Cars with fantastic steering?
Discussion
kambites said:
Interesting to see someone rate the Seven above the Elise. That seems to be quite unusual.
To be fair, perhaps it's just the whole Caterham experience that sways it that way for me. Add to that the fact I have rarely driven a Caterham on the road, it's largely been on track. Although my Loti have all been on track, I have used them extensively on the road too so perhaps I have a tainted view.Shnozz said:
Another vote for Caterham. Really cannot see how it could get any better. None of my Loti have been far off, and the present one feels the best of the bunch, no doubt because the ohlins contribute.
I've spent a fair amount of time behind the wheel of an E46 M3 but never tried a CSL. I'm intrigued to see how they compare as I'm staggered at how well regarded (and expensive -v- a standard M3) the CSL is.
i think the csl has a better (shorter?) steering rack which should make it better than the standard m3.I've spent a fair amount of time behind the wheel of an E46 M3 but never tried a CSL. I'm intrigued to see how they compare as I'm staggered at how well regarded (and expensive -v- a standard M3) the CSL is.
Shnozz said:
To be fair, perhaps it's just the whole Caterham experience that sways it that way for me. Add to that the fact I have rarely driven a Caterham on the road, it's largely been on track. Although my Loti have all been on track, I have used them extensively on the road too so perhaps I have a tainted view.
A lot of this is personal taste. Have driven both. Both have fantastic steering. Both answer the thread title. Very little else comes close.zebra said:
Shnozz said:
To be fair, perhaps it's just the whole Caterham experience that sways it that way for me. Add to that the fact I have rarely driven a Caterham on the road, it's largely been on track. Although my Loti have all been on track, I have used them extensively on the road too so perhaps I have a tainted view.
A lot of this is personal taste. Have driven both. Both have fantastic steering. Both answer the thread title. Very little else comes close.
Both are utterly superb. I've driven both other people's and my own Caterhams and Elises on road and track and the steering on both cars is superb. I prefer the Caterham's speed of rack and linear response, but prefer the Elise's feel and feedback. They are both variations on superb though 
VeeFour said:
I thought you'd say that. They were, for late model cars, just Rovers with stick on tat.
And the mk 2 Focus lived on the reputation of the mk 1, but my 10k miles in one were nothing short of a complete disappointment in all respects. Not least the over hyped handling prowess.
Lets deal with the rover VS MG issue first:And the mk 2 Focus lived on the reputation of the mk 1, but my 10k miles in one were nothing short of a complete disappointment in all respects. Not least the over hyped handling prowess.
owned 2x 214s, and 1x ZR. Completely different handler. Steering completely different. But BL haterz will be haterz.... And I covered 50k in the 214, and 80k+ miles in the ZR. So learnt the differences.
Then we'll deal with the focus issues:
again, 38k miles in one, in 11months on all nature of roads..... If you pushed on past the normal duty, and into the realms of "exuberant" the reason it had a reputation became obvious.
kambites said:
You've obviously driven completely different ones to me then, because those that I drove were amongst the best hot (or maybe warm, to be fair) hatches I've ever driven, and I think I've driven the majority of hot hatches. Strangely ALL of the road tests I've read have said the same thing?
Yes they were massively out-dated, but that's kind of the point. Modern cars are rubbish, from a driving involvement perspective (as I'd imagine you driving a 2010 Golf).
Agree 100%. Yes they were massively out-dated, but that's kind of the point. Modern cars are rubbish, from a driving involvement perspective (as I'd imagine you driving a 2010 Golf).
The whole brilliance of the likes of the ZR, was the lack of ABS, the "heavy" PAS system, and the old school feel to it.
I had a 1400cc one, nothing special, but with some commitment and enthusiasm, would easily keep pace around the twisties with a GTI6.
They were light, nimble, revvy, and the steering was it's crowning glory.
Would happily have a 160 ZR or 180 ZS any day. That said, my mates 2004 ZT 180 is a lovely car too... shame he doesn't know how to get the most out of it, due to being a derv fanboi
I find the whole MG / Rover thing puzzling.
You get the odd (appropriately) person for whom MG Rover could do no wrong, but most people accept they were horrendous cars, which is why the company died.
And that probably also explains why you loved the Focus, whilst I punted it back to my fleet manager as soon as I possibly could.
You get the odd (appropriately) person for whom MG Rover could do no wrong, but most people accept they were horrendous cars, which is why the company died.
And that probably also explains why you loved the Focus, whilst I punted it back to my fleet manager as soon as I possibly could.
VeeFour said:
I find the whole MG / Rover thing puzzling.
You get the odd (appropriately) person for whom MG Rover could do no wrong, but most people accept they were horrendous cars, which is why the company died.
And that probably also explains why you loved the Focus, whilst I punted it back to my fleet manager as soon as I possibly could.
Or being that yours was company, your used to having new vehicles all the time? perhaps.You get the odd (appropriately) person for whom MG Rover could do no wrong, but most people accept they were horrendous cars, which is why the company died.
And that probably also explains why you loved the Focus, whilst I punted it back to my fleet manager as soon as I possibly could.
I think the problem MG/Rover have, is that people weren't willing to rate them differently on different aspects. Some people just saw the shoddy build quality, shockingly outdated packaging (75 excepted) poor NHV, etc. and called them rubbish. Some just saw the class leading handling and called them great; the truth is of course both - they were genuinely good drivers' cars for their sector, they also tended to fall apart with no provocation and had a shelf life that put them massively behind the times... it just depends on your priorities.
I have no axe to grind either way. I'll probably never buy a modern MG/Rover or their competition because that kind of car has no interest to me. However, I am willing to acknowledge their strengths and lambaste their weaknesses.
I have no axe to grind either way. I'll probably never buy a modern MG/Rover or their competition because that kind of car has no interest to me. However, I am willing to acknowledge their strengths and lambaste their weaknesses.
I think as well the weaknesses were sometimes over-exagerated compared to that of others.
I.e. £400 to sort the HGF issue on the ZR becomes a "ball and chain" around it's neck.........
Yet how many Mazda 6s have DPF issues, or BMWs have popped a turbo............. Mondeos chew injectors...... Vectras need a DMF quicker than they should. And so on.
As you say, it's horses for courses.
Zed cars were brilliant at handling, to those that bought them for a handling car, far cheaper than the competition.... Weren't as arsed if it didn't have twin zone climate control or parking sensors
I.e. £400 to sort the HGF issue on the ZR becomes a "ball and chain" around it's neck.........
Yet how many Mazda 6s have DPF issues, or BMWs have popped a turbo............. Mondeos chew injectors...... Vectras need a DMF quicker than they should. And so on.
As you say, it's horses for courses.
Zed cars were brilliant at handling, to those that bought them for a handling car, far cheaper than the competition.... Weren't as arsed if it didn't have twin zone climate control or parking sensors
s m said:
10 Pence Short said:
The scariest was my old CRX mk2. 4.1 turns lock to lock, huge wheel, no PAS, short wheelbase and no weight over the rear (something like 67/33 weight bias). Lift off oversteer, steer, steer, steer, steer, steer the other way, steer, steer, steer, steer back the other way again, steer steer, etc...
- interesting how opinions differ - someone nominated the CRX a few pages back.Everyone has their own idea of what constitutes 'fantastic'
AJS- said:
s m said:
10 Pence Short said:
The scariest was my old CRX mk2. 4.1 turns lock to lock, huge wheel, no PAS, short wheelbase and no weight over the rear (something like 67/33 weight bias). Lift off oversteer, steer, steer, steer, steer, steer the other way, steer, steer, steer, steer back the other way again, steer steer, etc...
- interesting how opinions differ - someone nominated the CRX a few pages back.Everyone has their own idea of what constitutes 'fantastic'
Alfanatic said:
I think you're making a mistake equating feel to feedback. I've driven a few cars where the steering feels good to use, isn't giving a lot of feedback of what's happening at the road / tyre interface but somehow manages not to feel numb.
Feel = does it feel nice to use? Does the weighting feel well judged for the application? Does it feel direct or precise or nervous or spongy? Does it respond in a linear way or is there a dead spot around the dead ahead? All of this contributes to how it feels without having a lot to do with road feedback.
Feedback = how well does it communicate what's happening?
Shirley?
Yes I agree, I shall demount my tall horse! (but you knew what I was getting at, didn't you! Feel = does it feel nice to use? Does the weighting feel well judged for the application? Does it feel direct or precise or nervous or spongy? Does it respond in a linear way or is there a dead spot around the dead ahead? All of this contributes to how it feels without having a lot to do with road feedback.
Feedback = how well does it communicate what's happening?
Shirley?
)Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff