Do people *really* want drivers' cars?

[otolith]

300bhp/ton said:

If it is £28k, then for £25k you could buy a vastly faster SEAT Leon Cupra R

Sorry, did you just recommend a Golf derivative over a proper rear wheel drive coupe? Are you unwell? Are you even really 300bhp/ton?

I don't get the value objections. Do people not understand economies of scale? If you want something that every other Tom, Dick or Harry wants (except you want it with a bit more power) you're going to get it cheaper than if you want something a bit more unusual. Well, cheaper unless you buy it from a German manufacturer, in which case if you're lucky you'll get a silicone damped grab handle to bite down on while being taken from behind. And you'll think you got value for money.

I also fail to see how people can look at a base model Seat Leon at 16k and think that pricing essentially the same thing with more power at a 50% mark up isn't taking the piss. Pretty sure the profit margin on a top spec hatchback will be massive compared to this coupe.

The price AutoCar quoted - which Toyota have denied, by the way - is about the same as other compact coupes from Audi and BMW with poorer power to weight ratios, yet nobody calls them out as too expensive.

[kambites]

I hope it doesn't have lots of torque - I think low-rev torque ruins drivers' cars because it reduces the benefits of getting gear selection right. IMO, a good sports car engine generates peak torque and peak power at the red line.

[300bhp/ton]

alock said:

This picture appeared on another thread:

Interesting picture. Cheers.

[Mr Gear]

300bhp/ton said:

Erm, well the laws of physics sort of dictate that a 2.0 litre n/a motor will not be producing huge amounts of torque. And the only way to get bhp is:

HP = rpms x torque / 5252


So low torque means high rpms will be a must for power. So there is no chance in hell of it having "serious low-end kick". And seeing as Evo and others have driven a prototype version, there are likely a lot that do know.

Since we are seeing the death of high-rev engines due to emissions at present, it's not an unreasonable estimate to make. You can't make 200bhp by just pushing it higher and higher up the rev range any more. We are unlikely to ever see something like an S2000 ever again.

[Codswallop]

300bhp/ton said:

Codswallop said:

Stuff about prices

I think those real terms are slightly off though.

A 200SX was in it's day a high performance car. The s13 was what 6.9 0-60mph and 140mph+ in the very early 1990's. That was pretty much beyond any hot hatch of the era, even the famed MG Maestro Turbo. In fact it really wasn't a million miles away from a Porsche 994 Turbo or a n/a 911 of only a coupe of years prior.

The s14 maintained this stance and even in it's day it was for the most part a performance league above the majority of hot hatch alternatives. So in real terms these cars could justify a higher price than a hot hatch.

The RX-8 might have lacked the performance punch and hasn't it been slated from launch on this pretty much? But it did bring a funky engine to the table, an engine some would pay to have/own on it's own rights. The car was also a very clever design being a 4 door saloon that looked more coupe like than many coupes do.

In today's market and in 'real' terms. The FT 86 doesn't offer the same practicality as the RX-8 and it doesn't have the performance over the hot hatch competition to demand the price.

If it is £28k, then for £25k you could buy a vastly faster SEAT Leon Cupra R, or for around £10,000 less (or over 1/3rd of the price cheaper) a Clio 200 with equal performance.

I was thinking more about the s14a 200sx regarding price. It was slower and heavier than the s13, and many felt it had lost it's edge and become rather dull to drive compared to the earlier car.

We can't judge practicality as yet with what little info we have, but I do not consider the RX8 as a practical car (what with having to check oil levels every second fuel fill, which required the removal of the engine cover for top ups).

300bhp/ton said:

Codswallop said:

Even at the £28k price point it doesn't cost much more than a warmed over Golf

I find this a very odd comparison. The Golf is well know for being a "premium" hatch and one of the most expensive ways of buying a hot hatch. I don't see how it has any relevance as a comparison really.

I used the Golf as an example, given that the £28k figure for the Toybaru is pure speculation and may drop downwards (I do not envisage it going up).

300bhp/ton said:

Codswallop said:

, while being more practical than a similarily performing MX5.

Practical is arguable, as it involves a fitness for purpose. If you only need two seats, then an MX-5 is actually better fit for that purpose. But an MX-5 is still £8,00 - 10,000 cheaper. Which is a huge percentage.

Well, it's practical for my purposes

300bhp/ton said:

Codswallop said:

Given the specs, it should be just as affordable to run as a Clio RS or the like.

How do you figure that?

How can you right off £10,000 in terms of purchase price?

Again, this was typed from my perspective, and totally forgetting new purchase price and depreciation (both are alien concepts to me). I should imagine servicing and general maintanence costs will be very similar for both, and would hazard the Jap cars would be less troublesome/ more durable in the long run.

Ps. this formating malarky you do 300, is really time consuming. Am oot

[300bhp/ton]

kambites said:

But compare it to a Golf GTi instead of the Clio, and it starts to look much more sensible. You're always going to pay a bit more for a bespoke platform.

Of course you could ask why most Golf GTi drivers choose one over a Clio... I'd be interested to know the answer, I suspect in a large number of cases it's down to image rather than the extra practicality the Golf offers.


Anyway, 28k would be about the same money in real terms as the RX8 was when it was launched.

Edited by kambites on Thursday 1st December 10:37

But why compare it to a Golf? Pretty much the most expensive hot hatch you can buy.

Yes I can understand a bespoke platform should cost more, but £10,000 more than a Clio for essentially the same sort of car and performance.

[s m]

kambites said:

I hope it doesn't have lots of torque - I think low-rev torque ruins drivers' cars because it reduces the benefits of getting gear selection right.

Don't some people on here rate the E36 328i as a good drivers' car - they're quite torquey?

I lose track of what is 'regarded' as a good drivers car on PH

[Rawwr]

300bhp/ton said:

£10,000 more than a Clio for essentially the same sort of car and performance.

Essentially the same sort of car my balls. It's nothing of the sort.

[kambites]

300bhp/ton said:

But why compare it to a Golf? Pretty much the most expensive hot hatch you can buy.

Well I'd say VW and Toyota occupy a similar place in the market in terms of badge appeal and I suspect it will be similar people buying it. As I said, I'd like to understand the typical rational behind buying a Golf GTi over the Clio. Surely the Clio and Golf are "essentially the same sort of car and performance" too?

Edited by kambites on Thursday 1st December 10:54

[kambites]

s m said:

kambites said:

I hope it doesn't have lots of torque - I think low-rev torque ruins drivers' cars because it reduces the benefits of getting gear selection right.

Don't some people on here rate the E36 328i as a good drivers' car - they're quite torquey?

I lose track of what is 'regarded' as a good drivers car on PH

I haven't a clue what "people on here" think, but I don't regard it as a good drivers' car. It's a big wallowy saloon car (well OK it's a small wallowy saloon car). It's good for what it is, but hopelessly outclassed against proper drivers' cars.

Everyone's definition of a "good drivers' car" is different, which is half the problem with threads like this.

Edited by kambites on Thursday 1st December 10:58

[300bhp/ton]

Daniel1 said:

Isn't the power and torque right at the top of the rev range?

I don't know much about the engine specs but my guess would have been around 145lb ft of torque. Carfolio actually says 151lb ft, so I wouldn't have been far off.

It's quite possible that it'll make this torque fairly low in the rpms, variable intake control, timing control and cam and valve control all allow modern multivalve engines to have large operational rpms bands.

But to get the power you need rpms. As I posted earlier, bhp is derived from torque at speed using this equation:

HP = torque x rpms / 5252


So if it can make 151lb ft @ 5000rpm that would be only 144bhp. Chances are, to make PEAK Hp it will be after the PEAK torque, so a lower torque number at those rpms. But even if we assume it's making 151lb ft, to get 200hp that'd be at approx 7000rpm.


Just over 130lb ft @ 8000 rpm is 198bhp though. These are only guesses, but I'd be amazed if they are hugely off the mark.

[anonymous-user]

s m said:

kambites said:

I hope it doesn't have lots of torque - I think low-rev torque ruins drivers' cars because it reduces the benefits of getting gear selection right.

Don't some people on here rate the E36 328i as a good drivers' car - they're quite torquey?

I lose track of what is 'regarded' as a good drivers car on PH

I drove a mate's 328i sport once and thought it was a great driver's car. I was quickly told on here however that I was wrong. So that put me in my place

[s m]

kambites said:

s m said:

kambites said:

I hope it doesn't have lots of torque - I think low-rev torque ruins drivers' cars because it reduces the benefits of getting gear selection right.

Don't some people on here rate the E36 328i as a good drivers' car - they're quite torquey?

I lose track of what is 'regarded' as a good drivers car on PH

I haven't a clue what "people on here" think, but I don't regard it as a good drivers' car. It's a big wallowy saloon car (well OK it's a small wallowy saloon car). It's good for what it is, but hopelessly outclassed against proper drivers' cars.

Would this new Toyota be regarded as a good drivers' car then by virtue of it weighing 140kg less?

[Fittster]

s m said:

I lose track of what is 'regarded' as a good drivers car on PH

Something with the right badge.

[kambites]

s m said:

Would this new Toyota be regarded as a good drivers' car then by virtue of it weighing 140kg less?

Depends on how it drives, doesn't it? The ingredients are all there for it to be a great drivers' car, IMO. However it wouldn't be the first time that a car with all the ingredients for a great drivers car has turned out to be a bit rubbish.

I don't think absolute weight really matters. It's the feeling of weight and weight transfer, and the effect that it has on the controls (most obviously the steering and brakes) that matter. I've never driven a heavy car that I really consider to be a great drivers' car, but I'm willing to concede that it's probably possible.

[900T-R]

kambites said:

I hope it doesn't have lots of torque - I think low-rev torque ruins drivers' cars because it reduces the benefits of getting gear selection right. IMO, a good sports car engine generates peak torque and peak power at the red line.

Do you own a private racing track perchance? On the road, an engine that has its torque and bhp pinned at the far end of the rpm range is basically useless - unless you want to combine it with a CVT and accept it running at max rpm all the time whenever you want to get a move on.

Closest thing to road driving in motorsport would be rally cars - excepting a few events in Spain/Portugal/France(?) on wide, sweeping, well-sighted tarmac, the cars that have a fat, flat torque curve always come to the fore.

[kambites]

900T-R said:

Do you own a private racing track perchance? On the road, an engine that has its torque and bhp pinned at the far end of the rpm range is basically useless - unless you want to combine it with a CVT and accept it running at max rpm all the time whenever you want to get a move on.

I don't understand what you mean? Why is it any harder to be in the right part of the rev range on the road than on the track? A chunk of the fun that I get from road driving, comes from knowing that if I get the gear change wrong, I'll end up going very slowly.

[s m]

St John Smythe said:

s m said:

kambites said:

I hope it doesn't have lots of torque - I think low-rev torque ruins drivers' cars because it reduces the benefits of getting gear selection right.

Don't some people on here rate the E36 328i as a good drivers' car - they're quite torquey?

I lose track of what is 'regarded' as a good drivers car on PH

I drove a mate's 328i sport once and thought it was a great driver's car. I was quickly told on here however that I was wrong. So that put me in my place

It depends I guess if you think a great drivers' car has to be a certain weight/size?

[300bhp/ton]

otolith said:

Sorry, did you just recommend a Golf derivative over a proper rear wheel drive coupe? Are you unwell? Are you even really 300bhp/ton?

It was more an example of bang per buck.

Sort of RE: my earlier point, a 200SX was faster than similar money hot hatches... so could justify a modest price premium.

In regards to the FT-86, it's actually at a performance deficit yet still charges a price premium.

otolith said:

I don't get the value objections.

Money is the biggest deciding factor for almost everyone in everything they chose to buy, especially things on this scale of cost. If it's more expensive than many can afford = fail, if it costs as much as others but under performs = fail.

otolith said:

Do people not understand economies of scale?

Not sure this has any real relevance here. We don't know how much each unit costs or the breakdown of the costs, so we aren't in a position to say it 'had' to cost this much, only that we'd like it to cost less.

[300bhp/ton]

kambites said:

I hope it doesn't have lots of torque - I think low-rev torque ruins drivers' cars because it reduces the benefits of getting gear selection right. IMO, a good sports car engine generates peak torque and peak power at the red line.

Not many engines do that though. In fact do any??

And certainly not sports cars of old, many of them were far more about low end grunt than high end revs.