Hate me for this if you like, but ......
Discussion
Hate me for this if you like, but I''m dead against manufacturers stuffing
300-400 bhp engines into saloon cars. Could they not reserve the top-end of their product range for something that could honestly be called a Sports or GT car ?
We''re suffocated with Imprezas and Evos and Mercs, and many many more ugly ducklings which started life as mundane saloons, and now for God''s sake Jaguar (of all people) are bringing out an ''S'' Type which will make their XKs look silly.
I fully understand that people need four-seaters, but if the Sports/GT car is to survive at all it surely has to be quicker than its four door counterpart. Those of us who opt for the real McCoy (with decent handling) are being made to look like a bunch of poseurs.
Apologies to all you Impreza and Evo bashers - your rally-derived machines
go well, but how much better it would be if you could enjoy their looks as much as their performance.
McNab,
Interesting point. I also am not keen on the looks of the Subarus and Evos etc but have to admit they are excellent cars offering a compromise to those that need four / five seats and want performance.
High performance saloons are nothing new, although untill the Sierra Cosworth most four doors were only 'warm' with a GT badge (I'm bound to get corrected).
Like you I used to run a Supra Turbo (89 model)and I have to say it was fast in a straight line but didn't handle on bends.
Some of us can afford two or three cars in the family and out of choice I would now always go for a two seater sports car for the no compromise approach but in the past a four seater saloon / coupe was the only option.
I'll get me wellies.
PS - bear in mind the beauty is the eye of the beholder.
Edited by JSG on Thursday 13th September 11:02
I'll get me wellies.
PS - bear in mind the beauty is the eye of the beholder.
Edited by JSG on Thursday 13th September 11:02 
JSG, not a dig at Scoobies etc. Fine cars, but no beauty in the eye of this beholder.
What I meant was a lament (my God it rhymes!) for the declining supremacy of the Sports/GT.
I too had to accomodate the family (rather long ago, I admit) and was lucky enough to have one of the early Quattros. Technically a brilliant landmark, but I never felt really at home in it. I simply can't adjust to anything with an empty cavernous area behind me.
Incidentally, MKlV Supras do handle, but have a negative image thanks to Mr. Clarkson et al. Maybe that's why I gave it a try (and surprised myself into the bargain).
Message for campbell: you got the cart franent the horse again !
Obviously this is all pretty much a matter of taste ...
I know what you mean McNab. For me I guess it comes down to some (usually misguided) sense of the car's credibility. Frinstance, the original Audi Quattro for me is an absolute design classic. Comparing it directly to other cars to an extent doesn’t make sense because it is the definitive article; it is the real thing. The same goes for the 911 and the Lancia Delta Integrale.
Ugly though it is, the Skyline has a similar sort of iconic status, and the current crop of Jap super saloons are playing catch up, even though some of them share their names with world class rally cars.
The Mk IV Supra is an astonishingly good car, but it was produced in response to the 300ZX. The Nissan is uglier, less competent, but nonetheless it came first and that buys it some space. Irrational I know.
ATG, not irrational at all, and that is exactly my point. Why did Nissan put the technology into the Skyline when they already had a perfectly good platform in the 300ZX ?
I think the Japanese frequently misread the US and UK markets; maybe they're over-sensitive to political correctness (unlike TVR !!), and indeed the whole performance car spectrum is at the mercy of sheer snobbery.
Reality, a prepressed steel box with suspension hanging of it will never replace the true sports car.
Lets be honest, the people who buy and drive Japanese turbocharged "rally" cars want a soulless bland toy, with as many plastic add-ons as possible.
Funny how the real supercars dont need all these silly gadgets.
(maybe if i add a EVO style spoiler to my cerb it will be quicker, or does it need front splitters, or furry dice?)
I think people like Subaru and Ford (Sierra Sapphire Cosworth) started the trend. Manufacturers do a lot of market research (TVR excluded, they use Ned) and if they think something will sell and help either their brand identity or their bottom line then they will build it.
Most of the ultra fast saloons are attractive in their own way (M5, S4 etc.), yes there are a few exceptions such as the EVO and the WRXs of the world, but they are WRC copies. Another brand/image thing.
T/.
Well I think looks has only a small part to play in my choice of cars
I think the subs are grate cars to drive and are very reliable too, my dad had 3 of them in 6 years and i live them all with a few exeptions The turbo is great and the should keep it raw and not add silly gimick bits like traction control, that should be up to the driver to judge
If I want a proper sports car I will by a TVR or a Toyota or a car that is RWD and has two seats and plenty of power to go and if I want a famly car like the suby turbo just for the hell of it
The turbo is great and the should keep it raw and not add silly gimick bits like traction control, that should be up to the driver to judge
If I want a proper sports car I will by a TVR or a Toyota or a car that is RWD and has two seats and plenty of power to go and if I want a famly car like the suby turbo just for the hell of it Looks are important. Especially with a sports car (lets face it you do buy them partly for the pose value).
I certainly hate the souped up saloon cars pretending to be a sports car. The ford gang especially as it always seems to me that they are the ones that want to race you off every light. I think it has something to do with penis size.
True sports car ethusiasts are the ones that wave to each other and admire cars because of the same attitude and feelings about motoring.
Putting hundreds of HP in, does not a sports car make. Handling, brakes and the thrill of the drive are more important factors.
I have had 2 scooby's a prodrive WR and have just sold my P1, although a fantastic car, I just got bored of cars that do the driving for me, just bought a 911 (993) and it's got feedback, I need to think about driving again, as far as looks I think the new scoob or is it a corrola or older celica oh I don't no,looks cr*p.
I really think that sportcars are about the experience of their balance and handling - fundamentally, a solo process. Although dramatic acceleration is exciting, managing the available grip during acceleration isn't as challenging as, for example, balancing a car under maximum braking. The greater weight and longer wheelbase of four-passenger sedans will always limit a vehicle's ultimate responsiveness, but I would have to say that a small, lightweight sedan like a Scooby has more "sportscar" in it than a huge, bloated GT like a 550 Maranello. However for pose-**** value...
I stand by what I said at the beginning of this thread, but if I really HAD to have four seats I would go for the WRX for one practical reason:
It wouldn't break my heart to damage the thing. Easier to repair than the more exotic Sports/GT, and much less of a worry day-in day-out. Park it anywhere too, without that nagging feeling you get with truly beautiful machinery.
Talking of beautiful cars, I am still childish enough to wander outside and just sit and look at them (provided that they have the grunt and handling to match).
This did NOT apply to my Supra (sold three days ago), despite it being one of the best and most reliable performers I've met.
Domster, interested in what you say and I have to admit that I can't easily distinguish between 'Sports' and 'GT'.
Take five cars which I have loved - each in their own era - and I don't begin to know which category they belong to.
Porsche 365A. Superb long-distance tourer, but a very popular competition car too.
300SL Gullwing. Same as above, but hard work in either role! Real thriller.
E-Type. Born a sports car, but not seriously raced in Europe at the outset (one of the most chuckable cars ever).
Daytona. Great lovable monstrous brute of a thing. Raced all over the world, but widely used as a GT (lost mine at 150+ in the wet - sheer power broke traction - got it back somehow)!
Porsche 928. This is the car which finally killed off the credibility of the motoring press for me. They never understood it. Really a GT, but borderline. Americans stripped them out and raced them quite successfuly.
All five controversial, which brings me to the 65,000 dollar question........ Where does the Cerbera fit ??
Going away off topic I know, Domster. Ted will probably banish me for life, but I'll risk it.
I think you have to look at the 356 as it really was when it first appeared - a very direct descendant of the Beetle.
My first one was bought in 1956 and got thrashed all over Scotland's then typical holy roads. Nothing upset it, and it felt like a one-piece casting compared to the normal car. Simply absorbed bumps as if they didn't exist; this was probably thanks to the trailing arm front suspension. No rattles, no breakages, and great handling if you humoured it.
Yes, a tubby shape, but at the time we thought it was a real looker. Not much performance - pushed to see just over the 100 with a following wind, but again, pretty good in its day. AFN reckoned the engine was unbreakable, but alas I proved them wrong. Followed am American T'bird for mile after mile on the A1 but couldn't catch it. Eventually BANG - crankshaft said no.
Bought a new one the following day, but never loved it as much as the first. When the 911 arrived I certainly got all excited, but at the time I was a bit strapped for cash, and unfortunately never took the plunge thereafter.
Eventually three 928s over a ten year period, so I am by no means against Porsches. Have a 996 coming soon, so have returned to the fold. It would have been a Tuscan, but have faulty left foot and need Tiptronic. Be interesting to see how I get on with it!
Thanks for your kind words Don. No, I didn't keep it, but got the surprise of my life when a photo of the car arrived in the post about five years ago.
Sent by the latest owner who had bought it for restoration, and by the look of it he had a major job on his hands. I must contact the Porsche GB 'archivist' to find out if the rebuild was ever completed.
The longest I've ever kept a car was eight years (Quattro), but I usually sell them after three or four, EXACTLY when I can guarantee to lose the most money !!
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff