Inspire me.. (With a hint of a dreaded what car)
Discussion
C70R said:
Should the bolded bit rob us of objectivity? I'm absolutely not being critical; more 'objective'.
As a newbie I quite like this place, as it's less prone than single-marque forums to embarrassing, circlejerk 'love-ins'. However, when you read owners evangelising about the "roadholding and dynamic handling" of their budget tyre-shod 1.6 hatchbacks, it's hard not to cringe a little.
For what it's worth I can think of plenty of things I would class as a better steer than a 130 for £5k, mostly those that aren't 5dr family cars (Z4, Boxster, MR2 mk2, S2000 etc.). None of this diminishes the 130's abilities as a solid all-rounder (which I absolutely don't dispute), but it's surely that's not worth getting all 'frothy of trouser' over.
There are some idiosyncrasies about this place that I'm trying to 'get', so you may need to bear with me. For example, the frequently-panned GT86 is often criticised for its lack of pace; yet its book figures are comparable (half a second on the quarter mile) with the 130 that people laud so highly as being 'sporty'.
I'm sure if you spent £5K on a motorcycle it would be embarrassingly quick, about as relevant though as comparing 2 seaters to a 5 seat hatchback? I think you're getting caught up with the fact I, and others, enjoyed their 130's (not sure why you would enter into PH being worried about that but still) As a newbie I quite like this place, as it's less prone than single-marque forums to embarrassing, circlejerk 'love-ins'. However, when you read owners evangelising about the "roadholding and dynamic handling" of their budget tyre-shod 1.6 hatchbacks, it's hard not to cringe a little.
For what it's worth I can think of plenty of things I would class as a better steer than a 130 for £5k, mostly those that aren't 5dr family cars (Z4, Boxster, MR2 mk2, S2000 etc.). None of this diminishes the 130's abilities as a solid all-rounder (which I absolutely don't dispute), but it's surely that's not worth getting all 'frothy of trouser' over.
There are some idiosyncrasies about this place that I'm trying to 'get', so you may need to bear with me. For example, the frequently-panned GT86 is often criticised for its lack of pace; yet its book figures are comparable (half a second on the quarter mile) with the 130 that people laud so highly as being 'sporty'.
As you have identified yourself it is a great all-rounder. The fact that you don't think there is any depth in its ability is your opinion. I could tell you that an S2K is one of the worst and least convincing cars that I have ever driven, yet plenty of people love them.
The 130 is all you really need on the road, as is the GT86.
C70R said:
There are some idiosyncrasies about this place that I'm trying to 'get', so you may need to bear with me. For example, the frequently-panned GT86 is often criticised for its lack of pace; yet its book figures are comparable (half a second on the quarter mile) with the 130 that people laud so highly as being 'sporty'.
I must admit I have just looked up the performance figures and I was surprised how close they are at the quarter mile because when I look at the BHP/Torque figures on the GT86 they don't look very inspiring at all, the 130i is a lard arse though(like all BMW`s) and that is what scuppers it big time. The GT86 is a car I really want to love and I was pretty excited when Toyota announced it, I haven't driven one but most who have say it lacks some shove and the engine lacks any real character but I would like a go myself to see if that is really the case.
cerb4.5lee said:
yonex said:
I could tell you that an S2K is one of the worst and least convincing cars that I have ever driven, yet plenty of people love them.
My brother in law thought exactly the same as you when he drove one. 
If I could have a 2 seater, It would be a toss up between a 350z and a Boxster S. But I do need 4 seats and a useable boot, and I don't have room for 2 cars 
The 130i isn't going to set the world on fire, and it's not mental fast, but it's quick enough, and does everything well enough, whilst feeling a little more special than a Golf (the rarity of the 130 will help compound that even more I suspect)
The 130i isn't going to set the world on fire, and it's not mental fast, but it's quick enough, and does everything well enough, whilst feeling a little more special than a Golf (the rarity of the 130 will help compound that even more I suspect)
yonex said:
C70R said:
Should the bolded bit rob us of objectivity? I'm absolutely not being critical; more 'objective'.
As a newbie I quite like this place, as it's less prone than single-marque forums to embarrassing, circlejerk 'love-ins'. However, when you read owners evangelising about the "roadholding and dynamic handling" of their budget tyre-shod 1.6 hatchbacks, it's hard not to cringe a little.
For what it's worth I can think of plenty of things I would class as a better steer than a 130 for £5k, mostly those that aren't 5dr family cars (Z4, Boxster, MR2 mk2, S2000 etc.). None of this diminishes the 130's abilities as a solid all-rounder (which I absolutely don't dispute), but it's surely that's not worth getting all 'frothy of trouser' over.
There are some idiosyncrasies about this place that I'm trying to 'get', so you may need to bear with me. For example, the frequently-panned GT86 is often criticised for its lack of pace; yet its book figures are comparable (half a second on the quarter mile) with the 130 that people laud so highly as being 'sporty'.
I'm sure if you spent £5K on a motorcycle it would be embarrassingly quick, about as relevant though as comparing 2 seaters to a 5 seat hatchback? I think you're getting caught up with the fact I, and others, enjoyed their 130's (not sure why you would enter into PH being worried about that but still) As a newbie I quite like this place, as it's less prone than single-marque forums to embarrassing, circlejerk 'love-ins'. However, when you read owners evangelising about the "roadholding and dynamic handling" of their budget tyre-shod 1.6 hatchbacks, it's hard not to cringe a little.
For what it's worth I can think of plenty of things I would class as a better steer than a 130 for £5k, mostly those that aren't 5dr family cars (Z4, Boxster, MR2 mk2, S2000 etc.). None of this diminishes the 130's abilities as a solid all-rounder (which I absolutely don't dispute), but it's surely that's not worth getting all 'frothy of trouser' over.
There are some idiosyncrasies about this place that I'm trying to 'get', so you may need to bear with me. For example, the frequently-panned GT86 is often criticised for its lack of pace; yet its book figures are comparable (half a second on the quarter mile) with the 130 that people laud so highly as being 'sporty'.
As you have identified yourself it is a great all-rounder. The fact that you don't think there is any depth in its ability is your opinion. I could tell you that an S2K is one of the worst and least convincing cars that I have ever driven, yet plenty of people love them.
The 130 is all you really need on the road, as is the GT86.
Just a thought?
ETA: I completely agree with C70R though, there are lots of idiosyncrasies about Pistonheads that it takes a while to get your head around. Any decent engine BMW for example is revered (130i, 330i), whereas their smaller engined siblings (120i, 320i) are either never mentioned or criticised as being 'just like any other hatchback/saloon; you might as well buy a Focus/Mondeo', which is a bit crazy when you think that the chassis and everything else is identical and it's just the engine that's different. I've driven a wide range of BMWs and changing the engine doesn't make that much difference. The other odd thing is the worship of Ford - nobody can ever criticise them on here without starting a huge argument, yet praise and criticism go back and forth about every other manufacturer without an issue. Then there's the general hatred of cyclists and old ladies in Micras, which I find perplexing. It can be an odd place at times
Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 25th November 12:09
Blanchimont said:
If I could have a 2 seater, It would be a toss up between a 350z and a Boxster S. But I do need 4 seats and a useable boot, and I don't have room for 2 cars
The 130i isn't going to set the world on fire, and it's not mental fast, but it's quick enough, and does everything well enough, whilst feeling a little more special than a Golf (the rarity of the 130 will help compound that even more I suspect)
Make sure you try one for size, it's a bit of a 5 door 2+2 (or 2+1 if you're tall) - I felt I had to go for the 330i for a bit more room!The 130i isn't going to set the world on fire, and it's not mental fast, but it's quick enough, and does everything well enough, whilst feeling a little more special than a Golf (the rarity of the 130 will help compound that even more I suspect)
yonex said:
C70R said:
Should the bolded bit rob us of objectivity? I'm absolutely not being critical; more 'objective'.
As a newbie I quite like this place, as it's less prone than single-marque forums to embarrassing, circlejerk 'love-ins'. However, when you read owners evangelising about the "roadholding and dynamic handling" of their budget tyre-shod 1.6 hatchbacks, it's hard not to cringe a little.
For what it's worth I can think of plenty of things I would class as a better steer than a 130 for £5k, mostly those that aren't 5dr family cars (Z4, Boxster, MR2 mk2, S2000 etc.). None of this diminishes the 130's abilities as a solid all-rounder (which I absolutely don't dispute), but it's surely that's not worth getting all 'frothy of trouser' over.
There are some idiosyncrasies about this place that I'm trying to 'get', so you may need to bear with me. For example, the frequently-panned GT86 is often criticised for its lack of pace; yet its book figures are comparable (half a second on the quarter mile) with the 130 that people laud so highly as being 'sporty'.
I'm sure if you spent £5K on a motorcycle it would be embarrassingly quick, about as relevant though as comparing 2 seaters to a 5 seat hatchback? I think you're getting caught up with the fact I, and others, enjoyed their 130's (not sure why you would enter into PH being worried about that but still) As a newbie I quite like this place, as it's less prone than single-marque forums to embarrassing, circlejerk 'love-ins'. However, when you read owners evangelising about the "roadholding and dynamic handling" of their budget tyre-shod 1.6 hatchbacks, it's hard not to cringe a little.
For what it's worth I can think of plenty of things I would class as a better steer than a 130 for £5k, mostly those that aren't 5dr family cars (Z4, Boxster, MR2 mk2, S2000 etc.). None of this diminishes the 130's abilities as a solid all-rounder (which I absolutely don't dispute), but it's surely that's not worth getting all 'frothy of trouser' over.
There are some idiosyncrasies about this place that I'm trying to 'get', so you may need to bear with me. For example, the frequently-panned GT86 is often criticised for its lack of pace; yet its book figures are comparable (half a second on the quarter mile) with the 130 that people laud so highly as being 'sporty'.
As you have identified yourself it is a great all-rounder. The fact that you don't think there is any depth in its ability is your opinion. I could tell you that an S2K is one of the worst and least convincing cars that I have ever driven, yet plenty of people love them.
The 130 is all you really need on the road, as is the GT86.
Yes, it has a decent engine, without it being a genuine firebreather. Yes, it has a decent chassis, while dealing with the compromises of a 5dr hatchback package. Yes, it has decent performance relative to key competition, without being eyebrow-raising in isolation.
It's probably the right choice for the OP, and a bloody good compromise if you need the practicality of 4/5 doors. But let's not get carried away here.
Interesting thread from my point of view as I have a similar set of criteria and have owned a few of the cars mentioned. Random points:
1) Ed30 Golf - agreed a little dull but fast and easily modified to 300bhp+. Handles well. More expensive to run/unreliable than most people think VWs are.
2) WRX (2.0) - terrific cars. Some here have said they are dull when you aren't pushing on. True. But what they are is very comfortable - you find yourself deliberately driving over manhole covers because you barely feel them! This is what I'd recommend.
3) Focus ST. The lack of economy is the only reason I haven't owned one. If I really thought I could get 26mpg I'd buy one now. Not convinced though (and I do lots of short journeys).
4) E46 M3. Are they really going to manage 25mpg? Are they not high maintenance and very pricey to run? Again, if I'm wrong I'll have one.
5) Fiat coupe turbo....??
My criteria are £10k, 4 seats (or more), and 20-25mpg+. I also HATE a hard, uncomfortable ride so no FN2 for me. I'm really struggling and may simply keep my Jag XF.
1) Ed30 Golf - agreed a little dull but fast and easily modified to 300bhp+. Handles well. More expensive to run/unreliable than most people think VWs are.
2) WRX (2.0) - terrific cars. Some here have said they are dull when you aren't pushing on. True. But what they are is very comfortable - you find yourself deliberately driving over manhole covers because you barely feel them! This is what I'd recommend.
3) Focus ST. The lack of economy is the only reason I haven't owned one. If I really thought I could get 26mpg I'd buy one now. Not convinced though (and I do lots of short journeys).
4) E46 M3. Are they really going to manage 25mpg? Are they not high maintenance and very pricey to run? Again, if I'm wrong I'll have one.
5) Fiat coupe turbo....??
My criteria are £10k, 4 seats (or more), and 20-25mpg+. I also HATE a hard, uncomfortable ride so no FN2 for me. I'm really struggling and may simply keep my Jag XF.
C70R said:
But surely the bolded bit is exactly what people are doing when somewhat overstating its abilities?
Yes, it has a decent engine, without it being a genuine firebreather. Yes, it has a decent chassis, while dealing with the compromises of a 5dr hatchback package. Yes, it has decent performance relative to key competition, without being eyebrow-raising in isolation.
It's probably the right choice for the OP, and a bloody good compromise if you need the practicality of 4/5 doors. But let's not get carried away here.
No, it's what you're doing trying to benchmark it against things not in the same segment. Who has overstated its abilities, called it a sports car etc, etc.Yes, it has a decent engine, without it being a genuine firebreather. Yes, it has a decent chassis, while dealing with the compromises of a 5dr hatchback package. Yes, it has decent performance relative to key competition, without being eyebrow-raising in isolation.
It's probably the right choice for the OP, and a bloody good compromise if you need the practicality of 4/5 doors. But let's not get carried away here.
You haven't come up with any alternatives that match the requirements yet seem quite determined to make a case against it, very odd?
yonex said:
No, it's what you're doing trying to benchmark it against things not in the same segment. Who has overstated its abilities, called it a sports car etc, etc.
This...Blanchimont said:
It seems to match the old muscle car ethos of shoehorning the biggest engine possible into a car, make sure it doesn't melt and then sell it. Plus, how many other cars out there can do a geniune 30+mpg on a run, yet make a glorious noise and keep pace with some much more expensive metal, and look so subtle doing it?
...was the bit that got my 'cringe' glands up. It sounds just like the kind of circlejerk stuff you read on an owners' club forum, rather than someone describing a mildly sporty, 1.5 tonne, 5-door hatchback.I'm all for getting enthusiastic about cars for the right reasons (in this case, the 130's ability to meet so many needs), but even the Fifth Gear lot would be embarrassed by that description.
yonex said:
You haven't come up with any alternatives that match the requirements yet seem quite determined to make a case against it, very odd?
You're obviously one of those types who joins a topic late, and doesn't read the early pages. If you could be bothered to make the effort, you would see a number of contributions from me.C70R said:
yonex said:
No, it's what you're doing trying to benchmark it against things not in the same segment. Who has overstated its abilities, called it a sports car etc, etc.
This...Blanchimont said:
It seems to match the old muscle car ethos of shoehorning the biggest engine possible into a car, make sure it doesn't melt and then sell it. Plus, how many other cars out there can do a geniune 30+mpg on a run, yet make a glorious noise and keep pace with some much more expensive metal, and look so subtle doing it?
...was the bit that got my 'cringe' glands up. It sounds just like the kind of circlejerk stuff you read on an owners' club forum, rather than someone describing a mildly sporty, 1.5 tonne, 5-door hatchback.I'm all for getting enthusiastic about cars for the right reasons (in this case, the 130's ability to meet so many needs), but even the Fifth Gear lot would be embarrassed by that description.
yonex said:
You haven't come up with any alternatives that match the requirements yet seem quite determined to make a case against it, very odd?
You're obviously one of those types who joins a topic late, and doesn't read the early pages. If you could be bothered to make the effort, you would see a number of contributions from me.http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2015...
I know this one is over budget, but it's the only one i could find on autotrader as a manual. With a bit of searching you shuold be able to find a slightly older one in budget.
I know this one is over budget, but it's the only one i could find on autotrader as a manual. With a bit of searching you shuold be able to find a slightly older one in budget.
yonex said:
C70R said:
yonex said:
No, it's what you're doing trying to benchmark it against things not in the same segment. Who has overstated its abilities, called it a sports car etc, etc.
This...Blanchimont said:
It seems to match the old muscle car ethos of shoehorning the biggest engine possible into a car, make sure it doesn't melt and then sell it. Plus, how many other cars out there can do a geniune 30+mpg on a run, yet make a glorious noise and keep pace with some much more expensive metal, and look so subtle doing it?
