OMG JUST A THOUGHT! IMAGINE THIS

Off-topic posts, quotes of the day and anything else you just would like to vent to the world. PG-13 or below PLEASE!

WWJD?

Sell the car!
17
61%
Keep the car
5
18%
Live in the Car
6
21%
 
Total votes: 28

LS1Leader
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 2145
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 2:17 pm

Post by LS1Leader »

scionkid wrote:I don't get it. Just because a car is primarily bought by rich snobs, that doesn't make it wrong for you to own one. Porsche did a good job of keeping the car light (less than 3k# is aight in my book) while giving it the power that it needs. Chevy, on the other hand, they slab a tub on a truck chassis and call that, Anna Nicole Smith resembling thing, the SSR. Super Sport Roadster? Which sport, wrestling? That thing is definitely more show than go. If there's no Honda S2k or Lotus Elise, I would go with the Boxster.

This Boxster bashing is just like those who aren't feeling secure about their manhood or orientation calling the Miata a chick car. For the record, I'm a dude who wants the new MX5.
That SSR is horrendous. How they can sell that thing for more than a 'Vette is beyond my comprehension.

I didn't like the Boxster and Z3 until they grew some balls (Boxster S, and Z3 3.0i). Even now, I still consider them slightly underpowered, but not as bad as before.
LS1Leader
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 2145
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 2:17 pm

Post by LS1Leader »

P911C4 wrote:Someone I know had the nerve and gall to compare a Boxster to a Dodge SRT-4, saying the latter was a better bang for the buck. Sure, the Dodge can accelerate faster and.....that's about it. You have to remember that you're comparing one of the best handling cars in the world to an overpriced Neon. I don't exactly know the weight distribution for the Boxster; I'd imagine it's close to that perfect 50/50; I know it weighs 2855 lbs as scionkid mentioned. What it lacks in the power department, it certainly will make up for in the twisties.
Just remember that everyone has different priorities. I've had people nitpick my car for its interior, when everyone knows I got my car because I wanted great straight-line acceleration. I always thought it silly to worry about a car's interior when you're concerned solely about performance. Similarly, that kid was probably only interested in 1/4 mile times. However, I've heard reports that those SRT-4s handle themselves decently well in auto-x, so I wouldn't be so quick to judge the Neon's handling capabilities, despite its massive torque steer and understeering tendencies.
scarface
Senior Standardshifter
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 12:58 am
Location: Houston,Tx

Post by scarface »

defintely sell the porsche and get something I truly would enjoy MKIV Toyota Supra Twin Turbo.Unless the porsche is a 911 turbo,then I'd keep it 8)
1990 Corolla SR5 5-speed,wish it was a GTS :(
Liaysha
Junior Standardshifter
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 4:56 pm
Location: OR
Contact:

Post by Liaysha »

i would have to sell the porsche and put the money back into my xB! :lol:
Camouflage Metallic 2005 Scion xB 5 spd
Blackstone
Junior Standardshifter
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 6:09 pm
Location: Atlanta

Post by Blackstone »

I think there are a lot of misconceptions here about Porsches. They don't cost that much second hand, and insurance isn't really much higher than a BMW (I picked up a 328i in near perfect condition for $12,500 and pay about $100 a month in insurance). Repairs are pricey, but it's pretty much a wash when you consider that they hardly ever break (if I recall, second only to Lexus).

I can see the reasoning behind calling the Boxster a poor mans Porcshe, but they have that huge advantage of being mid engined. And if you are dead set on getting straight line performace, buy an S model...you'll get the best of both worlds.

As for paying for the brand, who doesn't like to brag about their car once in a while? I'd much rather brag about a Porsche than a Ford.

I used to make it a point to drive every car I could get my hands on, even going so far as to test drive dealer cars just for the experience. One of the biggest things I learned was the little things go a long way. Some companies think of those little things and other don't, but they're always worth paying for. There's a reason a Boxster costs more than a Miata, and it's not in the numbers.


Every car maker tends to focus on certain aspects more than others and their cars show it. The Viper team was obviously focused on 0-60 times, and it shows. The car screams down the straights, but it handles like a rolling brick without a steering wheel. It's a modern day muscle car. BMW is doing a great job at giving practical sedans a more sports car like performance, but what little kid sits around dreaming of driving a BMW (again, not in the numbers)? Mercedes are kind of like BMWs but for people who don't like to drive as much. Honda has a whole line of cars designed for people who don't like cars enough to invest in them (add a turbo to a Civic and it's still a Civic). Cadillac drivers tend to prefer low speed cruising in a comfortable car. And it's that big, cushy, American plush comfort, too. Me? I prefer wide open twisty roads with very few stop signs and the feeling of downshifting to 3rd everytime I want to speed up to pass a Buick. I prefer bucket seats and leather interiors that wrap around me to give me that feeling of being connected to the car and the road. I prefer the jarring suspension that lets me feel every bump in the road. And I prefer the badge on my hood, and the one between my tail lights, that tells the people I'm passing that I like driving more than they do.

So - my vote, and my advice, is to keep the Porsche. It'll cost you less than you think. And that big grin on your face every morning when you get to work, the kind you only get from sheer excitement, will be more than worth it!
LS1Leader
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 2145
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 2:17 pm

Post by LS1Leader »

Blackstone wrote:I think there are a lot of misconceptions here about Porsches. They don't cost that much second hand, and insurance isn't really much higher than a BMW (I picked up a 328i in near perfect condition for $12,500 and pay about $100 a month in insurance). Repairs are pricey, but it's pretty much a wash when you consider that they hardly ever break (if I recall, second only to Lexus).
I consider $12,000 for a 92 968 a little much. :)

I can see the reasoning behind calling the Boxster a poor mans Porcshe, but they have that huge advantage of being mid engined. And if you are dead set on getting straight line performace, buy an S model...you'll get the best of both worlds.
If you're dead set only on straight-line perfomance, you wouldn't buy a Porsche... It's a waste of your money, because Porsches do well in so many other aspects... handling, styling, etc. If you want straight-line performance, you get an older turbo car like a DSM, older WRX, etc., and boost the crap out of it.

And mid-engined cars have huge performance gains, but can be a handful to handle, even for experienced drivers. My experience with MR cars like the MR2 is that they handle very well, until you exceed the car's limits, then the back end will snap on you instantly, with no warning, and you'll be back asswards before you knew what hit you. I'm sure Porsche has made it a little more nimble, but I'd still be careful.
As for paying for the brand, who doesn't like to brag about their car once in a while? I'd much rather brag about a Porsche than a Ford.
But would you like to brag that you have the "poor man's Porsche"? :)
I used to make it a point to drive every car I could get my hands on, even going so far as to test drive dealer cars just for the experience. One of the biggest things I learned was the little things go a long way. Some companies think of those little things and other don't, but they're always worth paying for. There's a reason a Boxster costs more than a Miata, and it's not in the numbers.
If it's not in the numbers, is it in the letters? P O R S C H E. :D

I'm not interested in the heated seats and heated mirrors and automatic-on headlights and headlight washers that a Lexus or Acura might provide. Nor do I like crap systems like BMW's iDrive and on-screen touch controls for basic functions like fan speed and temperature. It looks pretty, but it's harder to use than a simple button.

Sometimes those little things are a waste of your money. It's all in your priorities.
Every car maker tends to focus on certain aspects more than others and their cars show it. The Viper team was obviously focused on 0-60 times, and it shows. The car screams down the straights, but it handles like a rolling brick without a steering wheel. It's a modern day muscle car.
You see misconceptions about Porsches in this thread; I see your misconceptions about American cars. Vipers have huge, wide tires and a very light weight for their size (3100 lbs). Take off the traction controls, and they are pure driver's beasts. Very few people will be able to drive a viper at its limit, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. The car is fast in a straight line, yes, but will handle just as well in the corners. You only need to look at road racing to see the capabilities of Vipers with good drivers in their seats. Just because it can roast the tires in any gear doesn't mean that it can't handle the corners if you don't have a lead foot (in this case, you'll need ballerina slippers).
BMW is doing a great job at giving practical sedans a more sports car like performance, but what little kid sits around dreaming of driving a BMW (again, not in the numbers)?
That doesn't sound like a very good measurement of popularity. I would rather have an M5 or M6 than a Boxster, and I'm not even factoring in the extra seats.

Heck, I always preferred the sleek-looking cars as a kid. the Porsche looked like a short, fat slug compared to a Testarossa, McLaren, NSX, or even a 3000GT. That was before I knew about performance numbers and Porshce's handling ability, but then again, we're talking about kids here.
Mercedes are kind of like BMWs but for people who don't like to drive as much.
Agreed. Fast cars, but more luxury auto than driver's car. But 500+ hp is hard to argue with sometimes. And I respect the AMG division for making the SUV look like a minivan in the name of performance (lowering).
Honda has a whole line of cars designed for people who don't like cars enough to invest in them (add a turbo to a Civic and it's still a Civic).
I see some stereotyping here, perhaps? I'm not a big fan of ricers, but there is something to be said about a sleeper car that can outrun a purpose-built machine like a Porsche. I think minivans and Hondas alike running in the 10s in the quarter mile are a tribute to their owners' wrenching abilities. Anybody can drop a bucketload of money on a car that's already fast; taking a Civic or Miata to extreme performance levels is a talent few possess. Ever heard of the Tiburon with two turbo engines, one in the front, one in the rear? 560 hp to all four wheels at the same time, a 10.9 in the quarter mile, and it handled decently on a road course. Not to mention that not everybody gets a Porsche from their parents as a teen, so you work with what you have.

That "it's still a Civic" snobbery is the sort of thing that brand whores use to justify buying a car to raise their dignity level. You shouldn't be using a car as a crutch to build yourself up and break others down. That's the excuse people toss out when they're embrassed that they've just been burned in a race by an "inferior" car.
Cadillac drivers tend to prefer low speed cruising in a comfortable car. And it's that big, cushy, American plush comfort, too.
I think CTS-V owners woud disagree with the "low-speed cruising" part, and Crossfire owners would scream at you for calling their car American (German mechanicals, British designed)
Me? I prefer wide open twisty roads with very few stop signs and the feeling of downshifting to 3rd everytime I want to speed up to pass a Buick. I prefer bucket seats and leather interiors that wrap around me to give me that feeling of being connected to the car and the road. I prefer the jarring suspension that lets me feel every bump in the road. And I prefer the badge on my hood, and the one between my tail lights, that tells the people I'm passing that I like driving more than they do.
All that badge says is that you or your family has more money to drop on a car than other people do. If you really loved driving, you would test your car's limits in the canyons, and you'll see driver's cars like the Elise and Miata passing you on hard corners. Not to mention the Evo's and STi's. :) Porshces are nice cars, but they're not the be-all and end-all of performance cars, nor are they touched by the hand of God.

You seem to have this belief that only Porsche can make driver's cars which truly connect you to the road. They don't own the patent to that. :)
So - my vote, and my advice, is to keep the Porsche. It'll cost you less than you think. And that big grin on your face every morning when you get to work, the kind you only get from sheer excitement, will be more than worth it!
Different strokes for different folks. :)
Blackstone
Junior Standardshifter
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 6:09 pm
Location: Atlanta

Post by Blackstone »

LS1Leader wrote:I consider $12,000 for a 92 968 a little much. :)
Me too. They don't cost that much though. They tend to go for about $8,500.

LS1Leader wrote:If you're dead set only on straight-line perfomance, you wouldn't buy a Porsche... It's a waste of your money, because Porsches do well in so many other aspects... handling, styling, etc. If you want straight-line performance, you get an older turbo car like a DSM, older WRX, etc., and boost the crap out of it.
Yeah, that's what I meant about the best of both worlds. Straight line as well as those other aspects.
LS1Leader wrote:And mid-engined cars have huge performance gains, but can be a handful to handle, even for experienced drivers. My experience with MR cars like the MR2 is that they handle very well, until you exceed the car's limits, then the back end will snap on you instantly, with no warning, and you'll be back asswards before you knew what hit you. I'm sure Porsche has made it a little more nimble, but I'd still be careful.
Definitely agreed.

LS1Leader wrote:But would you like to brag that you have the "poor man's Porsche"? :)
Ha ha. It all depends on who you are bragging to I guess. I wouldn't brag about a 911 to someone driving a F430.
LS1Leader wrote:If it's not in the numbers, is it in the letters? P O R S C H E. :D

I'm not interested in the heated seats and heated mirrors and automatic-on headlights and headlight washers that a Lexus or Acura might provide. Nor do I like crap systems like BMW's iDrive and on-screen touch controls for basic functions like fan speed and temperature. It looks pretty, but it's harder to use than a simple button.

Sometimes those little things are a waste of your money. It's all in your priorities.
I was talking about the things that most people looking at numbers don't think about much. How smooth the shifter is. The weight of the steering wheel. How well the seats hold you. Things that don't show up in 0-60 times. I could car less about iDrive (that's what passengers are for!). It would be nice to have some type of cooled seats though. I live in Atlanta and the inside of a car can get really hot in the summer sitting in a parking lot.
LS1Leader wrote:You see misconceptions about Porsches in this thread; I see your misconceptions about American cars. Vipers have huge, wide tires and a very light weight for their size (3100 lbs). Take off the traction controls, and they are pure driver's beasts. Very few people will be able to drive a viper at its limit, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. The car is fast in a straight line, yes, but will handle just as well in the corners. You only need to look at road racing to see the capabilities of Vipers with good drivers in their seats. Just because it can roast the tires in any gear doesn't mean that it can't handle the corners if you don't have a lead foot (in this case, you'll need ballerina slippers).
I''ve only driven a Viper twice, and the handling really stuck out both times. It reminded me of the handling my old Legend had, only at much higher speeds, and a lot more fun. The point I was getting at was that they were more concerned with speed than handling.
LS1Leader wrote:That doesn't sound like a very good measurement of popularity. I would rather have an M5 or M6 than a Boxster, and I'm not even factoring in the extra seats.

Heck, I always preferred the sleek-looking cars as a kid. the Porsche looked like a short, fat slug compared to a Testarossa, McLaren, NSX, or even a 3000GT. That was before I knew about performance numbers and Porshce's handling ability, but then again, we're talking about kids here.
Exactly my point though. When I was a kid I never thought I'd be driving a BMW today. I always wanted a GT40 or a Dino or a Miura (funny, remembering my previous Ford comment, lol). The Porsche name has that cool factor attached to it.
LS1Leader wrote:Agreed. Fast cars, but more luxury auto than driver's car. But 500+ hp is hard to argue with sometimes. And I respect the AMG division for making the SUV look like a minivan in the name of performance (lowering).
500+ hp in anything but a truck is almost always hard to argue with. And I'm with you on AMG. It's just about who the car designers are aiming for. I'd rather have a 5 Series than a 6 Series, but I'd rather have an M6 than an M5.
LS1Leader wrote:I see some stereotyping here, perhaps? I'm not a big fan of ricers, but there is something to be said about a sleeper car that can outrun a purpose-built machine like a Porsche. I think minivans and Hondas alike running in the 10s in the quarter mile are a tribute to their owners' wrenching abilities. Anybody can drop a bucketload of money on a car that's already fast; taking a Civic or Miata to extreme performance levels is a talent few possess. Ever heard of the Tiburon with two turbo engines, one in the front, one in the rear? 560 hp to all four wheels at the same time, a 10.9 in the quarter mile, and it handled decently on a road course. Not to mention that not everybody gets a Porsche from their parents as a teen, so you work with what you have.

That "it's still a Civic" snobbery is the sort of thing that brand whores use to justify buying a car to raise their dignity level. You shouldn't be using a car as a crutch to build yourself up and break others down. That's the excuse people toss out when they're embrassed that they've just been burned in a race by an "inferior" car.
Again, not in the numbers. If you take a Civic and make it perform like a Ferrari, you're still going to be sitting in a Civic on your next road trip. Civics are designed for moderate performace and great economy. If you up the performance you'll have a better performing car, but it won't be a car designed for great performace. All the design features will still say economy. And hey, I know all about dealing with what you have. My first car was a hand me down Taurus. I had a choice between that and a Geo Tracker, and I couldn't stand the flapping noise in the Tracker.
LS1Leader wrote:I think CTS-V owners woud disagree with the "low-speed cruising" part, and Crossfire owners would scream at you for calling their car American (German mechanicals, British designed)
Cadillacs are known as American cars no matter where they come from. It's like asking someone if Chrysler is an American car company. They'll say yes, even though they merged with Mercedes and moved their headquarters to Germany to lower their tax burden.
LS1Leader wrote:All that badge says is that you or your family has more money to drop on a car than other people do. If you really loved driving, you would test your car's limits in the canyons, and you'll see driver's cars like the Elise and Miata passing you on hard corners. Not to mention the Evo's and STi's. :) Porshces are nice cars, but they're not the be-all and end-all of performance cars, nor are they touched by the hand of God.
I know Porsches aren't the last word, but they have a history of making really nice cars. If I had my choice I'd be driving a mid engined Ferrari.

I love taking my car out to the track, and it probably won't be worth anything when I'm done with it. But I can't push it all the time because I still have to drive to work. And on that drive I like being in something that's well designed throughout. I have a lot of respect for Evos and STis. But through and through, they aren't designed as well as they could be.
LS1Leader wrote:You seem to have this belief that only Porsche can make driver's cars which truly connect you to the road. They don't own the patent to that. :)
Nope, no patent, but they do a great job at it.
LS1Leader wrote:Different strokes for different folks. :)
Ha ha, I was listening to that CD yesterday!
coolguy
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 1524
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 12:45 am
Location: Earth (twilight zone maybe?)
Contact:

Post by coolguy »

Nice debate :lol:.
LS1Leader
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 2145
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 2:17 pm

Post by LS1Leader »

Blackstone wrote:
LS1Leader wrote:I consider $12,000 for a 92 968 a little much. :)
Me too. They don't cost that much though. They tend to go for about $8,500.
Lucky you... Most of the California cars I've seen on Autotrader are in the $10-16k, with the cheapest being $9k and the highest being in the high twenties.
LS1Leader wrote:If you're dead set only on straight-line perfomance, you wouldn't buy a Porsche... It's a waste of your money, because Porsches do well in so many other aspects... handling, styling, etc. If you want straight-line performance, you get an older turbo car like a DSM, older WRX, etc., and boost the crap out of it.
Yeah, that's what I meant about the best of both worlds. Straight line as well as those other aspects.
I think this is where we disagree. For that price, I would want the car to be running 11s or low 12s in the quarter mile out of the box to consider it "the best of both worlds". For cheaper cars, I would relax my requirements a little, because you have more money to play with for upgrades.
I could car less about iDrive (that's what passengers are for!). It would be nice to have some type of cooled seats though. I live in Atlanta and the inside of a car can get really hot in the summer sitting in a parking lot.
That's why I try and get cloth seats instead of leather seats now. :) Less sliding around, and cooler in the afternoon. :)
LS1Leader wrote:...Vipers have huge, wide tires and a very light weight for their size (3100 lbs). Take off the traction controls, and they are pure driver's beasts.
...The point I was getting at was that they were more concerned with speed than handling.
And my opinion is that they were more concerned with overall performance, i.e., road racing. People's definitions of handling vary, but most center around the confidence that the car gives you in taking the twisties. My deifinition is that it matters less how much confidence the car gives you but focuses more on the car's abilities at the limit. A viper will be able to handle turns like a Porsche, but it will just scare the living crap out of you while doing it. On a side note, under my definition, a good, lightweight AWD car will have the best handling. This differs from my opinion of a "driver's car". That's where I lump the confidence you get and the subjective feel and road response the car provides you.
LS1Leader wrote:...I think minivans and Hondas alike running in the 10s in the quarter mile are a tribute to their owners' wrenching abilities. Anybody can drop a bucketload of money on a car that's already fast; taking a Civic or Miata to extreme performance levels is a talent few possess.

That "it's still a Civic" snobbery is the sort of thing that brand whores use to justify buying a car to raise their dignity level....
Again, not in the numbers. If you take a Civic and make it perform like a Ferrari, you're still going to be sitting in a Civic on your next road trip. Civics are designed for moderate performace and great economy. If you up the performance you'll have a better performing car, but it won't be a car designed for great performace. All the design features will still say economy....
Another idealistic difference. I would be more proud of having a Civic that could beat a Ferrari at a fraction of the price than I would be about simply spending money and having the performance handed to me.

Maybe I'm not seeing the distinction you're making between a better performing car, and a car "designed for performance". Perhaps I can divine the meaning by asking you the question "If you had a choice, money/price/value/availability not being factors, would you take a Ferrari F430 or a Ferrari F40?"

What about if I upgraded the interior (a beautiful woodgrain interior, etc., or some ridiculous sound system and DVD system, your choice) and styling (custom bodywork, or body kits, etc., your choice) to rival or exceed that of a Ferrari's as well? I can understand the snobbery if it excels in one category but falls flat in others, like a specialized drag car. But what about if you could hypothetically make a cheaper, less classy car superior to a Ferrari in practically every category, save for its pedigree (the brand name). which would you consider the better vehicle?

