An 'economical' car on a par with a Golf VR6 for performance?

JustAnotherSaver

custardy wrote: »

Which still comes down to torque

I know what it comes down to. I'm not denying that. All i'm saying is - what fits the bill.

Anyway, still lost at how a Micra can be nippy. I've been in his VR6 before & it's quick. Fast is fast, regardless of whether it weighs a bag of sugar or a tank. If it's quick then it's quick.

I figured with the 150 diesels putting in a 0-60 of 8.5 seconds thereabouts, then a remapped one would perhaps be somewhere close.

Outside his range but i know the 150 MK5 Astra can be up there with the VXR after a remap. The 888 version is about 200bhp i think. Just has a chocolate gearbox.

custardy

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

I know what it comes down to. I'm not denying that. All i'm saying is - what fits the bill.

Anyway, still lost at how a Micra can be nippy. I've been in his VR6 before & it's quick. Fast is fast, regardless of whether it weighs a bag of sugar or a tank. If it's quick then it's quick.

I figured with the 150 diesels putting in a 0-60 of 8.5 seconds thereabouts, then a remapped one would perhaps be somewhere close.

Outside his range but i know the 150 MK5 Astra can be up there with the VXR after a remap. The 888 version is about 200bhp i think. Just has a chocolate gearbox.

Nobody is going to come up with an answer since you seem to know it all?
quick is quick doesnt quite stand.
Try driving a fast turbo car with a whomping great turbo on it
fast yes,but not off the lights without launch control/4wd and control

scheming_gypsy

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

Anyway, still lost at how a Micra can be nippy. I've been in his VR6 before & it's quick. Fast is fast, regardless of whether it weighs a bag of sugar or a tank. If it's quick then it's quick.

.

A quick car gets to speed faster. A fast car has a high top end speed - there's a big difference.
You might have been in his VR6 and think it's quick but that's you thinking it's quick. I've got a 2.3 litre 240bhp car, it's fast but because of the turbo lag it's not as quick as it could be.

JustAnotherSaver

Not being funny, but never have i ever been anywhere so picky on word specifics. If i was to say this anywhere in the 'outside world' they would know what i was asking, whether i used the word quick, fast, speedy, rapid, or anything that was the opposite of slow.

It's not just this. I find [some] MSE members seem to really stick on word specifics. Some times i feel i should be sending my posts off to be analyzed before i hit submit.


But still, ok then, since all cars can technically only go 70mph, let's talk about 'quick' cars then.

scheming_gypsy

Seriously?
you're asking for opinions on cars comparable to a Golf VR6 with better fuel economy. You got answers and you complained about them, then when people explain the difference you're complaining about that as well.
Why don't you just tell your relative to find his own car as you're no help to him.
I've had a VR6 and it was fast but not 'quick'... just deal with it,

JustAnotherSaver

Fair enough.

But as i said, let's talk about quick cars then. This is also of interest to me because i would be looking at something similar.

OddballJamie

If I was after a quick hot hatch for around £2k these would be on my shortlist. Although not particularly economically.

Honda Civic 2.0 i-VTEC Type-R
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201310189345721

Renault Clio 2.0 16V Renaultsport 182
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201310249432338

Ultrasonic

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

I figured with the 150 diesels putting in a 0-60 of 8.5 seconds thereabouts, then a remapped one would perhaps be somewhere close.

You mentioned insurance costs as an issue above. A 150 bhp £2k car isn't going to be cheap to insure to start with, but I'm pretty confident that remapping one will make it even more expensive.

This thread sounds like mission impossible to me I'm afraid. If you could get an economical car with a 7 second 0-60 time for £2k we'd all be driving them!

JustAnotherSaver

Agreed. If we didn't care about fuel consumption then it'd be a whole different question. In fact if fuel consumption, coupled with road tax, coupled with insurance group wasn't even a worry then i wouldn't even be asking the question.

But affordability is key here. That's the whole package - car cost, tax, insurance, fuel cost, all whilst being "quick" if possible *checks he used the right term* Yup, i did. Good to go.

JustAnotherSaver

Ultrasonic wrote: »

This thread sounds like mission impossible to me I'm afraid. If you could get an economical car with a 7 second 0-60 time for £2k we'd all be driving them!

Not really. My mum for example likes basic A-B motoring. No frills. She owned an old Nova Saloon for 15 years. Only recently getting rid. She was more than happy with it.


EDIT: As an aside, just clicked the Civic link. Why do they all seem to go for those whopping tailpipes? It's a matter of opinion but i think they look bloody awful.