850k-1M Budget - Your Opinions?

[jut703]

Will be getting a car this month. Budget is originally 850k but willing to stretch to 900k+ if there's a really good alternative.

My requirements are as follows:

1) Looks respectable - basically I want the most expensive looking car that fits my budget.

2) Powerful enough - should have a 0-100 time of about 10 sec, and able to reach 200 kph. I go out of town a lot and I want a car that can overtake fairly well.

3) Engaging drive - most preferably a manual with a good chassis, steering, handling, and brakes. Will bring the car to the track a few times a year.

The car will be used mostly for highway (NLEX, SCTEX, OG, Roman) driving, usually with just me on board. Maintenance, insurance, LTO will be shouldered by my company. Will keep the car for about 5-8 years (unless I fall in love with it and end up not selling it). Has to be brand new.

Top contender right now is the Altis 1.6G MT. Best deal I've gotten so far is 879k with a 44k discount. It certainly looks attractive and respectable (especially in black). Most people don't see it as a fast car, but it does hit 200 quicker than some 2-liter cars and can get to 100 kph in 10 secs, thanks to the light chassis and willing Dual VVTi engine. Chassis and brakes are good, but steering is really really dull. Also, beige interior will be a pain to clean. Not much features, but it has the basics covered. And since it's cheap, I can upgrade the wheels, and get HID projectors if ever.

A very close second was the Lancer EX GT-A. Unfortunately, I'm too late to the party - it was offered for as low as 960k in December, but they've phased it out already. Also, I find the CVT a bit clunky to use, even with the responsive paddle shifters. Handling is much better than the Altis, but performance is just about the same, despite having a bigger and less efficient engine. Even if it was available, a cleanly modded Altis would've been more of a looker than a pricier stock GT-A.

Third option would be the Fiesta 1.0 Ecoboost. Great performance and great handling, but it certainly doesn't look expensive. Yes it's the TOTL, but it's so tiny that it looks like it should only cost the same as a Mirage. Oh, and the DCT issues too. Even if I won't pay for maintenance, it's a hassle to leave your car in the casa for repairs.

A fourth option is the Suzuki Grand Vitara, which only costs 940k after discounts. It brings the usual SUV advantages - tougher underpinnings, increased ride height, more cargo space. But it doesn't really hit any of the requirements I'm looking for. It doesn't look all that respectable (Suzuki isn't really considered upscale locally). It's also slow on the highway (Earlier today in SCTEX it couldn't overtake my Vios as it seemed to have topped out at 185 kph, so much for a 2.4L engine). Handling is nowhere near a CX-5 or Forester either. It's an affordable SUV, yes, but not a very good one.

Not interested in the Mobilio/Ertiga bec I don't need to haul 7 people. Don't like the Ecosport cuz it's slow and awkward-looking. All other subcompacts look cheap. I was tempted to get the Mz3 2.0 since it's the best compact available, but good as it is, I don't think it's worth 1.5x the price of the Altis. The Mz3 1.5 is slow as hell and looks very bare. The Sylphy is a great compact but obviously not my style. The FB Civic would've been nice but it's too expensive (948k for a bare manual). Cruze and Elantra don't excite me and are quite dated. None of the cars priced at 1-1.2M attract me enough to go way over budget.

Just curious if anyone else has a better suggestion given my constraints. Thanks!

[StockEngine]

truck car... navara el calibre 4x2 mt. 0-100 under 10 seconds. jk

Id go at least 2.0 mz3/altis/tucson

140kph*3000rpm and 12.5km/l

[jut703]

truck car... navara el calibre 4x2 mt. 0-100 under 10 seconds. jk

Id go at least 2.0 mz3/altis/tucson

140kph*3000rpm and 12.5km/l

Already owned a Ranger 2.2 XLT MT. That did 0-100 in about 11.5s. The Navara only has 15 more hp, not enough to get it to 10 sec, just too heavy. Also, I'll be using the car as my daily drive in the city. My Ranger made sense before because it was mostly in the province, but it was unnecessarily inconvenient to park and squeeze around metro traffic. Worst part is the lack of a trunk - I'll be getting clear tint so I need a secure place to put my valuables, away from prying eyes. I only ever got to use my pickup's bed less than 10 times, so I don't see why I should burden myself with an additional 1 meter of length that I won't utilize.

2.0 Altis/Mz3 would cost 250k more - doesn't seem worth it. The acceleration of a manual 1.6 matches the 2.0 automatic's, at least up to 120 kph (which is most crucial). Even if FC were the same (btw I don't care much about FC), the higher sticker price just isn't justifiable. The 2-liter compacts are still compacts and don't really look any more upscale than a well dressed-up 1.6 Altis.

The 2.0 MT Tucson still costs around 1M and I'll still have to spend on the basic stuff I want (fog lamps, HID, bigger rims) so it'll end up being too expensive as well. New Tucson's coming out later this year too so no point really.

[Yuki13]

Seems that the altis 1.6G M/T is your safest choice. But can it really do 0-100 in 10 seconds?

[jut703]

Seems that the altis 1.6G M/T is your safest choice. But can it really do 0-100 in 10 seconds?

With a 4k rpm launch and quick shifting, it can. I know it's not very conclusive, but there are lots of videos on YouTube of 1.6 CVTs doing it in under 11s. 10s seems like a reasonable bet with the MT.

[Newcomer123]

You left out the Impreza, Soul, Carens, Polo hatch, Surui, Sportage,

[jut703]

You left out the Impreza, Soul, Carens, Polo hatch, Surui, Sportage,

Impreza - too expensive. Only compact I'd consider above 1M is the Mz3 2.0, and as I said in previous posts, even though it's a much better car, it's not worth 250k more for me. I have better things to spend 250k on.

Soul - Ugly

Carens - I don't need or want a 7-seater, too expensive

Polo - looks too cheap and bare

Surui - China. Not willing to be a guinea pig.

Sportage - gas model still at 1.2M even after discounts

[Newcomer123]

And...

If you could sell your mother, it's really the GT86 you want.

[jut703]

And...

If you could sell your mother, it's really the GT86 you want.

For that money I'll get a WRX MT. But again, I'm sticking to my budget. I could just blow it and get a WRX now, but I have to be responsible and save up for more important things first.

[dr. d]

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

C! magazine.. dec 2014. "battle of the 8 compacts".
i thought it was a detailed enough comparo article, complete with acceleration figures, braking, comfort, etc etc..

[vvti2.0]

Kung GT86, BRZ na lang hehehe....

[keithdb]

Seems to me only the altis meets your requirements.

[mda]

Saw a C! comparo the other day where the Corolla 1.6V was 4th the other day in acceleration tests, beating out a Civic 2.0, Elantra 1.6, Sylphy 1.8 but losing to the Mazda3 2.0, Altis 2.0, Focus 2.0.

What is surprising is that the 1.6V's 100-0 braking distance was by far the best among compacts.

That said, if memory serves correctly, none of the compacts had a 0-100 time of less than 10 seconds in the test.

The 1.6 CVT was also one of the most fuel efficient, losing to the Mazda (I guess due to the start/stop feature but will suck your money dry with those expensive batteries) but beating the rest by a large margin.

They also mentioned that for a Corolla, the driving dynamics aren't bad as its brand suggests.

Corolla gets my vote.

[jut703]

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

C! magazine.. dec 2014. "battle of the 8 compacts".
i thought it was a detailed enough comparo article, complete with acceleration figures, braking, comfort, etc etc..

Thanks doc, I have a copy of that issue as well. The Altis performed really well even against the 2-liter compacts. Take note that it was a CVT featured here. The MT would definitely score better in terms of performance.



Acceleration times were taken without a hard launch (i.e. from idle) and with 2 passengers. The Focus is the quickest with its DCT of course. More importantly though, the 1.6 Altis is faster than the Mz3 and Civic 2.0, and just a hair slower than the 2.0. This was my basis for saying that an MT 1.6 can go toe-to-toe with the 2-liter compacts.



As expected, the Mz3 and Focus are quickest on a track, but the 1 sec gap isn't so bad, and possiby something you can make up with a stick shift.



They didn't provide the info on how the FC was computed, so I'm not very sold on this, but it's promising. The MT might get worse highway mileage, but then again FC isn't a deal-breaker.



Perhaps because it's the lightest, the Altis 1.6 outbrakes all other compacts. The V though has 4-wheel disc brakes. The G MT probably won't be as good because of its rear drums, but still decent since it's about 50 kg lighter than the CVT.

[jut703]

That said, if memory serves correctly, none of the compacts had a 0-100 time of less than 10 seconds in the test.

The acceleration times were slow because none were launched hard. They said in the opening paragraph that they just let the cars idle in D, then floored the throttle. That alone adds 1-2 seconds vs launching at 4000 rpm.

[mda]

The acceleration times were slow because none were launched hard. They said in the opening paragraph that they just let the cars idle in D, then floored the throttle. That alone adds 1-2 seconds vs launching at 4000 rpm.

Interesting. Didn't get to read the entire article since I was waiting for my tires/alignment during this time but it makes sense.

Also, seems like the relevant number for me. I'd never launch by dumping the clutch/transmission. My thrills are not worth an early transmission rebuild with how long our cars stay with us (Average current age of our cars = 8 years).

Not considering the 1.6V?

OT: Anyone figure out how to deal with the double posting issue??

[jut703]

Nah, the V doesn't come with a manual. The biggest reason why I'm considering the Altis is that it's the best performing compact with a manual. The Civic's MT is expensive and bare, while the Sylphy/Cruze/Elantra just don't offer much.

[dr. d]

it was much easier in the eighties...
it was either the box lancer, or the.... box lancer!

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

it was much easier in the eighties...
it was either the box lancer, or the.... box lancer!

[mda]

Nah, the V doesn't come with a manual. The biggest reason why I'm considering the Altis is that it's the best performing compact with a manual. The Civic's MT is expensive and bare, while the Sylphy/Cruze/Elantra just don't offer much.

Probably looks like your choice is made then... Congrats hehehe

[jut703]

I'm just a bit surprised that a Toyota comes out as the best choice for my criteria. But I guess I was prejudging the brand - maybe there's some truth to their waku-doki principle after all.