What am I getting wrong about sports cars?
Discussion
Turbo LP,
I agree with much of what you said in your opening post. The idea of sports cars for me was originally optics. Thirty years ago when I was about 40 years old, I had friends with supercars, and I wanted one. My closest friend hid his Ferrari 512 bbi in my garage from his ex-wife. And I wanted to be part of that experience. I went out and bought a car that I thought I could afford that fit my narrative, a 1972 De Tomaso Pantera. It looked the part, made lots of noise, got admiring looks from onlookers, but was barely driveable. It would overheat or break down before I could back the 35 feet out of my driveway. In 2013 I bought a 5.0L Jaguar XKR, and I learned some lessons. Although not a sports car, it was quicker, more civilized (meaning I could drive it with shoes on which I couldn't do in my Pantera), was so easy to drive at speed on a track etc. that it changed my expectations of what I wanted out of a car. I parked the Pantera for 3 years, and one day decided that if I couldn't "translate" the lessons I learned from the XKR into the Pantera, I was going to get rid of it. I wasn't getting any younger, and finally I embarked on a 4 year transformation of the Pantera to make it a car I could drive wherever and whenever I wanted in reasonable comfort and luxury. It is now a thrilling ride even at 30mph, the lowness to the ground, the incredible roar from 6" behind your head, the supermodel looks, and the raw, analog feeling of driving a very mechanical feeling 5 speed manual, non power assisted steering which allows for an incredible amount of steering and body feel. About 6 months ago, I had the opportunity to drive a Ferrari F8 of a friend. My shock after doing so was that Ferrari had taken all of the "thrill" out of the car. Zero steering feel, the ride feel of a Cadillac hearse, a drive by wire throttle that gave you no indication of what you were doing. In a word BORING! I couldn't wait to get back into the Pantera. It had little to do with speed as undoubtedly the Ferrari would out perform the Pantera in every measurable category, but there was no enjoyment of the experience. I think you'd be happier with a vintage type of sports car whether it be something like a Triumph TR6 or an MGB, or a Ferrari F355 or 308 or even a Pantera. These cars have a much more fulfilling feel for the road and can excite you at much lower speeds while not breaking the bank. Good luck on your search.
I agree with much of what you said in your opening post. The idea of sports cars for me was originally optics. Thirty years ago when I was about 40 years old, I had friends with supercars, and I wanted one. My closest friend hid his Ferrari 512 bbi in my garage from his ex-wife. And I wanted to be part of that experience. I went out and bought a car that I thought I could afford that fit my narrative, a 1972 De Tomaso Pantera. It looked the part, made lots of noise, got admiring looks from onlookers, but was barely driveable. It would overheat or break down before I could back the 35 feet out of my driveway. In 2013 I bought a 5.0L Jaguar XKR, and I learned some lessons. Although not a sports car, it was quicker, more civilized (meaning I could drive it with shoes on which I couldn't do in my Pantera), was so easy to drive at speed on a track etc. that it changed my expectations of what I wanted out of a car. I parked the Pantera for 3 years, and one day decided that if I couldn't "translate" the lessons I learned from the XKR into the Pantera, I was going to get rid of it. I wasn't getting any younger, and finally I embarked on a 4 year transformation of the Pantera to make it a car I could drive wherever and whenever I wanted in reasonable comfort and luxury. It is now a thrilling ride even at 30mph, the lowness to the ground, the incredible roar from 6" behind your head, the supermodel looks, and the raw, analog feeling of driving a very mechanical feeling 5 speed manual, non power assisted steering which allows for an incredible amount of steering and body feel. About 6 months ago, I had the opportunity to drive a Ferrari F8 of a friend. My shock after doing so was that Ferrari had taken all of the "thrill" out of the car. Zero steering feel, the ride feel of a Cadillac hearse, a drive by wire throttle that gave you no indication of what you were doing. In a word BORING! I couldn't wait to get back into the Pantera. It had little to do with speed as undoubtedly the Ferrari would out perform the Pantera in every measurable category, but there was no enjoyment of the experience. I think you'd be happier with a vintage type of sports car whether it be something like a Triumph TR6 or an MGB, or a Ferrari F355 or 308 or even a Pantera. These cars have a much more fulfilling feel for the road and can excite you at much lower speeds while not breaking the bank. Good luck on your search.
otolith said:
These are lovely 
https://www.rocketeercars.com/
Only thing I disliked about our NB was the engine. It wasn't even the performance (though it could have been quicker) it was just lacking in any charisma. Didn't make a nice noise, needed revving to get the power but never felt like it enjoyed the experience.
Yep that's the company.https://www.rocketeercars.com/
Only thing I disliked about our NB was the engine. It wasn't even the performance (though it could have been quicker) it was just lacking in any charisma. Didn't make a nice noise, needed revving to get the power but never felt like it enjoyed the experience.
Have to sort of agree about the engine tone, I don't think it was terrible but compared to the great sounding k-series I had in a crappy MGF at the same time it sounded flat...but did improve slightly with a mild exhaust leak.
I think a supercharger on a NB would improve things all round.
andy43 said:
swisstoni said:
A good example of a TVR will supply the visceral and ‘sense of occasion’ feelings the op wants imho.without costing a fortune or being just another <insert obvious sports car brand>.
That was exactly what I was going to post. Or Lotus or Caterham/Westfield or something old. Most modern stuff is never going to have the same rawness.On a car like a TVR there's the vehicle and there's you and there's very little distance (or structure!) separating you from the tarmac. You can't get rawer or more connected to the road than this, except for with a Caterham or some great but impractical track focused machine.
It's all the programmable crap, 'driver aids' and comfort blanketing that spoils many modern cars.
You want to be able to feel it, smell it and hear it and you want to feel that what's happening is 100% a result of your actions and not the computer stepping in to 'assist'.
Been an interesting thread this. I've enjoyed a lot of various cars over the years, I enjoy most things generally, they all have their pros and cons. I know where the OP is coming from with the early MX5s though. They're proper little cars even if not fast - and lets face it, who cares nowadays.
The suspension / wheel talk is interesting. I may have some money to modify my F56 JCW soon and think it could be a genuinely great car with KW Street Comforts (coilovers for handling AND comfort / ride) and smaller 17s (currently 18s), with the advantage of shedding some unsprung weight. From reading those articles a few posts up, it not only seems like it would eradicate the downsides, but possibly turn it into something genuinely great. I'd certainly prioritise handling and ride over power as it seems to have more than enough (fairly close to 200 bhp / ton standard).
The suspension / wheel talk is interesting. I may have some money to modify my F56 JCW soon and think it could be a genuinely great car with KW Street Comforts (coilovers for handling AND comfort / ride) and smaller 17s (currently 18s), with the advantage of shedding some unsprung weight. From reading those articles a few posts up, it not only seems like it would eradicate the downsides, but possibly turn it into something genuinely great. I'd certainly prioritise handling and ride over power as it seems to have more than enough (fairly close to 200 bhp / ton standard).
KTMsm said:
That's because you don't seem to know what a Sports car is.
Typified by the English sports cars of the '50s and '60s. They weren't the fastest, they didn't have a great sense of occasion, but they were fun to drive
An MX5, MGF, MR2 Mk3 are all excellent examples of a Sports car you seem to be confusing Sports car with Supercar
Well no, I'm aware of where a supercar sits vs a sports car Typified by the English sports cars of the '50s and '60s. They weren't the fastest, they didn't have a great sense of occasion, but they were fun to drive
An MX5, MGF, MR2 Mk3 are all excellent examples of a Sports car you seem to be confusing Sports car with Supercar
Interesting you say that whilst skimming the parts talking about 981s and 996s. Which while being more expensive than an mx5 are sports cars. It's also why I said, GT3s are amazing, but lack the sort of accessible fun that sports cars should..
Perhaps I haven't articulated my point clearly enough for you, or maybe you didn't read it going by the partial quote..
Things have moved on since the earlier eras of sports cars. (although speaking of the 50s, a Jag xj120 would have cost close to 3x a mini which I believe was the fastest (high speed) car for sale for some time). Can't really say that sports cars in the 50s and 60s weren't the fastest, or didn't have a sense of occasion, going by the contemporaneous vehicles at the time they would have exhibited exactly those attributes surely..
In fact, supercars wouldn't even appear until the 60s and beyond really..
That's sort of my point. To me, modern sports cars today are very diluted for mass appeal. It's a numbers game. Sports cars of the 50s were much more exciting than the typical car of the day, ditto for the 60s. Fast forwards to the 90s and 00s we have a diminishing few left over. To me, personally, the MX5 is fun, does it tick all the boxes for a sports car for me? I'm not so sure. Personally, I've just never gelled with them that much.
Much much less so for a late model one. Which is why I say I don't think they're the quintessential sports car that many journalists mark them out to be (in stock form at least). Nothing wrong with them, I just like my sports cars to be a bit more exciting in a way that I'd imagine half of the MX5 target market don't, which is probably why so many going that route, who share that sentiment end up with a modified example.
MGFs / TFs do it more for me, I've had 4 or 5 over the years and arguably they are much more of my model of a sports car. Slightly awkward, fun, a bit more driver focused in principle despite perhaps not handling as well as they could, Things like the Boxster S, S2000 and even MR2s, more so.
My point was to truly get that feeling now, I feel I have to be in supercar territory, or at the higher end of the sports car budget. If we're talking about the last 5 years, outside of the Boxster I can't think of many cars that truly fit the sports car mould (for me, that is what I typically felt defined a sports car growing up), certainly not at an affordable price.
biggbn said:
Ideal 'compromise' for me, and one of my 'dream' cars would be a base model four pot Boxster. I do love the Alpine and I really like the Lotus Evora, and yes, I know both do some things better than the Porsche but I suspect, for me, the Porsche would be 'more' for more of the time...
Truly great car but subjective as most things are. I appreciated my Boxster for what it was but in many ways it was just too perfect that I was bored within 3 months of buying it and missed the occasion that was TVR/Lotus Shnozz said:
biggbn said:
Ideal 'compromise' for me, and one of my 'dream' cars would be a base model four pot Boxster. I do love the Alpine and I really like the Lotus Evora, and yes, I know both do some things better than the Porsche but I suspect, for me, the Porsche would be 'more' for more of the time...
Truly great car but subjective as most things are. I appreciated my Boxster for what it was but in many ways it was just too perfect that I was bored within 3 months of buying it and missed the occasion that was TVR/Lotus cerb4.5lee said:
otolith said:
MightyBadger said:
I think a NB with a V6 conversion would suit you.
These are lovely https://www.rocketeercars.com/
Only thing I disliked about our NB was the engine. It wasn't even the performance (though it could have been quicker) it was just lacking in any charisma. Didn't make a nice noise, needed revving to get the power but never felt like it enjoyed the experience.
That car gave the kind of 'sports car' experience that thejaywills may be referring to. It was definitely exciting. It was definitely fast. Definitely traction limited despite upsized wheels and tyres. It was a modern day AC Cobra.
My friend Paul absolutely went to town building that car. Performance-wise everything was turned up to 11, using all the best parts and suppliers and starting with a really really solid car. Build thread here. It took years to build, and yet he sold it not long after he completed it.
There are three of us who live locally and love an NA MX5. Paul in his V6, t'other Paul in his ratty but well loved lightly modded red car, and me with my 'minimise unsprung weight, maximise driving feel & connection' build. We'd go out for drives together and assess the cars.
The V6 made you laugh out loud and made you feel like a naughty school boy doing something you shouldn't be doing! But after a long run out on local back roads both Pauls agreed that my car drove down the road so beautifully and provided so much connection that it was the one we'd all all prefer to drive long term.
For those dismissing the NB MX5 engine I'm wondering if it was the 1.8? My 1992 car has the early 115bhp 1.6. Yes it's not a Honda engine, but it revs freely, and really rewards you getting above 5000rpm. The note changes, and the car does genuinely travel quickly (or at least it seems like it does on a small lane; and that is 3/4 of the battle on our modern overcrowded road network). Mine has a completely standard exhaust system and a simple foam air filter that fits in the airbox, but really improves the induction sound.
Going fast is great fun. But there is also great pleasure to be had in driving a car absolutely as hard as it will go; and you can just about do that with an NA MX5 and not raise too many eyebrows. For a road trip somewhere fun I'll take the NSX. But at 05:30 on a dry Sunday morning in winter on Essex/Suffolk back roads I'll put on a down jacket, turn the blower up to 4, drop the roof and take the MX5.
And return home with a grin from ear to ear.
The information provided by sassthathoopie™ in this thread is for your general information and use and is not intended to address your particular requirements. In particular, this information does not constitute any form of advice or recommendation by sassthathoopie™ and is not intended to be relied upon by users in making (or refraining from making) any
Edited by sassthathoopie on Friday 5th July 17:49
otolith said:
Yes, was the 1.8. Performance was adequate, character was lacking. Not sure I would have wanted to reverse that equation though.
The 1.8 VVT in the mk2.5 has a bit more grunt. Might be worth a lookThat's an engine that gets swapped into mk1s. But if I remember correctly the electrics are a bit tricky.
plenty said:
You've just discovered that older cars drive better.
Oh I do love the PH style of reducing a massive missive into one succinct retort 
It probably is a mixture of unrealistic expectations and bringing the massive over hype back down to earth, which pretty much everything attracts these days.
'Sports' in my book = tectonic plate shifting acceleration and braking, plus handling that isn't as soggy and vague as a 3 week old iceberg lettuce.
Any 'sports' car that does nothing better than an Audi A4 35 TFSI is not 'sports' imo.
What is 'Sports' when it comes to cars, anyway? The driver wearing 118 shorts, white socks and tennis shoes? It's a dumb and meaningless metric when it comes to cars.
Fast as fck and corners on rails is more fitting.
It was a mk2.5, as I recall. The drivetrain was being compared (unfavourably) to the Civic Type R we had at the time. It did manage to put me off hot hatches permanently, though - the Civic was almost everything I wanted in a hot hatch bar the numb steering and dynamically embarrassed the Mazda in every respect - much quicker, more grip, better brakes, more exciting engine, better noise, nicer gearbox, sharper turn-in. And yet… the Mazda was more fun to drive. Traded it in for an RX-8.
rottenegg said:
What is 'Sports' when it comes to cars, anyway? The driver wearing 118 shorts, white socks and tennis shoes? It's a dumb and meaningless metric when it comes to cars.
Fast as fck and corners on rails is more fitting.
Those two don't usually go hand in hand in my experience. You either get something that is "fast as fck", or you get something that "corners on rails". I do understand what you're saying though. Fast as fck and corners on rails is more fitting.
rottenegg said:
plenty said:
You've just discovered that older cars drive better.
Oh I do love the PH style of reducing a massive missive into one succinct retort It probably is a mixture of unrealistic expectations and bringing the massive over hype back down to earth, which pretty much everything attracts these days.
'Sports' in my book = tectonic plate shifting acceleration and braking, plus handling that isn't as soggy and vague as a 3 week old iceberg lettuce.
Any 'sports' car that does nothing better than an Audi A4 35 TFSI is not 'sports' imo.
What is 'Sports' when it comes to cars, anyway? The driver wearing 118 shorts, white socks and tennis shoes? It's a dumb and meaningless metric when it comes to cars.
Fast as fck and corners on rails is more fitting.
cerb4.5lee said:
rottenegg said:
What is 'Sports' when it comes to cars, anyway? The driver wearing 118 shorts, white socks and tennis shoes? It's a dumb and meaningless metric when it comes to cars.
Fast as fck and corners on rails is more fitting.
Those two don't usually go hand in hand in my experience. You either get something that is "fast as fck", or you get something that "corners on rails". I do understand what you're saying though. Fast as fck and corners on rails is more fitting.
In terms of financially accessible and predominantly road biased 'sports' cars, it's too subjective to narrow down to a one cap fits all car.
I mean, would an M5 qualify as a sports car with wheel spinning all over the shop and its massive weight? Or a TVR with it's wheel spinning all over the shop but low weight? But they're both fun and amusing. Does fun and amusing qualify as 'sports', or does an underpowered MX5 qualify as the de facto 'sports' car? It's all open to subjectivity.
I'm sticking to my fast as fck and corners on rails metric
911Spanker said:
rottenegg said:
plenty said:
You've just discovered that older cars drive better.
Oh I do love the PH style of reducing a massive missive into one succinct retort It probably is a mixture of unrealistic expectations and bringing the massive over hype back down to earth, which pretty much everything attracts these days.
'Sports' in my book = tectonic plate shifting acceleration and braking, plus handling that isn't as soggy and vague as a 3 week old iceberg lettuce.
Any 'sports' car that does nothing better than an Audi A4 35 TFSI is not 'sports' imo.
What is 'Sports' when it comes to cars, anyway? The driver wearing 118 shorts, white socks and tennis shoes? It's a dumb and meaningless metric when it comes to cars.
Fast as fck and corners on rails is more fitting.
I have to agree on the TVR. The 4 litre or 5 litre Chimeras sound, feel and look fantastic. The V8 rumble announces your presence and as a convertible you enjoy the sound as much as anyone else. There is no traction control or ABS and the car weighs only 1050 kg. Engagement is obligatory.
sassthathoopie said:
I've not driven a Rocketeer V6 MX5. But I have driven a Honda J series V6 swapped mk1, all 303bhp and 970kg of it.
That car gave the kind of 'sports car' experience that thejaywills may be referring to. It was definitely exciting. It was definitely fast. Definitely traction limited despite upsized wheels and tyres. It was a modern day AC Cobra.
My friend Paul absolutely went to town building that car. Performance-wise everything was turned up to 11, using all the best parts and suppliers and starting with a really really solid car. Build thread here. It took years to build, and yet he sold it not long after he completed it.
There are three of us who live locally and love an NA MX5. Paul in his V6, t'other Paul in his ratty but well loved lightly modded red car, and me with my 'minimise unsprung weight, maximise driving feel & connection' build. We'd go out for drives together and assess the cars.
The V6 made you laugh out loud and made you feel like a naughty school boy doing something you shouldn't be doing! But after a long run out on local back roads both Pauls agreed that my car drove down the road so beautifully and provided so much connection that it was the one we'd all all prefer to drive long term.
For those dismissing the NB MX5 engine I'm wondering if it was the 1.8? My 1992 car has the early 115bhp 1.6. Yes it's not a Honda engine, but it revs freely, and really rewards you getting above 5000rpm. The note changes, and the car does genuinely travel quickly (or at least it seems like it does on a small lane; and that is 3/4 of the battle on our modern overcrowded road network). Mine has a completely standard exhaust system and a simple foam air filter that fits in the airbox, but really improves the induction sound.
Going fast is great fun. But there is also great pleasure to be had in driving a car absolutely as hard as it will go; and you can just about do that with an NA MX5 and not raise too many eyebrows. For a road trip somewhere fun I'll take the NSX. But at 05:30 on a dry Sunday morning in winter on Essex/Suffolk back roads I'll put on a down jacket, turn the blower up to 4, drop the roof and take the MX5.
And return home with a grin from ear to ear.
The information provided by sassthathoopie™ in this thread is for your general information and use and is not intended to address your particular requirements. In particular, this information does not constitute any form of advice or recommendation by sassthathoopie™ and is not intended to be relied upon by users in making (or refraining from making) anyinvestment driving decisions.Your experiences may vary
oof see that nails it for me, I have driven two mx5's which made me literally had me giggling, one had a v6 (I think it was a Buick motor from memory) and the other was a case of being way more than the sum of its parts, exhaust, bucket seats, suspension tweaks. I certainly think they can be made into brilliaint little thingsThat car gave the kind of 'sports car' experience that thejaywills may be referring to. It was definitely exciting. It was definitely fast. Definitely traction limited despite upsized wheels and tyres. It was a modern day AC Cobra.
My friend Paul absolutely went to town building that car. Performance-wise everything was turned up to 11, using all the best parts and suppliers and starting with a really really solid car. Build thread here. It took years to build, and yet he sold it not long after he completed it.
There are three of us who live locally and love an NA MX5. Paul in his V6, t'other Paul in his ratty but well loved lightly modded red car, and me with my 'minimise unsprung weight, maximise driving feel & connection' build. We'd go out for drives together and assess the cars.
The V6 made you laugh out loud and made you feel like a naughty school boy doing something you shouldn't be doing! But after a long run out on local back roads both Pauls agreed that my car drove down the road so beautifully and provided so much connection that it was the one we'd all all prefer to drive long term.
For those dismissing the NB MX5 engine I'm wondering if it was the 1.8? My 1992 car has the early 115bhp 1.6. Yes it's not a Honda engine, but it revs freely, and really rewards you getting above 5000rpm. The note changes, and the car does genuinely travel quickly (or at least it seems like it does on a small lane; and that is 3/4 of the battle on our modern overcrowded road network). Mine has a completely standard exhaust system and a simple foam air filter that fits in the airbox, but really improves the induction sound.
Going fast is great fun. But there is also great pleasure to be had in driving a car absolutely as hard as it will go; and you can just about do that with an NA MX5 and not raise too many eyebrows. For a road trip somewhere fun I'll take the NSX. But at 05:30 on a dry Sunday morning in winter on Essex/Suffolk back roads I'll put on a down jacket, turn the blower up to 4, drop the roof and take the MX5.
And return home with a grin from ear to ear.
The information provided by sassthathoopie™ in this thread is for your general information and use and is not intended to address your particular requirements. In particular, this information does not constitute any form of advice or recommendation by sassthathoopie™ and is not intended to be relied upon by users in making (or refraining from making) any
Edited by sassthathoopie on Friday 5th July 17:49
thejaywills said:
oof see that nails it for me, I have driven two mx5's which made me literally had me giggling, one had a v6 (I think it was a Buick motor from memory) and the other was a case of being way more than the sum of its parts, exhaust, bucket seats, suspension tweaks. I certainly think they can be made into brilliant little things
After writing that post I decided I ought to go back and check that I wasn't putting words into the mouths of the two Pauls, as those drives were during the lockdown summer of 2020. The post drive online discussions are here if you want more context.Paul (Red MX5):
The V6 is an experience etched permanently onto my memory banks now, not dissimilar to any other near-death experience, haha - I recommend a ride.
His first drive in my car & the V6 back to back:
It was good to experience chalk and cheese!
I could get used to The Beast 
but it was also good to have an upper rev range not induce feelings of terror!Given mine's less standard engine-wise than sassthathoopie's, I was hoping it might be a little bit quicker than his, but his is quick!! His better suspension also means corners are easier and more controlled at speed, which means 'real world' pace is very rapid and *if* there is any little extra power in mine, it is more than cancelled out!
We need a rolling road day...
(And I need to get buying some shiny new suspension, lol.) 9 months later retrospective on the V6: Too much power-to-weight to really use anywhere near all of it regularly on the road
but effortless surge coupled with maniac acceleration when needed is very addictive Not sure I'd have a licence for long, though - reaching and cruising at 90 is like pottering down to the shops, it's all so easy, lol.
That V6 is very entertaining, and it's such an assault on the senses when it overtakes you that you feel like an extra in Day's of Thunder.
But Jinba Ittai it isn't!
That link describes Mazda's internal philosophy for developing the MX5 at a time when there were virtually no other similar sports car competitors. 'Horse and Rider as one'
Chief Chassis Engineer Kasahara remembers: “There was a moment when I was driving that I suddenly no longer felt the existence of the car. I didn’t feel any ‘strangeness’. I thought, this is it.“
For me it is this concept that defines the difference between a 'sports car' and a 'muscle car', 'performance car', 'supercar' or 'track car'. I struggle to imagine a modern 1.5 tonne+ BMW giving you that feeling.
Edited by sassthathoopie on Saturday 6th July 09:58
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff