RE: VW Up GTI v Mazda 2 GT Sport v Suzuki Swift Sport
Discussion
Sorry for my lack of knowledge on the Mazda 1.5 engine. The observation was that the new MX5 engine with 7800rpm redline would be fun and make it more of a drivers car.
My daily is a 65 plate Swift Sport - with all round discs. I used to be a Police response driver back in the day when we used Ford Escorts (yep, I'm that old) with disc/drum combo's that were prone to fade and a few alarming memories. Hence the comment that I'd prefer well engineered brakes over the latest music connectivity. It's a personal choice from experience and certainly not a fashion choice!
My daily is a 65 plate Swift Sport - with all round discs. I used to be a Police response driver back in the day when we used Ford Escorts (yep, I'm that old) with disc/drum combo's that were prone to fade and a few alarming memories. Hence the comment that I'd prefer well engineered brakes over the latest music connectivity. It's a personal choice from experience and certainly not a fashion choice!
I'd be keen to know how the insurance varies for say an 18 or 21 year old for each car too.
People have torn into Vauxhall for dropping the Corsa VXR down to the GSi but it makes it substantially cheaper to insure than a Fiesta ST for the above age group.
I'd be keen to see if there's a big gap between any of these three which may (or may not) bring the list prices more aligned.
People have torn into Vauxhall for dropping the Corsa VXR down to the GSi but it makes it substantially cheaper to insure than a Fiesta ST for the above age group.
I'd be keen to see if there's a big gap between any of these three which may (or may not) bring the list prices more aligned.
pb8g09 said:
I'd be keen to know how the insurance varies for say an 18 or 21 year old for each car too.
People have torn into Vauxhall for dropping the Corsa VXR down to the GSi but it makes it substantially cheaper to insure than a Fiesta ST for the above age group.
I'd be keen to see if there's a big gap between any of these three which may (or may not) bring the list prices more aligned.
If the former Corsa VXR buyers switch to Corsa GSi then I'd expect the GSi to be very nearly as much of an insurance risk as the VXR and insurance is priced according to how likely, how often and how much an insurer has to pay out on that model.People have torn into Vauxhall for dropping the Corsa VXR down to the GSi but it makes it substantially cheaper to insure than a Fiesta ST for the above age group.
I'd be keen to see if there's a big gap between any of these three which may (or may not) bring the list prices more aligned.
Insurance for my Swift Sport has risen considerably since I bought it. Apparently the SSS has become popular as a quick-ish, cheap, reliable car for younger drivers and now Swift Sports are being crashed more frequently by those less experienced drivers, pushing up the cost of insurance as the car gradually gets a higher insurance risk attached to it.
I don't see me keeping my SSS through the winter because it's not very good at dealing with poor road surfaces; damaged both front tyres last winter because there's not enough rubber to prevent even small potholes bumping the tyre against the rim.
The rims are too large, the tyre sidewalls too small and the springs too firm.
Give it an inch less rim, an inch more sidewall and 10% softer springs and it would be much better on a B-road.
My wife's Viva can often make much better progress than the SSS on damaged-surface B-roads which seem to be the norm in my area.
Also the rapidly-rising insurance cost doesn't help with keeping the Swift, nor does its mediocre fuel consumption when used on faster roads; only about 35mpg cruising at 70-80mph.
Edited by Ron99 on Tuesday 16th October 09:45
Ron99 said:
If the former Corsa VXR buyers switch to Corsa GSi then I'd expect the GSi to be very nearly as much of an insurance risk as the VXR and insurance is priced according to how likely, how often and how much an insurer has to pay out on that model.
See I think you're comparing the wrong things here. An 18 year old isn't deciding whether to buy an old VXR with a £2.2k insurance policy vs a new GSi with £1k policy. He/(she) is more likely deciding between leasing a GSi or similar with £1k insurance or the new Fiesta ST (or similar 190bhp) which is £1.8k. And this is why I think the GSi will actually shift more units than people think even though the power is down.Edited by Ron99 on Tuesday 16th October 09:45
The old VXR is irrelevant to compare because your new generation of young drivers will lease a new car with more modern technology than lease a more expensive, less tech filled VXR (used leasing £>new leasing £ APR).
Going back to my original question therefore, is a VW Up GTi more or less to insure for an 18 year old than a new SSS?
ecsrobin said:
BricktopST205 said:
The Suzuki is in a different league realistically. CTC have got one with their in house exhaust and remap putting out 180BHP already. That is BHP/Tonne levels of a Biposto and you do not need to be a dwarf to fit in one. It is also fully loaded.
I’m 6’3” and fit fine in a 500/biposto and I’m not the tallest 500 PH owner so surprised about the dwarf comment. Edited by BricktopST205 on Saturday 13th October 17:46
The Suzuki with 180bhp I’m sure would be fun to drive and in my eyes a better looking car than the Mazda.
xu5 said:
While The 1.5 MX5 engine is based on the Mazda 2's there are a few more differences. From what I remember these include lighter pistons and con rods, stronger crank shaft, different cams and inlet manifold. I think the cylinder head is modified too.
The 1.5 MX5 can get to 155-160 bhp with a decent map.
I think to get much over 130 hp out of the Mazda 2 you may need to make some mechanical alterations.
where did you get that info on the differences? - I've not heard of those beforeThe 1.5 MX5 can get to 155-160 bhp with a decent map.
I think to get much over 130 hp out of the Mazda 2 you may need to make some mechanical alterations.
the 2.0 engines in the mx-5 and Mazda3 are the same (apart from the pistons as the Mazda3 has a 14:1 comp ratio vs 13:1 for the mx-5)
That’s an 89bhp not 115
JMF894 said:
Zygot said:
Sorry for my lack of knowledge on the Mazda 1.5 engine. The observation was that the new MX5 engine with 7800rpm redline would be fun and make it more of a drivers car.
My daily is a 65 plate Swift Sport - with all round discs. I used to be a Police response driver back in the day when we used Ford Escorts (yep, I'm that old) with disc/drum combo's that were prone to fade and a few alarming memories. Hence the comment that I'd prefer well engineered brakes over the latest music connectivity. It's a personal choice from experience and certainly not a fashion choice!
Rear disks on the back of a lightweight FWD car won't help with the front brakes fading. You wouldn't even notice if the rear brakes faded.My daily is a 65 plate Swift Sport - with all round discs. I used to be a Police response driver back in the day when we used Ford Escorts (yep, I'm that old) with disc/drum combo's that were prone to fade and a few alarming memories. Hence the comment that I'd prefer well engineered brakes over the latest music connectivity. It's a personal choice from experience and certainly not a fashion choice!
My wife took delivery of her UP! GTI about a month ago. From the times I've driven it, I think it's a great little car. It was bought to be an entertaining city car and appears to be doing the job well at the moment. The only pain was having to wait 6 months to get it. I have always liked the Mazda 2, we've owned several different Mazdas in the past and they have been good cars, I'd not count the Mazda out, just think the UP! caught our attention this time.
CABC said:
Johnnytheboy said:
Article said:
The Up GTI is a car that goes fast - comfortably brisker than the Mazda...
SPECIFICATION - VOLKSWAGEN UP GTI
0-62mph: 8.8sec
Top speed: 122mph
SPECIFICATION - MAZDA 2 GT SPORT NAV+
0-62mph: 8.7sec
Top speed: 124mph
SPECIFICATION - VOLKSWAGEN UP GTI
0-62mph: 8.8sec
Top speed: 122mph
SPECIFICATION - MAZDA 2 GT SPORT NAV+
0-62mph: 8.7sec
Top speed: 124mph
the one that drives like a derv is the faster one.
the faster one that drives like a sporty car is too expensive.
If it was purely on the driver then the Mazda would have won, but more things are considered when it comes to a verdict. Like I said in the story, if you can get some money off one, then go for it.
HTH!
Matt
Matt Bird said:
The point in the story was that in regular driving - and not 0-62, which isn't representative, and which nobody ever does - the Up *feels* like the quicker car. That's the benefit of torque. I think you'll see the praise for the Mazda was pretty effusive here, because it's great little car, but there's no escaping the fact it costs quite a lot of money.
If it was purely on the driver then the Mazda would have won, but more things are considered when it comes to a verdict. Like I said in the story, if you can get some money off one, then go for it.
HTH!
Matt
Does that mean if you can get some money off the Suzuki Swift Sport then that would have won then?If it was purely on the driver then the Mazda would have won, but more things are considered when it comes to a verdict. Like I said in the story, if you can get some money off one, then go for it.
HTH!
Matt
DazzaSport said:
Suzuki have most definitely not 'dropped the ball' with the new car. It's better in pretty much every way compared to the old car.
I should know as I have the previous Sport and the brand new Sport both sat next to each other on my drive way.
I felt I had to join the forum to voice my opinion. I've driven both cars back to back - hard. Pistonheads reviewers have it round the wrong way. The new car is more agile than the old one. Drive both cars one after the other, and it's immediately obvious that turn-in is much sharper in the new car. It feels lighter in the nose.
I've drove the old car for a solid two years (a 2016 model)... I agree it is a brilliant little car to drive. But, it took less than 2 months to realise that the new car is even better. The reviewers mention a lack of confidence when driving the new car. For me, it's again - round the other way. The new car is much more confident than the old car. Where the old car would have you backing off during high speed cornering, the new car inspires much more confidence. Within a month or so, I was taking high speed corners at a much higher speed than the old car.
What I will say though, is that the new car is more refined than the old one. That gives the impression that the car is softer than the old car. It isn't. Again, I've driven both cars down familiar roads. You definitely get more thrown around in the new car. Even if the more refined ride is at odds with that.
Besides, don't take my word for it. Suzuki have stated themselves that the car is stiffer than the outgoing Sport... And roll stiffness is up 5% on the old car. So even if the car 'feels' softer (because of new refinements), it actually isn't.
Some reviews have suggested that the new car is not as much fun as the old car as well. Claiming that the rear end resolutely cannot be budged. That's rubbish too. I can confirm that both cars can be managed through a slide in exactly the same fashion. The only difference is grip. Suzuki did a lot of work to the suspension in the new car, to maintain 'wheel geometry' during high load / compression of the suspension. So despite having the exact same size wheels and tyres. The new car maintains a better contact patch with the tarmac. That extra grip means that the car hangs on that little bit more before allowing you to manage the slide through a turn. The result then, on some of my favourite bends, is that both cars can manage a slide between front and rear axles by modulating throttle, etc. But the new car needs more speed to get to that point. That's the only difference.
I guess, some might say the old cars abilities are a little more easily accessible. So more 'easy to access' fun for the average driver. But for those of us with better than average driving ability, the new car is just as much fun, it's an altogether more accomplished driving tool compared to the old car. It's much more precise and stable at speed as well.
I can understand the comments about the new car being more 'grown up' though. The old car feels 'scrappy' all the time. Whereas the 'scrappy' character of the new car is hidden under a layer of refinement. The new car is a great every day car, comfortable enough to use all the time. Even if you're not in the mood. But, the moment you press the go pedal, and grab it by the scruff of the neck... 'scrappy' immediately comes out to play. It's more Jeckyll and Hyde than the old car.
So there you have it. The thoughts of a 40-something old school hot hatch admirer. I got into Swift Sports because I wanted to relive the lightweight, back to basics hot hatch thrills of the 80's and 90's. I can safely say that both cars well and truly deliver. Plus, if the new turbo variant wasn't up to par. I would have felt like I had lost something when moving from the old car. I feel that nothing has been lost, and in fact I've gained quite a bit. The new car is a brilliant drivers car, and offers a considerable amount of extra performance over the old car. In both power delivery and the chassis dynamic.
So there must be something that I don't like in the new car right? Well, yes... It's the steering wheel itself. The new car has one of those currently popular 'D' shaped wheels. I'm not keen on it. Give me a round steering wheel please - like the old car.
Last few comments then. Yes, that engine is a gem. I'm a big fan of a good NA powerplant. But the new turbo Swift Sports engine is a cracking little engine. Like you mentioned. It pulls everywhere. It makes more power than Suzuki claim as well.
Price. For me, I think it's worth the money. A similarly specified Fiesta ST is quite a few thousand more. The Up! GTI may well be cheaper, but compared to the Swift Sport it's spec sheet is barren. Besides, I only paid £16,499 for mine.
Talking of the Up! GTI. Some VW fans would have you believe that its the best thing since sliced bread. But I consider the old Swift Sport to be better than the Up! GTI ever was. It was cheaper, and still better equipped... And it's got a better chassis. Yet the Up! GTI will sell in greater numbers because of the GTI badge - despite Suzuki having better reliability.
Excellent write up.I should know as I have the previous Sport and the brand new Sport both sat next to each other on my drive way.
I felt I had to join the forum to voice my opinion. I've driven both cars back to back - hard. Pistonheads reviewers have it round the wrong way. The new car is more agile than the old one. Drive both cars one after the other, and it's immediately obvious that turn-in is much sharper in the new car. It feels lighter in the nose.
I've drove the old car for a solid two years (a 2016 model)... I agree it is a brilliant little car to drive. But, it took less than 2 months to realise that the new car is even better. The reviewers mention a lack of confidence when driving the new car. For me, it's again - round the other way. The new car is much more confident than the old car. Where the old car would have you backing off during high speed cornering, the new car inspires much more confidence. Within a month or so, I was taking high speed corners at a much higher speed than the old car.
What I will say though, is that the new car is more refined than the old one. That gives the impression that the car is softer than the old car. It isn't. Again, I've driven both cars down familiar roads. You definitely get more thrown around in the new car. Even if the more refined ride is at odds with that.
Besides, don't take my word for it. Suzuki have stated themselves that the car is stiffer than the outgoing Sport... And roll stiffness is up 5% on the old car. So even if the car 'feels' softer (because of new refinements), it actually isn't.
Some reviews have suggested that the new car is not as much fun as the old car as well. Claiming that the rear end resolutely cannot be budged. That's rubbish too. I can confirm that both cars can be managed through a slide in exactly the same fashion. The only difference is grip. Suzuki did a lot of work to the suspension in the new car, to maintain 'wheel geometry' during high load / compression of the suspension. So despite having the exact same size wheels and tyres. The new car maintains a better contact patch with the tarmac. That extra grip means that the car hangs on that little bit more before allowing you to manage the slide through a turn. The result then, on some of my favourite bends, is that both cars can manage a slide between front and rear axles by modulating throttle, etc. But the new car needs more speed to get to that point. That's the only difference.
I guess, some might say the old cars abilities are a little more easily accessible. So more 'easy to access' fun for the average driver. But for those of us with better than average driving ability, the new car is just as much fun, it's an altogether more accomplished driving tool compared to the old car. It's much more precise and stable at speed as well.
I can understand the comments about the new car being more 'grown up' though. The old car feels 'scrappy' all the time. Whereas the 'scrappy' character of the new car is hidden under a layer of refinement. The new car is a great every day car, comfortable enough to use all the time. Even if you're not in the mood. But, the moment you press the go pedal, and grab it by the scruff of the neck... 'scrappy' immediately comes out to play. It's more Jeckyll and Hyde than the old car.
So there you have it. The thoughts of a 40-something old school hot hatch admirer. I got into Swift Sports because I wanted to relive the lightweight, back to basics hot hatch thrills of the 80's and 90's. I can safely say that both cars well and truly deliver. Plus, if the new turbo variant wasn't up to par. I would have felt like I had lost something when moving from the old car. I feel that nothing has been lost, and in fact I've gained quite a bit. The new car is a brilliant drivers car, and offers a considerable amount of extra performance over the old car. In both power delivery and the chassis dynamic.
So there must be something that I don't like in the new car right? Well, yes... It's the steering wheel itself. The new car has one of those currently popular 'D' shaped wheels. I'm not keen on it. Give me a round steering wheel please - like the old car.
Last few comments then. Yes, that engine is a gem. I'm a big fan of a good NA powerplant. But the new turbo Swift Sports engine is a cracking little engine. Like you mentioned. It pulls everywhere. It makes more power than Suzuki claim as well.
Price. For me, I think it's worth the money. A similarly specified Fiesta ST is quite a few thousand more. The Up! GTI may well be cheaper, but compared to the Swift Sport it's spec sheet is barren. Besides, I only paid £16,499 for mine.
Talking of the Up! GTI. Some VW fans would have you believe that its the best thing since sliced bread. But I consider the old Swift Sport to be better than the Up! GTI ever was. It was cheaper, and still better equipped... And it's got a better chassis. Yet the Up! GTI will sell in greater numbers because of the GTI badge - despite Suzuki having better reliability.
The general consensus of reviews is that compared to previous generations it can carry more speed into corners at the expense of throttle/brake adjust-ability has made it a bit of a disappointment. I wonder how this perception will be received over the next decade? I can imagine "MK2 is all you need" would be a popular remark.
I don't have a problem with the styling. The front-end is a departure to previous generations but on the whole it looks like the wimpy little brother to the current Honda CTR.
As much as I dislike the Up GTI its cheaper to buy and running costs will hold sway as well as the VW/GTI badge.
Ruffy94 said:
The main issue for the Up! GTI is the GTI badge and it always will be. Had it been called GTI/GT Line (or similar) in the way other manufacturers use it, it would make a lot more sense. It simply lacks the spec to deliver as a proper GTI and it's also the reason the pricing is hard to compare.
This... I really would love a baby GTI, but the UP! Is not it....
The other two do nothing for me and they both look like cars I expect old people to love...
Just by a cheap mk5 GTI or EP3 type R and never look back ...
underphil said:
xu5 said:
While The 1.5 MX5 engine is based on the Mazda 2's there are a few more differences. From what I remember these include lighter pistons and con rods, stronger crank shaft, different cams and inlet manifold. I think the cylinder head is modified too.
The 1.5 MX5 can get to 155-160 bhp with a decent map.
I think to get much over 130 hp out of the Mazda 2 you may need to make some mechanical alterations.
where did you get that info on the differences? - I've not heard of those beforeThe 1.5 MX5 can get to 155-160 bhp with a decent map.
I think to get much over 130 hp out of the Mazda 2 you may need to make some mechanical alterations.
the 2.0 engines in the mx-5 and Mazda3 are the same (apart from the pistons as the Mazda3 has a 14:1 comp ratio vs 13:1 for the mx-5)
I tried to do the baby GTI thing a few years ago when I bought an Ibiza Sportrider 1.2 tsi. I was fed up with driving a big diesel car and wanted a return to something small and fun.
I think I convinced myself it was the best option and it was fun at first with its delightfully sharp steering and confident handling, but I was really glad to be rid of it in the end. It proved to be unreliable, badly designed, badly built and I will never own a car with a VAG tsi or tfsi engine again.
I think I convinced myself it was the best option and it was fun at first with its delightfully sharp steering and confident handling, but I was really glad to be rid of it in the end. It proved to be unreliable, badly designed, badly built and I will never own a car with a VAG tsi or tfsi engine again.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff