£2000 hot hatches... credit crunch bargains?

Stormster · 1 Jan 2009 at 18:56

I really was hoping to get a nicer motor sometime soon but the way things are for my finances it won't happen without a loan or finance. I'm umming and arring about that, which means it's a bad idea!

So, wondering what cheap decent motors you could expect to buy for around £2000 with 150ish or more BHP.

Overall not too unreliable, cheapish to run and maintain car etc, insurance isn't a worry, but nothing bigger than typical hot hatch size for me

Been looking at Xsara VTS's, MG ZR 160's, Clio 172 phase 1's, Pug 206 GTI's... so generally suggestions for cars which are understated and forgotten about stuff which are newish reg, lowish miles (money permitting on those two factors of course) and hopefully wearing them well for 2 grand would be ideal

Concrete · 1 Jan 2009 at 19:31

Stretch to 3k and you can get Corolla T sports. Same engine as the 190 Celica, I owned one for a couple of years and enjoyed it.

ajgoodfellow · 1 Jan 2009 at 23:00

I had a slightly lower budget of £1700 when I was after a fun car and I was pretty much decided on the Xsara VTS - have a look at my thread here

Alex_6n2 · 2 Jan 2009 at 00:24

If you can find one cheap enough get a post 2000 106GTi. Less bhp than you want but will out do all of those cars on the straight and in the twistys too.

I love mine

jongeeone · 2 Jan 2009 at 00:32

Pretty sure i would put my money on a Phase 1 172.

Alex_6n2 · 2 Jan 2009 at 00:37

The results from down at the POD last summer say differently. It was close mind.

182 are a different story

matt100 · 2 Jan 2009 at 00:49

get a clio williams or a golf vr6.. they must be down at that price now!

Sparky · 2 Jan 2009 at 00:51

Alex_6n2 said:
The results from down at the POD last summer say differently. It was close mind.

182 are a different story

PH1 172 is quicker than a 182

edit:
and as for a 106GTI being quicker on a straight and through twisty's a 172 would destroy it.

Alex_6n2 · 2 Jan 2009 at 00:57

So it is. I always assumed they would be quicker. I've never posted against one but now I wont be scared to

Edit: I beat the last standard 172 I raced at santa pod

Sparky · 2 Jan 2009 at 01:01

Which proves what? The 172 is 2 seconds faster to 60 has a higher top end.

Alex_6n2 · 2 Jan 2009 at 01:04

mmmm No

The Pug quoted 0-60 for the GTi is with a passenger and a full tank. Sub 7s 0-60 is regularly achieveable with a proper launch

The 172 doesnt hit 60 in anywhere near 5s, its firmly in the 6s arena

Sparky · 2 Jan 2009 at 01:06

The 106 is listed a 8.7sec to 60 and a top speed of 128

PEUGEOT 106 HATCHBACK 1.6 16V GTi 3dr

Technical Data :
Summary
Body Style Hatchback
Engine Size 1587 cc
Fuel Type Petrol
Number of Doors 3
Number of Seats 5
Gearbox Type MANUAL
co2 Emissions 201 g/km
Insurance Group 13D
Vehicle Tax Band F
Standard Manufacturers Warranty (miles) 60000 miles
Standard Manufacturers Warranty (years) 3 years
Manufacturers Corrosion Guarantee 12 years
Manufacturers Paintwork Guarantee 3 years

Technical Data :
Performance & Economy
Fuel Consumption (Urban) 23 mpg
Fuel Consumption (ExtraUrban) 45.5 mpg
Fuel Consumption (Combined) 33 mpg
0-62mph 8.7 seconds
Top Speed 128 mph
Cylinders 4
Number of Valves 16 V
Engine Power 120 bhp
Engine Torque No details available

Alex_6n2 · 2 Jan 2009 at 01:13

It appears facts are a bit trivial....

Parkers quotes 8.4 to 60, 7.5 for the VTS, which is basically the same car.

Its been discussed quite a lot on the forums I'm on. Some people have sold their 106s and gone for the 172 only to regret it.

jongeeone · 2 Jan 2009 at 01:44

Nice comparing cars in a straight line.

Muffin` · 2 Jan 2009 at 01:47

Alex_6n2 said:
Parkers quotes 8.4 to 60, 7.5 for the VTS, which is basically the same car.

Differnt ratio boxes iirc for starters, Pug used EU standard 0-60 requirements I think (passenger, luggae and full ammounts of liquids), Citreon used a jocky and minumim liquids. Also made the Saxo one ins higher, que one years free insurance.

Matt82 · 2 Jan 2009 at 01:52

what does a ttpyical 106 do at pod?

a guy i knew had a 106 when i had my lightly tweaked a4 diesel, there was practically no difference in a straight line apart from the launch as the diesel only had a tiny rev range.

id put a lot of money on the 172 being a fair bit quicker than a 106

Muffin` · 2 Jan 2009 at 01:55

course a 172 will be quicker then a 106, it's what, a decade newer?

106 was the best hot hatch in its day, with a diesel box, some brakes and an inductions it's a great banger for a point to point still, i still see the unmolested on PH and fap 'do want', but the ST220 yearns for a clutch dump

Alex_6n2 · 2 Jan 2009 at 02:00

Matt: Mid 15s for standard/ish, low 14s are possible modified without forced induction. After that it depends on how much boost you have

Fith gear tested the 172 when it came out. VTS stuck to its rear end round a track. I really dont think there is too much in it tbh

loltim · 2 Jan 2009 at 02:09

http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/814683.htm

Peerzy · 2 Jan 2009 at 02:10

Muffin` said:
course a 172 will be quicker then a 106, it's what, a decade newer?

Reminds me of those old vs new car races they did on Top Gear (Escort vs Focus and so on) where old came out pretty well.

Being 10 years newer doesn't mean it's automatically gonna be quicker. Car's have had to get safer and people wants more mod-cons and crap which makes for a heavier car.