more and more manufacturers want to get into the ever more ...€¦ · performance you ask? this...

More and more manufacturers want to get into the ever more competitive hot hatch segment. And when I mean “ever more competitive hot hatch segment”, I mean it. They are getting more advanced, cleverer, more efficient and quick-er. Everybody comes out with something that makes you go “I want that”. Here we have 8 contenders in order to make you say those words. And what a variety of cars they are. There are cars that make you feel like you own a supercar, with ballistic performance, whereas others have tried to make a hot hatch a comfortable executive car in one package. But what tops the charts?

Baltazar QuarkThe class-leading small

car with a hardcore tuned engine by Smolensk.

153 mph 6.2 sec. 240 hp

Comrade-Prato GratskThe shape may have

looked “new” a couple of decades ago, but don’t let

that deter you.

135 mph 6.8 sec. 169 hp

Hawker LeopardIncredible fuel economy combined with excellent

performance you ask? This may be the car for

you.

167 mph 5.3 sec. 226 hp

Infinity RS300300 stands for the amount of angry ponies that will

power you along. Yes, 300.

157mph 5.3 sec. 300 hp

Midgård Caliente“Caliente” means hot, and that is definitely what this is: another hardcore hatch with tyres as wide as most

hypercars.

136 mph 5.3 sec. 241 hp

Montes ArexisThe updated Arexis

comes with a new look and a high-revving, natu-

rally aspirated engine.

160 mph 5.7 sec. 241 hp

RM Rigel Bags of grip, reasonably comfortable, and even

though it is far from the most powerful it still goes

well in a straight line.

165 mph 5.9 sec. 205 hp

Seishido ProximaHas the smallest engine in the test to give reasonable performance, and returns

good fuel economy.

156 mph 6.2 sec. 181 hp

2 Hot Hatch comparison powered by AutomationHub

a Cheeseman review

otatch

THE CARS

3powered by AutomationHub Hot Hatch comparison

Performance

MontesHawkerRM

Baltazar

You could say there are three types of cars when it comes to performance in this comparison. There are the ones with sub-200 bhp figures without a hope in hell of keeping up, the “as-you-expect” ones, and the “blow your socks off” ones

The Seishido Proxima and the Com-rade-Prato Gratsk are the two cars that do disappoint when it comes to hot hatch performance. They are not slow by any means, and they have sufficient power in order to rival the likes of the Fiesta ST, but they are a long way be-hind the rivals in this test which aim to beat the Golf GTI, Focus ST and others.

The Seishido Proxima is the most disap-pointing in the test, and that isn’t down to the fact it is slowest. The 0-62 mph sprint being covered in 6.2 seconds and a top speed of 156 mph is pretty good considering that 181 bhp is what is get-ting this moving. When you compare this to the less powerful Comrade-Prato Gratsk, which has 12 bhp less, takes 0.6 seconds longer to get that acceleration sprint over and done with, and maxes out at a rather disappointing 135 mph, you’re probably wondering why the Proxima sits at rock bottom. Although the Seishido Proxima is faster, it doesn’t have that near-instant power delivery of the Gratsk, neither does it feel as smooth.

Strangely enough, sitting above these cars in performance are the “hardcore hot hatches”. These things have engines capable of launching these cars to in-sane speeds, yet both cars that are like this, the Infinity RS300 and the Midgård Caliente, have some serious issues.

The Midgård Caliente has just as much power as the Baltazar Quark RS and Montes Arexis, but it is turbocharged rather than their choice of doing with-out one. This causes the typical issues of poor responsiveness and smoothness compared to these enginews. It does, however, impress when you take the specs into consideration. The same could be said for the Infinity, just that it has 60 extra furious ponies to get you mov-ing. The Caliente has the fattest tyres I have ever seen fitted to a hatchback, and it looks mad, but the trade off is 0-62 mph in 5.3 seconds, identical to the far more powerful RS300. Both feel crazi-ly fast off the line. The RS300 feels this way for longer though, because it has more power, but both of them, with their handling focus and wings, top out quite early. The RS300 reaches 157 mph, one more than the Seishido Proxima, and the Caliente reaches a disappointing 136 mph, one more than the Gratsk. Add this to their downside of being laggy and relatively unresponsive and not particularly smooth (especially the

RM RigelEngine: 2000cc FP V8Power: 205 hp @ 7900rpmTorque: 153ft-lb @ 6400rpmAspiration: N/ATop Speed: 165,4 mphGearing: manual 6 speed

Hawker LeopardEngine: 1998cc inline 4Power: 226 hp @ 6600rpmTorque: 225ft-lb @ 2700rpmAspiration: TurboTop Speed: 167,1 mphGearing: manual 6 speed

Montes ArexisEngine: 2000cc inline 4Power: 241 hp @ 8600rpmTorque: 157ft-lb @ 7200rpmAspiration: N/ATop Speed: 160,3 mphGearing: manual 6 speed

Baltazar QuarkEngine: 1988cc inline 4Power: 240 hp @ 8700rpmTorque: 155ft-lb @ 7300rpmAspiration: N/ATop Speed: 153,1 mphGearing: manual 6 speed

The specs are mediocre (apart from the excellent top speed), but this gets first thanks to the wonderful V8 engine sitting under the bonnet.

2nd best in test with a measly 226 bhp? How? Does 5.3 seconds to get to 62 mph and 167 mph top speed explain things well enough?

240 bhp of N/A wonder is the way to explain this. Has very good performance figures too.

The Smolensk tuned 2.0-litre N/A packs a punch, but isn’t up there with the best.

Performance

ComradeMidgårdInfinity

Seishido

RS300), they had to sit in these positions.

This leaves us with four cars, the Bal-tazar, the Hawker, the Montes and the RM. If you thought the trend of “pick-ing” on the turbocharged cars was going to continue, you’d be wrong. 4th place is the Baltazar. 3rd place goes to the Mon-tes, 2nd place goes to the turbocharged Hawker Leopard, and 1st to the RM.

The Baltazar and the Montes both have very similar engines. Both are extreme-ly responsive, quite smooth and clearly use a VTEC-like system (yes, it kicked in yo). This does mean that you have to rev them in order to get the full per-formance out of them, but both engines feel strong enough, even if they don’t quite have the mid-range pull of the turbocharged engines. The Baltazar sits in 4th due to it being slower than the Montes. 0-62 mph is 6.3 seconds for the Baltazar, 5.7 seconds for the Mon-tes. Top speed is 153 mph for the Bal-tazar, 160 mph for the Montes. Simple.

This leaves two cars with not par-ticularly glorious power outputs bat-tling it out for the top spot, one with 226 bhp, and the other with 205 bhp. And the 205 bhp one is the winner. No, I am not out of my mind, trust me.

In second is the Hawker Leopard, which makes use of a 2.0-litre turbocharged engine. So why isn’t it below the 300 bhp Infinity? Responsiveness is almost on par with N/A cars. The same can be said for smoothness. It has good mid-range pull, like all turbos. Lag isn’t too bad. The issues are still there of course, but they aren’t even close to those hardcore two. Specs are flipping awesome. 0-62 mph is covered in 5.3 seconds, and the top speed is 167 mph, proof that fat tyres and mad amounts of power aren’t strictly necessary.

So what makes the RM Rigel the best in the test? Well it certainly isn’t the most powerful car in the test, with a rather mediocre sounding 205 bhp. It isn’t the fastest in a straight line either, which are not good but not class lead-ing. 0-62 mph occurs in 5.9 seconds, and the top speed is 165 mph. Good, but what makes it the best. Let’s just say it has the most responsive, smoothest, sportiest engine in the test. This doesn’t use a measly I4 engine, this is a glori-ous V8! It delivers so beautifully right when you want it to. There is not a single thing wrong about the engine, and that is why this (just) scraped the top spot.

Infinity RS 300Engine: 1998cc inline 4Power: 300 hp @ 6400rpmTorque: 282ft-lb @ 5100rpmAspiration: TurboTop Speed: 156,9 mphGearing: manual 6 speed

Midgård CalienteEngine: 1996cc inline 4Power: 241hp @ 5900rpmTorque: 254ft-lb @ 3900rpmAspiration: TurboTop Speed: 135,7 mphGearing: sequential 6 DC

Comrade-Prato GromskEngine: 1999cc inline 4Power: 169 hp @ 6900rpmTorque: 144t-lb @ 4800rpmAspiration: N/ATop Speed: 135 mphGearing: manual 6 speed

Seishido ProximaEngine: 1493cc inline 4Power: 181 hp @ 7100rpmTorque: 181ft-lb @ 3300rpmAspiration: TurboTop Speed: 155,7 mphGearing: manual 6 speed

4

“Are you sure you did this right?” you ask. 300 bhp is nice, but being unresponsive, not particularly smooth and having bad turbo lag is disappointing.

It’s a very similar story to the RS300, just with 60 less bhp. Stats are impres-sive, but delivery isn’t.

The figures are by far the worst in the test, but the good manual gearbox and nice N/A powerband impress.

181 bhp from a 1.5-litre engine sounds good, but compared to the rest in the test it is poor, and not helped by turbo lag.

otatch

Hot Hatch comparison powered by AutomationHub

5

Handling and Ride Comfort

BaltazarComradeRM

Montes

Yet again, there are three types of cars when it comes to their suspension, yet this doesn’t actually mean that what their suspen-sion is saying is necessarily what will happen. Unsurprisingly, the hardcore Midgård and Infinity have extremely firm suspension setups. And when I say “extremely firm”, I mean it. The suspension on these cars do a diabolical job of doing what suspension is supposed to do more than anything else. A low speeds the car jolts and jitters over all bar the most perfect of surfaces, and when you get to higher speeds things don’t get much better. If you had to pick one, the Caliente is ever so slightly more comfortable.

The way these two cars handle is a completely different story, yet neither of them are the best. If you seriously want to try and rip your face off, the Caliente is the way to go. The extremely fat 305mm tyres, front and rear, feel like they are glued to the road. You can throw it into a corner at speeds you’d never expect in some supercars, let alone a hatchback, and it will come out the other side urging you to do it again. It puts a huge smile on your face. The same can be said for the Infinity, just that it doesn’t quite grip as much. But even then, the car can seriously corner. Body lean is almost undetectable for both of these cars, remaining almost dead flat around bends.

After reading that, you’ll be guessing that the Midgård would take the crown for handling, but to be honest we feel the Infinity has an extra sporty edge and additional composure that just makes it feel just that little bit better. As a whole ride & comfort package though, neither of them are good thanks to the awful ride. The next load of cars are the ones that have the suspension setup is as you expect it to be. Firm and sporty, but not to the point where it becomes truly uncomfortable. The Baltazar, Hawker, Montes and Seishido.

Best ride of the bunch goes to the Baltazar, because it is just that little bit softer than the other three, which all have an extremely similar setup. The low-speed ride of the Quark is a bit fidgety, but it doesn’t get even close to the point of battering your internals. Once on a reasonably smooth road at speeds these cars prefer going at, the car settles down, and only the worst of the bumps are transmitted into the cabin.

As for the other three, the story is almost identical. They have a very similar feel to the Baltazar, but when you go over poorer sur-faces you can tell that they aren’t ironing out as many of the bumps the Baltazar manages to do. The only way to work out which car was better than the other was hopping back and forth from car to car and watching clips of the cars going around bends to see how much they lean. Nevertheless, all of them are OK, just perhaps a little touch too firm for some hot hatch buyers.

RM RigelSuspension: F-ComfortTyre Profile: 30/30Body roll: 6,34 degreesMax Gs: 1,35/1,27Driver Assists:- All bar LC

Comrade-Prato GromskSuspension: SSF-ComfortTyre Profile: 35/35Body roll: 4,33 degreesMax Gs: 1,26/1,26Driver Assists:- Power Steering- ABS- TCS

Baltazar QuarkSuspension: S-SportTyre Profile: 45/45Body roll: 5,11 degreesMax Gs: 1,26/1,23Driver Assists:- All bar LC

Montes ArexisSuspension: F-ComfortTyre Profile: 40/35Body roll: 3,31 degreesMax Gs: 1,27/1,22Driver Assists:- All options

The ride is more than reasonable, especially for a hot hatch, and the handling is absolutely fantastic and man-ages to feel less brutal than the hardcore two.

The suspension feels like it belongs in a more comfort-able car, yet the handling still is still pretty good, but misses out on that sparkle.

Ride certainly shows the sporty focus, yet remains com-fortable. A shame when you consider the handling isn’t dazzling.

It may only be next best after the dreadful ride of the Caliente, but it is far better, if a little firm for my liking. Handling is exceptional, if not quite as amazing as the best.

powered by AutomationHub Hot Hatch comparison

Handling and Ride Comfort

MidgårdHawkerSeishido

Infinity

The way these cars handle isn’t as similar as their suspension setups. There is one car out of all of these that seriously does impress, but although the three remaining impress, they are in the bottom three when it comes to handling. The car that impresses when it comes to handling is the Montes. The limit is reached quite a bit earlier than in the Caliente or RS300, but it still grips onto the road pretty hard, and thanks to it having an N/A engine, it is that little bit lighter which makes it feel happier when you just throw the car into the corner. It may not be as good as those two, but it still manages to put a massive grin on your face. The remaining three, although still worthy of 4 stars for handling and still manage to put a smile on your face, are sitting in the bottom 3. The Baltazar feels the best of the remaining lot, with very composed, secure and sporty feeling handling, but it doesn’t quite go around a bend like the Montes and misses out on some of the sparkle and ability to make you smile the better cars have. The Hawker and Seishido are pretty similar stories

The remaining two feel as if they borrowed their suspension from their non-sporty versions of their cars, which does have its small downside, but it does make the cars a whole deal more comfortable. These two are the Comrade-Prato Gratsk and the RM Rigel, both of which are worthy of 4-star ride comfort ratings. The RM Rigel does a very good job once you are up to cruising speeds at getting rid of the lumps and bumps in the road surface, but it still can feel just that little bit firm at low speeds, partially down to the fact that this isn’t a pure comfort set-up, and secondly due to it having very low-profile tyres. The Gratsk, on the other hand, sorts out the small issue the Rigel has by having slightly more squidgy suspension and higher profile tyres. It does a wonderful job at almost all speeds at ironing out imperfections, and it never gets uncomfortable. Buy this rather than a Caliente or a RS300, and your bottom will be happy.

Handling from the comfortable two is rather good as well, with the Rigel capable of blowing your socks off. The Gratsk is still impres-sive, but compared to the rest in the test it is just average. It can grip rather well, but if you get into one of these after being in one of the hardcore two on a racetrack, you won’t be able to push this anywhere near as hard as them. One rather surprising factor with the handling is how well body roll is kept under control, especially considering the soft suspension. It isn’t class leading, but it is still pretty impressive. The Rigel is just a monster though, taking the handling crown. It may not grip the most or have the best body roll control, but it is still capable of making your face hurt going around bends, and anything that manages to do that should automatically get 5 stars. So what makes it take the crown? The simple answer is how confident you are to push it. In the Caliente and the RS300, you can push them hard, but they can get very vicious if they don’t like what you are doing, and with the car hopping and skipping everywhere due to bumps, you’d never dare to have fun on roads in those two. The Rigel is for more forgiving, and it means that even the least confident of drivers can enjoy the experience of startling your passengers when they least expect it. That is what makes it so amazing.

Seishido ProximaSuspension: F-SportTyre Profile: 40/40Body roll: 3,64 degreesMax Gs: 1,27/1,20Driver Assists:- All bar LC

Hawker LeopardSuspension: F-SportTyre Profile: 45/50Body roll: 3,32 degreesMax Gs: 1,25/1,19Driver Assists:- All options

Midgård CalienteSuspension: S-RaceTyre Profile: 30/30Body roll: 2,22 degreesMax Gs: 1,32/1,41Driver Assists:- All bar LC

Infinty RS300Suspension: S-RaceTyre Profile: 25/25Body roll: 2,16 degreesMax Gs: 1,32/1,35Driver Assists:- All options

6

The ride is rather firm and jiggly at times, but it is OK. Handling is the worst in the test, even if it is actually quite good.

Ride can get a bit lumpy at times, but it is certainly better than some in the test. Handling is good, but disappoints compared to the rest.

A very similar setup to the RS300, just with a marginally better ride (it is still awful, though) and slightly worse handling (yet still capable of ridiculous things).

Jaw-dropping levels of grip capable of taking you around bends at unimaginable speeds, but the ride is bone-breaking.

otatch


7

Refinement

ComradeBaltazarRM

Infinity

How much noise, and the noise the car makes when under acceleration can be a decider when it comes to buying a hot hatch, but nobody wants to hear tyre roar and wind noise to mute out that glorious engine. When you have hundreds of motorway miles to munch up, you don’t want something that is going to make this long journey unrelaxing.

There a few cars that have this task covered exceptionally, which for some could be a bad thing as the engine is also nearly inaudible. Of course, there is a solution known as opening the windows. Both the RM Rigel and the Baltazar Quark are fantastic when it comes to this. The road and wind noise is dealt with extremely well, to the point where it can only be heard when travelling at speeds well over the national speed limit, unless you live in Germany. Engine noise is almost nonexistent, with only an inkling of sound working its way into the cabin under hard acceleration. This is a big issue that isn’t an issue (if you know what I am saying) in the Rigel, because you miss out on listening to the grumbling, fire-spitting, roaring V8 that sits under the bonnet. Still, windows open in a tunnel is pretty effective.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, there are cars such as the Montes Arexis, which only just scraped three stars. One of the plus sides this has over the two previously mentioned cars is obviously the fact that you get to hear the engine when you want it to make some noise, and the Arexis does have a nice fruity, fizzing note to it. The bad side is that other noises also get into the cabin, up to the point where you may be turning up the radio a notch or two, and the engine never seems to fully calm down, meaning you hear a constant drone that makes long, boring journeys that little bit more annoying.

There are some other not-so-great offerings too, such as the Hawker Leopard, Midgård Caliente and Seishi-do Proxima, which were hard to put in places 7, 6 and 5 because of how similar they all were. The three were close to getting four stars, as the engine does die down and becomes a distant, non-intrusive rumble, but they do still suffer from there being plenty of unwanted noises intruding the cabin. All three of them become beautifully audible under hard acceleration, making all the right, angry sounding tunes, so if you like a bal-ance of noise, then these three cars are the ones that you would like to bear in mind.

HawkerSeishidoMidgård

Montes


8

Equipment and Safety

MontesComradeBaltazar

Seishido

RMInfinityHawker

Midgård

Hardcore hatches aren’t very well known for having long equipment list. In fact hardcore hatches aren’t very well known, but still, none of them are known for equipment. The two in this test aren’t that bad at all, with reasonable amounts of tech being thrown in as standard, and the RS300 even manages to make it out of the bottom two. The Caliente on the other hand, makes do with last place in this comparison. Safety tech is very good, with it having the most advanced systems available, but creature comforts are very few. Air-conditioning, radio/CD player and little more.

So with the RS300 leaving a gap between the Caliente and the Hawker Leopard which has an identical safety equipment list and safety rating. Yes, I mean it. Both of them have the exact same things available as standard. Both are good in both areas, but nothing to make you get excited. Anyway, what could that worse car be? The Rigel? No! Well, yes, actually. The Rigel seriously disappoints when it comes to equipment, and even more so when it comes to safety. When making what seems to be a very good hot hatch to drive, it also seems that corners have to be cut. The standard equipment list isn’t that bad, with some nice creature comforts being included. Safety tech is disappointing, and misses out on things that all the others have. It just makes do with a couple of airbags.

Surprisingly, the car that starts off the top half in this area is a car that has struggled up until now. The Proxima actually has a reasonably good level of equipment and safety features. Everything you expect to find in a family hatchback nowadays has been included as standard, as well as some other nifty features. It isn’t anything to get excited about, but it is a reasonable performance, nevertheless.

The Montes Arexis is very similar to this car and takes 3rd, but only just. Like the Proxima, everything you expect to find in a hatchback has been included, but there is just that little bit more thanks to more sporty features, like launch control. As well as this, the Montes’ features feel like they do their job better than the Seishido does. The driver assists seem less intrusive yet just as safe, the air-conditioning gets to work quicker etc. Little things like that is what makes this just that bit better.

So does that make the Prato second? Yes, it does. I know, I am surprised as to how well this car is doing consid-ering the rather naff Zoope in the small car test. But here it is, snatching second place in equipment. This does a considerably better job than the Montes, but it can’t even get close to the car sitting in first. There are a couple of things missing that some people might like, one of which, ESP, should have been included as standard. Thankfully it makes up for this when it comes to looking at what does come as standard. Although the normal equipment and tech is no more than what is available on the Montes, the safety equipment (ignoring ESP) is very impressive, with advanced safety systems making this as safe as a Volvo.

But nobody does equipment like Baltazar. Even the cheap version tested in the previous comparison serious-ly impressed when it came to equipment, and this hot version is so good that the 5th star just had to be given. Everything you would ever require and more is on the standard list, so I can only imagine what sort of things are on the options lists. You could probably turn this into an S-Class smasher. Fantastic work Baltazar!

Has the most non-safety tech and the most safety tech. What more could you ask for?Standard equipment list is almost identical to the Quark, but it misses out on safety.A very decent standard equipment list complemented by good safety tech.The Proxima makes up a little for the rather naff performance with decent equipment.Good equipment list is only mediocre here. The same goes for safety tech.Appears to have the exact same plan as Hawker. One of the only areas where RM have appeared to cut corners, but it isn’t dreadful.Hardcore car comes with hardcore interior, meaning it misses out on a couple of things.

otatch


9

Quality and Reliability

BaltazarInfinityHawker

Comrade

MontesSeishidoRM

Midgård

By now, I think you have realised the Midgård doesn’t really concentrate on whether you comfortable driving your mad hot hatchback, and the interior is another area where this shows. And don’t think that the RS300 is like this, as the cabin is in a different league. You get into the Midgård, and you a welcomed by a cabin with reasonable materials, but next to no buttons due to the lack of tech, making it rather grey and drab, some-thing you wouldn’t expect in something that sets you on fire when you go for it. In less visible, hidden away areas, the plastics can even get a bit nasty feeling, but thankfully they are kept away from view.

Back to the RS300, and what a difference. This cabin doesn’t look anything like the Midgård. Admittedly, it is far from the best interior of the test, especially when I say it “looks” better, simply because the materials feel just as average as those found in the Caliente. With the increased number of things to press and turn, it looks far more appealing. Reliability is the place where this car truly shines. You would never expect a 2.0-litre en-gine with a massive turbocharger to be bulletproof, but it definitely appears to be that way. The interior, even though it is covered in nothing special, is very solidly out together. Nothing to fault whatsoever.

So who sits in 7th? Surprisingly, it is the car with what we think has the second best interior, but it has been hit hard by its rather disappointing reliability. That car is the Montes Arexis. As mentioned, the interior is a pretty nice place to sit. In fact it is almost good enough to snatch a fourth star in quality thanks to it having very solid looking interior plastics that, although not anything special, look quite nice. It is just such a shame that the high-revving engine doesn’t have much focus on reliability, and it could end up wearing pretty quick-ly if you use it like you inevitably will. Taking 5th and 6th we have the Rigel and the Proxima. The reason why I have to mention these together is the interior materials. There is not a single thing I can lay my finger on and say what makes this one better or worse than the other. Both have interiors that aren’t exactly worth shouting about, but they are reasonable enough. Soft-touch plastics up top, some rather drab, hard things down in less visible areas. What you expect in other words. The thing that gave the Rigel that 5th place and the Proxima 6th was reliability, which is just that little bit better.

That leaves us with the cars sitting in 4th, 3rd and 1st place, because we have already worked out that the RS300 is very good in this area and snatched 2nd place. In fourth and third we have two cars that got incred-ibly similar scores in this area, but had slightly different approaches, the Quark and the Gratsk. Surprisingly, the Quark is the one that went for the poor interior but fantastic reliability approach. The interior is OK, but no more than that, with a similar, if slightly poorer, array of plastics that have dominated in cars like these up until now. It is very unlikely that this thing will break down on you, though, which is very nice. The Gratsk does have a very similar interior to the Quark, but it just feels that extra bit nicer and feels just that bit more solid. Engine realibility isn’t as good as the Quark, though, meaning that this makes do with 4th place, with the Quark taking 3rd.

The winner of this bit is clearly the Hawker Leopard thanks to one major thing. The cars before this have made do with interiors with some soft-touch stuff up the top, and some hard stuff just to cover the lower areas. This thing takes hot hatches to a new level, with interior materials that a Jag (or Jaaaaag) owner would like. Who wants plastic up top? Well throw in some metals and some leather. Why not? Even the lower down areas are covered in some nice-ish looking plastics. Is it 5-star quality material? Not quite. As for reliability, the Leopard does a good job, if not astounding, which was the main thing that meant this just missed on getting that fifth star here.

An interior executive car owners would be glad to have matched with good reliability.It may be a hardcore monster, but the interior is reasonable and the reliability is fantastic. A rather average interior doesn’t impress, but the bulletproof reliability certainly does.Both the interior build and its durability are more than good enough, but nothing exciting.Interior materials are nothing to shout about, but they seem durable, just like the engine.It seems that they wanted a piece of what RM were making. Shame reliability is behind.The interior is up to scratch, but reliability isn’t what you would call sparkling. The other hardcore monster is not like the RS300, with a rather poor interior and reliability.


Running costs may not seem that important when it comes to hot hatches, but in this world of environmen-talists and high (if reducing) fuel costs, they are more important than ever. That is why I automatically have to mention that the Midgård Caliente is not the hot hatch you would want to buy if you even have the slight-est care for how much it will set you back just driving it. It may not seem to bad when I say it is claimed to achieve 39 (UK)mpg on the combined cycle, but nowadays that simply is not good enough, and compared to the rest in the test it looks even more awful. And, being a hot hatch, you will never ever achieve these figures. Now I have to get to the bit that really makes your eyes water, and if it wasn’t for the fact that fuel economy is completely dreadful that this didn’t get just one star. Servicing should set you back $3.5k+ every year. ‘Nuff said.

It may not come to a surprise to you that the second hardcore hot hatch comes 7th when it comes to running costs, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it is that bad. Compared to the Caliente, you’ll be saving in the region of $1500 a year in servicing, and it is claimed to go another few miles on every gallon of fuel, with a claimed figure of 46.2 (UK)mpg, which is reasonable enough, but nothing to get exciting about, and a way off the 55+ that some cars have managed. Considering the fact this could outrun some very expensive, gas guzzling sports cars though, it does a good job.

Sixth place may come to a shock to you, especially when you compare it to what takes fifth place. The Proxi-ma manages to achieve a rather astounding 57.6 (UK)mpg, whereas the Montes Arexis, which sits in the spot above it, manages a rather mediocre 49.8 miles on a nice big British gallon. The Arexis will set you back less when it comes to servicing, but it is only by 100-odd, which is not enough to offset the rather large difference as to how often you’ll be visiting the fuel pump. What you have to consider is what kind of car you are be-ing offered. The 181 bhp Proxima will appeal to a far more cost-conscious buyer, whereas the Arexis, with a mountain more power, will appeal to someone who would care less about what Greenpeace has to say. And when you bear that mind, even though it was close and it pained me to do it, the Seishido had to take 6th, and the Arexis 5th.

The top 4 least-likely-to-eat-all-your-money cars are all very good and giving you smiles per gallon as well as many miles too. Admittedly, what comes in 4th could go a good deal better, but it isn’t that bad. This car is the Quark. Fuel economy is close to 50 (UK)mpg, less than the Montes Arexis that sits just below, but it is just by a few tenths. What really makes the difference is the price of servicing, which, at around $300 less every year, should make up for the slightly higher fuel bills no problem, and will even leave you with some money left over afterwards.

Claiming the bottom spot on the podium and entering 4-star territory comes the Gratsk. This car offers more of what you expect from a less powerful hot hatchback, with decent fuel economy and pretty cheap servicing bills. The fuel economy figure compared to the Proxima may not sound brilliant, at 51.5 (UK)mpg, but you

10

Running Costs

ComradeHawkerRM

Baltazar

InfinitySeishidoMontes

Midgård

Its fuel efficiency is not Leopard-like, but the servicing will set you back a lot less.It beats superminis with its fuel economy figures, but paying $3k a year on servicing is a lot.It consumes fuel frugally, and the servicing costs are the best in the test.Averaging 49.2 UK mpg is reasonable enough, and so are the servicing costs. A combination of reasonable fuel economy and reasonable servicing costs make this reasonable.Fuel economy is more than good enough, but $2.3k a year in servicing is way too much. When you have a huge turbo, you’re going to need to make the extra fuel stop now and again.Nowadays, 39 UK mpg is not great, but $3500 a year in servicing is just an insult.

otatch


save such a huge amount in servicing that this would have beat it even if it guzzled fuel as if it was limitless and as cheap as chips (which, unfortunately, it isn’t). It could have done a bit better on fuel consumption, it has to be said, especially when you compare it to what the next two cars have managed to do

It was hard to put a finger on one of the two remaining cars and say which one was the fuel economy king. One of them offered fantastic, supermini rivalling fuel economy, but getting the car serviced would set you back quite a bit too much, but the other offered better servicing costs at the cost of a fuel less miles on every gallon of fuel.

The super-frugal car is the Hawker Leopard. When you buy a hot hatch, you want it for having some fun, but you also want to use it as your daily driver and get reasonable fuel economy in return. How does 64.1 (UK)mpg sound? Yes, you can cruise along in this thing and the engine runs on almost nothing. That is why it is such a shame that the servicing costs will undo most of this, which are at $3.2k a year. That is one heck of a lot of money.

The second car is the one that has been winning quite a few things up until now, the RM Rigel. Official claims of 56.6 (UK)mpg do sound marvellous, but compared to the Leopard they don’t seem so good. But what if I told you that choosing this car would save you 4 digits every year in servicing? Would that change your mind? This offers the fuel economy of a slightly less economical small car, and servicing that won’t make you look like you decided that chilli seeds looked nice in your eyes. The combo of the two is good in fact, it takes the crown for running costs, meaning the Leopard has to make do with second.


Baltazar Quark 2nd

HandlingRide ComfortPerformance

Refinement

ReliabilityQualityEquipment

Running CostsSafety

Comrade-Prato Gratsk 3rd


Refinement


Running CostsSafety

Hawker Leopard 5th


Refinement


Running CostsSafety

Infinity RS300 4th


Refinement


Running CostsSafety

Midgård Caliente 8th


Refinement


Running CostsSafety

Montes Arexis 6th


Refinement


Running CostsSafety

RM Rigel 1st


Refinement


Running CostsSafety

Seishido Proxima 7th


Refinement


Running CostsSafety

Overall Overall Overall Overall

Overall Overall Overall Overall

For: Masses of tech, refined,reliable, reasonably comfortableAgainst: Comparatively mediocre handling, running costs could be cheaper

For: Comfortable, well equipped, reasonable interior, safe Against: Not that hot, with only decent performance and average handling

For: Beautiful interior, fantastic fuel economy, nice turbo engineAgainst: Handling isn’t thatbrilliant, unrefined, could come with more tech

For: Mad engine, superb reliabili-ty, masses of gripAgainst: Dreadful ride, poorinterior, steep running costs

For: Brutal cornering abilities, pretty safe, absolutely bonkersAgainst: Poor interior, equip-ment, ride and running costs

For: Nice engine, well equipped, safe, good interiorAgainst: Unrefined, not particu-larly reliable, rough ride

For: Fast, refined, handles bril-liantly, cheap to run, comfortableAgainst: Lacking in safety tech, could be a bit more reliable

For: Reasonable equipment, inte-rior quality and reliabilityAgainst: Not that fast, handling isn’t great, not that comfortable

12

Car Total cost Annual service costs (estimated)Baltazar Quark 10884,57 2058,92Comrade-Prato Gromsk 10810,14 1856,06Hawker Leopard 10905,01 3240,01Infinity RS300 10997,28 2144,94Midgård Caliente 10936,18 3488,30Montes Arexis 10941,33 2387,45RM Rigel 10392,81 2086,13Seishido Proxima 10975,70 2435,06

OVERALL VERDICT


It was obvious which car was going to take the crown. After winning in so many areas, the Rigel impressed massively, almost managing a 5-star rating. Not only is it one of the best before taking costs into consideration, but the Rigel is the cheapest of the hot hatches here, something that did show in an area or two. A truly marvellous hot hatchback that I would recommend to anybody looking for a car like this.

After taking the small car crown, the Quark has had to make do with second as a hot hatchback, but it is still more than good enough. It had a couple of areas where the side was let down, but just like its more sedate cousin, nothing comes close to it when it comes to stuffing the car full of tech and gadgets. Oh, and it drives pretty damn well too.

Considering that the Prato Zoope City Edition was a bit disappointing in the small car comparison test, the Com-rade-Prato Gratsk is a pretty decent little hot hatch. It may not be the fastest (in fact you could slay it is rather slow), but everything else is so solid, and it is probably one of the best at being a comfortable family cruiser. Let’s just say this is a very good “mild” hatchback.

It was a tough decision between the Infinity and Hawker for fourth place, but the hardcore hatch scraped it. If you want something right now before the tempting Focus RS hits the road, there is literally no other option other than this one. Power in abundance, handling like nothing I ever imagined, and although it may set you back quite a bit to keep it on the road, you’ll be rewarded with a many smiles per mile (just as long as you avoid bumps).

The premium Leopard is a very recommendable car too. Yes, there are quite a lot of areas where it is no better than average, but the areas where it shines, it is an absolute star. Never did I think I would have an interior this nice in a car like this, but I am not entirely sure whether cutting so many corners was completely worth it.

Montes have tried hard again, and although this fast version of the new Arexis is a fair deal better than the base version, it still is behind rivals in many areas. On the plus side, this does do a very good job at the hot part. It is just a shame that it doesn’t do the hatchback part any better than average.

The Proxima does a good job, but never does it really do an excellent job. The engine was too low on power, the interi-or was no better than average, the fuel economy was great, but other running costs not so much. This combination of doing OK meant that it had to make do with second-to-last place, which is a shame when you can clearly see what they were trying to do, but didn’t quite achieve it.

The Caliente is, let’s say, a bit too mad. What it does well (other than being mad), it blows your socks off, but there are so many other areas which seem as if they were either forgotten about or weren’t given much importance. Like the Montes, this does the hot bit well, in fact you could say very well, but this does a terrible job at the hatchback bit.

Final verdict


14

Idea

WriterDesign and layout

Photography

Special thanks to

Powered and commissioned by

George “Cheeseman” Thomas

George “Cheeseman” ThomasBart “WizzyThaMan“ VoorjansBart “WizzyThaMan“ Voorjans

Leonardo9613 (and Jakgoe) - Baltazar Quark RS Smolensknp1993 - Comrade-Prato GratskYugoSpy - Midgård CalienteEnryGT5 - Seishido proxima 1.5PSUSDMFTW - Hawker Leopard SportJanekk - RM Rigelvmo - Montes Arexis Type-MRPharizvet1 - Infinity RS300Vroomvroom (Conceptual brainstorming)

AutomationHubThe place for all your Automation needs!www.automationhub.net

CREDITS


more and more manufacturers want to get into the ever more ...€¦ · performance you ask? this...

Documents