|
900T-R
18,683 posts
127 months
|
doogz said: no-one buys a "proper sports car" because they want a decent sized boot. No, but I will pas on one that doesn't. I can't afford to keep cars just for sunny Sunday morning blasts, and I'd loathe to have to take the Eurobox every time more than the contents of 1 small plastic shopping bag need to be brought along. Before I bought my Chimaera I briefly thought about building a Westie (Caterhams are hideously expensive here, starting at virtually the same price as a basic Elise - for the self build version) but then I realised that I'd be hardly ever using it - no use when the weather might turn a little iffy, no use for 5-700 miles a day trips to the FoS, tunnel runs, Spa etc, and those unplanned 'clear your head after a wroking day' kind of blasts lose their lustre when you're taking 15 minutes to remove and stow the weather gear, and put it back up again on my return (my car lives in an undserground parking). For most of us, practicality is an important aspect for a sports car - few can afford running and keeping one as a third or fourth car rather than a second, and even if you could - what's the point of owning one when you only get to do 1-2,000 miles a year in it... Never really got along with rear-mid engined handling either (probably because most seem to be based on a transverse drivetrain sitting virually on top of the axle à la std FWD) - but that's a different issue altogether...
|
|
|
Smanks
2,930 posts
57 months
|
|
|
DanDC5
7,024 posts
37 months
|
doogz said: DanDC5 said: I was wrong. The Type R is 1230. Sure I've seen them quoted as sub 1200 somewhere before though. Might have been dry weight. Sorry, I was referring to the power. You think any of these jap cars, Impreza, Supra, NSX, Evo, etc actually made bang on 276bhp? Ahhh. And no not in the slightest, it was why I put only. Forgot to to put the smiley next to it 
|
|
|
kambites
33,200 posts
91 months
|
Practicality is definitely important - I bought my Elise as an only car so I needed a boot big enough for a week away or a week's shopping.
|
|
|
DanDC5
7,024 posts
37 months
|
chevronb37 said: DanDC5 said: doogz said:  A 300bhp supercharged K20 Elise isn't a "proper sports car" because it only has 4 cylinders? Funny guy. He's kind of right, it's not a 'proper' sports car, it's a 'truly bloody terrifying' one Correct - they're absolutely bloody mental. This is a brilliantly stupid thread. It's something I've never been in  Been in an Exige S and a 240bhp VX220 turbo, what a K20'd and charged Elise must be like I can't imagine.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
DJRC
20,121 posts
106 months
|
doogz said: DJRC said: Mid engined is actually quite naff for packaging in a roadcar. Only 2 of them really have managed it very well...the MGF and the Boxster. Explain please? Is it just because they have some sort of boot? Two decent ones actually. Lack of decent luggage space pisses me off massively because it just means the manufacturer has designed a badly packaged car. How do we know it is badly packaged? Because others, indeed the class bloody leader, show that it can be done well. A sports car should also be a GT car. It should be able to take luggage for 2 people to drive around a continent for 2 weeks. The segment definition has always traditionally been sports/GT. That is the inherent advantage of the front engine/2 seats/rwd package. A middie isnt as good for the packaging, but the Boxster and the F showed it could be done well. I didnt mind my rear boot on the 308 either to be honest, but it lacked the front boot capability of the Box and F. And yes Ive used them all to drive around Europe.
|
|
|
kambites
33,200 posts
91 months
|
DJRC said: A sports car should also be a GT car. There, I completely disagree. A car that can do that is, almost by definition, a sports/GT hybrid not a sports car. The Boxster is a hybrid - its touring aspirations significantly compromise it as a sports car, IMO. Drive a Boxster and an Elise down the same country road, and the Boxster feels like a bus. The Boxster is a brilliant car (debatably one of the best in the world), but it's not a brilliant sports car. If you want a car just for throwing down B-roads, you buy a sports car; if you want a car just for long-distance touring, you buy a GT; if you want a car that can do both, you buy a hybrid. 
|
|
|
Renn Sport
1,379 posts
79 months
|
Has someone already mentioned the Caymen S?
Is that too underpowered or heavy OP?
OP: What cars 'did' have all the things you require? As you seem to imply that such cars have dissappeared?
|
|
|
Fittster
15,012 posts
83 months
|
Renn Sport said: OP: What cars 'did' have all the things you require? As you seem to imply that such cars have dissappeared? The OP ran off when challenged to list the sort of cars that used to meet his criteria but have now disappeared.
|
|
|
doogz
19,294 posts
57 months
|
DJRC said: Two decent ones actually.
Lack of decent luggage space pisses me off massively because it just means the manufacturer has designed a badly packaged car. How do we know it is badly packaged? Because others, indeed the class bloody leader, show that it can be done well.
A sports car should also be a GT car. It should be able to take luggage for 2 people to drive around a continent for 2 weeks. The segment definition has always traditionally been sports/GT. That is the inherent advantage of the front engine/2 seats/rwd package. A middie isnt as good for the packaging, but the Boxster and the F showed it could be done well. I didnt mind my rear boot on the 308 either to be honest, but it lacked the front boot capability of the Box and F. And yes Ive used them all to drive around Europe. I completely disagree. A sports car is not about getting the shopping in the back. It's about driving.
|
|
|
doogz
19,294 posts
57 months
|
900T-R said: No, but I will pas on one that doesn't.
I can't afford to keep cars just for sunny Sunday morning blasts, and I'd loathe to have to take the Eurobox every time more than the contents of 1 small plastic shopping bag need to be brought along.
Before I bought my Chimaera I briefly thought about building a Westie (Caterhams are hideously expensive here, starting at virtually the same price as a basic Elise - for the self build version) but then I realised that I'd be hardly ever using it - no use when the weather might turn a little iffy, no use for 5-700 miles a day trips to the FoS, tunnel runs, Spa etc, and those unplanned 'clear your head after a wroking day' kind of blasts lose their lustre when you're taking 15 minutes to remove and stow the weather gear, and put it back up again on my return (my car lives in an undserground parking).
For most of us, practicality is an important aspect for a sports car - few can afford running and keeping one as a third or fourth car rather than a second, and even if you could - what's the point of owning one when you only get to do 1-2,000 miles a year in it...
Never really got along with rear-mid engined handling either (probably because most seem to be based on a transverse drivetrain sitting virually on top of the axle à la std FWD) - but that's a different issue altogether... I tend not to need to take a weeks worth of shopping to work with me every day. Mine, whilst not as flash, powerful, or classy as many of the other things being mentioned, is reasonably impractical, a lot of fun to drive, and gets used most days. As for "few can afford running and keeping one as a third or fourth car rather than a second" that does depend entirely on your priorities. My 4 cars probably total less than ten grands worth these days, and yes, I have to tax and insure them all, but I can only drive one at a time, so fuel isn't an issue there.
|
|
|
Carfolio
1,124 posts
51 months
|
Fittster said: The OP ran off when challenged to list the sort of cars that used to meet his criteria but have now disappeared. To be fair I wrote a few more search filters for my site and got a list of 10 since 1995 that met the criteria perfectly. A few Spykers - surprisingly, a couple of Moslers, the Caparo T1, the mythical Hulme from New Zealand, the Rapier SL-C (which I think is also mythical), an Ultima GTR and the Ginetta G60. The Renault Alpine concept of a few weeks back alsop fits the bill. OP, go out and buy yourself a Ginetta G60. It's exactly what you're looking for
|
|
|
5 USA
4,460 posts
115 months
|
boxerTen said: Corvette C6: too heavy, I'd like to see you find a lighter sportscar with real power that's not a trackday special boxerTen said: not mid-engined, Well, it's front-mid for sure! Don't forget both 911 and Evora are rear-engined. boxerTen said: less than 90bhp/litre. Sounds like you haven't grasped the physics!! Go and drive one before you dismiss it.
|
|
|
GroundEffect
7,289 posts
26 months
|
kambites said: Static weight distribution, overall weight and polar moment of inertia are the main ones.
I just don't like the way front engined cars drive on the road (although I'd rather have a FM car on a track).
There is no such thing as the perfect static weight distribution. You design your suspension/tyre setup around the distribution you have. And anyway, a FMR is not much different from an RMR. Polar moment of inertia is dependant on where you mount the engine. If you look at some FMR cars, the engines are very far back of the front axle centre-line. Okay, there is a slight weight penalty but that is countered by the decreased complexity. KISS
|
|
|
kambites
33,200 posts
91 months
|
GroundEffect said: There is no such thing as the perfect static weight distribution. No, but there's such a thing as personal preference. I don't generally like cars with more than 45% of the weight over the front wheels and I'd rather it was more like 40%. 50% on the front is waaaay too much for me in a road car. I'm also not sure that a mid-engined car has to be any more complicated, as such. The only real difference is that you have longer coolant hoses and a shorter prop-shaft - the complexity is pretty much exactly the same. For me, rear engined will always be better preferable to front engined in a sports car. There's obviously no "right" or "wrong" though, just preference.
|
|
|
DJRC
20,121 posts
106 months
|
doogz said: DJRC said: Two decent ones actually.
Lack of decent luggage space pisses me off massively because it just means the manufacturer has designed a badly packaged car. How do we know it is badly packaged? Because others, indeed the class bloody leader, show that it can be done well.
A sports car should also be a GT car. It should be able to take luggage for 2 people to drive around a continent for 2 weeks. The segment definition has always traditionally been sports/GT. That is the inherent advantage of the front engine/2 seats/rwd package. A middie isnt as good for the packaging, but the Boxster and the F showed it could be done well. I didnt mind my rear boot on the 308 either to be honest, but it lacked the front boot capability of the Box and F. And yes Ive used them all to drive around Europe. I completely disagree. A sports car is not about getting the shopping in the back. It's about driving. 1. Then you have never lived with one properly 2. You like inefficiency ALL my sportscars have had to be able to be sportscars for the 5am deserted road blast down to Goodwood AND do the weekly shopping AND take things to the tip AND tour Europe. Suitable both for a single bloke and also taking a lady. I can comprehensively tell you the best layout for doing that is an engine in front of the drive and luggage ability behind. Of the middies, the best to do all that are Boxsters/Caymans and F/TFs. Try it in an Elise and your wife/partner will ask you to stop at Asford/airport and she will take the Eurostar/fly. The best designed can do all that, ergo if the best designed can do it, then they should all be able to do it. It annoys me profusely when they cant, to such an extent that it was one of reasons I rejected my 8C order with Alfa because it was piss poor on the luggage space and they were actively trying to tout it as sportscar and GT. I know from discussions with Alfa that the luggage ability and packaging has actually been one of their main considerations in "productionising" the 4C. Quite simply I expect my sportscars to be good at everything across the board...because I know that the best ones are. An Elise has too narrow a focus for my liking these days, so I can accept Kam looking at me to a degree and telling me Ive gone soft In my defence, I was a guest of Lotus at Geneva this yr, explicitly to look at buying the new Exige roadster...
|
|
|
Carfolio
1,124 posts
51 months
|
5 USA said: Well, it's front-mid for sure! Don't forget both 911 and Evora are rear-engined. No, the Evora is mid-engined.
|
|
|
GroundEffect
7,289 posts
26 months
|
kambites said: GroundEffect said: There is no such thing as the perfect static weight distribution. No, but there's such a thing as personal preference. I don't generally like cars with more than 45% of the weight over the front wheels and I'd rather it was more like 40%. 50% on the front is waaaay too much for me in a road car. I'm also not sure that a mid-engined car has to be any more complicated, as such. The only real difference is that you have longer coolant hoses and a shorter prop-shaft - the complexity is pretty much exactly the same. For me, rear engined will always be better preferable to front engined in a sports car. There's obviously no "right" or "wrong" though, just preference. I like around 50:50. I see you have an Elise - I've driven a few and I do like the way they handle but I find FR cars a bit more predictable, if that makes any sense. Elise is a bit more snappy than, say, a Caterham I found when I drove them My dream car is a 599 GTO so that probably gives away my preferences...
|
|
|
kambites
33,200 posts
91 months
|
DJRC said: Quite simply I expect my sportscars to be good at everything across the board...because I know that the best ones are. An Elise has too narrow a focus for my liking these days, so I can accept Kam looking at me to a degree and telling me Ive gone soft In my defence, I was a guest of Lotus at Geneva this yr, explicitly to look at buying the new Exige roadster... No-one is saying there's anything wrong with wanting a hybrid; just that that is what you're after. You just need to be aware that some people don't particularly want a hybrid and aren't willing to sacrifice the driving experience of their sports car to have a bigger boot.
|
|
|
kambites
33,200 posts
91 months
|
GroundEffect said: I like around 50:50. I see you have an Elise - I've driven a few and I do like the way they handle but I find FR cars a bit more predictable, if that makes any sense. Elise is a bit more snappy than, say, a Caterham. Yes FR cars are more predictable once you're past the limit, which is why I prefer FR for track work. On the road though, I prefer a car that lets you push right up to the limit but not exceed it, rather than one which lets you push past it and then recover it. I suppose the 599 is a full-on GT, which perhaps explains your preferences.
|
|
