Any of the current crop of small cars actually fun to drive?
Discussion
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 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 think you're overlooking torque and gearing in your comparisons. Small NA engines don't have much torque, whereas turbocharged engines do. That's why the heavier Ibiza will spank the Picanto in accelerative terms despite a lower PWR (129 lb ft at 1550rpm vs 89 lb ft at 4000rpm). Torque can also be available at very low revs, whereas maximum power is typically only available at maximum rpm. Power helps you to maintain and achieve higher speed but torque is what gets you there.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
To use an analogy, a stronger man can lift more weight (i.e. exert more power) but a less strong man can lift the same weight with a long lever and doing less work (more torque). This is why my mk4 Polo 1.4 TDI that I owned after a mk4 Golf "GTi" (2.0 NA) was much quicker in most situations. The Polo only had 80bhp vs. 115bhp and was actually about 100kg heavier, so much inferior PWR but 144 lb ft of torque at 1500rpm vs 127 lb ft at about 4000rpm if I recall meant that the Polo would win the traffic light Grand Prix every time. On a straight road the Polo would top out at 100mph though and the Golf could theoretically top out at 120mph (due to having more power) but I never tried that, as the engine was so rough at high rpms.
It is possible for a torque-lite car to be as quick/quicker than a torquier car but you require lower weight (less work to accelerate), shorter gearing or a higher red-line (a la Honda Type-R) or a combination of all three. My Peugeot 205 1.6 GTi would accelerate faster than both the Polo and the Golf with 115bhp and bugger all torque but then it only weighed 800kg, had very short gearing (4000 rpm in 5th at 80mph) and revved to 7000rpm.
With your MINI vs Mazda comparison, torque wins again (118 lb ft in the MINI vs. 101 lb ft in the Mazda). You'll have to work the Mazda harder to maintain the same speed with less torque, so worse mpg. Also, if I recall correctly (it was a while ago when I last drove one), the Mazda has quite short gearing i.e. you probably need to change into 3rd to get to 60mph, which impacts the 0-60mph time and if it's revving higher at motorway speeds, the mpg too. Note that the engines in the "old" Mazda 2 were also yet to benefit from Mazda's latest Skyactiv fuel-saving technology. Also, the MINI has a 6-speed box and the Mazda only 5.
If you're comparing like-for-like i.e. NA with NA and turbo with turbo, then yes, PWR is a good comparison of relative performance though.
Also, remember that we're seeing a bit of a revolution in small car design. We'll never see cheap cars as light as pre passive safety cars like your Metro and my 205 again and steering feel has probably fallen by the wayside too but due to the drive for lower emissions and higher mpg, most new small cars (thanks to the use of plastic body panels and the like) are lighter than the cars that they are replacing despite being the same size or even a little bit bigger. Take the latest Renault Clio for instance (a car that you dismissed on size). The 0.9 TCE only weighs a whisker over 1000kg! Incidentally, perhaps another car that you should consider? You might just get a 0.9 TCE in budget.
All the cars that you're considering are small and in budget but you need to decide what kind of thing that you want. Your Metro was turbo, so had torque, so I imagine the closest modern cars to that would be something turbocharged like the Abarth 500, MINI Cooper S, Ibiza/Polo TSI or possibly the Fiesta Ecoboost. I think the Ibiza may be 5-speed and the Polo 6-speed also, so something else to consider i.e. the Polo should be more economical.
If you want something revvy like my 205, then the Swift Sport is probably the closest thing and perhaps to a lesser extent the MINI Cooper, Honda Jazz and Mazda 2 but you'll probably get worse mpg if you drive them hard. Notice that most of the small, Japanese cars still have revvy NA engines (they seem to save turbocharging for their high performance models).
Most of the new turbocharged small cars are not performance-orientated though. The engines are designed to replace larger, more powerful NA engines whilst offering better efficiency, so also bear that in mind.
Also, how advantageous is the money alternative? I'm not a massive fan of the 1-Series and shame about the diesel and automatic but it's probably still quite a nice car and would you really rather have a Kia Picanto than a 1-Series?
I only jest about your Metro being "girly" but most modern small cars, with the possible exception of the Swift Sport and Fiesta ST are a little bit "girly". Don't let that put you off though!
My uncle had one of the last G-plate MG Metros (non-turbo). I remember the red seatbelts and carpets and remember that car quite fondly, as does he. It certainly isn't the best car that he has owned but I think that it was his favourite!
My first car also had red seatbelts!
Edited by white_goodman on Friday 21st August 15:19
Could I throw something slightly off-beat into the mix?
I like the Citroen C1, it's fun to drive, sounds good and is cheap to run. What if you were to turbocharge it....
Oh wait:
www.c1gti.co.uk
I like it on a number of levels
I like the Citroen C1, it's fun to drive, sounds good and is cheap to run. What if you were to turbocharge it....
Oh wait:
www.c1gti.co.uk
I like it on a number of levels
ewenm said:
It would be great if it is untethered from the electronics but I doubt RS will do that.
The RS has traction control which you can switch off completely. The GT doesn't have traction control at all. Only electronics on them is ABS. You can remap the GT up to around 125 bhp with a off the shelf remap.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HipfPliTux0
Edited by Noesph on Friday 21st August 19:07
stedaley said:
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.
It rivals the Mini for fun if you get it right and can drive.
Surprising but it's echoed in the mags - seems to handle better than the Polo/Seats with the same engines at least
Oh crikey this is getting complicated. My limited understanding of torque is that with greater torque more power is available at lower rpm, which makes the car feel more powerful because it makes decent power low down the rev range as well as high, so you don't need to rev the engine so much to make decent progress.
So if two cars had the same bhp and one of them had better torque, it wouldn't make much difference in the 0-60 because you would both be trying to keep the car at the rpm where it generates the most bhp by changing gear as needed. The higher torque car will generate maximum bhp for more of the time because it can do it over a wider rpm range.
The point about the MINI being a 6 speed is a good one. Most of my driving is done on the motorway and I tend to cruise at high speed, so I guess a 6th gear is going to be important to maintain the a reasonable economy.
The cash for car option isn't all that great where I work. Taking into account everything, If I buy a car for £5500 and sell it for £1000 in three years time, at the end of the 3 year cycle I will be £5586 better off than if I took the company car. So £1862 per annum averaged out. If I buy a car for £7500 and sell for £1500 I will be £3351 better off or £1117 per annum averaged out.
On the £5500 car cost it will take 1.34 years before the cost of the car is recovered. (cost of the car I have taken as the purchase price less the sell price after 3 years of ownership).
So yes, it's not a massive benefit taking the car allowance, but I would like to take the opportunity to own a variety of cars, otherwise I'll be stuck with the automatic 118d for the whole time I work here. I don't really see the 118d as much of an upgrade to my Laguna which is both bigger, faster, better specced and not an automatic
I am on the car allowance at the moment, but my Laguna is too old and they have given me an exemption for a period. I dont want to take the piss and push it for too long before I make a decision to stick with the allowance or take the company car.
I'm finding the more I look into what car to get, the harder it is to make a decision. The Twingo 1.2TCe with a remap should make 116bhp
Just looked at Clios. You can buy one with the 1.2TCe for the same price as the Twingo. I think the Twingo is a much more interesting car though. The newer and lighter Clio is too expensive if it comes with a decent engine.
The C1 with the turbo...the conversion alone costs £4500, so OB again I'm afraid. Thanks for the suggestion though.
So if two cars had the same bhp and one of them had better torque, it wouldn't make much difference in the 0-60 because you would both be trying to keep the car at the rpm where it generates the most bhp by changing gear as needed. The higher torque car will generate maximum bhp for more of the time because it can do it over a wider rpm range.
The point about the MINI being a 6 speed is a good one. Most of my driving is done on the motorway and I tend to cruise at high speed, so I guess a 6th gear is going to be important to maintain the a reasonable economy.
The cash for car option isn't all that great where I work. Taking into account everything, If I buy a car for £5500 and sell it for £1000 in three years time, at the end of the 3 year cycle I will be £5586 better off than if I took the company car. So £1862 per annum averaged out. If I buy a car for £7500 and sell for £1500 I will be £3351 better off or £1117 per annum averaged out.
On the £5500 car cost it will take 1.34 years before the cost of the car is recovered. (cost of the car I have taken as the purchase price less the sell price after 3 years of ownership).
So yes, it's not a massive benefit taking the car allowance, but I would like to take the opportunity to own a variety of cars, otherwise I'll be stuck with the automatic 118d for the whole time I work here. I don't really see the 118d as much of an upgrade to my Laguna which is both bigger, faster, better specced and not an automatic
I am on the car allowance at the moment, but my Laguna is too old and they have given me an exemption for a period. I dont want to take the piss and push it for too long before I make a decision to stick with the allowance or take the company car.I'm finding the more I look into what car to get, the harder it is to make a decision. The Twingo 1.2TCe with a remap should make 116bhp
Just looked at Clios. You can buy one with the 1.2TCe for the same price as the Twingo. I think the Twingo is a much more interesting car though. The newer and lighter Clio is too expensive if it comes with a decent engine.The C1 with the turbo...the conversion alone costs £4500, so OB again I'm afraid. Thanks for the suggestion though.
AlexC1981 said:
Oh crikey this is getting complicated. My limited understanding of torque is that with greater torque more power is available at lower rpm, which makes the car feel more powerful because it makes decent power low down the rev range as well as high, so you don't need to rev the engine so much to make decent progress.
So if two cars had the same bhp and one of them had better torque, it wouldn't make much difference in the 0-60 because you would both be trying to keep the car at the rpm where it generates the most bhp by changing gear as needed. The higher torque car will generate maximum bhp for more of the time because it can do it over a wider rpm range.
The point about the MINI being a 6 speed is a good one. Most of my driving is done on the motorway and I tend to cruise at high speed, so I guess a 6th gear is going to be important to maintain the a reasonable economy.
Yeah, that's pretty much right apart from maximum power is always at maximum rpm. Perhaps this formula will help:So if two cars had the same bhp and one of them had better torque, it wouldn't make much difference in the 0-60 because you would both be trying to keep the car at the rpm where it generates the most bhp by changing gear as needed. The higher torque car will generate maximum bhp for more of the time because it can do it over a wider rpm range.
The point about the MINI being a 6 speed is a good one. Most of my driving is done on the motorway and I tend to cruise at high speed, so I guess a 6th gear is going to be important to maintain the a reasonable economy.
Power = (Torque x rpm)/5252
where power is in bhp and torque in lb ft.
This means that if you can get more torque, you can get more power for any given rpm. Useless fact: it also means that any engine (apart from an electric motor that can deliver maximum torque at all rpms) will have identical power and torque figures at 5252rpm!
Torque = Force x Distance
so you can increase torque by either increasing the compression ratio (ratio of the volume of air in the cylinder at the bottom of the stroke compared to the top) or increasing the stroke itself i.e. the engine size. Diesels usually have more torque because they use higher compression ratios but you can create the same effect with a turbocharger on a petrol engine by using a turbocharger and increasing the boost to give more torque.
Just a few specs for illustrative purposes:
"Old" Clio 200 (NA) 197bhp, 159 lb ft, 141mph, 6.7s
"New" Clio 200 (Turbo) 197bhp, 192 lb ft, 143mph, 6.5s
Fiesta ST 179bhp, 214 lb ft, 139mph, 6.7s
Civic Type-R (NA) 201bhp, 142 lb ft, 146mph, 6.6s
Golf GT TDI (150) 147bhp, 236 lb ft, 134mph, 8.3s
So, as you can see, torque has little effect on top speed but the new Clio accelerates quicker than the old one thanks to having more torque. It is also a little faster but probably more down to aerodynamics, rolling resistance and gearing. The Fiesta manages to be as accelerative as the Clios despite being 18bhp down thanks to that 214 lb ft of torque. The Civic manages to match the others for speed despite the torque deficit because it can rev to nearly 8000rpm. The Golf has the least power and therefore the lowest top speed but also the most torque. However, most diesels don't rev much beyond 5000rpm and have a narrower "power band", although in reality this should be a torque band (typically 1500-2500rpm), so you need to change gear more to keep it in that zone.
How does the Fiesta develop that extra torque? A longer stroke is unlikely, as they're all 1.6s, so probably a higher compression ratio and/or higher boost. I don't know the nature of the Mountune upgrade but I expect either higher boost and/or raising the rev limiter.
Maximum torque is developed when the engine reaches optimum rpm for air flow and this is dependent on the design and configuration of the engine. On an NA engine, this is typically around 4000rpm but higher on something like a Honda VTEC due to the change in cam profile (this is why you get that "kick" at about 6000rpm as you get maximum torque and the power shoots up). With a turbocharger you can achieve higher torque across a wider rev range (1500-4000rpm) but there will still be a peak, although overall the torque curve looks "flatter".
With regards to gears, yes, a 6-speed will usually rev lower at cruising speed, so better mpg but not always. Some manufacturer's 5th gears may be equivalent to other manufacturer's 6th gears, so check this out on a test drive.
I was going to post a power and torque curve for a turbo vs an NA but my server doesn't seem to be playing ball! Hope this helps
Edited by white_goodman on Saturday 22 August 06:19
Impasse said:
You've missed the Swift Sport off your list. Could be a mistake to ignore that one.
100% this. My girlfriend had one of the later ones and it was a great car, nippy, good in the corners and great fun to spank down a twisty back road, it was also cheap to run/keep, totally reliable and seemed well screwed together.The only fly in the ointment for me was the driving position which was a bit on the high side, I'm 5ft 9" tall so hardly a giant but it grated on me a bit.
Brilliant car though - check 'em out.
We've had 2 pandas in the household (current one is the new shape) and honestly, I don't find it a fun drive at all. May be tyre related though as it's on the basic steelies albeit with matching continentals. It rolls about without that nice 'hanging on' feeling you used to get with say old citroens. The electronic throttle is particularly infuriating.
white_goodman said:
Hope this helps
Very helpful thank you. 
Right, the Panda is definately out.
It's a shame the current model 1.3vvt-i Yaris gets slated so badly for the handling. 99bhp, 132Nm, 1005Kg, 52mpg and a 6-speed box. It sounded so promising.
The 1.6 Swift Sport is a bit on the pricey side and economy is not good. The 1.2 is a bit underpowered which is a shame. The ecoboost Fiesta is over budget unfortunately as it sounds like a great car.
I think I have narrowed it down to two cars:
The Twingo 1.2tce Gordini is a very good option. 98bhp, 155Nm, 980Kg, 9.5 sec 3600x1927. 49Mpg. £5000. 100bhp/t, 158.16Nm/t, but there are hardly any for sale at the moment that are new enough to consider. It has more torque per tonne than the Swift Sport as standard and when re-mapped only 8bhp shy per tonne. Only a 5-speed box though unlike the more recent edition of the Swift Sport. Re-mapped gets another 18bhp and 28Nm on top of the standard. I did want to avoid Renault as I would like a change, but this isn't vital.
The Ibiza 1.2 tsi 103Bhp, 175Nm, 1095kg, 9.5 sec, 4052x1693, 55mpg, £6700, 94bhp/t. 159.82Nm/t. Responds well to chipping, with another 20bhp and 40Nm (!) more easily obtainable if Superchips know their stuff. It's going to be £1500 to £2000 more expensive than the Twingo.
The Fabia and Polo with the same engines have quite possibly the blandest interior and dashboard design I have ever seen. The Ibiza appears better in every aspect than the Fabia/Polo, but it does not have the fun and cheeky appearance of the Twingo.
I have to seriously consider the economy as I drive 60-70 miles per day and this is supposed to be my sensible daily driver with a bit of fun thrown in. I've got my TR7 for speedy thrills.
Edited by AlexC1981 on Saturday 22 August 12:33
AlexC1981 said:
Very helpful thank you.
Right, the Panda is definately out.
It's a shame the current model 1.3vvt-i Yaris gets slated so badly for the handling. 99bhp, 132Nm, 1005Kg, 52mpg and a 6-speed box. It sounded so promising.
The 1.6 Swift Sport is a bit on the pricey side and economy is not good. The 1.2 is a bit underpowered which is a shame. The ecoboost Fiesta is over budget unfortunately as it sounds like a great car.
I think I have narrowed it down to two cars:
The Twingo 1.2tce Gordini is a very good option. 98bhp, 155Nm, 980Kg, 9.5 sec 3600x1927. 49Mpg. £5000. 100bhp/t, 158.16Nm/t, but there are hardly any for sale at the moment that are new enough to consider. It has more torque per tonne than the Swift Sport as standard and when re-mapped only 8bhp shy per tonne. Only a 5-speed box though unlike the more recent edition of the Swift Sport. Re-mapped gets another 18bhp and 28Nm on top of the standard. I did want to avoid Renault as I would like a change, but this isn't vital.
The Ibiza 1.2 tsi 103Bhp, 175Nm, 1095kg, 9.5 sec, 4052x1693, 55mpg, £6700, 94bhp/t. 159.82Nm/t. Responds well to chipping, with another 20bhp and 40Nm (!) more easily obtainable if Superchips know their stuff. It's going to be £1500 to £2000 more expensive than the Twingo.
The Fabia and Polo with the same engines have quite possibly the blandest interior and dashboard design I have ever seen. The Ibiza appears better in every aspect than the Fabia/Polo, but it does not have the fun and cheeky appearance of the Twingo.
I have to seriously consider the economy as I drive 60-70 miles per day and this is supposed to be my sensible daily driver with a bit of fun thrown in. I've got my TR7 for speedy thrills.
Small turbo engines are extremely boring. I wouldn't go for speed as much as handling, a nice peaky engine and a bit of character. None of these cars will be fast, so focussing on 0-60 is kinda missing the point. A 9 second car is slow. A 10 second car is slow. I wouldn't worry about the numbers.Right, the Panda is definately out.
It's a shame the current model 1.3vvt-i Yaris gets slated so badly for the handling. 99bhp, 132Nm, 1005Kg, 52mpg and a 6-speed box. It sounded so promising.
The 1.6 Swift Sport is a bit on the pricey side and economy is not good. The 1.2 is a bit underpowered which is a shame. The ecoboost Fiesta is over budget unfortunately as it sounds like a great car.
I think I have narrowed it down to two cars:
The Twingo 1.2tce Gordini is a very good option. 98bhp, 155Nm, 980Kg, 9.5 sec 3600x1927. 49Mpg. £5000. 100bhp/t, 158.16Nm/t, but there are hardly any for sale at the moment that are new enough to consider. It has more torque per tonne than the Swift Sport as standard and when re-mapped only 8bhp shy per tonne. Only a 5-speed box though unlike the more recent edition of the Swift Sport. Re-mapped gets another 18bhp and 28Nm on top of the standard. I did want to avoid Renault as I would like a change, but this isn't vital.
The Ibiza 1.2 tsi 103Bhp, 175Nm, 1095kg, 9.5 sec, 4052x1693, 55mpg, £6700, 94bhp/t. 159.82Nm/t. Responds well to chipping, with another 20bhp and 40Nm (!) more easily obtainable if Superchips know their stuff. It's going to be £1500 to £2000 more expensive than the Twingo.
The Fabia and Polo with the same engines have quite possibly the blandest interior and dashboard design I have ever seen. The Ibiza appears better in every aspect than the Fabia/Polo, but it does not have the fun and cheeky appearance of the Twingo.
I have to seriously consider the economy as I drive 60-70 miles per day and this is supposed to be my sensible daily driver with a bit of fun thrown in. I've got my TR7 for speedy thrills.
Edited by AlexC1981 on Saturday 22 August 12:33
If you must take mpg into account, you should rely on the 'real world' figures available on the net rather than official figures. These cars will use very similar amounts of fuel in the real world, and the difference in costs over a year will be small.
The biggest difference will be gearing, and a tall top gear would be good on the motorway anyway. The rest is official cycle b
ks that means nothing on the road.
white_goodman said:
Yeah, that's pretty much right apart from maximum power is always at maximum rpm.
Why is it so hard for people to understand torque vs power?
A couple of years ago I was looking for a new daily driver, nothing bigger than a 1.2 engine for road tax, fuel economy, and running costs I drove most of them ruling out anything French ( junk ) and VW, Skoda, Ford ( too expensive )
I settled on a Swift 1.2 SZ-L, big plus was the way it drove second best only to the Fiesta and no other car had the amount of kit the Suzuki has, it's N/A engine is 92bhp it goes really well and does 50mpg easily and is silky smooth.
Check this out - http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2015...
Also check out the SZ4 it's the top of the range 1.2.
I put over 30k miles on mine and never missed a beat...very impressive little car.
As for the Sport...that's what I have now it's just bloody fantastic.
I settled on a Swift 1.2 SZ-L, big plus was the way it drove second best only to the Fiesta and no other car had the amount of kit the Suzuki has, it's N/A engine is 92bhp it goes really well and does 50mpg easily and is silky smooth.
Check this out - http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2015...
Also check out the SZ4 it's the top of the range 1.2.
I put over 30k miles on mine and never missed a beat...very impressive little car.
As for the Sport...that's what I have now it's just bloody fantastic.
Ghost91 said:
Have you ever driven one? I'm not suggesting it above anything else - I'd go for a swift sport.
But its a suggestion and it's good to drive, clearly that must be subjective.
Nope. But it's a Citroen, so will be set up for squish and wallow. And it has a horrid engine. 'Good to drive' is highly subjective - you're right. I think the OP wants something a bit more engaging, though, rather than just a competent A-B hatch. But its a suggestion and it's good to drive, clearly that must be subjective.
Edited by Ghost91 on Sunday 23 August 20:12
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff