“Could it be the size?“
For me it’s the electric power steering which offers nowhere near the feel of the older hydraulic or non-assisted racks. Plus they’re all too powerful especially the front wheel drive cars. Even hot hatch superminis like the Polo, Clio and Fiesta have the guts of 200bhp. The driving and steering wheels are all over the place whenever you try to deploy full power at lower speeds where an older hot hatch like a Clio 16v would be fully usable at any time.
Prices too are far too high today with hot hatches over-complex and gadget laden instead of simple and fun driving tools. Often they’ve complex but rapid changing twin clutch gearboxes sometimes there not even an option of a manual box which is to me essential on a hot hatch. Renault tried to market the current Clio Sport as an auto only and sales totally flopped. It was no fun compared to the old 182/197 Clio’s.
|
Prices too are far too high today with hot hatches over-complex and gadget laden instead of simple and fun driving tools.
Back in the day, the joys of the 205 GTi and its imitations were soon reflected in large hikes in insurance premiums as the boy racers tended to crash them. What happens these days?
|
|
I agree there's no power-to-fun connection. It's as much fun driving my TR7 as my A8 sport quattro, which can convey more power to each wheel than the TR7 can produce for the whole car! Back in the 1970s motoring was much more fun on uncrowded roads with no speed cameras. In my pioneering Spen King 16 valve Dolomite Sprint I could return from an evening in central London to my home in Northamptonshire in less than an hour!
Edited by John F on 09/07/2019 at 11:30
|
|
I do think the days of the hot hatch are numbered. I can't think of anyone who owns one or yearns for one, back in the 80s and 90s myself and my contemparies would talk for hours about the merits of a gti or an xr3 or going back further we all lusted after the RS 2000, the dolomite Sprint etc. My grown up kids are not the slightest bit interested in cars except maybe EVS. Even the fashion driven friends of my daughter are driving awful stuff like Mokkas about, as they are apparently "cool" ! But performance _ no. To be honest, all cars these days have excess power, even my standard Civic has ridiculous power,more than I'll ever need. Why bother with more when superb engines from the likes of VW are putting out 150 bhp in a cooking shopping hatch!
|
Could it be the size? The current Golf is an elephant in comparison to the svelt product from 30-40 years ago. I am told that the Up GT is more fun than a current Golf, and about the same size as the original Golf
Mates Mrs had recently had an Up GTi but I would honestly say that it is smaller than the original Golf.
Our Fabia is nearer original Golf size (probably between Mk1 and Mk 2 in truth) externally but with the smaller engines there is without doubt more space inside then either.
As for performance our Fabia has 110 PS wheras my old Gold GTi had 112 bhp, very close. The Gold was definitely better on the pubished and magazine 0-60s (down to its lighter weight) but in reality who does 0-60 in the real world. The torque of the 1.0 TSi 148 @ 2000-3500 against 112 @ 4000) definitely makes the Fabia a bit quicker in the gears and allows it to pull a much higher top gear 70 mph was 3500 rpm in the Golf and is 2400 in the Fabia in 6th).
Put the 1.0 TSi in a Mk 2 and that would be interesting. Would beat the 1.8 without a doubt.
1.8 did an average of about 33 mpg, the 1.0 TSi is averaging approx 50 mpg.
|
myself and my contemparies would talk for hours about the merits of a gti or an xr3
Had both and I can tell you which was best.
I started hating the XR3i about 2 miles after picking it up. It replaced a 1600 Mk2 Harrier and that car was without a doubt way better. I could not wait to get the 2 year loan paid off and see the back of it. Replaced it with a GTi and replaced that with another GTi. Ran them from 1986 to 1997, did a total of 161,000 miles in them, need I say more.
|
|
Anything with 200bhp+ is enjoyable to drive. they are usually "on the throttle" so to speak with very little right foot input. Golf GTI and Suburu WRX very good and if chipped better still. Standard Audi S3 frightening if you put your foot down! Most cars even the 1.0 turbos have much more go than previous generations.
|
Golf GTI and Suburu WRX very good and if chipped better still.
Define "better" or do you mean "faster".
I am yet to be convinced that a bloke in his bedroom with a laptop can do a better job of tuning a car than the manufacturer who has a huge development budget and many qualified experts to call on.
All the "f***ing" a chipped Subaru makes does not make them better but it does make it obvious that the driver is a clueless idiot.
|
|
Clearly skidpan you not appreciate some of the advantages of chipping a manufacturers set up of a standard car. No, by better I do not necessarily mean faster but by chipping and altering the rev range can give the car better drivability through the REV range and although bigger BHP it is seldom noticeable. In my experience it can also mean a Decrease in fuel consumption or no noticeable difference. Being a mature driver and having owned a Subaru I can tell you that the cars reputation goes before it, chipped or not. I suggest you apologise for the clueless idiot bit to all the Subaru owners who might read this and not be so confrontational in future.
There is a market of professional people in the car industry who develop software for cars which genuinely can improve on the standard set up for a wide range of manufacturers and is also available to diesel owners who perhaps are more concerned with MPG
|
In my experience it can also mean a Decrease in fuel consumption or no noticeable difference.
That is because the dash display reads higher figures than reality. People are disappointedwhen they do a tank to tank check and find out the dash is a bigger liar that an MP.
Being a mature driver and having owned a Subaru I can tell you that the cars reputation goes before it, chipped or not. I suggest you apologise for the clueless idiot bit to all the Subaru owners who might read this and not be so confrontational in future.
No just referring to Subaru owners, it applies to all those who drive round in modified cars that make huge noise and huge smoke with the drivers acting irresponsibly. Only a few weeks ago I was nearly run off the road by an Astra belching smoke and whistling on the over run, luckily a Police car came up another road a few seconds later and I was able to point him the direction the lunatic went, not difficult to follow the smoke. Hope he caught him, impounded the car and gave him enough points to take him off the road.
|
|
Ah skidpan, the mk 2 harrier! There was something ridiculously addictive about those and the Escort 1600 sport with stripped out interior. Now those were fun cars, they really were! Why can't we buy something that feels as much fun these days!
|
|
Anything with 200bhp+ is enjoyable to drive...
It wasn't always so. I remember the fun of bad turbo lag.
I hated my Saab 9-5 Aero. I was pleased to change job and get a BMW 330d instead.
|
Anything with 200bhp+ is enjoyable to drive...
But where? Only on a track.
At its peak my Caterham had 208 bhp. At the time it was stripped of what trim you get with glass fibre shell seats, weighed 530 kg thus it was 392 bhp/tonne.When I stopped using it at the track I simply reinstated the trim but it was simply impossible to use all the power any of the time and keep your license. Then I had an issue with the oil pressure relief valve which resulted in a damaged crank, that's what you get using non oem oil pumps.
So I put in my old standard engine just to get me through the summer whilst I sourced parts for the tuned motor. The standard engine was as taken from a burned out Mondeo but it had external parts fitted to enable it to work in its new home. It put out about 160 bhp, not bad considering it had probably been to the moon.
With that engine in the car was brilliant, way better on the road than the tuned engine, so brilliant I went out and bought a brand new crate Focus 2 litre engine and sold the damaged engine in bits together with the bits off the crate engine I did not need. Engine cost £750, total sales £550 thus the Focus engine cost me £200, not bad for after what seemed like a bit of a disaster at the time.
11 years later the Focus engine is still in the car in standard spec (other than the bits needed to fit and get it working). Puts out about 175 bhp and drives like a normal road car. Way more pleasure than the peaky engine and in the real world just as fast and more usable (and it does about 35 mpg instead of the 25 mpg the tuned engine did on the road).
Twice a year we go to Scotland, 430 miles door to door, been doing it since about 1994. Route is exactly the same but parts have been improved, however traffic is far busier now.
Back in 1994 we had a 1800 Bluebird with about 80 bhp, used to take us about 8 hours with 3 stops and a refuel.
Then it was Golf TDi 90. Bit quicker in that, 3 stops, no refuel, took us just under 8 hours normally.
In May in the Superb with 150 bhp we had a really good run with no hold up and with a 14 gallon tank no refuel but still 3 stops. Took 7 hours 30 minutes, about 7 hours driving time, average speed 61 mph.
Could we have done it any quicker in a car with 200 + bhp, of course we could but we could have done it considerably quicker in the Superb if we had driven at illegal speeds instead of setting cruise at the true speed limits.
I am fortunate enough to have the ability to buy pretty much the car I want but the Superb suits me just fine. Enough power for the real world (actually its the mid range grunt of the 1.4 TSi that impresses) and great economy.
Why pay a fortune more to get form A to B in the same time.
|
|
Indeed why pay a fortune, a £500 banger could due the trip in about the same time. Individual choice, so stop harping on about your cheap VW
|
stop harping on about your cheap VW
Haha! I've got the expensive one [https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/road-tests/skoda/skoda-superb-20-tsi-272-2019-road-test/] and just back from a holiday to skye and Aviemore.
The fuel trip showed 43.4 mpg at the halfway mark and eventually I managed to get just over 40 mpg out of a tank (calculated) doing anything between 55-65 mph.
Not bad for a 280 hp engine (I think).
As a counterpont, a 2 mile circuit of a local safari park at 6 mph showed 17.8 mpg on the trip!
|
|
Smug huh I just rented a xxxxx from Sixt etc etc and no depreciation!
|
|
Only joking, I like the Superb and that's the one to have
|
|
|
“Had both and I can tell you which was best.
I started hating the XR3i about 2 miles after picking it up. It replaced a 1600 Mk2 Harrier and that car was without a doubt way better. I could not wait to get the 2 year loan paid off and see the back of it.”
Have to agree. I’ve driven pretty much every 80’s and 90’s hot hatch and the XR3i (a car I always wanted) was a big disappointment on first acquaintance. A Mk II GTi was by far the better car and it only got better with more miles. I preferred the cheaper 8v which was in real life just as quick on the road, in fact it had more low speed pull so actually felt more urgent most of the time.
|
|
|
|
|
“I do think the days of the hot hatch are numbered. I can't think of anyone who owns one or yearns for one, back in the 80s and 90s myself and my contemparies would talk for hours about the merits of a gti or an xr3 or going back further we all lusted after the RS 2000, the dolomite Sprint etc. My grown up kids are not the slightest bit interested in cars”
They’ve become bland appliances and something they will never own, like Radio Rentals they just rent them forever. Kids don’t seem to do car talk at all these days, there’s little interest in maintaining or improving a car they’ll never own. Speak to most of them about motors and they just glaze over. My friends and I were all mad about cars as teens with hours spent debating what was the best hot hatch and tinkering with the heaps we owned.
|
I am yet to be convinced that a bloke in his bedroom with a laptop can do a better job of tuning a car than the manufacturer who has a huge development budget and many qualified experts to call on.
You may well have a point if you are starting with a 'performance' car, but what if you have a car using the same engine 'detuned' to fit with its place in the range, its price, or its purpose?.
Is 'chipping' a 1.4TSI 125 Leon up to the 150bhp (as already available in other versions) going to do it any harm, or taking the basic 1.2 TSI up from 84 to 105bhp?. Another example being the current VW Caddy. This can be had with a 2.0 TDI producing either 75 or 102 bhp, both figures being way less than what the engine produces in the Golf GTD (181 bhp). So is 'unlocking' some of the potential we know is in the engine going to harm it?.
Yet another example (and i know this is straying yet further from the topic) is the Hyundai iLoad van. The reason i know about this particular one is because i had looked into getting one for my work. The iLoad is basically just a van version of the i800, which is a huge 8 seat mpv. The i800 uses a 2.5 turbo diesel producing 168bhp, but the iLoad van, with a detuned version of the same engine, only makes 114bhp.
|
|
SLO, hot hatches are no where near as popular as they were in the 80s/early 90s. The average car is often as quick as those cars and that's fast enough for most people. Quick enough is quick enough.
|
I was recently a passenger in a brand new Morgan plus 4. Well that was a step back in time. The driver found it fun but not relaxing. The front end became bouncy at around 70 and hitting bumps on corners unsettled the rear. Reading reviews it seems that this antedeluvial handling and lack of modern safety features is one of the main attractions for fans.
As a passenger it felt very fast indeed with 60 on a good "A" road feeling at least 20 mph faster. In contrast a recent trip in a Mustang 5 litre felt like 50 at a true 70.
Lovely cars for the day but not attractive long-term. You risk your neck in one and your licence in the other.
|
Is 'chipping' a 1.4TSI 125 Leon up to the 150bhp (as already available in other versions) going to do it any harm, or taking the basic 1.2 TSI up from 84 to 105bhp?.
Possibly not but there is possibly more to the difference than just the map.
Take our Fabia as the first example. Our 110 PS version cost us approx £600 more than the 95 PS version but there was definitely more to it than the map. The 2 obvious factors were the 95 had drum rear brakes and a 5 speed box whereas the 110 PS version has disc rear brakes and a 6 speed box. Spending money on the 95 PS version would never make it a 110 PS version.
As for the Leon when we bought ours the 140 PS was the only option with the 1.4. When they introduced the 150 PS version they also introduced the 122 PS 1.4 at a lower price but it was not just the chip. The 122 PS version got the lighter duty 6 speed box used in the 1.2 Leons (and other VAG vehicles) whereas the 150 PS and its 140 PS predecessor got a heavier duty box with closer ratios and a different final drive. I would suggest that VAG considered the lighter duty box unable to handle the extra power/torque and fitted the alternative box to ensure reliability thus any 1.2 or 1.4 122 PS could well suffer in later life and probably after the owner who chipped it had off loaded it.
Take the BMW 118d we had. 142 PS 2 litre motor. There was also a 120d with 172 PS and a 123d with 205 PS both with the same 2 litre motor. Again it was not just the chip. All 3 had different diff and internal gear ratios and the 123d had twin turbos. I would also suspect that the 123d had bigger brakes, it certainly only ran the larger diameter wheels. Plenty of companies offered to upgrade your 118d to a 123d, how many owners knew the real differences.
|
|
“SLO, hot hatches are no where near as popular as they were in the 80s/early 90s. The average car is often as quick as those cars and that's fast enough for most people. Quick enough is quick enough.”
I agree that most modern cars are fast enough for any sane person. My Polo 1.2 diesel has plenty of pull for a supermini and will sit happily all day at limit bursting speeds. But my point is that speed and power do not equal fun. The joy of a good lightweight hot hatch has largely gone thanks to too much power and lack of feel from electric power steering.
Quick is quick enough and yes the hot hatch is a rarer sight today but it’s not so much the power of cooking models but the over-complexity, numb drive and the cost that’s killing the hot hatch. Back in the 90’s they weren’t really that much quicker than normal models but sold in big numbers. An 1987 Escort 1.6L with 90bhp would hit 60 in 9.9 seconds with the XR3i less than half a second ahead. Ditto cars like the Astra 1.6 SR, 1.8 GTE, Nova 1.4 SR, AX GT etc etc. All were barely if at all faster than basic models but were still great fun.
Edited by SLO76 on 10/07/2019 at 10:32
|
SLO, hot hatches are no where near as popular as they were in the 80s/early 90s. The average car is often as quick as those cars and that's fast enough for most people. Quick enough is quick enough.
I think SLO's point is not about the speed, but the sensations. Modern cars are so overwhelmingly competent, there just isn't the feeling that you are pushing the car, at least not at legal speeds. Modern turbo motors are arguably at least partly to blame for this as they provide the performance with so little apparent effort.
One of the reasons i enjoy giving our Jazz a spanking over a country road is that it feels like you really are pushing the car. With peak torque and bhp arriving at 5000rpm and 6000rpm respectively, it gives the sensation of speed much more than something turbo, where peak torque runs from 1500-3500rpm or whatever.
But in recent years probably the most fun i have had thrashing a car was a Citroen C1 we got as a loan car a couple of years ago. It was the 1.0 and so only had 70bhp, but it is a very light car, with a very eager engine, relatively unsophisticated suspension and narrow tyres. But it was an absolute blast, and at speeds where the modern hot hatch would feel like it was sleeping!.
I was recently a passenger in a brand new Morgan plus 4. Well that was a step back in time. The driver found it fun but not relaxing. The front end became bouncy at around 70 and hitting bumps on corners unsettled the rear. Reading reviews it seems that this antedeluvial handling and lack of modern safety features is one of the main attractions for fans.
This is very much part of the Morgan and integral to the experience. Because of the constuction of the car there is a lot of flex in the structure and if you combine this with very limited wheel travel, is a recipe for very lively handling!. I believe the hardtop Morgans are better, with the roof giving a much stiffer structure from which the suspnsion can work better.
|
“I think SLO's point is not about the speed, but the sensations. Modern cars are so overwhelmingly competent, there just isn't the feeling that you are pushing the car, at least not at legal speeds.”
Exactly. The point I was getting at earlier with my post about how despite 80’s and 90’s hot hatches being barely any quicker than the higher spec normal models they were still great fun. Lower gearing, a stubby gear lever, fatter tyres, firmer suspension and a quicker rack all enhanced the sensation without the massive over-engineering and huge cost we see today.
A modern Golf GTi just feels like a fast executive express and to me is no fun at all despite in excess of 200bhp yet a Mk II 8v with it’s simple 112bhp non-turbocharged motor was a hoot on any road.
I think it would be perfectly feasible to reintroduce that joy with the option of hydraulic PAS on say the UP GTi or Swift Sport. I believe Honda did it with the Type R Civic from 03-05 while the rest of the range had an electric rack it had hydraulic which made it one of the best hot hatches of its day and it wasn’t over-endowed with torque so foot to the floor fun could be had all the time. These are the cars which come closest to the original cheap hot hatch today but still the ultimate steering feel is missing. Ford come close with the Fiesta ST but again it’s a bit pricey and a bit too powerful with front wheels struggling to put the power down without traction control draining the fun a bit too much.
Edited by SLO76 on 10/07/2019 at 16:23
|
I think it would be perfectly feasible to reintroduce that joy with the option of hydraulic PAS on say the UP GTi or Swift Sport.
They won't do it because everything is geared towards efficiency on mass market cars now, although I would wager that the increased weight is one of the main concerns on that front. I'm wondering how good the fuel efficiency (and performance) would be if you put a modern engine in a car the weight of a Citroen AX, ignoring it's crash safety credentials.
If you made cars more crude and exciting and took out traction control and sophisticated suspension and reverted to rear wheel drive, then the playstation generation would be barrelling into the nearest hedge. Maybe that would be a good thing and be the ultimate speed control after seeing the ridiculous antics of people on my nearest dual carriageway, weaving in and out of lanes and undertaking.
Part of the fun of older cars was their unpredictability, but it also taught you quickly about the laws of physics and ultimately made you a better driver.
|
SLO, hot hatches are no where near as popular as they were in the 80s/early 90s. The average car is often as quick as those cars and that's fast enough for most people. Quick enough is quick enough.
I think SLO's point is not about the speed, but the sensations. Modern cars are so overwhelmingly competent, there just isn't the feeling that you are pushing the car, at least not at legal speeds. Modern turbo motors are arguably at least partly to blame for this as they provide the performance with so little apparent effort.
One of the reasons i enjoy giving our Jazz a spanking over a country road is that it feels like you really are pushing the car. With peak torque and bhp arriving at 5000rpm and 6000rpm respectively, it gives the sensation of speed much more than something turbo, where peak torque runs from 1500-3500rpm or whatever.
But in recent years probably the most fun i have had thrashing a car was a Citroen C1 we got as a loan car a couple of years ago. It was the 1.0 and so only had 70bhp, but it is a very light car, with a very eager engine, relatively unsophisticated suspension and narrow tyres. But it was an absolute blast, and at speeds where the modern hot hatch would feel like it was sleeping!.
I was recently a passenger in a brand new Morgan plus 4. Well that was a step back in time. The driver found it fun but not relaxing. The front end became bouncy at around 70 and hitting bumps on corners unsettled the rear. Reading reviews it seems that this antedeluvial handling and lack of modern safety features is one of the main attractions for fans.
This is very much part of the Morgan and integral to the experience. Because of the constuction of the car there is a lot of flex in the structure and if you combine this with very limited wheel travel, is a recipe for very lively handling!. I believe the hardtop Morgans are better, with the roof giving a much stiffer structure from which the suspnsion can work better.
BBD, I wasn't disagreeing with SLO, just stating my opinion. :) Although his title is too much power to be fun where as perhaps it should have been 'not enough sensations to be fun'.
Edited by Trilogy. on 10/07/2019 at 21:14
|
|
|
|
<< Is 'chipping' a 1.4TSI 125 Leon up to the 150bhp (as already available in other versions) going to do it any harm, or taking the basic 1.2 TSI up from 84 to 105bhp?. So is 'unlocking' some of the potential we know is in the engine going to harm it?. >>
Harm it, probably not. But I assume it will put the car in a different emissions category, with all that implies for bureaucracy?
|
Harm it, probably not. But I assume it will put the car in a different emissions category, with all that implies for bureaucracy?
As it stands there is no requirement to get a cars emissions category changed if you modify it. All the authorities could do would be to have all owners of all modified cars submit them for a IVA test which would result in them having annual costs possibly much higher than the original rates.
Cars that are tested under IVA pay VED at rates for a pre 2001 vehicle.
www.gov.uk/vehicle-tax-rate-tables/rates-for-cars-...1
|
|
The 1.4 Audi/VW/ Skoda is a good scenario of taking the same engine from a manufactured detuned engine through to their perceived top output and it is mostly from their point of view to sell the same product with varying profit margins. By re-mapping/chipping all versions can be taken to increased levels of BHP and drivability through the rev range.
These 3rd party remaps can be detected by the dealerships so it would not be a good idea to chip in warranty, but from experience it does not effect routine servicing.
I wonder if a 3rd party remap would sort out the new 1.5 engine?
|
I wonder if a 3rd party remap would sort out the new 1.5 engine?
I have read that on the Audi which has different driving modes the selection of one particular mode that sharpens up throttle response virtually eliminates the kangarooing when cold and once up to temp there are no issues.
On the Skoda forum in the past there has been much discussion about getting the "Audi Throttle" setting enabled by using VCDS. Apparently this sharpens up the throttle response and although the car has no more power it does feel quicker because there is less delay between the right foot and the engine.
But I have yet to read that anyone with a troublesome Karoq has tried it.
As to a 3rd party remap, all they would do would to be to pour in more fuel to mask the issue which would obviously not be good for the environment or your mpg. If VAG did that and did not get the car Type Approved again there would be another huge outcry, and quite rightly to. With such a mod the engine would probably not meet Euro 6.
If the bloke with a laptop is so good why on earth do VAG not employ him to sort out all their issues?
|
|
Yes the Audi 1.4 can have 3 driving modes, in DYNAMIC mode the throttle response is increased thus making the car more responsive. This is achieved through the software mapping on the ECU. Clearly VW have not yet come up with a satisfactory software map for the new 1.5 yet or there is indeed a fundamental flaw with this design. I would not at present by this engine.
On the Skoda forum in the past there has been much discussion about getting the "Audi Throttle" setting enabled by using VCDS. Apparently this sharpens up the throttle response and although the car has no more power it does feel quicker because there is less delay between the right foot and the engine.
YES this is exactly what the "the bloke with the laptop does" and which manufactures often don't.
|
On the Skoda forum in the past there has been much discussion about getting the "Audi Throttle" setting enabled by using VCDS. Apparently this sharpens up the throttle response and although the car has no more power it does feel quicker because there is less delay between the right foot and the engine.
YES this is exactly what the "the bloke with the laptop does" and which manufactures often don't.
If your bloke with the laptop is only accessing the ECU with VCDS and changing the setting to "Audi" its not a remap. All he is doing is enabling a setting that is deemed to be only available to owners of the posh brand and not the Communist brand. If they are charging huge money to do that there must be loads of idiots out there.
|
The joy of a good lightweight hot hatch has largely gone thanks to too much power and lack of feel from electric power steering.
First car we had with power steering was the 1989 Bluebird. It hydraulic and had no feel whatsoever and the car felt unstable at motorway speeds.
Next was a 1996 Golf, hydraulic again and whilst it did have feel it was very heavy almost convincing you that there was a thick goop between the steering wheel and the road.
On to a 1997 Polo and its getting better. Light but the road feel is good.
Move on a few years and we now have 2 Skodas, both with EPS. Both have a good feel and good stability, no issues at all with either. The Seat Leon with the same system was just as good.
Back 9 years to the Kia Ceed SW which was our first car with purely EPS and that had an odd feel at the strait ahead that felt like it needed constant adjustment when it didn't. It could end up feeling very odd if you believed the car.
So no issues with EPS here at present.
|
I’ll agree that EPS is getting better with each generation. VAG, Ford and Mazda are the best to date but I still don’t agree that they offer the same feel as a good hydraulic system. I’ve driven countless cars with both setups and the weighting always feels artificial.
Totally agree on the Bluebird. Tough old cars but awful to drive but the later Primera had a very nice PAS system, almost a match for Peugeot and Ford at the time.
For the minor difference to economy it would make a real improvement to driver enjoyment if sportier models were available without feel sapping EPS.
I’ve a real hankering for a good 80’s/90’s/00’s hot hatch to preserve and enjoy thus the reason why this subject was in my mind.
Need a visit down south to source one though as they’re all rusted to oblivion up here.
Edited by SLO76 on 10/07/2019 at 19:55
|
I’ve a real hankering for a good 80’s/90’s/00’s hot hatch to preserve and enjoy thus the reason why this subject was in my mind.
I think you'd probably need to forget about an 80's hot hatch, have you seen the prices good ones go for these days?!. 1.6 205GTI's can go for £10k, with 1.9's at £15-20k. There is actually a 5700 mile 1.9 on Ebay right now with an asking price of £44995!,
www.ebay.co.uk/itm/FOR-SALE-Peugeot-205-GTI-1-9-19...Y
|
|
|
|
|
|
