Blasphemy!: Revered driver's cars that you just don't get.
Discussion
What cars revered by motoring journalists and Petrolheads alike do you just not get the fuss about (disclaimer: I like most of these cars but just don't get the almost godly status that they have).
First, the cars that I do have some experience of. I looked long and hard for a replacement for my much loved 1.6 205 GTi after its demise and considered the following options, none of which quite hit the spot.
mk2 Golf GTi 8v
My other favourite hot hatch of the 80s. I managed to track down a very nice, low mileage big-bumper example with the BBS cross-spoke wheels and I have to say it looked absolutely spot on (still does IMHO). They still feel solid for a 25 year old car and certainly more comfortable and refined than a 205 but it just lacked the same feeling of speed and excitement. If I had to run a 25 year old car as a daily, one of these (along with an E30 318iS/325i Sport or Saab 900 Turbo 16v) would be a strong contender. They are very nice cars but a big disappointment in terms of fun.
Ford Puma 1.7
I thought these looked great when they first came out and I begged my mum to get one of these instead of the mk1 Ka that she bought. A former 309 GTi-driving mate also had one and thought it was great. I test drove a Thunder-edition and found it not that quick, uncomfortable, unrefined and a bit tinny. In fact, everything I disliked about 90s Fords really. I thought that I must be wrong and I subsequently drove my friend's Puma and felt exactly the same about his. Weird, because I really enjoyed driving my mum's Ka and a mk1 Focus 1.6 that I once had as a hire car.
Renault Clio Williams
To be fair I haven't driven one but I have driven plenty of cooking Clios of the same vintage and they were all crap. Not a bad-looking car for the time but a horrid driving position and a cardboard 90s Renault interior. What's so special about a original shape Clio with gold wheels? (I would much rather have a 306 Rallye but I couldn't find a decent one at the time and fancied a change from a Peugeot).
Renault Clio 182
These had just come out at the time of looking, so I test drove a new one. On paper, it sounded quite compelling. Very light, compact, pert looks and and an oversized engine in a small body. The reality: the driving position was a backwards step from the 205, it didn't feel as quick as I was expecting and didn't sound great either. I was pretty bored by it really. They're so cheap now though and I keep thinking that I should give one another chance.
In the end, I went for a Corrado VR6. Not as fun as the 205 but a big step up in terms of refinement and performance and the engine sounded glorious too. Loved the styling and the pop-up rear spoiler too!
Ford Escort RS Cosworth
I was born in 1980, so more of a Sierra Cosworth man really. The 3dr was just the daddy in the BTCC and then the Sapphire became the ultimate family car of the early 90s. The Escort should have done better in rallying and I have no issue with the looks but the competition (Subaru, Mitsubishi, Toyota) had moved the game on and the 90s mk5 Escort interior is just horrid. I don't really know if they deserve the high prices that they command now. I would much rather have a Delta Integrale Evolution for that money or an Impreza P1 for considerably less.
Moving on to perhaps my most controversial two choices.
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.
Porsche Carrera GT
Well, it looks quite good (for a Porsche) and I'm sure the engine and (manual) gearbox are fantastic but it's far from the best-looking supercar and the handling is pretty knife-edge by all accounts. Also, perhaps unfairly, there's something in the back of my mind that says a Porsche can't be the ultimate dream car. Porsche is a "Championship" rather than a "Premier league" manufacturer and the nice thing about Porsches is that they are everday useable and not too expensive to run. The ultimate real-world dream car if you like. A role that a 911 or 928 fulfils much better.
What are your thoughts? What revered driver's cars just don't quite hit the spot with you?
First, the cars that I do have some experience of. I looked long and hard for a replacement for my much loved 1.6 205 GTi after its demise and considered the following options, none of which quite hit the spot.
mk2 Golf GTi 8v
My other favourite hot hatch of the 80s. I managed to track down a very nice, low mileage big-bumper example with the BBS cross-spoke wheels and I have to say it looked absolutely spot on (still does IMHO). They still feel solid for a 25 year old car and certainly more comfortable and refined than a 205 but it just lacked the same feeling of speed and excitement. If I had to run a 25 year old car as a daily, one of these (along with an E30 318iS/325i Sport or Saab 900 Turbo 16v) would be a strong contender. They are very nice cars but a big disappointment in terms of fun.
Ford Puma 1.7
I thought these looked great when they first came out and I begged my mum to get one of these instead of the mk1 Ka that she bought. A former 309 GTi-driving mate also had one and thought it was great. I test drove a Thunder-edition and found it not that quick, uncomfortable, unrefined and a bit tinny. In fact, everything I disliked about 90s Fords really. I thought that I must be wrong and I subsequently drove my friend's Puma and felt exactly the same about his. Weird, because I really enjoyed driving my mum's Ka and a mk1 Focus 1.6 that I once had as a hire car.
Renault Clio Williams
To be fair I haven't driven one but I have driven plenty of cooking Clios of the same vintage and they were all crap. Not a bad-looking car for the time but a horrid driving position and a cardboard 90s Renault interior. What's so special about a original shape Clio with gold wheels? (I would much rather have a 306 Rallye but I couldn't find a decent one at the time and fancied a change from a Peugeot).
Renault Clio 182
These had just come out at the time of looking, so I test drove a new one. On paper, it sounded quite compelling. Very light, compact, pert looks and and an oversized engine in a small body. The reality: the driving position was a backwards step from the 205, it didn't feel as quick as I was expecting and didn't sound great either. I was pretty bored by it really. They're so cheap now though and I keep thinking that I should give one another chance.
In the end, I went for a Corrado VR6. Not as fun as the 205 but a big step up in terms of refinement and performance and the engine sounded glorious too. Loved the styling and the pop-up rear spoiler too!
Ford Escort RS Cosworth
I was born in 1980, so more of a Sierra Cosworth man really. The 3dr was just the daddy in the BTCC and then the Sapphire became the ultimate family car of the early 90s. The Escort should have done better in rallying and I have no issue with the looks but the competition (Subaru, Mitsubishi, Toyota) had moved the game on and the 90s mk5 Escort interior is just horrid. I don't really know if they deserve the high prices that they command now. I would much rather have a Delta Integrale Evolution for that money or an Impreza P1 for considerably less.
Moving on to perhaps my most controversial two choices.
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.
Porsche Carrera GT
Well, it looks quite good (for a Porsche) and I'm sure the engine and (manual) gearbox are fantastic but it's far from the best-looking supercar and the handling is pretty knife-edge by all accounts. Also, perhaps unfairly, there's something in the back of my mind that says a Porsche can't be the ultimate dream car. Porsche is a "Championship" rather than a "Premier league" manufacturer and the nice thing about Porsches is that they are everday useable and not too expensive to run. The ultimate real-world dream car if you like. A role that a 911 or 928 fulfils much better.
What are your thoughts? What revered driver's cars just don't quite hit the spot with you?
otolith said:
These;
If you can live with a two seater, you've got so many more interesting options than a hot hatch.
Agreed. The appeal of a hot hatch to me is that you can still have fun but have 4 seats and a decent boot (at the expense of a bit of style). In this, your eggs from Tesco would end up scrambled against the roll cage. Completely appropriate in a track-focussed 911 but not in a shopping hatch.If you can live with a two seater, you've got so many more interesting options than a hot hatch.
rallycross said:
Quite simple, if you haven't driven one then you don't know what you are talking about (much like a load of other crap that gets repeated on this forum).
OK rallycross, valid point. I have driven most of the cars that I first mentioned but not the Clio Williams, Escort Cossie, F40 or Carrera GT (nor am I ever likely to get the opportunity to drive an F40 or Carrera GT). I see that you have owned both a Clio Williams and a 182 and both Sierra and Escort Cossies. You rate the Williams over the 182, which surprises me. On paper, the 182 sounds like it would be the better car but perhaps the Williams is more than the sum of its parts (which I'm perfectly willing to accept)? I'm sure that you can understand though that having driven a normal Clio of similar age, it is hard to imagine how much better the Williams is and that it can also be better than a 182 (a car that I have driven and didn't really like). You also rate the Sierra Cosworths that you owned over the Escort and agree that the Escort had fallen behind the competitors from Subaru and Mitsubishi. Not saying they are bad cars, just that in both cases, there are similar cars that I would like to own more.BrewsterBear said:
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.
If I haven't driven or passengered in a car then I try to base my opinion on facts and what I have read. I agree too that a higher power or top speed figure and a lower 0-60mph figure doesn't necessarily make one car "better" than the other. The experience and how it makes me feel is far more important. No, I haven't driven or even passengered in an F40 unlike yourself, so your opinion is probably more informed in this case. I'm sure that it's a very exciting and visceral experience and I would never dismiss the F40 as being crap. I wasn't expecting many people to agree with me on this but looks are subjective and although it is no minger, IMHO, it is not the best-looking Ferrari. 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.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.
J4CKO said:
In the Lexicon of motoring comparisons, to be fair, I think I was nearer with my F40/Kelly Brook comparison that with your internet meme super morbidly obese woman with massive sweaty gunt flopping beneath her dress/F40 comparison.
I agree the F40 is a bit predictable, and normally Ferraris make me shudder a little bit, as they are redolent of posing, preening playboys or blokes who wear "merchandise" but the F40 is the complete and real spirit of Ferrari, it is finished badly, so what ? it doesn't have a cream interior, all the better for it, the paint work looks like badly spray painted Shreddies, bring it on, it is everything I love about Ferrari, shorn of the whiffy bits I hate, it is the nearest they got to the perfection that is the Mclaren F1, it doesnt shout Magnum PI, Miami Vice or Playboy just visiting for the summer, it is a serious, serious drivers car and any plonker (like me) can see that even if they have only driven one on a computer and rarely seen one in the flesh, it is the only time they made Porsche look gauche and overblown, despite the 959 still being magnificent.
The 355 is lovely, some other early ones were quite pretty, they make good racing cars but by and large I am not a Ferrari fan but the F40 is my guilty pleasure, it just seems like my kind of car.
I'm kind of getting the F40 a bit more now. I used to feel similar about the McLaren F1 until I read more about it and learned to admire it for what it is. A superb piece of money no object engineering and possibly the ultimate analogue performance car. I guess in some ways, the F40 shares the same ethos and doesn't suffer from the cheesy image that some Ferraris have.I agree the F40 is a bit predictable, and normally Ferraris make me shudder a little bit, as they are redolent of posing, preening playboys or blokes who wear "merchandise" but the F40 is the complete and real spirit of Ferrari, it is finished badly, so what ? it doesn't have a cream interior, all the better for it, the paint work looks like badly spray painted Shreddies, bring it on, it is everything I love about Ferrari, shorn of the whiffy bits I hate, it is the nearest they got to the perfection that is the Mclaren F1, it doesnt shout Magnum PI, Miami Vice or Playboy just visiting for the summer, it is a serious, serious drivers car and any plonker (like me) can see that even if they have only driven one on a computer and rarely seen one in the flesh, it is the only time they made Porsche look gauche and overblown, despite the 959 still being magnificent.
The 355 is lovely, some other early ones were quite pretty, they make good racing cars but by and large I am not a Ferrari fan but the F40 is my guilty pleasure, it just seems like my kind of car.
To continue the analogy then, maybe the F40 is like the best one-night stand you've ever had but ultimately for me, it's not the Ferrari that I would marry and settle down with!
Sorry about the F40. I've obviously offended a lot of people. No, I haven't driven or ridden in one (I don't know if anyone on PH has actually driven one) and I'm sure that if I did and I'm not crazy, I wouldn't turn down the opportunity and would probably "get" the car a lot more. I'm just curious as to why for a lot of people, the F40 is the ultimate supercar. The one car that they would have to own if they won the lottery or if they were close to achieving it, they would make sacrifices to have that opportunity. What makes it more special than other limited edition Ferraris (288 GTO, F50, Enzo, LaFerrari etc), that are also highly revered? I'm not saying that the engine and chassis isn't amazing but every time I see a picture of one (and I've always thought this - I was alive when it was released), I think that it looks like a kit car (possibly MR2-based) built in someone's shed. Do the massive panel gaps detract from the driving experience? No, but I would expect more from a Ferrari and for the kind of price that I would have to pay to get one, yes that would be an issue. If it was only a 20k car then yes, I wouldn't care and would be happy to buy one! As it is, I have no burning desire to own one but sure, there are other supercars and other Ferraris that I would like to own.
The point of the thread was that, these cars are supposed to be the best performance cars at their given price point and no-one is saying they're crap (they're obviously not) but sometimes you read the rave reviews from motoring journalists and owners and even try one out for yourself but still have no desire to own one. I don't dislike/hate any of these cars (in fact I think I should like and want to like them), I just don't really "get" them. I'm glad that some people are telling me that I'm wrong but also pleased that some people feel the same.
Sometimes you need to live with a car before you "get" it. The first time I drove an Impreza WRX STI, I hated it. Horrid interior, crashy ride and lots of turbo lag followed by a pretty full-on power delivery. I tried another WRX of similar age at a later date, as I wanted a fast 5 door hatch/estate for a smallish budget and the level of performance on offer for the money was too good to ignore. I bought that car and had it for 2.5 years and it's the best car that I ever had. The ride on the WRX was much better, the turn of speed was exciting, the chassis and traction was fantastic and it was actually a surprisingly comfortable long-distance car. Yes, the interior felt a bit cheaper compared to something German but to be honest that didn't really bother me (I would rather have something with a fantastic engine and chassis and a crap interior rather than a nice interior and a crap engine and chassis, like my mk4 Golf GTi)! It was well screwed together, the ergonomics and driving position were spot on and the really important things (seats, pedals, gearshift and steering wheel) were all great. In that case, I'm glad I went back and gave it a second chance rather than writing it off as I car I didn't like or "get".
The point of the thread was that, these cars are supposed to be the best performance cars at their given price point and no-one is saying they're crap (they're obviously not) but sometimes you read the rave reviews from motoring journalists and owners and even try one out for yourself but still have no desire to own one. I don't dislike/hate any of these cars (in fact I think I should like and want to like them), I just don't really "get" them. I'm glad that some people are telling me that I'm wrong but also pleased that some people feel the same.
Sometimes you need to live with a car before you "get" it. The first time I drove an Impreza WRX STI, I hated it. Horrid interior, crashy ride and lots of turbo lag followed by a pretty full-on power delivery. I tried another WRX of similar age at a later date, as I wanted a fast 5 door hatch/estate for a smallish budget and the level of performance on offer for the money was too good to ignore. I bought that car and had it for 2.5 years and it's the best car that I ever had. The ride on the WRX was much better, the turn of speed was exciting, the chassis and traction was fantastic and it was actually a surprisingly comfortable long-distance car. Yes, the interior felt a bit cheaper compared to something German but to be honest that didn't really bother me (I would rather have something with a fantastic engine and chassis and a crap interior rather than a nice interior and a crap engine and chassis, like my mk4 Golf GTi)! It was well screwed together, the ergonomics and driving position were spot on and the really important things (seats, pedals, gearshift and steering wheel) were all great. In that case, I'm glad I went back and gave it a second chance rather than writing it off as I car I didn't like or "get".
Edited by white_goodman on Friday 10th April 17:13
lickatysplit said:
the Mk1 Beetle. Back in the day everyone wanted one, why? they are the most scariest cars I've ever been in, I think it was the fact it had no dashboard and your face was against the window. 
Not sure if the Beetle is a revered driver's car though. A popular car, yes because when new it provided less affluent families with cheap, reliable and fairly economical transport. I'm not sure if it was ever considered as a driver's car though. The problem with these threads is that they can often get off topic and descend into cars I don't like or think are crap. Someone else said all Saabs or all Audis for instance. To be fair, a lot of these were never intended to be driver's cars but are OK/good at what they do.Completely agree with you on the Veyron though
I don't actually mind the styling and in some regards the engineering is impressive but it seems a bit passionless really. VW obviously had a massive budget and wanted to build the fastest production car (which they did) but is just giving it 1000bhp and 4WD to handle it (rather than less power, RWD and trimming its substantial weight) really smart engineering? It's a fantastic achievement and well executed but perhaps lacks some agility and delicacy compared to the greats.
This Bugatti on the other hand, I like very much!
NJH said:
Sporty large saloons I just don't get, I got held up by a guy in an M5 up at Donny 3 years back. The thing was shockingly quick down the 2 straights but blooming useless in the corners and the guy driving it was trying pretty hard to hook those corners up. I think anyone who thinks these big heavy uber power saloons are a good idea should see how pathetic they look on a race track, you won't ever look twice at one afterwards.
Yes and no. The first 3 generations of M5 were lovely (and cars that anyone could reasonably aspire to).
They're comfortable to use every day, practical if you're a family man/woman and way superior, faster and driver-orientated (NA engines and manual transmissions) than their more humble siblings. The best car that I have owned is an Impreza WRX Wagon. Not because it was fun to hoon (it was) but when I got home, I was able to use it with my family (unlike some of the other more focussed performance cars that I have owned). My more memorable trips in it are not the committed solo B-road hoons but driving my newborn daughter home from the hospital and taking it on family holidays. The above average performance allowed me to make decent, smooth progress in a safe manner. Much the same for the M5, so yeah I get it.
I imagine that they are pretty decent on track (isn't an M5 the 'Ring taxi), especially a fast circuit, albeit a bit heavy on brakes and tyres (so wouldn't be my first choice for a track car).
The problem that I have with the M5 comes at this point.
Yes, it now has supercar performance but also supercar running costs and yet it looks like just any other M-Sport 5-Series. For 99% of people on 99% of journeys, a 535d would do a better job. Still very quick (in fact probably a more suitable level of performance for the road) and 50% of the running costs. I don't think the gap between the E60 535d and E60 M5 is the night and day one that it was with previous M5s and lesser models. On the plus side, I can see the appeal of that screaming V10 and despite disliking the looks when new, it looks rather fresh now. The gearvox, running costs and general bork factor put me off somewhat though.
As for the latest M5, I really don't "get" it.
It looks bloated and bland and really is huge. The engine doesn't appear to be the masterpiece it was on previous M5s either and to be honest, it has far too much power to really enjoy legally on the road. Happily the 4 door version of the coupe version of the M5, really does look rather wonderful and would be my choice.
I would happily take a 535d over an M5 any day though!
Edited by white_goodman on Tuesday 14th April 06:45
cerb4.5lee said:
That really surprises me as you seem to be really into cars, so you would rather have a noisy unrefined diesel engine over a petrol V8 engine with around 560bhp? I appreciate what you are saying about the weight of a M5 as it is a serious barge but it still goes like the clappers for its weight.
A 535d isn't exactly featherweight either.
Devil 2575 said:A 535d isn't exactly featherweight either.
"Maybe the problem is that the F10 M5 isn't quite a drivers machine that it's predecessors were? It's almost 1900kg.
I'm also sure that it is staggeringly quick, even compared to a 535d but how much of this is relevant in the real world? I'm sure that a 535d is fast enough for most buyers, it gets much better mpg and will be cheaper to maintain and is still a cheaper car to buy. In fact an F10 525d is probably fast enough and a lot less to buy and run.
It's not like with the E39 where the quickest diesel version still took 8 seconds to get to 60, and would still only do low 30s on a run. These days a 525d has more power than the old 530d, is faster and gets better economy, 41 mpg based on honest John real mpg. If you wanted a quick E39 you needed to go for a 540i or an M5. Now you can get a diesel version of the 5 series which is quick but economical.
Given that the majority of cars like the 5 series are bought to chew up and down motorways i'm not supprised that the M5 is falling from favour with many buyers. I also wonder how much company car tax influeneces the buying choices of many 5 series owners."
Thanks, that sums up my thoughts exactly. I'm not saying necessarily that I wouldn't like driving the M5 better than the 535d but looking at the cold hard stats, it only has 8% more torque than the 535d and yet is 46% less economical, 52% more expensive and yes, it has a shed load more power but is only a second quicker to 60mph and the same top speed (limited). A 535d is as quick as an E34 M5. I appreciate in reality that the price difference may be smaller but a 535d MSport would have all the gadgets that I would want and I wouldn't be adding on thousands of pounds worth of options. If I were to buy a new 5-Series it would be for the comfort, practicality and long distance cruising ability and I think the 535d would do this just as well as the M5 for significantly less. As for noise and refinement, yes, 4-pot diesels are pretty horrid in this respect but in my experience, 6-pot diesels are pretty refined and isn't this engine widely regarded as one of the best?
The other problem I have with the latest M5 is the laws of diminishing returns. The F10 M5 is 30% heavier and 17% wider than the original. I appreciate that some of the extra weight is necessary due to safety legislation. The girth wouldn't be an issue on motorways/A-roads but on narrow B-roads, I think it would be a barrier to having fun. Yes, it has pretty much double the power and yet it is only 2 seconds quicker to 60mph and is it more fun, more special or a more pure driver's car? The older M5s sound glorious but this one has synthesised engine noise through the speakers FFS and adding a shed load of power to compensate for a 30% increase in weight just seems like lazy engineering to me. A LWB Jaguar XJ is a much bigger car (next class size up) and yet only weighs 45kg more!
Insurance aside, back in the day if you could afford to run a 325i, you could probably afford to run an E28/E34 M5, I'm not sure if the same would be true today comparing a new 325i to an F10 M5. There's also the not inconsiderable price. The classic M5s were priced between blue collar performance cars and junior supercars. Now for a similar price as an M5, you could get something much more focussed (and lighter) like a 911, Jaguar F-Type/XK, GTR or R8. I'm not saying that the M5 is not a good car but it's difficult to see why one would buy one over any of the above.
Edited by white_goodman on Wednesday 15th April 18:34
Mr2Mike said:
Those are exactly the kind of arguments that the average non-enthusiast makes to convince himself that a diesel is the best choice. Things used to be different on PH, but sadly these days people seem to be more interested in cup holders, finance deals and new shoes.
Isn't that just reality though? Sure, I'm a motoring enthusiast but I also have a mortgage, a single income and two kids and those figures are hard to ignore (we're not just talking a few % difference). I'm sure that if I was choosing between them 10 years ago, only the M5 would do but then 10 years ago, I'm not sure why I would have been buying a large 4 door family saloon!I used to be a bit more spontaneous about buying vehicles but now through necessity, I tend to look at more alternatives and I have to consider boring things like running costs, practicality, price and mpg before making my choice. I'm sure many others are the same.
Tickle said:
Drivers cars are not about cold hard stats they are about the driving experience the car gives you. Things like how much fuel you have not used, your destination or how specced up the interior is should be at the bottom of the list of priorities. Steering feel, the sensation of speed and the connection between you, the car and the road can't be measured, just enjoyed.
Agreed, which is why I would argue that an E39 M5 is a better driver's car than an F10 M5. I don't think that anyone is going to convince me that a huge, near 2-tonne, overpowered German automatic saloon is the ultimate driver's car. I may be wrong (but probably not) but it's not where I would spend my (theoretical) 75k. A lesser 6-pot diesel 5-Series and a used 911 would cover more bases for me. braddo said:
I think you're way off the mark on the subject of how stuff used to be priced. Go back to the 80s and a 325i was a very expensive car. A M5 was a seriously expensive car. Basically, you have always had to be pretty loaded to afford a M5. And they have never been cheap to run.
You're right, I can't really remember pricing back then but was an M5 really as expensive as a Ferrari 348 for example? It was certainly as quick as one! I had an E30 325i, it only did about 23mpg. What would an E28/E34 M5 do? About 21mpg? Not that much different really and is it really that much more compicated in terms of running costs?theboss said:
Rob - 1985 prices were only brought up and adjusted for inflation because it was implied somewhere in the last 10 pages or so, that these cars are becoming ever less attainable than they once were.
Your observation on the M5 vs Ferrari prices diverging is very interesting!
I obviously opened a bit of a can of worms and sorry, it seems I was a bit inaccurate with regards to pricing. In fact, a new M5 (particularly at 60k seems a bit of a bargain), although still a lot of money to most people. I don't dislike super saloons or M5s. I would quite happily have a Quattroporte/Rapide/XFR/XFR-S/CLS AMG/Lotus Carlton but for some reason the new M5 doesn't appeal to me as much as the earlier cars. I doubt very much that it isn't brilliant though and I get that for the busy family man, it ticks all the boxes Your observation on the M5 vs Ferrari prices diverging is very interesting!
.This car really doesn't make sense to me though.
I know the engineering and the drive will be first-rate and practical and well-built too but just look at it! Conversely, if I had to have one, it would have to be the fastest (Turbo S). Why would you buy a "base" V6 or diesel, just so you can say you have a Porsche?
theboss said:
I understand why Porsche produces a diesel - it must account for a vast majority of sales so it would completely irrational pf them not to meet that demand... but what I don't understand is why they don't develop a 'best in class' diesel drivetrain. They have the VAG Bi-TDI at their disposal surely? If they came up with something to rival the ~380bhp tri-turbo 3.0l that BMW put in the x550d it would make far more sense than just a run of the mill ~260bhp unit. Same with the Macan which might have best handling in its class but doesn't offer any way near the outright overtaking grunt of an X3 35d / XD3 / SQ5. If I bought a diesel Porsche I'd want it to at least offer class leading power/torque along with the more linear power delivery of the rival twin-turbo offerings.
Not sure what the cost of the panamera is but if I were in that market I'd really have to want the badge to take their diesel over a 640d GC or 740d.
ETA they offer a thumping great V8 diesel in the Cayenne do they not?
OK, I can kind of see the case of diesel engines in the SUVs. These customers are pretty wealthy and probably have a "proper" Porsche too but need something more economical and practical too. Why would they want their customers to go elsewhere? A diesel Panamera though? The only thing that it has going for it is that the Turbo is f****** fast and yes, I agree the specs on the diesel seems pretty unexceptional. One of my goals in life used to be that I would own a Porsche by the time I was 30. It never crossed my mind that I really want one but do they do it in a diesel? Maybe applying some of their hybrid technology to the turbo to enhance performance, whilst lowering emissions and fuel consumption would be more appropriate in a Porsche? (Incidentally, with the M5, I would have liked to have seen more of an effort to cut weight to increase performance rather than just adding more power. Perhaps a twin-turbo straight six with some hybrid trickery?)Not sure what the cost of the panamera is but if I were in that market I'd really have to want the badge to take their diesel over a 640d GC or 740d.
ETA they offer a thumping great V8 diesel in the Cayenne do they not?
Edited by theboss on Monday 20th April 10:20
What I would like to see from Porsche is a new-age 928-style GT car and a successor to the 944/968. A 4-pot Turbo 2+2 with RWD that fits in slightly below the Boxster/Cayman.
Are we going to be getting diesel Astons, Ferraris, Lamborghinis and Maseratis next? Oh wait...
Edited by white_goodman on Monday 20th April 16:56
theboss said:
M5 - it is what it is - I certainly wouldn't want to sacrifice comfort or refinement for reduced weight, and I think it both steers and rides better than most other large exec saloons out there. If the M guys had succumbed to electric steering, run-flats etc. it would be a different proposition but as it stands, I don't think it wallows too badly. Don't believe me - go and do a ring taxi lap with two of your mates in the back, and try not to grin.
OK, I'm happy to concede that having heard from someone that drives one (I haven't), the F10 M5 is a very good car in all respects. 2 tonnes for a 5-Series (BMW website says 1990kg) still seems excessive to me though. The benefits of reduced weight are huge. Better fuel economy, lower emissions, better performance and braking performance and less wear on tyres, brakes and transmission etc. Jaguar manage to make a car (XJR LWB) that is 7% longer (similar width and height) and yet 5% lighter (1881kg) through use of aluminium etc and I don't think you would be compromising on comfort and refinement in one of those! Sorry, the F10 M5 is a fantastic car but as an Engineer, this just frustrates me because BMW with cars like the i3/i8 are capable of some very smart engineering. To be fair, the XJ is a lower volume car and more expensive in its "base" form, so I guess BMW have to consider keeping production costs of the lesser 5-Series down to stay competitive. No reason they can't go in a different direction with the M5 though Edited by theboss on Monday 20th April 18:17
.theboss said:
Think that sums it up well for me. You really can't make a judgement based on the on-paper specs. Instead of assessing it as an engineer, get in one and assess it as a driver
Thanks, that's a pretty well-reasoned arguement and I respect that you are defending your choice of car (but no-one should really need to). If someone was being a bit disparaging about Impreza WRXs (my favourite car that I have owned), I would be the same Edited by theboss on Tuesday 21st April 13:41
.Thanks for not just telling me I'm wrong and calling me an idiot!
RobM77 said:
Thanks. Oh yes, your closing statement should be displayed at the top of all forum threads on General Gassing! I couldn't agree more! I wish more people understood that.
People tend to see the world through their eyes, so if they would buy a Porsche 'because it's a Porsche' to make their £10-15k budget look more impressive, they assume someone with £100-150k to splurge on a brand new Panamera has done the same thing. That's obviously a rather sweeping assumption, and probably isn't true, because surely someone image focused could buy a whole range of exotic cars for that money (used 458, 599, DBS, MP4-12C etc).
You get the same annoying trend with 'BMW vs the rest' in saloon car threads and 'Apple vs the rest' in mobile phone threads - you generally get some people posting on such threads who've bought a Ford or Samsung (respectively in each case) who did so because they're obsessed with image and didn't want to be seen as showing off, but what those people then do is assume that everyone who buys a BMW car or Apple device is buying it to show off, and it's that jump of logic that's so flawed. I've been told this so many times about my BMW and to some extent my iPhone that it's quite ludicrous people are that short sighted and self centered. Sure, everyone buys things for different reasons and 'peacocks' are a percentage of any owner group, but it's far from a given, especially with a bog standard £10k BMW or a £700 basic iPhone 6 - especially with those because both are absolutely everywhere in dull shades of grey and black. There's probably someone somewhere who thinks I bought my Bosch washing machine to show off to guests that come round - such a person probably deliberately buys some obscure brand of washing machine just to show that he's made an 'intelligent' choice and not followed the crowd.
Personally, the last time I saw a Panamera I didn't give a second thought to the owner or why he bought it. I can't see why it interests people so much, but then that proves the above point for me too - I can't see why it interests people because I myself am not interested. At least I'm actually aware of that though...
I'm sorry I didn't really mean it that way. As I said earlier, an aim of mine was to own a Porsche by the time I was 30 (sadly this didn't happen). This was not because of the badge but the engineering and performance, although I wouldn't have been happy with just any old Porsche (i.e. it had to be a sports car not a big saloon or SUV). Diesel Porsches seem like a bit of an anathema to me and I think if my first Porsche had been a diesel Panamera, that dream would have seemed like a bit of a hollow one, even if technically I had achieved my aim! Similar to wanting an Aston Martin and buying a Cygnet really!People tend to see the world through their eyes, so if they would buy a Porsche 'because it's a Porsche' to make their £10-15k budget look more impressive, they assume someone with £100-150k to splurge on a brand new Panamera has done the same thing. That's obviously a rather sweeping assumption, and probably isn't true, because surely someone image focused could buy a whole range of exotic cars for that money (used 458, 599, DBS, MP4-12C etc).
You get the same annoying trend with 'BMW vs the rest' in saloon car threads and 'Apple vs the rest' in mobile phone threads - you generally get some people posting on such threads who've bought a Ford or Samsung (respectively in each case) who did so because they're obsessed with image and didn't want to be seen as showing off, but what those people then do is assume that everyone who buys a BMW car or Apple device is buying it to show off, and it's that jump of logic that's so flawed. I've been told this so many times about my BMW and to some extent my iPhone that it's quite ludicrous people are that short sighted and self centered. Sure, everyone buys things for different reasons and 'peacocks' are a percentage of any owner group, but it's far from a given, especially with a bog standard £10k BMW or a £700 basic iPhone 6 - especially with those because both are absolutely everywhere in dull shades of grey and black. There's probably someone somewhere who thinks I bought my Bosch washing machine to show off to guests that come round - such a person probably deliberately buys some obscure brand of washing machine just to show that he's made an 'intelligent' choice and not followed the crowd.
Personally, the last time I saw a Panamera I didn't give a second thought to the owner or why he bought it. I can't see why it interests people so much, but then that proves the above point for me too - I can't see why it interests people because I myself am not interested. At least I'm actually aware of that though...
That's my feeling on the subject anyway. Conversely, Porsche know what they're doing and I'm sure wouldn't build a vehicle if there was no business case or demand for it and Panameras/Macans/Cayennes generate the revenue that Porsche need to build the lower volume specials that us enthusiasts revere and at the end of the day, more choice is not a bad thing (people will ultimately vote with their feet).
I think it's a bit naive to discount the effect of the Porsche badge though on Panamera/Macan/Cayenne sales. Sure, most people will buy them because they like them/meet their needs the best but others will buy them for the badge (and I think the Porsche marketing department are counting on this a little bit). I used to work in an Audi/VW dealership selling VWs and if I could have a pound for every time someone bought an A3 over a Golf "because it's an Audi", not because it's a vastly better product and certainly not better value (back then anyway)!
I've spent some significant time in the last 2 years new car shopping (albeit at a lower price point) and in both cases, I looked at several similar vehicles and no vehicle stood head and shoulders over the rest in terms of the drive. It came down to styling, spec, availability and price mostly but I would be lying if the badge didn`t factor in as well. The Kia I looked at had more power, was better equipped, had a better warranty and the deal was at least as good as the Toyota we ended up buying but well, it`s a Kia and my perception was that the Toyota was a better `quality`car (and had a nicer interior). I`m sure that I would have been just as happy driving the Kia now though and I would certainly consider one next time, as I`m not particularly loyal to any one manufacturer. All I`m saying is, the equivalent BMW, Mercedes or Audi may be as good as the Porsche but human nature will kick in and say, well I quite like the idea of owning a Porsche more than the others.
Gandahar said:
Thanks, that is pretty cheap! Sadly, I have two small kids now, so need space for two child seats and all their paraphenalia and an additional vehicle wouldn`t be an option. What I need is a diesel Panamera, haha I guess I could put one in each boot to stop them from squabbling!
Disclaimer: I love my kids and would rather have them than a Porsche most days.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff