850k-1M Budget - Your Opinions?

[jut703]

Not that many yuppies get to buy 900k-peso cars with their first jobs... A more apt-profile would be "son of an upper middle-class/wealthy family that was given a college car/grad gift by his parents".

I've driven the Fiesta and it's definitely a better driver than the Altis, even if it doesn't come in manual. The torque is what makes it special, as you'd be surprised to be buried in your seat with such a little motor.

But again, it looks too small for its price. I want a car that looks as expensive as it costs, and the Fiesta just fails miserably there. If I had a CUV in my garage, this would be a good backup car. But as my sole daily drive, I need something that looks more upscale.

[Egan101]

Last year, my wife and I were looking for a car and we were considering compacts. After test-driving the Fiesta Ecoboost, I was sold! The torque just brings smiles on my face. It has the deceptive looks of a boring small car but once you take it for a drive, you'd know Ford took some tips from Ken Block and infuse it into the car.

[niky]

The new Altis is about 40 kg heavier than the old one, although the pre-facelifted older Altises didn't have the more powerful 1ZR Dual VVTi engine.

I have the same observations as you on the Altis. Steering sucks big time, but the chassis takes corners quite solidly for what's supposed to be a Camry-lite.

They used a 1.6 AT for the comparo. 11.85 seems to be pretty close to your time even if it wasn't a hard launch.

2 years ago, the 1.6 Corollas didn't come with CVTs. Only the TOTL facelifted Altis got the CVT paired with the 3ZR engine. The facelifted 1.6s got the new 1ZR, but still retained the old 4AT. I hated that 4AT. We had it in our pre-facelift 2.0 Altis and it was the slowest AT I've ever thrashed (okay, not as bad as Toyota's 90s slushboxes, but not acceptable in the 21st century).

That could explain the 12-second 0-100 time.

The FD was a wonderful car to toss around Tanay back then. The MT shifter was so precise, and the FD's steering and body were so responsive. A secondhand FD Civic is a really great buy if you ask me, too bad I can't go pre-owned.

Most likely they had faulty instrumentation/procedures for their braking test. Shame shame, Mr. Georges Ramirez.

Ok... checked... yes, it appears you're right. AT only... not CVT. Even got the time slightly wrong: 12.9s.

We had the Altis 1.6 CVT last year, though. Officially, we didn't do a 0-100 test, because our track was only 200 meters (with 100 meter run-off for braking tests), but for cars that hit 100 before the braking zone, I recorded times, anyway. Altis 1.6 CVT: 12.8 seconds. That's with two on board, so say 12.4 with just the driver.

Not sure why it was faster in their test. Might be down to break-in, or it could be the CVT just doesn't like being torque-braked, and responds differently. Found out (only after COTY) that the Brio launches faster if you just mash the gas, rather than torque-braking it. Then there is also the possiblity of weather differences.

Do note... the time differential to the 2.0s is deceiving... you can actually torque brake the Focus and Corolla 2.0 for 9+ second 0-100 times. The Mazda3 2.0R should do 100 in about 10 seconds when launched. (We got 10.3 with our tests).

-

The Elantra time from C! is pretty close to what we got. 11.6 for the Elantra 6AT... very good transmission, actually. Shifts smoothly and quickly. Almost as well as the Mazda 6-speed.

-

Can't imagine how the braking data could be that far off... everything else seems proper. Might be the data gathering procedure was to blame?

[jut703]

Interesting, I didn't expect the Elantra to be quite a decent performer. What confounds me are the Altis' 0-100 times (from 11.37 to 12.8). Can't imagine why C! would report an erroneous time for the Altis 1.6 so I'd assume that was their honest to goodness measurement.

In any case, I'd be happy to lend my MT Altis (if I push through with it) for a set of Vbox runs to see what time the manual can really set.

Ultimately though, differences of half a second don't matter much in 2-lane highway overtaking. A quick transmission with the right ratios and minimal power loss is more crucial for my use. Save for Subaru's CVT and Ford's clunky DCT, I think a conventional manual still performs better than any other AT/CVT in this price range.

[SkyFlakes88]

How about nissan sylphy 1.6 m/t or the 1.6 cvt even the top variant 1.8 cvt maybe?

[Newcomer123]

The ix25 is just around the corner. That should be around a million. And it's really fresh and would maintain novelty 5 years from now.

[mda]

Shame about the Civics... the FD was damn quick with the R18 and a manual tranny... but the new ones are... slow. Off-the-line, the new transmissions lag, and power delivery feels so soft...

Semi OT -- Isn't the 9G Civic supposed to be lighter than the 8G?

Did they tweak the acceleration/transmission gearing/braking?

Seems the FB did really poorly in the test.

[niky]

Actually, reviewing even the acceleration data, I'm wondering if even that might be affected by whatever device or app they're using for testing. Who wrote that article? I'll ask my friends at C! about it.

How about nissan sylphy 1.6 m/t or the 1.6 cvt even the top variant 1.8 cvt maybe?

Given how heavy "compact" cars are nowadays, tough luck finding any 1.6 sedan that will hit 100 in less than 10 seconds.

Semi OT -- Isn't the 9G Civic supposed to be lighter than the 8G?

Did they tweak the acceleration/transmission gearing/braking?

Seems the FB did really poorly in the test.

From our testing and my driving impressions, there's some sort of delay in acceleration when coming from a stop. For all new auto-equipped Hondas. Seems like it's there to either protect the transmission or perhaps aid in getting better fuel economy numbers on EPA and NEDC tests. This adds anywhere from 1 to 2 seconds to the 0-100 times.

Especially disappointing with something like the Accord V6 (adds approximately 1 second compared to the Nissan Altima)... which is otherwise a fantastic sports sedan, and feels faster than the Nissan once you're in second gear or higher.

[dr. d]

The ix25 is just around the corner. That should be around a million. And it's really fresh and would maintain novelty 5 years from now.

but will it perform as desired..?
bago pa... might do well.. might fall on its face..
and is TS willing to wait?
choices.. choices..

[jut703]

Actually, reviewing even the acceleration data, I'm wondering if even that might be affected by whatever device or app they're using for testing. Who wrote that article? I'll ask my friends at C! about it.

Given how heavy "compact" cars are nowadays, tough luck finding any 1.6 sedan that will hit 100 in less than 10 seconds.

Ardie Lopez was the lead writer for the article, while Georges Ramirez was in charge of the testing.

I agree that compacts today seems to have gotten heavier. The Altis, Sylphy, Elantra and Civic have their manuals at around 1200 kg. But then again, they're much bigger than their predecessors.

If the Altis 1.6 could do 10.5s on a hard launch, I'd be happy. All I know though is that past 140 kph, it easily out accelerated my Ranger back then on an open stretch of STAR Tollway. Then again, I've made do with a 1.3L 4AT with only 85 kph for the past few months - any additional power and responsiveness is much appreciated.

[jcal68]

IMO, the Altis looks great from the outside. However in the interior, I do not like the A/C grills design. It felt like reverting to the past.
In terms of acceleration, I must agree that the Altis is no match to the FD.

[SkyFlakes88]

I watched a comparo on you tube between the altis,civic and sylphy 1.8 matics on 0-60 mph.

2013 Nissan Sentra vs Honda Civic vs Toyota Corolla 0-60 MPH Mashup Review - YouTube

[EQAddict]

I'd get the jazz its all you could ever want. Good looks. Performance. Utility. Resale value. Lots of aftermarket parts. Fuel efficiency. Space. Paddle shifters. Fun to throw around. Etc.

And it will hit the century mark in about ten seconds.

[Walter]

Then why was the Honda Jazz kicked out of the garage? Hehehe.

[EQAddict]

Errrrrmm

[EQAddict]

Also the jazz has a manual variant. But I'd get the cvt if budget permits. Better fuel efficiency and paddles are fun fun fun. I would think its faster than the corolla given its lighter and has more power.

[Egan101]

The Jazz is a good overall performer but I'm not just impressed with its L15 engine. I'm not sure how much the CVT has improved its zip but our old Honda L-powered cars (5AT) are not ones to called as zippy drives. Maybe the Jazz fitted with the Civic's R18 engine will bring a much better drive.

[niky]

The Jazz is a good overall performer but I'm not just impressed with its L15 engine. I'm not sure how much the CVT has improved its zip but our old Honda L-powered cars (5AT) are not ones to called as zippy drives. Maybe the Jazz fitted with the Civic's R18 engine will bring a much better drive.

I did the 1.5 5AT Jazz for Big Big Car back in the day... 0-100 in 11.2 seconds.

I recall Ferman Lao mentioning the 5AT had big drivetrain losses... but that the losses for the current CVT are also a bit high.

-

1.5 CVT, 0-100 - 11.4 seconds at COTY. That's with two on board, so possibly 11 flat with one passenger.... faster than the 5AT, but not by much. Could be faster, but the virtual first gear on the new CVT is pretty long.

The 1.5 MT should be in the mid- to high 10s. And then there's the possibility of a supercharger install...

-

Although I'm wondering how the turbo build of Autoplus (the 230+ whp Yaris) drives...

-

With an R18, cars like the Jazz and CRZ should hit 100 in around 9 seconds flat.

The CR-Z MT can do 100 in about 9.7 seconds (2 on board)... but you have to spam the Sport+ button like mad while accelerating... (seriously... if you don't, it's about a second slower).

But the CR-Z is $$$$. Then again... nobody will mistake you for having a cheap car.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Jazz is a good overall performer but I'm not just impressed with its L15 engine. I'm not sure how much the CVT has improved its zip but our old Honda L-powered cars (5AT) are not ones to called as zippy drives. Maybe the Jazz fitted with the Civic's R18 engine will bring a much better drive.

I did the 1.5 5AT Jazz for Big Big Car back in the day... 0-100 in 11.2 seconds.

I recall Ferman Lao mentioning the 5AT had big drivetrain losses... but that the losses for the current CVT are also a bit high.

-

1.5 CVT, 0-100 - 11.4 seconds at COTY. That's with two on board, so possibly 11 flat with one passenger.... faster than the 5AT, but not by much. Could be faster, but the virtual first gear on the new CVT is pretty long.

The 1.5 MT should be in the mid- to high 10s. And then there's the possibility of a supercharger install...

-

Although I'm wondering how the turbo build of Autoplus (the 230+ whp Yaris) drives...

-

With an R18, cars like the Jazz and CRZ should hit 100 in around 9 seconds flat.

The CR-Z MT can do 100 in about 9.7 seconds (2 on board)... but you have to spam the Sport+ button like mad while accelerating... (seriously... if you don't, it's about a second slower).

But the CR-Z is $$$$. Then again... nobody will mistake you for having a cheap car.

[EQAddict]

speedlabs has a supercharged 1.5 manual jazz. 145hp at the wheels I don't think the cvt though can take that kind of torque.

The beauty about the jazz though is that its so maneuvarable in and out of traffic. I don't think me inside my mustang could catch me inside my jazz if it were even just light traffic in edsa or the c5. You would really need an open road to beat the jazz. Its that nimble and slottable.

[EQAddict]

The other week I saw an avanza racing against a bmw 335i along the slex. Holy cow. The bmw couldn't shake the avanza in light traffic. Once you're in triple digit speeds you hit the slower cars in front of you fast and have to find an open lane or slot. Every single time the avanza would either find a better lane/slot or catch up to the hard charging beemer. I followed for a bit in my jazz haha