The worst hot hatch ever

[anonymous-user]

I had a satria gti 2nd hand and they are not crap, great handling, very stiff but very loud and very dated. I wasnt bothered as it cost 600 quid, but would be pissed buying one new, as they were basically a Mitsubishi colt from 1995 and nearly 10 years later just too old.

It wasnt crap and I am sure it was never rated badly just a bit expensive for what you got but a great 2nd hand purchase for track use.

[Sticks.]

You're not thinking of the Isuzu Piazza are you?

[Iva Barchetta]

Wikipedia says,Proton Satria GTi was developed and 're engineered by Lotus as a traditional hot hatch.

[Gunk]

My vote would go to the utterly loathesome Citroen ZX 16V. I had the misfortune to "own" of these horrible cars new back in 1993 as a company car. The spec sheet promised a sharp powerful French super hatch, the reality was a car that didn't handle, felt as if it had 50bhp less than claimed and had the build quality of a 1980's Lada.

Fortunately I changed jobs and in 1994 took delivery of a Golf VR6, order was restored!

Edited by Gunk on Saturday 5th December 22:17

[lee_erm]

The ZX 16V was brilliant!

[BigMon]

My mate had a Satria GTI. It was a very nice car for very little money secondhand.

The only problem he had was sourcing parts for it. The exhaust was particularly problematic IIRC.

[MarshPhantom]

Gunk said:

My vote would go to the utterly loathesome Citroen ZX 16V. I had the misfortune to "own" of these horrible cars new back in 1993 as a company car. The spec sheet promised a sharp powerful French super hatch, the reality was a car that didn't handle, felt as if it had 50bhp less than claimed and had the build quality of a 1980's Lada.

Fortunately I changed jobs and in 1994 took delivery of a Golf VR6, order was restored!

Edited by Gunk on Saturday 5th December 22:17

Agreed, I posted about the lack of power above. Coming from a rip snorting BX16v probably didn't. I was pleased mine caught fire and I got the BX out of retirement.

[coppice]

Adored my flawed but silly quick Uno Turboes.Worst (warm) hatch ? That'd be the overrated horror, the AX GT- the second worst car I have ever owned.

[Ilovejapcrap]

Downward said:

To call the Golf gti 2.0 mk4 a hot hatch is an insult.

Whenever I see it mentioned it reminds me of old Top gear

http://youtu.be/2i3mXBJNb0s

Brilliant clip,

[Downward]

I had a 306 S16 with the same 155bhp engine as the ZX 16v. Surprised the zx was under powered.

[f1nn]

Seat Ibiza GTI 16v.

I needed a stop gap car in between company cars, so after being in love with mk2 golfs etc years before, when one of the above came up, I took a chance.

As a car, great, solid, comfortable, torquey, reliable. As a hot hatch, terrible. It's just didn't excite and wasn't fun to drive, it just missed that "fizz" that a hot hatch should have.

[Jimmy Recard]

Gunk said:

My vote would go to the utterly loathesome Citroen ZX 16V. I had the misfortune to "own" of these horrible cars new back in 1993 as a company car. The spec sheet promised a sharp powerful French super hatch, the reality was a car that didn't handle, felt as if it had 50bhp less than claimed and had the build quality of a 1980's Lada.

Fortunately I changed jobs and in 1994 took delivery of a Golf VR6, order was restored!

Edited by Gunk on Saturday 5th December 22:17

It's interesting that you think that the ZX 16V was bad but the Golf VR6 was good. I think that the mk3 Golf is one of the very worst cars ever built (apart from maybe the mk4 Golf).

At least it looked better than the mk1 and mk2 Golf.

[s m]

GC8 said:

s m said:

Was a 1.9 205 ever that fast?

When: then or now?

As standard

[f1nn]

s m said:

As standard

Although the figures look pretty average today, I dare say it was blistering in 86-87 when it was launched.

I can't help but think that people are focusing too much on bare performance figures. A good hot hatch is defined by the whole experience and how much fun it is, not how quickly it can get to 100mph.

[s m]

f1nn said:

s m said:

As standard

Although the figures look pretty average today, I dare say it was blistering in 86-87 when it was launched.

I can't help but think that people are focusing too much on bare performance figures. A good hot hatch is defined by the whole experience and how much fun it is, not how quickly it can get to 100mph.

Agreed - I just smile at the stats creep

Friends and I had 5 1.9s from new late 80s/early 90s

They were great all rounders

[Gunk]

A

Jimmy Recard said:

It's interesting that you think that the ZX 16V was bad but the Golf VR6 was good. I think that the mk3 Golf is one of the very worst cars ever built (apart from maybe the mk4 Golf).

At least it looked better than the mk1 and mk2 Golf.

The looks were the only thing going for it.

I loved the VR6, 2.8 V6 shoehorned in to a Golf, what's not to like, it started a long love affair with 6 pot petrol engines, shame they're now consigned to history.

[Baryonyx]

The Corolla T Sport seemed to beba much improved car in supercharged form, but the standard car was pretty poor. The engine was good, but it was stymied by a dreadful set of gears in a weak gearbox. The car sat way too high, and the handling wasn't great. Yes, it could be much improved with some serious effort and cash but so can any hot hatch.

[coppice]

Jimmy Recard said:

. I think that the mk3 Golf is one of the very worst cars ever built (apart from maybe the mk4 Golf).
.

Really ? Ever driven , let me see, any 60s Vauxhall, a Humber Hawk, a Datsun Blue bird , a Suzuki SC 100, a Triumph Toledo, a MK 4 Escort , any diesel Cavalier , a Metro , Allegro , Maxi , a Renault 14 , a Peugeot 206 etc ? The Mk 4 Golf was no hot hatch but it was a bloody civilised way of getting from A to B compared to most of its peers, especially the French ones...

[aka_kerrly]

Jimmy Recard said:

I think that the mk3 Golf is one of the very worst cars ever built (apart from maybe the mk4 Golf).

Everyone is entitled to an opinion but that is pure hyperbole.

[750turbo]

Baryonyx said:

The Corolla T Sport seemed to beba much improved car in supercharged form, but the standard car was pretty poor. The engine was good, but it was stymied by a dreadful set of gears in a weak gearbox. The car sat way too high, and the handling wasn't great. Yes, it could be much improved with some serious effort and cash but so can any hot hatch.

Sorry I disagree - unless the standard T Sport was really that depressingly poor maybe?

I owned one for just over a year, supposedly 217BHP from memory - No way!

Poor handling, sloppy gearbox, did not even sound all that good to be honest, I could just not get on with it, despite wanting to.

They were £20,000 new I think, Toyota could not sell them. I paid £14,000 for one with 60 miles on it.

Traded in after about 19,000 miles a year later for a Civic Type R - Chalk and cheese IMO.

(And then there was the 27MPG, even taking it easy, and the fact that it demanded 98RON fuel!)