...was the bit that got my 'cringe' glands up. It sounds just like the kind of circlejerk stuff you read on an owners' club forum, rather than someone describing a mildly sporty, 1.5 tonne, 5-door hatchback.I'm all for getting enthusiastic about cars for the right reasons (in this case, the 130's ability to meet so many needs), but even the Fifth Gear lot would be embarrassed by that description.
yonex said:
You haven't come up with any alternatives that match the requirements yet seem quite determined to make a case against it, very odd?
You're obviously one of those types who joins a topic late, and doesn't read the early pages. If you could be bothered to make the effort, you would see a number of contributions from me.Thanks for the welcome, by the way.
ETA: As a final note, I think you're somewhat misconstruing my views on the 130. I've repeatedly said it's a cracking car, and probably the best match for the OP's needs. However, I just don't see a 5dr, ~260bhp hatch as something worth hyperbole like "the old muscle car ethos". It's almost being disingenuous.
Edited by C70R on Wednesday 25th November 14:48
C70R said:
I'm sorry, I didn't realise you had owned a 130. Everything is now clear, and I'll leave the topic there.
Thanks for the welcome, by the way.
ETA: As a final note, I think you're somewhat misconstruing my views on the 130. I've repeatedly said it's a cracking car, and probably the best match for the OP's needs. However, I just don't see a 5dr, ~260bhp hatch as something worth hyperbole like "the old muscle car ethos". It's almost being disingenuous.
Perhaps, but people are excitable about cars....i'd rather it that way than the other.Thanks for the welcome, by the way.
ETA: As a final note, I think you're somewhat misconstruing my views on the 130. I've repeatedly said it's a cracking car, and probably the best match for the OP's needs. However, I just don't see a 5dr, ~260bhp hatch as something worth hyperbole like "the old muscle car ethos". It's almost being disingenuous.
Oh, and welcome to PH
macky17 said:
Interesting thread from my point of view as I have a similar set of criteria and have owned a few of the cars mentioned. Random points:
1) Ed30 Golf - agreed a little dull but fast and easily modified to 300bhp+. Handles well. More expensive to run/unreliable than most people think VWs are.
2) WRX (2.0) - terrific cars. Some here have said they are dull when you aren't pushing on. True. But what they are is very comfortable - you find yourself deliberately driving over manhole covers because you barely feel them! This is what I'd recommend.
3) Focus ST. The lack of economy is the only reason I haven't owned one. If I really thought I could get 26mpg I'd buy one now. Not convinced though (and I do lots of short journeys).
4) E46 M3. Are they really going to manage 25mpg? Are they not high maintenance and very pricey to run? Again, if I'm wrong I'll have one.
5) Fiat coupe turbo....??
My criteria are £10k, 4 seats (or more), and 20-25mpg+. I also HATE a hard, uncomfortable ride so no FN2 for me. I'm really struggling and may simply keep my Jag XF.
Got a Fiat now, and fancy something different to that. 1) Ed30 Golf - agreed a little dull but fast and easily modified to 300bhp+. Handles well. More expensive to run/unreliable than most people think VWs are.
2) WRX (2.0) - terrific cars. Some here have said they are dull when you aren't pushing on. True. But what they are is very comfortable - you find yourself deliberately driving over manhole covers because you barely feel them! This is what I'd recommend.
3) Focus ST. The lack of economy is the only reason I haven't owned one. If I really thought I could get 26mpg I'd buy one now. Not convinced though (and I do lots of short journeys).
4) E46 M3. Are they really going to manage 25mpg? Are they not high maintenance and very pricey to run? Again, if I'm wrong I'll have one.
5) Fiat coupe turbo....??
My criteria are £10k, 4 seats (or more), and 20-25mpg+. I also HATE a hard, uncomfortable ride so no FN2 for me. I'm really struggling and may simply keep my Jag XF.
yonex said:
Blanchimont said:
I will admit that the 130i is becoming a better proposition. Is it worth getting a facelift (I believe these had oil temp gauges?) over a non?
And as I've owned 2 cars (1 N/A with no power, and 1 turbo'd car) is all the power at the top end, or do they have useable torque too? (I understand that dropping a gear or two will make the progress quicker, I'm just curious about where the torque is)
It's actually better IMO to go for the pre facelift (LCI) as you have slightly better steering. The lack of oil temp isn't an issue really. They are supposed to be slightly better on fuel, I wouldn't know. The N52 is very smooth and totally linear, it sounds lovely at the top. Lots of torque and they feel quite a bit more lively than the 3 series. And as I've owned 2 cars (1 N/A with no power, and 1 turbo'd car) is all the power at the top end, or do they have useable torque too? (I understand that dropping a gear or two will make the progress quicker, I'm just curious about where the torque is)
I'm perplexed about the 'better steering' comments - despite being electric rather than hydraulic, I preferred the steering of the facelift car, so you might want to try a facelift car before writing it off on the back of subjective comments (if that's the only thing holding you back).
The interior quality is also several rungs higher on the newer car, which is noticeable if that kind of thing bothers you. Fuel economy should be around 10% higher on the facelift model too, which seems to match what I've seen from mine. I'd agree with Yonex's summary of the engine - plenty of torque and pulls hard in higher gears but does surge forward as the revs rise.
cerb4.5lee said:
C70R said:
There are some idiosyncrasies about this place that I'm trying to 'get', so you may need to bear with me. For example, the frequently-panned GT86 is often criticised for its lack of pace; yet its book figures are comparable (half a second on the quarter mile) with the 130 that people laud so highly as being 'sporty'.
I must admit I have just looked up the performance figures and I was surprised how close they are at the quarter mile because when I look at the BHP/Torque figures on the GT86 they don't look very inspiring at all, the 130i is a lard arse though(like all BMW`s) and that is what scuppers it big time. The GT86 is a car I really want to love and I was pretty excited when Toyota announced it, I haven't driven one but most who have say it lacks some shove and the engine lacks any real character but I would like a go myself to see if that is really the case.
Obviously speed is only one of many factors that can make something 'sporty' - and the GT86 aces many of the others - but having driven both I'd say there's a big difference in acceleration between the two...
The acceleration of the GT86 felt a much closer match to the 325ti I used to own, despite that weighing an extra 160kg or so. The GT86 is undoubtedly great fun, but you have to work damn hard to access the power and that's before you start comparing it to turbocharged alternatives. I'm sure a number of GT86s have been dynoed at less than the 197bhp official figure too, which might explain something - Superchips dynoed one at 188bhp. It took a remap to get it to its official power figure...
macky17 said:
3) Focus ST. The lack of economy is the only reason I haven't owned one. If I really thought I could get 26mpg I'd buy one now. Not convinced though (and I do lots of short journeys).
Then go and buy one.http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
RoVoFob said:
yonex said:
Blanchimont said:
I will admit that the 130i is becoming a better proposition. Is it worth getting a facelift (I believe these had oil temp gauges?) over a non?
And as I've owned 2 cars (1 N/A with no power, and 1 turbo'd car) is all the power at the top end, or do they have useable torque too? (I understand that dropping a gear or two will make the progress quicker, I'm just curious about where the torque is)
It's actually better IMO to go for the pre facelift (LCI) as you have slightly better steering. The lack of oil temp isn't an issue really. They are supposed to be slightly better on fuel, I wouldn't know. The N52 is very smooth and totally linear, it sounds lovely at the top. Lots of torque and they feel quite a bit more lively than the 3 series. And as I've owned 2 cars (1 N/A with no power, and 1 turbo'd car) is all the power at the top end, or do they have useable torque too? (I understand that dropping a gear or two will make the progress quicker, I'm just curious about where the torque is)
I'm perplexed about the 'better steering' comments - despite being electric rather than hydraulic, I preferred the steering of the facelift car, so you might want to try a facelift car before writing it off on the back of subjective comments (if that's the only thing holding you back).
The interior quality is also several rungs higher on the newer car, which is noticeable if that kind of thing bothers you. Fuel economy should be around 10% higher on the facelift model too, which seems to match what I've seen from mine. I'd agree with Yonex's summary of the engine - plenty of torque and pulls hard in higher gears but does surge forward as the revs rise.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff