Pistonheads vehicles you don't "get"

[Nickbrapp]

walm said:

Nickbrapp said:

So does that make the golf boring or just a defered 911 untill im mortage free in 3.5 years and can afford to pull the trigger on a fantastic lease deal.

So you're saving money now and paying down secured debt at all time low rates on an appreciating asset and then want to take out an unsecured loan on a depreciating asset to buy a 911.

Whatever your choice of car - this is financial madness!

You forgot the OTHER golden rule of PH.
Rule #1: don't buy a fancy car on the never-never.

I don't necessarily agree with that rule but when you have access to cheaper debt (which a mortgage undoubtedly is) then you shouldn't throw money away on unnecessary interest.

Wow. Missing the Woosh parrot slightly. Don't forget a lease isn't naughty like a the never never. It's for sensible people who prefer to keep their cash in a 6% savings account.


Didn't have a choice in the golf anyway. Only costs bik.

[ORD]

Performance hatches.

Like a hot hatch but without any sense of fun.

Like a performance car but with a horrid engine and not actually amazing performance.

If you want to go fast, get a 996 Turbo. But that wouldn't be on a 15 plate and cheap finance...

[walm]

Nickbrapp said:

Wow. Missing the Woosh parrot slightly. Don't forget a lease isn't naughty like a the never never. It's for sensible people who prefer to keep their cash in a 6% savings account.

There are no savings accounts at 6%.
Even if there were you need to pay tax on that at 40% or 45% (PH rule #2 - everyone is a higher rate payer ).
So that's 3.6% net to you.

And while I am happy to admit that there are wonderful lease deals out there, they still cost SOMETHING for the interest.

And as a rule of thumb secured debt rates <<<< unsecured rates - pretty much always.

In any case the sensible thing to do would be to bump UP the mortgage, NOT DOWN - and put that extra in your 6% savings account which doesn't exist.
Then you need to worry about the car.
And again use the mortgage debt, not the lease deal (most likely),

Anyway - I like Golfs!!

[Nickbrapp]

walm said:

There are no savings accounts at 6%.
Even if there were you need to pay tax on that at 40% or 45% (PH rule #2 - everyone is a higher rate payer ).
So that's 3.6% net to you.

And while I am happy to admit that there are wonderful lease deals out there, they still cost SOMETHING for the interest.

And as a rule of thumb secured debt rates <<<< unsecured rates - pretty much always.

In any case the sensible thing to do would be to bump UP the mortgage, NOT DOWN - and put that extra in your 6% savings account which doesn't exist.
Then you need to worry about the car.
And again use the mortgage debt, not the lease deal (most likely),

Anyway - I like Golfs!!

You need to look harder for your savings accounts. Wouldn't like to tell you how I get 12% on another too.

[otolith]

RobM77 said:

The performance and handling were both there, the build quality too and the overal desirability in terms of styling etc, but the whole driving experience was just completely flat - almost Audi like if I dare say such a thing. I wasn't expecting Lotus levels of interaction, but I was expecting something somewhere on the sporty spectrum.

I reached a fairly similar conclusion on driving the 911 (though the styling doesn't do much for me). I think it's just an inevitable consequence of their priorities. Their cars have to be, are, completely painless to use as ordinary day to day transport. If you build a sports car that can do a passable impression of an upmarket saloon in day to day use, the problem is that while it's doing that, it feels more like what it's pretending to be than what it is. They've nailed that market perfectly, and it's what the majority of people seem to want. But not what everyone wants.

[RobM77]

otolith said:

RobM77 said:

The performance and handling were both there, the build quality too and the overal desirability in terms of styling etc, but the whole driving experience was just completely flat - almost Audi like if I dare say such a thing. I wasn't expecting Lotus levels of interaction, but I was expecting something somewhere on the sporty spectrum.

I reached a fairly similar conclusion on driving the 911 (though the styling doesn't do much for me). I think it's just an inevitable consequence of their priorities. Their cars have to be, are, completely painless to use as ordinary day to day transport. If you build a sports car that can do a passable impression of an upmarket saloon in day to day use, the problem is that while it's doing that, it feels more like what it's pretending to be than what it is. They've nailed that market perfectly, and it's what the majority of people seem to want. But not what everyone wants.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. For most people a Porsche is a progression from the usual BMW and Mercedes company cars, for people who love the idea of a sports car but don't really want to be inconvenienced with anything sporty like steering feel, or what they may deem a nervous chassis. Shame. I'm told that the GT3 etc are the driving choice, and I confess I've yet to try one.

[Hungrymc]

otolith said:

I reached a fairly similar conclusion on driving the 911 (though the styling doesn't do much for me). I think it's just an inevitable consequence of their priorities. Their cars have to be, are, completely painless to use as ordinary day to day transport. If you build a sports car that can do a passable impression of an upmarket saloon in day to day use, the problem is that while it's doing that, it feels more like what it's pretending to be than what it is. They've nailed that market perfectly, and it's what the majority of people seem to want. But not what everyone wants.

I'd go along with the point you're trying to make. But I don't think you can say they are 'what everyone wants'. They are aimed at a specific market, this is true, and it's a market that wants a more useable car than an Elise etc. But also wants some traits that are unusual.

They also take a little time to learn, the weight distribution doesn't dominate like it did in previous generations but it does change many characteristics and they certainly take some learning to drive hard. I went from an M3 to a 911. Both great cars, I could exploit the M3 pretty much straight away as it was intuitive (a great front engine rear drive car). I'm still learning things about the porsche after several years and it's not a weekend car or a garage queen, I use it as much as I can.

As a fun but challenging car that you can put the kids in the back, I really don't see many options (Evora maybe, but I don't like its feel, all the other competitors are either very raw or far too big and heavy). There is a reason they are so succsesful but of course it doesn't mean they are 'the best' at anything in particular and doesn't mean they are right for everyone.

[Hungrymc]

jnoiles said:

The 997. A friend spent ages finding a perfect 997 C2 in manual with all the right options then spent a fortune having a specialist sort ever little niggle. I've driven it on road and track. To date its the only car that's prompted me to say "no thanks" when offered the keys for a second session on track. The whole experience of it brings to mind operating a particularly well made fax/photocopier/scanner. It was the dullest thing I've ever driven. Why people pay money for the things will remain an unfathomable mystery to me.

I know your post is in direct answer to the OP, but what are you comparing it to? What do you think is the right choice?

[ORD]

That's the key point.

For a criticism of a car to be meaningful, you have to present a credible alternative. A 911 isn't a Lotus. No st. And Lotus makes cars that are pretty awful at everything but steering feel and handling. It's like comparing an apple to a steak and saying it isn't meaty.

Compare a 911 to equivalent cars and it usually walks all over them. F-Type has come the closest in recent years but only has two seats, is vastly heavier and apparently has huge trouble putting its power down (which I, unlike a lot of Big-Balled PHers, see as a flaw rather than a virtue).

Steering feel in a 987/997 is a lot better than any other mainstream sports/GT car I have driven. Not great. But quite good.

I also agree with the point that a BMW will let you feel like you are really driving it from the outset, whereas it takes time to learn the feel and balance of rear or mid-engine P. The Cayman is certainly flattering, but it also does give feedback and encourage good driving (but it is far more subtle feedback than in a FE-RWD car that tells you how it wants to be driven).

PH often sounds like this:

'Porsches are crap. I prefer £2m Ferraris'

'Porsches are crap. Too expensive, too'

'Porsches are crap. I prefer the 4C' (definitely never driven any Porsche or a 4C)

'Porsches are crap. I prefer my track car'

[kambites]

There's a big difference between not liking a car and not "getting" it. I have no wish to own anything Porsche currently produce because they don't make the sorts of cars I'm interested in; but I entirely understand why someone else would want one.

[RobM77]

kambites said:

There's a big difference between not liking a car and not "getting" it. I have no wish to own anything Porsche currently produce because they don't make the sorts of cars I'm interested in; but I entirely understand why someone else would want one.

My criticisms above were purely because I mis-understood what a Porsche was going to drive like. I agree with you though, I wouldn't nominate them as a car I don't 'get' because I completely understand why people like them. I just totally mis-judged Porsche as a marque I think.

[RobM77]

ORD said:

For a criticism of a car to be meaningful, you have to present a credible alternative.

Did you really mean to say that? Surely it's possible to criticise something without there being an alternative?

[Hungrymc]

Rob it's when you say things like it feels like and audi and you wee expecting something somewhere on the sporting spectrum that your complaints seem to need some calibration.

[ORD]

RobM77 said:

id you really mean to say that? Surely it's possible to criticise something without there being an alternative?

Yes and no.

I see your (implicit) point in that you could be saying that you don't like the market segment / philosophy or how modern sports/GT cars are designed and engineered.

For example, you might say 'I don't like everyday sports cars' (which is the Porsche speciality) or 'I hate Eco engines, eco steering and Eco gearboxes' (which, taken to extremes, could write off the 991 but pretty much every other current car!)

But when people criticise a brand, the criticism usually contains the implicit allegation that another brand does x, y or z better or, at the very least, that the criticised brand is doing things far from perfectly. Weight is a good example - people slate the Cayman for weighing 1400kg without looking around at what weight is actually realistic for that kind of car.

I think Porsche does an extraordinarily good job. I can think of a few horrible elements (overly long gears, using a 7 speed box in the 991, EPAS), but those were probably decisions that nobody wanted to take but had to for CO2 bullst reasons. Comparing a 997 to an Audi is silly. The 991/981 have stepped in that direction, but even then it's still chalk and chees (within the fairly narrow bands of 'normal' car control weights, dynamics etc, I accept - a 991 is closer to an Audi than an it is to an Elise).

I defend BMW on similar grounds - given the brief (mainstream quasi-premium cars with decent handling), they pretty much nail it. If someone doesn't like BMW, it's because of their wants and desires rather than because BMW merits criticism.

[RobM77]

ORD said:

RobM77 said:

id you really mean to say that? Surely it's possible to criticise something without there being an alternative?

Yes and no.

I see your (implicit) point in that you could be saying that you don't like the market segment / philosophy or how modern sports/GT cars are designed and engineered.

For example, you might say 'I don't like everyday sports cars' (which is the Porsche speciality) or 'I hate Eco engines, eco steering and Eco gearboxes' (which, taken to extremes, could write off the 991 but pretty much every other current car!)

But when people criticise a brand, the criticism usually contains the implicit allegation that another brand does x, y or z better or, at the very least, that the criticised brand is doing things far from perfectly. Weight is a good example - people slate the Cayman for weighing 1400kg without looking around at what weight is actually realistic for that kind of car.

I think Porsche does an extraordinarily good job. I can think of a few horrible elements (overly long gears, using a 7 speed box in the 991, EPAS), but those were probably decisions that nobody wanted to take but had to for CO2 bullst reasons. Comparing a 997 to an Audi is silly. The 991/981 have stepped in that direction, but even then it's still chalk and chees (within the fairly narrow bands of 'normal' car control weights, dynamics etc, I accept - a 991 is closer to an Audi than an it is to an Elise).

I defend BMW on similar grounds - given the brief (mainstream quasi-premium cars with decent handling), they pretty much nail it. If someone doesn't like BMW, it's because of their wants and desires rather than because BMW merits criticism.

Now I understand, thanks. I thought you were saying that because, for example, someone doesn't like the steering feel on a particular model, there has to be a similar car out there with better steering feel for that complaint to be valid. Of course there might not always be an alternative - for example, if someone didn't like the manual gearbox on the BMW 5 series that's a valid complaint even though the XF and E Class might not offer a manual gearbox with a comparable model.

[RobM77]

Hungrymc said:

Rob it's when you say things like it feels like and audi and you wee expecting something somewhere on the sporting spectrum that your complaints seem to need some calibration.

This is why I took two test drives - I couldn't quite believe my own conclusions. I had mistakenly thought that the Cayman would give me similar sensations to other sports cars (MR2, MX5 etc), just with more solidity and refinement and more high quality engineering. I wasn't expecting Elise levels of feedback, just some sort of dialogue between the car and me as I drove down a bumpy and twisty B road. The car's technical ability was never in doubt to me, but it just didn't feel alive. A friend of mine hired a 997C2S in Germany for a few days and he came to the same conclusions. The variable ratio steering and throttle lag just added to the disappointment for both of us. It's ok though, I don't mind, it saved me £50k that I've now put into a lovely house instead

[200Plus Club]

Earlier this year i was lucky enough to be given a modded 997 turbo to play with. Probably worth maybe 50k and i did 202mph in it at Bruntingthorpe and am still smiling about it. Before anyone writes off the more modern porsches you really should try driving a good one first. Plenty of steering feel, fantastic handling and brakes and it beat quite a few million pound supercars including a koennigsegg which blew up.
I've not driven a better car yet.

[Hungrymc]

RobM77 said:

This is why I took two test drives - I couldn't quite believe my own conclusions. I had mistakenly thought that the Cayman would give me similar sensations to other sports cars (MR2, MX5 etc), just with more solidity and refinement and more high quality engineering. I wasn't expecting Elise levels of feedback, just some sort of dialogue between the car and me as I drove down a bumpy and twisty B road. The car's technical ability was never in doubt to me, but it just didn't feel alive. A friend of mine hired a 997C2S in Germany for a few days and he came to the same conclusions. The variable ratio steering and throttle lag just added to the disappointment for both of us. It's ok though, I don't mind, it saved me £50k that I've now put into a lovely house instead

Ahhh I understand now and always good to look after your pennies.

Seriously, it's hard to begin to understand a 911 in a few days - as I said earlier, had mine 5 years and I'm still learning about it. A flattering car that's easy to drive at 8 or 9 10ths, very, very demanding when pushing hard. They're not delicate and agile in the same way as an Elise or a caterham (of course). They are much more delicate and communicative than any sports saloon however. They are challenging and demanding with good levels of interaction and good performance.

I'm open to other ways to get my thrills (I'll have an Elise or exige for a spell soon enough - most I've driven have behaviors when your pushing hard that make me wonder if I'll get on with them as a road car - but they're very interesting cars and I will buy one at some point).

Where would you go for a 2+2 that's does the things you're looking for better than a 911? Give me another choice as well as an Evora if possible.

[ORD]

There are none. The PH attitude is 'The 911 is terrible...but all its competitors are even worse' There are more competitors for the Cayman & Boxster, but most of those aren't really credible.

Back on thread, I don't understand the appeal of cars that are bad (or mediocre) to drive but have 'character' or other non-driving charms. I don't want to be friends with the car; I want to drive it. All the usual bumf said about Volvos, for example, seems to boil down to 'Average to drive but likeable', which makes them sound st to me. I ended up taking a long accidental detour last night down some very twisty and challenging roads, and the 1700kg family wagon was a genuine pleasure to drive (although its suspension really cannot cope with our horrendous roads in terms of passenger comfort). If I had been driving some faux-by-four or FWD estate, I would have been an ordeal.

[vrooom]

VW golf gti. i driven some. mk2 and mk5 it is not that great...