Consumer Reports rates five sporty cars
Anyone in sales knows that a favorable review in Consumer Reports carries a lot of cred with the average consumer. Regardless of your opinion on the validity of CR's opinions, the product review publication has passed judgment on five sporty cars in its June issue that are sure to make a few automakers beam with pride. The Mazda MX-5, Volkswagen Golf GTI, Pontiac Solstice, Civic Si and Ford Focus ST all faced CR's battery of tests in the current issue. The Golf GTI earned the spot of top-ranked sporty car under $25K while the MX-5 now ranks highest out of three roadsters below $35K. The other three cars fared well, but didn't blow CR staffers' socks off. The Focus ST's showing was surprisingly good for its age, while the Solstice didn't fare too well in the MX-5's shadow. The Civic Si was predictably well received.
Keep an eye out on Autoblog in the coming weeks for reviews of both the Mazda MX-5 and Volkswagen GTI, both of which are on their way for a one-week stay in the Autoblog Garage.
[Source: Consumer Reports]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Sid 3:38PM (5/16/2006)
How'd they test it? KFC drive-through handling? Ease of access to coffee cups while shifting? Speed it takes to findd a Soft Rock station on the radio?
Reply
Dr. Woo 3:38PM (5/16/2006)
I knew I made the right choice when I bought my GTI. All those accolades couldn't be wrong.
Reply
Peter W. 3:59PM (5/16/2006)
The GTI is like the black macbook... it costs more and no-one knows why. This won't stop the people silly enough to buy one from trying to say it's 'cooler' than the cheaper, faster, more agile challengers.
Maybe it's just the extra cost of material going into it to make it so goshdarned heavy.
Reply
Dr. Woo 4:02PM (5/16/2006)
So, Peter...how much time have you spent driving one?
And are you really going to dispute the sheer number of positive things said about this car?
Reply
mike 4:02PM (5/16/2006)
there is no black "macbook", stupidass
Reply
mike 4:05PM (5/16/2006)
wow! there is now! sorry 'bout that peter.
Reply
T. 4:21PM (5/16/2006)
dr who, I'd totally agree with you if it didn't weigh 3300-3400lbs. tight handling, 6sp w/ LSD, and 200hp with a LOT more ready to be untapped. now just imagine if they did away with all the heavy "luxory" crap and made it a true "hot hatch".
Reply
Ben 4:21PM (5/16/2006)
Peter:
Do tell us what are the "cheaper, faster, more agile challengers" to the GTI for under 22K??
The torqueless wonder, circa 1998 Saturn-styled Honda Civic SI?
Mazda3?
The "plastic brothers": Cobalt SS and Saturn Ion Redline?
Live-axel Mustang v6?
The lovely designed-with-1990s-engine tech Hyundai Tiburon?
The 4-cyl Eclipse?
Do tell us because I sure want one.
(fine, the Mini Cooper S is a good competitor, but thats about it for the price)
Reply
Lee Gibson 4:38PM (5/16/2006)
Gee, Mike, you look kinda silly with both feet in your mouth. How did you say? "Stupidass"?
Reply
Dr. Woo 4:39PM (5/16/2006)
But it doesn't weigh 3300-3400 lbs. It's about 3100 lbs. Still portly, but try driving one, seriously.
It actually doesn't have a true LSD either, which boggles my mind. There's an electronic control that regulates wheelspin in corners at low speeds, but it's no LSD.
And as for the engine...it's underrated. Check out this dyno chart:
http://www.vwvortex.com/artman/uploads/jettagli_dyno.jpg
That compares stock to APR chip. You're looking at 225 lb-ft of torque and about 199 hp to the wheels, stock (ignoring that spike of torque at 2400 RPM...fluke). Chipped, this sucker flies.
And I got a package 0. No sunroof, no leather, no frilly extras. Just a stir-it-yourself gearbox, grippy cloth seats, and an engaging, thrilling ride.
Reply
Dr. Woo 4:41PM (5/16/2006)
Actually, that appears to be torque at the flywheel according to the chart. The power is at the wheels, though.
Reply
Dave G. 4:47PM (5/16/2006)
Yes the GTI was top rated, but the car is not a reccommened buy because of past poor reliability ratings of the Golf platform.
Reply
Ben 4:50PM (5/16/2006)
comparing the reliability ratings of the Mark IV to the Mark V is like comparing the reliability of a 2000 Hyundai Elantra to a 2001 Hyundai Elantra. Totally two different cars. The Mark V has been available in Europe since 2003 and has received favorable reliability reviews.
Reply
whatever_man 4:51PM (5/16/2006)
#8
I agree with your torque-less assessment of the Civic Si. However, it definitely is more agile...it's only saving grace (well, other than build quality and reliability). It's also closer to $20K than $22K, if that matters. But nevertheless, it depends on your preference and the Si is a perfectly viable alternative to the GTi...the Mini is much to girly.
Reply
Lee Gibson 5:00PM (5/16/2006)
"The Mark V has been available in Europe since 2003 and has received favorable reliability reviews."
Are the European ones built in the same factory as the North American ones?
Reply
Dr. Woo 5:04PM (5/16/2006)
The American GTI is built in Wolfsburg.
Reply
PJ 5:40PM (5/16/2006)
The Cobalt SS and Ion Red Line shouldn't be dismissed just for being "plastic" GM products, either. I've driven most of the cars in this class and while the GTI has a far classier, better-built, more substantial feel than the GM twins, the latter are faster, hang on at least as hard in turns, and do it with less body lean. With the optional LSD, they'd both give the GTI (and most others in the class) a hard time on a track.
Reply
UH2L 5:50PM (5/16/2006)
Why am I not surprised that they weren't impressed by the Solstice? It is the Anti-GM CR after all.
Here is some evidence of bias...
They criticize the wide gear ratio spacing of the Solstice as hurting performance. I bet if the transmission spacing was closer, they would say that it hurts fuel efficiency. And although it's not apples to apples (5 spd vs. 6 spd), one could argue that the Solstice (3.25/2.26/1.37/1.00/0.73), has similarly close ratio spacing compared to the Civic Si (3.27/2.13/1.52/1.15/0.92/0.66).
"The Civic Si ($20,540 MSRP as tested) is equipped with a 197-hp, 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine that produces abundant power at any engine speed."
With low torque like that, it can't produce good power at any practical engine speed. Its peak torque is 139 lb-ft. Horsepower is a function of engine speed and torque. So at 3,000 rpm, (by my calculations (hp = torque x rpm / 5252), it only makes 79 hp! That's pathetic. And the vehicle weighs 2,900 lbs so it's not a power-to-weight thing either. Its peak horsepower happens at 7800 rpm and peak torque at 6100 rpm.
By contrast, the Solstice makes 90 percent of its peak torque from 2200 to 6200 rpms and it also weighs about 2,900 lbs. Much more practical power in any gear.
Reply
VW-Guy 6:11PM (5/16/2006)
Anyone that slanders the GTI and hasn't spent any time in one is a hater and a troll.
Dr. Woo, the new GTI is everything you've said it is and more. A buddy of mine has one and has let me drive his on numerous occasions - I could not own one, too fun to drive too fast too often! It's too quick!
And yes Peter, you wanna point out a faster, quicker, more agile car with similar features for less money? Seriously dude, what car is it? There is NO car out there that can one up the GTI and come in at the same price point, let alone less money. Period.
Reply
Michael Karesh 6:41PM (5/16/2006)
I've spent time in the Jetta GLI, but not the GTI yet. In my opinion the GLI could feel more agile and provide more feedback, and from what I've read the GTI is the same.
The comparison test between the two in Car and Driver, where the GTI won despite being judged less agile and considerably less fun to drive, inspired me to write an editorial on comparison tests:
http://www.truedelta.com/pieces/comparison_tests.php
I personally find the Subaru WRX in its 2006 form considerably more fun to drive than the GLI, and likely the GTI as well. But, as the editorial says, that's just me. What matters is how a car feels to you, not how it feels to anyone else.
Final note: CR generally doesn't recommend new cars from anyone unless the manufacturer has consistently earned top reliability ratings in the past. And, given the increasing odds that a Toyota or Honda will earn just an "average," I suspect that this policy could change.
Reply