A '97-99 Impreza Sport Wagon would fit the bill. Forester is nice too, but not *quite* so much fun on the curves as the Impreza and I think you'd struggle to source one at your price.
A lot of non-turbo Imprezas were sold to sensible people who wanted a rugged and reliable car - so long as you avoid buying a 'modified' car off a numpty you should be fine. They are difficult to kill. Probably best to avoid any turbos at this price/vintage since they will likely have been driven to hell and back (unless you are VERY lucky).
Service parts are cheap from the factors and theres enough in the breakers yard so that if something 'big' does go then you can source secondhand.
|
Rarely will I ever challenge Aprillia but today I will.
An Impreza Sport has an engine which develops only 114bhp. This is not a lot. However, it's even less by the time it goes through that 4wd drivetrain and hits the tarmac. At a rolling road session once, I saw an Impreza Sport make 65bhp at the wheels.
Now, the Impreza isnt a heavy beast but it's sitll over a tonne and I'm sorry, but with that sort of power, even though it grips well with its 4wd, it's not enough to be fun.
You'd have far more fun in a Mk1 Mazda MX5, especially as you'd feel a chump driving around in a Subaru Impreza which can be had from the traffic lights by a sales rep in a diesel Mondeo.
|
Cheers for the advice, definitely some food for thought here. 65BHP at the wheels does sound a bit grim.
As for the bike rack idea - it is something I've thought about but the value of the bikes attached is considerably more than the car (my bike's in the range of £1500 and my usual riding buddy is probably going on for 3k) which you may consider stupid, but there it is. As such I'm loathe to strap them to the back of a car, both for security and fear of them dropping off.
I did have a look at Primeras actually, I used to have one yonks ago. It was just rather whale like round the corners, although it was dead comfy on the motorway.
|
|
The Citroen Xsara VTS or Peugeot 306 GTi-6 may be an option although I guess reliability wouldn't be as good as a Subaru. Handling from my recollection of driving some Xsara VTS' when they first came out is very good.
|
A GTi-6 is VERY tempting, but I would worry about reliability. That said, my dad's an ex mechanic and likes Pugs, so maybe they're not so bad. Don't like Xsaras, think they're hideous - not the best reason for discounting, but y'know.
Late model last shape Primera Sport+ looks like it could be an option too...
|
Late model last shape Primera Sport+ looks like it could be an option too...
Yes, they are a good motor. Depends what you want though. Suby or Nissan would be fine. I would stay away from older French stuff though....
|
|
|
Don't like Xsaras think they're hideous - not the best reason for discounting but y'know.
I don't know- I think the fact that you don't like the look of them is a fairly good reason to discount them!
I won't tell SWMBO though- she has a Mk II 5 door 2 litre and loves it and it is good fun to drive. I personally think the Mk I Xsaras look much better though.
|
|
|
|
|
MichaelR
You don't need rapid acceleration for a car to be 'fun' - the Mk1 MX-5 that you mention is a good example, but it wouldn't be so good for carrying bikes etc. And I bet on a bit of twisting road in a well set up std Impreza I could leave that Diesel Mondeo a looong way behind. Traffic light Grand Prix is for kids, I've long outgrown that.
The extra driven wheels on AWD will take some power due to mechanical losses, but not that much. All cars make significantly less at the road than at the flywheel. In your example you are suggesting that the drivetrain absorbs 50bhp - or near on half of the engine's power - its not that much. More like 25bhp max, and I doubt even that.
|
For about 2k you mght be able to pick up a lateish Carleton estate? big, roomy enough to put bikes inside or on roof, and still quite a lively drive.
Billy
|
Cars are such a personal thing though. To be fair, if it were down to looks I'd have an Alfa Romeo, but, well, I'd quite like to drive it more than it's in the garage!
Pugs seem to be fairly cheap, but I suspect there's probably a lot have been thrashed... Might be worth a punt if I can find a goodun though.
|
|
|
|
I agree that the drivetrain losses on the car tested are somewhat awry.
Either the engine was running badly to start with, or the brakes were sticking on, or the tyres were being run at too low a pressure.
Driveline losses are virtually always mis-estimated by the aftermarket operators of rolling roads.
As an example, a typical oil seal will give about 0.5 Nm of frictional drag on the shaft.
torque=0.5; %Nm speed=4000; %rpm omega=(speed/60)*2*pi; power=torque*omega
power =
209.4395
power_BHP=torque*omega/746
power_BHP =
0.2808
This is taking the worst case of a shaft spinning quite quickly.
Also, a typical spur gear pair is over 99% efficient. Helicals a liitle less, and the variations on a theme of hypoid a little less again.
Oil drag is one of the dominating losses. But, how long could just a few litres of transmission oil take dissipating 50 BHP before boiling dry? (That's the equivalent about 12 3KW kettles!)
The loss of 50 BHP is almost certainly not due to normal drivetrain losses.
Number_Cruncher
Edited by Number_Cruncher on 07/01/2008 at 16:39
|
|
Well if nothing else I'm learning stuff from this thread... Even if I don't really understand it!
|
Good info N_C.
To be honest most of the rolling road stuff I've seen is a load of BS. And I am doubtful of the accuracy of any 'Fred in a shed' rolling road measurements of a Subaru AWD (four driven wheels). If you want a good laugh then stick an auto tranny on there and let them do a test - they always come out with lower transmission loss than a manual...
Where does all this energy go from the supposed losses in an AWD system - heat I guess? Given that the couple of pints of oil in a Subaru transmission never seem to get as warm as my bathwater (not even after a long hard drive) I postulate that the AWD losses are very small.....
A typical 2WD manual is about 95% efficient - I reckon a Subaru AWD might knock another couple of percent off that, but no more...
Edited by Aprilia on 07/01/2008 at 16:53
|
|
This is not the first time that MichaelR has taken this exaggerated line on Subaru driveline power losses. Last time it was in support of his contention that non-turbo Subarus are dog slow.
|
A non-turbo 2.0 Imprezza counts as the most fun car I've ever spun round the hills, and was going to be my suggestion until I read the last line of OP's post and saw he'd got there first.
Thirsty, mind. And noisy on the motorway owing to the large number of revs you need to scrape your way up to 70mph.
|
A non-turbo 2.0 Imprezza counts as the most fun car I've ever spun round the hills and was going to be my suggestion until I read the last line of OP's post and saw he'd got there first. Thirsty mind. And noisy on the motorway owing to the large number of revs you need to scrape your way up to 70mph.
As BR 'regulars' will know, I do rather like Subarus because they are good to drive, reliable and you can see that they've been designed by engineers rather than bean counters - although after developing the same driveline for the best part of 40 years it should be sorted out by now!
The 'non-turbo' Imprezas come in various guises and you can't really group them all together and make generalised comments. Engine power, gearing, chassis spec etc varied quite a lot over the years. Certainly the phase 1 models have their shortcomings - drum brakes on the early ones and (IIRC) only 96bhp from the engine and no rear ARB (although one can be retrofitted for not much money).
If you can stretch to a so-called 'Newage' model (early Bugeye) they are a much nicer car with a stiffer chassis and with the differences between the turbo and non-turbo somewhat reduced.
The 2005-2007 models (Hawkeye) are really rather good and quite reasonably refined. Essentially its the same 'four-cam' 160bhp powertrain as in the latest Legacy and Forester 2.0 models, with the same gearing - and it works well in the lighter Impreza bodyshell. The chassis is very very similar spec to the WRX models so they drive very nicely. I think Subaru realised they needed to improve sales of the non-turbos in the UK (they do well in the rest of the world) and so narrowed the differences between the models very considerably. Having driven both specs I would say the non-turbo makes a very practical and reasonably economical everyday car for the not so 'hard core' enthusiast and its one of my favourite small cars. The turbo will give you the extra thrust - but you pay for it at the pumps, on your road tax and insurance - its a case of pays your money and makes your choice - as is always the case with cars and bhp unfortunately
If the OP decides on an Impreza then he needs to check the spec of the particular car very carefully (ARB fitment and size, brake fitment etc etc).
|
Firstly, thanks for all the above for the advice, it's certainly given me a few things to think about. I definitely still like the idea of an Impreza, and I'm not TOO bothered about all out power - my Golf has a claimed 75bhp, which I suspect is more like hight 50s now if I'm lucky. If I was after something with silly power I could get a T5 and buy new tyres as often as petrol! The Peugeot 306 GTi-6 is also tempting, but worries about reliability are paramount. I think I might see if I can get a test drive in each of them and see which I prefer.
I also have some insurance questions, but I'm going to search the forum before I ask them!
Thanks again
|
GTI-6's are reliable enough if they've had regular servicing, and an all important cambelt change every 40k. They can suffer problems with the airbag and door wiring, and the trim's a bit poundshop, but generally speaking won't let you down. There are stacks with 120k+ up for sale that still go hard and handle well - not the mark of a fragile car.
I would also argue that you will not find anything more enjoyable to throw around corners for the money, and I would include an Impreza 2.0 Sport in that which although not a slow car by any stretch, doesn't have anything like the power it needs to work such a fantastic 4wd chassis hard. The Peugeot also has better weighted steering, more progressive brakes and a better ride.
Cheers
DP
|
|
I think I need to find a good one of each and take them for a spin and see what I like the best. There seem to be a few Imprezas around, and there's a what looks like a standard GTi-6 on Autotrader 50 miles from me with a part history and 69k on the clock for 2 grand. For some reason no one seems to like fun cars around Hull...
|
Make sure that 69k car has had a cambelt change. If it's running to Peugeot service schedules, it probably won't have had, and therefore is running on borrowed time. These belts fail at anything from 50k upwards. I would be reluctant to even drive it home if not (but could be a good bargaining tool if you have a mate with a trailer).
This engine revs to 7200 RPM - use every last one of them for the best performance. Engine feels quite ordinary at low revs, but properly wakes up over 5k. Should sound beautifully sweet and eager at high revs.
Steering should be on the heavy side with no free play around the dead ahead. Suspension should be near silent, and the ride comfortable but firmly damped. Walk away from anything not running on standard wheels or suspension, however "professionally" the seller claims to have had it set up. Peugeot are one of the few companies that make their own dampers which tells you all you need to know about how seriously they took the handling and ride on these cars. Bolt on tat from a catalogue won't do it any favours at all.
You may have guessed I have a soft spot for the GTI-6, and I will be buying one myself as soon as circumstances allow. I have driven three of them, and all were an absolute blast.
Cheers
DP
|
|
This is not the first time that MichaelR has taken this exaggerated line on Subaru driveline power losses. Last time it was in support of his contention that non-turbo Subarus are dog slow.
Even if the drivetrain losses are far better, it doesn't change the fact that 114bhp is simply not enough for a 4 door saloon car. Let alone one chosen for fun. I don't really see how that can be disputed. A 1.6 litre Focus has more for goodness sake!
There is nothing wrong with lower power - in the right car. The right car would be, say, a 106 Rallye. Barely 100bhp, but less than 700kg. Lots of smiles. If you want bigger cars than this, they require more power.
1200kg and 114bhp? zzzzz. Nothing more. Its a car that lived off the reputation of its fire breathing brother - a fire breathing brother which makes it look even more daft when you step out of your 'Scooby', someone asks if its a Turbo, and you say 'Well actually...'
Edited by MichaelR on 08/01/2008 at 13:43
|
Are you sure it's only 114bhp? I had a 98R Impreza Sport as a temporary company car for a few weeks and while it was no fireball, it felt pokier than that.
Cheers
DP
|
|
Yes - a revised engine was introduced in 1999ish which took the power output to the heady heights of 124bhp, but the 98 ones were definately 114bhp.
|
Point taken about the now overly meaty motor in the Subaru, it's not over much power for a fairly heavy car, but then again as I said it's gonna be a step up from a wavering Golf! I guess if I go down that route I'll be looking for a post 99 (or whatever) one.
To DP - cheers for the advice, and I'll bear it in mind RE the cambelt. Might see if I can get them to chuck it in as part of the deal.
|
1200kg and 114bhp? zzzzz. Nothing more. Its a car that lived off the reputation of its fire breathing brother - a fire breathing brother which makes it look even more daft when you step out of your 'Scooby' someone asks if its a Turbo and you say 'Well actually...'
What a load of tosh!
I had an Impreza turbo for six months in the late '90s. It was a good car, but a little too unrefined for my taste and cost me an arm and a leg to run it.
Last year I wanted to buy a new small car and after test driving a few of the usual suspects I tried an Impreza 2.0R, the one with the 160bhp engine. Its so much more refined than the old turbo was, in every respect, and I really enjoyed the test drive. I tried a new WRX as well. Purchase price, within a few £1000's, was not a big issue, but I couldn't justify the considerably higher running cost of the WRX for local driving and commuting, I worked out £80 a month more expensive to run. With three kids I need to be a bit more sensible. I got a new car for just over £12k and I'm totally satisfied with the performance of the car, its probably quicker than 80% of what's on the road, economy is so far pretty good and insurance in only £270 fully comp. I enjoy driving it and would say that, yes, its 'fun'. I'm not too bothered what the lads in Maccy D's car park think either, its a 'maturity' thing you know.
|
|
Just to throw the proverbial cat amongst the pigeons, I've discovered that insurance isn't too silly on a VR6 Golf or Corrado, and the Golfs fall comfortably within my budget. I'm sure it won't handle as well as the Pug, but I DO like Golfs a lot and they are reliable
|
One problem you'll have is that your budget covers a huge range of older cars, which can make rational selection difficult. There's always that 'other' car you've just seen on the Autotrader website and it's only 250 miles away and..... and.... ad infinitum.
Balancing 'fun', budget, reliability and 'image' is never easy - and even though you might think you're impervious to that last factor, it can sneak up on you.... :-(
Good luck with your search.
Edited by OldSock on 08/01/2008 at 16:51
|
|
Nah, I'm a sucker for image, although I think I have some slightly odd tendencies in that direction. SWMBO reckons that the right car will just present itself, she could well be right
|
|
Oh - forgot to say: SAAB 9-5 2.3 Turbo estate
|
|
Just watch out for the timing chains on the VR6 engine. IIRC they might require changing around the 80K mark else they can snap with bad consequential damage.
|
Purchase pricewithin a few £1000's was not a big issue but I couldn't justify the considerably higher running cost of the WRX for local driving and commuting I worked out £80 a month more expensive to run. With three kids I need to be a bit more sensible. I got a new car for just over £12k
So for the sake of saving £960 a year, you spent quite a few thousands more (presumably; you don't specify, but 12k doesn't sound like 'a few thousands' to me)? Buying a *new* car to save money on running costs seldom makes any sense.
|
What a load of tosh! I had an Impreza turbo for six months in the late '90s. It was a good car but a little too unrefined for my taste and cost me an arm and a leg to run it.
Last year I wanted to buy a new small car and after test driving a few of the usual suspects I tried an Impreza 2.0R the one with the 160bhp engine. Its so much more refined than the old turbo was in every respect and I really enjoyed the test drive.
Err great. But the difference is that the 2.0R has 160bhp and the older Sport has 114bhp. That is a huge difference. I'm not suprised you liked it, 160bhp is far, far more suited.
Not entirely sure how that makes anything I've said tosh.
|
>someone asks if its a Turbo, and you say 'Well actually...'
Is your BM a turbo, then? Not all of us need 200 bhp to enjoy ourselves...
|
Not all of us need 200 bhp to enjoy ourselves...
Where did I say they did? I just said you need more than 114bhp to enjoy yourself in a 4 door saloon. Not that if it doesn't have 200bhp it's rubbish. A Nissan Primera GT, for example, can be fun to drive - it has 150bhp. Hardly a monster, yet a well suited power output.
|
"Where did I say they did?"
Er, here, actually..
tinyurl.com/2gcpjp
|
"Where did I say they did?" Er here actually.. tinyurl.com/2gcpjp
Thats MY PERSONAL OPINION of how much power *I* would personally like in a car. It is nothing to do with how much power you need to have in a car and nothing to do with this thread.
Nice try.
|
>>the fact that 114bhpis simply not enough for a 4 door saloon car. Let alone one chosen for fun. I don't really see how that can be disputed.
If you really want the four door just to get from A-B 114bhp is plenty. Even our 1.9 Berlingo on around 70bhp moves a family of four and camping kit at the motorway limit. The 110 Xantia feels quicker on A roads but it doesn't knock off real miles significantly faster; 12 hours from Skye to Northampton in either car.
If you want more poke for fun or to impress fair enough but it certainly ain't necessary
|
If you really want the four door just to get from A-B 114bhp is plenty. Even our 1.9 Berlingo on around 70bhp moves a family of four and camping kit at the motorway limit. The 110 Xantia feels quicker on A roads but it doesn't knock off real miles significantly faster; 12 hours from Skye to Northampton in either car.
A 110 Xantia will be a 2 litre HDI. What it lacks in bhp it makes up in torque - circa 200nm.
The Impreza Sport has no such backup plan.
|
|
|
"Where does all this energy go from the supposed losses in an AWD system"
Good question. IIRC, in the early days of the Audi Quattro, they argued (cogently, in my view) that the engine ends up driving all the wheels whether or not they have a powered axle, so the losses were insignificant, and in some cases, completely offset by the additional traction...
|
|
|
|
|
|
"At a rolling road session once, I saw an Impreza Sport make 65bhp at the wheels"
That would be two of the four driven wheels, presumably...
|
I'm going to add my support for the Xsara VTR/VTS and also the 306 GTi-6. As others have said as long as they are treated right (good servicing and doing the cambelt and tensioners every 40k) the little french hot hatches will look after you well and put a massive smile on your face.
I've currently got a Xsara VTR 1.8 16v Coupe and can't fault it. In the 6 months i've had it nothing has gone wrong with it, however the Golf GTi i had previous to it had loads go wrong in the 3 months i had it. You will also get a newer better equipped pug/citroen for the sam price as a golf GTi.
If your looking for good ones for sale have a look on www.306gti6.com/forum/forum.php
|
I have to say, Xsara VTS does make a lot of sense - more so even than the GTi-6. They are cheap as chips becuase they dont appeal to the boy racer squad (Becuase the 306 GTi-6 looks better and the Xsara VTS looks a bit dull) but with their performance and insurance grouping they dont appeal to people who dont care about cars either.
It's a GTi-6 under the skin but with a 5 speed box and a more modern interior. For loads less money. Bargaintastic!
|
I bought my Xsara 1.8 VTR coupe 6 months ago and paid £1100 for an S reg with 79K on the clock and full service history. VTS go for between £1000 and £2000. I decided on the 1.8 16v because most of the 1.6 VTR's have been driven hard to get the most out of them and the 2.0 16 VTS will have been driven hard by the nature of what they are whilst the 1.8 16v VTR seemed to be have lead an easier life and been better treated.
The handling is excellent, it's pretty nippy and i average between 36 and 40 mpg. It's most of the toys you would want (and they work!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
