What am I getting wrong about sports cars?
Discussion
GeniusOfLove said:
ATM said:
Perfect for a rear engined Porsche. Have you tried a 911?
They are made for this. Their ability to grip under throttle exiting a bend is their party piece. You can apply way more throttle than you can in other cars as the weight over the rear axle means they will grip more. You can almost feel this digging in and gripping where you would expect another car to start to lose grip and maybe start to spin an inside wheel or be twitching towards a slide. You will also feel the weight shift rear as you apply throttle and the front will naturally straighten up without straightening the wheels as the rear end starts to decide where the car is going. Having the engine in the back makes them unique. It's all about rear end grip which means grip exiting a bend and also getting the power down off the line.
That sounds joyous when the goal with every new "performance" car is AWD point and stamp dynamics.They are made for this. Their ability to grip under throttle exiting a bend is their party piece. You can apply way more throttle than you can in other cars as the weight over the rear axle means they will grip more. You can almost feel this digging in and gripping where you would expect another car to start to lose grip and maybe start to spin an inside wheel or be twitching towards a slide. You will also feel the weight shift rear as you apply throttle and the front will naturally straighten up without straightening the wheels as the rear end starts to decide where the car is going. Having the engine in the back makes them unique. It's all about rear end grip which means grip exiting a bend and also getting the power down off the line.
Yes, "performance" AWD = no fun.
ATM said:
You will also feel the weight shift rear as you apply throttle and the front will naturally straighten up without straightening the wheels as the rear end starts to decide where the car is going.
In my brother-in-law’s case, the rear end had decided to visit a roadside tree sadly.
ATM said:
Perfect for a rear engined Porsche. Have you tried a 911?
They are made for this. Their ability to grip under throttle exiting a bend is their party piece. You can apply way more throttle than you can in other cars as the weight over the rear axle means they will grip more. You can almost feel this digging in and gripping where you would expect another car to start to lose grip and maybe start to spin an inside wheel or be twitching towards a slide. You will also feel the weight shift rear as you apply throttle and the front will naturally straighten up without straightening the wheels as the rear end starts to decide where the car is going. Having the engine in the back makes them unique. It's all about rear end grip which means grip exiting a bend and also getting the power down off the line.
Sounds good, but I'm wary of maintenance bills. But maybe there's no other way around it. I'll definitely try one out.They are made for this. Their ability to grip under throttle exiting a bend is their party piece. You can apply way more throttle than you can in other cars as the weight over the rear axle means they will grip more. You can almost feel this digging in and gripping where you would expect another car to start to lose grip and maybe start to spin an inside wheel or be twitching towards a slide. You will also feel the weight shift rear as you apply throttle and the front will naturally straighten up without straightening the wheels as the rear end starts to decide where the car is going. Having the engine in the back makes them unique. It's all about rear end grip which means grip exiting a bend and also getting the power down off the line.
turboLP said:
I'm "into" sports cars because I like the visuals, the sounds and I imagine that driving experience must be special. Most of what I know about sports and performance cars in general comes from Top Gear (and later Youtube). I have little real-world experience. And I wonder whether I have the wrong idea about sports cars.
I grew up in a European city where I didn't need a car and I wasn't interested in them. At some point in my mid-20s, I "got into" cars from rewatching Top Gear and notstalgia-playing Need For Speed, and what attracted me the most was engine sounds, followed by shapes.
I couldn't afford anything cool and focused on my career instead. But I spent YEARS watching sports cars on Youtube, lusting after Mustangs and Corvettes, gathering info and planning/thinking/dreaming which car I'd like and could realistically afford to own in future when I'm in a position to finally have one... while not owning ANY car at all.
I eventually started my journey by getting an old NB Miata (I hadn't driven any other cool car) and I loved specifically how much it felt like a REAL CAR compared to modern econohatches I had driven. It was slower, but it allowed me to FEEL speed. I loved how the steering wheel really FELT connected to the wheels, the gear shifter FELT connected to the gearbox, the 1.8 litre engine sounded bigger than in modern econohatches where you can barely even hear it, and I was sitting really low to the ground in the NB. I could rev it out in 2nd gear on a 30 MPH road in the city and FEEL like I'm going fast enough, getting all the sensations I EXPECT from a sports car -- with the exception of the V8 or other cool engine soundtrack. (I'm a huge fan of rock music and electric guitar, James Hetfield style, and somehow I see the connection with cool engine sounds - they both activate the same part of my brain).
I got out of my NB for a reason outside of my control, but I would've moved on sooner or later because I wanted something COOLER, more SPECIAL (the engine note in the NB wasn't very pleasant or exciting), more substantial and I couldn't stand the whole convertible thing, it felt too much like being in a tent, I'm not a top-less driver. Plus I could trade some of that feel and engine sound volume for a nicer cabin (no engine bay fumes, better window defogging), nicer/smoother engine note.
I thought: "this was a good start, a pretty visceral experience; I know newer cars will feel more substantial and I will feel more removed from the road, but they'll be great!". I tried ND Miata and GR86, in the city, and I was disappointed (moreso with the ND than the GR86).
ND felt pretty pedestrian, very econohatchbacky to me: I didn't care about the speed, I wasn't feeling connected to the car, it didn't ooze any specialness when inside (even if it's the hottest looking Miata on the outside).
GR86 had a vibe of "special", but it felt very artificial, not-real (as in: this is a computer game, not a real physical car) when driving withing the 30 MPH speed limit in the city. It was waking up when I pushed it over that for a brief moment, but that's unsustainable.
This [limited] experience made me seriously rethink my whole being "into" cars.
I'm into INTERACTING with the car rather than going fast (which, let's be honest, means going ABOVE speed limit) - which is contrary to what I hear from the vast majority of car enthusiast on the internet. I like to go over the speed limit sometimes, but I don't see this as a sustainable model, ie I'm going to live within the speed limit most of the time, so I focus on the kind of driving that can be had on busy roads and where I live (without having to drive an hour to find an empty driving road where I can speed). But it looks like I have UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS of sports cars. I expect them to FEEL SPECIAL while driving on normal roads. I expect to be entertained by the engagement, connectedness. But that seems to be not what modern [affordable] sports cars are geared towards. Maybe that's not what cars are actually about? Even journalists are saying that many cars have become less engaging to drive at lower speeds - and yet they still praise the ND and GR86, so that means that either engagement is not a function of a sports car, or I completely misunderstand engagement. So maybe I'm focusing on the WRONG aspect of driving a sports car? Maybe it's not about what I THINK it is about? What is it then?
Clearly I'm focusing on the wrong thing and just missing something very obvious. I do tend to see the world differently. So I'm trying to figure out what to do with all this; whether I'm some kind of wannabe who THINKS he's into cars but is in reality just maybe a brainwashed sheep or something? My enthusiasm for cars came from watching guys drive unobtainium on Top Gear instead of actually thrashing parents' econobox, afterall.
Perhaps you need to try a Caterham?I grew up in a European city where I didn't need a car and I wasn't interested in them. At some point in my mid-20s, I "got into" cars from rewatching Top Gear and notstalgia-playing Need For Speed, and what attracted me the most was engine sounds, followed by shapes.
I couldn't afford anything cool and focused on my career instead. But I spent YEARS watching sports cars on Youtube, lusting after Mustangs and Corvettes, gathering info and planning/thinking/dreaming which car I'd like and could realistically afford to own in future when I'm in a position to finally have one... while not owning ANY car at all.
I eventually started my journey by getting an old NB Miata (I hadn't driven any other cool car) and I loved specifically how much it felt like a REAL CAR compared to modern econohatches I had driven. It was slower, but it allowed me to FEEL speed. I loved how the steering wheel really FELT connected to the wheels, the gear shifter FELT connected to the gearbox, the 1.8 litre engine sounded bigger than in modern econohatches where you can barely even hear it, and I was sitting really low to the ground in the NB. I could rev it out in 2nd gear on a 30 MPH road in the city and FEEL like I'm going fast enough, getting all the sensations I EXPECT from a sports car -- with the exception of the V8 or other cool engine soundtrack. (I'm a huge fan of rock music and electric guitar, James Hetfield style, and somehow I see the connection with cool engine sounds - they both activate the same part of my brain).
I got out of my NB for a reason outside of my control, but I would've moved on sooner or later because I wanted something COOLER, more SPECIAL (the engine note in the NB wasn't very pleasant or exciting), more substantial and I couldn't stand the whole convertible thing, it felt too much like being in a tent, I'm not a top-less driver. Plus I could trade some of that feel and engine sound volume for a nicer cabin (no engine bay fumes, better window defogging), nicer/smoother engine note.
I thought: "this was a good start, a pretty visceral experience; I know newer cars will feel more substantial and I will feel more removed from the road, but they'll be great!". I tried ND Miata and GR86, in the city, and I was disappointed (moreso with the ND than the GR86).
ND felt pretty pedestrian, very econohatchbacky to me: I didn't care about the speed, I wasn't feeling connected to the car, it didn't ooze any specialness when inside (even if it's the hottest looking Miata on the outside).
GR86 had a vibe of "special", but it felt very artificial, not-real (as in: this is a computer game, not a real physical car) when driving withing the 30 MPH speed limit in the city. It was waking up when I pushed it over that for a brief moment, but that's unsustainable.
This [limited] experience made me seriously rethink my whole being "into" cars.
I'm into INTERACTING with the car rather than going fast (which, let's be honest, means going ABOVE speed limit) - which is contrary to what I hear from the vast majority of car enthusiast on the internet. I like to go over the speed limit sometimes, but I don't see this as a sustainable model, ie I'm going to live within the speed limit most of the time, so I focus on the kind of driving that can be had on busy roads and where I live (without having to drive an hour to find an empty driving road where I can speed). But it looks like I have UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS of sports cars. I expect them to FEEL SPECIAL while driving on normal roads. I expect to be entertained by the engagement, connectedness. But that seems to be not what modern [affordable] sports cars are geared towards. Maybe that's not what cars are actually about? Even journalists are saying that many cars have become less engaging to drive at lower speeds - and yet they still praise the ND and GR86, so that means that either engagement is not a function of a sports car, or I completely misunderstand engagement. So maybe I'm focusing on the WRONG aspect of driving a sports car? Maybe it's not about what I THINK it is about? What is it then?
Clearly I'm focusing on the wrong thing and just missing something very obvious. I do tend to see the world differently. So I'm trying to figure out what to do with all this; whether I'm some kind of wannabe who THINKS he's into cars but is in reality just maybe a brainwashed sheep or something? My enthusiasm for cars came from watching guys drive unobtainium on Top Gear instead of actually thrashing parents' econobox, afterall.
Edited by turboLP on Sunday 23 June 18:25
Pan Pan Pan said:
Perhaps you need to try a Caterham?
Nice try.turboLP said:
But things like Caterham are too hardcore for me - I kinda want to have my cake and eat it too: a car that I can drive like a normal car with a passenger, and that would be the reason that I won't go down the classic car route.
plenty said:
Nope. The market doesn't want rawness, not even for so-called drivers' cars. Most people see rawness as unwanted NVH. Emissions killed hydraulic steering. The average driver equates brake servo assistance with braking power, so most modern brake systems are over-servoed.
Just curious, why did emissions kill hydraulic steering? Surely electrical power is a draw on engine power = worse emissions, or is there a significant weight advantage?I thought electrical assisted was driven by space/packaging considerations
turboLP said:
Side-note: I actually kind of liked the engine note in the 1st gen 86, and the feel was alright (I'll have to drive it again, push a little more).
Plus, of course, you can get things like unequal length exhaust manifolds for the GT86 to make it sound more like an old school Impreza.Another option might be stumping up the cash for a VR6 engined Golf, they are already starting to fetch good money, but that will give you a sensible base car but with a more interesting powertrain than an i4 powered GTi.
The ideal solution is to have 2 cars, but that is not realistic for many of us for logistical reasons.
croyde said:
Get an Abarth. I did and enjoy driving again 
MX124 abarth 😜 , nice sound I think it’s a lot better looking than its MX cousin with a more interesting engine and power boost
I just wish I could fit in the seats. Boxtet is a good shout IMO. Or go proper vintage, TRx
its a boxster, all day long. nothing beats the crescendo of a naturally aspirated flat 6, its uniquely porsche, and its attainable even in the most basic early 2.5 model - so you can be flooring it everywhere, enjoying the noise and the roof down, without really breaking the speed limit. and, as an added bonus to the engine, you have wonderful mid engined porsche handling, wonderful hydraulic steering and a great ride from relatively small wheels and narrow tyres.
i wanted something with a little more poke for trackdays, so got an S but the base ingredients are the same.
its the best sportscar i've owned so far. NB mx5 was too slow, and too wallowy as standard, and its only a 4pot. Nissan 350z went well and sounded great, but too heavy to be a sportscar. BMW Z4 went well, sounded great from a straight 6, but was let down by electric steering.
i wanted something with a little more poke for trackdays, so got an S but the base ingredients are the same.
its the best sportscar i've owned so far. NB mx5 was too slow, and too wallowy as standard, and its only a 4pot. Nissan 350z went well and sounded great, but too heavy to be a sportscar. BMW Z4 went well, sounded great from a straight 6, but was let down by electric steering.
sparkyhx said:
plenty said:
Nope. The market doesn't want rawness, not even for so-called drivers' cars. Most people see rawness as unwanted NVH. Emissions killed hydraulic steering. The average driver equates brake servo assistance with braking power, so most modern brake systems are over-servoed.
Just curious, why did emissions kill hydraulic steering? Surely electrical power is a draw on engine power = worse emissions, or is there a significant weight advantage?I thought electrical assisted was driven by space/packaging considerations
sparkyhx said:
Just curious, why did emissions kill hydraulic steering? Surely electrical power is a draw on engine power = worse emissions, or is there a significant weight advantage?
Electric systems only draw power when they are providing assistance, while hydraulic systems put a permanent parasitic load on the engine.sparkyhx said:
plenty said:
Nope. The market doesn't want rawness, not even for so-called drivers' cars. Most people see rawness as unwanted NVH. Emissions killed hydraulic steering. The average driver equates brake servo assistance with braking power, so most modern brake systems are over-servoed.
Just curious, why did emissions kill hydraulic steering? Surely electrical power is a draw on engine power = worse emissions, or is there a significant weight advantage?I thought electrical assisted was driven by space/packaging considerations
Traditional hydraulic PAS required an additional belt/pulley to drive the pump, so adding additional parasitic losses to the engine.
There have been a few dalliances with electrically-powered hydraulic pumps (Mclaren most notably), but (probably for reasons of complexity/cost) they're pretty rare.
This is an interesting article...
https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a43730486...
I enjoyed my NB MX-5. Definitely a bit wallowy and ragged at 9/10 or 10/10, but so well judged as a usable "sports car". Friendly handling on the right tyres which you can use all year round, very supple ride compared with your average hot hatch and just great reliability. Also, being such a compact car by modern standards you can park it anywhere and thread it along the tigher lanes where wider cars like Boxsters start to feel a bit large. Main issue was rust. I wouldn't mind trying a MK3 MR2 next. Weighs only 975KG according to Autocar, with less wallowy handling than the MX-5 but still with Toyota reliability and running costs. I remember EVO really rating the last gen MR2 but they rare crop up in "best sports car" type features.
Truckosaurus said:
Plus, of course, you can get things like unequal length exhaust manifolds for the GT86 to make it sound more like an old school Impreza.
Another option might be stumping up the cash for a VR6 engined Golf, they are already starting to fetch good money, but that will give you a sensible base car but with a more interesting powertrain than an i4 powered GTi.
The ideal solution is to have 2 cars, but that is not realistic for many of us for logistical reasons.
That’s where the Porsche boxster/911 excels - a one car solution but it’s compromised on both fronts from the same attributes. Another option might be stumping up the cash for a VR6 engined Golf, they are already starting to fetch good money, but that will give you a sensible base car but with a more interesting powertrain than an i4 powered GTi.
The ideal solution is to have 2 cars, but that is not realistic for many of us for logistical reasons.
I swapped from two cars to a boxster as I documented earlier on this thread. Was perhaps just a bit too good that it didn’t offer me enough excitement but then the only solution was to revert back to two cars to fulfil each role. If logistics prevent two cars, the Porsches have to surely be the obvious choice.
HorneyMX5 said:
It was ours - as soon as she passed her driving test my wife nabbed the sports car slot by buying an MX-5, leaving me holding the practical car bag - a Civic Type-R at the time. So I chopped that in for an RX-8.When we moved somewhere with space to park three cars we added an Impreza estate, which meant I could change the RX-8 for an Elise.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff