Are there any Fast yet economical cars out there?

FlameCloud

I think his point that was that a >8 second 0-60 car cannot be considered 'fast', not any more, merely normal.

I would also have a look at the Seat Ibiza Cupra- from memory its the same 1.9 tdi engine but with 160 instead of 130 hp.

thescouselander

Road_Hog wrote: »

No he was talking out of his bottom. One of the cars the OP mentioned and I commented on was the Civic 2.2 diesel, it has an acceleration figure of
0-60mph in 8.6 seconds. That isn't slow and that isn't an expensive car. I doubt that the other cars were slow either but I'm not as familiar with them.

So he doesn't know what he is on about.

I disagree, 0-60 in 8.6 seconds is pretty average IMHO. I have driven some fast diesels but they all had large engines (over 3 litres). As others have posted already I would consider a "fast' car would go from 0-60 in less than 8 seconds, maybe even less than 7 seconds.

maniac886

This thread could go on for ever....the OP could consider any of these cars to be nippy...he could have had a fiat punto for a previous car so....

The OP should really go out and drive some of the suggested cars to see how they drive and what they are like for size and economy.

We all consider the definition of fast to be different..I would consider the Fabia VRS to be fast as I have owned a punto and Focus!

Road_Hog

FlameCloud wrote: »

I think his point that was that a >8 second 0-60 car cannot be considered 'fast', not any more, merely normal.

I would also have a look at the Seat Ibiza Cupra- from memory its the same 1.9 tdi engine but with 160 instead of 130 hp.

I'll give you that one, at least a fair comparison, but I don't think it's in production anymore.

tomstickland

Road_Hog wrote: »

And the figures on the Civic are?

Or did you deliberately miss them off?

Edit: BTW Parkers says 8.3 secs, you may call that warm, but I say it's rapid for a new hot hatch diesel that costs £16,480 retail new.

No, I just didn't bother looking. All I was interested in was seeing whether there was any reason why a 220,000 mile 1.8 16v seemed to be slighty quicker in accelerating than a Fabia vRS. I didn't even know what engine was in the Fabia before last night.

0-60 8.3s for a £16K car. It's OK. I'd never spend £16K though when I could spend a few K and buy an older car with RWD that'd be faster than that.

tomstickland

About 5 years ago I had a 1991 Astra GTE 8v. They were book time 0-60 in the mid 8s IIRC. The 16v model with 156BHP was in the high 7s.

By the time I'd finished with it I'd got the weight down to 880Kg via some serious stripping of uncessary parts and was making 155-160BHP via twin 40 Dellortos, and headwork. This isn't a bull !!!! figure - I've still got a file of measurements from 4 rolling roads and about 15 visits where I checked various states of tune. I also did a lot of reading and calculated various things, along with some top speed tests (power proportional to speed cubed). I did all sorts of other things, like lower the gearing, solid engine mounts, welding up the shell, etc etc

So that was around 170BHP/tonne and that felt quite fast when I was in the right mood. I was quite into mathematical performance modelling and managed to calibrate my existing results quite reliably against 1/4 mile times and speeds, along with measured 0-60 times from a car show I went to.

The maths model said it was capable of 0-60 in about 6.7s, results which fit on the power to weight population graph within the trend.

Anyway, it felt fast when you were in the mood. But about once a week I'd be thinking "it feels a bit slow today". Then I'd look in the mirror and watch how quickly things were getting smaller, or I'd wait until the early hours and check it could reach high speeds easily on the motorway. Back in the day! Oh, then I had day when it put it up for comparison with an Audi A4 and thrashed that, they wre not happy. Then a UK spec Subura Imprezza coming off the Severn bridge toll boths - neck and neck until my engine got to 5,000 rpm and into it's real output band . TBH it was actually pretty fast, but you just take it for granted after a while. Of course, it destructed itself in the end, going to 7,500rpm every day took its toll.

I'm now in a 95% standard old BMW that's got a book time 0-60 in the 9s. It's not officially fast by any stretch, but I find it fast enough and a lot of fun.

Talking of 170BHP/tonne, why hasn't anyone mentioned the Clio 172? With a basic 2.0 16v engine, if it was driven carefully it could return mid 30s on the mpg I'd guess.

ACID

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

Sorry but 0-60mph in 8.6 seconds is not fast, ok? My 1.7 tonne Mercedes can do 0-60 in 8.9 seconds. It isn't fast.

A 4.0 TVR Griffith doing 0-60 in 4.7 seconds is fast. 8.6 seconds is not fast.

that is fast for a low cost economnical car!

you cant compare a tvr with a green car!

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

Road_Hog wrote: »

Is it a diesel? what Mercedes model is it so that I can check the spec and does it cost £16.5K new?



Is the TVR diesel? Is it £16.5K new?

No thought not, stop picking cars that are not a fair comparison.

The OP wasn't asking about new cars.

They're a totally fair comparison. It matters not what they cost or what fuel they use - what matters is how fast and economical they are. 0-60 in 8.6 seconds is not fast. Anyone who thinks it is is clearly one of those people who think that their 1.9Tdi can out-accelerate anything on the road, including a Caterham.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

ACID wrote: »

that is fast for a low cost economnical car!

you cant compare a tvr with a green car!

Yes I can. I just did. My TVR could do 30mpg if I wanted. Buy an S-series for £4000 and you'll manage better than that.

An S-series at around that price isn't going to depreciate any further and will manage better mpg figures - which to my mind makes it more economical than some euro oilbox that would still lose £1000 a year in depreciation.

BillScarab

To get back to reality the OP said they want an economical car that is "quite nippy". Personally although 8.6 seconds to 60mph may not be fast by modern standards I would suggest it is "quite nippy".

To be honest I would think if the OP wants a small, economical, nippy car the best thing would be to get a decent old 205 GTi, they weigh next to nothing so if you drive them gently it will be economical, theyr'e quick enough when you want and they won't lose anything as they're already starting to be considered a classic.