RE: The best sports cars to buy in 2020

RE: The best sports cars to buy in 2020

Author
Discussion

SidewaysSi

7,857 posts

192 months

Saturday 17th October
quotequote all
Sod the crap cars, where's the party?

braddo

7,194 posts

146 months

Saturday 17th October
quotequote all
ddom said:
Good post.

I have driven a few variants of MX5, none of them IMO were very good. It's a facsimile of something that was. It apes cars like the Sprite, MG, TR's but for me totally misses the point. It's not speed it's character, which is where all but Honda fall over.
Those old cars you mention are rubbish to drive compared to any mx5.

They can be tweaked into something vaguely acceptable, but they’re all (at the time they were made!!) old tech, slow and built to a low budget usually putting looks and a bit of basic fun over pure performance.

I can’t see any reason to call those st old cars sports cars while excluding MX5s from the same definition. confused

Mr Tidy

12,351 posts

85 months

Sunday 18th October
quotequote all
braddo said:
ddom said:
Good post.

I have driven a few variants of MX5, none of them IMO were very good. It's a facsimile of something that was. It apes cars like the Sprite, MG, TR's but for me totally misses the point. It's not speed it's character, which is where all but Honda fall over.
Those old cars you mention are rubbish to drive compared to any mx5.

They can be tweaked into something vaguely acceptable, but they’re all (at the time they were made!!) old tech, slow and built to a low budget usually putting looks and a bit of basic fun over pure performance.

I can’t see any reason to call those st old cars sports cars while excluding MX5s from the same definition. confused
I was thinking the same - I thought the MX5 was loosely copied from the Lotus Elan with it's twin-cam engine and all-round disc brakes.

Rather than the antiquated BMC/BLMC offerings with push-rod engines and rear drum brakes that were dated in the 60s!

pycraft

149 posts

142 months

Sunday 18th October
quotequote all
dinkel said:
And yes, an MX-5 is of course a sports car.
I'm astonished no-one's cited the definitive authority on this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3MhS_TzPbA

cerb4.5lee

16,435 posts

138 months

Sunday 18th October
quotequote all
I was always in the MX-5 is a 2 seat convertible rather than a sports car camp, but the current one does actually have decent performance which in my mind now makes it sporty.

I had one of the older MX-5's try to out drag me when I had the E92 M3...god knows what he was thinking was going to happen! After that I always thought that the MX-5 looked sporty but they certainly don't go sporty. All mouth and no trousers if you like, and if a car looks sporty it should go sporty for me.

baconsarney

9,936 posts

119 months

Sunday 18th October
quotequote all
cerb4.5lee said:
I was always in the MX-5 is a 2 seat convertible rather than a sports car camp, but the current one does actually have decent performance which in my mind now makes it sporty.

I had one of the older MX-5's try to out drag me when I had the E92 M3...god knows what he was thinking was going to happen! After that I always thought that the MX-5 looked sporty but they certainly don't go sporty. All mouth and no trousers if you like, and if a car looks sporty it should go sporty for me.
Lee, are you suggesting an E92 M3 is a sports car? Or that anything slower can't be?
wink

ddom

1,863 posts

6 months

Sunday 18th October
quotequote all
cerb4.5lee said:
I was always in the MX-5 is a 2 seat convertible rather than a sports car camp, but the current one does actually have decent performance which in my mind now makes it sporty.

I had one of the older MX-5's try to out drag me when I had the E92 M3...god knows what he was thinking was going to happen! After that I always thought that the MX-5 looked sporty but they certainly don't go sporty. All mouth and no trousers if you like, and if a car looks sporty it should go sporty for me.
yes

Apart from being slow they have no character whatsoever. It’’s a bit like a Rolex homage, they look ok and you get the same basic sensations but it’s just a clone. That’s the biggest problem and why the ‘st old cars’ are better in every way for me.


cerb4.5lee

16,435 posts

138 months

Sunday 18th October
quotequote all
baconsarney said:
Lee, are you suggesting an E92 M3 is a sports car? Or that anything slower can't be?
wink
God no! biggrin

The E92 M3 is definitely not a sports car and it isn't even a very quick performance car either(it needs a turbo for that). I just mean't that if a car looks quick(or sporty) it should be quick(sporty) that's all. smile

ddom

1,863 posts

6 months

Sunday 18th October
quotequote all
cerb4.5lee said:
God no! biggrin

The E92 M3 is definitely not a sports car and it isn't even a very quick performance car either(it needs a turbo for that). I just mean't that if a car looks quick(or sporty) it should be quick(sporty) that's all. smile
But it’s likely got character, and likely handles...so why not a sports car? Has more claim than the Mazda.

cerb4.5lee

16,435 posts

138 months

Sunday 18th October
quotequote all
ddom said:
But it’s likely got character, and likely handles...so why not a sports car? Has more claim than the Mazda.
The engine does have character I reckon, and it does handle well for sure(well I thought it did). It isn't a sports car for me though, and I'd class it as a sports coupe. It is more of a cruiser rather than a sports car to me.

otolith

42,470 posts

162 months

Sunday 18th October
quotequote all
I don’t like the VW Golf, therefore it is not a family hatchback.

CABC

3,642 posts

59 months

Sunday 18th October
quotequote all
i was looking to get a Caterham next. Better can that idea. clearly not a sports car.

cerb4.5lee

16,435 posts

138 months

Sunday 18th October
quotequote all
CABC said:
i was looking to get a Caterham next. Better can that idea. clearly not a sports car.
In my head that is pretty much the only sports car on sale for me. cool

Everything else is just playing at it I reckon. The Caterham is light/fast(most are anyway) and it doesn't even have a roof. A pure sports car to me. driving

Gad-Westy

10,527 posts

171 months

Sunday 18th October
quotequote all
I feel I might regret asking this but why does an MX5 not have character vs an M3? I certainly haven't driven them all but NA MX5's feel like they have plenty of character to me. Free revving engine, pop up headlights, nice steering, fun to drive, don't see the problem. I don't think they're trying to be anything else. Yeah, they don't break down very often but if that's your bag for defining character you can watch them rust in realtime which should keep you amused. Whether it's a sportscar or not, who gives a crap? Desperately pointless argument that has not and never will have a winner.


Edited by Gad-Westy on Sunday 18th October 11:22

CABC

3,642 posts

59 months

Sunday 18th October
quotequote all
cerb4.5lee said:
In my head that is pretty much the only sports car on sale for me. cool

Everything else is just playing at it I reckon. The Caterham is light/fast(most are anyway) and it doesn't even have a roof. A pure sports car to me. driving
they're really not very fast. 0-60 is ok merely because they're light and have superb 0-30.
once moving an M3 easily outdrags 80% of 7s.

on track, many 7s get overtaken on the straights by all sorts. The main reason they don't is that their exit speed was higher at the previous corner. a straight drag from something like 40mph sees them suffering.

i agree, a 7 is a sports car. i'm challenging the flawed notion that raw speed is in any way relevant. the world is full of point'n'squirt heroes, even on track, and these types probably aren't capable of appreciating a good chassis. hence comments about mx5s above. (Monkey is the exception of course. and in no way did he make controversial assessments for clicks...). As for old Triumphs et al, yes, they're sports cars. just crap ones.

cerb4.5lee

16,435 posts

138 months

Sunday 18th October
quotequote all
CABC said:
they're really not very fast. 0-60 is ok merely because they're light and have superb 0-30.
once moving an M3 easily outdrags 80% of 7s.
You do make a good point there, and I remember Clarkson's drag race with the Cerbera in it, and all the cars in that dropped the Caterham very quickly to be fair.

baconsarney

9,936 posts

119 months

Sunday 18th October
quotequote all
cerb4.5lee said:
CABC said:
they're really not very fast. 0-60 is ok merely because they're light and have superb 0-30.
once moving an M3 easily outdrags 80% of 7s.
You do make a good point there, and I remember Clarkson's drag race with the Cerbera in it, and all the cars in that dropped the Caterham very quickly to be fair.
Agreed, most Caterhams are the lesser specced (engine wise) cars, and comparing with an M3 in terms of outright acceleration isn't really apples for apples.... People buy the cars because they're huge fun even at relatively slow speeds... if the M3 is top of the range for the 3 series then maybe a Caterham 620r is a better comparison... 0-60 2.7 seconds and top speed 155 mph... wink

My first car when I was a yoof was a Lotus 7 smile


ddom

1,863 posts

6 months

Sunday 18th October
quotequote all
Conversely the best 7’s IME are those around 300hp/t more than that and the power dominates the drive and you lose all the benefits of a car with low weight and just enough grip. The M3 is just an Uber saloon, fantastic things though with the V8!

rockin

8,516 posts

203 months

Sunday 18th October
quotequote all
ddom said:
the ‘st old cars’ are better in every way for me.
Fortunately the vast majority of enthusiasts have a better understanding of what makes a good car and are able to appreciate the fantastic selection of excellent new sports cars available today.

rockin

8,516 posts

203 months

Sunday 18th October
quotequote all
CABC said:
I'm challenging the flawed notion that raw speed is in any way relevant. the world is full of point'n'squirt heroes, even on track, and these types probably aren't capable of appreciating a good chassis.
All very true IMO.