Do people *really* want drivers' cars?
Discussion
900T-R said:
There's IIRC been no Evo Car of The Year competition where an MX5 or MR2 got to the last five, where Clio derivatives have achieved this with regularity. I'd take this as a sign that these days, the actual ingredients and the cooking are more important than the basic layout. 
I always took it more as a (perhaps misguided) attempt to be inclusive. The thing is, though, that handling is ultimately subjective - the Clio would not get into my top five because the criteria upon which I would judge it would reflect my preference for how rear wheel drive cars drive. otolith said:
tim-b said:
Also has a lower polar moment of inertia than a Cayman S. I'll be honest, I don't know what that last bit means, but it sounds like a good thing anyway.
It's a measure of how tightly packaged the mass of the car is around the centre of mass. If you imagine a dumbbell and a bowing ball of equal weight, and think about trying to spin them like a top, the ball will be easier to spin because all of the weight is close to the axis you are spinning it about.On the OP point. Nope, most people who buy cars do not really want a driver's car. Hence the popularity of an Audi TT over a Lotus Elise.
Why people on a car forum talk about the likes of fit and finish and cost is because, ultimately no matter how nice a car is we still have to sit in it and try and run one. If we can even afford one.
Subconcious worry becomes PH post.
Why people on a car forum talk about the likes of fit and finish and cost is because, ultimately no matter how nice a car is we still have to sit in it and try and run one. If we can even afford one.
Subconcious worry becomes PH post.
900T-R said:
tim-b said:
I don't really see this as a competitor to a FWD hatch, Clio, Integra etc. What set's it apart though is not just RWD, but the fact it is designed from the ground up to be a drivers car, not like your regular 5dr hatch which is primarily for moving people from a-to-b in comfort, safety, convenience etc.
Seems that most people in this thread have missed this point.
No, it's just that journos with driving credentials much better than those of yours truly have consistently found that a few of those 'compromised' FWD hatches have come so far in recent years that when judged on outright driving thrills they can have the better of many 'ground up designed' sports cars. There's IIRC been no Evo Car of The Year competition where an MX5 or MR2 got to the last five, where Clio derivatives have achieved this with regularity. I'd take this as a sign that these days, the actual ingredients and the cooking are more important than the basic layout. Seems that most people in this thread have missed this point.
1 Pagani Zonda F
2 Lotus 340R
3 Porsche 996 GT3
4 Caterham Superlight R300
5 Renaultsport Megane R26.R
6 Lotus Elan
7= Renaultsport Clio Trophy, 7= Ferrari F50
9 Mazda MX-5
10 Mitsubishi Evo VI Makinen Ed.
You have to go a fair way down to find anything else FWD that isn't a Renault.
Noger said:
Evo Top 10 Drivers Cars
1 Pagani Zonda F
2 Lotus 340R
3 Porsche 996 GT3
4 Caterham Superlight R300
5 Renaultsport Megane R26.R
6 Lotus Elan
7= Renaultsport Clio Trophy, 7= Ferrari F50
9 Mazda MX-5
10 Mitsubishi Evo VI Makinen Ed.
True, but the Clio was one of the cars people were comparing to... and it shows that indepth dynamics knowledge and set up skills can offset not just the inherent compromise of a car's FWD hatchbackness, but also its Renaultness. ;o)1 Pagani Zonda F
2 Lotus 340R
3 Porsche 996 GT3
4 Caterham Superlight R300
5 Renaultsport Megane R26.R
6 Lotus Elan
7= Renaultsport Clio Trophy, 7= Ferrari F50
9 Mazda MX-5
10 Mitsubishi Evo VI Makinen Ed.
900T-R said:
No, it's just that journos with driving credentials much better than those of yours truly have consistently found that a few of those 'compromised' FWD hatches have come so far in recent years that when judged on outright driving thrills they can have the better of many 'ground up designed' sports cars. There's IIRC been no Evo Car of The Year competition where an MX5 or MR2 got to the last five, where Clio derivatives have achieved this with regularity. I'd take this as a sign that these days, the actual ingredients and the cooking are more important than the basic layout.
As it happens I used to do a bit of driving for one of the glossy mags. I can tell you, during these type of COTY events the various hot Clios, Golfs, Astras and the like tended to be the ones left in the pit-lanes while the RWDs are being thrashed around the circuit (with occasional dabs of oppo, naturally). Yes modern hot-hatches are great fun, and very fast, to a point...but in my experience, they are the ones the journos get bored of quickest.Secondly, 2 FWD entries in the EVO top 5 for the last 5 years is hardly conclusive evidence.
Of course, what you do with the ingredients is just as important as what they are, but there's only so much you can do with a mass-market package. If this car is as good as it sounds it will simply be in a different league to the hatchbacks in terms of fun and overall experience.
Edited by tim-b on Thursday 1st December 15:46
Noger said:
otolith said:
tim-b said:
Also has a lower polar moment of inertia than a Cayman S. I'll be honest, I don't know what that last bit means, but it sounds like a good thing anyway.
It's a measure of how tightly packaged the mass of the car is around the centre of mass. If you imagine a dumbbell and a bowing ball of equal weight, and think about trying to spin them like a top, the ball will be easier to spin because all of the weight is close to the axis you are spinning it about.
tim-b said:
As it happens I used to do a bit of driving for one of the glossy mags. I can tell you, during these type of COTY events the various hot Clios, Golfs, Astras and the like tended to be the ones left in the pit-lanes while the RWDs are being thrashed around the circuit (with occasional dabs of oppo, naturally).
But that's track driving - the road is a different kettle of fish, and given the distribution of price tags covered in those comparos the bare fact that two FWD hatches make it into an all-time top 10 does say something - barring MX5, where are all the modestly priced rear wheel drivers? Or when the R26R progressed to mixing it with six supercars in that year's ECOTY, and it was categorically stated it had 'too much of everything' for three of them...
Maybe at this end of the market economics are skewed to the point that for a given price, applying some focus to a mass-market product brings you further up the hit list than a ground up designed model that suffers from lesser economies of scale and has to be compromised in its execution to sell at a given price point (or watered down to appeal to a larger audience for it to make the grade as a corporate business case)?
tim-b said:
Noger said:
otolith said:
tim-b said:
Also has a lower polar moment of inertia than a Cayman S. I'll be honest, I don't know what that last bit means, but it sounds like a good thing anyway.
It's a measure of how tightly packaged the mass of the car is around the centre of mass. If you imagine a dumbbell and a bowing ball of equal weight, and think about trying to spin them like a top, the ball will be easier to spin because all of the weight is close to the axis you are spinning it about.otolith said:
I always took it more as a (perhaps misguided) attempt to be inclusive. The thing is, though, that handling is ultimately subjective - the Clio would not get into my top five because the criteria upon which I would judge it would reflect my preference for how rear wheel drive cars drive.
I would agree with that. I too think cars like the Clio are only included so that class and price or car are included. Also those reviewing don't actually have to buy the car they are saying is great. Dalto123 said:
People seem to mention the whole 200bhp not being too much, and I know someone mentioned 200bhp being a lot in the 80's. And I certianly agree with this. My dads 944 S2 has 211bhp, which is now less than some modern diesels, but the performance is very repectable. In my opinion its still a drivers car. There arent any electrical assistants, infact the only proper safty device is the limited slip diff, but it still has leather, electric seats and electric windows and roof. For anyone who thinks anything less than 300bhp is not 'fast' or a 'drivers/persformance car' then I disagree.
You and I might think it's a drivers' car ......but others would say it's too heavy and has too many seats to qualify properly. A drivers' car 'bracket' can include different vehicles to different people
s m said:
Dalto123 said:
People seem to mention the whole 200bhp not being too much, and I know someone mentioned 200bhp being a lot in the 80's. And I certianly agree with this. My dads 944 S2 has 211bhp, which is now less than some modern diesels, but the performance is very repectable. In my opinion its still a drivers car. There arent any electrical assistants, infact the only proper safty device is the limited slip diff, but it still has leather, electric seats and electric windows and roof. For anyone who thinks anything less than 300bhp is not 'fast' or a 'drivers/persformance car' then I disagree.
You and I might think it's a drivers' car ......but others would say it's too heavy and has too many seats to qualify properly. A drivers' car 'bracket' can include different vehicles to different people
Dalto123 said:
s m said:
Dalto123 said:
People seem to mention the whole 200bhp not being too much, and I know someone mentioned 200bhp being a lot in the 80's. And I certianly agree with this. My dads 944 S2 has 211bhp, which is now less than some modern diesels, but the performance is very repectable. In my opinion its still a drivers car. There arent any electrical assistants, infact the only proper safty device is the limited slip diff, but it still has leather, electric seats and electric windows and roof. For anyone who thinks anything less than 300bhp is not 'fast' or a 'drivers/persformance car' then I disagree.
You and I might think it's a drivers' car ......but others would say it's too heavy and has too many seats to qualify properly. A drivers' car 'bracket' can include different vehicles to different people
kambites said:
DJRC said:
Er no! A drivers car should be as small as physically possible!
You also missed my point...4 seats bad. All the time. Every time.
Unless you need to carry four people. You also missed my point...4 seats bad. All the time. Every time.
"but what about if I want to take friends?" I hear you cry! f
k em. You buy 2 seat cars precisely so you cant have your driving enjoyment ruined by 3 lumps of useless cement in the car with you. No drive was ever "enhanced" by having anybody else in a car with you.Passengers = compromise. I prefer my cars designed around me, for me and that views just 1 passenger seat as something thats just about tolerated.
DJRC said:
kambites said:
DJRC said:
Er no! A drivers car should be as small as physically possible!
You also missed my point...4 seats bad. All the time. Every time.
Unless you need to carry four people. You also missed my point...4 seats bad. All the time. Every time.
"but what about if I want to take friends?" I hear you cry! f
k em. You buy 2 seat cars precisely so you cant have your driving enjoyment ruined by 3 lumps of useless cement in the car with you. No drive was ever "enhanced" by having anybody else in a car with you.Passengers = compromise. I prefer my cars designed around me, for me and that views just 1 passenger seat as something thats just about tolerated.
900T-R said:
tim-b said:
I don't really see this as a competitor to a FWD hatch, Clio, Integra etc. What set's it apart though is not just RWD, but the fact it is designed from the ground up to be a drivers car, not like your regular 5dr hatch which is primarily for moving people from a-to-b in comfort, safety, convenience etc.
Seems that most people in this thread have missed this point.
No, it's just that journos with driving credentials much better than those of yours truly have consistently found that a few of those 'compromised' FWD hatches have come so far in recent years that when judged on outright driving thrills they can have the better of many 'ground up designed' sports cars. There's IIRC been no Evo Car of The Year competition where an MX5 or MR2 got to the last five, where Clio derivatives have achieved this with regularity. I'd take this as a sign that these days, the actual ingredients and the cooking are more important than the basic layout. Seems that most people in this thread have missed this point.
This is what I have been saying for ages and often get loads of grief from petrol heads who are convinced that a drivers car has to be RWD, have only 2 seats and in most cases no roof. The developments in FWD handling and performance have been incredible, compare a 80s car with 200hp to a 2010 300hp car and the ability to use the power and avoid torque steer/understeer has been improved enormously.
The reality is that there is a far far larger number of people who want a enjoyable car with 4 possibly 5 seats and a boot. The majority of modern hot hatches achieve these targets very well 90% of the time and for 99% of the population this is absolutely fine.
If it wasn't for the likes of BMW/Merc/Audi getting into these ridiculous BHP battles and giving us 500+ HP saloons or Ford with a 300+HP Focus which then make people think that 200Bhp is completely inadequate for a sports car the Toyota would be fine.
I hope Toyota/Subaru get a good response to these new coupes and perhaps it might encourage others. Until recently id have never looked at the likes of Hyundai but the more I look at the coupe especially in V6 form it represents a hell of a buy.
DJRC said:
Then you dont buy a drivers car, you buy a car that carries 4 people in comfort...because that is what passengers want...to be conveyed in comfort. Not slung about.
"but what about if I want to take friends?" I hear you cry! fk em. You buy 2 seat cars precisely so you cant have your driving enjoyment ruined by 3 lumps of useless cement in the car with you. No drive was ever "enhanced" by having anybody else in a car with you.
Passengers = compromise. I prefer my cars designed around me, for me and that views just 1 passenger seat as something thats just about tolerated.
You make it sound like you have no friends. "but what about if I want to take friends?" I hear you cry! f
k em. You buy 2 seat cars precisely so you cant have your driving enjoyment ruined by 3 lumps of useless cement in the car with you. No drive was ever "enhanced" by having anybody else in a car with you.Passengers = compromise. I prefer my cars designed around me, for me and that views just 1 passenger seat as something thats just about tolerated.
DJRC said:
Then you dont buy a drivers car, you buy a car that carries 4 people in comfort...because that is what passengers want...to be conveyed in comfort. Not slung about.
"but what about if I want to take friends?" I hear you cry! fk em. You buy 2 seat cars precisely so you cant have your driving enjoyment ruined by 3 lumps of useless cement in the car with you. No drive was ever "enhanced" by having anybody else in a car with you.
Passengers = compromise. I prefer my cars designed around me, for me and that views just 1 passenger seat as something thats just about tolerated.
A driver's car doesn't need to be used as such all the time. "but what about if I want to take friends?" I hear you cry! f
k em. You buy 2 seat cars precisely so you cant have your driving enjoyment ruined by 3 lumps of useless cement in the car with you. No drive was ever "enhanced" by having anybody else in a car with you.Passengers = compromise. I prefer my cars designed around me, for me and that views just 1 passenger seat as something thats just about tolerated.
No passengers = car can be 'driven'. Passengers = car is passenger conveyance device.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff