A selection of cars for autocross...my word, the choices!

[JCE]

The reason for this topic is simple.

1. I'll be getting my Daytona Shelby ready for autocrossing OR the dragstrip.
2. If I can find another car for autocross I'll turn the Daytona into a dragcar.
3. And of these cars I like which would be better for autocrossing--FOR THE PRICE CONSCIOUS?

I'm after performance per dollar here--and a starting vehicle price limit of $1,000~1,200. AND NO, MX5'S ARE NOT WANTED. Remember this is (or will be eventually) my money as well as a few of my fellow NTTGA (North Texas Third Gen Assoc.) club members. These are cars I'd personally consider for autocross that wouldn't cost an arm or leg AND are something a bit different (on most of them). The important bits are highlighted in another color--and red means it might perform well with less weight and decent power. I'm not looking to set any records, win any prizes, or the lot--I'm interested in the drive fun factor and the experience. This is a serious topic, so treat it as such. No flaming or bickering.

Note: Most of these 0-60 times were from http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/0-60times.html. And I only include them because acceleration is important.

Year -- Make/Model -- Engine + Drivetrain + Power -- Curb Weight -- 0-60mph
1987-1993 -- Chevrolet Beretta -- 2.3L I4 180bhp 160tq FWD -- 2756lbs -- ~8.3s
1991-1994 -- Chevrolet Beretta -- 3.1L V6 140/160bhp 185tq FWD -- 2983lbs -- ~7.7s
1987-1992 -- Chevrolet Camaro RS - 5.0L V8 170bhp 255tq RWD -- ~3200-3300lbs -- ~7.0s
1997-2003 -- Chevrolet Malibu -- 3.1L V6 160/170bhp 185tq FWD -- ~3000-3100lbs -- ~7.9s
1997-1999 -- Chevrolet Malibu -- 2.4L I4 150bhp 150tq FWD -- ~3000-3100lbs -- ~8.9s
1990-1991 -- Dodge Shadow -- 2.5L I4 turbo 152bhp 180tq FWD -- 2613lbs -- ~6.5s
1992-1994 -- Dodge Shadow ES -- 3.0L V6 141bhp 171tq FWD -- ~2700-2800lbs -- ~6.8s
1990-1995 -- Dodge Spirit ES -- 2.5L I4 turbo/3.0L V6 152/141bhp 210/171tq FWD -- ~2800lbs -- No 0-60 time could be located
1991-1992 -- Dodge Spirit R/T -- 2.5L I4 224bhp 217tq FWD -- ~2800lbs -- ~6.5s
1997-2003 -- Ford Escort ZX2 -- 2.0L I4 130bhp 127tq FWD -- 2468lbs -- ~7.4s
1993-1997 -- Ford Probe GT -- 2.5L V6 164bhp 156/160tq FWD -- 2690lbs -- ~7.5s
1990-1995 -- Ford Taurus SHO -- 3.0/3.2L V6 220/220bhp 200/215tq FWD -- 3118lbs -- ~7.5s
1990-1993 -- Geo Storm GSi -- 1.6L/1.8L I4 130/140bhp 102/120tq FWD -- 2357lbs -- ~8.5s
1992-1994 -- Mazda MX3 GS -- 1.8L V6 130bhp 115tq FWD -- 2443lbs -- ~8.0s
1993-1997 -- Mazda MX6 -- 2.5L V6 160/164bhp 156/160tq FWD -- 2625lbs -- ~7.4s
1990-1992 -- Mazda RX7 Turbo -- 1.3L 2-rotor wankel turbo 200bhp 195tq RWD -- 2888lbs -- ~6.3s
1990-1993 -- Mercedes-Benz 190E -- 2.6L I6 158bhp 162tq RWD -- ~2900lbs -- ~8.7s
1991-1993 -- Mercedes-Benz 190E -- 2.3L I4 130bhp 146tq RWD -- ~2900lbs -- ~9.9s
1990-1993 -- Mitsubishi Galant GS -- 2.0L I4 135/144bhp 125/135tq FWD -- ~2600lbs -- ~8.3s
1994-1998 -- Mitsubishi Galant ES -- 2.4L I4 160bhp 160tq FWD -- 2755lbs -- ~9.0s
1990-1992 -- Mitsubishi Mirage GS -- 1.6L I4 123bhp 101tq FWD -- 2231lbs (saloon) -- No 0-60 data found
1993-1996 -- Mitsubishi Mirage ES -- 1.6L I4 113bhp 116tq FWD -- 2195lbs (saloon) -- ~8.7s
1989-1993 -- Nissan 200SX -- 1.8L I4 131bhp 117tq RWD -- ~2600-2800lbs -- ~9.5s
1995-1998 -- Nissan 200SX SE-R -- 2.0L I4 140bhp 142tq FWD -- 2330lbs -- ~7.8s
1983-1989 -- Nissan 300ZX Turbo -- 3.0L V6 turbo 160/205bhp 200tq RWD -- ~3100lbs -- ~7.4s
1990-1993 -- Saab 900 Turbo -- 2.0L I4 turbo 160/175bhp 188/195tq FWD -- ~2700-2800lbs -- ~6.8s
1990-1997 -- Saab 9000 Turbo -- 2.3L I4 turbo 200/225bhp 238/244tq FWD -- ~3000-3200lbs -- ~7.5s
1995-1998 -- Saab 9000 -- 3.0L V6 210bhp 200tq FWD -- 3209lbs -- ~9.2s
1997-2001 -- Subaru Impreza -- 2.2L H4 135/137bhp 140/145tq AWD -- ~2400-2420lbs -- 0-60mph data not found
1993-1994 -- Subaru Justy -- 1.3L I3 73bhp/71tq FWD [note: ECVT transmission] -- 1845lbs -- 0-60mph data not found
1991-1994 -- Subaru Legacy AWD -- 2.2L H4 turbo 160bhp 181tq AWD -- 2740lbs -- ~8.5s
2000-2002 -- Suzuki Esteem GS -- 1.8L I4 122bhp 117tq FWD -- 2227lbs -- 0-60mph data not found
1990-1993 -- Toyota Celica AllTrac -- 2.0L I4 turbo 200bhp 200tq -- ~2500lbs -- ~7.5s
1990-1991 -- Toyota Corolla GT-S -- 1.6L I4 130bhp 105tq FWD -- ~2400lbs -- ~9.2s
1987-1989 -- Toyota MR2 SC -- 1.6L I4 supercharged 145bhp ???tq RWD -- ~2200lbs -- ~6.5s
1991-1995 -- Toyota MR2 -- 2.2L I4 130/135bhp 140/145tq RWD -- 2657lbs -- ~8.4s
1992-1997 -- Toyota Paseo -- 1.5L I4 100/93bhp 91/100tq FWD -- 2025lbs -- ~9.5s
1995-1998 -- Toyota Tercel -- 1.5L I4 93bhp 100tq FWD -- 1950lbs (coupe) 2005lbs (saloon) -- ~11.0s
1990-1992 -- Volkswagen Golf GTI/Jetta GLI -- 1.8L I4 134bhp 133tq FWD -- ~2200lbs -- ~8.4s
1991-1992 -- Volvo 940/960 -- 2.3L I4 153bhp 150bhp FWD -- 3205lbs (saloon) 3280lbs (estate) -- ~8.9s
1992-1998 -- Volvo 960/V90 (estate only) -- 2.9L I6 181/201bhp 199/197tq FWD -- 3280lbs -- 0-60mph data not found

I didn't do Audi because there was a lack of info for those late 80's early 90's models.

*edit*
Oh, and remember this is for the US so remember that when making a suggestion.

 

[Tornado]

No Saabs. Be it autocross or drag, you stomp on it and it won't go the direction you want it to. Tercels are fun little cars, but they don't handle particularly well and they are very slow.

Here is what I think for autocross:

1987-1993 -- Chevrolet Beretta -- 2.3L I4 180bhp 160tq FWD -- 2756lbs -- ~8.3s
1997-2003 -- Ford Escort ZX2 -- 2.0L I4 130bhp 127tq FWD -- 2468lbs -- ~7.4s
1993-1997 -- Ford Probe GT -- 2.5L V6 164bhp 156/160tq FWD -- 2690lbs -- ~7.5s
1990-1993 -- Geo Storm GSi -- 1.6L/1.8L I4 130/140bhp 102/120tq FWD -- 2357lbs -- ~8.5s
1992-1994 -- Mazda MX3 GS -- 1.8L V6 130bhp 115tq FWD -- 2443lbs -- ~9.0s
1991-1993 -- Mercedes-Benz 190E -- 2.3L I4 130bhp 146tq RWD -- ~2900lbs -- ~9.9s
1989-1993 -- Nissan 200SX -- 1.8L I4 131bhp 117tq RWD -- ~2600-2800lbs -- ~9.5s
1995-1998 -- Nissan 200SX SE-R -- 2.0L I4 140bhp 142tq FWD -- 2330lbs -- ~7.8s
1997-2001 -- Subaru Impreza -- 2.2L H4 135/137bhp 140/145tq AWD -- ~2400-2420lbs -- 0-60mph data not found
1987-1989 -- Toyota MR2 SC -- 1.6L I4 supercharged 145bhp ???tq RWD -- ~2200lbs -- ~6.5s

I also suggest a Mercury Cougar, a Mazda MX-6, an early SHO Taurus, a Neon R/T (or ACR), a Dodge Shadow or a Volvo 240. Perhaps a Lumina Z34 as well.

 

[JCE]

No Saabs. Be it autocross or drag, you stomp on it and it won't go the direction you want it to.

Is the torque-steer that bad?

Tercels are fun little cars, but they don't handle particularly well and they are very slow.

Slow, but in a review I read they said the midrange is ok. They are cheap as cheap can be and have the aura or Toyota reliability.

Here is what I think for autocross...

I also suggest a Mercury Cougar, a Mazda MX-6, an early SHO Taurus, a Neon R/T (or ACR), a Dodge Shadow or a Volvo 240. Perhaps a Lumina Z34 as well.

The Cougar is heavy until you get to the 1999 Mondeo sourced one and it gets expensive. The SHO is heavy--but expensive. The Dodge Shadow is surprisingly a little rabbit in the twisty stuff--its just slow 0-60. The 240 while cheap, is heavy isn't it? The Lumina would be ok because its cheap, but the Beretta is much better looking yes? The Neon can be put into the MX5 "not want" bin. MX-6 is the Probe's sister and I completely forgot about it. I love those things. I'll add them to the master list.

1990-1995 -- Ford Taurus SHO -- 3.0/3.2L V6 220/220bhp 200/215tq FWD -- 3118lbs -- ~7.5s
1993-1997 -- Mazda MX6 -- 2.5L V6 160/164bhp 156/160tq FWD -- 2625lbs -- ~7.4s

*edt*
The SHO isn't that heavy. I'll post that info also.

 

[Tornado]

Is the torque-steer that bad?

Its not as bad as people make it out to be, but at the same time its still pretty notable when you push it. And the only Saab I've driven was a Saab 9-3 V6, so I can't imagine how bad it must be on the older, turbocharged cars.
Besides, a big, front heavy luxury car with vague steering isn't the best track car anyways. And they are hardly reliable enough to bother with.

The Dodge Shadow is surprisingly a little rabbit in the twisty stuff--its just slow 0-60.

Yeah, but you could share pretty much all of the parts between it and the Daytona you already bought. And K engines are remarkably easy to force-induce, being nigh-indestructible.
Or you could just be lazy an buy a V6 model. Either way, you would essentially be buying a second, more practical Dodge Daytona. Except Shadows handle a little better.

The 240 while cheap, is heavy isn't it?

Not really. They weigh a bit less than the current Volvo C30. Plus they too go well with turbocharging (and it isn't that hard to find a turbocharged from the factory model).

The Lumina would be ok because its cheap, but the Beretta is much better looking yes?

The Lumina has a better engine, is faster and doesn't handle any worse than the Beretta.

 

[JCE]

The Lumina has a better engine, is faster and doesn't handle any worse than the Beretta.

The Lumina has the same 3.1L V6 that the higher spec Beretta's have don't they?

And on the subject of "luxury cars" and weight I do plan on stripping every last ounce off of my autocross car--including the side and back windows. The only thing it'll have is dash, aftermarket driver's seat w/4pt belt, rollcage, and a fire extinguisher. And if I choose another vehicle besides the Daytona I'll weld the doors together to add rigidity.

What I don't know is in the "stock" class if weight stripping is allowed? Or is it just stock drivetrain and tires/wheels? If the latter I can only imagine how much weight the likes of the Volvo, Merc, and Saab might shed. I already know how much the Camaro can shed.

 

[Perfect Balance]

Where are all the early gen civics?

The EF and EG civics would make great autocross cars, especially if you tear out the interior. The front heavy-ness of them makes them rotate great under turning.


Or a CRX, or an older Golf.

They would own most of the cars on your list except for the MR2s and the Geo strom GSI.

EDIT: Really, how did you manage to forget Honda? The fun to drive factor is huge on these things, especially in an autocross. Some stock 14s with falken azenis and you're pretty much ready to go.

 

[Tornado]

The Lumina has the same 3.1L V6 that the higher spec Beretta's have don't they?

No, Luminas have larger 3.4L DOHC V6s that are bored and tuned from the 3.1L so they have a lot more BHP (210 versus 160). The Lumina Z34/Euro was essentially the Chevrolet version of the SHO Taurus.

They would own most of the cars on your list except for the MR2s and the Geo strom GSI.

They would be hard pressed to outrun the MX-3 or 200SX SE-R. Probably not the Probe or MX-6, either.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

How about an FB RX-7?

Naturally aspirated, carbureted 13B, of course. They're lighter than FCs, smaller, and cheaper. Solid rear axle though.

 

[Tornado]

^Win. But I would kill JCE if I found out he ruined an FB by stripping it.

 

[Perfect Balance]

No, Luminas have larger 3.4L DOHC V6s that are bored and tuned from the 3.1L so they have a lot more BHP (210 versus 160). The Lumina Z34/Euro was essentially the Chevrolet version of the SHO Taurus.


They would be hard pressed to outrun the MX-3 or 200SX SE-R. Probably not the Probe or MX-6, either.

The main weapon in autocross is having a lightweight car, so I think it should still do good against those cars. The MX3 should be a pretty even contender, but I'm not sure how much the SE-Rs solid rear axle makes a difference.


An old civic is probably way cheaper, and in general, the older, the lighter.

 

[Rykon Zero]

Choose the MX-3!

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Or one better if we want to play FWD, PB...

First-gen Ford Escort. Bit of suspension work (fine, a lot) and an engine swap later and you have a 150hp-or-so car that weighs under 2000lbs.

 

[Perfect Balance]

Or one better if we want to play FWD, PB...

First-gen Ford Escort. Bit of suspension work (fine, a lot) and an engine swap later and you have a 150hp-or-so car that weighs under 2000lbs.

Yes, but in "performance per dollar" that might not be as good as a 600 dollar civic and a 350 dollar set of tires, not to mention it would take a lot of work.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

True. Good luck finding a running Civic at all for 600 bucks these days though.

Almost seems like anything that runs goes for a grand.

 

[YSSMAN]

Well, I haven't ever done an AutoX event, but my guess is that there are a few key things to keep in mind:

- Light weight
- Tight suspension
- Decent power output
- Reliable (?)

From what I can see from your posted list:

1987-1993 -- Chevrolet Beretta -- 2.3L I4 180bhp 160tq FWD -- 2756lbs -- ~8.3s

IF (and this is a HUGE IFFFFF) you can find a GTZ/GTU, I'd say go for it. Otherwise, they're not awesomely awesome.

1990-1992 -- Volkswagen Golf GTI/Jetta GLI -- 1.8L I4 134bhp 133tq FWD -- ~2200lbs -- ~8.4s

I'd make that a top pick personally. The MKII is a very good car, parts seem to be fairly abundant in most cases. Some of them are becoming collectors items, but in general, they're still fairly cheap when in decent shape. On that thought, look for late-model Sciroccos with the 16V as well. They'd fit in just fine too.

1990-1991 -- Toyota Corolla GT-S -- 1.6L I4 130bhp 105tq FWD -- ~2400lbs -- ~9.2s

The handling is hard to ignore, but the ST204 like what I have is a bit quicker despite its extra 400 lbs. Poke around, see what you can find. They seem to be pretty good cars in general.

========

I think my only car to add is the Isuzu Impulse RS. That'll hit sixty in 7.7 seconds, not to mention handle quite well. Only problem is that they're hard to find. God knows what parts would run either...

 

[ND4SPD]

My suggestion would be in my avatar.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

For Autocross from your list?
Had to look up what a Beretta was, but it looks small and nimble so:
Beretta
RX-7
MR2
200SX
Escort
WRX

They seem like the best options to me for Autocross.

 

[Duke]

And of these cars I like which would be better for autocrossing--FOR THE PRICE CONSCIOUS?

I'm after performance per dollar here. AND NO, MX5'S ARE NOT WANTED.

Then, honestly, you're throwing away your best option from the get-go. Used Miatae are the cheapest, best-performing value car you can buy at the moment. 80% of the cars you list below will get their asses handed to them by an $1800, 150k-miler MX-5 with new tires on it.

Autocross is about weight first, handling second, and power third. Because of the typical course layout and venue, the car will almost always be in transition. That's what makes Miatae so great - LIGHT, responsive, and RWD so you can get the power down to dig out of the tight corners. Remember, you're going to be spending nearly the entire run in 2nd gear, anywhere from 20-50 mph. Acceleration is important... but most of the FWD cars you list here aren't going to have any, because after they get done plowing through the turn-in, they're just going to spin the inside front trying to claw their way back out.

Here are a few that I can see having a bit of a chance:

Year -- Make/Model -- Engine + Drivetrain + Power -- Curb Weight -- 0-60mph
1987-1992 -- Chevrolet Camaro RS - 5.0L V8 170bhp 255tq RWD -- ~3200-3300lbs -- ~7.0s [Power and RWD will work if you find a region with a nice, big lot that makes fairly open courses.]
1997-2003 -- Ford Escort ZX2 -- 2.0L I4 130bhp 127tq FWD -- 2468lbs -- ~7.4s

1990-1993 -- Geo Storm GSi -- 1.6L/1.8L I4 130/140bhp 102/120tq FWD -- 2357lbs -- ~8.5s

1992-1994 -- Mazda MX3 GS -- 1.8L V6 130bhp 115tq FWD -- 2443lbs -- ~9.0s

1990-1992 -- Mazda RX7 Turbo -- 1.3L 2-rotor wankel turbo 200bhp 195tq RWD -- 2888lbs -- ~6.3s [2-gen turbos had all the luxury bits - heavy luxury bits. Strip it down and it can work.]

1991-1993 -- Mercedes-Benz 190E -- 2.3L I4 130bhp 146tq RWD -- ~2900lbs -- ~9.9s [Are you joking? Most of the weight of the Camaro with half the torque? I had to leave this one in for the comic factor. It's like a group of guys I know who run - against each other only - in old Volvo 240DL wagons]

1989-1993 -- Nissan 200SX -- 1.8L I4 131bhp 117tq RWD -- ~2600-2800lbs -- ~9.5s [Way down on power, but RWD redeems a bit of the weight]
1995-1998 -- Nissan 200SX SE-R -- 2.0L I4 140bhp 142tq FWD -- 2330lbs -- ~7.8s

1997-2001 -- Subaru Impreza -- 2.2L H4 135/137bhp 140/145tq AWD -- ~2400-2420lbs -- 0-60mph data not found [A 2.5 RS would do better, or a bugeye WRX]

2000-2002 -- Suzuki Esteem GS -- 1.8L I4 122bhp 117tq FWD -- 2227lbs -- 0-60mph data not found

1990-1993 -- Toyota Celica AllTrac -- 2.0L I4 turbo 200bhp 200tq -- ~2500lbs -- ~7.5s [Might have a fighting chance - good luck finding one]

1990-1991 -- Toyota Corolla GT-S -- 1.6L I4 130bhp 105tq FWD -- ~2400lbs -- ~9.2s [Might have a fighting chance - in FX16 form]

1987-1989 -- Toyota MR2 SC -- 1.6L I4 supercharged 145bhp ???tq RWD -- ~2200lbs -- ~6.5s
1991-1995 -- Toyota MR2 -- 2.2L I4 130/135bhp 140/145tq RWD -- 2657lbs -- ~8.4s [These are your best alternative to a Miata, but midengine cars are tricky out there]


1990-1992 -- Volkswagen Golf GTI/Jetta GLI -- 1.8L I4 134bhp 133tq FWD -- ~2200lbs -- ~8.4s [Good aftermarket support, decent start]

From your list, it looks like you are badly overemphasizing power and underemphasizing weight, particularly in the FWD cars like the Volvos.

You can autocross anything, it is true. I've seen people autocrossing P71s and Mercedes turbodiesel wagons. But in general, for 90% of the courses I've seen, you want compact dimensions, light weight, chassis response, and the ability to maximize power delivery. I hate to break it to you, but those are all the prime characteristics of a Miata.

A couple cars you are missing that should be reasonable to acquire would be an EK Civic hatch and a DC-2 Integra. Both are light enough and dynamic enough to make up for power shortcomings and FWD.

You should definitely look at first-gen Neons, particularly in DOHC/coupe/MTX form. They're dirt cheap, have good aftermarket support, and offer excellent handling. For under $500 you can put brand-new adjustable Konis under it that are identical to the ones used on the ACR club racers, and allow you to dial in some negative camber up front. Another $150 gets a stiffer rear swaybar, and I guarantee it will rotate under trail braking.

[edit] I just read back through the list I left, and I think I was being charitable in some cases. I think, honestly, I would start with an MX-5/Miata, then consider an MR-2, then consider Neons and EG/EK Civics, in that order. And if budget was a serious issue, I'd probably put the MR-2 later in the list due to purchase price.

[edit 2] Any particular reason why you left the older Mazda Protege and first-gen Nissan Sentra SE-R off the list? Both should be there.

 

[///M-Spec]

What I don't know is in the "stock" class if weight stripping is allowed?

No. Stock classes have very tight restrictions on what you can do (hence the name "Stock"). Stripping the interior will put you in a Prepared class.

You've already struck out a Miata and a Neon? Good heavens, why?

EDIT: Do'h, got tree'd by the Dukester.


M

 

[homeforsummer]

I've just been looking at Toyota Paseos today, that weight is hard to ignore - just over 2000lb works out at around 950kg which is very light indeed. Might be a dark horse choice.

 

[Duke]

I've driven one... soft and underpowered. Could probably be made to work, but why start out with strikes against you?

[edit] JCE, click here for SCCA's Solo II rules, which are the basis for most Stateside auocrosses.

 

[homeforsummer]

I've driven one... soft and underpowered. Could probably be made to work, but why start out with strikes against you?

Good point 👍

Edit: Ignore me, I'm talking balls

On further looking at the list, the MR2 seems pretty good

 

[YSSMAN]

[edit 2] Any particular reason why you left the older Mazda Protege and first-gen Nissan Sentra SE-R off the list? Both should be there.

Good spot, not sure why I missed that either... You can find Proteges in pretty rough shape for dirt cheap around here, but even decent ones go for notta whole lot either. Makes you wonder what an older MX-3 would do as well, those were great cars, my brother had one that I liked very much for a short period of time. As I recall, its all Miata parts underneath it... With the obvious exception that its FWD.

How much are old-school Porsche 924s going for these days? My neighbor has one, I always want to drive it...

 

[Joey D]

You should definitely look at first-gen Neons, particularly in DOHC/coupe/MTX form. They're dirt cheap, have good aftermarket support, and offer excellent handling. For under $500 you can put brand-new adjustable Konis under it that are identical to the ones used on the ACR club racers, and allow you to dial in some negative camber up front. Another $150 gets a stiffer rear swaybar, and I guarantee it will rotate under trail braking.

I agree with Duke here, first gen Neon's are great autocrossers on the cheap....actually I pretty much agree with all of what Duke is saying throughout his post. Listen to experience autocross racers.

A buddy of mine has an ACR that he autocrosses and daily drives all year around with nothing more then swapping out the tires. He typically places in the top three in his class (STS). The car is awesome and has very few problems considering how he rags on it weekend after weekend all summer long. I think he bought the thing for $2500 with about 70,000 miles on it and a couple of Mopar goodies bolted on.

 

[Tornado]

How much are old-school Porsche 924s going for these days? My neighbor has one, I always want to drive it...

Cheap enough that they trick people into buying them. All of the repair woes of both VWs and Porsches combined into one, but without the brand loyalty of either.

2-gen turbos had all the luxury bits - heavy luxury bits. Strip it down and it can work.

Until the engine detonates.

 

[JCE]

The Impulse would be nearly impossible to even find, but I'd love to nab one.

Where are all the early gen civics?

The EF and EG civics would make great autocross cars, especially if you tear out the interior. The front heavy-ness of them makes them rotate great under turning.

In case anyone's forgot I dislike Hondas with exception to the Prelude which is expensive and in later gens too heavy. But mainly the price is what I'm after. If a 4th or 5th gen Prelude was cheap enough I'd get one of those in a heartbeat.

They would own most of the cars on your list except for the MR2s and the Geo strom GSI.

I'm not talking about "owning" anyone, I strickly stated this is for enjoyment and not competition. And thus I want to drive something I like--that does not include MX5's, Civic's, or Integra's. I don't care how good they are in autocross...which I do acknowledge that they most certainly are. Yes light weight good chassis cars make good autocrossers--I even stated that weight mattered remember? That's why I highlighted it.

EDIT: Really, how did you manage to forget Honda? The fun to drive factor is huge on these things, especially in an autocross. Some stock 14s with falken azenis and you're pretty much ready to go.[/color]

Fun to drive to you and others, but I just don't care for Honda as a whole. Only a few models sprinkled through that I liked. Its just personal preferrence.

^Win. But I would kill JCE if I found out he ruined an FB by stripping it.

I would strip one out too.

For Autocross from your list?
Had to look up what a Beretta was, but it looks small and nimble so:
Beretta
RX-7
MR2
200SX
Escort
WRX

They seem like the best options to me for Autocross.

The 200SX (USDM) handles quite well despite it being hated against by almost everyone. The WRX is way too expensive, the RX7 is going to be near impossible to find, as is the MR2, but the Escort and Beretta might be an easy option.

No. Stock classes have very tight restrictions on what you can do (hence the name "Stock"). Stripping the interior will put you in a Prepared class.

Now, that changes the whole thing then. I assumed "stock" would refer to the drivetrain and wheels/tires.

You've already struck out a Miata and a Neon? Good heavens, why?

As I said above, I dislike them on a personal level. I do not want to drive something that I viamently hate.

Good spot, not sure why I missed that either... You can find Proteges in pretty rough shape for dirt cheap around here, but even decent ones go for notta whole lot either. Makes you wonder what an older MX-3 would do as well, those were great cars, my brother had one that I liked very much for a short period of time. As I recall, its all Miata parts underneath it... With the obvious exception that its FWD.

How much are old-school Porsche 924s going for these days? My neighbor has one, I always want to drive it...

Way too much I'm affraid.

And since I know what "stock" class means I might just change over to "prepared" class. In which case the field of cars can be expanded to include just about anything that is reasonably priced. ...now where's my Suzuki Liana? Actually that would be hilarious if I got a Suzuki Aerio and converted the badging/grille to the Euro-spec Liana wouldn't it?

 

[Tornado]

I still say a Shadow if you want something different and fun. I would go for it based on parts interchangeability alone, with the fun handling being a bonus.

 

[Duke]

Yes light weight good chassis cars make good autocrossers--I even stated that weight mattered remember? That's why I highlighted it.

...and then proceeded to list a bunch of cars that were 600 lbs too heavy for a decent FWD car, or 400 lbs too heavy for a decent RWD car.

As I said above, I dislike them on a personal level. I do not want to drive something that I viamently hate.

They are not people, they are cars. And you are kissing off two of the most fun-to-drive automotive bargains of the last 20 years.

If you've got that attitude, I can't do anything to help you, and I'm not even going to try any further.

 

[Perfect Balance]

If you've got that attitude, I can't do anything to help you, and I'm not even going to try any further.

That's basically the same conclusion I reached.



EDIT: Had a bunch of stuff here, decided to take it out.

 

[JCE]

I still say a Shadow if you want something different and fun. I would go for it based on parts interchangeability alone, with the fun handling being a bonus.

That is a VERY good possibility actually for several reasons which I will list...

• VERY VERY cheap to buy
• And availability is rather good
• Light
• Somewhat quick in stock form with the right engine
• Very good handling considering its origin
• Cheap to make fast
• Can have more than one drivetrain swapped in due to several similarities to other Chrysler products of that era with different engines/transmissions. Mitsu 6G72 V6 or a Shelby spec 2.2L I4 Turbo anyone?

1990-1991 -- Dodge Shadow -- 2.5L I4 turbo 152bhp 180tq FWD -- 2613lbs -- ~6.5s
1992-1994 -- Dodge Shadow ES -- 3.0L V6 141bhp 171tq FWD -- ~2700-2800lbs -- ~6.8s
1990-1995 -- Dodge Spirit ES -- 2.5L I4 turbo/3.0L V6 152/141bhp 210/171tq FWD -- ~2800lbs -- No 0-60 time could be located
1991-1992 -- Dodge Spirit R/T -- 2.5L I4 224bhp 217tq FWD -- ~2800lbs -- ~6.5s

Adding those to the master list.