• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Looking for ideas on fun, small, eco-ish car

SketchMaster

SketchMaster

Diamond Member
In the market to buy a used car:

$25K Max
Should be able to handle Colorado winters w/snow tires (AWD is a plus, but not a deal breaker. Snow never gets above 1/2' where I live.)
Can get 28+ MPG (Highway)
Can be found in price range with under 50K miles
Good crash ratings
Has enough pep to be fun
Convertible is a plus
Can fit a 6'1 guy in there without neck problems
Don't care too much if it's a "chick car", but even I have limits
reliable

Here are cars that I've been looking at so far:
Mini Cooper S (Hatch and drop top)
New Ford Focus (Hatch)
Mazda 3
BMW z4
New Mustang drop top caught my eye, but not sure how good it is in the snow
Mitsubishi Lancer 4-door/Hatch

Right now I'm just trying to get a list that I can work down to 5 cars to test drive, so I'm open to anything for suggestion; I'm looking to buy around early January. If anything on my list has a history of problems let me know, I'm just kinda listing styles that I liked, haven't done any real research yet.
 
Last edited:
Ralliart will not give you the mileage you want. It sure as hell would give you every bit of sportiness you could want though, it's a fantastic little car. I'm six feet and fit fine.

I came in here thinking Miata until you said Colorado, then I thought Mazda 3, and you already have it listed. Remember the new ones are more fuel efficient. The new Impreza might work for you, 2012 is getting a significant fuel economy boost.

I'd always throw in G35x, but it's going to come up short on MPG. G35 RWD I don't know as much about. Maybe a Maxima? FWD, CVT, might have a little more MPG. Assuming you don't have a problem with FWD.
 
I listed the Ralliart because I've been looking at so many cars I thought I remembered it getting at least 27, but I guess I was wrong. I actually looked at Miata at one point, but even the new MX-5s are juuuuust a bit too small. And a girl I know (who I'm not a fan of) drives one and, as petty as it sounds, she kinda ruined the car for me. :-/

Subi is also on the list, but just... For some reason I've kinda lost my love for the cars, even though it's perfect for what I need. Maybe after a test drive I'll have my mind changed.

FWD is not an issue, I'm not looking to mod out the car and it can be better for the snow anyway.
 
Last edited:
SketchMaster said:
In the market to buy a used car:

$25K Max

New Ford Focus (Hatch)
Mazda 3.
Click to expand...

Both can be had new for that much. You can check out the 2012 Mazda3 with SkyActiv. Someone else mentioned Subaru too, probably can score a new one for 25K out the door?
 
2013 Hyundai Genesis Coupe Turbo

Volvo C30

VW GTI

BMW 128i Convertible

Buick Regal 2.0T or GS - They are giving at least $5K off MSRP on these now.
 
The Skyactiv Mazda3 would fit the bill. So would a new Mazdaspeed3.

My parents, who live in CO, recently picked up a 2007 Volvo S60R w/ 45k miles for <$20k.

Frankly FWD with good snows will do fine in CO winters. I really like having a turbo-charged car to keep power at high altitudes. Something with bigger-than-average-brakes (i.e. Mazdaspeed3, S60R) is great for handling long mountain pass downhills.

Personally, I would NOT want a convertible for year-round driving for roll-over protection and being cold as shit in CO winters.
 
Another vote for a Mazdaspeed3...you can buy one brand new for ~$23,000 and there is no more fun per $$ spent, period. Highway mileage of 28 to 32 mpg is what I get in mine...plus flat, slot-car cornering and road feel second only to a Porsche.
 
I recently drove a 2.5 liter Mazda 3. The only mod to it was swaybars and it was sitting on nice tires (RS3). With just that, the car was surprisingly very fun and very peppy. This is in comparison to my Miata.

You won't win any drag races, but you can certainly have fun on curvy roads, drive a fun line, and enjoy the drive. Everyone has their own philosophies, but I feel like fast, straight-line driving is a cheap thrill that loses its novelty pretty quickly, so I feel that it's best to aim for good handling. You can always find new curves and corners, but a straight line is the same every time 😉

Don't get me wrong, I *love* the MazdaSpeed 3 and would get one in a heartbeat if I were in the position to do so. But consider these points about the normal Mazda 3:

- Cheaper insurance
- Cheaper on gas
- Lower initial investment
- Still a lot of fun
- Way easier to find used and unmolested

So yea, it's not quite as good as the Speed 3, but it's still a kickass car. You could spend ~$250 on a sweet swaybar kit and it'll make a slight, but noticeable improvement in the "fun" factor.

That being said, if I could afford all the drawbacks of the MazdaSpeed 3, that would be the one to get. My favorite thing about the MazdaSpeed version is that you're guaranteed it's equipped with what you want. To my knowledge, the only significant option was the "tech package" (or whatever it was called) that included a GPS. Basically, what I'm saying is that EVERY MazdaSpeed 3 has sweet bucket seats, a 6 speed, good suspension, etc. You don't have to worry about finding one with the correct configuration. Unfortunately, you do need to worry about actually finding one to begin with 😉
 
Last edited:
slugg said:
I recently drove a 2.5 liter Mazda 3. The only mod to it was swaybars and it was sitting on nice tires (RS3). With just that, the car was surprisingly very fun and very peppy. This is in comparison to my Miata.

You won't win any drag races, but you can certainly have fun on curvy roads, drive a fun line, and enjoy the drive. Everyone has their own philosophies, but I feel like fast, straight-line driving is a cheap thrill that loses its novelty pretty quickly, so I feel that it's best to aim for good handling. You can always find new curves and corners, but a straight line is the same every time 😉

Don't get me wrong, I *love* the MazdaSpeed 3 and would get one in a heartbeat if I were in the position to do so. But consider these points about the normal Mazda 3:

- Cheaper insurance
- Cheaper on gas
- Lower initial investment
- Still a lot of fun
- Way easier to find used and unmolested

So yea, it's not quite as good as the Speed 3, but it's still a kickass car. You could spend ~$250 on a sweet swaybar kit and it'll make a slight, but noticeable improvement in the "fun" factor.

That being said, if I could afford all the drawbacks of the MazdaSpeed 3, that would be the one to get. My favorite thing about the MazdaSpeed version is that you're guaranteed it's equipped with what you want. To my knowledge, the only significant option was the "tech package" (or whatever it was called) that included a GPS. Basically, what I'm saying is that EVERY MazdaSpeed 3 has sweet bucket seats, a 6 speed, good suspension, etc. You don't have to worry about finding one with the correct configuration. Unfortunately, you do need to worry about actually finding one to begin with 😉
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you said about the regular Mazda3.

However, I want to really emphasize the power loss an NA motor sees in Colorado. It can be 20% or more. Suddenly "peppy" turns into "floored all the way up Berthoud pass without even maintaining the speed limit" especially when you get up near 10,000ft+, which is somewhat routine in CO, especially if you like skiing.
 
I drove a couple Mazda 3's, they're fun, but they have such low power it was a deal breaker for me. Taking it a couple miles above sea level and making it worse... do not want.
 
MotF Bane said:
I drove a couple Mazda 3's, they're fun, but they have such low power it was a deal breaker for me. Taking it a couple miles above sea level and making it worse... do not want.
Click to expand...

JCH13 said:
I agree with everything you said about the regular Mazda3.

However, I want to really emphasize the power loss an NA motor sees in Colorado. It can be 20% or more. Suddenly "peppy" turns into "floored all the way up Berthoud pass without even maintaining the speed limit" especially when you get up near 10,000ft+, which is somewhat routine in CO, especially if you like skiing.
Click to expand...

Ah. See, I'm completely unaware and oblivious to this since I'm a lifetime Florida resident. Glad you two made that point; I learned something new! 🙂

Slightly off topic question: does a turbo always induce the same air pressure, regardless of ambient air density/elevation? In other words, does a force-induced car perform more or less the same at all elevations?
 
non-turbo Forester might be too slow, but meets most of your needs.
Turbo forester is fast, but gets shitty mileage...
 
slugg said:
Ah. See, I'm completely unaware and oblivious to this since I'm a lifetime Florida resident. Glad you two made that point; I learned something new! 🙂

Slightly off topic question: does a turbo always induce the same air pressure, regardless of ambient air density/elevation? In other words, does a force-induced car perform more or less the same at all elevations?
Click to expand...

Every revolution of the turbo in a high elevation area sweeps in less air than at a low elevation. Plus, to get that turbo going you need exhaust pressure which is also going to be reduced a bit due to thinner air in general. So I would suspect that a turbo car would be affected in the same way as a NA car in higher elevations.
 
SparkyJJO said:
Every revolution of the turbo in a high elevation area sweeps in less air than at a low elevation. Plus, to get that turbo going you need exhaust pressure which is also going to be reduced a bit due to thinner air in general. So I would suspect that a turbo car would be affected in the same way as a NA car in higher elevations.
Click to expand...

IMO...

At higher elevation, the turbo will continue to generate boost. However, it will have to work harder to generate the same amount of boost as in a low elevation location. So you might see some more turbo lag?
 
Add another vote for a VW Golf GTi.

< This is one of those annoying 4G LTE Droid Bionic Tapatalk tags. Have a nice day. >
 
satyajitmenon said:
IMO...

At higher elevation, the turbo will continue to generate boost. However, it will have to work harder to generate the same amount of boost as in a low elevation location. So you might see some more turbo lag?
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I was thinking. Doesn't it keep generating boost until a given air pressure, then just hold that boost?

Now... what about the case of a supercharged engine.. belt driven?
 
slugg said:
Ah. See, I'm completely unaware and oblivious to this since I'm a lifetime Florida resident. Glad you two made that point; I learned something new! 🙂

Slightly off topic question: does a turbo always induce the same air pressure, regardless of ambient air density/elevation? In other words, does a force-induced car perform more or less the same at all elevations?
Click to expand...

In my experience it does. The turbine will spin faster to build the same MAP pressure, so in theory it is not quite as efficient, but I couldn't notice the difference.

Edit: I don't think a supercharged engine would react as well as a turbocharged engine. A SC does not have the luxury of spinning as fast as it needs to because it is mechanically linked to the engine's RPM.

SparkyJJO said:
Every revolution of the turbo in a high elevation area sweeps in less air than at a low elevation. Plus, to get that turbo going you need exhaust pressure which is also going to be reduced a bit due to thinner air in general. So I would suspect that a turbo car would be affected in the same way as a NA car in higher elevations.
Click to expand...

Think about this, the exhaust gases flow more freely at higher elevations because the static pressure at the exhaust outlet is lower. This increases the pressure differential across the hot-side of the turbo, giving the turbo more energy to use.

You're right that in thinner air one revolution of the compressor does not compress as much air, but it also isn't doing as much work. Because it is doing less work per revolution, it starts to spin faster which makes up for compressing less air per revolution.

The pressure-actuated wastegate that turbos utilize ensures that the turbo gets as much exhaust gas as it needs to reach the target MAP before bypassing excess exhaust gases too, so the engine can still typically reach peak pressure. I don't think really high-strung turbo engines (race motors) do though.

satyajitmenon said:
IMO...

At higher elevation, the turbo will continue to generate boost. However, it will have to work harder to generate the same amount of boost as in a low elevation location. So you might see some more turbo lag?
Click to expand...

If there is, it is imperceptible in my experience. I say that having driven my MS3 from CO, where I bought it, to NH, where I live; as well as driving my dad's T6 S80 in NH and CO.

Edit: After living in CO for a few years, both my parents will "only buy turbocharged cars" because of how much better they maintain power in thin air.
 
Last edited:
JCH13 said:
I agree with everything you said about the regular Mazda3.

However, I want to really emphasize the power loss an NA motor sees in Colorado. It can be 20% or more. Suddenly "peppy" turns into "floored all the way up Berthoud pass without even maintaining the speed limit" especially when you get up near 10,000ft+, which is somewhat routine in CO, especially if you like skiing.
Click to expand...

But in exchange you get better gas mileage.
 
WRX if you're not counting TTL and you get AWD if you have snowy winters. But in that price range pretty much any of the hot hatches will fit your bill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top