"High performance" hatchback/saloons. Worth the premium?

[white_goodman]

Reviews for the latest M/AMG/Audi RS product are often accompanied in the comment section by comments like, what, 80k for a 2-Series/C-Class/Audi A3 and you could get a 911/Cayman for that money etc, so my question is for those of you that have taken the plunge on the high performance "halo" version of a regular car is was that premium worth it? Conversely, perhaps you could have afforded the "halo" model but chose to save 50% or so and buy the vanilla version. Do you think that you're still benefiting from the engineering effort that went into producing the "halo" version and still getting almost as much/enough car for significantly less or do you own the lesser version and still aspire to the "halo" product anyway?

This question is not exclusive to the above products. You could apply it to hatchbacks too ie Fiesta ST vs. Ecoboost, Golf GTI/R vs. the regular TSI/TDI or even apply it to a base Cayman/911 vs. a GT product.

Having owned both the "halo" model and mid-range models of various cars, I am a little undecided. Having owned and experienced a 205 GTi, E30 325i, Corrado VR6 and "Blobeye" Impreza WRX, I would say that the "halo" models of those cars were worth every penny but then I didn't buy any of them new, so it's a bit of a different proposition. In the Impreza in particular, the engine made the car for me and having also driven a regular NA Impreza of that vintage, it was not a car that I would consider buying in that guise, as the performance felt very flat and it just highlighted other shortcomings of the car, such as the very cheap-feeling interior.

Conversely, the mk4 Golf GTi was such an underwhelming driving experience that it didn't really offer anything for me over a regular 1.6/TDI SE model. The standard mk5 Golf drove really well, so prior to driving it, it was difficult to see how the GTI version could offer much over and above it but somehow it did subjectively. I have a mk7 Golf 1.4 TSI right now and it's a nice enough car if a little unexciting. Naturally, I would have gravitated towards a GTI/R if it had been in budget at the time but would those cars feel more special than my car or like mine but just a bit quicker and would something completely different and set up with a bit more of a driver focus from the "get go" like a GT86 or MX5 feel more special than a "tarted-up" shopping hatchback?

I do reject the arguments against the "halo" cars a little though. They're not exactly a new thing and those arguments don't always apply in the real world. How many sales reps in the 80s drove a Sierra 1.6L and felt better about their choice because the Cosworth existed and they felt that a Cosworth was a car that they could reasonably aspire to and practically use vs. a Ferrari or Porsche, which would have seemed totally out of reach? Today you can drive a BMW 520d with an M Sport bodykit that doesn't look unlike the MD's M5, so if anything the connection is even closer there than it was 30 years ago. I would of course love a Cayman GT4 but I live in the real-world and have two young kids, so need rear seats and a decent boot, so an M2 CS really is somewhat of a dream car for me. 80k is a lot of money though, so in my world, the M2 Competition or even the M240i seems like a more realistic/better value compromise but if I had the money, would I still want the M2 CS. Absolutely!

So, in your opinion, when you're looking at a high performance "halo" model based on a more humble hatchback/saloon/estate costing half the price in basic/mid-range spec, is the premium one worth paying, whether that be a Golf R vs. a Golf TSI, M2 CS vs. an M240i or an RS6 vs. a 3.0 TDI Avant or in objective/value terms, is the cheaper, lesser version the better car?

[white_goodman]

samoht said:

Ultimately if you want a car that's fast and practical, you have to get a high performance derivative of a regular saloon/estate. Value doesn't come into it, since a base engine version won't be fast, and a true sports car won't be practical.

All relative though, a 340i/340d or 3.0 TDI A6, even an Audi S3 is still bloody quick though by any standards, do you need to get the M3/RS3/RS6?

[white_goodman]

stongle said:

Mr Happy said:

Was never offered as a factory model, only aftermarket swap so the 205 GTI was the halo model. (Discounting the T16 of course)

You might be thinking of the 309 GTI-16, but that was LHD only and never made it to the UK

Aha. Good point. 309 GTi then. The thing is, the standard GTI's aren't the Halo models (nor are the M140's, Rs etc etc). I have a 2019 Golf GTi PP, that's far from the Halo model, that being a Clubsport S. Even back when I was a teen, the Golf Rallye was always more desirable than a GTi, despite being LHD. Imprezza WRX Type RA may have been the best UK Impreza in 1999; but everyone knows the Halo was the 22B. Not trying to be a knob, but I think that "genuine" Halo models fall outside the OP.

I see what you mean and perhaps the use of the word "halo" was slightly misplaced but I think that you're overthinking it a little or coming at it from too much of a "car nerd" perspective. I grew up wanting an XR Ford, GTE Vauxhall, Peugeot GTi or Golf GTi, so when I passed my test, those were the manufacturers that I gravitated towards even though I couldn't afford/afford to insure those cars. I never really lusted after a Nissan Micra/Honda Jazz because there wasn't a hotter version to aspire to. There are different tiers at the performance end of the range for sure. The modern equivalents to those "hot" 80s/90s cars would be ST Ford, VXR Vauxhall, Peugeot GTi and Golf GTI but you do have RS Ford and Golf R above that but people still buy into the performance range at the price point they are comfortable with.

Strictly speaking, the only "halo" model that I've owned was the Corrado VR6. I had the 205 GTi 1.6 rather than the 1.9, the 325i rather than the M3, the WRX rather than the WRX STI and the Cooper rather than the Cooper S but that didn't make any of them less desirable.

There is a certain element of pride in owning a performance model, if anyone asked what I drove when I owned the above, I would have said the whole thing. Now I would say that I own a Golf rather than a Golf GT 1.4 TSI, even though it's very high spec and I quite like it. You would probably say you own a Golf GTI (and most people would know that's the "fast" one)?

I agree that the GTI Clubsport S is probably a more special and faster car in the right conditions than the R but in most people's opinion R>GTI and the Clubsport S has no rear seats, so only the "car nerds" are going to appreciate it really. In the same way, the "cool factor" of owning an M2/M4/911 GT3 isn't really going to be diminished by the existence of faster Competition/CS/GTS/GT3 RS versions.

[white_goodman]

Baldchap said:

white_goodman said:

samoht said:

Ultimately if you want a car that's fast and practical, you have to get a high performance derivative of a regular saloon/estate. Value doesn't come into it, since a base engine version won't be fast, and a true sports car won't be practical.

All relative though, a 340i/340d or 3.0 TDI A6, even an Audi S3 is still bloody quick though by any standards, do you need to get the M3/RS3/RS6?

If that's what you want and you can afford it, yes.

The moment 'need' comes into it we're in base engine, base spec, so don't pretend any car for a PHer will ever be anything but a heart over head purchase.

Edited by Baldchap on Sunday 2nd May 09:40

Fair enough. The thing that I'm wondering though is that are the inevitable compromises of the high performance version of those kind of cars worth the compromise? Take an Audi A4 Avant. On the face of it, it's a practical, comfortable family car with the added security of quattro four wheel drive traction. I'll pick the B8 generation, as there is a clearer distinction between the top line models. The B8 RS4 (last one to have the 4.2 NA V8) has long been a car that I've lusted after. Some prefer the B7 but I prefer the B8 because I think it looks better, is more modern inside and is usefully bigger, so more practical, whereas the B7 Avant is pretty tiny, so not a massive boot and a bit cramped in the back. Inevitably the RS4 will be faster, sound better, look better and drive better when you're on it but then you have the compromise of significantly higher running costs, a relatively torque-lite power delivery, 20mpg on a good day, less comfortable ride and potentially a magnet for thieves/vandals. In terms of desirability it's absolutely there but is it actually a better practical, comfortable family car than the S4 (supercharged V6?) or 3.0 TDI, which in themselves aren't slow and won't cost you a fortune to drive anywhere and blend in a bit more. The RS4 is for sure a more "special" car but is it a "better" car?

Same engine in an R8 seems much less of a compromise because the way that you're going to use that car is vastly different. In an ideal world, perhaps you would have an S4/3.0 TDI A4 Avant as the family car and perhaps an R8 or something with a similar focus as a "special"/"fun" car to use a bit more sparingly but perhaps if you can't afford/justify that, the RS4 is an acceptable compromise? Perhaps if you were wealthy enough and didn't care about running costs, you would have both, I don't know.

[white_goodman]

Baldchap said:

Funny you should choose the B8 as the one with the clearer distinction between models, as I'd say the B9 generation is clearer. Coincidentally, I have a B9 RS4. For me, the requirement was a Dogbus that has a sufficiently decent engine to make a regular (ish) drive to Spain fully loaded up and sit happily at high speeds for hours on end.

The twin turbo 2.9 V6 (as used in the Panamera) doesn't have the V8 soundtrack of the B8, but it's in every other way a massively superior engine. The S4, on the other hand, is a diesel - something I don't want.

A 2.0 petrol would do the job, albeit more slowly, but I'd much rather spend the time in the RS4. Economy doesn't bother me, so why wouldn't I?

Is the RS4 "better" than any of the other A4-based models? Yes. Absolutely.

Edited by Baldchap on Tuesday 4th May 22:48

Yeah I forgot the S4 had gone diesel now. I was thinking the S4 was still a turbocharged V6 and the RS4 a faster turbocharged V6 etc. You've kind of answered my question there. I'm guessing that BMW would offer a closer match between their M models and the next tier down (plus you get the Touring model option).