RE: Porsche 718 Boxster - full details
Discussion
Paxto said:
Sorry to go off topic but I just wanted to make a comment on the 718 boxster.
How dare you.Surely an opposed turbocharged four is the optimum....
fully balanced,
high output,
low internal friction,
low c of g,
lowest weight.
However the 912/elise layout avoids sapping power via a 90dg diff.
Notice I wrote optimum because all is good and variety, spice etc.
That's a somewhat personal view, based on a particular set of priorities. Others may consider how much fun it is to chuck down a sunny B-road a better metric of a sports car than how comfortable and well equipped it is for an urban commute, or how convincing an impression of a luxury saloon it can do on the motorway.
Ozzie Osmond said:
Wills2 said:
sports car = Elise/MX5/Boxster/Caterham etc..
Caterham, Atom, X-bow etc = Trackday Specials. In 2016 they don't fit any sensible definition of "car". Many countries don't allow them at all.
The only thing it lacks is a boot and sensible hood. DavidJG said:
The Caterham Lotus seven is one of the cars that defined the sports car concept. It's not practical enough for me as a second car, but I'd consider one as a third car The only thing it lacks is a boot and sensible hood.
It's only become less practical as our expectation of creature comforts has grown. The only thing it lacks is a boot and sensible hood. Which makes for an interesting question as to when something that spans so many decades and cultural changes makes the switch from being a sports car to an impractical, specialist track day car?
It kind of then suggests that a car requires a certain level of modern luxuries to be a sports car, so where do you stop with that?
DonkeyApple said:
It's only become less practical as our expectation of creature comforts has grown.
Which makes for an interesting question as to when something that spans so many decades and cultural changes makes the switch from being a sports car to an impractical, specialist track day car?
It kind of then suggests that a car requires a certain level of modern luxuries to be a sports car, so where do you stop with that?
I love seven type cars, let's get that out of the way. However, I would say an Elise is borderline in winter and something like a Boxster (ignoring the S2000 because I do) is the perfect everyday car. I'm sure I could live without xenon lights, seat warmers, phone connectivity, AC and a reasonable stereo etc but I wouldn't, not in an every day car. The weekend car however....Which makes for an interesting question as to when something that spans so many decades and cultural changes makes the switch from being a sports car to an impractical, specialist track day car?
It kind of then suggests that a car requires a certain level of modern luxuries to be a sports car, so where do you stop with that?
yonex said:
DonkeyApple said:
It's only become less practical as our expectation of creature comforts has grown.
Which makes for an interesting question as to when something that spans so many decades and cultural changes makes the switch from being a sports car to an impractical, specialist track day car?
It kind of then suggests that a car requires a certain level of modern luxuries to be a sports car, so where do you stop with that?
I love seven type cars, let's get that out of the way. However, I would say an Elise is borderline in winter and something like a Boxster (ignoring the S2000 because I do) is the perfect everyday car. I'm sure I could live without xenon lights, seat warmers, phone connectivity, AC and a reasonable stereo etc but I wouldn't, not in an every day car. The weekend car however....Which makes for an interesting question as to when something that spans so many decades and cultural changes makes the switch from being a sports car to an impractical, specialist track day car?
It kind of then suggests that a car requires a certain level of modern luxuries to be a sports car, so where do you stop with that?
It highlights how subjective this all is as I tend to think a Boxster is too convenient, practical and loaded with everyday luxuries to really be a sports car. What's sporting about a car you could drive around the world in relaxed comfort? Yet it clearly is in reality.
My personal view is that in reality the term sports car covers a whole range of groups such as road legal track day cars, kit cars, super cars, the mass produced comfort cars etc. They're all sports cars but for people with slightly different personal beliefs of what is sporting.
For example, I think we can all agree with the pub bore oddity that straight 6s have a magical sporting quality, that very many great sports cars of old were I6 for good reason and that the I6 has a natural power delivery that fits perfectly with out English roads but they very obviously don't define whether a particular car is a sports car in any way.
NJH said:
RoverP6B said:
I
I6s are no taller than other inline engines and are frequently canted over somewhat, like half of a V12.
In which case one would given a free hand use that space to fit said V12 as the Italians loved to do for many years.I6s are no taller than other inline engines and are frequently canted over somewhat, like half of a V12.
DonkeyApple said:
I agree. But it's interesting to muse at what point a lack of expected, modern luxuries means a car is no longer considered a sports car.
It highlights how subjective this all is as I tend to think a Boxster is too convenient, practical and loaded with everyday luxuries to really be a sports car. What's sporting about a car you could drive around the world in relaxed comfort? Yet it clearly is in reality.
My personal view is that in reality the term sports car covers a whole range of groups such as road legal track day cars, kit cars, super cars, the mass produced comfort cars etc. They're all sports cars but for people with slightly different personal beliefs of what is sporting.
For example, I think we can all agree with the pub bore oddity that straight 6s have a magical sporting quality, that very many great sports cars of old were I6 for good reason and that the I6 has a natural power delivery that fits perfectly with out English roads but they very obviously don't define whether a particular car is a sports car in any way.
It highlights how subjective this all is as I tend to think a Boxster is too convenient, practical and loaded with everyday luxuries to really be a sports car. What's sporting about a car you could drive around the world in relaxed comfort? Yet it clearly is in reality.
My personal view is that in reality the term sports car covers a whole range of groups such as road legal track day cars, kit cars, super cars, the mass produced comfort cars etc. They're all sports cars but for people with slightly different personal beliefs of what is sporting.
For example, I think we can all agree with the pub bore oddity that straight 6s have a magical sporting quality, that very many great sports cars of old were I6 for good reason and that the I6 has a natural power delivery that fits perfectly with out English roads but they very obviously don't define whether a particular car is a sports car in any way.
Lots of good points being made despite massive thread diversion!
anonymous said:
[redacted]
If a Caterham/ X-bow/ Atom etc is not a car, how should they be designated? The Government certainly takes them as being a car. as do the insurance companies, and to be fair quite a number of users. It seems funny to be classing a car as a sports car because it has a roof, A/C, a big boot, a stereo and cup holders, these would be items which would more likely to stop a car being a `true' sports car IMO.
Quickmoose said:
why?
Well, I don't like the way they handle. Every one I have tried felt like it was never settled on its springs, damping was all over the place and I tried to love the car (as huge Honda fan) it seemed the perfect middle ground between the Elise and Boxster, for me it lacked the finesse of either and it's chassis was totally at odds with the brilliant engine. Yep I'm going to have to agree with some other posters, fun as the Caterham type cars are, they aren't really cars in the true sense of the word, more like bikes with 4 wheels to the point that they never even figure into my equation when I think about what sports car I'd like to buy next.
Guvernator said:
Yep I'm going to have to agree with some other posters, fun as the Caterham type cars are, they aren't really cars in the true sense of the word, more like bikes with 4 wheels to the point that they never even figure into my equation when I think about what sports car I'd like to buy next.
It's fairly pointless creating your own definitions of what a car is or isn't because it just causes confusion in discussions or requires extra explanation as to what one person means compared to another person. It's like an S-Max owner saying, "a Boxster isn't really a car in the true sense of the word because it doesn't have 7 seats, isofix points and a boot to fit 3 weeks' worth of luggage for all the family in, so they never figure into my equation when I'm thinking about what car I'd like to buy next."Your criteria and preference are absolutely fine for you, but they don't redefine the English language. Caterham type cars are cars, they just happen to be cars you wouldn't buy - nowt wrong with that.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff