Potential issues with the DSG have prevented me from going straight ahead with the purchase of one I have seen,

Im not too bothered about top speed, as Im not a fast driver but in the city require something to be nimble and easy to park at the same time not feel utterly gutless either.

Currently have an Astra 1.6 manual and that struggles uphill

Thanks for the suggestion on the torque convertor, it looks like these autoboxes are either BMW or Mercedes.Will also start looking at the 6 cylinder BMWs now.The BMW 1 series also has some 3 litres,maybe they are as reliable as the 3 series.

Edited by JohnX on 14/03/2020 at 13:18

Got to be a golf gti dsg with a good history

Hi Engineer Andy, I come and go and it probably is no more than 3-4 months a year.

The sensible option would be to hire a hot hatch as you have mentioned, but somehow I like the 'home' feel of having my own car!

The Suzuki 1.6 has very keen prices and has an auto option as well.

An ideal one would have been the Mazda MPS but it doesnt have an auto version,maybe I will start looking at the manual option.

How much exactly is "in a garage for most of the year"? If it only comes out to play 2 or 3 times a year, why not either hire a (newer) hot hatch for a weekend of three, or, better still, go for a couple of track days and use their cars, which will be in far better condition than a likely 10yo+ hot hatch that's been likely either abused and/or heavily modded.

Noting that the Mazda doesn't come in an auto version and that the DSGs are hardly (even the 'wet clutch' or higher output versions, but mainly because your would be an older car anyway) 'reliable'.

To me, this sounds like a money pit in waiting - and I presume you have little-to-no annual budget for replacement parts (the 'somewhat reliable' requirement), let alone major repairs.

Bear in mind you can only drive up to the speed limit legally, so top speed is a waste of time. Far better to go for a newer, smaller 'warm hatch' that will handle very well, still get off the lights quickly but because it's light rather than having a complex, powerful turbocharged engine, etc.

I'd recommend the Suzuki Swift Sport 1.6 N/A 3dr.

The Ford Focus ST.. there are some around , however trying to make out if its been thrashed is not easy to make.

Another one on the list is a Mazda 3 MPS, even more powerful than the ST although only marginally.

Would this be a recommended option or shall I stick to the Ford?

The Ford Focus ST.. there are some around , however trying to make out if its been thrashed is not easy to make.

Another one on the list is a Mazda 3 MPS, even more powerful than the ST although only marginally.

Would this be a recommended option or shall I stick to the Ford?

The Ford will soon go up in value while the Mazda won’t. Fast Ford’s always reach classic status early and the ST is just on the cusp of it now. It’s the right time to buy a good original example, preferably a 3dr and keep it as it is. There’s absolutely no need to modify it in any way, this only ruins the handling and ride plus anyone who thinks they need more than 227bhp on the road needs their licence taken off them. That said, it’s all down to what’s available and I would certainly look at a well kept original Mazda but they are rare and most have been ruined by boy racers looking for thrills on a budget. A Mazda 3 2.0 Sport is a good option. It’s no rocket but goes well enough to be fun and most have been used as family transport. They drive great and can string a twisting B road together beautifully.

TBH, the belt-cam SEAT Leon 1.4TSI (140) would in most respects be a decent choice as its a very sprightly engine and, as Skidpan showed, the earlier versions around 2013 or so could be had in SE form with sensible (read comfortable and inexpensive) 16in rims and tyres rather than the FR shod on 17/18in rims, which was not any quicker but more expensive to buy and run (tyre and wheel damage and replacements) as well as insurance.

I would've thought the second hand prices for the early (not chain cam or the horrible twin charger) examples would be near the OP's price ceiling by now. 0-60 in around the 8sec mark and no oil usage issues of the 1.8TSI or chain issues of the 2.0TSI. And not too expensive to insure either, especially the SE.

I’m a bit perplexed by your statement ‘Prefer an Auto as the gear shifts are faster but fine with a manual‘. The physical process of a twin clutch automated manual changing gear may be faster than a driver operating a clutch and gearstick, but because of parasitic losses the overall performance of the car is inevitably slower than a well driven manual.

Hmm, not sure that is actually the case, maybe sometimes but certainly not always.

Back when VW released the 5th gen GTI (the first GTI to have the DSG option), its quoted 0-62 time was 6.9 seconds with DSG and 7.2 seconds with the manual. Looking at the specs (on this website) for the current car, there no longer seems to be an acceleration advantage with DSG on the current Golf, but nor is it slower. In fact apart from a couple of diesel versions (showing to be a 10th quicker with DSG), the acceleration figures given are the same model for model with DSG or without. Of course that does entail 'thrashing' the DSG, which would maybe not be for the best given its reputation. And i also only looked at the Golf, other manufacturers may have different results.

From my own experience though, most auto's, regardless of type (within the speed limits of built up urban areas get off the line quicker), unless you are up against a pretty determined driver. After all, with an auto, you just press the throttle, so any driver can extract the maximum acceleration with no particular skill or experience. When we had our last car, a Hyundai i30 turbo diesel auto (T/C), it may only have had 108bhp, but it was seldom beaten away from the lights if i was in a hurry (and BTW, i am not talking about 0-60, just the aforementioned urban areas, up to 30 or 40mph). Even with the Jazz, though the initial take up is slightly lazier, it gets into its stride very quickly. My own experiments with, admittedly, unscientific 'testing equipment', also suggest it will get to 60mph at least 1.5 seconds quicker than the 'official' figure.

Edited by badbusdriver on 14/03/2020 at 20:45

I think you are overcompensating here a little, you currently have a 1.6 NA petrol engine in a fairly heavy car, it will require some revs and throttle to get it to shift quickly.

Almost anything of a similar size and weight with a 2.0 litre or above, or 1.6 or above turbocharged will feel completely different to what you have now.

Note if you are going to make a lot of use of your new found instant acceleration and it sounds like you are then that will cause heavy wear on any transmission, so make sure it's a robust enough design to begin with and maintain it well, even a well made TC auto will suffer if you take off at full power and use kickdown umpteen times a day, and whatever transmission type you choose there is more to a drivetrain than just a clutch, every part of that drivetrain will suffer excess wear and possible early breakage.

I too like engines that are overpowered if you like, where making rapid progress is effortless without any need for full throttle or harsh use, driven sensibly these things usually last a long trouble free time and the drivetrain as built to take the power.

You speak of flooring the throttle and steering, in wrong wheel drive cars that can feel unpleasant as some torque steer issues present themselves let alone the feeling of the car constanly scrabbling for grip....which leads to another issue severe drive axle tyre wear and the requirement for good tyres to minimise wheelspin and torque steer in the first place, so expensive tyres and don't be surprised if the drive axle tyres especially last as few as 5000 miles driven hard.