I have probably posted this exact thread in the past. Criteria:
1) Manual trans
2) boxy-ish in shape (hatch or wagon is fine)
3) wider track than height
4) achieving the above doesn't involve wrecking suspenion geometry
5) not giant
So I have a thing for utility box style cars that are low. Not OMG STANCE low, just not tall SUVs. Some cars that platform share can do this really well from what I understand.
Example: Forester can put on WRX struts to lower it, but still have the same amount of suspension travel as stock. I think they have a stock WRX camber curve at this point too?
What other cars are good candidates for this? Some that *might* work:
Kona (shares platform with Veloster/Elantra)
CX3
BMW X1 <-- I am currently excited about this concept. Its not crazy tall to begin with. If an F30 suspension brings this down to car height, this could have very good driving dynamics and be cheaper than an F30 wagon (and X1s actually meet track vs height in stock form also)
It seems like there's some kind of head room metric you're interested in meeting/having? Otherwise, I'd guess a GTI would fit the bill?
I would have said Nero, but htey are auto only.
sleepyhead the buffalo said:
It seems like there's some kind of head room metric you're interested in meeting/having? Otherwise, I'd guess a GTI would fit the bill?
More of a cargo area thing? A GTI has less cargo space than a X1 or CX5 (CX3 was a typo in original post) - although I would still love to see exactly how cargo space is measured.
I honestly don't know the answer to this 100%, but I think I would prefer a modded X1 over a GTI. Never owned a VW or BMW before though.
RE Soul/XB - do those platform share? I thought to lower either of those you need to be willing to sacrifice your suspension travel.
Honda Element
Ford Transit (Focus based, you could possible make one into an ST or RS version if you were handy)
Mazda 5
Jeep Wrangler?
In reply to ProDarwin :
BTW, nearly anything these days will be McPherson strut based and therefore have generally terrible suspension geometry outside of a relatively narrow range of movement. Lowering one just requires essentially moving the working range upwards, including control arm and steering arm angles which is more than just changing struts out.
Stefan (Forum Supporter) said:
Ford Transit (Focus based, you could possible make one into an ST or RS version if you were handy)
I came here to say this. A Transit ST would be very cool
Disco Wagon?
DSCN4627_zpsbz50t36f by Hyperpack, on Flickr
DSCN4265 by Hyperpack, on Flickr
Ha... I don't daily drive it ... more for vacation or on family trips..
Greg
The manual restriction really limits things. Kona, newer Souls, Transit, etc are all auto-only. (After 2013 the only Souls you could get with a manual were absolute strippers with the woefully inadequate base engine. We drove one, they are miserable.)
Also the Soul and xB do not share a platform.
Stefan (Forum Supporter) said:
Honda Element
Ford Transit (Focus based, you could possible make one into an ST or RS version if you were handy)
Mazda 5
Jeep Wrangler?
Wrangler is an oddball I am not interested in, the other 3 will never pass requirement #3.
Stefan (Forum Supporter) said:
In reply to ProDarwin :
BTW, nearly anything these days will be McPherson strut based and therefore have generally terrible suspension geometry outside of a relatively narrow range of movement. Lowering one just requires essentially moving the working range upwards, including control arm and steering arm angles which is more than just changing struts out.
I understand the shortcomings of strut cars. But I was under the impression that there are *some* platforms out there (subaru for example) where the actual control arm geometry is the same between cars and the taller platform mates just use a longer strut body. Lowering these results in a car that still has 'normal' geometry
I have read that this is the case for the X1 also.
Difficult to confirm though because I don't think 95% of car guys pay attention to the control arm angles.
pointofdeparture said:
Also the Soul and xB do not share a platform.
I did not mean with each other, I meant with a car that had shorter struts.
Volvo 245. There are a few good ones left.
ProDarwin said:
sleepyhead the buffalo said:
It seems like there's some kind of head room metric you're interested in meeting/having? Otherwise, I'd guess a GTI would fit the bill?
More of a cargo area thing? A GTI has less cargo space than a X1 or CX5 (CX3 was a typo in original post) - although I would still love to see exactly how cargo space is measured.
Unfortunately, for "hatches" there's no SAE standard measurement... so it's manufacturer/model dependent. So, you can really only take them as... guidelines, especially if you're comparing different cars.
How about a CTS-V Wagon? I hear they fit tuba's?
I liked the idea of Mazda 5 but Jeep XJ or LJ is the right answer.
Older Volvo wagons set the benchmark for boxy.
I have a jeep xj for a daily.
Its good. If you live in a wamer place 2wd 5 speeds are probably out there.
Probably 4wd 5 speed too.
Greg
Stefan (Forum Supporter) said:
Highlander/Camry
Rav4/Corolla
Mazda5/Mazda3
Transit/Focus
Flex/Taurus
1) No manual
2) There have been some rav4 manuals, but I don't recall when. Does corolla suspension swap over? I wonder the same about CRVs. I know the 1st gen ones can get pretty low, and I kinda dig them. Could be fun. Not the right age/mileage I would be interested in for a DD right now, but still an interesting answer to the original question.
3) Mazda 5 is a not a lifted 3, its an extremely tall 3. It will never be low enough. CX5 stands a chance though. Easier just to buy a hatback 3 in this case (which is not off the table).
4) No manual, too tall
5) No manual
sleepyhead the buffalo said:
How about a CTS-V Wagon? I hear they fit tuba's?
Way out of my price range, but they certainly answer the question :)
Sounds like you want an Aerodeck. 
That said, my vote is E34 wagon.
edit - dangit, looks like manuals are unicorns or non-existent.
Ok, what about 318ti? Technically a hatch. Defintely boxy.
