Why does everything have to be 'sporty'?

[Lowtimer]

LeoSayer said:

My feeling is that over the past 30 years the average hatchback has got a stiffer ride primarily for safety reasons. The Elk test failure on the original A class is an extreme example of that.

Increasing height and weight of cars has a lot to do with the need for stiffness. Even "ordinary" hatchbacks are on average way taller than they used to be, and all the SUV and soft-roader style things are of course a chunk higher again.

If you make a car low and light it doesn't need high spring rates or stiff anti-roll bars to go round corners. Old Lotuses and Porsches show this very well.

The fashion for ridiculous size wheels is in part driven by the increasing height of cars, because if they had the same size arches as their counterparts of 25 years ago they would look completely slab-sided

[CrgT16]

I experienced both sides. I had a 320d ES really basic with 16 inch wheels. It was great, comfortable and with enough power for the motorway run. In it's later years it looked much older than the same model in M Sport. I had cloth seats and no extras. It was a basic car, comfortable and competent and I did over 120k miles in it. I have changed recently to a 3 series M Sport with a reasonable petrol engine so it's not all looks and no go. I did it because I prefer the shape of the bumpers and I like the look of the bigger wheels. I was well aware comfort would suffer but I was prepared for it. I did spec adaptative dampers and I find the car really comfortable and still like it's static look. Appreciate may be a compromise but it works for me. Having said this i wouldn't spec a M Sport, S Line etc if the engine didn't have reasonable power to be called sporty.

[Clivey]

venquessa said:

There is a minor safety issue, though it could be argued both ways.

In dicey moment where I have to swerve and/or brake suddenly, I know that I'd rather be in the sports/sportier car.

Sportier ride isn't aiming at being hard and harsh, it's aiming at giving more control, responsive handling and feedback on how the car is coping and the grip available. This does make the car safer in my opinion. It's not hiding the details of the driving from you.

With some of our roads in an absolutely shocking state, sometimes the softer riding car is the better bet for staying in control. - We have a Mini JCW and on rough roads, it feels like the car is getting thrown from one imperfection / pot hole etc. to the next. These are roads that didn't faze my old Citroen C4.

Having also driven the Rover 75 on 16"s and owning an MG ZT (basically the same car with different suspension) on 18"s, the Rover is actually the more composed when you're not driving on fresh tarmac.

A couple of cars I've been pleasantly surprised by recently though were the Insignia SRI on 20"s and the BMW 330d M-Sport on 18"s. Both rode much better than I was expecting...shame about the gloopy EPAS though!

[Triumph Man]

M4cruiser said:

NR91 said:

Why are we obsessed with handling and 'sportiness' in the UK?

Am I just too old for my age? I'm sure in other countries people prefer comfort over sportiness. Maybe it's just one of those British quirks?

China they drive in a much more laid back manner.

bks do they, they can't drive for st. They can't drive fast which is why they never seem to go much above 50 when presented with an open road. And yes, I've been to China.

[rayyan171]

I have seen both sides of the 'luxury' and 'sporty', especially with the SUV. The XC90 is a prime example of luxury - small 18" wheels, fat tyres, pillow-soft suspension, high driving position, spacious interior, all the amenities. Very comfortable and pleasurable car to drive, soaks up bumps, like driving a sofa. However, they aren't the fastest of cars, torque is limited in 1st to 3rd gear, with 4th and 5th giving full torque in those gears, thus showing the comfort orientation. Even the gearbox disengages the torque converter to coast below 5th gear. Certainly a comfortable car, but in no way a sporty vehicle. Will transport everyone to france very comfortably, but will not be in any way sporty on Edinburgh's fast back roads. Very wallowy and feels uninspiring at high speeds.

The X5 is a prime example of sporty. M-sport suspension with air suspension in the back, still makes for a very hard ride with 20" run flats. Much heavier than the XC90, making it a very planted car at any speed. Very inspiring drive, very good feedback, near-flat cornering, which is extremely impressive for a SUV. There is a reason why BMW market them as 'SAV's' as they are not cars that will wallow around like a range rover, they are designed to go fast on the motorway and handle well on the back-roads. It certainly handled better than a F10, it's just down to how much confidence you have when driving something this big. The XC90 was horrible above 90, with the car shaking at that speed. The X5 is comfortable at any speed, and it is frightening how something this big can pick up so well. There is demand for 7 seater cars to be sporty, and BMW cracked it, so if you are one who isn't looking for something with hard suspension and a sport orientated gearbox, then these cars aren't for you. A 7 series or range rover will do the trick much better.

Everything isn't sporty, people buy sporty vehicles and expect them to be comfortable. Find an A5 too sporty? Don't buy the S-line variant, and buy one with adaptive dampers instead. We bought a M-sport for a reason, the SE X5 is a much more comfortable car but has much more body roll, and not as sporty as others were, which is why so many SE's were bought with the dynamic pack, giving them the M-sport suspension. People are still buying normal cars, but suspension will get harder no matter what, to make these cars handle much better. In the US, the XC90 had a rollover warning, the X5 didn't.

[Clivey]

The problem is that some models (e.g. the BMW 340i) are only available with the sport trim levels. - If you want an "SE", you have to settle for a 4-banger in that particular case.

[sparkythecat]

rayyan171 said:

The X5 is a prime example of sporty. M-sport suspension with air suspension in the back, still makes for a very hard ride with 20" run flats. Much heavier than the XC90, making it a very planted car at any speed.

I think you'll find that the BMW X5 isn't any heavier than the Volvo XC 90

https://www.bmw.co.uk/en_GB/new-vehicles/x/x5/2013...

http://www.volvocars.com/uk/cars/new-models/xc90/s...

[rayyan171]

sparkythecat said:

rayyan171 said:

The X5 is a prime example of sporty. M-sport suspension with air suspension in the back, still makes for a very hard ride with 20" run flats. Much heavier than the XC90, making it a very planted car at any speed.

I think you'll find that the BMW X5 isn't any heavier than the Volvo XC 90

https://www.bmw.co.uk/en_GB/new-vehicles/x/x5/2013...

http://www.volvocars.com/uk/cars/new-models/xc90/s...

Sorry, forgot to mention that the X5 is a 2009 model and the XC90 is a 2004 model. However, the 2009 model XC90 is the same as a 2004, bar some exterior details and a slightly more powerful engine.

XC90 is 2 tonnes, X5 is about 2.2tonnes (or more)

[blearyeyedboy]

Clivey said:

venquessa said:

There is a minor safety issue, though it could be argued both ways.

In dicey moment where I have to swerve and/or brake suddenly, I know that I'd rather be in the sports/sportier car.

Sportier ride isn't aiming at being hard and harsh, it's aiming at giving more control, responsive handling and feedback on how the car is coping and the grip available. This does make the car safer in my opinion. It's not hiding the details of the driving from you.

With some of our roads in an absolutely shocking state, sometimes the softer riding car is the better bet for staying in control. - We have a Mini JCW and on rough roads, it feels like the car is getting thrown from one imperfection / pot hole etc. to the next. These are roads that didn't faze my old Citroen C4.

Having also driven the Rover 75 on 16"s and owning an MG ZT (basically the same car with different suspension) on 18"s, the Rover is actually the more composed when you're not driving on fresh tarmac.

A couple of cars I've been pleasantly surprised by recently though were the Insignia SRI on 20"s and the BMW 330d M-Sport on 18"s. Both rode much better than I was expecting...shame about the gloopy EPAS though!

I had a complete epiphany after driving a Civic Type R (FN2) that I was thinking of buying. Over rough and rutted Fenland roads, the car was skipping about so much that I needed to slow down to far lower speeds than my (multi link rear suspension) Octavia just to stay safe. The gearbox was fantastic, the engine sublime... but it was limited by it's lack of compliance and bounced from one bump to the next.

It could be fun, but it certainly wasn't safer. Softer can mean more control rather than less.

You can probably guess that I didn't buy the Civic.

[sparkythecat]

rayyan171 said:

sparkythecat said:

rayyan171 said:

The X5 is a prime example of sporty. M-sport suspension with air suspension in the back, still makes for a very hard ride with 20" run flats. Much heavier than the XC90, making it a very planted car at any speed.

I think you'll find that the BMW X5 isn't any heavier than the Volvo XC 90

https://www.bmw.co.uk/en_GB/new-vehicles/x/x5/2013...

http://www.volvocars.com/uk/cars/new-models/xc90/s...

Sorry, forgot to mention that the X5 is a 2009 model and the XC90 is a 2004 model. However, the 2009 model XC90 is the same as a 2004, bar some exterior details and a slightly more powerful engine.

XC90 is 2 tonnes, X5 is about 2.2tonnes (or more)

Depending on engine sizes, some 2004 Volvo XC90s are heavier than than some 2009 BMW X5s.

http://www.uktow.com/towing%20capacity.asp?make=Vo...

http://www.uktow.com/towing%20capacity.asp?make=BM...

But, enough of the nit picking. The fact that the XC 90 handles like a boat in comparison to the X5 has got absolutely bugger all to do with any marginal difference in weight.

[Stickyfinger]

A thread FULL to the first post with people who have never driven a Citroen (with the correct suspension)

[rayyan171]

sparkythecat said:

rayyan171 said:

sparkythecat said:

rayyan171 said:

The X5 is a prime example of sporty. M-sport suspension with air suspension in the back, still makes for a very hard ride with 20" run flats. Much heavier than the XC90, making it a very planted car at any speed.

I think you'll find that the BMW X5 isn't any heavier than the Volvo XC 90

https://www.bmw.co.uk/en_GB/new-vehicles/x/x5/2013...

http://www.volvocars.com/uk/cars/new-models/xc90/s...

Sorry, forgot to mention that the X5 is a 2009 model and the XC90 is a 2004 model. However, the 2009 model XC90 is the same as a 2004, bar some exterior details and a slightly more powerful engine.

XC90 is 2 tonnes, X5 is about 2.2tonnes (or more)

Depending on engine sizes, some 2004 Volvo XC90s are heavier than than some 2009 BMW X5s.

http://www.uktow.com/towing%20capacity.asp?make=Vo...

http://www.uktow.com/towing%20capacity.asp?make=BM...

But, enough of the nit picking. The fact that the XC 90 handles like a boat in comparison to the X5 has got absolutely bugger all to do with any marginal difference in weight.

Yep you are right, thanks for the clarification. XC90 had very soft suspension leading it to be a very soft riding car, lots of give in the suspension too. X5 had firm suspension on the front, and air suspension on the back, leading to a very firm ride. Weight balance is very nearly 50:50 on the X5, something that BMW prided upon when they released it, as they believed it improved handling. The XC90 was designed with women in mind. Very different target audiences, so those looking for an X5 M-sport are those looking for a car with practicality and sportiness. The XC90 is designed for practicality and comfort, as women aren't the usual PH type who clip the apex on a corner going past the cat and fiddle near Buxton.

Basically, it's all nit-picking anyway. Those looking for a car that isn't sporty shouldn't buy a car with sportiness in mind!
A mercedes will ride very comfortably and thus has the trade off that is handling that is a bit wallowy. BMW offer sportiness or comfort, same goes with audi. If you want a sporty handling vehicle that is enough for the backroads, a 320d M-sport does the trick (Chris Harris solved this in his 'Is a 320d enough for everyone?' video). If you want a luxury, comfortable version of the 3 series, go for a 320d 'Luxury' which is readily available from BMW. Same goes for Audi with its SE and S-line trims.

[RDMcG]

The trend open this side of the Atlantic is as follows:

(1) Four door saloons are completely dead

(2) Crossovers are eating quickly into the more conventional SUV territory..

(3) the unique love of pickups continues unabated.

(4) There is a market for hatchbacks but its much smaller then Europe. Ford for instance has had a poor experience with the Focus here and is unlikely to bring in the next gen.

I am one of the guilty...my last regular passenger car was an E39 M5 in about 2000..since then my DD has been an SUV equipped for towing, winter etc. I am never going for a crossover.

I have nightmares that the next big thing is an electric crossover..an sort of plug-in X6.........

[gazza285]

rayyan171 said:

I have seen both sides of the 'luxury' and 'sporty', especially with the SUV. The XC90 is a prime example of luxury - small 18" wheels, fat tyres, pillow-soft suspension, high driving position, spacious interior, all the amenities. Very comfortable and pleasurable car to drive, soaks up bumps, like driving a sofa. However, they aren't the fastest of cars, torque is limited in 1st to 3rd gear, with 4th and 5th giving full torque in those gears, thus showing the comfort orientation. Even the gearbox disengages the torque converter to coast below 5th gear. Certainly a comfortable car, but in no way a sporty vehicle. Will transport everyone to france very comfortably, but will not be in any way sporty on Edinburgh's fast back roads. Very wallowy and feels uninspiring at high speeds.

The X5 is a prime example of sporty. M-sport suspension with air suspension in the back, still makes for a very hard ride with 20" run flats. Much heavier than the XC90, making it a very planted car at any speed. Very inspiring drive, very good feedback, near-flat cornering, which is extremely impressive for a SUV. There is a reason why BMW market them as 'SAV's' as they are not cars that will wallow around like a range rover, they are designed to go fast on the motorway and handle well on the back-roads. It certainly handled better than a F10, it's just down to how much confidence you have when driving something this big. The XC90 was horrible above 90, with the car shaking at that speed. The X5 is comfortable at any speed, and it is frightening how something this big can pick up so well. There is demand for 7 seater cars to be sporty, and BMW cracked it, so if you are one who isn't looking for something with hard suspension and a sport orientated gearbox, then these cars aren't for you. A 7 series or range rover will do the trick much better.

Everything isn't sporty, people buy sporty vehicles and expect them to be comfortable. Find an A5 too sporty? Don't buy the S-line variant, and buy one with adaptive dampers instead. We bought a M-sport for a reason, the SE X5 is a much more comfortable car but has much more body roll, and not as sporty as others were, which is why so many SE's were bought with the dynamic pack, giving them the M-sport suspension. People are still buying normal cars, but suspension will get harder no matter what, to make these cars handle much better. In the US, the XC90 had a rollover warning, the X5 didn't.

Do you write for Sniff Petrol?

[jamieduff1981]

Perhaps I'm odd but I've found the majority of "comfortable" cars rather unpleasant to be in, as does my wife but to a greater extent. Comfort seats tent to be aimed at the untypically wide people usually, offering no support to a normally proportioned adult. Comfort suspension usually wallows worse than the Shetland ferry. I should add that we only reach motorways perhaps twice a year. Almost all of our household milage is on single track roads and single carriageway B and A roads. Changing direction and speed is frequent so seat shape and car body control is important.

That's not to say that rock hard suspension is any better - we had a new BMW X3 courtesy car so constructed and it managed to settle into a weird rocking motion at cruising speeds - just enough to make the occupants' heads wobble around unless neck muscles were tensed. There were many things wrong with that car though and suspension was the least of them.

For my tastes, something fairly low and set up with good passive dampers is best for ride quality. With that, some tyre sidewall is necessary but doughnut tyres offer little better comfort than more 45% profile tyres can but make steering too indirect for my tastes. The Jag S-Type (Sport spec) I no longer have was my favourite car in comfort terms but whilst still retaining an ability to change direction without the occupants vomiting everywhere.

[DoubleD]

ash73 said:

Agree, and the reason is simple; British people are show-offs. They care more what the car looks like from the outside and sacrifice comfort for status, whereas Europeans don't care and just want to get where they are going asap in comfort.

You do realise that Britain is part of Europe?

[Pete Eroleum]

DoubleD said:

You do realise that Britain is part of Europe?

Whether he does or not, what's that got to do with what he wrote?

[EarlOfHazard]

A friend of mine bought an e39 525d se - a lovely place to be and in good condition. I think you're more likely to buy better condition/treated lessers models than m sports, which have a higher chance of being thrashed.

[mkindy03]

I find it strange how people who live in cities like London buy sports models. The speed bump outside my house has collected more than a few front splitters, the pot holes eat 19 inch wheels for breakfast and average traffic light race is limited to 20 mph due to the blanket speed limit...funny thing is a neighbour's son took my old 190e 2.6 for a drive the other day and fell in love and his 25! Was that a speed bump? What pot hole? Sit back and take life easy..

[Coolbanana]

Why does 'everything' have to be Sporty? Er, it doesn't, you can spec a non-sporty car from most Manufacturers. If you do not want 'sporty' suspension or low-profile tyres then don't spec 'em! Simple! Some Marques are also less 'sporty' than others by general design so more options.

If you are bemoaning the fact that many UK new-car buyers tend to rather go for the 'sportier' specs then that's entirely the prerogative of the new-car buyer and yes, it is their choices that second-hand buyers have to live with - but that's just tough really. No one can have a valid whinge about other people's choices limiting their own hand-me-down choices because one cannot dictate what another spends their money on.

If the Consumer wants 'sportier' cars or even just 'sportier image' cars then the Manufacturers will obviously cater for that - that's great. The Range Rover SVR is a very 'sporty' SUV when compared to the standard model. So earns the moniker. No-one said you have to compare a 'sporty' SUV with a hot hatch or an Aston Martin for it to earn the term 'sporty'. It can earn it just by being compared to other cars of the same type.

So I don't really see the issue here. Is there really one? Or are we just looking for a problem where none really exists because we want to apply our personal bias?