Tossable or not tossable?
Discussion
This thread was inspired by what you could call one of those never meet your heroes experiences.
As a car lover, I like most from my generation grew up with a Lamborghini Diablo poster on my wall. Sure the Countach was also cool and today it is actually cooler than the Diablo. But at the time the Diablo was the car of the hour.
A couple of months ago I finally had the opportunuty to drive a Diablo. I don't have to go into details about how much I looked forward to it once the opportunity presented itself. But oh boy, do I wish I hadn't driven it. I had read about it and also about the Countach and Lambos in general. But to feel it in the flesh was a slap on the face.
Once you get over that it's a Lambo and there is a V12 behind you, the driving itself is really not what I would call, well, all that. I'm sure this is a to each his own type of thing. But to me a sports car and specially a supercar always meant a racing car for the streets. The Diaglo is nothing like that. I have driven different types of racing cars. From formula types to sports car racing. The Diablo reminded more of a 96 Viper GTS or C4 Corvette than of a racing car. Definitely nothing like a F1 or similar, which is again what I and many think when you see a supercar. A F1 with a body over.
Now, I know the Corvette and Viper are front engined and totally different. But what I mean is, they are fast and go hard, as long as it's a straight line.
To me sports cars need to be tossable/chuckable/handle well. The Diablo not suprisingly isn't really. I remember thinking how much more I enjoyed driving an Esprit or many other cars over the Diablo.
Then today I again drove an Esprit and it just served to remind me how bad the Diablo was. That prompted me to go through my car history and start thinking which cars were great driver's cars and chuckable and which weren't. To me it's very important to be chuckable. If it just looks amazing but doesn't drive that way, it's a bit of a poser in my opinion. Anything can go fast in a straight line and anybody can drive fast in a straight line.
So I decided to share my opinions on the cars I have driven and also ask people to post theirs. Basically chuckable or not chuckable. But let's keep it limited to rear engined sport cars. Either mid rear engine or rear engine. And let's keep hot hatches and other similar things out. So basically only supercars and sports cars.
My take:
Lamborghini Diablo- not chuckable
Lotus Esprit Turbo-very chuckable. Esprit V8 not as good.
Lotus Exige-very chuckable
Renault Alpine GTA A610-OK but more like a GT. But suprisingly ok. I thought it would be actually bad and was surprised.
Ferrai 348- chuckable
Ferrari Testarossa- not chuckable
Audi R8- chuckable but somehow meh.
Detomaso Pantera- hmmm.
Vaxuhall VX220/Opel Speedster- very chuckable (not surprisingly as it's basically an Elise/Exige with a different body).
Pontiac Fiero- very chuckable. Drove 2. One had a swapped V6 and it was a gokart! The other had a V8 and like the Esprit it wasn't as good as the one with the smaller engine.
Alfa 4C- very chuckable
Honda NSX- chuckable
Lamborghini Galardo- meh.
KTM Xbow-very chuckable.
Porsche Cayman- very chuckable. This is what I have now. A Cayman. It's chuckable for sure. But somewhat lacks something. I like an Esprit, 4C, Exige or VX220/Speedster better in many ways. Even the Fiero had more of a racing car feel. Maybe the Cayman is too refined. I'm really considering switching to a 4C next year. Only thing holding me back is it doesn't come with a stick. Only flappy paddles. Maybe I will come around and make peace with that. But I doubt it.
Not surprisingly larger cars or with bigger engines felt less sporty and more 1/4 mile types. I have the impression new supercars might be a lot more chuckable than older ones even when V12 and heavy because of computer aids. But I tend to try driving more analog or older cars than newer ones.
By the way, I only listed new-ish cars. I have driven several other mid engine classics. But not much point as the ride will surelly be dated and most are not really what I would call chuckable.
Would love to hear others' experiences.
As a car lover, I like most from my generation grew up with a Lamborghini Diablo poster on my wall. Sure the Countach was also cool and today it is actually cooler than the Diablo. But at the time the Diablo was the car of the hour.
A couple of months ago I finally had the opportunuty to drive a Diablo. I don't have to go into details about how much I looked forward to it once the opportunity presented itself. But oh boy, do I wish I hadn't driven it. I had read about it and also about the Countach and Lambos in general. But to feel it in the flesh was a slap on the face.
Once you get over that it's a Lambo and there is a V12 behind you, the driving itself is really not what I would call, well, all that. I'm sure this is a to each his own type of thing. But to me a sports car and specially a supercar always meant a racing car for the streets. The Diaglo is nothing like that. I have driven different types of racing cars. From formula types to sports car racing. The Diablo reminded more of a 96 Viper GTS or C4 Corvette than of a racing car. Definitely nothing like a F1 or similar, which is again what I and many think when you see a supercar. A F1 with a body over.
Now, I know the Corvette and Viper are front engined and totally different. But what I mean is, they are fast and go hard, as long as it's a straight line.
To me sports cars need to be tossable/chuckable/handle well. The Diablo not suprisingly isn't really. I remember thinking how much more I enjoyed driving an Esprit or many other cars over the Diablo.
Then today I again drove an Esprit and it just served to remind me how bad the Diablo was. That prompted me to go through my car history and start thinking which cars were great driver's cars and chuckable and which weren't. To me it's very important to be chuckable. If it just looks amazing but doesn't drive that way, it's a bit of a poser in my opinion. Anything can go fast in a straight line and anybody can drive fast in a straight line.
So I decided to share my opinions on the cars I have driven and also ask people to post theirs. Basically chuckable or not chuckable. But let's keep it limited to rear engined sport cars. Either mid rear engine or rear engine. And let's keep hot hatches and other similar things out. So basically only supercars and sports cars.
My take:
Lamborghini Diablo- not chuckable
Lotus Esprit Turbo-very chuckable. Esprit V8 not as good.
Lotus Exige-very chuckable
Renault Alpine GTA A610-OK but more like a GT. But suprisingly ok. I thought it would be actually bad and was surprised.
Ferrai 348- chuckable
Ferrari Testarossa- not chuckable
Audi R8- chuckable but somehow meh.
Detomaso Pantera- hmmm.
Vaxuhall VX220/Opel Speedster- very chuckable (not surprisingly as it's basically an Elise/Exige with a different body).
Pontiac Fiero- very chuckable. Drove 2. One had a swapped V6 and it was a gokart! The other had a V8 and like the Esprit it wasn't as good as the one with the smaller engine.
Alfa 4C- very chuckable
Honda NSX- chuckable
Lamborghini Galardo- meh.
KTM Xbow-very chuckable.
Porsche Cayman- very chuckable. This is what I have now. A Cayman. It's chuckable for sure. But somewhat lacks something. I like an Esprit, 4C, Exige or VX220/Speedster better in many ways. Even the Fiero had more of a racing car feel. Maybe the Cayman is too refined. I'm really considering switching to a 4C next year. Only thing holding me back is it doesn't come with a stick. Only flappy paddles. Maybe I will come around and make peace with that. But I doubt it.
Not surprisingly larger cars or with bigger engines felt less sporty and more 1/4 mile types. I have the impression new supercars might be a lot more chuckable than older ones even when V12 and heavy because of computer aids. But I tend to try driving more analog or older cars than newer ones.
By the way, I only listed new-ish cars. I have driven several other mid engine classics. But not much point as the ride will surelly be dated and most are not really what I would call chuckable.
Would love to hear others' experiences.
Edited by Mickeym on Sunday 26th November 22:50
Edited by Mickeym on Sunday 26th November 23:07
Edited by Mickeym on Wednesday 8th January 10:59
k you're asking.Hehehe, and here I was thinking I was using a familiar word because it seems pretty trendy with auto vloggers and reviewers. It has to do with hadling and how the car behaves taking a curve. How placeable it is etc. Is it a car for the bends or just a straight line monster? Extreme example, a Lotus Elise is very tossable, a 1970 Cadillac definitely not. 
Doofus said:
Let's not get into the fact that he says he's only listed newish cars, but included the Alpine A310, DeTomaso Pantera and Ferrari 348...
Oh, and the Lamborghini Diablo.
Well, by new-ish I meant not something from the 60's or 70's. Oldest I listed is late 80's, which I think doesn't have to have a dated ride. Give me a F40 any day over anything from today. It's a 1987 car. The Pantera was the Pantera Si, from the 90's. 348 is also 90's. The Alpina was a typo It was A610 and GTA. So also 90's. I will correct it on the OP.Oh, and the Lamborghini Diablo.
I guess newish depends on how old you are. If you are 15 years old, 90's is ancient. If you are in your 40's not really.
Chuckable / the ability to change direction / to balance on the edge of grip
IME it's very rare to find a car over 1250kg that is fun.
Obviously the best cars in this regard are Caterfields
The best mainstream car in this regard is the MX5
Supercars have been irrelevant for over 20 years - when standard cars can top 150mph and you get a ban at 100, air travel is cheap... no one crosses continents in Supercars at 150+ they are merely status symbols
IME it's very rare to find a car over 1250kg that is fun.
Obviously the best cars in this regard are Caterfields
The best mainstream car in this regard is the MX5
Supercars have been irrelevant for over 20 years - when standard cars can top 150mph and you get a ban at 100, air travel is cheap... no one crosses continents in Supercars at 150+ they are merely status symbols
Mickeym said:
This thread was inspired by what you could call one of those never meet your heroes experiences.
As a car lover, I like most from my generation grew up with a Lamborghini Diablo poster on my wall. Sure the Countach was also cool and today it is actually cooler than the Diablo. But at the time the Diablo was the car of the hour.
A couple of months ago I finally had the opportunuty to drive a Diablo. I don't have to go into details about how much I looked forward to it once the opportunity presented itself. But oh boy, do I wish I hadn't driven it. I had read about it and also about the Countach and Lambos in general. But to feel it in the flesh was a slap on the face.
Once you get over that it's a Lambo and there is a V12 behind you, the driving itself is really not what I would call, well, all that. I'm sure this is a to each his own type of thing. But to me a sports car and specially a supercar always meant a racing car for the streets. The Diaglo is nothing like that. I have driven different types of racing cars. From formula types to sports car racing. The Diablo reminded more of a 96 Viper GTS or C4 Corvette than of a racing car. Definitely nothing like a F1 or similar, which is again what I and many think when you see a supercar. A F1 with a body over.
Now, I know the Corvette and Viper are front engined and totally different. But what I mean is, they are fast and go hard, as long as it's a straight line.
To me sports cars need to be chuckable. The Diablo not suprisingly isn't really. I remember thinking how much more I enjoyed driving an Esprit or many other cars over the Diablo.
Then today I again drove an Esprit and it just served to remind me how bad the Diablo was. That prompted me to go through my car history and start thinking which cars were great driver's cars and chuckable and which weren't. To me it's very important to be chuckable. If it just looks amazing but doesn't drive that way, it's a bit of a poser in my opinion. Anything can go fast in a straight line and anybody can drive fast in a straight line.
So I decided to share my opinions on the cars I have driven and also ask people to post theirs. Basically chuckable or not chuckable. But let's keep it limited to rear engined sport cars. Either mid rear engine or rear engine. And let's keep hot hatches and other similar things out. So basically only supercars and sports cars.
My take:
Lamborghini Diablo- not chuckable
Lotus Esprit Turbo-very chuckable. Esprit V8 not as good.
Lotus Exige-very chuckable
Renault Alpine A310-OK but more like a GT. But suprisingly ok. I thought it would be actually bad and was surprised.
Ferrai 348- chuckable
Ferrari Testarossa- not chuckable
Audi R8- chuckable but somehow meh.
Detomaso Pantera- not chuckable.
Vaxuhall VX220/Opel Speedster- very chuckable (not surprsingly as it's basically an Elise/Exige with a different body).
Pontiac Fiero- very chuckable. Drove 2. One had a swapped V6 and it was a gokart! The other had a V8 and like the Esprit it wasn't as good as the one with the smaller engine.
Alfa 4C- very chuckable
Honda NSX- chuckable
Lamborghini Galardo- meh.
KTM Xbow-very chuckable.
Porsche Cayman- very chuckable. This is what I have now. A Cayman. It's chuckable for sure. But somewhat lacks something. I like an Esprit, 4C, Exige or VX220/Speedster better in many ways. Even the Fiero had more of a racing car feel. Maybe the Cayman is too refined or too GT-ish. I'm really considering switching to a 4C next year. Only thing holding me back is it doesn't come with a stick. Only flappy paddles. Maybe I will come around and make peace with that. But I doubt it.
Not suprisingly larger cars or with bigger engines felt less sporty and more 1/4 mile types. I have the impression new supercars might be a lot more chuckable than older ones even when V12 and heavy because of computer aids. But I tend to try driving more analog or older cars than newer ones.
By the way, I only listed new-ish cars. I have driven several other mid engine classics. But not much point as the ride will surelly be dated and most are not really what I would call chuckable.
Would love to hear others' experiences.
Better?As a car lover, I like most from my generation grew up with a Lamborghini Diablo poster on my wall. Sure the Countach was also cool and today it is actually cooler than the Diablo. But at the time the Diablo was the car of the hour.
A couple of months ago I finally had the opportunuty to drive a Diablo. I don't have to go into details about how much I looked forward to it once the opportunity presented itself. But oh boy, do I wish I hadn't driven it. I had read about it and also about the Countach and Lambos in general. But to feel it in the flesh was a slap on the face.
Once you get over that it's a Lambo and there is a V12 behind you, the driving itself is really not what I would call, well, all that. I'm sure this is a to each his own type of thing. But to me a sports car and specially a supercar always meant a racing car for the streets. The Diaglo is nothing like that. I have driven different types of racing cars. From formula types to sports car racing. The Diablo reminded more of a 96 Viper GTS or C4 Corvette than of a racing car. Definitely nothing like a F1 or similar, which is again what I and many think when you see a supercar. A F1 with a body over.
Now, I know the Corvette and Viper are front engined and totally different. But what I mean is, they are fast and go hard, as long as it's a straight line.
To me sports cars need to be chuckable. The Diablo not suprisingly isn't really. I remember thinking how much more I enjoyed driving an Esprit or many other cars over the Diablo.
Then today I again drove an Esprit and it just served to remind me how bad the Diablo was. That prompted me to go through my car history and start thinking which cars were great driver's cars and chuckable and which weren't. To me it's very important to be chuckable. If it just looks amazing but doesn't drive that way, it's a bit of a poser in my opinion. Anything can go fast in a straight line and anybody can drive fast in a straight line.
So I decided to share my opinions on the cars I have driven and also ask people to post theirs. Basically chuckable or not chuckable. But let's keep it limited to rear engined sport cars. Either mid rear engine or rear engine. And let's keep hot hatches and other similar things out. So basically only supercars and sports cars.
My take:
Lamborghini Diablo- not chuckable
Lotus Esprit Turbo-very chuckable. Esprit V8 not as good.
Lotus Exige-very chuckable
Renault Alpine A310-OK but more like a GT. But suprisingly ok. I thought it would be actually bad and was surprised.
Ferrai 348- chuckable
Ferrari Testarossa- not chuckable
Audi R8- chuckable but somehow meh.
Detomaso Pantera- not chuckable.
Vaxuhall VX220/Opel Speedster- very chuckable (not surprsingly as it's basically an Elise/Exige with a different body).
Pontiac Fiero- very chuckable. Drove 2. One had a swapped V6 and it was a gokart! The other had a V8 and like the Esprit it wasn't as good as the one with the smaller engine.
Alfa 4C- very chuckable
Honda NSX- chuckable
Lamborghini Galardo- meh.
KTM Xbow-very chuckable.
Porsche Cayman- very chuckable. This is what I have now. A Cayman. It's chuckable for sure. But somewhat lacks something. I like an Esprit, 4C, Exige or VX220/Speedster better in many ways. Even the Fiero had more of a racing car feel. Maybe the Cayman is too refined or too GT-ish. I'm really considering switching to a 4C next year. Only thing holding me back is it doesn't come with a stick. Only flappy paddles. Maybe I will come around and make peace with that. But I doubt it.
Not suprisingly larger cars or with bigger engines felt less sporty and more 1/4 mile types. I have the impression new supercars might be a lot more chuckable than older ones even when V12 and heavy because of computer aids. But I tend to try driving more analog or older cars than newer ones.
By the way, I only listed new-ish cars. I have driven several other mid engine classics. But not much point as the ride will surelly be dated and most are not really what I would call chuckable.
Would love to hear others' experiences.
Edit: it seems the discussion has moved on. That took bloody ages on my phone too!
Edited by TwyRob on Sunday 26th November 23:14
Mickeym said:
Actually it has not moved at all. Nobody has posted any of their own examples and opinions yet. So feel free.
That's because you listed some cars that were designed to be sports cars, and declared them 'tossable', and you listed some other crs that were designed to do something different, and declared them as 'not tossable'. I suspect nobody knows what you want from us.Of course an Exige is tossable. Of course a 4C is tossable. Of course a Testarossa isn't. It feels like one of those "What car should I buy" threads, where there will always be a reason to discount anyone else's suggestion because it doesn't meet a narrow and continually changing set of rules.
Doofus said:
. It feels like one of those "What car should I buy for my missus" threads, where there will always be a reason to discount anyone else's suggestion because it doesn't meet a narrow and continually changing set of rules.
FTFY 
Nothing like the diablo will be anything like chuckable on British roads.
Visibility too bad, car too wide, etc etc
Get a caterham or an elise. Or an SUV. Nowadays visibility on the roads is usually the limiting factor. So you either want something light so you can stop it in the short distance you can see, or you want an SUV so you can see over the hedges.
Edited by talksthetorque on Sunday 26th November 23:42
Edited by talksthetorque on Sunday 26th November 23:42
Doofus said:
That's because you listed some cars that were designed to be sports cars, and declared them 'tossable', and you listed some other crs that were designed to do something different, and declared them as 'not tossable'. I suspect nobody knows what you want from us.
Of course an Exige is tossable. Of course a 4C is tossable. Of course a Testarossa isn't. It feels like one of those "What car should I buy" threads, where there will always be a reason to discount anyone else's suggestion because it doesn't meet a narrow and continually changing set of rules.
Not at all. For example you could list the Diablo and say you found it tossable. Opinions may differe. Then maybe I would go into what version of the car you drove, on what (road or track) etc and we could have an actual conversation. This is the point of a discusssion.Of course an Exige is tossable. Of course a 4C is tossable. Of course a Testarossa isn't. It feels like one of those "What car should I buy" threads, where there will always be a reason to discount anyone else's suggestion because it doesn't meet a narrow and continually changing set of rules.
Like I said on my OP, it may be a case of to each his own. But I'm mainly interested in cars I haven't driven and what those who have driven it think as to tossable vs not tossable. This was more the point of the thread.
As for cars designed to be sports cars, I'm not sure anybody could say a Diablo was not designed to be a sports car. And while I wouldn't expect it to handle like an Elise, I would also not expect it to be so far from what it looks like.
Edited by Mickeym on Sunday 26th November 23:42
Mickeym said:
Yes, because listing cars in your profile proves that you have actually driven them let alone own them.
Perhaps you are better suited to your tossing vlog sites in that case. Here on PistonHeads, people actually like to drive the cars they proudly display on their profile, rather than discuss whether you toss off over somebody else's financed Audi R8 because he has 100 subscribers on Youtube.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff