Sport Compacts III: On The Edge

Alfa Romeo GT 3.2, Audi S3, Dodge SRT4, Ford Focus RS, Honda Civic Type R, Honda Integra Type R, Renault Clio V6,
Toyota Celica TRD, Volkswagen Golf R32
Read Part I here
Read Part II here

Editor’s Note:

It’s been quite a while since we published our last article, but we’ve been busy. It’s been hectic here at Road&Trek, as we move office once again. Nick’s wife is expecting a baby, and he’s making noises about moving back home for a while. Bob’s leg is healing quite nicely after a crash at last week’s American Le Man’s Race at Laguna Seca, and I’m stuck with taking care of all our project cars. As the Skyline has a blown tranny and Nick’s turbocharged Protege is in the shop for some new CV Joints and Wheel Bearings (it’s also drinking oil like crazy), I’ve got a lot to do and not enough time or money to do it with. Ah well, as soon as the new office is set-up, we’re going to go into post-production on a number of other articles that were left on the back burner. Motor On! -Ed.

In this last installment in our Sport Compact Series, we've got the "Sport Compacts" and "Hot Hatches" that push the boundaries out just that little bit further. Only one car here is under 200hp, and most are well north of 200 hp. A lot of power for a small FF car. There's also the odd midship car here, as well as the four wheeler from VW, but the added weight and cost of these cars handicap them enough to make this a fair fight.

It's at these power-to-weight ratios where the modern front-wheel drive chassis starts showing cracks in its facade. Torque-steer, understeer and excessive wheelspin are difficult to engineer out of front-drivers this powerful. So these cars should feel like pigs compared to their less powerful brethren, right?

Surprisingly, not. Read on.


#8 Dodge SRT4 03
Lap Time: 8:29.854 (6th)

At first glance, the Dodge Neon SRT4... *ahurm*... the Dodge SRT4 (Dodge doesn’t want us to call it a Neon anymore) would seem to be your typical Good-Old-American-Hotrod. It’s a cheap chassis with a beefier engine (a la Chrysler PT Cruiser), suspension, steering rack (again a la PT Cruiser) and... what the heck... a big hair-dryer of a turbo just to make sure there’s enough power. Voila, the ultimate sports compact. Simple as this may sound, it works.

That turbo isn’t stuck on there tuner-style, it’s cast into the manifold, giving excellent response and quick catalytic light-up. The chassis of the Neon has always been cited for its good handling characteristics, and the ACR version is a favorite of autocrossers and track-day fanatics on a budget. That suspension works well, absorbing bumps and keeping the SRT well planted. The ride is firm and surprisingly stable, but there is a bit of body roll due to the relative heft of the car. Even with over 235 hp going through the front wheels, wheelspin is relatively easy to control.

That it’s only sixth fastest here is a disappointment. The Dodge makes a good showing of itself, keeping up with the other cars, but the Focus pulls steadily away out of turns and leaves the Dodge in the dust at double digit speeds. The ITR and Alfa GT dice it out with the SRT4 most of the way, countering the SRT’s monster torque with cornering ability and high rpm speed. The Honda’s accuracy and lightness eventually win through as it inches away from the Dodge and the Alfa. The Dodge tries to pull up on the Honda on the straights, but with so much of the weight concentrated over the front axle thanks to that huge engine and turbo installation, handling suffers in the corners. Even though it rotates faster than the Integra, (though the steering is not as sharp) it has lower limits at the very edge of adhesion. The rear end simply runs out of grip. It’s easy enough to steer with, but the weight balance doesn’t let you exploit this as well as it should.

Compared to the establisment, the Dodge is crude and unrefined, but undeniably fast in a very rough kind of way. Push it too hard and it’ll spin quickly, but toe the line at 9/10ths and it’ll go all day. The Dodge isn’t the best handler here, but given that it’s a simpler and much more accessible car than many of these high powered compacts (and cheaper, too -Ed) makes this a desirable machine. It’s definitely an American car, blunt, brutal and dramatic.


#7 Honda Civic Type R EP 04
Lap Time: 8:32.484 (7th)

Corners on rails. An over-used phrase but appropriate for many of these sports-bred road machines. The Honda, though, takes things to another level. Though nowhere near as fast as the Ford Focus RS, it has a thing or two to teach the European super-hatch about suspension balance and compliance. It can achieve corner speeds just as fast or faster than the Focus without the jittery and sometimes scary ride the Ford has over bumps and road imperfections. Though some cambers can catch the Civic off-guard, the progressiveness of power-delivery ensures that it doesn’t throw you wholesale into them.

Unfortunately, this sure-footedness comes at a price. Understeer is the predominant behavior of the Civic, even more so than the supposedly cruder Dodge, and that progressive power-delivery means that it’s slow below 6000 rpm. It’s not as sluggish as the old B-series engine, thanks to 200cc extra displacement and a better torque curve, but it’s difficult to keep this engine on the boil... even with the lighter flywheel on this new CTR. And we still have gripes about the McPherson struts up front (older CTRs had dual-wishbones). While the Civic’s competitors all run McPhersons, we feel that Honda’s units are not the best out there. More’s the pity, match the older double wishbone suspension with this great chassis and engine, and the CTR would be a much more convincing contender.

As it is, with super-sharp steering, incredible levels of grip, and an insatiable appetite for revs, the CTR is still the segment benchmark. With the next Civic boasting an even stiffer chassis and more power, things can only get better.


#6 Toyota Modellista Celica TRD Sports M ZZT 231 01
Lap Time: 8.34.116 (8th)

The Celica, as Toyota’s bread-and-butter sports car, once shared platforms and nameplates with the Supra. While the Supra was budded off to become Toyota’s rear-wheel drive grand touring supercar, the Celica was re-invented as a front-wheel drive platform, evolving into Toyota’s four wheel drive turbocharged rally monster during the nineties. Nowadays, though, the Celica is most closely targeted at the Honda Integra’s core market, as a high-revving front-wheel drive sports coupe.

Unfortunately, the Celica is nowhere near as quick or as hardcore as the Integra. The 190hp 2ZZ has much less torque than the newer Honda 2-liter, and is much too peaky, feeling not much stronger than the 140hp unit in the base Celica. The Celica’s chassis is also not quite as committed as the Integra’s.

The TRD Sports M is Toyota’s answer to the regular Celica’s shortcomings. With a sports-tuned exhaust, lighter flywheel and sports clutch, the TRD Celica revs faster than the standard car. Acceleration is brisk, and while power is still confined to a small section of the rev range (6000-8000 rpm), the TRD doesn’t fall flat at 5000 rpm, unlike in other applications of this engine. The six-speed gearbox also ensures that it’s easy to keep the engine above 5000 rpm. The sport-tuned TRD suspension and wider tires make the Celica steady without being rock hard, and allows it to corner with more conviction than the stock Celica.

So is it a match for the Integra? Sadly, no. The TRD Celica rotates quickly, the stiff rear suspension allowing the rear tires to break loose in a controllable manner. The rear-end stays steady in high speed cornering, and recovering from slides is easy. It’s pointy and entertaining to drive. But power coming out of corners is not very strong, and transitions into wheelspin easily. It’s a nearly a match for the Civic Type R in a straight line, but not as quick out of slow corners because of the lack of torque. The Civic is also a more precise tool, with better grip, smoother power delivery and more power. But the Celica looks good and rotates faster. It’s much more chuckable than the CTR, though not quite as quick. It’s competitive though, and given as much displacement and power as the Honda, it could probably match the Integra’s pace.

In the end, we ranked it this high because it’s highly entertaining. That’s not something that could be said of the regular Celica, or any of the other Toyotas/Lexus’s (Again, that’s Lexii -Ed) here. And to think we’d almost lost faith in Toyota.


#5 Clio Renault Sport V6 Phase 2 03
Lap Time: 8:19.770 (1st)

The story of the “hot hatch” is a long and colorful one. And one of the most colorful of the hot hatches was the Renault 5 Turbo. Having almost nothing in common with the more common Renault 5, the Turbo was something of a hot hatch legend. A lightweight, short wheelbase car with the engine mounted on the wrong side of the driver, the 5 Turbo could turn on a dime. Feather light steering and responses made it a brutally quick rally car, and a proper hooligan on the road. Unfortunately, the hockey puck-like characterstics also made it a very dangerous road car in the wrong hands.

By the time the Renault 5 had hit the streets, the VW Golf had already revolutionized the sport compact market, by mixing nimble handling and dynamics with economical manufacture and mass market appeal. With safer, understeer-biased handling and easily probed limits, as well as better and cheaper packaging, front wheel drive hatchbacks would eventually kill off the rear wheel drive competition. And within twenty years, you would be hard pressed to find any cheap non-luxury car with rear wheel drive. The first generation Clio V6 resurrected the production mid-mount hatch (in the intervening years, mid-mount hatches were usually the product of deranged minds and hacksaws), but was often criticized for having too much understeer and too abrupt a transition between that and too much oversteer.

The new Clio V6 answers that with bigger tires, better grip, and a revised suspension, with better damping and softer spring rates. Diddling around with both Clios, the new V6 feels more direct, more powerful and definitely much faster. The grip is phenomenal, and the steering is neck-snappingly quick. Thanks to the linearity and smoothness of the Clio’s V6, and the fact that the weight of the engine is primarily over the rear wheels, power-on wheelspin is almost completely non-existent.

In spirited driving, the Clio is a delight once you are acclimatized to it, turning in very quickly, and easy to catch at the point of oversteer. Unfortunately, as both commitment and speed grow, the need to concentrate increases exponentially. At speeds over 140 km/h, oversteer is the Clio’s default characteristic, power-on oversteer, lift-off oversteer, and pendulum-induced oversteer. That the ‘Ring’s transitions come so quickly and so close together does nothing to help this.

The Clio V6 also reacts more to camber changes than the RS, even though it’s bothered a bit less by bumps, and it forces you to run a conservative line in places where you’d be going flat-out in other cars. Linked left-right combinations that hardly register in other cars become perplexingly difficult exercises in car control, as even slight side-to-side transitions at speed can turn into a frighteningly deadly tango with the car’s rear end trying to swap places with the front end, and often winning.

As compared to the front-wheel drive Clio 2.0, this car is a completely different animal, and just about the only thing they have in common is the nameplate and the body panelling. Like the FF Clio, it’s one of the best handlers here, but it’s just too direct and twitchy on the racetrack for any but the best of drivers. This is the Porsche of hot hatches, a great machine and a terrific track tool, but deserving of tremendous respect. It’s too hardcore for 90% of the drivers out there.

Counterpoint: We’ve nicknamed this car “Taz”, and for good reason. Taz likes to spin. Taz’s day ended in the hands of one of the local boys, who spun it into the grass around Hatzenbach-Geschlangel, on his very first lap and hardly more than a minute into his session. We managed to get the car out, but a flat tire and jammed lugs meant that Danny McKensie had to fork over a lot of quid for the towing service back to the garage. It seems like only the lappers with race experience, such as Nick, Bob and I were capable of pulling off clean laps at full speed... and Nick still had his share of moments. But he did manage to record the fastest time of the day. “Probably a fluke,” he admitted, “that car scares the shee-yit out of me.” This is likely the ultimate hot hatch, and it’s a shame they’re not making them anymore. -Ed


#4 Ford Focus RS 02
Lap Time: 8:21.814 (2nd)

At a time when the only performance numbers Ford of America was interested in were the Mustang’s sales figures, Ford of Europe were busy building small cars with ridiculous power and superb handling. These RS-badged cars were mean, lean and just over the edge. To some, these cars were handling gods.

The latest installment in the “RS” saga, the Ford Focus RS shows just how good Ford of Europe’s skunkworks is. How they get a front-wheel driver to handle like this is beyond us, but they’ve done it. The Focus plants itself through corners, oversteers at will, and generally monsters the competition. As compared to the 170 hp “hot” SVT Focus that America gets, the Focus RS is about 200 kg lighter, 50 hp more powerful, shifts faster, and has a handling balance that is much better than the great balance of the SVT. Drive an SVT Focus in isolation, and you’ll be delighted by the steering and handling of the car. Drive the SVT and the RS back-to-back, and the SVT seems less sharp, less precise, too heavy and much too slow.

The Ford Focus RS is relatively expensive for a “hot hatch”, but factor in the ultra-light weight, beefier transmission, terrific Quaife differential, widened track and body-cladding, and it seems something of a bargain, particularly as it would cost you a whole lot more to bring an SVT Focus up to RS specs. Word is, Ford lost money on every RS it sold. How much, they’re not willing to tell.

The Focus is a definite handful to drive at race speeds, breaking into snap-oversteer with minimal provocation, but cornering with ridiculous alarcity if you judge it just right. The RS is both very light and very stiff, a worrisome combination on rough surfaces, requiring one to back-off at times. There is also more than enough torque to break those tires loose up to third gear. This necessitates a re-thinking of shifting strategies, but with a wide powerband, the RS doesn’t penalize you for lugging it in a lower gear. In fact, when you’re not sure of traction, it’s often better... and faster. Those wide tires and wide track give the RS great stability, but also have it sniffing out cambers and bumps when you’re pushing hard, and it can get tiring to drive at full chat.

Though none of the other “hot hatches” (Clio excepted... and it's the only one here that costs more) can match its pace, it is the hardest to drive quickly, rewarding good drivers with great times, and average drivers with entertaining antics, tire smoke and merely “acceptable” times. High speeds on less than perfect roads, like the quick section right after the Pflanzgarten, require delicate control and a firm grip on the wheel. It’s definitely the quickest “hot hatch” around, but one that requires a good road to drive on.

The Ford Focus RS isn’t for everyone. It’s a little too hardcore for the regular driver. But as a track machine, it’s damn near unbeatable by anything under 30,000 Cr. Unfortunately, it’s much more expensive than that, and its rarity and high residuals will ensure that it’ll maintain its status as a cult car, enjoyed by the select few, and envied by those who will only ever see its boxy and rapidly diminishing behind.


#3 Alfa Romeo GT 3.2 V6 24V 04
Lap Time: 8:29.659 (5th)

The Alfa really doesn't fit into this comparison group, as it's targeted at a market that includes the RX8, the Crossfire and the Audi TT. But it slides in under the weight and size limit of the group, and it’s front-wheel drive. Though we ought to have included the Audi TT, it’s an out and out sports-coupé, while the Alfa Romeo GT still has some pretensions of practicality, with a rear seat and an actual rear window.

Much better looking and much faster than the crazily over-the-top 147 GTA, the Alfa Romeo GT earned much praise from us in our Posers and Players Comparo a few months back. We’re still convinced this is a good car, and it’s a much better car than the GTA. What a difference an extra year or two of development makes! The GT is at once more planted and more pliant than the GTA, while the power deficit matters very little when coming out of a corner. From a standing start, the GTA jumps ahead, but within a few corners, the GT will be all over the GTA’s heels. Swap positions and the GT pulls away slowly but steadily, through both fast corners and slow corners. Over a long straight, the GTA may start to inch closer, but the power difference just isn’t that great.

The engine pulls for what seems like forever. Loss of traction doesn’t end up in terminal wheelspin, thanks to the linear powerband. But lot of smoke wafts out from under the front wheel-arches when you’re pushing hard. The chassis is stiff, and stutters over bumps, but remains tractable at the limit. The car doesn’t go to pieces on rough roads at high speeds, and actually seems to settle down once into triple digits. It’s easy to push around, and not as understeery off-power as the ITR. Long corners, though, still require judicious throttle-modulation to keep the nose in line. That talkative rear end loses grip much more easily than the front, which allows you to trim turns, but takes a tiny bit of speed out of the Alfa in fast bends. The brakes aren’t as hardcore as those in the other top-four cars, and we wish Alfa would put a better package on for track work.

The choice between the ITR and the Alfa is a difficult one. While the Honda is a better and sharper track tool, the Alfa appeals to all the senses, with great steering, a lively sounding and powerful engine, and sleeker lines. But in the end, the ITR is the faster car, and a more realistic choice. The Alfa comes close, and falls just a tiny bit short.

But if we had the money, yes, we’d like an Alfa... in Rosso Red, please, and with a full tank.


#2 Volkswagen Golf Mk IV R32 03
Lap Time: 8:26.384 (3rd)

Until we get our hands on the new Mk V Golf R32, this is probably the closest we’ll come to the perfect Golf. And boy, is it good. The R32 gets VW’s trademark 4MOTION, as well as the ubiquitous 3.2 VR6 engine. We’ve been singularly unimpressed by the A3 version of this package, which mirrors the upcoming R32, but if the next R32 stays close to this formula, all will be forgiven.

The R32 pulls hard in any gear, at any engine speed, and is an easier weapon to wield than the Focus RS. Ultimately, it can’t come close to matching its pace, the laws of physics and a higher curb weight see to that, but it is a much easier companion to fling around, and is supremely tunable for extra oomph and grip. The low profile rubber grips like there’s no tomorrow. AWD means that it’s easy to catch with some well-judged throttle application, and traction out of corners is better than any of the front-drivers here. The steering is also marvelously direct for a VW, which is no small compliment. There's a very good reason why the R32 is the poster child for European Tuner enthusiasts.

Still, the R32 is a heavy beast, with cornering speeds lower than many of the lighter cars here. Despite the sporty rubber and suspension, there's just too much car to fling around. That wonderful engine does much to make up for the weight, but the R32's mass and boxy profile make the car sluggish at high speeds. We put a premium on nimbleness and weight in this comparison, and while the AWD and power can mask some of the car's shortcomings, they're still there.

In the end, the R32 is a fitting end to the Mark IV line, and we can only hope the next one is better. What we won’t count on is it being any lighter. The sad news for hot hatch lovers is that the new generation of German hot hatches (BMW 130, VW Golf R32, and the A3 3.2) are all over the 1.5 ton mark. Porky little buggers.


#1 Honda Integra Type R 03 DC5
Lap Time: 8:27.906 (4th)

One may ask how the Integra compares to its American-market Acura counterpart, the RSX. Sadly, the Acura just isn’t in the same league. Guess we get the shaft... again.

Take all that’s good about the Civic Type R, the planted feeling, the revvy engine, the smooth gearbox... and remove all that’s bad, the incessant understeer, the sluggishness off-peak and in tight corners... mix that all together into a body shell that is definitely twice as sleek, twice as sexy and twice as stiff and you’ve got the Integra.

Though the Integra is only a bit lighter and just slightly more powerful than the CTR, it goes like stink. Drive them back to back and you’ll wonder why the CTR feels so flat low-down (the Integra doesn’t) and why it understeers so much (the Integra... still does, but much less so). The only drawbacks to this set-up is slightly more wheelspin when you stand on the gas, but before your brain registers this and communicates the “throttle-modulation-impulse” to your right foot, the Integra’s special differential kicks in and you’re off and flying. It doesn’t impede progress at all.

The ITR has more urge up top, but what you’re most thankful for is the transient response, the amount of power it has below the VTEC cut-off. With a little tweaking, you could get the CTR like this (they are the same engine, after all), but one wonders if the fact that the CTR is not as good as the ITR is merely a factor of marketing dictating to engineering: ”Slow it down, or no one will buy the Integra...” Then again, the Integra is beautiful enough to sell on its own merits, even if both cars were put on equal footing. Equal footing would mean bracing the Civic’s chassis to the same stiffness as the coupe, remapping the engine, and tweaking the aero-kit. And the Civic still wouldn’t be as pretty.

As compared to the other cars here, the Integra is zen driving at its best. It manhandles more powerful and/or expensive machinery and asks for more. Though the Ford Focus RS has it mastered for steering fluency and nimbleness, the Honda is still the better driver’s car, as it’s more accessible over real world roads than the much more expensive Ford. You can drive the Honda at 10/10ths all day and still feel fresher than after doing five laps in the Ford at 8/10ths. With a little more power, the Integra would be much faster, too... as it is, the biggest difference between these two cars is how fast they get to the next corner... and it’s not a very big difference at all.

In terms of driving enjoyment, the Volkswagen and the Alfa Romeo GT drew our voting into a 12 round punch-fest of a fight. I suppose we could have given this win to one of the Europeans, but when you factor in value for money, it’s just no contest. Add to that the fact that you can hop into the Integra and pull off a perfect lap cold while it would take you four or five laps in any other car here before you start probing their limits... well, it's just not fair.



Nürburgring Lap Times

8.34.116 Toyota Modellista Celica TRD Sports M ZZT 231 01
8:32.484 Honda CTR EP 04

8:29.854 Dodge SRT4 03
8:29.659 Alfa Romeo GT 3.2 V6 24V 04
8:27.906 Integra Type R 03 DC5
8:26.384 VW Golf Mk IV R32 03

8:21.814 Ford Focus RS 02
8:19.770 Clio Renault Sport V6 Phase 2 03


Link to full-resolution version (4600x960) HERE

excellent comparo, as always. Whenever I need good advice to buy a car, I take a look at your lists... but I usually end up buying them all. If you're lacking the time, I'd be more than happy in collaborating experience, data and times to future editions of Road&Trek.

great comparo, I must say as well, but I must note one thing that has really disturbed me from day one--(Literally) I noticed this right away In GT4 as the first car I bought was in fact, A Dodge SRT-4 <--Neon. the neon in this game has Horribly wrong gearing--they usually seem to get their gear ratios for cars perfect, but for some reason the gears are all whacked out for the SRT-4.---I'm not taking anything from any competitors, but the neon will run significantly faster with the proper gears(I have tested it.)
with that said, great work guys

@Diego Seeing as I often have to buy them all to do these things, I don't have that problem.

Hey, if you're interested, I'm always around. I think Speedy was asking Jordan about a GT-Newsletter, but I don't know if there's an answer yet.

@LeadSlead2: That's interesting... I did note that with the Golf and the new Eclipse, but I merely drove around the problem, as correcting the gears to manufacturer's figures often gave me sluggish 1st gears... in any case, pure speed isn't the Dodge's problem, but weight and handling. On N-tires, weight plays a very important role in multiple corner combinations. That said, the handling IS good... just not as good as some of the others here... compared to almost any other car in the first two comparos, it's a killer car.

Editor's Note: As always, all times are acquired via extensive hot-lapping in simulation mode, with N3 tires. These provide for good lap times, as well as exposing many of the flaws in each of the car's driving character without introducing too much understeer. For realistic car dynamics and lap-times, N2s would be the closest, with N3s for the tuner cars or cars which come with very aggressive rubber as stock.

This also eliminates the discrepancy caused by the Celica TRD coming on SS tires as opposed to SMs. The Celica driven in this comparo was driven with stock settings.

If two or more cars lap within a second of each other, I ghost race them, swapping back and forth to determine which one is faster. I can't claim that my times are absolute, but any difference near or over one second should mean that one car is really faster around the track.

Furthermore, I tested two modifiers and another stock car with this group. Although I cut them from the final article, it may interest people to know that a simulated John Cooper S Works Mini (stock suspension, just like the real one, with mods up to 200hp before oil) laps just a second slower than a CTR, and a Focus ST170 with Level I Sports mods, Weight Reduction II (1128 kg) and slight tweaking, laps around 8:22. It's a really good chassis.

I just couldn't fit them into this article realistically. Might do one about the modified Cooper S.

The stock S3, however, was dropped from the article because it was disappointingly slow. Drove like the R32, but could only muster a poor 8:41.

Excellent review. I'm very surprised the alfa scored so highly, as it is supposed to have oodles of torque-steer in reality.

I might try my hand at some reviews in the near future.

Thanks for the great read!

Read Part II... the Alfa GTA has oodles of understeer.

Torque steer, though, is one thing that doesn't translate well into the game. That said, if we're comparing the Alfa mostly to other FF cars, the relative amount of power understeer doesn't matter as much.

Given that any FF car will understeer under power, what really counts in the handling of an FF car is what it does when your foot is OFF the gas. In that situation, the Alfa acquits itself well.

Once again an awesome write up Niky. These hot hatch articles keep getting better and better, it's a pity this is the last one. I'm hoping it's not your last race report though....

Any hints on what the next one might be on?

Have one on four door musclecars (still in the testing stage), and am thinking about a clubsport special. Still need to do research for the clubsports, though. Definitely putting in the M3, the Esprit, one or two RUFs, etc...

And no, this isn't the last hatch article... I'm working on Kei cars and subcompacts, but I still haven't found the right track to work at.

Awesome. I can't wait.

As for tracks, I think that either the Motorsports park full track or Autumn Ring/Mini would be good for small, lightweight hatches.

The Autumn Ring is a nice track, but straightline speed plays a large part in lap times between similar cars on the full AR (the Mini is just too simple). You can go nearly flat out from the drifting hairpin (where you kick up leaves) down the last two straights to the start/finish line.

I'll probably go back to a two or three track format for that, but that's far into the future.

nice one niky.
the RS kicks RS hey!

ving

nice one niky.
the RS kicks RS hey!

Click to expand...

never thought of it that way. And it can kick Clio aRSe, too, unless the Clio driver is a good one.