The worst hot hatch ever

[DanielSan]

ad70x7 said:

addz86 said:

The newest Clio sport, haven't driven one to be fair but automatic, 5 doors, heavy and turbo'd is everything Clio shouldn't be

And no manual gearbox!

He'd covered that when he said automatic.

[NDNDNDND]

DanielSan said:

ad70x7 said:

addz86 said:

The newest Clio sport, haven't driven one to be fair but automatic, 5 doors, heavy and turbo'd is everything Clio shouldn't be

And no manual gearbox!

He'd covered that when he said automatic.

To be fair, it's a point worth labouring.

RENAULT? ARE YOU STILL BEING TOO ARROGANT TO LISTEN TO YOUR CUSTOMERS?!

[mx5ian]

Pebbles167 said:

206 180 is what i currently drive. I don't think it's the worst hot hatch, but it sure isn't the best. Too many niggles to really be great, and quite a disappointment after the company had recently stopped making the 306 Gti6.

Pretty quick mind.

Yeah I think you are right the 206 GTI 180 isn't the worst by a long way but like you say to many niggles steering feel and the gearbox (but I have never like the gearbox in these even in a standard 206) to be great and they are pretty quick in the 180 BHP maybe I was hoping for another 205 GTI 1.9 or 306 GTI-6 or 106 GTI with it.

Edited by mx5ian on Tuesday 1st December 20:11

[s m]

delta0 said:

UnluckyTimmeh said:

The Fiesta ST. Maybe it was just mine, but I just do not see what all the fuss was about. Very crashy and not put together very well.

And compared to the opposition, completely underpowered.

I thought the Fiesta was one of the most powerful in class. 197bhp or 215 with mountune version.

Edited by delta0 on Tuesday 1st December 16:51

Perhaps he means the version before with 150bhp? Not sure though

[lauda]

Theophany said:

BrabusMog said:

I always thought the 1st gen Civic Type S just looked like a special edition trim... I've never driven one, so can't comment properly, I'm basing it purely on looks.

Pretty much is just another trim level with minor changes if it's anything like the FN3 I had. Slightly more grunt, a few interior changes and a harsher ride.

I actually think the FN2 Type R was pretty dire, but mainly because it had a hell of a rep to live up to. As alluring as VTEC is, the whole package was pretty underwhelming imo.

Firstly, it was never intended to be, nor was marketed as a hot hatch. That was the Type R's job.

Secondly, it definitely wasn't just a trim level. Other than the Type R, it was the only model in the Civic range with a 2.0 litre engine. It was pretty dull but had a reasonable turn of speed compared to most direct competitors, as it should have done since I think it was putting out about 160-odd bhp.

[IanH755]

MG Metro Turbo - A whole 93hp with an awesome "horizontal light-up bar boost gauge" but it's front arches had rusted away within a year

[UnluckyTimmeh]

delta0 said:

UnluckyTimmeh said:

The Fiesta ST. Maybe it was just mine, but I just do not see what all the fuss was about. Very crashy and not put together very well.

And compared to the opposition, completely underpowered.

I thought the Fiesta was one of the most powerful in class. 197bhp or 215 with mountune version.

Edited by delta0 on Tuesday 1st December 16:51

I agree but it's often put in the same class as my new car (JCW mini) and that has 253bhp on the dyno. The ST made 202bhp with a mountune airbox.

But I also think because it was so quiet inside, you lost the feeling of the power. Just felt very loose and disconnected to me.

[s m]

IanH755 said:

MG Metro Turbo - A whole 93hp with an awesome "horizontal light-up bar boost gauge" but it's front arches had rusted away within a year

I remember that digital boost gauge - seemed like the height of hi-tech when you were in a Mk2 Escort

They had fantastic brakes though

[Sticks.]

IanH755 said:

MG Metro Turbo - A whole 93hp with an awesome "horizontal light-up bar boost gauge" but it's front arches had rusted away within a year

I test drove a nearly new one, expecting it to be that much faster then my MG Metro, but it felt slower.

Re the MG Meastro. It was fairly fast, faster then the 8v Golf Gti.



The ex demo one I had was reliable and good on A roads and motorways, but on B and minor roads it felt too clumsy, (though it was pre power steering) where the 205gti was better, although lower gearing helped a lot.

The thing about hot hatches is that they are meant to appeal in a range of ways, so unless they're rubbish in every respect, it's hard to say one was the worst.

[Theophany]

lauda said:

Theophany said:

BrabusMog said:

I always thought the 1st gen Civic Type S just looked like a special edition trim... I've never driven one, so can't comment properly, I'm basing it purely on looks.

Pretty much is just another trim level with minor changes if it's anything like the FN3 I had. Slightly more grunt, a few interior changes and a harsher ride.

I actually think the FN2 Type R was pretty dire, but mainly because it had a hell of a rep to live up to. As alluring as VTEC is, the whole package was pretty underwhelming imo.

Firstly, it was never intended to be, nor was marketed as a hot hatch. That was the Type R's job.

Secondly, it definitely wasn't just a trim level. Other than the Type R, it was the only model in the Civic range with a 2.0 litre engine. It was pretty dull but had a reasonable turn of speed compared to most direct competitors, as it should have done since I think it was putting out about 160-odd bhp.

Firstly, so you agree.

Secondly, so you agree. Thanks for that piercing insight, champ.

[delta0]

UnluckyTimmeh said:

I agree but it's often put in the same class as my new car (JCW mini) and that has 253bhp on the dyno. The ST made 202bhp with a mountune airbox.

But I also think because it was so quiet inside, you lost the feeling of the power. Just felt very loose and disconnected to me.

Dynos are very sensitive and often tweaked to please the customer. The mini is normally around 230bhp in the most powerful form. The mini is a very premium car compared to the fiesta though.

[nct001]

Come on guys lets remember the mk4 golf first came with a 1.8 20v non turbo even slower than the 2.0?

[Patch888]

UnluckyTimmeh said:

delta0 said:

UnluckyTimmeh said:

The Fiesta ST. Maybe it was just mine, but I just do not see what all the fuss was about. Very crashy and not put together very well.

And compared to the opposition, completely underpowered.

I thought the Fiesta was one of the most powerful in class. 197bhp or 215 with mountune version.

Edited by delta0 on Tuesday 1st December 16:51

I agree but it's often put in the same class as my new car (JCW mini) and that has 253bhp on the dyno. The ST made 202bhp with a mountune airbox.

But I also think because it was so quiet inside, you lost the feeling of the power. Just felt very loose and disconnected to me.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions but the worst hot hatch ever???

[Pebbles167]

nct001 said:

Come on guys lets remember the mk4 golf first came with a 1.8 20v non turbo even slower than the 2.0?

Nope. 1.8 20v n/a had 125bhp, 2.0 8v had 115bhp. It really was fking st..

[viggyp]

FredClogs said:

Fiat Strada Abarth, Fiat Uno Turbo, Fiat Punto Abarth, Fiat 500 Abarth...

Obviously I've never driven or owned any of these cars, I just don't like Fiats...

Not exactly logical saying that but I've owned both the Strada Abarth and two Uno Turbos and both took the abuse very well and the rust issue was hardly noticeable. Uno didn't handle well but other than that, it was faultless.

[lauda]

Theophany said:

lauda said:

Theophany said:

BrabusMog said:

I always thought the 1st gen Civic Type S just looked like a special edition trim... I've never driven one, so can't comment properly, I'm basing it purely on looks.

Pretty much is just another trim level with minor changes if it's anything like the FN3 I had. Slightly more grunt, a few interior changes and a harsher ride.

I actually think the FN2 Type R was pretty dire, but mainly because it had a hell of a rep to live up to. As alluring as VTEC is, the whole package was pretty underwhelming imo.

Firstly, it was never intended to be, nor was marketed as a hot hatch. That was the Type R's job.

Secondly, it definitely wasn't just a trim level. Other than the Type R, it was the only model in the Civic range with a 2.0 litre engine. It was pretty dull but had a reasonable turn of speed compared to most direct competitors, as it should have done since I think it was putting out about 160-odd bhp.

Firstly, so you agree.

Secondly, so you agree. Thanks for that piercing insight, champ.

The first part of my post was primarily aimed at BrabusMog from the perspective that it can't be the worst hot hatch ever because it isn't a hot hatch to start with.

And the Type S wasn't just a trim level applied to an existing car in the range. It had a different engine and different suspension to any other Civic in the range at the time. Unless you consider that the only difference between a BMW 316 and a 335 is just trim level?

Hope that's cleared that up for you, champ.

Edited by lauda on Tuesday 1st December 23:14

[nct001]

Pebbles167 said:

nct001 said:

Come on guys lets remember the mk4 golf first came with a 1.8 20v non turbo even slower than the 2.0?

Nope. 1.8 20v n/a had 125bhp, 2.0 8v had 115bhp. It really was fking st..

I know but it had even less torque and so what are the performance stats for each the 1.8 20v might be even more pathetic?


I was given one as a company car and didn't even knows it was a gti - they were very discreetly badged as they were pants.

[Slow]

2 of my few cars ive owned have been named here.

Mk3 golf gti 8v, handled well enough and was just abit of fun to drive. Only cost me £300 so :P

Then the datsun/alfa/nissan cherry, didnt own the alfa cross bread but have the cherry turbo which is the natural sucessor I would say. They do not handle, nor stop, but damn its quick in in a straight line with the boost played with

GC8 said:

Lightweight Cherry body with a perky Alfasud boxer engine. Launched before the 'hot hatch' thing had really gathered pace, but not a bad car to drive.

How many people deriding, belittling and mocking have ever even seen one, let alone driven one? It WAS a hot hatchback, even if it wasn't pushed as a 'hot hatch'.

rallycross said:

On paper it was a good idea, the Alfa Sud Ti was a fantastic handling rorty hatchback, twin carbs, revvy boxer engine,sporty to look at, great seats, fun to drive but suffered from rust and poor build.

The idea was put the running gear in a Nissan shell and create a new hot hatch.

I had one briefly after various Suds and sprints and 33's I took a Cherry Europe Gti in p/x .
It had all the bits from an Alfa Sud Ti - engine, gearbox, seats, exhaust, steering wheel, indicator stalks, wheels etc.

But the Cherry chassis had none of the ability of the Alfa Sud so it was just an unreliable Nissan that no one wanted - they were great value when they were a couple of years old but not a hot hatch.

[sim72]

Downward said:

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

Correct. Indeed, everywhere else apart from the UK, the 2.0 wasn't even badged as a GTI. However if you simply assume it's a bog standard hatchback it was/is a good car. That engine is pretty much indestructible and they didn't rot like a lot of Mk3s (nor possess chocolate gearboxes). My current snotter is a 17-year old 1.8NA GTI (a whole 10hp more than the 2.0) with 150K on the clock and apart from the stone chips it pretty much looks and drives like new. Excellent budget motoring.

[Limpet]

lee_erm said:

Iva Barchetta said:

Fiesta XR2i with the 1.6 CVH.

Not very hot and not very good.

Owned one.

Did Ford improve it with the 1.8 Zetec engine ?

I had an XR2i 16v, I loved it. I remember fitting dual ARB's on the rear which made it nice and playful. Didn't have huge power but felt torquey as hell in such a light body.

I drove a few during my stint in the trade in the early 90s. Your torquey comment fits with my recollection as well. The engine was very gently tuned at 105PS, and the car was well under a tonne, so there was instant go on tap all through the rev range. It felt a lot quicker than it was as a result.

The RS1800 used the 130 bhp version of the same engine which was quicker, but considerably coarser and peakier.