RX8 has it's drawbacks- 14mpg and a thirst for oil. Nice design though and I haven't driven one, worth a test drive perhaps?
Obviously you would need to go for the high output version and I'm told the lack of torque can be a problem in day to day driving. I guess a 'sportscar' isn't really a practical car though.
Seriously surprised how cheap the RX8's are- maybe their reported unreliability has affected values?
|
RX8 has it's drawbacks- 14mpg and a thirst for oil. Nice design though and I haven't driven one worth a test drive perhaps? Obviously you would need to go for the high output version and I'm told the lack of torque can be a problem in day to day driving.
HAving driven both I would have to say that (surprisingly) the lower output version has nicer characteristics for day-day driving.
|
|
|
|
"Sports" covers a multitude of sins. Could go for Celica or RX-8 (although latter not highly rated for economy and reliability). Hyundai Coupe?
Alternative how about a 'sports saloon' - if you could push your budget to £12k you could have a **brand new** Impreza 2.0RX from a car supermarket - bascially the same as the WRX but with a non-turbo quad-cam engine that loves to rev like mad and is both tremendous fun to drive and sensible to insure and fuel-up etc.
|
you could have a **brand new** Impreza 2.0RX from a car supermarket - bascially the same as the WRX but with a non-turbo quad-cam engine that loves to rev like mad and is both tremendous fun to drive and sensible to insure and fuel-up etc.
How on earth an underpowered pug ugly Impreza is a sports car I'd love to know. It isn't even a sports saloon and it's dog slow. I'm not doubting the fun factor as my Imprezas were all great to drive until you pushed them hard when they became terminal understeerers. IMO an Impreza without a turbo is like chips without salt.
|
How on earth an underpowered pug ugly Impreza is a sports car I'd love to know. It isn't even a sports saloon and it's dog slow. I'm not doubting the fun factor as my Imprezas were all great to drive until you pushed them hard when they became terminal understeerers. IMO an Impreza without a turbo is like chips without salt.
You're the guy that thought Subaru injected extra fuel to cool the engine aren't you? And all Impreza 'pop and bang'? I think you've demonstrated your knowledge amply - and I doubt you've ever owned one. 2.0RX is 160PS engine, 0-60 in 8.5s and 130mph - hardly dog slow. Very very little to touch these cars on a B-road at anything under £30k. I have a Skyline GT-R in the garage and the Impreza ranks right up there with it in terms of ability.
Road test here: uk.cars.yahoo.com/car-reviews/car-and-driving/subaru-impreza-2.0r-1005000.html
|
I might have made a few tongue in cheek comments on a thread but calling me a liar is my opinion uncalled for and also happens to be factually incorrect.
I've owned 2 'classics' complete with bright switch and a very nice JDM import blobeye provided by litchfield imports.
The non turbo impreza is dog slow in my opinion the times you quote being a product of the AWD. In reality they are far too slow to be called 'sports saloons'. If you believe the understeer prone Impreza is in anyway a 'sports car' I suggest you need to drive a few more motors.
|
The non turbo impreza is dog slow in my opinion the times you quote being a product of the AWD. In reality they are far too slow to be called 'sports saloons'. If you believe the understeer prone Impreza is in anyway a 'sports car' I suggest you need to drive a few more motors.
I get to drive plenty of motors my friend. The latest 2.0 Impreza is pretty much bang on the performance of the old-model (1.8T) Golf GTi; the Fabia VRS and the Octavia diesel VRS - are these 'sports saloons' or not? A matter of opinion I suppose, but I would say yes. I also get to drive Mitsubishi FTO's which (IIRC) are around 180-190PS - and again the Impreza is about the same in performance terms. Obviously it is not as fast as turbo-Impreza (particularly the latest 2.5), but there is more to a sports car than speed and acceleration. There are plenty of quick cars that don't handle too well.
Subaru make a lot of their AWD, balanced front-rear weight distribution and low CoG. Its is not all marketing fluff, it does actually do what it says on the tin.
For someone who doesn't rate Subaru Imprezas I'm very surprised that you've owned three......
|
I do rate them. However the non turbo Impreza is low on power and torque, is relatively heavy, has power sapping AWD and understeers more than the turbo. Moreover it's brakes aren't as good and it isn't a 'sports saloon' if you think it is then you're kidding yourself.
I wouldn't call an octavia diesel a 'sports saloon' either- a competent car but not a 'sports saloon'. Too much weight at the front and the wrong wheels being driven.
|
I do rate them. However the non turbo Impreza is low on power and torque is relatively heavy has power sapping AWD and understeers more than the turbo. Moreover it's brakes aren't as good and it isn't a 'sports saloon' if you think it is then you're kidding yourself. I wouldn't call an octavia diesel a 'sports saloon' either- a competent car but not a 'sports saloon'. Too much weight at the front and the wrong wheels being driven.
I won't waste my time replying - you obviously have some kind of 'issue' with these cars. The 'brakes' comment is particularly amusing!
For those who want a sensible opinion of the non-turbo Impreza then I posted a link to an independent road test further up in this thread. No doubt there are plenty of other tests/reviews on the web too...
|
you obviously have some kind of 'issue' withthese cars. The 'brakes' comment is particularly amusing!
The issue I have with the non turbo Impreza in context of this thread is that it isn't a 'sports car' or even a 'sporting saloon'.
|
The issue I have with the non turbo Impreza in context of this thread is that it isn't a 'sports car' or even a 'sporting saloon'.
We can all have our opinion on what is or isn't a sportscar, but posting technically inaccurate cobblers just misleads others. I know Imprezas backwards, forwards and sideways, having rebuilt engines, transmissions etc, done all the usual suspension and brake work and also added mods to them. I have driven them extensively, both on the road and on the track (the latter a limited amount, but great fun). Incidentally, I have never owned or sold an Impreza.
Just to conclude.. The Impreza 160PS has performance in the same ballpark as a BMW320i (2.2l) and a bit faster than a 318i (2.0l) - to call it 'dog slow' is ridiculous, its bang on the mark for a modern 2.0 with VVT.
The non-turbo RX does not 'understeer more than a turbo' - it has the same suspension set up and given it is lighter at the front it will actually tend to understeer less.
It does not have inferior brakes to the turbo. The only difference in braking components between the two is that the turbo's rear discs are vented; the non-turbo's are solid. The pedal feel and stopping power are therefore identical, as you'd expect. The rear venting only really comes into play if you are hammering the car on a track or a very fast cross-country run with 4-up.
In 'bang for buck' terms ANY Impreza is tremendous value - the non-turbo is vastly underrated in the UK (probably because of ill informed comment) but I gather its quite a big seller in many countries, including Australia, Germany, Austria and Scandinavia.
There's plenty of road tests and reviews out there, so have a read.
There's lots of things not to like about them (interior trim a bit cheap, tinny doors - although they're actually quite strong) but the underlying standard of engineering is excellent.
|
Nothing I have said is technically innacurate. I regard a 320i and 318 as dog slow but then again I only own performance cars.
You seem to be conveniently forgetting that not only does the 2.0 Impreza lack torque it's mid range performance is compromised by the fact it has 4 wheels to drive.
You also admit yourself that the brakes differ technically.
Never at any point have I suggested that the Impreza doesn't offer value for money, never have I suggested it isn't a good car.
What I have suggested is that an Impreza without the turbo is like having alcohol free beer- largely pointless when you consider that a new turbo Impreza can be had for only a few grand more than it's emasculated little brother.
What's more from your own admission I've driven many thousands more miles than you in them and have the benefit of having owned them. I will admit though that I've never owned a naturally aspirated Impreza and never would. It's pointless.
|
|
Also with less of a contact patch on the road the 2.0 is likely to understeer earlier than a 'proper' Impreza. Weights are also roughly comparable.
|
.What I have suggested is that an Impreza without the turbo is like having alcohol free beer- largely pointless when you consider that a new turbo Impreza can be had for only a few grand more than it's emasculated little brother.
What a silly comment. The turbo costs at least 3000-4000 more and has higher fuel consumption, highest rate road tax of £400 next year and very high insurance. I worked out running a turbo model would cost me £1000+ a year more than a non-turbo. Are you saying any 2 litre car without a turbo is pointless?
|
"wrong wheels being driven"
Game On
|
|
|
I know you say your not keen on BMW's but tend to agree with Oldhand that you'd be hard pressed to beat an E46 330ci. Gem of an engine with so much seamless power, Super handling, RWD & practical too. You could get a good one with reasonable miles & FBMWSH within your budget.
If however you have a specific reason for not likeing BMW's then so be it. Damn good cars though!
|
I know you say your not keen on BMW's but tend to agree with Oldhand that you'd be hard pressed to beat an E46 330ci. Gem of an engine with so much seamless power Super handling RWD & practical too. You could get a good one with reasonable miles & FBMWSH within your budget. If however you have a specific reason for not likeing BMW's then so be it. Damn good cars though!
I'll second that. However, with the budget in question and be less than 4 years old, the car will have to be rather leggy.
|
|
Perhaps get a FTO, and bank the remainder?
|
|
|
I'll second that. However with the budget in question and be less than 4 years old the car will have to be rather leggy.
Agree, but the OP said 'prefer to be under 4 yrs old' not must.
If you can source say a 5 yr old 330ci that is 'up to together' then not only will you have a superb sporting coupe, you'll also have practical transport, a motorway mile eater, a car that looks the biz (especially the sport version) & an engine that sounds like silk on steroids.
Just my opinion & may not be to everyone's taste.
|
|
Agree with comments re desireability of 330Ci - but I think you'd really struggle on the budget, unless its a very well-used example (which could cost a few bob to bring up to scratch). No mention of running costs, but need to be kept in mind whatever you buy.
|
Agree with comments re desireability of 330Ci - but I think you'd really struggle on the budget unless its a very well-used example (which could cost a few bob to bring up to scratch). No mention of running costs but need to be kept in mind whatever you buy.
Yep, tend to agree that something has to give .....
www.pistonheads.co.uk/sales/166133.htm
shows what you can get -- miles up a bit but these cars take high miles & just had expensive insp 2 & new tyres.
|
shows what you can get -- miles up a bit but these cars take high miles & just had expensive insp 2 & new tyres.
Ouch! Insp 2, plus tyres, discs & waterpump has to be over £1k....
Looks like it cost him his licence too... (driving ban forces sale).
|
|
Well over a grand even at an independant and skimping on tyres. The only reason my E46 went was Inspection II, brake fluid change, 2 new tyres and BMW extended warranty meant I could knock off 2 grand from the price to change into my RS4.
|
|
|
Well, thanks for all the input so far.
Islandman - thanks for the remarks ref the E46. I know I did say that I'm not keen on BMW's, but it's more of a 'perceived image' issue for me - I've always realised that they are generally well engineered and geared toward the driver. Perhaps I should have a rethink?
As regards some of the other suggestions, I'll have to be a bit negative in dismissing some of them:-
Celica - drove a work colleagues' 140bhp model and was underwhelmed by the performance and knew straight away that the plasticy dash and I wouldn't get on.
RX-8 - would have one if I had the keys to a filling station (spoken like a true Yorkshireman!)
Subaru - not driven one, or even riden in one for that matter, but again it comes down to the interior -I take the view that you're sat looking at the inside all the time you're in the car, so some element of design is important to me.
MR2 - just too small and low - Mrs S6 wouldn't get her joints to contort enough to get in, never mind about getting out!
I think a change of tack may be in order, by upping the budget and perhaps looking at something like a A4 convertible...
Again, many thanks for all the replies, especially Aprilla, who I think deserves some sort of award from this site for his always knowledgable and well thought posts.
S6 1SW
|
|
Audi cabrio is sadly no 'sports car'. A quite excellent boulevard cruiser however with beautiful build quality and real class.
|
|
|
Well thanks for all the input so far. Islandman - thanks for the remarks ref the E46. I know I did say that I'm not keen on BMW's but it's more of a 'perceived image' issue for me - I've always realised that they are generally well engineered and geared toward the driver. Perhaps I should have a rethink?
I also had this 'perceived image' issue but for years had always fancied a e46 330ci convertible, which I bought 3 months ago. In the main & provided you drive responsibly then I haven't found any adverse reaction to this 'perceived image'
If however you drive like you own the road & cut others up then yes, I guess you will have problems and be tagged with the 'BMW driver' marker.
Believe me though these are supurb driver's cars.
|
In my experience, women see cars differently to men and her definition of "a bit sporty" could mean anything from a Mazda 6 with a spoiler (competent car with mildly sporty looks) to a TVR (looks and drives like a sports car).
Also, what's her driving style?
We need more info!
|
The subject header was maybe a little vague - Mrs S6 had in her mind something other than a four door saloon, and isn't really aware of what's on the market. As regards her driving style - under/oversteer, roadholding, handling and dynamics are words which aren't in her motoring dictionary, although she does like to press on when behind the wheel of the S60 on the motorway.
As I said at the top of the post, this is next year's decision (I take a long leisurely look at my motoring options!), so there's no urgency yet.
Regards
S6 1SW
|
|
I wonder if you've considered the Audi TT? your £11k should get you a 5 yr old so a slight increase in budget will get you your 4yr old model. I'm not suggesting that its any good as I don't know but few would deny that it looks the business and must be a perfect midlife crisis carriage of choice.
|
I hadn't thought to suggest a TT but they are pretty high spec in 225 form and are a beautiful car from the inside as well as surprisingly practical.
I test drove one and was surprised how much better it was than a MKIV Golf, which of course it's based on. Still no 'sports car' IMO but it seems the lady in question doesn't care about that. One to add to the list perhaps?
Still think the Audi cabrio would fit the bill of high class motorway cruiser that seems to be a requirment though.
|
|
And the TT's girliness and alleged dodgy handling won't matter in this case either. It is nicely finished and appointed.
|
SWMBO wanted something 'sporty' but this proved to be impossible to pin down what she actually wanted.
Colour, especially gold metallic seemed to grab her but it had to have foor doors and she liked the appearance of an MX5. Well, yes.
So we ended up with a 5 door Hyundai Getz - I keep mentioning the 'sporty' small steering wheel and the ability to nip in and out of traffic gaps. Happy so far until the new 4 door MX5 comes out.
And I do know that the RX8 is 4 door - but a rotary engine does not like short trips.
--
I wasna fu but just had plenty.
|
|
I have just browsed through this thread and seen OldHand dismissing a non-turbo Impreza. I am rather amazed that he doesn't consider it sporting. I currently have a 2.0RX on order following an extensive test drive. If its not a sports saloon than neither was my old E39 series BMW 520i because the non-turbo Impreza is as fast and goes round corners at least as well. I wonder if he has ever driven one?
|
Driven the old n/a Impreza as a loaner- to be honest it was carp at being a sports car but compared to something like a Toyota Carina streets ahead.
I agree an E39 520 isn't a sports saloon either. It does at least though have a rear driven chassis and is a completely different kettle of fish to an Impreza. Like comparing chalk and chinese food.
|
I agree an E39 520 isn't a sports saloon either.
Your not agreeing with me because I think the 520i is a sports saloon. And I think many thousands of owners would agree with me. If you are excluding cars like the 320i, 520i and so on then your definition of sports saloon does not leave us with many cars to choose from. A sports car does not have to be powerful, but it should be fun to drive My next door neighbour has just bought a 1989 MX5 1.6 as a summer fun car. He's been out in it in the recent fine weather and really enjoying it.
|
Your not agreeing with me because I think the 520i is a sports saloon. And I think many thousands of owners would agree with me. If you are excluding cars like the 320i 520i and so on then your definition of sports saloon does not leave us with many cars to choose from. A sports car does not have to be powerful but it should be fun to drive My next door neighbour has just bought a 1989 MX5 1.6 as a summer fun car. He's been out in it in the recent fine weather and really enjoying it.
Qualifying as a 'sports car' has nothing to do with outright power and everything to do with focus of intent in my opinion. That's why your neighbour's MX-5 qualifies as one and your old cruiser doesn't.
An E39 520 is a fine car but it 'aint no 'sports car' neither is it a 'sporting saloon'.
|
|
please note I had no intention of quoting the entire passage above but an accidental click led to it being posted and now, due to the lack of edit facility, I'm having to post an explanation!
|
Qualifying as a 'sports car' has nothing to do with outright power and everything to do with focus of intent in my opinion. That's why your neighbour's MX-5 qualifies as one and your old cruiser doesn't. An E39 520 is a fine car but it 'aint no 'sports car' neither is it a 'sporting saloon'.
So what is a sporting saloon then? A 320i, a 323i, a 330i ?? Can a 3 series be one, but not a 5 series? Making it up as you go along I think. But I give you full marks for tenacity.
I'm kind of losing interet now its boring.
|
Some people like to call sparkling white wine from the antipodes 'Champagne'- I most certainly don't. If you're the type that does then that's entirely your prerogative.
For a saloon to be sporting it at least has to have some poke (which discounts anything with the power to weight ratio of Bernard Manning), I'd also suggest it needs to be a manual. I could go on but that would be at the risk of boring you yet further.............
These definitions are of course arbitrary but as in the case with our fizzy plonk I do find it rather amusing when people try to 'jazz up' the way their rather pedestrian car sounds by calling it a 'sports car'.
|
I hadn't thought to suggest a TT but they are pretty high spec in 225 form and are a beautiful car from the inside as well as surprisingly practical.
Main problem with these, you are required to be a small bald man, of mature years, doing a good impression of 'wat no' character, with just his hands & top of his head visible from the drivers door frame.
At least all the ones I see around, are like this!!
VB
|
|
A friend of mine who works for IBM had one (a TT) as a company car about 3 or 4 years ago. He was not impressed with it, disappointed in fact, and the few times I travelled in it made me feel very claustrophobic. Its a just Golf in fancy dress isn't it?
|
A friend of mine who works for IBM had one (a TT) as a company car about 3 or 4 years ago. He was not impressed with it disappointed in fact and the few times I travelled in it made me feel very claustrophobic. Its a just Golf in fancy dress isn't it?
With part time 4 wheel drive, 40bhp more and better brakes yes.
|
|
|
|
|
