Do people *really* want drivers' cars?

[300bhp/ton]

Gaz. said:

900T-R said:

Also there are many situations when you really don't want to change gears - mid-corner, just before needing to go on the brakes again on a short straight, in traffic where you want to concentrate on where to place your vehicle, et cetera. Nothing as infuriating as a short rev range, regardless if low-revving TDI slugger or VTEC screamer.

In practice, most of the VTEC boys are effectively running 50 bhp shopping trolleys instead of the 200 bhp they have on paper (power graph looking like a 45 degree slope with the peak on the far right) while both my old Saab and current TVR with peak hp in the high 200s had/ve over 200 bhp at their disposal from about half their max rpm upwards.

I'm sure it's artistic licence and not to be taken literally, and I quite agree about any gear, any revs thrust being preferable to having to change down several gears however I'm sure my 'shopping trolley' has more than 50bhp at half of it's maximum rpm.

I don't know about your 'shopping trolley', but a 2006 MX-5 seems only to be making around 85bhp @ 3500rpm. 50hp might be a slight exaggeration, but probably believable on more mundane lower powered cars.

[Alfanatic]

Noger said:

Alfanatic said:

The whole point of the test was to find the most fun cars ever made. Not the best fun for money ratio. Otherwise the Zonda wouldn't have won.

The Zonda only won because the Caterham is too noisy and gets you wet. So it wasn't entirely based on "fun".

Being deafened and drowned does detract from the fun.

[kambites]

DJRC said:

Passengers = compromise. I prefer my cars designed around me, for me and that views just 1 passenger seat as something thats just about tolerated.

But surely by your definition even one passenger seat stop is being a drivers' car. To be a REAL drivers car it needs to be a single seater. You're drawing a hard line in a completely arbitrary place... what about 3-seaters, is the Mc F1 a drivers' car?

It's always going to be a continuum.

[Noger]

kambites said:

DJRC said:

Passengers = compromise. I prefer my cars designed around me, for me and that views just 1 passenger seat as something thats just about tolerated.

But surely by your definition even one passenger seat stop is being a drivers' car. To be a REAL drivers car it needs to be a single seater. You're drawing a hard line in a completely arbitrary place... what about 3-seaters, is the Mc F1 a drivers' car?

If your mum is one seat, and your dad on the other side....then probably not

Helga, and her twin sister Olga....maybe a different story !

[rhinochopig]

Rawwr said:

The recent threads on the BRZ/GT-86 have made me wonder if a driver's car is what people really want when it comes to actually buying a vehicle. The amount of comments that appeared to show complete loathing and disgust that the aforementioned had 'only' 200bhp, that they had small, skinny wheels and tyres and that the interior wasn't stitched together using red kite feathers and the foreskins of endangered animals was all a bit surprising.

Out of the hundreds of comments, there was only the tiniest of a tiny fraction of people who were actually concerned with what it feels like or how it drives.

And finally, interleaved comments on how certain FWD hatchbacks represent better value for money was like comparing apples with, I don't know, dildos or something.

Toyobaru have actually created something which should be a lot of fun and something the vast and overwhelming majority of people on the site have actually asked for.

People need to stop getting an erection for the non-disclosed pricing, stop comparing it to trees and church organs and wait until they can actually drive the damn thing.

I feel better now. Carry on.

The problem is that 200bhp would be more than enough with narrow tyres, but fashion will dictate wide rears tyres, which 200bhp will struggle to overcome. You could hang the tale out of an old 1.6 essie with ~ 100bhp and have some wonderful 4 wheel drifts all at sane speeds. 200bhp and wide sticky tyres will mean achieving the same will be much harder and will happen at much higher road speeds.

I was discussing this very topic with a mate this morning, and we're both coming to the realisation that most modern cars are too capable to have some real fun on public road these days.

My take on it is that something with modest power and skinny tyres is much much more appropriate for hooning. The most fun I ever had in my old westy was on some srapyard wheels and tyres that had zero grip. I could drift that like a driving god, but swicth back to the 48Rs it normally ran on and it would have my pants down if I wasn't careful.

I find myself increasingly leaning towards an old classic or something like a Westy XI. I'm also finding the same with bikes. I simply have no desire for a litre bike, or even a 600, and find myself checking out RS250s and RGV250 on MCN. That said it could all be a sign of getting old

[kambites]

Past a point, I would rather have less grip than more power.

[GraemeP]

CBA to read the full thread, but YES we want driver's cars!!

However, we also need a lot more - and cars have become cross overs. I choose to run a Caterham 7 with a relatively modest XPower 140 K series, BUT the car is superlight spec, and has some skinny wheels. I then have my luxo-box for getting to work (and towing the 7), lugging mountain bikes, going to the tip, etc etc.

The 7 doesn't cover a lot of ground - BUT when I need a hit you CANNOT trump it this side of £30k in my opinion.

I think there are more people out there that want a "one size fits all" car, OR they want more of a "sports / exec" type vehicle, which due to bloated weight, uber toys, modern safety etc mean it will never have the feel of a stripped down, mechanically fed driver focused car.

I seem to get more excited about the type of cars my dad lusted after now (E Types, early 911s, Lotus Cortina etc, etc) when it comes to driving thrills, BUT I also love the idea of a 911 997, or an E60 M5 - BUT more for comfortable ground covering with some smiles, than feeling like I have connected with a piece of tarmac with driver and car working in harmony.

[Noger]

300bhp/ton said:

I don't know about your 'shopping trolley', but a 2006 MX-5 seems only to be making around 85bhp @ 3500rpm. 50hp might be a slight exaggeration, but probably believable on more mundane lower powered cars.

I think the point was about an S2000, which has a longer power curve, and also about 85bhp at 50% maxrpm.

Both illustrate the myth of "lack of low down torque". The torque is flat but low, the reason you need to rev it to get a move on is lack of low down POWER.

Compare to a two litre diesel, you have 85bhp from 1750ish, and 100bhp 50% maxrpm. Whilst it may seem that "grunt wins" in reality it is power. Diesels accelerate well at low rpm because they make decent power there, don't know why people get so hung about about torque the two are inextricably and forever linked

[kambites]

Indeed and that's why most diesels (and many turbocharged petrols) feel so boring to drive. The power curve is too flat so there's little incentive to use the revs.

[tim-b]

900T-R said:

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?

Nope, the same FWD hatchbacks were the ones looking dejected and lonely, after the journos had picked which ones to take home for the evening/weekend (after the track stuff was wrapped up).

Again, I've got nothing against fast hatches, and the engineering is very impressive, but it's simply not 'an event' to drive them. My friend's Focus RS is a fantastic car, and if I could only have one car I would be very happy with that. But I'm lucky enough to be able to have one car for boring stuff, and another for fun so it's a different story; on paper the RS beats my MX-5 at everything, but when I go for a drive (for the pleasure of it, not for shopping, commuting, ferrying passengers etc) I would take the Roadster every time, because a)I find it more fun to perfectly balance the throttle & steering to get the most I can out of the car and corner, and b) it feels like a sports car (low seating, cosy interior and as a bonus, open top) - as opposed to feeling like a boggo Focus with bucket seats. It just doesn't feel special...

I don't think we're going to agree on this point, but for me a purpose built sportscar will *always* have something a fast hatch/saloon/whatever else is missing (as well as a big engineering advantage) - the experience and atmosphere is just not the same.

[braddo]

tim-b said:

I don't think we're going to agree on this point, but for me a purpose built sportscar will *always* have something a fast hatch/saloon/whatever else is missing (as well as a big engineering advantage) - the experience and atmosphere is just not the same.

Something that can be enjoyed even when crawling along in the rush hour.

[busta]

rhinochopig said:

The problem is that 200bhp would be more than enough with narrow tyres, but fashion will dictate wide rears tyres, which 200bhp will struggle to overcome. You could hang the tale out of an old 1.6 essie with ~ 100bhp and have some wonderful 4 wheel drifts all at sane speeds. 200bhp and wide sticky tyres will mean achieving the same will be much harder and will happen at much higher road speeds.

I was discussing this very topic with a mate this morning, and we're both coming to the realisation that most modern cars are too capable to have some real fun on public road these days.

My take on it is that something with modest power and skinny tyres is much much more appropriate for hooning. The most fun I ever had in my old westy was on some srapyard wheels and tyres that had zero grip. I could drift that like a driving god, but swicth back to the 48Rs it normally ran on and it would have my pants down if I wasn't careful.

I find myself increasingly leaning towards an old classic or something like a Westy XI. I'm also finding the same with bikes. I simply have no desire for a litre bike, or even a 600, and find myself checking out RS250s and RGV250 on MCN. That said it could all be a sign of getting old

One notable feature of the upcoming Toyota GT-86 is it appears to be, by modern standards, under-tyred. Hopefully this will still be the case with production models!