The Most Fun Cars To Drive ?
Discussion
pbirkett said:
busta said:
jackal said:
busta said:
Another vote here for a 90s French hatch!
An extra 40hp and 100kgs lighter than standard only add to the fizzy, point and squirt fun. Really progressive grip levels and totally exploitable at any speed. Lit off slightly though any 30mph+ corner and it tightens into the apex wonderfully, breaking into smooth oversteer with a bit more provocation. You can throw it sideways through 100mph corners that would have M3 drivers chewing at their seat cushions and worrying about their tyre bill.
FWD and ultimately very one dimensional. An extra 40hp and 100kgs lighter than standard only add to the fizzy, point and squirt fun. Really progressive grip levels and totally exploitable at any speed. Lit off slightly though any 30mph+ corner and it tightens into the apex wonderfully, breaking into smooth oversteer with a bit more provocation. You can throw it sideways through 100mph corners that would have M3 drivers chewing at their seat cushions and worrying about their tyre bill.
Seriously though, that's a pretty bold statement to make about a car you've obviously never driven. Funnily enough it's not the first FWD car to be mentioned in this thread...
As for the one dimensional comment, I know where he is coming from. You simply get more options in a rwd due to the driving wheels being separate from the steering wheels. Sure you can do lift off oversteer in a fwd car, but you can do this AND power oversteer in a rwd, and in general, they are far more balanced, far more adjustable and more fun than fwd imo.
I will admit though that the 106 is one of the most fun fwd cars, but for me fwd simply can't compete with rwd for fun, all things being equal, imo.
I raced FWD for five years and now am on my second RWD racing car, so I've messed around with both layouts in terms of both setup and driving. However, I have to agree with everything pbirkett says above, and go one stage further too. The problem with FWD is that the aim of track or indeed road driving from a dynamic point of view is to balance oversteer and understeer. In a RWD car, the tools used to affect each side of this equation are not only more plentiful, as rightly pointed out above, they're also more balanced out on both sides. This is due to both power application and weight transfer. Weight transfer is more useable if the masses are balanced out in a car, which they clearly aren't in a FWD car (yes, even if you fold the seats flat
), and obviously power application and steering in a RWD car are done by opposite ends. RWD just gives you a lot more options. Also, the option of braking deep into a turn to balance a FWd car is available on track once you know the circuit well, but rarely if ever on the road, because most bends on the public road have unsighted exits. Before the usual people respond to that in the usual way, I should point out that I'm not commenting on which is faster (once off the line anyway...), or which is safer for Joe Bloggs on a wet B road, I'm merely commenting from personal experience of racing both and owning both for the road. However, the one thing FWD is good at is larking about on a track like Mallory Park, which explains the result from that test linked to above. If you asked me to throw caution to the wind or perhaps scare a random member of the public on a race track, I'd choose FWD every time because bigger angles of slide can be held and retrieved, and done so in greater safety, and cars like the 106 can be and are designed shorter than rear drive, so they tend to respond faster. If, however, you asked me which car I wanted to own and drive for satisfaction, on track and road, it would be rear drive every single time.
One final thing to mention is that Tim Harvey commented in that video that the 106 had "nothing wrong with it". Perhaps he was commenting on which car fullfilled its destiny best... (i.e. which car earns five stars in Evo, which is given relative to peers, not in absolute terms). With a fairly simple formula, like a FWD hot hatch, it's easier to get things right than a bigger heavier car like the 550 or M3. I agree that the 106 is probably better at being a hot hatch than the M3 was at being a fast saloon. I'd still rate the M3 as a better driver's car though.
From the cars I've driven I'd say an original live axle X-flow powered Lotus 7 or K-series powered Caterham though I suspect a tuned V8 powered 289 Cobra replica would have bettered either for drama (if only I'd managed to get my legs under the steering wheel) judging by my passenger ride.
Others would have to be my tuned twinport 1500 Beetle on budget tyres (especially in snow) and a N/A Citroen AX GT.
A car doesn't have to be fast, have great handling or road holding to be fun does it?
Others would have to be my tuned twinport 1500 Beetle on budget tyres (especially in snow) and a N/A Citroen AX GT.
A car doesn't have to be fast, have great handling or road holding to be fun does it?
Depends how you quantify fun. For sheer screaming white-knuckle adrenaline it'd probably have to be a Caterham. I can imagine a mid-engined BEC like a Mev Atomic or Sylva R1OT being even better, but I've never had the pleasure...
For an all-round combination of performance, dynamics and sense of occasion (and noise!) it'd have to be a TVR of some description. Although it didn't have the same grunt as the V8s my S3 was more chuckable than the Chims I've driven and arguably sounded better so I'd probably go for that out of my own experience.
In outright terms I'd probably go for the Atom 2, but I think they're still somewhat north of the £15k limit mentioned.
For an all-round combination of performance, dynamics and sense of occasion (and noise!) it'd have to be a TVR of some description. Although it didn't have the same grunt as the V8s my S3 was more chuckable than the Chims I've driven and arguably sounded better so I'd probably go for that out of my own experience.
In outright terms I'd probably go for the Atom 2, but I think they're still somewhat north of the £15k limit mentioned.
From what I've driven that falls in line with the criteria I would choose the Diesel (yes, you heard me) Ford Focus I used to own. It was slightly moddified so I had more power and more grip than standard but....for feel, it was excellent. Everything just seemed right. On b roads it was just so chuckable, despite its bulk it felt light on its toes. Even on roads I didnt know it gave me the confidence to put my toe down and just throw it into the bends. I didnt have to be a good driver to drive it quick.
The current puma is pretty good but the brakes are abit crap, once I get them sorted I'm hoping it will be more of the same but with that lovely, revvy 1.7 petrol rather than torqy diesel.
The MX-5 was terrific but I got cocky with it and binned it, not entirly my own fault but once out of line I was not good enough to bring it back. Hence my preference for FWD, easier for less abled drivers like myself to have fun in. Got to admit though, when you get it right with a RWD car it feels sooo good! I think I shall just wait till I have a few more years under my belt before I delve into rear drivers agaian.
Would love to have ago in a 106 GTI, friend of mine who has experiance with far more cars than I and is pretty talented often says they are the best handling car hes ever driven.
The current puma is pretty good but the brakes are abit crap, once I get them sorted I'm hoping it will be more of the same but with that lovely, revvy 1.7 petrol rather than torqy diesel.
The MX-5 was terrific but I got cocky with it and binned it, not entirly my own fault but once out of line I was not good enough to bring it back. Hence my preference for FWD, easier for less abled drivers like myself to have fun in. Got to admit though, when you get it right with a RWD car it feels sooo good! I think I shall just wait till I have a few more years under my belt before I delve into rear drivers agaian.
Would love to have ago in a 106 GTI, friend of mine who has experiance with far more cars than I and is pretty talented often says they are the best handling car hes ever driven.
RobM77 said:
pbirkett said:
busta said:
jackal said:
busta said:
Another vote here for a 90s French hatch!
An extra 40hp and 100kgs lighter than standard only add to the fizzy, point and squirt fun. Really progressive grip levels and totally exploitable at any speed. Lit off slightly though any 30mph+ corner and it tightens into the apex wonderfully, breaking into smooth oversteer with a bit more provocation. You can throw it sideways through 100mph corners that would have M3 drivers chewing at their seat cushions and worrying about their tyre bill.
FWD and ultimately very one dimensional. An extra 40hp and 100kgs lighter than standard only add to the fizzy, point and squirt fun. Really progressive grip levels and totally exploitable at any speed. Lit off slightly though any 30mph+ corner and it tightens into the apex wonderfully, breaking into smooth oversteer with a bit more provocation. You can throw it sideways through 100mph corners that would have M3 drivers chewing at their seat cushions and worrying about their tyre bill.
Seriously though, that's a pretty bold statement to make about a car you've obviously never driven. Funnily enough it's not the first FWD car to be mentioned in this thread...
As for the one dimensional comment, I know where he is coming from. You simply get more options in a rwd due to the driving wheels being separate from the steering wheels. Sure you can do lift off oversteer in a fwd car, but you can do this AND power oversteer in a rwd, and in general, they are far more balanced, far more adjustable and more fun than fwd imo.
I will admit though that the 106 is one of the most fun fwd cars, but for me fwd simply can't compete with rwd for fun, all things being equal, imo.
I raced FWD for five years and now am on my second RWD racing car, so I've messed around with both layouts in terms of both setup and driving. However, I have to agree with everything pbirkett says above, and go one stage further too. The problem with FWD is that the aim of track or indeed road driving from a dynamic point of view is to balance oversteer and understeer. In a RWD car, the tools used to affect each side of this equation are not only more plentiful, as rightly pointed out above, they're also more balanced out on both sides. This is due to both power application and weight transfer. Weight transfer is more useable if the masses are balanced out in a car, which they clearly aren't in a FWD car (yes, even if you fold the seats flat
), and obviously power application and steering in a RWD car are done by opposite ends. RWD just gives you a lot more options. Also, the option of braking deep into a turn to balance a FWd car is available on track once you know the circuit well, but rarely if ever on the road, because most bends on the public road have unsighted exits. Before the usual people respond to that in the usual way, I should point out that I'm not commenting on which is faster (once off the line anyway...), or which is safer for Joe Bloggs on a wet B road, I'm merely commenting from personal experience of racing both and owning both for the road. However, the one thing FWD is good at is larking about on a track like Mallory Park, which explains the result from that test linked to above. If you asked me to throw caution to the wind or perhaps scare a random member of the public on a race track, I'd choose FWD every time because bigger angles of slide can be held and retrieved, and done so in greater safety, and cars like the 106 can be and are designed shorter than rear drive, so they tend to respond faster. If, however, you asked me which car I wanted to own and drive for satisfaction, on track and road, it would be rear drive every single time.
One final thing to mention is that Tim Harvey commented in that video that the 106 had "nothing wrong with it". Perhaps he was commenting on which car fullfilled its destiny best... (i.e. which car earns five stars in Evo, which is given relative to peers, not in absolute terms). With a fairly simple formula, like a FWD hot hatch, it's easier to get things right than a bigger heavier car like the 550 or M3. I agree that the 106 is probably better at being a hot hatch than the M3 was at being a fast saloon. I'd still rate the M3 as a better driver's car though.
The 106 Rallye has a non-PAS steering system with (I think) a quicker rack than the GTI, it has bags more feel (the GTI/VTS is actually pretty feel free) and that makes a huge difference.
Agree, RWD is better and it's the one I'd choose but in terms of pure light hearted fun the little French stuff is rather good. Driving anywhere near the limit on the road isn't a great idea in any car but it's bloody good fun in a FWD hatch as opposed to sodding terrifying in an M3
CampDavid said:
RobM77 said:
pbirkett said:
busta said:
jackal said:
busta said:
Another vote here for a 90s French hatch!
An extra 40hp and 100kgs lighter than standard only add to the fizzy, point and squirt fun. Really progressive grip levels and totally exploitable at any speed. Lit off slightly though any 30mph+ corner and it tightens into the apex wonderfully, breaking into smooth oversteer with a bit more provocation. You can throw it sideways through 100mph corners that would have M3 drivers chewing at their seat cushions and worrying about their tyre bill.
FWD and ultimately very one dimensional. An extra 40hp and 100kgs lighter than standard only add to the fizzy, point and squirt fun. Really progressive grip levels and totally exploitable at any speed. Lit off slightly though any 30mph+ corner and it tightens into the apex wonderfully, breaking into smooth oversteer with a bit more provocation. You can throw it sideways through 100mph corners that would have M3 drivers chewing at their seat cushions and worrying about their tyre bill.
Seriously though, that's a pretty bold statement to make about a car you've obviously never driven. Funnily enough it's not the first FWD car to be mentioned in this thread...
As for the one dimensional comment, I know where he is coming from. You simply get more options in a rwd due to the driving wheels being separate from the steering wheels. Sure you can do lift off oversteer in a fwd car, but you can do this AND power oversteer in a rwd, and in general, they are far more balanced, far more adjustable and more fun than fwd imo.
I will admit though that the 106 is one of the most fun fwd cars, but for me fwd simply can't compete with rwd for fun, all things being equal, imo.
I raced FWD for five years and now am on my second RWD racing car, so I've messed around with both layouts in terms of both setup and driving. However, I have to agree with everything pbirkett says above, and go one stage further too. The problem with FWD is that the aim of track or indeed road driving from a dynamic point of view is to balance oversteer and understeer. In a RWD car, the tools used to affect each side of this equation are not only more plentiful, as rightly pointed out above, they're also more balanced out on both sides. This is due to both power application and weight transfer. Weight transfer is more useable if the masses are balanced out in a car, which they clearly aren't in a FWD car (yes, even if you fold the seats flat
), and obviously power application and steering in a RWD car are done by opposite ends. RWD just gives you a lot more options. Also, the option of braking deep into a turn to balance a FWd car is available on track once you know the circuit well, but rarely if ever on the road, because most bends on the public road have unsighted exits. Before the usual people respond to that in the usual way, I should point out that I'm not commenting on which is faster (once off the line anyway...), or which is safer for Joe Bloggs on a wet B road, I'm merely commenting from personal experience of racing both and owning both for the road. However, the one thing FWD is good at is larking about on a track like Mallory Park, which explains the result from that test linked to above. If you asked me to throw caution to the wind or perhaps scare a random member of the public on a race track, I'd choose FWD every time because bigger angles of slide can be held and retrieved, and done so in greater safety, and cars like the 106 can be and are designed shorter than rear drive, so they tend to respond faster. If, however, you asked me which car I wanted to own and drive for satisfaction, on track and road, it would be rear drive every single time.
One final thing to mention is that Tim Harvey commented in that video that the 106 had "nothing wrong with it". Perhaps he was commenting on which car fullfilled its destiny best... (i.e. which car earns five stars in Evo, which is given relative to peers, not in absolute terms). With a fairly simple formula, like a FWD hot hatch, it's easier to get things right than a bigger heavier car like the 550 or M3. I agree that the 106 is probably better at being a hot hatch than the M3 was at being a fast saloon. I'd still rate the M3 as a better driver's car though.
The 106 Rallye has a non-PAS steering system with (I think) a quicker rack than the GTI, it has bags more feel (the GTI/VTS is actually pretty feel free) and that makes a huge difference.
Agree, RWD is better and it's the one I'd choose but in terms of pure light hearted fun the little French stuff is rather good. Driving anywhere near the limit on the road isn't a great idea in any car but it's bloody good fun in a FWD hatch as opposed to sodding terrifying in an M3
I also adore little hot hatches, preferably French stuff (I find German hot hatches too grown up and stable for my tastes). I toyed with getting a Clio recently in fact. They are indeed huge fun. I'm sure I'll buy a 205 or 106 or something similar in the future for some fun.Regarding your last comment, I agree that lower limits can often be more fun than high limits, especially with cars of late which seem to go for performance rather than enjoyment, but even if you never go near the limit, it's balance that's key to a satisfying and fun drive for me and I find that FWD requires one to commit to corner entry all the time, which is not usually possible on the road. I would say that committing to a blind corner entry at a lowly 30mph in a 106 GTi is far more dangerous than balancing an M3 on the limit from apex to exit at 45mph out of the same corner - purely because a hazard one hasn't seen is far more likely to cause an accident than losing control of a car driven at the limit in aroad you've already observed to be clear, at least for me anyway.
RobM77 said:
I would say that committing to a blind corner entry at a lowly 30mph in a 106 GTi is far more dangerous than balancing an M3 on the limit from apex to exit at 45mph out of the same corner - purely because a hazard one hasn't seen is far more likely to cause an accident than losing control of a car driven at the limit in aroad you've already observed to be clear, at least for me anyway.
Sorry but run that by me again. Driving around a blind corner at 30mph is more dangerous than 45mph around a corner that you have observed is clear? Well, yes. Why would he M3 have better visibility than any other car though?Are you suggesting an M3 can take a corner at 45mph that a 106 could only take at 30mph? I have no doubt an M3 can corner faster, but not 50% faster! I've been on enough track days to know that much.
And what has any of this got to do with fun?
I owned a lovely white AX GT a while back , was loads of fun , H68 CSP where are you now?
Also my brother in laws Lotus Elise in norfolk mustard , screaming engine behind you and go kart steering plus all the smiles i used to attract when i drove it , pity about the wet seats in the winter .
Loved my old Astra Gtes , biggest surprise goes to a lowly Ford Focus Estate with a boggo zetec engine , what a hoot that was to drive around central Scotland in.
I love my Type r though , you can drive it sensibly or go nuts and it revels in being thrapped.
Also my brother in laws Lotus Elise in norfolk mustard , screaming engine behind you and go kart steering plus all the smiles i used to attract when i drove it , pity about the wet seats in the winter .
Loved my old Astra Gtes , biggest surprise goes to a lowly Ford Focus Estate with a boggo zetec engine , what a hoot that was to drive around central Scotland in.
I love my Type r though , you can drive it sensibly or go nuts and it revels in being thrapped.
The Lukas said:
Sline said:
Bellow 15k TVR Tuscan hands down!!!
15k would get a superb TVRIn answer to the OP's question - Tuscan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What else is about in the 15k bracket that comes even close. Every drive is a moment to savour. Closley followed by Chimaera!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am not biased at all
te but there's no substitute for piling your mates in the back and milling off for a trip to the beach...or losing your V plates in one. supersingle said:
iAlex said:
All very interesting but can we not accept that neither the 106 or the VTS are the 'most fun' cars to drive in that price bracket and move on?
Erm... What would you suggest then? Given that they go for less than £2k. Don't say mx5!
busta said:
jackal said:
busta said:
Another vote here for a 90s French hatch!
An extra 40hp and 100kgs lighter than standard only add to the fizzy, point and squirt fun. Really progressive grip levels and totally exploitable at any speed. Lit off slightly though any 30mph+ corner and it tightens into the apex wonderfully, breaking into smooth oversteer with a bit more provocation. You can throw it sideways through 100mph corners that would have M3 drivers chewing at their seat cushions and worrying about their tyre bill.
FWD and ultimately very one dimensional. An extra 40hp and 100kgs lighter than standard only add to the fizzy, point and squirt fun. Really progressive grip levels and totally exploitable at any speed. Lit off slightly though any 30mph+ corner and it tightens into the apex wonderfully, breaking into smooth oversteer with a bit more provocation. You can throw it sideways through 100mph corners that would have M3 drivers chewing at their seat cushions and worrying about their tyre bill.
Seriously though, that's a pretty bold statement to make about a car you've obviously never driven. Funnily enough it's not the first FWD car to be mentioned in this thread...
They are good fun no doubt about it and the braking potential is pretty stunning by any standards. The handling is very benign, very playable and fun in that FWD kinda way and they are very agile, nimble and chuckable.
But there's no challenge, nothing to master or 'wield' and when all is said and done, its just a cheap french hatch with a tiny little 4 pot in it. They are cute don't get me wrong but there is nothing really about the looks, the interior, the build quality, the way they are made or the design philisophy or engineering under the skin that is especially enthralling or captivating. Its all these things that make them one dimensional.
With something like the caterham or elise you get a whole expanded repertoire with them being RWD. You also get some very serious heritage, sense of occasion and uniqueness. You get something that is quite magical, the thing that keeps people coming back to these cars again and again. Call it specialness but its the very opposite of what makes so many hot hatches like the 106 quite throwaway at the end of the day. The looks, the dash, the design, the way they are put together, the depth and richness of their histories .... these cars are three dimensional in every sense.
Of course by the time you've gotten to something like a GT3 or a 993 you are now experiencing 4d vision. You have RWD, the specialness, the uniqueness, the prestige and heritage .. but then you also have build quality, proper engineering, a world class engine, a properly engineered performance car rather than a kit assembled from the raided ford/toyota parts bin, a vehicle so overbrimming with desireability and collectability that it's appreciating in value every time you drive it. And to cap it all, you have a driving experience that is enriched and matured and deepened with more even layers, more complexity, more challenge and ultimately a more purer and satisfying engagement of man and machine.
kiwifraser said:
mat13 said:
Anything from a hire company in spain.
Except the Skoda Roomster 1.4 diesel we picked up in Alicante last week 
We usually get a ford fiesta or nissan note or something else as exciting!MGZRod said:
kiwifraser said:
mat13 said:
Anything from a hire company in spain.
Except the Skoda Roomster 1.4 diesel we picked up in Alicante last week We usually get a ford fiesta or nissan note or something else as exciting!Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff