RE: Driven: Porsche Cayman R

[RobM77]

Dagnut said:

havoc said:

Now that's one thing that gets me about current car magazines, and esp. (recently) 'dab of oppo' - they spend ages going on about the cars on-the-limit behaviour, stuff that most owners won't actually get near on the public road (and most owners won't go on track). Which surely then becomes even more 'pie & piston' bragging rights.

I'd far rather hear more about the ride, the control precision and linearity, the feedback, the driving position, the sound, the "overall" of the car, not how easy it is to powerslide by someone with a competition background and no insurance worries...

That's a good point, but I think this has more to do with how the consumer market for sports cars has gone...the whole Top Gear and playstation generation that has developed. The positive side of this is because cars are now easier to drive at the limit, it's easier for the average driver to get more out of their car..the negative side is the perception is that cars are becoming duller and less involving....but I think if you look at this objectively there weren't that many involving cars around in the 90's anyway...the few that were are still hailed as legends now.

I think that perception is a reality. In the 1980s a mundane car like the Peugeot 205 had good steering feel, nice linear controls (an indirect function of low weight), and good feedback. This was by accident rather than design of course, but nevertheless, cars are definitely becoming less good to drive, because fast forward 20 or 30 years and the average mundane car like a Fiesta or Punto has nowhere near the control feel or chassis composure. There are many factors, and it'd take me pages to discuss them all, but without a doubt from a driving point of view I prefer the 406 to the 407, the mk1 Octavia to the mk2, the 205 to the 207, the mk1 MX5 to the mk3 and the 300ZX to the 350Z. From an ownership point of view, the newer cars are better as they are more reliable, quieter and better equipped. You questioned dullness and involvement though, and in that respect older cars win every time for me. What do you do to make a 350Z better to drive in terms of driver involvement? Reduce the weight, reduce the grip, increase the tyre profile for a better ride (very slight loss of turn-in bite, but by and large the ride becomes better), replace the DBW throttle with a cable, remove the nannying driver aids, and lower the driving position to be less sit up and beg. All of those things can be done simply by winding the clock back 20 years.

[Dagnut]

RobM77 said:

I think that perception is a reality. In the 1980s a mundane car like the Peugeot 205 had good steering feel, nice linear controls (an indirect function of low weight), and good feedback. This was by accident rather than design of course, but nevertheless, cars are definitely becoming less good to drive, because fast forward 20 or 30 years and the average mundane car like a Fiesta or Punto has nowhere near the control feel or chassis composure. There are many factors, and it'd take me pages to discuss them all, but without a doubt from a driving point of view I prefer the 406 to the 407, the mk1 Octavia to the mk2, the 205 to the 207, the mk1 MX5 to the mk3 and the 300ZX to the 350Z. From an ownership point of view, the newer cars are better as they are more reliable, quieter and better equipped. You questioned dullness and involvement though, and in that respect older cars win every time for me. What do you do to make a 350Z better to drive in terms of driver involvement? Reduce the weight, reduce the grip, increase the tyre profile for a better ride (very slight loss of turn-in bite, but by and large the ride becomes better), replace the DBW throttle with a cable, remove the nannying driver aids, and lower the driving position to be less sit up and beg. All of those things can be done simply by winding the clock back 20 years.

But it took a skilled driver to get the older cars to the limit..even near the limit...the commuter cars you mentioned are just, that commuter cars, people don't drive them at the limit...as for sports cars the 350z is much better car..the 300zx is terrifying at the speed..and not in a good way...if you want driver involvement there are cars that cater for that...I started driving in the 90's I remember the "involvement", I just think there's to much nostalgic reference..if I want to buy a good sports car now the choices are far better...

[RobM77]

Dagnut said:

RobM77 said:

I think that perception is a reality. In the 1980s a mundane car like the Peugeot 205 had good steering feel, nice linear controls (an indirect function of low weight), and good feedback. This was by accident rather than design of course, but nevertheless, cars are definitely becoming less good to drive, because fast forward 20 or 30 years and the average mundane car like a Fiesta or Punto has nowhere near the control feel or chassis composure. There are many factors, and it'd take me pages to discuss them all, but without a doubt from a driving point of view I prefer the 406 to the 407, the mk1 Octavia to the mk2, the 205 to the 207, the mk1 MX5 to the mk3 and the 300ZX to the 350Z. From an ownership point of view, the newer cars are better as they are more reliable, quieter and better equipped. You questioned dullness and involvement though, and in that respect older cars win every time for me. What do you do to make a 350Z better to drive in terms of driver involvement? Reduce the weight, reduce the grip, increase the tyre profile for a better ride (very slight loss of turn-in bite, but by and large the ride becomes better), replace the DBW throttle with a cable, remove the nannying driver aids, and lower the driving position to be less sit up and beg. All of those things can be done simply by winding the clock back 20 years.

But it took a skilled driver to get the older cars to the limit..even near the limit...the commuter cars you mentioned are just, that commuter cars, people don't drive them at the limit...as for sports cars the 350z is much better car..the 300zx is terrifying at the speed..and not in a good way...if you want driver involvement there are cars that cater for that...I started driving in the 90's I remember the "involvement", I just think there's to much nostalgic reference..if I want to buy a good sports car now the choices are far better...

The suspension design, ride and handling these days is in a different league to the 80s and 90s, but the feedback and involvement were far better then. The ideal is a combination of both, which is why I like my Elise so much No PAS, no servo brakes, cable throttle, decent feedback, but modern suspension components and ride and handling tech with a variable valve timing engine.

[otolith]

Different magazines serve different purposes - if you are more interested in how practical, comfortable and economical a given car is than how much fun it is to drive on its doorhandles, What Car? is going to be more useful than Evo.

I do see a gap in the market for Dashboard Fondler & Modern Office Furniture International for those who are more interested in how Germanic their car's interior is than in how it drives.

[Junglehop]

looks very good and sounds good. if it were my money i wouldnt buy one but thats just me.... If i were looking for this sort of car from new i think i would stump up for an Evora S. as discussed both have their flaws but i think the exclusivity and excitement afforded by the Lotus would go someway to mask these... a bit more variety on the roads can only be a good thing

[havoc]

Dagnut said:

But it took a skilled driver to get the older cars to the limit..even near the limit...

Really?

I'd say the opposite:-
- Older (driver's) cars have less grip, so break-away sooner (and arguably because of the lower limits they break more progressively).
- Older (driver's) cars have more feedback, so you get more notice of what's happening and arguably can balance a car just below the limit.


I have no idea where the limits of the wife's MkV Golf GTi are, as it doesn't tell you. In the snow, when the back did go (under provocation) it went suddenly. Conversely the ITR and the wife's old 306GTi-6 (even her old Fiesta Zetec-S) told you a lot more about what was happening and you knew when you were approaching the limits. In the snow the ITR was almost balletic at the rear*. A friend seemed to have precisely the measure of his (swb, rwd, torquey) Lotus Sunbeam, getting the back out on demand and with precision. I think the last 10 years have seen genuine "handling finesse" be replaced by grip and by electronic safety nets, to a greater or lesser degree.

[otolith]

havoc said:

Dagnut said:

But it took a skilled driver to get the older cars to the limit..even near the limit...

Really?

I'd say the opposite

Me too.

[kambites]

otolith said:

havoc said:

Dagnut said:

But it took a skilled driver to get the older cars to the limit..even near the limit...

Really?

I'd say the opposite

Me too.

Modern cars are far harder to push close to their limits, and comparatively dull because of it. I think cars probably hit the peak of exploitability in the 60s, or maybe even earlier (I've not driven many 50s or earlier cars).

Edited by kambites on Tuesday 22 March 22:29

[RobM77]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

All true, but I think BMW are a special case. Back in 1991, all roof racks were at chest height, whereas now it's just BMW and Merc, with most other manufacturers going for a sky high CofG and sit up and beg driving position. Most FWD cars now, with the notable exception of Audi, are tall, underdamped and have weird steering that's darty about the straight ahead and connected to very odd suspension geometry.

The E90 may be an incremental step better then the E36, but the 405 vs 407, mk1 Mondeo vs latest Mondeo etc have all changed for the worse in terms of driving (refinement is much better now though). The Golf is another exception, but as for the other cars in that class - they're all tall wobbly things now that feel as stable as a fat man on a pogo stick.

[havoc]

RobM77 said:

...and have weird steering that's darty about the straight ahead and connected to very odd suspension geometry.

And most owners confuse said 'darty steering' with good handling - my hairdresser (who actually likes his cars) yesterday said "I've fitted 18"s to my Passat and it handles really well on them."

I didn't want to say "it's a Passat, it wouldn't handle well if you fitted it to a roller coaster", nor that 18"s will bugger up the ride and increase unsprung mass...




We're doomed...doomed, I tell ye'

[shoestring7]

RobM77 said:

The suspension design, ride and handling these days is in a different league to the 80s and 90s, but the feedback and involvement were far better then.

I've been mulling over Rob's statement. Frankly I think ride and handling were much better in 20 - 30 years ago. The good cars had an ability to absorb the roads imperfections and at the same time control the movement of the car, which allowed you to really exploit the performance on give and take roads.

That's not just feedback and involvement, I set journey times in the 80's that I couldn't get close to now (albeit affected by traffic volumes and lowered limits), but can clearly remember a sub 2hr New Year's Day run from Exeter to London, a 70mph average across mid Wales, a 35 minute cross country run from Bracknell to Oxford.

This wasn't acheived in exotica, but good road cars like a Renault 5 turbo, Ford Escort RSt, VW Golf 16v, Peugeot 405gti and Sierra Cosworth. My recent experience owning cars like an Integrale, E30 M3 and Porsche 968CS suggests this wasn't just fond reminicience, but that good cars of the 80's and 90's are just flat out better to drive than moderns.

Clearly the current crop are much safer, both primary (due to electronic safety systems) and secondary. Heating and ventilation systems are massively better, they're more reliable, much cheaper to buy (check out those £50k early 90's Porsche 911's) cheaper to run, quieter (at least with much better wind noise suppression, have much stronger brakes, are easier to drive, and have better sound systems.

But better ride and handling? I don't think so.

SS7

[RobM77]

I think Caboose is probably right for performance cars, but if we compare the bog standard Octavia mk1 and mk2 or 406 and 407 (all four of which I've driven recently), I'd far rather swerve to avoid something in the older car, and if asked to drive round a track quickly, I'd take the older car each time - basically they're lower and just a lot more stable. There's also these weird geo tricks that I mentioned, where modern cars are darty about the straight ahead and fall into understeer when pushed (to give the superficial feeling of sportiness to hide the underlying incompetance, much like mundane car over servoed brakes), such as started by the 156 and Astra a few years ago, but is now common with many cars. And also strange steering weighting which changes with lock (Vauxhall even manage to make steering weighting reverse at certain lock angles in some of their cars - a W reg 2000 Astra I drove once did this! Quite frightening. Plus there's the infamous mk1 Vectra oversteer problem). This makes modern cars difficult to predict when driven in a spirited fashion. Some manufacturers of ordinary cars avoid it, such as Audi, BMW and Merc; but Ford, Vauxhall etc are all guilty of it.

[RobM77]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

We'll have to agree to differ on that I think! In my experience, modern cars are mostly all tall wobbly unstable things that drive in a weird way.

[Dagnut]

havoc said:

Really?

I'd say the opposite:-
- Older (driver's) cars have less grip, so break-away sooner (and arguably because of the lower limits they break more progressively).
- Older (driver's) cars have more feedback, so you get more notice of what's happening and arguably can balance a car just below the limit.


I have no idea where the limits of the wife's MkV Golf GTi are, as it doesn't tell you. In the snow, when the back did go (under provocation) it went suddenly. Conversely the ITR and the wife's old 306GTi-6 (even her old Fiesta Zetec-S) told you a lot more about what was happening and you knew when you were approaching the limits. In the snow the ITR was almost balletic at the rear*. A friend seemed to have precisely the measure of his (swb, rwd, torquey) Lotus Sunbeam, getting the back out on demand and with precision. I think the last 10 years have seen genuine "handling finesse" be replaced by grip and by electronic safety nets, to a greater or lesser degree.

Probably worded that wrong, it took a more skilled driver to drive an older car quickly...I don't agree with the comparisons about older cars being better to drive..look how good the Mondeo is now..the Focus compared with the Escort..the average car now is much better to push on..the ride bumps better, grip better.. drive even navigating snow in a Mk1 Golf

Edited by Dagnut on Wednesday 23 March 12:24

[kambites]

Dagnut said:

Probably worded that wrong, it took a more skilled driver to drive an older car quickly

It depends on what you mean by "quickly". I think it takes a less skilled driver to push an old car to its limits, but the limits are lower so your less skilled driver would be going faster in the newer one, even though they'd be further from its limits.

[kambites]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I take "wobbly" to mean under-damped, rather than softly sprung. Many modern shopping cars seem to be too stiffly sprung, yet under-damped.

[MrOrange]

Ultimately "modern" cars have higher "limits" due to MORE GRIP.

This comes from better tyre compounds, dampers, electronic aids, wider tyres, better brakes, stiffer sidewalls and (not always) better weight distribution. More grip does not equal more "drivers" fun and certainly can hamper the dynamic feel (or handling) of a car. The Cayman is a beautifully balanced car that you can feel it rotating around you and superbly communicative; chuck in very high levels of grip and you've got a car that can (or needs to?) cover ground at a terrifyingly fast rate.

[RobM77]

kambites said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I take "wobbly" to mean under-damped, rather than softly sprung. Many modern shopping cars seem to be too stiffly sprung, yet under-damped.

It's the CofG and rollcentre that are the main culprits. Walk out into the car park and measure the roof height of a ten year old car and compare it with a modern car - modern cars are far too high for effective handling. As Kambites says, a lot of modern cars are insufficiently damped too. Put the two together and the results are horrible.

It's not so much the outright grip, but the lack of control that a modern car gives you. If I had to swerve to avoid something or drive round a track, give me an 80s or 90s car over a modern car anyday. The awful ePAS setups don't help either!

[Dagnut]

RobM77 said:

If I had to swerve to avoid something or drive round a track, give me an 80s or 90s car over a modern car anyday.

I think you need to actually go drive a Focus, a Golf, a Megane...then go drive the 90's equivalent..try doing a fast lane change in both cars and come back and repeat that statement.

[RobM77]

Dagnut said:

RobM77 said:

If I had to swerve to avoid something or drive round a track, give me an 80s or 90s car over a modern car anyday.

I think you need to actually go drive a Focus, a Golf, a Megane...then go drive the 90's equivalent..try doing a fast lane change in both cars and come back and repeat that statement.

I already have done. Thanks to my job I've driven the vast majority of mundane family cars and sub £30k repmobiles made from 2000 up to around 2006/2007, and then from personal experience have driven many 80s and 90s cars. The outright grip and suspension capabilities of the older cars is less, but the lower CofG and rollcentre means they're far more stable. The lower mass is also easier to contain with cheap dampers.

There are exceptions, as I've (and others have) already stated - such as the latest Golf, Audi A4/A5 and BMW. The average Renault, Ford, Peugeot or Vauxhall though is as I've described above.