Blasphemy!: Revered driver's cars that you just don't get.
Discussion
E92 M3
It carries too much weight
Brakes wilt on the road so I dread to think how they would cope on a track
Sounds nothing like a V8 in standard guise
The gearing on the manual model is 110mph at 8400rpm in third(hard to enjoy it without ignoring speed limits)
Picks up at low revs like it has 40bhp rather than 414bhp
Torque light
Poor range
Thirst
Yet its revered to high heaven mostly.
It carries too much weight
Brakes wilt on the road so I dread to think how they would cope on a track
Sounds nothing like a V8 in standard guise
The gearing on the manual model is 110mph at 8400rpm in third(hard to enjoy it without ignoring speed limits)
Picks up at low revs like it has 40bhp rather than 414bhp
Torque light
Poor range
Thirst
Yet its revered to high heaven mostly.
rohrl said:
E36 M3
I know it's not as revered as the E30 but the E36 M3 is still pretty well regarded. Sitting in a RHD example I just couldn't get over how crap the driving position was. The footwell was uncomfortably narrow and the pedals were very obviously offset to the right to such a degree that I don't think I would ever be able to get on with the car.
Admitted I haven't owned one but I really liked the one I drove and I still have a soft spot for them now. I know it's not as revered as the E30 but the E36 M3 is still pretty well regarded. Sitting in a RHD example I just couldn't get over how crap the driving position was. The footwell was uncomfortably narrow and the pedals were very obviously offset to the right to such a degree that I don't think I would ever be able to get on with the car.
white_goodman said:
nipsips said:
I dont get any japanese cars.
Theres always far more interesting cars on the market! I respect them for their reliability, but then they look dull, drive dull and are just dull!
That seems like a bit of a sweeping generalisation. So you haven't driven a:Theres always far more interesting cars on the market! I respect them for their reliability, but then they look dull, drive dull and are just dull!
Impreza or Evo
RX7/RX8
Skyline/GTR
Type R
NSX
or Lexus LFA?
I wouldn't call any of these cars boring.
BrewsterBear said:
white_goodman said:
Ferrari F40
I get the historical significance of the car. Ferraris 40th anniversary, Enzo's last car etc and it is better looking than the subsequent specials (F50, Enzo, LaFerrari etc) but not as quick and less exclusive. It may have been the first production car to crack 200mph but the contemporary Porsche 959 was almost as quick and far more useable and the Diablo, XJ220 and McLaren F1 came out not much later and were all quicker. I know it is in many a PHers top 5 cars but not mine. It's not the fastest or the best-looking Ferrari, the finish makes a kit car look good, it's too raw to enjoy on the road and too valuable to take on track. For the record, I wouldn't pass on the opportunity to drive an F40 but to own I would take the more exclusive and better-looking (albeit slower) 288 GTO.
What are your thoughts? What revered driver's cars just don't quite hit the spot with you?
You're wrong. Having been lucky enough to have had a passenger ride in an F40 they are beyond immense. I'm sure that there are faster cars or better real-world cars, but an F40 has such a sense of occasion. Not to mention the brutality of the thing. Long before turbochargers were made mundane. This is the very essence of Ferrari and, for me, will never be beaten.I get the historical significance of the car. Ferraris 40th anniversary, Enzo's last car etc and it is better looking than the subsequent specials (F50, Enzo, LaFerrari etc) but not as quick and less exclusive. It may have been the first production car to crack 200mph but the contemporary Porsche 959 was almost as quick and far more useable and the Diablo, XJ220 and McLaren F1 came out not much later and were all quicker. I know it is in many a PHers top 5 cars but not mine. It's not the fastest or the best-looking Ferrari, the finish makes a kit car look good, it's too raw to enjoy on the road and too valuable to take on track. For the record, I wouldn't pass on the opportunity to drive an F40 but to own I would take the more exclusive and better-looking (albeit slower) 288 GTO.
What are your thoughts? What revered driver's cars just don't quite hit the spot with you?
Dreadful.
danp said:
Elise s1 - should be my ideal car - small, light, fast-ish, efficient, sublime ride and handling (allegedly). I have the excellent book, read all the reviews, saw the documentary on them and really, really wanted to own one.
I've hoped to buy one on three different occasions but come away empty handed, my problems with them being:
- too cramped (gearstick rubbing my knee, no room for my size 10's)
- rubbish, vague box
- engine that doesn't really want to rev
- horrific nvh, heat soak and general comfort
- jittery, clunky ride
These have been well looked after, lightly modded 118/135/160 variants, two with recent suspension refreshes (to s2 spec), so they should have been good. I honestly can't see what the fuss is about, guess I didn't get as far as appreciating the handling.
I know they're pretty basic and Lotus developed it for £1.63 then built them in a shed, perhaps I'm too old for one now, but I was very disappointed with them. Maybe I need to try an s2/exige, as they should be better in most of the above areas.
I salute those of you that use an s1 as a daily, but as a form of transport I'd rather have my old mk3 mr2 roadster for 25% of the price, it's a better car in pretty much every regard IMVHO.
I do find this a very bizarre opinion. Many of the things you hate are compromises to make the thing handle as well as it does, which is it's main feature, and yet you didn't even bother testing that.I've hoped to buy one on three different occasions but come away empty handed, my problems with them being:
- too cramped (gearstick rubbing my knee, no room for my size 10's)
- rubbish, vague box
- engine that doesn't really want to rev
- horrific nvh, heat soak and general comfort
- jittery, clunky ride
These have been well looked after, lightly modded 118/135/160 variants, two with recent suspension refreshes (to s2 spec), so they should have been good. I honestly can't see what the fuss is about, guess I didn't get as far as appreciating the handling.
I know they're pretty basic and Lotus developed it for £1.63 then built them in a shed, perhaps I'm too old for one now, but I was very disappointed with them. Maybe I need to try an s2/exige, as they should be better in most of the above areas.
I salute those of you that use an s1 as a daily, but as a form of transport I'd rather have my old mk3 mr2 roadster for 25% of the price, it's a better car in pretty much every regard IMVHO.
It would be like buying a Rolls Royce, and then complaining that it's too heavy and floaty and you can't hear the engine.
white_goodman said:
If I ever have the fortune to own a Ferrari (and the likelihood of me ever having the means to afford an F40 is very remote), an F40 would not be he one that I would choose because I would like to take a long trans-European jaunt in it and with the F40 I would arrive deaf, exhausted and probably a little bit scared.
But saying you wouldn't want to do a GT jaunt to the riviera in an F40 is as relevant as saying you wouldn't want to do one on a unicycle.cerb4.5lee said:
The gearing on the manual model is 110mph at 8400rpm in third(hard to enjoy it without ignoring speed limits)
I have same objection to the modern Boxter/Cayman. 84mph in 2nd.This is something that journalists should have slating the cars for and yet both manufacturers regularly get 5 star reviews regardless. They obviously put far to much weighting on track performance or driving back and forth along a deserted Highlands road to get the photos. Much of this driving must be at 80+ for them to enjoy these cars as they claim to. I don't get how anyone gets enjoyment out of these cars while staying legal.
cerb4.5lee said:
rohrl said:
E36 M3
I know it's not as revered as the E30 but the E36 M3 is still pretty well regarded. Sitting in a RHD example I just couldn't get over how crap the driving position was. The footwell was uncomfortably narrow and the pedals were very obviously offset to the right to such a degree that I don't think I would ever be able to get on with the car.
Admitted I haven't owned one but I really liked the one I drove and I still have a soft spot for them now. I know it's not as revered as the E30 but the E36 M3 is still pretty well regarded. Sitting in a RHD example I just couldn't get over how crap the driving position was. The footwell was uncomfortably narrow and the pedals were very obviously offset to the right to such a degree that I don't think I would ever be able to get on with the car.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
BrewsterBear said:
white_goodman said:
Ferrari F40
I get the historical significance of the car. Ferraris 40th anniversary, Enzo's last car etc and it is better looking than the subsequent specials (F50, Enzo, LaFerrari etc) but not as quick and less exclusive. It may have been the first production car to crack 200mph but the contemporary Porsche 959 was almost as quick and far more useable and the Diablo, XJ220 and McLaren F1 came out not much later and were all quicker. I know it is in many a PHers top 5 cars but not mine. It's not the fastest or the best-looking Ferrari, the finish makes a kit car look good, it's too raw to enjoy on the road and too valuable to take on track. For the record, I wouldn't pass on the opportunity to drive an F40 but to own I would take the more exclusive and better-looking (albeit slower) 288 GTO.
What are your thoughts? What revered driver's cars just don't quite hit the spot with you?
You're wrong. Having been lucky enough to have had a passenger ride in an F40 they are beyond immense. I'm sure that there are faster cars or better real-world cars, but an F40 has such a sense of occasion. Not to mention the brutality of the thing. Long before turbochargers were made mundane. This is the very essence of Ferrari and, for me, will never be beaten.I get the historical significance of the car. Ferraris 40th anniversary, Enzo's last car etc and it is better looking than the subsequent specials (F50, Enzo, LaFerrari etc) but not as quick and less exclusive. It may have been the first production car to crack 200mph but the contemporary Porsche 959 was almost as quick and far more useable and the Diablo, XJ220 and McLaren F1 came out not much later and were all quicker. I know it is in many a PHers top 5 cars but not mine. It's not the fastest or the best-looking Ferrari, the finish makes a kit car look good, it's too raw to enjoy on the road and too valuable to take on track. For the record, I wouldn't pass on the opportunity to drive an F40 but to own I would take the more exclusive and better-looking (albeit slower) 288 GTO.
What are your thoughts? What revered driver's cars just don't quite hit the spot with you?
Dreadful.
gl20 said:
911. Based on a few laps and about a day of road time, I just don't get it... I've had 2 Boxsters, would love a GT4 but just didn't seem to get the rear engine thing at all. And yet, based on all the hype, I might still buy one as I'm assuming you need time to adapt to it.
So driving a 911 was a 'never meet your heroes' moment. That said, the first day I drove one was also the first day I drove a Caterham which, if anything, exceeded some very hyped expectations.
I drove a 997 at Silverstone - it impressed me, but I had absolutely zero desire to own one.So driving a 911 was a 'never meet your heroes' moment. That said, the first day I drove one was also the first day I drove a Caterham which, if anything, exceeded some very hyped expectations.
J4CKO said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
BrewsterBear said:
white_goodman said:
Ferrari F40
I get the historical significance of the car. Ferraris 40th anniversary, Enzo's last car etc and it is better looking than the subsequent specials (F50, Enzo, LaFerrari etc) but not as quick and less exclusive. It may have been the first production car to crack 200mph but the contemporary Porsche 959 was almost as quick and far more useable and the Diablo, XJ220 and McLaren F1 came out not much later and were all quicker. I know it is in many a PHers top 5 cars but not mine. It's not the fastest or the best-looking Ferrari, the finish makes a kit car look good, it's too raw to enjoy on the road and too valuable to take on track. For the record, I wouldn't pass on the opportunity to drive an F40 but to own I would take the more exclusive and better-looking (albeit slower) 288 GTO.
What are your thoughts? What revered driver's cars just don't quite hit the spot with you?
You're wrong. Having been lucky enough to have had a passenger ride in an F40 they are beyond immense. I'm sure that there are faster cars or better real-world cars, but an F40 has such a sense of occasion. Not to mention the brutality of the thing. Long before turbochargers were made mundane. This is the very essence of Ferrari and, for me, will never be beaten.I get the historical significance of the car. Ferraris 40th anniversary, Enzo's last car etc and it is better looking than the subsequent specials (F50, Enzo, LaFerrari etc) but not as quick and less exclusive. It may have been the first production car to crack 200mph but the contemporary Porsche 959 was almost as quick and far more useable and the Diablo, XJ220 and McLaren F1 came out not much later and were all quicker. I know it is in many a PHers top 5 cars but not mine. It's not the fastest or the best-looking Ferrari, the finish makes a kit car look good, it's too raw to enjoy on the road and too valuable to take on track. For the record, I wouldn't pass on the opportunity to drive an F40 but to own I would take the more exclusive and better-looking (albeit slower) 288 GTO.
What are your thoughts? What revered driver's cars just don't quite hit the spot with you?
Dreadful.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff