GTP Cool Wall: Ford SportKa. Voting Open!

[Leonidae]

Gentlemen, hasn't this been going around in circles long enough? Further speculation will not lead to conclusion in this matter, unless said Pontiac and Sportka are pitted against eachother on RL track.

 

[Lucas]

Lest we forget, the Pontiac GTP is also a FWD car. It's also giving away 10% of its footprint and well over a thousand pounds of weight (which combine to massively increase sway). The centre of mass is appalling... It has almost as much weight over the front axle as the SportKa has in total, promoting understeer (as does that ridiculous rear track - narrower than the front!). It's also down a clutch pedal and an entire gear ratio - though it does have a "performance shift" button which leaves the changes later. It actually has a slight height advantage, lowering the centre of gravity by a couple mm, but that's destroyed by the sway.

Put them on a drag strip and the GTP would win by about 4-5 seconds. Put them round the Evo Triangle and the SportKa would win by about 4-5 minutes.

Incidentally, I believe the SportKa set a lap of Anglesey (Fifth Gear's preferred test track) two seconds quicker than the current Ford Focus ST (225hp, 6.4s to 60mph, 150mph top speed).

That's all I needed to know. Though I do appreciate the info about the GTP, I would rather stick to the facts (Anglesey). Thanks for the enlightment! 👍

 

[Adamgp]

They are wholly irrelevant in a race. Ever see F1 teams say what their 0-60mph time is? Or their top speed?

You're only at 0 once in a race - unless you have a rolling start, and then you're never at 0. I don't recall ever reaching my top speed on a track of any variety ever.

0-60, 1/4 mile times, top speed, are ways of measuring a cars speed. Speed and acceleration are relevant in a race.

And that still has nothing to do with 0-60mph time or top speed.
Your opinion is based on a very narrow set of criteria which have nothing to do with what "slow" is.

Ways of measuring a cars speed. See above.

Except that it demonstrates how you can have a reasonable 0-60mph time, top speed and power, but still have a slow car. Just as the SportKa demonstrates that you can have a less reasonable 0-60mph time, top speed and power and still have a car that isn't slow.

Some cars are better suited to some tracks than others. Doesn't make a fast car slow and doesn't make a slow car fast.

They define one aspect of speed.

They define speed. If a car has poor acceleration and low top speed, it is slow.

There's only one time a Pontiac GTP will be favoured against a SportKa. Accelerating in straight line.

That's very, very specific. If that single occasion is enough to give you comfort and believe you have bought a car which is quicker than a SportKa, you go right ahead and believe it. Reality doesn't agree with you, but I'm sensing that this isn't a problem.

Again, not relevant to the thread. Your comparing a light car with a sport tuned suspension, to a heavy car on an ancient platform with soft suspension.

And how is it relevant if the SportKa can't take the corner slightly faster?

Of course it can and I've given the reasons why it can several times in the thread.

Reread it again, you're not getting it.

Quite the contrary. Your definition includes two factors - the two least relevant - and excludes all others.

Go look up the words speed and slow.

You keep attempting to belittle my intelligence because you can't stick to discussing the points - points which demonstrate how narrow your view is. If I saw you conducting a discussion this way with another member, I wouldn't hesistate to give you at least a Warning.

I'm not belittling anyone. I shared my opinion, you shared yours, you didn't like mine.

I'm sticking to the points, and keep reminding you about the thread topic. You keep going on about your hypothetical race, and how the car is not slow but it is.

 

[Famine]

0-60, 1/4 mile times, top speed, are ways of measuring a cars speed.

And so long as you think they're the only ones, there's no reasoning with you.

I'm not belittling anyone.

Quite so, though you keep trying.

 

[Moglet]

Unfortunately Famine, your definition of 'fast' doesn't meet that found in the Adamgp dictionary of 'always right'. It's certainly not a slow car, my friend had one and round town it was very very quick. 0-60 is NOT relevant in the real world unless you're constantly racing people at the lights which is illegal. Which is not cool and puts the driver in the same category that I placed the car.

I'm sure a BMW 3 series diesel would be slower than an Impreza on a 0-60 run but it has enough torque to outrun one at real world speeds.

 

[Quattro20v]

BTW SportKa's rear track is a whole inch narrower than the front...

Now, I believe it's a fun car to drive and a good little car. But that doesn't make it cool for me. I also think the car is slow (yes I do), but that doesn't make it automatically uncool for me either.

 

[Adamgp]

And so long as you think they're the only ones, there's no reasoning with you.

