| Author | Topic |
|---|
Location:
Adelaide
Registered:
August 2005
|
|
Seca VS. Hatch
|
Tue, 13 September 2005 01:40
|
 |
Lookin at gettin a (AE82) twin cam as a runabout while im at uni. Im after a hatch but none seem to be popping up so im thinking bout bightin the bullet and gettin a seca. Apart from the fact that, in my opinion, theyre but ugly, were there any fundamental differences in terms of performance between the hatch and the seca?
By this i mean, was the seca heavier? how much heavier? Did they handle the same, etc.
|
|
|
Location:
Perth Western Australia
Registered:
April 2004
|
|
Re: Seca VS. Hatch
|
Tue, 13 September 2005 01:48
|
|
as far as i know the suspention setup on the AE82 seca is a lot softer and they do weigh a bit more due to having a fatter bottom on them.
Engine wise there isnt a difference
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Toymods Club Secretary
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Seca VS. Hatch
|
Tue, 13 September 2005 02:44
|
|
Secas are teh ghey!
(Sorry - There was an incredibly long debate on this topic on the Twincam forum years ago  )
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide
Registered:
August 2005
|
|
Re: Seca VS. Hatch
|
Tue, 13 September 2005 02:49
|
|
|
wouldnt think it'd be much of a debate
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
September 2003
|
|
Re: Seca VS. Hatch
|
Tue, 13 September 2005 04:45
|
|
|
hatch for sure, just wait and you'll find one. other than that save up that lil bit more and grab an early AE92.
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide
Registered:
August 2005
|
|
Re: Seca VS. Hatch
|
Tue, 13 September 2005 04:55
|
|
|
really? i already hav enuff money to get an ae92, but they'd just be heavier again.
|
|
|
Location:
sydney
Registered:
August 2003
|
|
Re: Seca VS. Hatch
|
Tue, 13 September 2005 04:57
|
|
definately go for the hatch
im in the market for one but lack of funds is stopping me 
i personally HATE the seca look in the ae82/92s 
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide
Registered:
August 2005
|
|
Re: Seca VS. Hatch
|
Tue, 13 September 2005 05:01
|
|
|
yeah, seca's are butt ugly. and i personally think ae82's look better than ae92's, and theyre a fair cry lighter as well. i could deal with a seca if i knew it was gunna handle the same, i've heard the extra weight in the arse of the seca end made a fair bit of difference to handling, but i havn't actually been shown any concrete evidence to prove this
|
|
|
Location:
eastern suburbs, melbourne
Registered:
March 2005
|
|
Re: Seca VS. Hatch
|
Wed, 14 September 2005 04:58
|
|
|
seca is so ghey. looks like a granny mobile no matter what u do.
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide
Registered:
August 2005
|
|
Re: Seca VS. Hatch
|
Wed, 14 September 2005 05:29
|
|
|
yeah, would make a good sleeper though
|
|
|
Banned by his request
Location:
moved to tamworth
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Seca VS. Hatch
|
Wed, 14 September 2005 10:20
|
|
go a seca!they look way better and are better!want to argue boys and girls?put you hatch up against mine around the track!put up or shut up!lmao go a sx seca,they are still a good looking car after 15 years.this is said with no bias at all!lmao
mick
|
|
|
Location:
syd- northen beaches
Registered:
June 2005
|
|
Re: Seca VS. Hatch
|
Wed, 14 September 2005 10:53
|
|
there's nothing wrong with a seca!
sure its heavier by an insignificant amount but you
gain heaps more boot space and just that little bit
more individuality
if your after a runabout the boot space is by far
more practical 
ps if your gonna bag out one car or another at least
support it with solid evidence eg wieght, handeling,
suspention and so on.
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide
Registered:
December 2004
|
|
Re: Seca VS. Hatch
|
Wed, 14 September 2005 12:07
|
|
I quite like the look of the seca actually.
With a mild bodykit, lowered and a decent set of mags it would be quite a hot little car.
I have a kind of crazy idea as to what I would like to do with one of them and my spare GZE...
|
|
|
Banned by his request
Location:
moved to tamworth
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Seca VS. Hatch
|
Wed, 14 September 2005 12:14
|
|
| laaag wrote on Wed, 14 September 2005 20:53 |
there's nothing wrong with a seca!
sure its heavier by an insignificant amount but you
gain heaps more boot space and just that little bit
more individuality
if your after a runabout the boot space is by far
more practical
ps if your gonna bag out one car or another at least
support it with solid evidence eg wieght, handeling,
suspention and so on.
|
i have evidence! 99% of hair dressers prefur the hatch over the seca!
hahahahahahahahahahahah
mick
|
|
|
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Seca VS. Hatch
|
Wed, 14 September 2005 12:16
|
|
I distinctly remember that Wheels stated that both the AE82 and AE92 Secas had softer suspension settings than the hatch from the factory when new.
Therefore a stock Seca will handle like a bag of shit. The hatch wasn't that good stock either so that is saying a lot. I recal a Wheels group road test featuring the SX Seca , 323 Astina SP, Peogeot 205 and another car (Pulsar SSS?) and the testers rubbished the Secas' handling big time.
|
|
|
Banned by his request
Location:
moved to tamworth
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
|
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Seca VS. Hatch
|
Wed, 14 September 2005 12:44
|
|
I certainly do not dispute the the SX's 4AGe is a gem of a motor, and that the build quality of those Peugeots is crap.
And I am not the first to say that the SX's handle like crap.
Credit and (dis)credit where it is due. 
The Corollas won because they were basically the only car competing in the 1600cc class. And the suspension would have been modified big time.
Toyota was running those smug advertisements at the time proclaiming the class wins. Did their marketing dept really think we are all that stupid?
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide
Registered:
August 2005
|
|
Re: Seca VS. Hatch
|
Wed, 14 September 2005 16:55
|
|
|
lol no need for disputes, i just wanted to figure whether a seca was worth getting or not. with regards to handling, anyone know if the secas weight distribution was any different. stock supsension set up aint of much concern to me anyway, i would end up changing it anyways.
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
July 2003
|
|
Re: Seca VS. Hatch
|
Wed, 14 September 2005 22:52
|
|
Personally I prefer the seca,
They look best when done in moderation, that is dumped an a good set of quality wheels and rubber.
Reminds me of my first car, Ae92 seca sx in white, true the handling could use some major tweekin,
but good luck finding an unthrashed carolla sx....
Secas look meaner I think.
and the trim in the seca is also better in my opinion.
My Bro still has his goin strong and its his second car!
|
|
|
Location:
eastern suburbs, melbourne
Registered:
March 2005
|
|
|
Banned by his request
Location:
moved to tamworth
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Seca VS. Hatch
|
Thu, 15 September 2005 00:04
|
|
|
lol
|
|
|
Location:
eastern suburbs, melbourne
Registered:
March 2005
|
|
Re: Seca VS. Hatch
|
Thu, 15 September 2005 00:30
|
|
but seriously, to put this to rest, i would like to see a hatch vs seca going at it.
i will b willing to race a seca with simlar mods(when i get my car back on the road in about a month or 2).
when its back on the road it will have a 20v 4age + 2.25" exhaust, super strut front brakes, and some minor suspension work.
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
September 2003
|
|
Re: Seca VS. Hatch
|
Thu, 15 September 2005 03:29
|
|
seca has great liftoff oversteer
well at least my AE92 used to before i did the suspension. now there's just a hint of understeer but it corners like it's on rails now
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne - NthSubs
Registered:
January 2004
|
|
Re: Seca VS. Hatch
|
Thu, 15 September 2005 03:32
|
|
|
hatchback = king... in parking
|
|
|
