Can a car BE 'over-rated'?

[T0MMY]

cerb4.5lee said:

This is sad to hear and I have never owned a French car but I have liked these ever since they were launched.

I don't think you would be disappointed to be honest. They're excellent cars to drive and if this thread has taught us anything it's that there's always someone that dislikes any particular car you could name. I keep expecting someone to pop up and say Caterhams are over-rated...then again, I suppose you could argue they maybe are compared to other similar but much cheaper 7 clones

[RoverP6B]

The F11 520d I had the displeasure of 'owning' for a month had only about 4000 miles on the clock so it can't have been that knackered, but it was just appallingly bad - not merely dull, but thoroughly incompetent at everything except dual-carriageway cruising (and even then, the ride quality was so jarring that it never became truly relaxing).

[Patrick Bateman]

T0MMY said:

I don't think you would be disappointed to be honest. They're excellent cars to drive and if this thread has taught us anything it's that there's always someone that dislikes any particular car you could name. I keep expecting someone to pop up and say Caterhams are over-rated...then again, I suppose you could argue they maybe are compared to other similar but much cheaper 7 clones

Indeed. Such a thread is expected to have highly rated cars mentioned by its very nature.

[anonymous-user]

T0MMY said:

Caterhams are over-rated...then again, I suppose you could argue they maybe are compared to other similar but much cheaper 7 clones

But they're not. Only by people who don't want to pay the asking price of the Caterham. It's an easy thing to make, 200-250HP in 500-600kgs. The benefit with the Caterham is not only performance advantage (dubious) but residuals

[stumpage]

Joe5y said:

I put forward the Peugeot 306 GTi-6.

Slow, unrefined, boring, underwhelming and a Peugeot. Since it's first launch many hailed it as one of the best hot-hatches on the market and as such I wanted one. Got one, sold it after 6 months - massively 'over-rated'.

Got to disagree with that. If I could find a good one and had space in the garage I would have another in a heart beat. Out of all the cars I've owned it's the one I miss the most.

[e21Mark]

leonintegra36 said:

greygoose said:

leonintegra36 said:

I defy any car enthusiast to drive my dc2 and not agree it is a very special car indeed.
I have never had a bad integra type r dc2 just degrees of excellence. Maybe you just drove a tired one or one with a neglected drivetrain/transmission. My cherished example drives spot on and would receive admiration from any car enthusiast at any level. Unfortunately it sits more than it drives as I want to preserve the car which pains me greatly. I've driven my current example only the once in fact and a good dc2 is strong and tactile enough to not even need to access vtec, but when it does it is truly spectacular. Raw for some, but the special occasion feeling of driving a good example has only been enhanced with age, especially in comparison with the latest lard infested euro boxes. The handling balance and control weights are all harmonious.

So why don't you actually drive it then?

In response to a few about why I don't drive my integra, as I said I am preserving an icon. I have had four since 2000 and used them as daily drivers. Now however I only know of a couple of other decent ones left, but mine drives spot on which is priceless. I may dig it out for an evo greatest of all time feature, in exchange for a go in an F40 perhaps.

I think it's a shame, that someone would hold a car in such high regard, yet only drive it occasionally. Cars are about being driven surely? You might as well just have a picture or a model otherwise. I've seen so many E30 M3 treated the same way and it just seems a shame and a waste. I would also question just how much good it actually does, for a car not to be used? Corny as it sounds, when do kids (and their dads!) get to see these cars being driven as intended, if they're all under dust sheets, in heated garages?

[bennyboysvuk]

Krise said:

Flame suit on ! M135i had mine for over a year, quick little car, but I don't find it as great as a lot of people say it is !

It's the lack of character that's the problem IMO. The M135i feels quite bland and too refined to be fun.

If you've come from M cars, it'll be disappointing. If you've come from slower, more basic BMW models then it will feel fantastic and I think that's why many people rate it so highly.

[cerb4.5lee]

T0MMY said:

cerb4.5lee said:

This is sad to hear and I have never owned a French car but I have liked these ever since they were launched.

I don't think you would be disappointed to be honest. They're excellent cars to drive and if this thread has taught us anything it's that there's always someone that dislikes any particular car you could name.

I will still keep lusting after it then!

[GregorFuk]

crbox said:

I agree. When new, I tried so hard to like this car, I test drove to three times. Each time I couldn't get away from the awful semi auto gearbox. A huge arrogance by BMW to showcase their flawed SMG gearbox on customers, most who felt blackmailed. I resisted, bought an RS6 Avant which had a similar paddle box, but was far more intuitive.
I also thought the vulnerable blips of carbon fibre on the front spoiler and elsewhere a further smug marketing gimmick of no engineering benefit. Such distain undermined what could have been one of BMWs finest hours.

I'm not sure I'd class the entire front bumper (yes that's right), roof, centre console, door cards, and rear diffuser as "vulnerable blips" of carbon fibre. What were you expecting, a carbon tub?

As an aside, people who say they could not use a CSL every day need to man up a little. Is this Pistonheads or Mumsnet?

[crbox]

GregorFuk said:

I'm not sure I'd class the entire front bumper (yes that's right), roof, centre console, door cards, and rear diffuser as "vulnerable blips" of carbon fibre. What were you expecting, a carbon tub?

As an aside, people who say they could not use a CSL every day need to man up a little. Is this Pistonheads or Mumsnet?

I spend much of my working life working with carbon fibre and a carbon roof is possibly worthwhile. But by I wonder by how much? Is it there to justify the models extra purchase cost or does it make a dynamic contribution? Anyhow, weight for weight CF is very strong, resistance to abrasion of the glossy outer surface is poor. Basically it's easily to scratch. When I saw the precariously positioned carbon infils in the CSL front spoiler, I thought them precariously positioned. I'm not against carbon fibre, just when its used to encourage customers that it's there for engineering benefit, when it ain't. That's cynical marketing and contempt for the customers integrity.
But show me I'm wrong. Do the bumper blips stand the test of time and how precisely would you say they improve the performance of the M3 CSL?

[GregorFuk]

crbox said:

GregorFuk said:

I'm not sure I'd class the entire front bumper (yes that's right), roof, centre console, door cards, and rear diffuser as "vulnerable blips" of carbon fibre. What were you expecting, a carbon tub?

As an aside, people who say they could not use a CSL every day need to man up a little. Is this Pistonheads or Mumsnet?

I spend much of my working life working with carbon fibre and a carbon roof is possibly worthwhile. But by I wonder by how much? Is it there to justify the models extra purchase cost or does it make a dynamic contribution? Anyhow, weight for weight CF is very strong, resistance to abrasion of the glossy outer surface is poor. Basically it's easily to scratch. When I saw the precariously positioned carbon infils in the CSL front spoiler, I thought them precariously positioned. I'm not against carbon fibre, just when its used to encourage customers that it's there for engineering benefit, when it ain't. That's cynical marketing and contempt for the customers integrity.
But show me I'm wrong. Do the bumper blips stand the test of time and how precisely would you say they improve the performance of the M3 CSL?

I am presuming you are talking about the two clear lacquered items at the bottom of the front bumper? Commonly referred to as the 'flippers' within the CSL community. These get marked up with stone chips and require semi-regular re-lacquering I don't imagine that they themselves contribute a huge amount to the performance of the CSL but you've missed the point and miss-read my original reply. The WHOLE front bumper is made from carbon fibre, not just the flippers, the entire item. With the bumper off the car this is clearly visible.. As a result the front bumper is feather light, far lighter than a PVC equivalent.

Loss of mass ahead of the front wheels? Now that I can see the benefit of.

[mikey k]

crbox said:

I'm not against carbon fibre, just when its used to encourage customers that it's there for engineering benefit, when it ain't. That's cynical marketing and contempt for the customers integrity.

So true and bloody annoying

[Leins]

GregorFuk said:

As an aside, people who say they could not use a CSL every day need to man up a little. Is this Pistonheads or Mumsnet?

Gregor, I didn't say you couldn't use one, I said I'd have no interest in doing so. If I had a commute that took me across deserted winding roads then I'd be all over it, but anything daily for me would involve speed ramps, stop/start traffic, multi-storey car parks, etc. A CSL would be an utterly ste choice of car for such use and an utter waste, which is why I believe so many of the early owners of these cars didn't like them and got rid

[TB303]

bennyboysvuk said:

It's the lack of character that's the problem IMO. The M135i feels quite bland and too refined to be fun.

If you've come from M cars, it'll be disappointing. If you've come from slower, more basic BMW models then it will feel fantastic and I think that's why many people rate it so highly.

While a practical car, the only really exciting thing about the M135i is the power.

The steering is dull and the power will land you in trouble fast. I would argue a slower basic older BMW will be more fun to drive and the M135i won't feel fantastic, just more refined and more powerful.

[smithtn22]

furtive said:

Having owned 2 of each I think I'm qualified to answer this question.

The MX5 is a small lightweight car that is easy to chuck about. A Mk2 MR2 is a lardy mid-engined GT that isn't

IMO you couldn't be more wrong. I own a Rev 5 Mk2 mr2 turbo, best car I have ever driven, especially for the money. 60 in 5.1 in standard form, with bolt on mods it'll do it in 4.5, off the line capability is astonishing.

A well setup Non-turbo Mr2 (yours clearly weren't) will outrun and out handle the Mx5, I know from experience, I've driven both on and off the track, don't believe me then there are plenty of examples in the championship series'. The amount of times you see people comparing a shed of a mk2 mr2 which clearly hasn't been maintained to an mx5 that has (because they're even cheaper to run), boggles the mind.

The turbo with basic bolt ons will outrun an m135i quite easily for example, much to their annoyance.

They're cheapish at the moment too but prices are starting to climb.

Overrated? Depends what she looks like, you'll never really care how good the ride is if she's ugly and you're less likely to note her intellect if she's a size 10 with big boobs (or whatever floats your boat)

[T0MMY]

smithtn22 said:

A well setup Non-turbo Mr2 (yours clearly weren't) will outrun and out handle the Mx5, I know from experience, I've driven both on and off the track, don't believe me then there are plenty of examples in the championship series'.

The Ma5da times are consistently quicker, even for the MK1 1.6s aren't they? And that's despite the big power difference.

They have in fact raced directly together too...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrlrpmLfGz4

I've driven both too and I really think the MX5 is a better handling car.

[smithtn22]

Ah yes the powernights "invitation" series (note the lack of mr2's)! Patrick mortell, as good as he is, isn't one of the faster drivers in the mr2 series. The mr2's are more stringently tied too, everything has to be kept standard, the only mods you can make are yellow bilstein suspension over the blacks, not sure you're even allowed updated arb's. The mx5's are allowed all sorts of modifications both to the engine and suspension setup. In the Mr2 series, the top mk2's outperform the mk3's in the majority of races and the mk3 is more capable than the mx5, no doubt about it.

Mr2 turbo
http://youtu.be/FFEi-0Rx6J0

Mr2 non turbo
http://youtu.be/3bNqgZBUTRg

As I say, when correctly setup and driven properly they're very capable indeed

[heebeegeetee]

smithtn22 said:

IMO you couldn't be more wrong. I own a Rev 5 Mk2 mr2 turbo, best car I have ever driven, especially for the money. 60 in 5.1 in standard form, with bolt on mods it'll do it in 4.5, off the line capability is astonishing.

Rev 5... is that Revision 5?

If so, what was wrong with the first four? ;-)

[GrahamPM]

My worst buying/ownership decision was a Ferrari 599
I'd decided that I needed to have a Ferrari about 3 years ago, and in the price range I was looking at, it was either a F430 or 599 HGTE. At the time Chris Harris was running a 599 and waxed lyrical about the beast - foolishly, this was enough to put me on the hunt.
I found an exceptionally low mileage high spec car in a London official F dealer and put a deposit down over the phone. I took the train down from Manchester down to Euston, taxi to the dealership, and test drove the thing in central London in completely unfamiliar territory. Convincing myself that it was alright, I bought the thing as it looked ace in deep pearl red (the £16K optional Rosso Fucco). The following week the car was delivered to my house, and within hours, I thought WTF have I bought!
It was if the rear end was floating and disconnected from the car. Under acceleration, which was phenomenal, the squat and front end lift reminded me of a speed boat - the fuel gauge reacted in the same way as if there was a 1" hole in it!
This car was definitely a long distance boulevard mile muncher, not suited to the leafy lanes of Cheshire!
To cap it all, I then discovered paint blisters caused by alloy corrosion in the rear buttresses! I was seriously pissed off!
It went to the local Ferrari dealership and I went out with one of their technicians, who drove it as I would - and yes; that's how they drive! And in fact, I had a good one!
I persevered for 6 months, but found myself so often reaching for my Merc key rather than the Ferrari that the thing had to go.
A deal was done with a south coast F dealer, and I was glad to the back of it - I'd done 550miles in 6 months, the £ to mile ratio doesn't need to be discussed!
Then I bought a 458 - ............. now they are something special. Did 500 miles in the first weekend!
Graham

Edited by GrahamPM on Sunday 20th September 07:53

[T0MMY]

smithtn22 said:

Ah yes the powernights "invitation" series (note the lack of mr2's)! Patrick mortell, as good as he is, isn't one of the faster drivers in the mr2 series. The mr2's are more stringently tied too, everything has to be kept standard, the only mods you can make are yellow bilstein suspension over the blacks, not sure you're even allowed updated arb's. The mx5's are allowed all sorts of modifications both to the engine and suspension setup. In the Mr2 series, the top mk2's outperform the mk3's in the majority of races and the mk3 is more capable than the mx5, no doubt about it.

Well I dont want to derail the thread but the Ma5da cars aren't allowed any major performance enhancing engine modifications either, apart from changing the exhaust. They run about 135bhp. They also can only use coilovers, no other suspension mods and no aftermarket antiroll bars. They're well down on power compared to an MR2 but as far as I'm aware the lap times are quicker on just about every circuit, despite being on Kumho KH31 boggo road tyres (and I just looked at the MR2 regs and they use R888 track tyres don't they!?).

Edited by T0MMY on Sunday 20th September 10:02