there was a slightly warm Toyota Yaris, a 1.8 SR made between about 2007-2009, so just in your 7 year criteria. 130bhp, decent equipment - push start, climate control, keyless entry etc. Can be had for not much more than £3k (e.g. £3.5k for a 58 plate 70k example) and toyota 'reliability'. We got one for the other half. The main reason being that she likes a small car but with a bit of go (previously had a 1.5 Swift), but wanted a bit of space in the boot - this age model has the rear seat bench that slides forward, so you can have a bigger boot, very good for the shopping!
The 2-cylinder Mito is quite fun, but the ride is hard and they sound weird. And they run out of power almost as soon as you put your foot down. Economy is over 50 mpg without trying, which is pretty good for the ok-ish performance.
Fiat 500 is a big disappointment to drive, nowhere near as fun as it looks.
Fiat 500 is a big disappointment to drive, nowhere near as fun as it looks.
Pistachio said:
Audi A1 1.4TFsi great fun and good economy too
I've had my A1 1.4TFSI for two years, fuel economy is certainly not bad at all. I imagine there are more entertaining cars in it's class though, it seems to have an overwhelming sense of disinterest as soon as you try and push it at all. Can get a little understeery at times too. Engine isn't bad but not particularly engaging and has pretty much no character whatsoever.Great insurance per hp at 18 though so it's done me well.
Toonshorty said:
I've had my A1 1.4TFSI for two years, fuel economy is certainly not bad at all. I imagine there are more entertaining cars in it's class though, it seems to have an overwhelming sense of disinterest as soon as you try and push it at all. Can get a little understeery at times too. Engine isn't bad but not particularly engaging and has pretty much no character whatsoever.
Great insurance per hp at 18 though so it's done me well.
I think the quattro system brings that car to life!Great insurance per hp at 18 though so it's done me well.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff