Fast, reliable, economical. Does it exist?

ian87

Just a general thought:

It's said you can't get a car that ticks all boxes and for the most part it is probably true.

I think any of the twin turbo diesel bmws tick the box eg 335d, 535d, 125d etc and render that theory untrue.

What else out there bucks that trend guys?

quadrifoglio verde

ian87 wrote: »

Just a general thought:

It's said you can't get a car that ticks all boxes and for the most part it probably true.

I think any if the twin turbo diesel bmws tick the box eg 335d, 535d, 125d etc and render that theory untrue.

What else out there bucks that trend guys?

Aren't they prone to the turbos going on them though?

corglass

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Aren't they prone to the turbos going on them though?

Mk1 gti golf?

ian87

I suppose any turbo car is prone to turbo failure if not maintained correctly and you're doubling your chances with an extra turbo..

I know somebody who was looking at buying an x6 m50d which has a 3.0 triple turbo but the quoted figures for mpg were way off the actual fuel consumption effectively ruling it out.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Aren't they prone to the turbos going on them though?

Watch out for limp mode issues.:pac:

JC01

Dc2 type R. Bulletproof reliability. Cheap for what they are and fair enough not mind bendingly fast but there are well able to suprise a lot of much bigger cars upto a ton and driving them they feel like supercars

BMJD

JC01 wrote: »

Dc2 type R. Bulletproof reliability. Cheap for what they are and fair enough not mind bendingly fast but there are well able to suprise a lot of much bigger cars upto a ton and driving them they feel like supercars

I'd add a 4th or 5th Generation vtec Prelude to that too, with added comfort:)

JC01

BMJD wrote: »

I'd add a 4th or 5th Generation vtec Prelude to that too, with added comfort:)

True there a lot comfier but I think that coupled with awful gear ratios in the H-series boxes makes them "feel" a lot slower.

BMJD

JC01 wrote: »

True there a lot comfier but I think that coupled with awful gear ratios in the H-series boxes makes them "feel" a lot slower.

I had a 94 BB4 Si vtec, can't say I ever had an issue with gear ratios. On private roads of course.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Are those hondas economical though?

ian87

I'd be wondering the same Cleveland.

I read a review for an alpina d3 bi turbo today. 350bhp and genuinely capable of 50mpg. It's a 3l BMW lump which tend to be fairly reliable. Defintite lotto car for me.

BMJD

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Are those hondas economical though?

for the Prelude I would average around 30mpg, DC2 ITR slightly more, but it dropped to about 28mpg when I decatted it. That's in normal-ish driving, trackday type stuff would probably be close to single figures.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

BMJD wrote: »

for the Prelude I would average around 30mpg, DC2 ITR slightly more, but it dropped to about 28mpg when I decatted it. That's in normal-ish driving, trackday type stuff would probably be close to single figures.

That's approx what I expected. Had a loan of the old man's accord for a few days and it didnt see over 28-30 either. Not bad, but not what I would class as economical - and the thread is fast reliable and economical. No doubt the prelude and type R (and many others also) can be fast and reliable - but not so economical.

ian87 wrote: »

I'd be wondering the same Cleveland.

I read a review for an alpina d3 bi turbo today. 350bhp and genuinely capable of 50mpg. It's a 3l BMW lump which tend to be fairly reliable. Defintite lotto car for me.

Mine from that stable would have to be the m550d or x5 m50d.
I had an e60 535d, I thought that was ridiculously fast and had never ending torque. Can only imagine what approx 100 more bhp and another turbo could do for it!

JC01

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Are those hondas economical though?

Sorry meant to mention that. Yes very, if I drove my old teg easy I got incredible mileage out of It. High 30s no problem. Granted a spirited drive down a private road keeping it above 7k revs and that'd drop to low teens

ian87

As I said earlier somebody I know looked into the x6 m50d and the claimed mpg was in the 40s and it struggles to hit 25 in reality. This person does 30000 miles a year so even if they can afford that kind of car the fuel use just makes it untenable.

HandsomeDan

The newer type (n47) 320d will do 60mpg on a long run and can crack 60 in <8...

Not fast strictly speaking, but still, benchmark stuff. I'd say the sixers are the biz.

tossy

You can't have fast/performance and economical, a bi turbo diesel rep mobile might be fast on a motorway but it's never going to excite you on a twisty back road, plus you have to factor the price you would buy one for,tax etc into 'economical'

quadrifoglio verde

HandsomeDan wrote: »

The newer type (n47) 320d will do 60mpg on a long run and can crack 60 in <8...

Not fast strictly speaking, but still, benchmark stuff. I'd say the sixers are the biz.

Friend works for bmw, they had a new n47 in for timing chain replacement last week! Maybe it's a one off, but according to him it wasn't the first one he's seen

Wibbs

JC01 wrote: »

Sorry meant to mention that. Yes very, if I drove my old teg easy I got incredible mileage out of It. High 30s no problem. Granted a spirited drive down a private road keeping it above 7k revs and that'd drop to low teens

Ditto. I've regularly gotten 40mpg outa mine while driving like a grannie, but if you drop the hammer...

Y2KBOS86

tossy wrote: »

You can't have fast/performance and economical, a bi turbo diesel rep mobile might be fast on a motorway but it's never going to excite you on a twisty back road, plus you have to factor the price you would buy one for,tax etc into 'economical'

Seat Leon Cupra 240bhp is probably the best all round car I can think off, easy enough to get a good one for under 10k, 0-60 in 6 secs, 35-40 mpg under normal driving.

Astra OPC is a good one too.

Don't like those 530d etc too much, they feel biblically quick, but not as repsonsive as a turbo petrol, was in a remapped 3 year old 535d before that was well beaten by an old Subaru STI.

I like the Mazda 3 MPS too, drove a stage 2 with circa 350bhp that frightened the **** out of me, it went like a plane in 3rd gear, seriously impressive mid range power.

Y2KBOS86

Wibbs wrote: »

Ditto. I've regularly gotten 40mpg outa mine while driving like a grannie, but if you drop the hammer...

They feel lacking these days compare to turbo petrols though, especially mapped turbo's

Drove a CTR when looking at hot hatches a few years ago and much preferred the power delivery of a Focus ST/ 3 MPS etc.

tossy

Y2KBOS86 wrote: »

Seat Leon Cupra 240bhp is probably the best all round car I can think off, easy enough to get a good one for under 10k, 0-60 in 6 secs, 35-40 mpg under normal driving.

Astra OPC is a good one too.

Don't like those 530d etc too much, they feel biblically quick, but not as repsonsive as a turbo petrol, was in a remapped 3 year old 535d before that was well beaten by an old Subaru STI.

I like the Mazda 3 MPS too, drove a stage 2 with circa 350bhp that frightened the **** out of me, it went like a plane in 3rd gear, seriously impressive mid range power.

Cool story but 35-40 mpg out of the 2.0TFSI when driven like it was designed for,which is the main reason why we buy performance cars

As for a MPS with 350bhp,that's not going to be economical.

You can't get Economical and fast.

The Dagda

tossy wrote: »

You can't get Economical and fast.

Tesla Type S?

tossy

The Dagda wrote: »

Tesla Type S?

How much is a telsa? :rolleyes:

wendell borton

Don't think there are any modern cars that tick all three boxes, except maybe an mx5.

djimi

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Are those hondas economical though?

I honestly never thought Id see Type R DC2 mentioned in a thread about economical cars :pac:

They are not economical in the slightest; not by any modern definition of the term anyway. I drive mine reasonably sedately (rarely go much above 4500rpm and use the VTEC sparingly) and Id say I get about 30mpg at most. I know its not exactly the best way to define it, but I pretty religiously get about 130km for €20 petrol.

They are quick cars; certainly faster than most on the road. However, you most certainly do not drive them for the fuel mileage they return!

Oral Surgeon

BMW i8??

biko

wendell borton wrote: »

Don't think there are any modern cars that tick all three boxes, except maybe an mx5.

Yeah, I'd be inclined to agree. The again it's all about "how fast?", "how reliable?" and "how economical".
Choose two...

quadrifoglio verde

Oral Surgeon wrote: »

BMW i8??

It's over 130k to buy. That buys you an e39 m5, tax for the next 20 years until it's a classic and enough petrol to run it for 10k miles a year for the next 30 or so.

A fast, reliable but new isn't going to make economic sense. You might have low running costs, but massive capital outlay in order to get them.

Oral Surgeon

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

It's over 130k to buy. That buys you an e39 m5, tax for the next 20 years until it's a classic and enough petrol to run it for 10k miles a year for the next 30 or so.

A fast, reliable but new isn't going to make economic sense. You might have low running costs, but massive capital outlay in order to get them.

Ok, I'll cancel the order so...!!;)

mfceiling

Octavia VRS?

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/skoda/octavia-vrs

MuppetCheck

mfceiling wrote: »

Octavia VRS?

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/skoda/octavia-vrs

porsche boy

I was going to suggest Vrs Octavia too, except a non believer thinks people be joking. An older one with a remap would be fast, cheap to buy and run, relatively good build quality.... what more could you want???

On a personal level i used to change cars like the weather. Never happy etc until i bought my current car some 5 years ago. car runs around 170bhp with monster torque, gets around 600 miles per tank, comfortable for the motorway driving I do and fairly reliable. She's an Audi A6 tdi (remapped). Only reason I'm even considering changing is because she's over 200k miles and 12years old.

ian87

When I had my 2004 530d I was only spending a tenner or so more in diesel a week compared with my 2008 320d on a weekly commute of 500km a week on mixed roads. Extra maintenance of the 3.0l probably negated that 500 odd a year of a difference over the 320d.

I'd say a vrs would come close to achieving all three once you had the injection recall covered. Little else bar oil pump issues to go wrong..

JC01

djimi wrote: »

I honestly never thought Id see Type R DC2 mentioned in a thread about economical cars :pac:

They are not economical in the slightest; not by any modern definition of the term anyway. I drive mine reasonably sedately (rarely go much above 4500rpm and use the VTEC sparingly) and Id say I get about 30mpg at most. I know its not exactly the best way to define it, but I pretty religiously get about 130km for €20 petrol.

They are quick cars; certainly faster than most on the road. However, you most certainly do not drive them for the fuel mileage they return!

Your one may need a service then because mine would easily beat that mpg.

You have a point when your talking about modern definitions of economy; it's become the norm now to see 50,60,70 mpg figures quoted but in my book anything over 35 real world mpg is economical.

And funny enough the exact reason I bought mine when I did was because I wanted a quick car that wouldn't break me on fuel bills.

YbFocus

This is the famous dilemma, but you can only ever have two of them.
A car with all three doesn't exist.

ShadowHearth

As someone said before:


In real world you can choose any 2 of these:

Fast
Reliable
Cheap


If I would be looking for something that could at least remotely try to get all 3 work, then I would be looking in to old performance stuff for cheap and use saved money on tax and petrol, instead of buying something very new, which should be Reliable.

ABC101

Read a interesting article recently about the Mercedes E300 Blutech Hybrid.

Been out around 2 years now. 2.1 ltr diesel with 201 bhp and a 27 bhp electric motor.

Economy is apparently 68 mpg or maybe a touch more with 7.6 seconds to 100kph.

Engine is a bit noisy so I read, and if my memory serves me correctly, there is no gear stick. Price is about 60K.

Personally that would be way way out of my budget, but for a new Mercedes, with that economy it does seem good value.

I forgot, emissions are at 109 gm / kilometre

MuppetCheck

I'd consider fast being closer to 6 seconds to 60 (rough benchmark of overall performance I know). Some of the cars mentioned here are more warm in terms of performance.

Ded_Zebra

We need to better define what "fast" is and what "economical" is. There's plenty of people in this country that think a TDI golf is fast and economical and reliable. Budget is also another factor…

Personally I would consider 7 seconds and less to 60 fast and 40MPG if driven carefully economical.

Toyotafanboi

Ded_Zebra wrote: »

We need to better define what "fast" is and what "economical" is. There's plenty of people in this country that think a TDI golf is fast and economical and reliable. Budget is also another factor…

Personally I would consider 7 seconds and less to 60 fast and 40MPG if driven carefully economical.

i nominate the glanza.

0-6 in 8 seconds, easily see 40mpg driven handy, 135hp per ton and nothing ever breaks in them, ever.

even if 0-60 in 8 isn't supercar fast, the sensation of speed is something else as you are basically doing it in a wheelie bin. you could easily be in the 6's or 7s with a couple of hundred euro spent.

i agree with DZ though, you need to define the parameters to really thrash out this topic.

YbFocus

The glanza is a good nomination but isn't quick enough to be awarded fast. Imo.

Ded_Zebra

YbFocus wrote: »

The glanza is a good nomination but isn't quick enough to be awarded fast. Imo.

I think you're right. Loads of examples of cars that are quick, reliable and economical but I can't think of any that are fast. Most of what I'm thinking of were made in Japan between 10 and 20 years ago.

YbFocus

Yep but there isn't one example that fits them all
Maybe an lpg'd s15 or such

quadrifoglio verde

YbFocus wrote: »

Yep but there isn't one example that fits them all
Maybe an lpg'd s15 or such

Finding a clean one makes that a challenge. By clean I mean one that's standard or has the right power/suspension/brake upgrades and not a halfords bodykit

YbFocus

They are out there, most are hidden away and not on the road now in fairness which is sad!

Old diesel

ABC101 wrote: »

Read a interesting article recently about the Mercedes E300 Blutech Hybrid.

Been out around 2 years now. 2.1 ltr diesel with 201 bhp and a 27 bhp electric motor.

Economy is apparently 68 mpg or maybe a touch more with 7.6 seconds to 100kph.

Engine is a bit noisy so I read, and if my memory serves me correctly, there is no gear stick. Price is about 60K.

Personally that would be way way out of my budget, but for a new Mercedes, with that economy it does seem good value.

I forgot, emissions are at 109 gm / kilometre

Its very interesting - but I wonder would it do the 68 mpg in the REAL world.

Would be impressive if it did

djimi

JC01 wrote: »

Your one may need a service then because mine would easily beat that mpg.

You have a point when your talking about modern definitions of economy; it's become the norm now to see 50,60,70 mpg figures quoted but in my book anything over 35 real world mpg is economical.

And funny enough the exact reason I bought mine when I did was because I wanted a quick car that wouldn't break me on fuel bills.

Fair enough; I have never seen a DC2 return significantly more than mine does; I wish mine did! I may get my engine overhauled the next time I have a few quid to spare, so Ill be keeping an eye on it to see if the economy improves any. Im not expecting miracles...

They are grand cars in that they are not going to break the bank compared to some other performance cars, but lets be realistic its really stretching the definition of economical to include a DC2 in any state of health! Its relatively economical for a performance car perhaps, but most "normal" car owners would have a coronary if they saw the kind of fuel bills they rack up.

Wibbs

JC01 wrote: »

Your one may need a service then because mine would easily beat that mpg.

Maybe, maybe not JC. At this stage I've driven/known well over ten examples of the beast and what I found was every single one of those DC2's was quite a different car. The engines seem to be remarkably variable(in olden times, Ford Cossies were similar). Take mine for example. 40 MPG isn't too hard to hit and if I wrote down the figure I got from a 1000 click round trip I'd be laughed at, but it did it. I'm a cheap bastard so...

However even with 150,000 clicks plus on it it's a very tight engine. It uses pretty much no oil(HC readings in the NCT are scarily low considering its age). I could fill it to the max level today and in a years time it would hover above the minimum mark. Say that to your average DC2 R owner(or DC2 forum) and they would be convinced you were either a liar, or batshít insane, or both. Many R owners are damn near running a two stroke with the oil they have to add over time.

Maybe it's how the engine gets built in the first place* and the small variable there, more likely how it's run in and subsequently driven may influence it. Again looking at my example, it doesn't rev nearly as easily as others I've driven.It's actually quite sluggish to get from say 3k revs to 5K. Above that it's fine. Like I say it's tighter. Probably doesn't develop the same horsies as looser examples either.

So I could well see a DC2 engine being more revvie and loose and powerful getting crappier mileage. I got the grannie version.

Ded_Zebra wrote:

Personally I would consider 7 seconds and less to 60 fast and 40MPG if driven carefully economical.

100% agreed DeeZed, though I'd add another two variables; weight, handling and roadholding. There is a loooong list of cars over the years that would tear your face off with acceleration, but would die a death in the twisty bits. EG I know a chap with a Golf Gti(mark 7) which is a truly fantastic car. Unbeliveaby well bolted together, luxurious and with damn good economy too, with more than plenty of grunt and horsies. Actually I'd add one of them to this mix. Gorgeous car that really ticks the boxes. However I've driven his example and you can really feel the weight of it in the twisties. It's less connected or something to the road. Can't pin it down. Maybe the lack of limo up front or the "fly by wire" throttle and steering? I dunno. Now I am happy to admit I'm a pure shíte driver as far as skill goes and this mate is way ahead of me, but if we were to drive the same twisty road, I'd kill him, even if my fillings would be rattled out and I'd be deaf afterwards, while he sat unruffled listening to Mozart on the Blaupunkt.

But yea for non deaf folks with all their fillings and vertebrae intact I'd put the VW Golf Gti forward as a possible winner.






*in fairness mine is a Spoon blueprinted lump so it's going to be more balanced and efficient. Though no extra power contrary to popular.

Y2KBOS86

MuppetCheck wrote: »

I'd consider fast being closer to 6 seconds to 60 (rough benchmark of overall performance I know). Some of the cars mentioned here are more warm in terms of performance.

Audi S3 1.8t can do all 3 IMO.

Get a good one for under 5k easy

ABC101

Old diesel wrote: »

Its very interesting - but I wonder would it do the 68 mpg in the REAL world.

Would be impressive if it did

Apparently it did even better, 73.6 mpg, it was driven from Tangier in Morocco to the UK on a single tank of fuel,

"The real story here is that we shifted almost 2000kg of car almost 2000km at an average speed of 46mph on just 75 litres of fuel. As adverts for the electrically assisted internal combustion engine go, you are unlikely to find a better one."

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/goodwood-festival-speed/mercedes-e-class-e300-hybrid-africa-goodwood-picture-special