TR Forums

The Honda Civic and the Mazda 3 are the two cars in that category that have good handling.

End User wrote:

Duct Tape Dude wrote:

Civic: I'm not sure I can get over the lack of blind spot monitoring and volume knob.

Blind spots on a Civic should not be too much of a problem. I'm looking at buying a 2SS 1LE - now that thing needs a blind spot monitor.

Photos of the 2018 Civic interior appear to show there is a volume control on the steering wheel. Is that not good enough?

The Civic is my choice from your list.

It's still on my list but I'm weighing other options too. I really loathe the Civic's center screen, it's a poorly skinned Android interface. Both the Sedan and Hatchback have a physical volume control on the steering wheel but on the sedan it's also touch-sensitive, ie: you rub it by accident while pressing the other nearby buttons and your volume jumps up or down. It's so infuriating they disabled the touch functionality on the Hatchback.

The Accord, on the other hand, appears to have everything: BSM/RCTA, an updated infotainment system, and a volume knob. Woot.

JustAnEngineer wrote:

The Honda Civic and the Mazda 3 are the two cars in that category that have good handling.

I liked the Impreza too, but the acceleration is lacking. No Carplay on the Mazda Mazda3 seems silly in this age, but I'll bring myself to test drive it eventuallysoon.

Duct Tape Dude wrote:

I liked the Impreza too, but the acceleration is lacking.

Subaru does have solutions for that, you know (says someone on his 4th Subie turbo since MY 2002).

Captain Ned wrote:

Subaru does have solutions for that, you know (says someone on his 4th Subie turbo since MY 2002).

Haha, my first ride in a WRX STi had me giggling like a little girl. The second ride was no different. Turbos are like VR--you can read about it all you want, but once it's only after experiencing it that you have to have one.

While driving around the past few days I was fortunate enough to notice an Elantra and Outback each with blind spot monitoring.

After watching a few cars go by each, I noticed the Outback appeared to be more speed-aware of an approaching car (it'd go off sooner in general and even sooner for a fast-approaching car), whereas the Elantra's system would only light up when a car was directly in a blind spot.

Duct Tape Dude wrote:

Captain Ned wrote:

Subaru does have solutions for that, you know (says someone on his 4th Subie turbo since MY 2002).

Haha, my first ride in a WRX STi had me giggling like a little girl. The second ride was no different. Turbos are like VR--you can read about it all you want, but once it's only after experiencing it that you have to have one.

This is 100000% true; they're like crack. We had no turbos in the house 3 years ago. The wife then turbocharged her Focus, followed by my Miata, then acquiring a Golf R, and just this past weekend an Audi TT 225. The only non-turbo car is now my Corvette.

Consumer Reports has already covered this topic. They also have data on which makes have more false positives from their automatic safety features. Seek it.

cjcerny wrote:

Consumer Reports has already covered this topic. They also have data on which makes have more false positives from their automatic safety features. Seek it.

Man, I had a subscription to them too at one point. Maybe I'll pony up if I find a welcome back offer. Thanks for the tip!

Check with your public library, some of them have access to Consumer Reports.

notfred wrote:

Check with your public library, some of them have access to Consumer Reports.

Very very interesting, hadn't heard of that before. Apparently not just piles of the magazines but the actual online subscription too.

Kougar wrote:

notfred wrote:

Check with your public library, some of them have access to Consumer Reports.

Very very interesting, hadn't heard of that before. Apparently not just piles of the magazines but the actual online subscription too.

Yeah, both the King County and Seattle City Public Library systems have the online version of CR. The best part is that you don't have to use their computers: as long as you're logged into their WiFi, you can use your own device to get access. Not sure how common that is at other library systems but I think a lot of them use similar IT infrastructure.

Waco wrote:

Duct Tape Dude wrote:

Captain Ned wrote:

Subaru does have solutions for that, you know (says someone on his 4th Subie turbo since MY 2002).

Haha, my first ride in a WRX STi had me giggling like a little girl. The second ride was no different. Turbos are like VR--you can read about it all you want, but once it's only after experiencing it that you have to have one.

This is 100000% true; they're like crack. We had no turbos in the house 3 years ago. The wife then turbocharged her Focus, followed by my Miata, then acquiring a Golf R, and just this past weekend an Audi TT 225. The only non-turbo car is now my Corvette.

You prefer turbo to NA?

End User wrote:

You prefer turbo to NA?

What's left out there for current model-year ultra-performance cars that aren't blown in some way? The Audi/Lambo V-10 motor is the only one that comes to mind quickly now that the Viper is dead.

Captain Ned wrote:

End User wrote:

You prefer turbo to NA?

What's left out there for current model-year ultra-performance cars that aren't blown in some way? The Audi/Lambo V-10 motor is the only one that comes to mind quickly now that the Viper is dead.

Not at that level but I’m shopping for a 2018 2SS 1LE at the end of the month.

End User wrote:

You prefer turbo to NA?

For small motors? Absolutely. It makes them feel much larger thanks to the prodigious torque curve (if properly sized) and tuning for altitude is far easier.

I prefer larger motors in general but at 7500 feet of elevation it takes a lot more motor than normal to get a reasonable amount of power. My wife's Golf makes more power at the wheels out of a 2L motor than my somewhat highly tuned 5.7L LS1. At sea level the story is very different. I'm getting more and more tempted to turbocharge the Corvette just to compensate for altitude...

I'd prefer turbos on everything for even more power, but I'm a power nut.

It's much more fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow, but small turbos are still great, because who wants to have to go to redline for power when it could be available much more responsively at half that? If I ever get around to doing anything custom with a turbo, it'll be the smallest turbo (lowest-RPM spool) I think the engine's bearings can support, even if that means going to redline can no longer serve any practical purpose.

Active safety features mostly just feel like they're trying to let me be a less attentive driver, and if they're managing to be any real help, it would just mean I'm not taking driving seriously enough in the first place.

synthtel2 wrote:

It's much more fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow

A slow car always feels fast if you are caining it. I loved my 2000 Focus ZX3. I tweaked the engine, had a Borla cat back exhaust and SVT suspension. It was da bomb!

Ah, who am I kidding. It was siht but I loved it.

synthtel2 wrote:

Who wants to have to go to redline for power

VTEC owners. 911 GT3 owners. Mustang 350R owners (Voodoo!!!!!!).

NA does not always mean a lack of low down power. LS/LT engines are a prime example of NA low end grunt.

Last time I really had fun driving, it was this 142-horse EJ223 in a 2800-pound car, the engine isn't in top shape and is definitely not actually capable of 142, and I still hardly went over 4000 RPM. (Gravel helps. )

NA low-end exists, but generally doesn't end up being as nice (IMHO) as the equivalent power coming from a turbo engine, particularly due to the turbo engine being lighter and more efficient (not more efficient if you're still treating it at all binary, but in normal use). Top-heavy torquebands aren't automatically bad, but IME it's a lot easier to make a responsive car by putting torque lower-down than it is to cut rotating mass enough to make high RPM feel comfortable, especially if it's supposed to be a good daily driver.

Them lots of words.

I counter with this. Perhaps the greatest engine ever made.

It's a cool engine, sure, but raw performance isn't everything. How much does it cost? What's its life expectancy? How much fuel does it burn? How many opportunities do you get to properly use its abilities?

If you ask me, the most impressive piece of engineering on display in that video isn't the engine, it's the suspension (and other handling factors).

I feel like there's something wrong with me saying this, but... for a high-performance car, wouldn't a supercharger be a better idea?

Sure a Turbo isn't always-on, but fuel economy for a Corvette just seems like a lost cause compared to dealing with turbo lag.

synthtel2 wrote:

It's a cool engine, sure, but raw performance isn't everything. How much does it cost? What's its life expectancy? How much fuel does it burn? How many opportunities do you get to properly use its abilities?

If you ask me, the most impressive piece of engineering on display in that video isn't the engine, it's the suspension (and other handling factors).

Well, we were talking about engines.

Was this you in the 2CV?

Vhalidictes wrote:

for a high-performance car, wouldn't a supercharger be a better idea?

Some people think so.

synthtel2 wrote:

It's a cool engine, sure

Very cool

synthtel2 wrote:

but raw performance isn't everything

Sure it is

synthtel2 wrote:

How much does it cost?

If you have to ask

synthtel2 wrote:

What's its life expectancy?

Forever - it's a Porsche

synthtel2 wrote:

How much fuel does it burn?

I don't understand the question

synthtel2 wrote:

How many opportunities do you get to properly use its abilities?

In Europe there are a ton of track day events - and then there is the Autobahn I've had particular fun on portions of the North Coast 500 and ripping through the Alps

In North America there are many tracks that offer track days and new tracks are coming online. There are many autocross events.

Public roads can be rather thrilling as well

Small parking lots and loading ramps are another place where fun can be had

Vhalidictes wrote:

I feel like there's something wrong with me saying this, but... for a high-performance car, wouldn't a supercharger be a better idea?

Sure a Turbo isn't always-on, but fuel economy for a Corvette just seems like a lost cause compared to dealing with turbo lag.

For something RWD at the kind of performance level that can do sub-8:00 on the Nurburgring, almost certainly. Precise power modulation is just too important there, and even if traction weren't an issue, getting a quick spool from a turboed big V8 is a tall order. Superchargers still can't be quite as snappy as a good N/A engine like that Porsche due to extra rotating mass and air behind the throttle body, though, and Porsche's angle of a very high-RPM high-VE N/A engine seems like the right one for what they're doing. Superchargers mainly seem useful when going for extreme-performance RWD designs where N/A just can't be enough power.

Aren't some manufacturers messing with clutched superchargers now?

End User wrote:

...

That can mostly be summed up as you feeling it reasonable to throw one to two orders of magnitude more money at it than me (as should surprise nobody here). That isn't just in sticker price and fuel, but also, say, getting busted for going twice the speed limit on some twisty mountain road. That doesn't mean I can't have fun driving. From your examples, the characteristics that make a car fun for autocross mostly aren't the same ones that drive up costs and ruin practicality, and drifty shenanigans work great with a cheap old Subaru if you find appropriate gravel roads.

The newer semi trucks in my fleet have red light roll forward collision prevention.

Vhalidictes wrote:

wouldn't a supercharger be a better idea?

I really like the current Formula 1 motor idea where you have a turbocharger with a motor/generator unit (MGU) attached to it. As you come out of a corner, the MGU can spin the turbo up like a super charger. Going down the straight at full throttle and high RPM, rather than opening the wastegate to avoid overboosting, you run the MGU as a generator and recharge the battery ready to use it as a supercharger out of the next corner or feed it to the other MGU that's connected to the crankshaft (MGU-K) to add to your torque and power.

Unfortunately the MGU-H (Motor Generator Unit Heat) attached to the turbo in Formula 1 has been a source of many problems over the past few years. Building something that spins at crazy RPMs while being baked by turbo heat and maintains electrical insulation while remaining light is apparently quite tricky!

notfred wrote:

Unfortunately, the MGU-H (Motor Generator Unit - Heat) attached to the turbo in Formula 1 has been a source of many problems over the past few years. Building something that spins at crazy RPMs while being baked by turbo heat and maintains electrical insulation while remaining light is apparently quite tricky!

I believe that the simple answer is to have one manufacturer build a single spec MGU-H that all teams use, as Formula One already does with the engine controller.

synthtel2 wrote:

For something RWD at the kind of performance level that can do sub-8:00 on the Nurburgring, almost certainly. Precise power modulation is just too important there, and even if traction weren't an issue, getting a quick spool from a turboed big V8 is a tall order.

I really don't think you know what you are talking about.

synthtel2 wrote:

That can mostly be summed up as you feeling it reasonable to throw one to two orders of magnitude more money at it than me (as should surprise nobody here).

I don't own a 911.2 GT3. I wish I did. My dreams are throwing one to two orders of magnitude more money at it than you.

synthtel2 wrote:

getting busted for going twice the speed limit on some twisty mountain road.

That's why you do more than one pass. You really need to think ahead to have fun.

synthtel2 wrote:

That doesn't mean I can't have fun driving.

Did I say you could'nt? No. My fav car will always be my tweaked ZX3.

synthtel2 wrote:

From your examples, the characteristics that make a car fun for autocross mostly aren't the same ones that drive up costs and ruin practicality, and drifty shenanigans work great with a cheap old Subaru if you find appropriate gravel roads.

You previously mumbled something about not being able to use a GT3 to its full potential. I was replying to that and I gave you a ton of examples where you easily could. You are very finicky.