Am I the only one that doesn't get interest in hot hatches?
Discussion
NJH said:
I wouldn't joke about that. I was playing with some numbers a little while back when trying to learn more about safety engineering, the HSE guidance on ALARP and those neat little cost benefit tables you sometimes see. I think I came to the conclusion that if the individuals right to drive a motor car via a simple test and licence system didn't exist today (e.g. hadn't been thought of until now) and someone then tomorrow invented it as a new concept it likely wouldn't be allowed as its too dangerous.
Oh yes, without doubt. Look at the number of people killed and seriously injured on the roads every year - if any other activity had that sort of attrition rate it'd be banned overnight, even accounting for the numbers of people driving (imagine something else that everyone does, like ironing - imagine if 1700 people in the UK were killed and 20,000 injured by irons each year? What's the chances of ironing staying legal?).BricktopST205 said:
Progress? The Focus RS is a Mitsubishi Evo from over a decade ago with improved MPG. The performance between the two is actually in favor of the evo!
The evo also cost a lot more to buy, had ridiculous service intervals, cost more to service, was less practical, low spec and were no where near as comfy.I don't dislike evo's at all however I despise people comparing them to modern awd hatches.
HJMS123 said:
BricktopST205 said:
Progress? The Focus RS is a Mitsubishi Evo from over a decade ago with improved MPG. The performance between the two is actually in favor of the evo!
The evo also cost a lot more to buy, had ridiculous service intervals, cost more to service, was less practical, low spec and were no where near as comfy.I don't dislike evo's at all however I despise people comparing them to modern awd hatches.
HJMS123 said:
The evo also cost a lot more to buy, had ridiculous service intervals, cost more to service, was less practical, low spec and were no where near as comfy.
I don't dislike evo's at all however I despise people comparing them to modern awd hatches.
Why because when you get down to the nitty gritty they give better performance and we're available over a decade ago?I don't dislike evo's at all however I despise people comparing them to modern awd hatches.
Plus all your analogies of the Evo are pub talk. I mean come on since when was a Ford interior considered high spec when compared to a Mitsubishi? You would have and argument with VW and MB but Ford......
Edited by BricktopST205 on Thursday 18th February 14:14
BricktopST205 said:
Why because when you get down to the nitty gritty they give better performance and we're available over a decade ago?
Plus all your analogies of the Evo are pub talk. I mean come on since when was a Ford interior considered high spec when compared to a Mitsubishi? You would have and argument with VW and MB but Ford......
The silly service interval is not pub talk, it's fact.Plus all your analogies of the Evo are pub talk. I mean come on since when was a Ford interior considered high spec when compared to a Mitsubishi? You would have and argument with VW and MB but Ford......
Edited by BricktopST205 on Thursday 18th February 14:14
The cost of servicing isn't pub talk, it's a fact.
As standard a Focus RS came with a lot more toys than an EVO.
Cost to buy new for an EVO was more than a Focus RS.
Whether it gave better performance or not is irrelevant in the light of the increased running costs and greater purchase price.
The point being made is that engineering progress has made the performance accessible with longer service intervals and fewer compromises.
As a simpler example, the last model BMW M3's engine had similar figures to the 1960s Cosworth DFV Formula One engine: 4 litre V8, circa 400bhp at 8k-ish revs. Time hasn't stood still - the progress is that a DFV needs rebuilding every season (2,000-3,000 miles tops?) at great expense, whereas the M3's engine can run for years with only simple oil changes, perhaps 100-200k miles without work.
As a simpler example, the last model BMW M3's engine had similar figures to the 1960s Cosworth DFV Formula One engine: 4 litre V8, circa 400bhp at 8k-ish revs. Time hasn't stood still - the progress is that a DFV needs rebuilding every season (2,000-3,000 miles tops?) at great expense, whereas the M3's engine can run for years with only simple oil changes, perhaps 100-200k miles without work.
RobM77 said:
The point being made is that engineering progress has made the performance accessible with longer service intervals and fewer compromises.
As a simpler example, the last model BMW M3's engine had similar figures to the 1960s Cosworth DFV Formula One engine: 4 litre V8, circa 400bhp at 8k-ish revs. Time hasn't stood still - the progress is that a DFV needs rebuilding every season (2,000-3,000 miles tops?) at great expense, whereas the M3's engine can run for years with only simple oil changes, perhaps 100-200k miles without work.
Yep that was my point further up too but you are the better word monger.As a simpler example, the last model BMW M3's engine had similar figures to the 1960s Cosworth DFV Formula One engine: 4 litre V8, circa 400bhp at 8k-ish revs. Time hasn't stood still - the progress is that a DFV needs rebuilding every season (2,000-3,000 miles tops?) at great expense, whereas the M3's engine can run for years with only simple oil changes, perhaps 100-200k miles without work.
The M3 is a great example actually. Driven all of them apart from an E30 and the E92 feels by far the most accessible on a daily basis. The suspension isn't as unforgiving, the tramlining isn't as horrendous, tappets don't need doing every Inspection 2, the pedals aren't as horribly offset, the gearbox is infinitely better, etc etc
RobM77 said:
The point being made is that engineering progress has made the performance accessible with longer service intervals and fewer compromises.
As a simpler example, the last model BMW M3's engine had similar figures to the 1960s Cosworth DFV Formula One engine: 4 litre V8, circa 400bhp at 8k-ish revs. Time hasn't stood still - the progress is that a DFV needs rebuilding every season (2,000-3,000 miles tops?) at great expense, whereas the M3's engine can run for years with only simple oil changes, perhaps 100-200k miles without work.
It really baffles me that so many people struggle with this concept As a simpler example, the last model BMW M3's engine had similar figures to the 1960s Cosworth DFV Formula One engine: 4 litre V8, circa 400bhp at 8k-ish revs. Time hasn't stood still - the progress is that a DFV needs rebuilding every season (2,000-3,000 miles tops?) at great expense, whereas the M3's engine can run for years with only simple oil changes, perhaps 100-200k miles without work.
RobM77 said:
The point being made is that engineering progress has made the performance accessible with longer service intervals and fewer compromises.
As a simpler example, the last model BMW M3's engine had similar figures to the 1960s Cosworth DFV Formula One engine: 4 litre V8, circa 400bhp at 8k-ish revs. Time hasn't stood still - the progress is that a DFV needs rebuilding every season (2,000-3,000 miles tops?) at great expense, whereas the M3's engine can run for years with only simple oil changes, perhaps 100-200k miles without work.
An Evo fq360 engine will last 100k plus as well. The game really hasn't moved on that much. We have slightly better fuel economy (Which is largely attributed to the lack of a permanent awd) and yes Evo's rear diffs do need servicing but the rest is no different to a Ford RS. People seem to forget these companies have spent decades perfecting 4wd machines whilst ford has outsourced and made a 4wd car. My main jip was when someone mentioned progress when it really isn't. The Focus RS doesn't even have a center diff. Its actual 4WD system is actually behind what Mitsubishi had available over ten years ago! A R32 GTR was progress, Honda s2000, mclaren P1 etc.As a simpler example, the last model BMW M3's engine had similar figures to the 1960s Cosworth DFV Formula One engine: 4 litre V8, circa 400bhp at 8k-ish revs. Time hasn't stood still - the progress is that a DFV needs rebuilding every season (2,000-3,000 miles tops?) at great expense, whereas the M3's engine can run for years with only simple oil changes, perhaps 100-200k miles without work.
Edited by BricktopST205 on Friday 19th February 00:47
BricktopST205 said:
RobM77 said:
The point being made is that engineering progress has made the performance accessible with longer service intervals and fewer compromises.
As a simpler example, the last model BMW M3's engine had similar figures to the 1960s Cosworth DFV Formula One engine: 4 litre V8, circa 400bhp at 8k-ish revs. Time hasn't stood still - the progress is that a DFV needs rebuilding every season (2,000-3,000 miles tops?) at great expense, whereas the M3's engine can run for years with only simple oil changes, perhaps 100-200k miles without work.
