Have warm hatches been replaced by diesels

"andy" · 27 May 2012 at 16:43

Overlag said:
A nimble 150-200bhp car vs a 260-300bhp with a few extra 100kgs to carry... I know what id rather have.

same , and mine doesnt even have 150!

breadturbo · 27 May 2012 at 16:45

I myself think the term is for describing something a little quicker than the norm.

Ie back in the 80's/90's a golf gti or xr3i was indeed a 'hot hatch' when compared with say a normal granada/cavalier.

Now the 'laughable' ST is 8secs? that's still quicker than you're average mondeo/vectra (obviously not the big models)

imo it is a hot hatch

alexisonfire · 27 May 2012 at 17:03

A hot hatch makes you go --->

Simples

JaWalks · 27 May 2012 at 17:28

I guess its a matter of opinion.

PMKeates · 27 May 2012 at 17:36

The issue with this whole thing is that 'hot' and 'warm' are completely open to interpretation so we needn't bother with the debate

Jonnycoupe · 27 May 2012 at 17:53

Im just glad i dont live in London, it evidently completely skew yoyr interpretation of quick cars and instead focuses on paper specs. Even width of the car can have a marked effect on b road blasting pace.

Its pretty evident Joshy hasn't been on a proper hoon through twisty lanes....

[TW]Fox · 27 May 2012 at 18:07

Eliot said:
in gear they are a fair bit quicker than their figures say.

I could never get my 1.9TD to go anywhere out of gear

PMKeates · 27 May 2012 at 18:08

Jonnycoupe said:
Im just glad i dont live in London, it evidently completely skew yoyr interpretation of quick cars and instead focuses on paper specs. Even width of the car can have a marked effect on b road blasting pace.

Its pretty evident Joshy hasn't been on a proper hoon through twisty lanes....

There was that one time at an OcUK meet that he hooned through these B ro.. oh wait, no

Joshy · 27 May 2012 at 18:45

Jonnycoupe said:
Im just glad i dont live in London, it evidently completely skew yoyr interpretation of quick cars and instead focuses on paper specs.

You could live on the moon, it doesn't matter, In terms of performance cars made in 2005, something that does 0-60 in 8 seconds is slow. It just is. You can bang on forever and a day about how arbitrary 0-60 times are, how great they might be to "hoon" about, how paper specs don't matter, etc, but my point remains, the Fiesta ST is a slow car, certainly too slow to be considered a 'proper' hot hatch. Even Fiesta ST owners know it, don't many of them consider the mountune (or whatever) performance pack is pretty much essential?

I mean you had a AX GT and I've had a 205 XS (which as you may know shared engine and gearbox). They'd both not be a million miles off of a Fiesta ST pace wise, and despite what you may think they weren't really considered 'Hot hatches' back in 80s!

Jonnycoupe said:
Its pretty evident Joshy hasn't been on a proper hoon through twisty lanes....

And you're drawing this concolusion off of what exactly? The fact that I think the performance of a Fiesta ST is a bit naff to call it a proper hot hatch?

Do you consider the Fiat Panda 100BHP a hot hatch, because I've yet to read a single review that does not praise its handling. So if the ST can be a hot hatch purely on its handling ability, that means the Panda is one as well, right?

wingman · 27 May 2012 at 18:58

It's an incredibly subjective debate that I believe relates entirely what you're used to.

I went from a motor completing the 0-60 stretch in 11.7s to a motor that can do it in 8s flat, and it feels very fast. However had I come from a Focus RS, it would undoubtedly be considered slow.

[TW]Fox · 27 May 2012 at 19:08

Joshy once complained that anything with less than 300bhp is slow so I think you are fighting a losing battle on this one guys.

rjk · 27 May 2012 at 19:16

You know there was a whole other thread for this argument.

I don't think anyone is really addressing the topic presented in the op.

We all know the fiesta st doesn't come with enough bhp as standard but it handles well and it's a hoot to drive, in my view that makes it a hot hatch.

After driving a fiesta st and focus st, the fiesta had to be what it was, because a 180+bhp fiesta st would have made it pointless to consider the focus ST.

I refuse to use the term warm hatch also so the ST avoids this classification by default in my book.
Either way, you guys are arguing over something that has been discussed a thousand times and has been pointed out is down to opinion and nothing more.

Joshy · 27 May 2012 at 19:17

[TW]Fox;22012089 said:
Joshy once complained that anything with less than 300bhp is slow so I think you are fighting a losing battle on this one guys.

Erm, I don't think I did?

Regardless, that would have been a general opinion. I'm happy to say personally I've moved up the car game too quickly and have a bit of a warped perspective of speed, but that is besides the point because I'm not discussing the ST from a 'personal' angle. I'm looking at things generally, I.E what contemporary Hot hatches were doing performance wise and the ST looks well and truly 'warm' rather than 'hot'.

"andy" · 27 May 2012 at 19:18

Joshy said:
something that does 0-60 in 8 seconds is slow. It just is.

yea slow at 0-60 , but would it be slow around a circuit ?

if i could be bothered i would be looking at track times where front wheel drive cars with slow 0-60s are beating things like american v8s with quick 0-60s.

[TW]Fox · 27 May 2012 at 19:18

rjkoneill said:
I don't think anyone is really addressing the topic presented in the op.

Because the topic in the OP is bobbins, because there are plenty of warm hatches around. Nobody can answer his question as it relates to a pretend scenario that doesnt exist, so everyone argued about hatchbacks instead.

Relentless81 · 27 May 2012 at 20:06

Eliot said:
To be fair to overlag he was clearly talking about the new one?
Which is clearly a hot hatch.
People can't read very well in motors, or rather have selective reading, a lot of the time people just seem to want to argue.

Once you learn to ignore these people Motors becomes a much better place

I was particulary talking about diesels replacing petrols as warm hatches. The grey area to determine the difference bewteen a hot and warm hatch is subjective and will always be an argument as theres no right or wrong opinion most of the time

Jonny's point about the AX GT sums it up, in its day it was a hot hatch, I remember them being a hot hatch as much as an XR2i was, in todays definition of hot hatch however they really are not

Jonnycoupe · 27 May 2012 at 20:14

I guess the term is pretty much the standing of the car amongst its peers of the time.

Lopéz · 27 May 2012 at 20:56

Joshy said:
I mean you had a AX GT and I've had a 205 XS (which as you may know shared engine and gearbox). They'd both not be a million miles off of a Fiesta ST pace wise, and despite what you may think they weren't really considered 'Hot hatches' back in 80s!

The AX GT was certainly considered a hot hatch in it's day.

Mr^B · 27 May 2012 at 21:09

I don't really understand the question. Do you have an example of what you would consider to be a "warm hatch" with a diesel engine that doesn't have a petrol counterpart of equal power? Your only example, the Veloster has 138bhp, so hardly warm...

What about; Alfa Giulietta, Audi A3, Citroen DS3, Renault Clio, VW Golf GTI, Seat Leon, Skoda Fabia, Toyota GT86/Subaru BRZ, VW Polo GTI, Volvo C30...

I'm sure I've missed some. But I can't think of any line-up that has a 200bhp ish diesel hatchback without a similarly powered petrol alternative.

233 · 27 May 2012 at 21:16

Lopéz said:
The AX GT was certainly considered a hot hatch in it's day.

oh god that brings back memories

had a black one many years ago,

made of tinfoil but that made it light ie sub 800kg

iirc was it not around 115 bhp/ton or similar? mine ended up with a set of webers and a few tweaks and a whopping 110 bhp

still not really a hot hatch in standard trim tbh that was more R5GTT and 205 Gti 1.9s

proper hot hatch toys of the time