When did I ever claim those were the only ones? I said they were methods of measuring a cars acceleration and speed.

Quite so, though you keep trying.

I'm not trying.

Unfortunately Famine, your definition of 'fast' doesn't meet that found in the Adamgp dictionary of 'always right'. It's certainly not a slow car, my friend had one and round town it was very very quick. 0-60 is NOT relevant in the real world unless you're constantly racing people at the lights which is illegal. Which is not cool and puts the driver in the same category that I placed the car.

See above.

Also, I am aware of the definitions of the words speed and slow.

 

[Joey D]

Can we be done with this now? The poll is closed and the SportsKa has been deemed Cool.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

This is why I don't like this rating system. The majority says it's uncool but it ends up cool. But at least it's consistent.

 

[Joey D]

If you can come up with a better way to do it, I'm all ears. But as of right now the category with the most votes wins because the majority feels the vehicle fits there. There is a big difference between Seriously Uncool and Uncool, so they really shouldn't be grouped together.

 

[Boffin]

It's slow. It's also a small stupid looking hatchback.

Take it's slowness out of the equation I'd still vote seriously uncool.

For the record, I'm from America.

Well that explains alot.

First thing, I'm sorry but I do have to take speed out of it (knowing this won't change your mind) because if coolness was based on speed, what the hell is the reason for a cool wall? We already know what is fast and what isn't. I, for example, chose cool because its a small runabout with a nippy engine, and, when living in the city, is all you really want and need in terms of a fun, easy to use car. Highways are another thing altogether though - as it'd be decididly worse. But think where you (of you had one) or anyone else would use it. Much like you wouldn't be taking a 7L muscle car to work and as a daily driver. I can understand if you are out in the county that these hatch backs wouldn't appeal as much as a ford truck.

Why such dislike for hatchbacks?

 

[homeforsummer]

Much like you wouldn't be taking a 7L muscle car to work and as a daily driver.

Quick! Someone tell Venari!

 

[Adamgp]

Well that explains alot.

First thing, I'm sorry but I do have to take speed out of it (knowing this won't change your mind) because if coolness was based on speed, what the hell is the reason for a cool wall? We already know what is fast and what isn't. I, for example, chose cool because its a small runabout with a nippy engine, and, when living in the city, is all you really want and need in terms of a fun, easy to use car. Highways are another thing altogether though - as it'd be decididly worse. But think where you (of you had one) or anyone else would use it. Much like you wouldn't be taking a 7L muscle car to work and as a daily driver. I can understand if you are out in the county that these hatch backs wouldn't appeal as much as a ford truck.

I stated quite a few times, I take performance into account, but it's not the only factor for me. It's just the reason that seems to ruffle some feathers around here. And I would take a muscle car as a daily driver.

Why such dislike for hatchbacks?

Hate the looks, body style. Find it odd an "enthusiast" would drive the same car as poor pizza delivery boys, welfare moms, and tupperware salesman.

If you like them or not, I do not care.

 

[TheCracker]

Find it odd an "enthusiast" would drive the same car as poor pizza delivery boys, welfare moms, and tupperware salesman.

50% of all car drivers in Europe. Which is why we have hot-hatches in the first place.

 

[Scaff]

I stated quite a few times, I take performance into account, but it's not the only factor for me. It's just the reason that seems to ruffle some feathers around here. And I would take a muscle car as a daily driver.

having read your contributions in detail I would argue that you only seem to be taking two elements of performance into account, both of which (as someone who has tested cars within the motor industry) are fairly inaccurate in any real world application.

Nor are they the sole factors in determining a 'fast' car.

0-60mph times are pointless in most situations, the abuse you have to give a car to match 'official' figures would invalidate warranties on new cars and risk harm to any age of vehicle. Clutch dumping and WOT flat shifting are the order of the day in 0-60 times, both of which are not exactly of any use on the road. Gearing can also play a major role, with manufacturers who want a headline 0-60 often setting 2nd just high enough that it tops out just over 60mph. The problem can be that may then shaft the car in a run to 100mph.

In and through the gear figures (such as 40 - 60, 50 - 70, etc) are a much better measure of a cars real world performance.

Top speed is just as useless on its own, as its does not measure either the time or distance taken to reach the v-max, both of which could be very large.

Just looking at two 'power' related figures is quite frankly a poor way of judging if a car is 'fast' or not.

Hate the looks, body style. Find it odd an "enthusiast" would drive the same car as poor pizza delivery boys, welfare moms, and tupperware salesman.

First point would be that I am amazed that you seem to think that all hatchbacks have a generic enough style that they can all be lumped together.

Second point would be that a true 'enthusiast' would not give a toss what a car looked like, the principal factor would be its overall performance and the enjoyment you get from driving it.

I've never come across a true petrolhead who ranks style over substance.

Finally keep the digs about hatchback drivers and people on welfare to yourself.

If you like them or not, I do not care.

You seem to care enough to keep making digs.


Scaff

 

[Adamgp]

50% of all car drivers in Europe. Which is why we have hot-hatches in the first place.

Wasn't talking about Europe.

having read your contributions in detail I would argue that you only seem to be taking two elements of performance into account, both of which (as someone who has tested cars within the motor industry) are fairly inaccurate in any real world application.

Nor are they the sole factors in determining a 'fast' car.

0-60mph times are pointless in most situations, the abuse you have to give a car to match 'official' figures would invalidate warranties on new cars and risk harm to any age of vehicle. Clutch dumping and WOT flat shifting are the order of the day in 0-60 times, both of which are not exactly of any use on the road. Gearing can also play a major role, with manufacturers who want a headline 0-60 often setting 2nd just high enough that it tops out just over 60mph. The problem can be that may then shaft the car in a run to 100mph.

In and through the gear figures (such as 40 - 60, 50 - 70, etc) are a much better measure of a cars real world performance.

Top speed is just as useless on its own, as its does not measure either the time or distance taken to reach the v-max, both of which could be very large.

Just looking at two 'power' related figures is quite frankly a poor way of judging if a car is 'fast' or not.

Read my contributions again, also look up the definition of speed.

First point would be that I am amazed that you seem to think that all hatchbacks have a generic enough style that they can all be lumped together.

Second point would be that a true 'enthusiast' would not give a toss what a car looked like, the principal factor would be its overall performance and the enjoyment you get from driving it.

I've never come across a true petrolhead who ranks style over substance.

Finally keep the digs about hatchback drivers and people on welfare to yourself.

Reread the part about opinions, some care what the car looks like.

You seem to care enough to keep making digs.

I don't care, I'm just getting really tired of this.

Someone questions my opinions or point of view, I will answer them.

 

[Scaff]

Read my contributions again, also look up the definition of speed.

I've read them, repeatedly, and you focus on two factors alone and use them to define speed.

Collins English Dictionary however says...

Speed n. swiftness; rate at which something moves or acts.

...you are missing out an entire part of that. How quickly something acts, as in a body in motion, as in slowing down, as in reacting to inputs, as in cornering.

All of these things add up to a dictionary definition of speed. So it doesn't look like I was the one who needed to have checked on the definition.

If a car can stop quicker than another one or can corner quicker than another one (both of which the SportKa is capable of doing rather well) is meets the definition of speed just as much as one that can accelerate quickly or has a high top speed.

Reread the part about opinions, some care what the car looks like.

So in your opinion do all hatchbacks look the same?

As you have lumped them all in the same 'looks' pot for the purpose of throwing another poorly thought out semi-insult around.

I don't care, I'm just getting really tired of this.

Someone questions my opinions or point of view, I will answer them.

If you didn't care you wouldn't post. You care enough that people disagree with you to reply, ergo you care.

To claim otherwise is rather strange.


Scaff

 

[Joey D]

I've never come across a true petrolhead who ranks style over substance.

I have to disagree with you, to me a true petrolhead is anyone who likes and enjoys all cars for whatever reason. I wholeheartedly respect a car that drives well and looks ugly (I mean I drive a Cooper, a goofy looking car with excellent driving characteristics). For the most part though I like well styled cars even if they are rubbish to drive, the Alfa Romeo Brera is a good example of this. It's not a particularly fast car, it's expensive, and it's not in the top of it's class for anything but I love it because of the way it's styled.

===

And AdamGP, what in the world is wrong with driving a hatchback? I don't deliver pizzas, I'm not a mom, I'm not on welfare, and I don't sell Tupperware.

 

[Leonidae]

just lock this up, this has gone well past entertaining point and now it's just low blows.

 

[Tornado]

Wasn't talking about Europe.

In a thread dedicated to a hatchback car sold only in Europe. Please forgive the confusion.

 

[Scaff]

I have to disagree with you, to me a true petrolhead is anyone who likes and enjoys all cars for whatever reason. I wholeheartedly respect a car that drives well and looks ugly (I mean I drive a Cooper, a goofy looking car with excellent driving characteristics). For the most part though I like well styled cars even if they are rubbish to drive, the Alfa Romeo Brera is a good example of this. It's not a particularly fast car, it's expensive, and it's not in the top of it's class for anything but I love it because of the way it's styled.

I more than willing to admit that exceptions will always exist (the Brera for me is not one - in the metal they are ill-proportioned with huge overhangs).

However given a choice of two cars for the day, one utterly stunning to look at but a dog to drive; the other as ugly as sin but a joy to drive in everyway.

Which would you pick for the day?

That's the general point I'm making.


Regards

Scaff

 

[Tornado]

However given a choice of two cars for the day, one utterly stunning to look at but a dog to drive; the other as ugly as sin but a joy to drive in everyway.

Actually, I think that would honestly depend on the reasoning that one would think it is stunning to look at.

 

[Jondot]

Wasn't talking about Europe.

Oh ok, we'll just pretend it doesn't exist then.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Quick! Someone tell Venari!

Freddie is only a 4.7l

 

[homeforsummer]

just lock this up, this has gone well past entertaining point and now it's just low blows.

To be fair, the low-blows are only being dealt by one member...

Freddie is only a 4.7l

Heh, I'm sure he wouldn't mind if it was 7.0l though! In both the times I've "met" Freddie I've forgotten to ask Venari how much he displaces...

 

[Adamgp]

I've read them, repeatedly, and you focus on two factors alone and use them to define speed.

Collins English Dictionary however says...

Speed n. swiftness; rate at which something moves or acts.

...you are missing out an entire part of that. How quickly something acts, as in a body in motion, as in slowing down, as in reacting to inputs, as in cornering.

All of these things add up to a dictionary definition of speed. So it doesn't look like I was the one who needed to have checked on the definition.


.

Speed: Rate of motion. The Sportka has slow acceleration and a fairly low top speed.

If a car can stop quicker than another one or can corner quicker than another one (both of which the SportKa is capable of doing rather well) is meets the definition of speed just as much as one that can accelerate quickly or has a high top speed.

May produce decent lap times around a little bullring, on anything bigger it would get beaten, badly.

So in your opinion do all hatchbacks look the same?

As you have lumped them all in the same 'looks' pot for the purpose of throwing another poorly thought out semi-insult around.

Did I say they look the same? I don't like most hot hatches, plain and simple.

I like a few, (Mini Cooper S, GTI, M Coupe).

If you didn't care you wouldn't post. You care enough that people disagree with you to reply, ergo you care.

To claim otherwise is rather strange.

I don't care about the car, but I care when someone tries to question my opinions and points of view.

Oh ok, we'll just pretend it doesn't exist then.

I don't live in Europe, thus I wasn't talking about it.

 

[Scaff]

Speed: Rate of motion. The Sportka has slow acceleration and a fairly low top speed.

So I provide a source definition and all you do is edit it to suit your own purposes.

Sorry but that just doesn't work. You may not like that you took a shot at me by telling me to look up the definition of speed and it bit you back, but please don't then try and edit a definition that is in plain site (and sourced).

May produce decent lap times around a little bullring, on anything bigger it would get beaten, badly.

So you acknowledge that it the right situation the SportKa is fast (an argument that could be applied to many cars and many situations).

Did I say they look the same? I don't like most hot hatches, plain and simple.

I like a few, (Mini Cooper S, GTI, M Coupe).

You strongly implied that yes. Tell me, exactly what part of this...

"Hate the looks, body style. Find it odd an "enthusiast" would drive the same car as poor pizza delivery boys, welfare moms, and tupperware salesman."

...allows any exceptions?

You have lumped all hatchbacks into a single group with a description that is pure abuse, quite amusingly it also seems that you actually now very little about the said group of cars you are abusing (the M Coupe is most certainly not a hot hatch by any definition).

I don't care about the car, but I care when someone tries to question my opinions and points of view.

And questing a point of view and opinion that one disagree's with is half the point of forums, but please stop claiming to not care about it. If you really did you wouldn't be posting here, and you certainly wouldn't need to resort to abusing an entire class of car just to try and back up your point of view.

Personally I will back up my love of this car with a word from the guys at Evo (a publication that runs a Zonda as a long term test car should know a bit about speed in every form of its definition)...

Now, had Roger said, 'I was having a great time in the Sportka because it's that kind of car, and I overcooked it,' then he wouldn't have got any grief. We'd have all thought that was perfectly plausible, perfectly excusable, and we would have left him alone, no further comment or ribbing required.

Because the Sportka really is That Kind of Car. One that once you install yourself behind its chubby little steering wheel, clutch its alloy-headed gearlever and feel its willingness to perform way beyond its quoted 94bhp, you simply have to drive like a loon. TKoC only has two speeds; about 90mph everywhere, or else as fast as you can possibly go beyond that.

Sure, stare at a computer read-out of how quick it actually goes and you could be forgiven for sneering, but the 'Sportka effect' has nothing to do with raw data. It's all to do with how this car makes you feel, how its effervescent spirit turns every strip of tarmac into a playground. It's proof in metallic blue tin that you don't necessarily need 500bhp to enjoy yourself on British roads. And, if you were to do your negotiating on a non-SE-spec car, proof that you don't need to spend much more than £9K to get your kicks on the B660.

Our Sportka, however, was a £10,995 SE, and as such came specified with black-n-blue leather trim and air-conditioning. Bob Wright, the man in charge of the Ford press fleet and famous throughout the industry for speccing his cars to the max, also ticked the boxes for the optional metallic paint (£300), in-dash 6-CD changer (£200) and 'Reflex Pack' (£300), which gave us side-impact airbags and a turn-offable passenger front airbag. That little selection brought the total up to £11,795. Personally, I'd do without the two-tone hide and metallic paint, but the air-con would have to stay.

At a magazine like evo, a lot of exotic metal comes through the car park. Which means that cars like the Sportka - though subject to rave reviews and mountains of initial enthusiasm - tend to get shoved to the outer edges of our collective consciousness ('it's a hoot, but I think I'll take the Porsche tonight'). Unforgivable, of course, except that it does lead to the surprise factor.

The surprise factor is when guys in the office who haven't driven the Ford in a while have a go and realise why they rated it so highly in the first place. It's also when contributors like David Yu and Tony Bailey, forced into having a go because it's the evo year-end Fast Fleet shindig, begrudgingly take the wheel and have their preconceptions about what constitutes a truly fun car mushed into a new, smaller, cheaper shape.

It was the same thing with the Puma - few people would really believe that it was that good - but with the Sportka there seems to be general good will. Frankly, even as one of the converted, I would have forgiven people for assuming it's some visually-enhanced form of girl's car (sorry ladies), but even in my neck of the Suffolk-Norfolk border the little blue bomber had respect from all quarters - not just the backwards baseball-cap boys, but the genuine enthusiasts, too.

One of my great regrets during my tenure of EX03 UEW was that I didn't get to go to the Nurburgring with Graham Morison and a group of his fellow Sportka-owning engineers from Jaguar. The little Ford was on their company car list and was of such a quality that they knew instinctively where to take it. Other evo readers may not have had the 'Ring in their sights, but the feedback on Sportka ownership was 100 per cent positive. Universally, what appealed was the fact that you don't need to go Subaru-quick to really enjoy yourself.

Okay, so you can go briskly and have a kickin' time with just 94bhp - anything you should know about the practical side of Sportka ownership? Well, you soon don't notice - or care - that the dash is made of grotty plastic; with careful packing and the rear seats folded, you can squeeze in lots of gear; the short-ish gearing simply isn't an issue on the motorway because the ICE is plenty loud enough and the engine seldom sounds coarse; you can expect the tyres to last about 15,000 miles even if you drive in the manner that the Sportka encourages; keep an eye on the oil consumption coming up to the first service. And don't expect, no matter how carefully you drive, to get anything more than 34mpg from the 1.6-litre engine.

It's common in long-term test reports to express sadness at the departure of your four-wheeled playmate, but I'm afraid I can't avoid the cliche - I'm genuinely going to miss the Sportka. For its size and its price and its power output it's a top-class entertainer with a real depth of ability; if it's budget fun you're after, there's not much to touch it.

Source - http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evolongtermtests/49769/ford_sportka_se.html

I've highglighted in bold the bit that for me defines exactly why this car is cool, and quite frankly I will take the endorsment of a group of Jag engineers over someone who can't get past on-paper figures any day of the week.


Scaff

 

[homeforsummer]

Nice post Scaff, and thanks for finding that Evo article, I didn't think to look online as I'd remembered something similar when I originally read it in the magazine. It's exactly what I was getting at in this post, including the weight that the Evo endorsement offers.

 

[TheCracker]

I don't live in Europe, thus I wasn't talking about it.

The car is only sold in Europe, so why are you even expressing an opinion in that case?

 

[Famine]

(the M Coupe is most certainly not a hot hatch by any definition)

You'd think its name would be a dead giveaway, really.