An Evo fq360 engine will last 100k plus as well. The game really hasn't moved on that much. We have slightly better fuel economy (Which is largely attributed to the lack of a permanent awd) and yes Evo's rear diffs do need servicing but the rest is no different to a Ford RS. People seem to forget these companies have spent decades perfecting 4wd machines whilst ford has outsourced and made a 4wd car. My main jip was when someone mentioned progress when it really isn't. The Focus RS doesn't even have a center diff. Its actual 4WD system is actually behind what Mitsubishi had available over ten years ago! A R32 GTR was progress, Honda s2000, mclaren P1 etc.As a simpler example, the last model BMW M3's engine had similar figures to the 1960s Cosworth DFV Formula One engine: 4 litre V8, circa 400bhp at 8k-ish revs. Time hasn't stood still - the progress is that a DFV needs rebuilding every season (2,000-3,000 miles tops?) at great expense, whereas the M3's engine can run for years with only simple oil changes, perhaps 100-200k miles without work.
Edited by BricktopST205 on Friday 19th February 00:47
Surely this is based upon what you need?
For me example i need 4 seats every so often for driving the parents? But i want a car that will give me decent performance? (6.5 to 60). Need a decent boot to travel with 2 friends across europe and small enough to travel the big cities in the UK.
So naturally im looking at the Fiesta ST
For me example i need 4 seats every so often for driving the parents? But i want a car that will give me decent performance? (6.5 to 60). Need a decent boot to travel with 2 friends across europe and small enough to travel the big cities in the UK.
So naturally im looking at the Fiesta ST
The DFV was actually 3 litres, not 4 and it developed about 400bhp on its 1967 debut.It was also notoriously abrupt in its power delivery .
But this cavil apart ,modern engines are things of wonder to those of us who grew up in an analogue age . Both my cars develop 110bhp plus per litre, one with a turbo and one without and both are bulletproof. Jack Brabham's title winning 1966 F1 Brabham developed about 110 per litre too.
But this cavil apart ,modern engines are things of wonder to those of us who grew up in an analogue age . Both my cars develop 110bhp plus per litre, one with a turbo and one without and both are bulletproof. Jack Brabham's title winning 1966 F1 Brabham developed about 110 per litre too.
coppice said:
The DFV was actually 3 litres, not 4 and it developed about 400bhp on its 1967 debut.It was also notoriously abrupt in its power delivery .
But this cavil apart ,modern engines are things of wonder to those of us who grew up in an analogue age . Both my cars develop 110bhp plus per litre, one with a turbo and one without and both are bulletproof. Jack Brabham's title winning 1966 F1 Brabham developed about 110 per litre too.
Sorry, my mistake! I typed that in a hurry. You can see my point though?But this cavil apart ,modern engines are things of wonder to those of us who grew up in an analogue age . Both my cars develop 110bhp plus per litre, one with a turbo and one without and both are bulletproof. Jack Brabham's title winning 1966 F1 Brabham developed about 110 per litre too.
stedaley said:
Surely this is based upon what you need?
For me example i need 4 seats every so often for driving the parents? But i want a car that will give me decent performance? (6.5 to 60). Need a decent boot to travel with 2 friends across europe and small enough to travel the big cities in the UK.
So naturally im looking at the Fiesta ST
Exactly what I was looking for. For me example i need 4 seats every so often for driving the parents? But i want a car that will give me decent performance? (6.5 to 60). Need a decent boot to travel with 2 friends across europe and small enough to travel the big cities in the UK.
So naturally im looking at the Fiesta ST
I needed a car that could carry the dog occasionally, A car that was subtle enough to go on site with, but still fun on the commute home. Something that did Ok fuel economy, something that was different and something that I could do long distance with, without being uncomfortable.
Naturally it was a hot hatch, I bought a 265 Megane RS.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff