- 23,800
- Philippines
Sport Compact Shoot-out
Crowded House: The Sub-200 Club
This image is a placeholder, more pics are coming by the end of the week
Alfa Romeo 147, BMW 120i, Ford Focus ST170, Hyundai Tiburon, Lexus IS200, Mazda Protégé, Mini Cooper S, Peugeot 206RC,
Pontiac Sunfire, Renault Clio, SEAT Ibiza, Toyota Corolla
Road&Trek
Its been a quiet few weeks here at R&T since the Japanese bash. In between bouts of tuning our new R32 Skyline, (yes, were cheap bastards, and no, we couldnt afford an R33 anyway...) weve been busy on the phone calling up some friends. During our stint in Japan and Europe, and getting to know some righteous Japanese and German tuners, weve become concerned about the fractuous nature of the tuning crowd. Namely, everybody has a natural hate for everyone elses ride. This would be okay if the other guys car was a lemon, but were talking about some quality cars here getting the stink-eye for being *gasp* foreign.
We dont encourage Automotive Racism here at Road&Trek. We feel each car deserves judgment on its own merit, and not the color of its build sheet. The question were trying to answer: Which is the BEST? At stake here are bragging rights, freedom from derision, and every boy-racer and tuner in the world beating on our front door and demanding a recount.
Bob and I sat down and drew a short-list of cars we would include in this category. As soon as Bob saw how few domestics were in this category, he left to get a burger and a beer. I sat with the list till the end of the day, and submitted it to Ed the next morning. His first reaction was something like: Holy heck, thats a lot of cars. His second was: Weve got to do this in parts. Theres no way we can fit this all into one article.
And his third? Hope you feel like eating Bratwürst for a week, I feel the need for a European Tour coming on. I couldnt argue with that. The thought of another all-expense paid trip to Germany was just too good to resist.
A few calls to Rachelle Anne (still our favorite travel agent), Polyphony Digital, and to a couple of new friends in the UK and Germany and we had around three dozen cars lined up for this test. We were thrilled, but a knot was forming in my stomach. As resident hot-foot, I would be stuck driving everything, whether I liked it or not. Needless to say, I packed a lot of antacids and motion-sickness medication in my bags before we left for Germany.
Back at the Nürburgring
First day at the track, and were awed by the number of cars weve got. We have a bunch of Focuses (Focii, you dolt -Ed), Minis and JDM Machines (Hondas and Toyotas, mostly) driven in cross-country by our friends at McKensie Motors in the UK (you guys are awesome). We have a collection of some of the fastest German metal from the locals around the track. A bunch of French and American cars were sitting in car carriers (packed into that trailer like freedom fries, they are, Bob muttered... didnt know he was paying attention -Ed) sent by PD-Europe. And lastly, there was us, sitting around the brace of Alfas we picked up from the PD handler at the airport. Lovely cars to drive around, especially with the scenery around the track.
Since many of these cars were driven here, all of them were on street tires. To ensure fair testing, as a number of privately owned vehicles were on non-stock rubber, PD provided us with top-of-the-line road tires (N3s) for our testing.
After much discussion with the PD Handlers, the local ring rats, and the McKensie crew, we divided the cars into three running groups: the Sub-200 Class, the 200-Class and the Super Sport Compacts. Thus prepared, we fired up the engines, and strapped ourselves in for what turned out to be week full of burned rubber, scratched paint, grass skidmarks, and in one case, crumpled Armco and a dazed (but unhurt) tester.
The Sub-200 Class
These are hot hatches and sports compacts that are fast, but not quite as powerful as the best in the class. Weve set the entry-level at 147 to include some nice handling compacts, and topped it at 190, to exclude cars pegged at 197. There are subcompacts that fit in this class, but were reserving them for a separate comparison. Everything here is a full-sized compact, at under 14 ½ feet (4.4 meters or so, metric -Ed) in length, except for some domestics, as anything under 16 feet is a compact by American standards, apparently. We would've set a maximum weight, but nearly every German compact was above the weight limit we wanted.
Weve got some oddballs in here, like the BMW 120i, the Lexus IS200 and the Pontiac Sunfire Concept. Though the Sunfire Concept never made production, this showcar is attainable by any Sunfire/Cavalier enthusiast with a bit of cash and a yearning for something better. How much better? Read on to find out.
12th - Pontiac Sunfire GXP
Lap Time: 9:07.670
Time Differential From Fastest car: +22.512
Packing a 2.0 liter supercharged Ecotec, as opposed to the naturally aspirated and uninspiring 2.2 in the regular Sunfire, and weighing in at merely 1.2 tons (hey, thats light for a domestic. -Ed), the GXP ought to be competitive with this group. Wider tires on 17 wheels, bigger brakes, stiffer suspension and a nice body kit further add to the enthusiast appeal. So is it hot?
Unfortunately, no.
The Sunfire tracks true but its not very nimble. Its considerably slower than the Protege in turns, and the Protege is a four-door econobox, for Christs sake. An automatic gearbox (Four-on-the-floor, the old fashioned way -Ed) reluctant to downshift hurts performance in turns, though part of that is rectified by the low-range grunt (190 ft-lbs of it, best in test) of that supercharged engine. What the supercharger doesnt do, is deliver high-end power. The Ecotec has a ridiculously low redline, and runs out of steam at high rpms.
On the uphill lug at Kesselchen, I found, to my horror, that the car was slowing down because the engine couldnt keep it at a steady 100mph (160 km/h, again metric -Ed) in fourth gear. I had to kick the throttle once or twice to get it to downshift, but the damage was done, Id lost the pace to keep up with the Mazda in front of me. What was more humiliating was that the Protégé was being driven by Ed, and it was an automatic, too.
This is one big turd. Not nearly as quick as the much heavier and less powerful Hyundai Tiburon, nor much of a match for the four door Protege in the turns or on the straight. Its a dressed up turd, but who itll appeal to, God knows.
P.S.: Weve discovered one good use for this car. It makes the Corolla RunX look like a rip-snorting sports car by comparison.
11th - Toyota Corolla RunX AeroTourer | 9:00.066 | +14.908
Not as nimble as it ought to be, and disappointingly slow, given its 190 hp. Part of that can be blamed on a terribly peaky engine, that doesnt pull very hard until the hot cams kick in, and a front suspension geometry that turns that doesnt deliver that power very well. In the rear, that beam axle really bites, and stiff springs and tuning cant make up for a suspension designed primarily to save space and pennies. A tall and space-efficient body cant help much, either, but at least its light for its size.
On the positive side, the Corolla tracks true, and the engine is terrific once youve gotten past that first 6000 rpms. Honda has long since come to grips with the dual nature of its VTEC engines, adding more displacement, torque and useability to every generation of VTEC engines. Its current K-series rarely suffers from the flatness inherent in the B-series engines when operating below the VTEC-cut in. Toyotas 1ZZ, though, suffers even more from peakiness than even the previous generation Honda B-engines. The closest comparison I can think of is the Nissan Pulsar VZ-R I had occasion to drive back in the 90s, whose extremely high redline (around 11,000 rpm, as I recall, I didn't like that one either -Ed) made its power mostly inaccessible.
On paper and in price, the Corolla is a prime competitor in the hot-hatch market. But on the road, it doesnt even compare. On a brighter note, if youre planning to get one (likely in T-Sport or Matrix trim in Europe and the US), itll fit all your groceries, and itll last forever... unlucky you.
10th - Lexus IS200 | 8:58.939 | +13.781
Another car ruined by a bad transmission. The IS200 has a zingy 2 liter straight six with a heady redline, but a long 1st to 2nd gearchange (1st tops out near 80 km/h!!!) makes negotiating slow corners a little tricky, and the transmission is very reluctant to downshift. Once up to speed, though, the IS200 is a quick car, despite being heavier than most cars here.
One problem with the IS200 is a soft set-up that allows too much roll and understeer. Its not as pointy as the BMW, and seemingly not even as pointy as the Cooper or the Clio. Also, when the IS200 transitions into oversteer (relatively easy, given the modest rubber -Ed), the car slows (seemingly) to a crawl. Strict adherence to the racing line is required to keep the pace up, and too much or too little speed or angle carried into any turn will slow you down drastically. At 8/10ths, the IS200 is a good handler, at 10/10ths, its just too soft. That the automatic gearbox holds on to high gears too long just adds injury to insult.
Its a good instrument to learn precision, but since when was that fun?
In terms of sports compacts, the IS200 is average. In terms of sports sedans (It was designed as a 3-series competitor), its woefully inadequate.
9th - Mazda Protégé Sport 20 | 9:01.340 | +16.182
Handicapped with a gearbox that doesnt seem well matched to the engines powerband, the Protege offers drivers the consolation of allowing them to row through the gears via Mazdas Activematic system. Down low, the high revving 2.0 feels much more sluggish than the MP3 version we get here, and has little torque compared to more modern 2 liters. But once past 120 km/h, it pulls much more strongly.
Even with a lighter body and 25-35hp more power than export versions, the power-to-weight ratio of this car doesnt really reflect in its performance down the straights, and we suspect a full 20hp of that power is only available in the last 500 rpm, not that youre likely to see it often with the extremely tall gears. The engine also seems curiously reluctant to rev, despite its high redline. You learn to force it to hold a few more revs than it likes, merely to keep it close to the powerband in the next gear. The best lap times came by making sure the speedometer needle never dropped below 75 km/h, as first gear tops out at 65, and second (which is enormously loooooong, reaching 130km/h) doesnt give much acceleration until youre well past 80 km/h.
The handling is precise and nimble, beset with moderate but well controlled understeer due to the relatively long wheelbase (compared to the hatches here) and the slightly wider rear track, which gives it exceptional stability. The Protege drives extremely well for a five-seater, but cant compete in this segment for want of a better engine and gearbox. That its quicker than the Corolla in turns is telling, and a testament to the wonderful multi-link suspension in the Mazda. This car actually handles as well as or better than the previous generation Civic Si, but doesnt quite cut it in the engine department. The Corolla only wins the race with the Protege, actually, by passing it halfway down the long home straight. If the race had ended at the start of that straight, the Mazda would be at least two seconds ahead... an eternity on the track.
Overall, this is a good handling car thats showing the age of its underpinnings, both in terms of chassis and drivetrain. The American market MazdaSpeed Protégé, with its turbo 2-liter, stiffer suspension and grippier rubber would do better against this crowd, and would have probably been able to break into the top five.
8th - Tiburon | 8:48.914 | +3.756
Weve reviewed this car before, so we dont have much to say about it. Its a lot like the Mazda Protégé in driving feel, steering accurately but giving in to understeer a little more than some of the hot hatches here. Its not as fast as the light-weights, but pretty quick on a straight piece of road. Its got a better high end than the Cooper, for one. This allows it to pull itself a bit closer to the hot hatches on the home straight. The torquey V6 is a good powerplant, barking gruffly and pulling hard, but should be capable of much more, considering its size. The weight of the 2-liter in the base version makes the handling balance a little better without sacrificing much in terms of on-paper power, but the V6 definitely has a lot more shove on the highway. It's a nice cruiser and a decent performer on track, to boot. Like the Protege, its good value for the money, entertaining but safe. That it looks much more special than it actually is, well, thats a bonus.
7th - Alfa Romeo 147 2.0 Twinspark | 9:08.994 | +23.836
A little underpowered for this contest, the 147 Twinspark is game enough, with a growly and responsive engine and a good chassis. It rotates entertainingly, and changes direction quickly. As compared to the GTA (which we drove the day after), the Twinspark feels much more nimble, mostly due to the lower mass of the 2.0 over the 3.2 V6 in the uber-147. The Twinspark doesnt make very much power or torque compared to the others here, not having forced induction or an insane redline, but it produces power in a wide swath, reaching peak torque at under 4000rpm and pulling strongly up to redline. Thanks to this, it feels much faster than it really is.
Alfas suspension is spot-on in this application, and is well matched to the engines weight and power. Its not punishing, but its not too soft, either. And the weight balance is just perfect. Now if Alfa believed in turbocharging, this would make a much more convincing case of the ultimate Alfa than the 147 GTA. At least I think it is! -Ed
The Alfa Twinspark allows you a decent and entertaining thrash at lower speeds than most hot hatches, and it gets our respect for that, even if it is the slowest car out here. The high cost of entry is balanced by a unique, exotic look and BMW-challenging road manners. I prefer the 157-based GT, however, but at over 8,000 Cr. less, the Twinspark is quite a bargain.
6th - Peugeot 206 RC | 8:46.749 | +1.591
Monsters its way into contention with a great engine and an able chassis. With a wide powerband and linear delivery, an oddity for a high output naturally aspirated engine, the 2 liter engine is one of the best sub-200hp NAs around. It propels the 206 very quickly, and can break the tires loose in cornering. The delivery is so progressive, though, that this rarely becomes a problem.
The 206 is stiff and settled, but not as pointy as some of the other cars here, the beam axle out back sees to that. The steering isnt as quick as it should be, and power-on understeer is greater even than in the more powerful SEAT 1.8T. Overall, a well set-up and quick car, easy to place, but no match for the best in terms of driving feel. It still ranks highly for us because it is a very capable car and much faster than many of the others here.
5th - Ford Focus ST 170 | 8:47.660 | +2.502
The Focus has a well settled suspension, but is soft compared to some of the others here. It impressed us with its good handling feel, and is nimble and stable enough to pull away from a more energetic, torquier and lighter Cooper. The weight dulls the driving sensation, though, and can cause some roll in turns. Aside from that, the suspension is well-thought out and executed, and it suffers less from understeer than most.
The Focus ST is fluid over almost any surface, and is a much easier drive than its superhero brother, the Focus RS. The engine is peaky, but has a decent amount of torque, thus it rarely feels flat, but it doesnt give the same kick as some of the other engines here. And therein lies its problem, the ST170 is undeniably a very good hot hatch, but its just not very stimulating compared to the competition.
Not the definitive hot-hatch, then, but a good midfielder. Lack of entertainment value just lets it down. But better control and feel puts it out just ahead of the slightly faster Peugeot.
4th - SEAT Ibiza Cupra | 8:45.891 | +0.733
Arguably better handling than the 206, and definitely faster, the Ibiza shows us what VWs turbo 1.8 can do with a light car. Its illuminating. That grunty 1.8T pulls hard from 2000 rpm to the redline, but the Seat starts running out of steam at high speeds. We figure maybe a little chip juggling or fine-tuning would fix that, and were glad to hear that the next Cupra R gets the full 225 factory horses from this unit. Theres life in this old engine yet! In its current state of tune, though, we cant see the Cupra being embarrassed at the stoplight by your run-of-the-mill VTEC... unless its a Type R.
The Cupra handles well and shows very little understeer given its power. Which came as a pleasant surprise to us, as the last FF wed driven with this engine, the Audi TT 1.8, certainly wasnt the best handling car wed ever driven (It wasnt the worst, either, but we were NOT impressed. -Ed). SEAT apparently does its own suspension tuning and development, even if it does share the basic framework of its cars with other VAG products. Learning this from the VW Handler as we slid the car around the Hatzenbach for the fourth time, we gained a newfound respect for this VW-based car. Damping is great, too, and the SEAT Cupra feels like the kind of hot hatch you can take out any day of the week and on any road.
The fine handling chassis, good body control and great damping make the SEAT a true contender in this category. Not the best, ultimately, but with that 1.8T 20 valve, potentially the fastest.
3rd - BMW 120i | 8:58.200 | +13.042
Initially, we had planned on using the 120d for this comparison, but a quick blast in the 120d back-to-back with this car changed our minds. The 120d may be a technological coup (We wouldve preferred a coupé, but BMW assures us thats in the works. -Ed) on paper, but in real life, that powerful diesel falls a bit flat. Even the fact that it revs up to 5500 rpm cant make up for the lack of urge at those engine speeds. BMW may be proud of the fact that it can extract over 160 horses from a 2 liter derv-burner, but the weight penalty associated with turbocharging and reinforcing that engine make it much heavier than the gas version. That the gas version is a terrifically responsive 2.0 liter with a decent amount of torque and a revvy nature does the diesel car no favors.
As far as diesel cars go, its a great one. In comparison to everything else here, the 120i is a more competitive choice.
The 120i is quick and nimble in the corners. Its a refreshing break after driving so many front wheel drivers. It breaks away into controllable oversteer when you push it too hard, but the grunty engine and terrific chassis assure that you wont lose much speed. Taking the racing line through corners, the little Beemer carries 10-20 kph more speed than even the best FF cars in this group, and maybe 10 kph more than the Altezza. In one of our favorite (read: easiest) turns, the multiple rights before Wehrseifen, the BMW rockets through at speeds that'll have you kissing the outside barriers in any other car. In terms of suspension design, the BMW beats the Lexus hands-down.
Where the 120i loses the plot is in straightline speed. No matter how well BMW disguises the weight of their cars in corners, braking and acceleration were always going to be compromised by the sheer weight of BMWs default insulation and luxury features. Once on an open road, the BMWs stablemate, the Mini Cooper S, just pulls steadily away.
With a contentious design, cramped quarters, and too much weight, the 120i doesnt quite make sense from any point of view. Advice to BMW, lose the rear seats (theyre pretty useless -Ed), forget insulation (when has any enthusiast ever complained about road noise!?! -Ed), and forget the corporate-identity candy wrapping (Blech! Okay, Ill stop now -Ed). With a design closer to Mini than Mini-BMW and with about 200 kilograms less weight, the 1-series would be a winner.
Despite all this, we cant deny that the BMW 120i is an invigorating driving experience, thus the 3rd place finish.
2nd - Mini Cooper S | 8:48.224 | +3.066
BMW proves that it can do front-wheel drive with the best of them. The 3-series sourced Z-link suspension out back and square wheelbase gives the Cooper an amazingly direct turn-in for an FF chassis, and gives it good grip, to boot. This is a balance that many others have tried and have failed to do, as a quick turn-in on an FF car is often accompanied by speed-scrubbing oversteer. Oversteer is something the Cooper can provide, never doubt, but its very easy to counter with a dab on the throttle or a flick of the steering.
The Cooper has a little trouble putting the power down, even in non-Works trim. Understeer under power is modest, but wheelspin in corners, albeit just slightly more than average, is not something you expect at these low power levels. We cant help feeling that a little more development on the front suspension or the engine and transmission (which arent really up to snuff in the technology race) would make this the best hot-hatch around.
The Mini makes you wonder why BMW bothered with the 1-series. The Mini is better looking, lighter, faster, and just as entertaining to drive as BMWs new entry-level car. And if youre wondering if its entertaining enough without the 200hp Works package, trust us, you wont really miss the extra power. The Cooper S is entertaining enough.
1st - RenaultSport Clio 2.0 16v | 8:45.158 | 0.000
The Clio is a tiny car compared to some of the others here, and its by far the lightest in this group. The small size of the Clio and the ridiculously high seating position make you feel naked on the track, but once youre out there, these concerns seem irrelevant. The Clio is small and nimble, with a decent engine thats quick to hit the redline matched to a sweet but simple 5 speed stick. Though the relatively puny rubber doesnt inspire much confidence, its more than adequate, and the Clio has no traction or grip problems on either end, even at the limits of adhesion.
The relatively small footprint and wheels-at-the corner attitude make the Clio drive much like the Mini Cooper. Although not exactly as sharp at the turn in (the only noticeable drawback of the Clios beam axle configuration -Ed), itll rotate much faster mid-corner, and breaking or restoring traction at the rear end is ridiculously easy. That small size also makes the Clio ridiculously easy to thread through complicated sections of the track, making it seem a mile wide in places where youd have trouble in most other cars. It makes driving even the sharpest of hairpins a piece of cake.
Id expected this car to be more unsettled than most on the rougher sections of the track, but the Clio is softly sprung, and body motion is well-controlled. Its amazing what you can do with less weight (Are you listening, BMW? VW? eh? EH? -Ed) to haul around. The engine in the Clio has more torque than any other naturally aspirated 2 liter here, and although the torque peak is high up in the rev range, that torque lies along a nearly flat curve. Power delivery is linear and strong, and shows that you dont need stratospheric engine speeds to produce power. Its not as melodious as some, but its a great powerplant.
The Clio runs with best of them, and is more than a match for the heavy hitters in the corners, if not on the straightaways. As it is, not many cars with less than 200 horses can outrun it, and it only runs short near the end of fifth gear. Its not as fast as the 200hp über-hatches in a straight line, but while this may be a liability on the highway, were betting that but on a small track, it could probably take names.
Conclusion
The Clio runs away with this comparison, but were mightily impressed by the Cooper, the Cupra and the 120i. If price or pace were no object, the Alfa 147 would be up there, too. We each had our favorites on the day. Bob loved the BMW 120i, both in looks and in driving enjoyment. Ed had a soft spot for the little Alfa, and I spent a lot of time getting to know the Protégé. That it didnt come in very high was due mostly to an uninspiring gearbox, and though I tried every trick in the book to convince Ed and Bob to let me place it higher, they held firm. Okay, being an MP3 owner, I may be biased, but I didnt abuse my power here.
Every time another driver came in with the Clio or the Cooper, there was a scramble for the keys, The Clio is just unbeatable here, both in terms of driving enjoyment and in outright pace. The Cooper was just plain fun.
With a little more power, and in this FF configuration, the Clio would be a giant killer. Even though the Clio V6 plays the role of super-hatch in Renaults line-up, the Clio 2.0 is definitely the Frenchie to have. Over the course of the week, we gave our little blue test car the nickname of Road Runner. Its big V6 brother got the nickname Taz, but thats a story best reserved for the next installment of this article.
Up next, in Part Two of our comparison, we check out compact class cars with 200 horsepower or more, and we reveal our picks for the Super-Compact Class.
Crowded House: The Sub-200 Club
This image is a placeholder, more pics are coming by the end of the week
Alfa Romeo 147, BMW 120i, Ford Focus ST170, Hyundai Tiburon, Lexus IS200, Mazda Protégé, Mini Cooper S, Peugeot 206RC,
Pontiac Sunfire, Renault Clio, SEAT Ibiza, Toyota Corolla
Road&Trek
Its been a quiet few weeks here at R&T since the Japanese bash. In between bouts of tuning our new R32 Skyline, (yes, were cheap bastards, and no, we couldnt afford an R33 anyway...) weve been busy on the phone calling up some friends. During our stint in Japan and Europe, and getting to know some righteous Japanese and German tuners, weve become concerned about the fractuous nature of the tuning crowd. Namely, everybody has a natural hate for everyone elses ride. This would be okay if the other guys car was a lemon, but were talking about some quality cars here getting the stink-eye for being *gasp* foreign.
We dont encourage Automotive Racism here at Road&Trek. We feel each car deserves judgment on its own merit, and not the color of its build sheet. The question were trying to answer: Which is the BEST? At stake here are bragging rights, freedom from derision, and every boy-racer and tuner in the world beating on our front door and demanding a recount.
Bob and I sat down and drew a short-list of cars we would include in this category. As soon as Bob saw how few domestics were in this category, he left to get a burger and a beer. I sat with the list till the end of the day, and submitted it to Ed the next morning. His first reaction was something like: Holy heck, thats a lot of cars. His second was: Weve got to do this in parts. Theres no way we can fit this all into one article.
And his third? Hope you feel like eating Bratwürst for a week, I feel the need for a European Tour coming on. I couldnt argue with that. The thought of another all-expense paid trip to Germany was just too good to resist.
A few calls to Rachelle Anne (still our favorite travel agent), Polyphony Digital, and to a couple of new friends in the UK and Germany and we had around three dozen cars lined up for this test. We were thrilled, but a knot was forming in my stomach. As resident hot-foot, I would be stuck driving everything, whether I liked it or not. Needless to say, I packed a lot of antacids and motion-sickness medication in my bags before we left for Germany.
Back at the Nürburgring
First day at the track, and were awed by the number of cars weve got. We have a bunch of Focuses (Focii, you dolt -Ed), Minis and JDM Machines (Hondas and Toyotas, mostly) driven in cross-country by our friends at McKensie Motors in the UK (you guys are awesome). We have a collection of some of the fastest German metal from the locals around the track. A bunch of French and American cars were sitting in car carriers (packed into that trailer like freedom fries, they are, Bob muttered... didnt know he was paying attention -Ed) sent by PD-Europe. And lastly, there was us, sitting around the brace of Alfas we picked up from the PD handler at the airport. Lovely cars to drive around, especially with the scenery around the track.
Since many of these cars were driven here, all of them were on street tires. To ensure fair testing, as a number of privately owned vehicles were on non-stock rubber, PD provided us with top-of-the-line road tires (N3s) for our testing.
After much discussion with the PD Handlers, the local ring rats, and the McKensie crew, we divided the cars into three running groups: the Sub-200 Class, the 200-Class and the Super Sport Compacts. Thus prepared, we fired up the engines, and strapped ourselves in for what turned out to be week full of burned rubber, scratched paint, grass skidmarks, and in one case, crumpled Armco and a dazed (but unhurt) tester.
The Sub-200 Class
These are hot hatches and sports compacts that are fast, but not quite as powerful as the best in the class. Weve set the entry-level at 147 to include some nice handling compacts, and topped it at 190, to exclude cars pegged at 197. There are subcompacts that fit in this class, but were reserving them for a separate comparison. Everything here is a full-sized compact, at under 14 ½ feet (4.4 meters or so, metric -Ed) in length, except for some domestics, as anything under 16 feet is a compact by American standards, apparently. We would've set a maximum weight, but nearly every German compact was above the weight limit we wanted.
Weve got some oddballs in here, like the BMW 120i, the Lexus IS200 and the Pontiac Sunfire Concept. Though the Sunfire Concept never made production, this showcar is attainable by any Sunfire/Cavalier enthusiast with a bit of cash and a yearning for something better. How much better? Read on to find out.
12th - Pontiac Sunfire GXP
Lap Time: 9:07.670
Time Differential From Fastest car: +22.512
Packing a 2.0 liter supercharged Ecotec, as opposed to the naturally aspirated and uninspiring 2.2 in the regular Sunfire, and weighing in at merely 1.2 tons (hey, thats light for a domestic. -Ed), the GXP ought to be competitive with this group. Wider tires on 17 wheels, bigger brakes, stiffer suspension and a nice body kit further add to the enthusiast appeal. So is it hot?
Unfortunately, no.
The Sunfire tracks true but its not very nimble. Its considerably slower than the Protege in turns, and the Protege is a four-door econobox, for Christs sake. An automatic gearbox (Four-on-the-floor, the old fashioned way -Ed) reluctant to downshift hurts performance in turns, though part of that is rectified by the low-range grunt (190 ft-lbs of it, best in test) of that supercharged engine. What the supercharger doesnt do, is deliver high-end power. The Ecotec has a ridiculously low redline, and runs out of steam at high rpms.
On the uphill lug at Kesselchen, I found, to my horror, that the car was slowing down because the engine couldnt keep it at a steady 100mph (160 km/h, again metric -Ed) in fourth gear. I had to kick the throttle once or twice to get it to downshift, but the damage was done, Id lost the pace to keep up with the Mazda in front of me. What was more humiliating was that the Protégé was being driven by Ed, and it was an automatic, too.
This is one big turd. Not nearly as quick as the much heavier and less powerful Hyundai Tiburon, nor much of a match for the four door Protege in the turns or on the straight. Its a dressed up turd, but who itll appeal to, God knows.
P.S.: Weve discovered one good use for this car. It makes the Corolla RunX look like a rip-snorting sports car by comparison.
11th - Toyota Corolla RunX AeroTourer | 9:00.066 | +14.908
Not as nimble as it ought to be, and disappointingly slow, given its 190 hp. Part of that can be blamed on a terribly peaky engine, that doesnt pull very hard until the hot cams kick in, and a front suspension geometry that turns that doesnt deliver that power very well. In the rear, that beam axle really bites, and stiff springs and tuning cant make up for a suspension designed primarily to save space and pennies. A tall and space-efficient body cant help much, either, but at least its light for its size.
On the positive side, the Corolla tracks true, and the engine is terrific once youve gotten past that first 6000 rpms. Honda has long since come to grips with the dual nature of its VTEC engines, adding more displacement, torque and useability to every generation of VTEC engines. Its current K-series rarely suffers from the flatness inherent in the B-series engines when operating below the VTEC-cut in. Toyotas 1ZZ, though, suffers even more from peakiness than even the previous generation Honda B-engines. The closest comparison I can think of is the Nissan Pulsar VZ-R I had occasion to drive back in the 90s, whose extremely high redline (around 11,000 rpm, as I recall, I didn't like that one either -Ed) made its power mostly inaccessible.
On paper and in price, the Corolla is a prime competitor in the hot-hatch market. But on the road, it doesnt even compare. On a brighter note, if youre planning to get one (likely in T-Sport or Matrix trim in Europe and the US), itll fit all your groceries, and itll last forever... unlucky you.
10th - Lexus IS200 | 8:58.939 | +13.781
Another car ruined by a bad transmission. The IS200 has a zingy 2 liter straight six with a heady redline, but a long 1st to 2nd gearchange (1st tops out near 80 km/h!!!) makes negotiating slow corners a little tricky, and the transmission is very reluctant to downshift. Once up to speed, though, the IS200 is a quick car, despite being heavier than most cars here.
One problem with the IS200 is a soft set-up that allows too much roll and understeer. Its not as pointy as the BMW, and seemingly not even as pointy as the Cooper or the Clio. Also, when the IS200 transitions into oversteer (relatively easy, given the modest rubber -Ed), the car slows (seemingly) to a crawl. Strict adherence to the racing line is required to keep the pace up, and too much or too little speed or angle carried into any turn will slow you down drastically. At 8/10ths, the IS200 is a good handler, at 10/10ths, its just too soft. That the automatic gearbox holds on to high gears too long just adds injury to insult.
Its a good instrument to learn precision, but since when was that fun?
In terms of sports compacts, the IS200 is average. In terms of sports sedans (It was designed as a 3-series competitor), its woefully inadequate.
9th - Mazda Protégé Sport 20 | 9:01.340 | +16.182
Handicapped with a gearbox that doesnt seem well matched to the engines powerband, the Protege offers drivers the consolation of allowing them to row through the gears via Mazdas Activematic system. Down low, the high revving 2.0 feels much more sluggish than the MP3 version we get here, and has little torque compared to more modern 2 liters. But once past 120 km/h, it pulls much more strongly.
Even with a lighter body and 25-35hp more power than export versions, the power-to-weight ratio of this car doesnt really reflect in its performance down the straights, and we suspect a full 20hp of that power is only available in the last 500 rpm, not that youre likely to see it often with the extremely tall gears. The engine also seems curiously reluctant to rev, despite its high redline. You learn to force it to hold a few more revs than it likes, merely to keep it close to the powerband in the next gear. The best lap times came by making sure the speedometer needle never dropped below 75 km/h, as first gear tops out at 65, and second (which is enormously loooooong, reaching 130km/h) doesnt give much acceleration until youre well past 80 km/h.
The handling is precise and nimble, beset with moderate but well controlled understeer due to the relatively long wheelbase (compared to the hatches here) and the slightly wider rear track, which gives it exceptional stability. The Protege drives extremely well for a five-seater, but cant compete in this segment for want of a better engine and gearbox. That its quicker than the Corolla in turns is telling, and a testament to the wonderful multi-link suspension in the Mazda. This car actually handles as well as or better than the previous generation Civic Si, but doesnt quite cut it in the engine department. The Corolla only wins the race with the Protege, actually, by passing it halfway down the long home straight. If the race had ended at the start of that straight, the Mazda would be at least two seconds ahead... an eternity on the track.
Overall, this is a good handling car thats showing the age of its underpinnings, both in terms of chassis and drivetrain. The American market MazdaSpeed Protégé, with its turbo 2-liter, stiffer suspension and grippier rubber would do better against this crowd, and would have probably been able to break into the top five.
8th - Tiburon | 8:48.914 | +3.756
Weve reviewed this car before, so we dont have much to say about it. Its a lot like the Mazda Protégé in driving feel, steering accurately but giving in to understeer a little more than some of the hot hatches here. Its not as fast as the light-weights, but pretty quick on a straight piece of road. Its got a better high end than the Cooper, for one. This allows it to pull itself a bit closer to the hot hatches on the home straight. The torquey V6 is a good powerplant, barking gruffly and pulling hard, but should be capable of much more, considering its size. The weight of the 2-liter in the base version makes the handling balance a little better without sacrificing much in terms of on-paper power, but the V6 definitely has a lot more shove on the highway. It's a nice cruiser and a decent performer on track, to boot. Like the Protege, its good value for the money, entertaining but safe. That it looks much more special than it actually is, well, thats a bonus.
7th - Alfa Romeo 147 2.0 Twinspark | 9:08.994 | +23.836
A little underpowered for this contest, the 147 Twinspark is game enough, with a growly and responsive engine and a good chassis. It rotates entertainingly, and changes direction quickly. As compared to the GTA (which we drove the day after), the Twinspark feels much more nimble, mostly due to the lower mass of the 2.0 over the 3.2 V6 in the uber-147. The Twinspark doesnt make very much power or torque compared to the others here, not having forced induction or an insane redline, but it produces power in a wide swath, reaching peak torque at under 4000rpm and pulling strongly up to redline. Thanks to this, it feels much faster than it really is.
Alfas suspension is spot-on in this application, and is well matched to the engines weight and power. Its not punishing, but its not too soft, either. And the weight balance is just perfect. Now if Alfa believed in turbocharging, this would make a much more convincing case of the ultimate Alfa than the 147 GTA. At least I think it is! -Ed
The Alfa Twinspark allows you a decent and entertaining thrash at lower speeds than most hot hatches, and it gets our respect for that, even if it is the slowest car out here. The high cost of entry is balanced by a unique, exotic look and BMW-challenging road manners. I prefer the 157-based GT, however, but at over 8,000 Cr. less, the Twinspark is quite a bargain.
6th - Peugeot 206 RC | 8:46.749 | +1.591
Monsters its way into contention with a great engine and an able chassis. With a wide powerband and linear delivery, an oddity for a high output naturally aspirated engine, the 2 liter engine is one of the best sub-200hp NAs around. It propels the 206 very quickly, and can break the tires loose in cornering. The delivery is so progressive, though, that this rarely becomes a problem.
The 206 is stiff and settled, but not as pointy as some of the other cars here, the beam axle out back sees to that. The steering isnt as quick as it should be, and power-on understeer is greater even than in the more powerful SEAT 1.8T. Overall, a well set-up and quick car, easy to place, but no match for the best in terms of driving feel. It still ranks highly for us because it is a very capable car and much faster than many of the others here.
5th - Ford Focus ST 170 | 8:47.660 | +2.502
The Focus has a well settled suspension, but is soft compared to some of the others here. It impressed us with its good handling feel, and is nimble and stable enough to pull away from a more energetic, torquier and lighter Cooper. The weight dulls the driving sensation, though, and can cause some roll in turns. Aside from that, the suspension is well-thought out and executed, and it suffers less from understeer than most.
The Focus ST is fluid over almost any surface, and is a much easier drive than its superhero brother, the Focus RS. The engine is peaky, but has a decent amount of torque, thus it rarely feels flat, but it doesnt give the same kick as some of the other engines here. And therein lies its problem, the ST170 is undeniably a very good hot hatch, but its just not very stimulating compared to the competition.
Not the definitive hot-hatch, then, but a good midfielder. Lack of entertainment value just lets it down. But better control and feel puts it out just ahead of the slightly faster Peugeot.
4th - SEAT Ibiza Cupra | 8:45.891 | +0.733
Arguably better handling than the 206, and definitely faster, the Ibiza shows us what VWs turbo 1.8 can do with a light car. Its illuminating. That grunty 1.8T pulls hard from 2000 rpm to the redline, but the Seat starts running out of steam at high speeds. We figure maybe a little chip juggling or fine-tuning would fix that, and were glad to hear that the next Cupra R gets the full 225 factory horses from this unit. Theres life in this old engine yet! In its current state of tune, though, we cant see the Cupra being embarrassed at the stoplight by your run-of-the-mill VTEC... unless its a Type R.
The Cupra handles well and shows very little understeer given its power. Which came as a pleasant surprise to us, as the last FF wed driven with this engine, the Audi TT 1.8, certainly wasnt the best handling car wed ever driven (It wasnt the worst, either, but we were NOT impressed. -Ed). SEAT apparently does its own suspension tuning and development, even if it does share the basic framework of its cars with other VAG products. Learning this from the VW Handler as we slid the car around the Hatzenbach for the fourth time, we gained a newfound respect for this VW-based car. Damping is great, too, and the SEAT Cupra feels like the kind of hot hatch you can take out any day of the week and on any road.
The fine handling chassis, good body control and great damping make the SEAT a true contender in this category. Not the best, ultimately, but with that 1.8T 20 valve, potentially the fastest.
3rd - BMW 120i | 8:58.200 | +13.042
Initially, we had planned on using the 120d for this comparison, but a quick blast in the 120d back-to-back with this car changed our minds. The 120d may be a technological coup (We wouldve preferred a coupé, but BMW assures us thats in the works. -Ed) on paper, but in real life, that powerful diesel falls a bit flat. Even the fact that it revs up to 5500 rpm cant make up for the lack of urge at those engine speeds. BMW may be proud of the fact that it can extract over 160 horses from a 2 liter derv-burner, but the weight penalty associated with turbocharging and reinforcing that engine make it much heavier than the gas version. That the gas version is a terrifically responsive 2.0 liter with a decent amount of torque and a revvy nature does the diesel car no favors.
As far as diesel cars go, its a great one. In comparison to everything else here, the 120i is a more competitive choice.
The 120i is quick and nimble in the corners. Its a refreshing break after driving so many front wheel drivers. It breaks away into controllable oversteer when you push it too hard, but the grunty engine and terrific chassis assure that you wont lose much speed. Taking the racing line through corners, the little Beemer carries 10-20 kph more speed than even the best FF cars in this group, and maybe 10 kph more than the Altezza. In one of our favorite (read: easiest) turns, the multiple rights before Wehrseifen, the BMW rockets through at speeds that'll have you kissing the outside barriers in any other car. In terms of suspension design, the BMW beats the Lexus hands-down.
Where the 120i loses the plot is in straightline speed. No matter how well BMW disguises the weight of their cars in corners, braking and acceleration were always going to be compromised by the sheer weight of BMWs default insulation and luxury features. Once on an open road, the BMWs stablemate, the Mini Cooper S, just pulls steadily away.
With a contentious design, cramped quarters, and too much weight, the 120i doesnt quite make sense from any point of view. Advice to BMW, lose the rear seats (theyre pretty useless -Ed), forget insulation (when has any enthusiast ever complained about road noise!?! -Ed), and forget the corporate-identity candy wrapping (Blech! Okay, Ill stop now -Ed). With a design closer to Mini than Mini-BMW and with about 200 kilograms less weight, the 1-series would be a winner.
Despite all this, we cant deny that the BMW 120i is an invigorating driving experience, thus the 3rd place finish.
2nd - Mini Cooper S | 8:48.224 | +3.066
BMW proves that it can do front-wheel drive with the best of them. The 3-series sourced Z-link suspension out back and square wheelbase gives the Cooper an amazingly direct turn-in for an FF chassis, and gives it good grip, to boot. This is a balance that many others have tried and have failed to do, as a quick turn-in on an FF car is often accompanied by speed-scrubbing oversteer. Oversteer is something the Cooper can provide, never doubt, but its very easy to counter with a dab on the throttle or a flick of the steering.
The Cooper has a little trouble putting the power down, even in non-Works trim. Understeer under power is modest, but wheelspin in corners, albeit just slightly more than average, is not something you expect at these low power levels. We cant help feeling that a little more development on the front suspension or the engine and transmission (which arent really up to snuff in the technology race) would make this the best hot-hatch around.
The Mini makes you wonder why BMW bothered with the 1-series. The Mini is better looking, lighter, faster, and just as entertaining to drive as BMWs new entry-level car. And if youre wondering if its entertaining enough without the 200hp Works package, trust us, you wont really miss the extra power. The Cooper S is entertaining enough.
1st - RenaultSport Clio 2.0 16v | 8:45.158 | 0.000
The Clio is a tiny car compared to some of the others here, and its by far the lightest in this group. The small size of the Clio and the ridiculously high seating position make you feel naked on the track, but once youre out there, these concerns seem irrelevant. The Clio is small and nimble, with a decent engine thats quick to hit the redline matched to a sweet but simple 5 speed stick. Though the relatively puny rubber doesnt inspire much confidence, its more than adequate, and the Clio has no traction or grip problems on either end, even at the limits of adhesion.
The relatively small footprint and wheels-at-the corner attitude make the Clio drive much like the Mini Cooper. Although not exactly as sharp at the turn in (the only noticeable drawback of the Clios beam axle configuration -Ed), itll rotate much faster mid-corner, and breaking or restoring traction at the rear end is ridiculously easy. That small size also makes the Clio ridiculously easy to thread through complicated sections of the track, making it seem a mile wide in places where youd have trouble in most other cars. It makes driving even the sharpest of hairpins a piece of cake.
Id expected this car to be more unsettled than most on the rougher sections of the track, but the Clio is softly sprung, and body motion is well-controlled. Its amazing what you can do with less weight (Are you listening, BMW? VW? eh? EH? -Ed) to haul around. The engine in the Clio has more torque than any other naturally aspirated 2 liter here, and although the torque peak is high up in the rev range, that torque lies along a nearly flat curve. Power delivery is linear and strong, and shows that you dont need stratospheric engine speeds to produce power. Its not as melodious as some, but its a great powerplant.
The Clio runs with best of them, and is more than a match for the heavy hitters in the corners, if not on the straightaways. As it is, not many cars with less than 200 horses can outrun it, and it only runs short near the end of fifth gear. Its not as fast as the 200hp über-hatches in a straight line, but while this may be a liability on the highway, were betting that but on a small track, it could probably take names.
Conclusion
The Clio runs away with this comparison, but were mightily impressed by the Cooper, the Cupra and the 120i. If price or pace were no object, the Alfa 147 would be up there, too. We each had our favorites on the day. Bob loved the BMW 120i, both in looks and in driving enjoyment. Ed had a soft spot for the little Alfa, and I spent a lot of time getting to know the Protégé. That it didnt come in very high was due mostly to an uninspiring gearbox, and though I tried every trick in the book to convince Ed and Bob to let me place it higher, they held firm. Okay, being an MP3 owner, I may be biased, but I didnt abuse my power here.
Every time another driver came in with the Clio or the Cooper, there was a scramble for the keys, The Clio is just unbeatable here, both in terms of driving enjoyment and in outright pace. The Cooper was just plain fun.
With a little more power, and in this FF configuration, the Clio would be a giant killer. Even though the Clio V6 plays the role of super-hatch in Renaults line-up, the Clio 2.0 is definitely the Frenchie to have. Over the course of the week, we gave our little blue test car the nickname of Road Runner. Its big V6 brother got the nickname Taz, but thats a story best reserved for the next installment of this article.
Up next, in Part Two of our comparison, we check out compact class cars with 200 horsepower or more, and we reveal our picks for the Super-Compact Class.
...but FF seems to be where it's at (since the 80's anyway), so it's nice to see some companies trying to make them fun to drive.