BTW, since I own a Civic, I have to correct you on one point: Civics have NO performance. ;)
LS1Leader wrote:...Crossfire owners would scream at you for calling their car American (German mechanicals, British designed)
Cadillacs are known as American cars no matter where they come from. It's like asking someone if Chrysler is an American car company. They'll say yes, even though they merged with Mercedes and moved their headquarters to Germany to lower their tax burden.
My apologies, my comments was a bit of a hyperbole. I was simply pointing out that a Crossifre is essentially a Merk with different body panels, and thus rides like a Merk.
LS1Leader wrote:...Porshces are nice cars, but they're not the be-all and end-all of performance cars, nor are they touched by the hand of God.
I love taking my car out to the track, and it probably won't be worth anything when I'm done with it. But I can't push it all the time because I still have to drive to work. And on that drive I like being in something that's well designed throughout. I have a lot of respect for Evos and STis. But through and through, they aren't designed as well as they could be.
So, a car for the course, the commute, and the country club? I think I understand the difference now. I believe you're looking for a jack-of-all-trades, while I would prefer having multiple specialist cars: one for commuting, one for cruising, and one for the track.
Blackstone
Junior Standardshifter
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 6:09 pm
Location: Atlanta

Post by Blackstone »

LS1Leader wrote:Lucky you... Most of the California cars I've seen on Autotrader are in the $10-16k, with the cheapest being $9k and the highest being in the high twenties.
Wow. That is a lot. We can get a good Boxster for under $20k.
LS1Leader wrote:I think this is where we disagree. For that price, I would want the car to be running 11s or low 12s in the quarter mile out of the box to consider it "the best of both worlds". For cheaper cars, I would relax my requirements a little, because you have more money to play with for upgrades.
I can see that. You just have to keep in mind anything that does more than one thing well will have to have some comprimises. Probably why Ferrari doesn't make a minivan (among other reasons).
LS1Leader wrote:And my opinion is that they were more concerned with overall performance, i.e., road racing. People's definitions of handling vary, but most center around the confidence that the car gives you in taking the twisties. My deifinition is that it matters less how much confidence the car gives you but focuses more on the car's abilities at the limit. A viper will be able to handle turns like a Porsche, but it will just scare the living crap out of you while doing it. On a side note, under my definition, a good, lightweight AWD car will have the best handling. This differs from my opinion of a "driver's car". That's where I lump the confidence you get and the subjective feel and road response the car provides you.
Ah see. I've always stuck with the idea that the best handling car is lightweight, AWD (even though I prefer RWD), great weight balance, and the right amount of power. Enough to get in and out of turns with ease, without overpowering the car to easily and without having to slow down because of lack of power.
LS1Leader wrote:Another idealistic difference. I would be more proud of having a Civic that could beat a Ferrari at a fraction of the price than I would be about simply spending money and having the performance handed to me.

Maybe I'm not seeing the distinction you're making between a better performing car, and a car "designed for performance". Perhaps I can divine the meaning by asking you the question "If you had a choice, money/price/value/availability not being factors, would you take a Ferrari F430 or a Ferrari F40?"

What about if I upgraded the interior (a beautiful woodgrain interior, etc., or some ridiculous sound system and DVD system, your choice) and styling (custom bodywork, or body kits, etc., your choice) to rival or exceed that of a Ferrari's as well? I can understand the snobbery if it excels in one category but falls flat in others, like a specialized drag car. But what about if you could hypothetically make a cheaper, less classy car superior to a Ferrari in practically every category, save for its pedigree (the brand name). which would you consider the better vehicle?
Hmm. This is a tough one to explain. Let me try it like this - Say you go sit in a Rolls Royce. Often considered the best car in it's class. It's designed with a purpose. It's about as comfortable of a ride as you can get. You can't tell when it shifts, the engine sounds the same on the highway as it does on your driveway. The seats just soak up your bodies shape and form. Everything is right where it should be for extreme comfort.

Then you sit in a Ferrari. If it were any lower to the ground you'd be shooting out sparks. The seats are shaped for driving, not riding. It wraps around your hips and your shoulders. It isn't soft. Even the seatbelt isn't usual. It comes down from both sides. The steering wheel is just the right size and weight to give the feeling of being connected to the car. And it's loud. Not the whining loud of a high revving 4 cylinder, but loud like thunder. They could probably make the cabin quieter if they wanted to, but then you couldn't hear the engine as well.

Neither of these cars compromise anything. They were designed to do what they do, and do it well. That's the differences I'm talking about. You could give a Civic stellar perfermance numbers. But that's not what the designers were aiming for when they designed the car, and it shows. They made a car that gets great mileage, is confortable enough to where you wouldn't complain about driving it, and performs well enough to not give you a problem when driving on just about any road. They had to make sacrifices in a lot of areas to keep the price down, and they've done a good job at it year after year. It's because of that design that turbo kits, low profile tires, and short shifters don't change the fact that it's a Civic. It's a good car, one of the best at what it does. But don't forget what it's meant to do.
LS1Leader wrote:BTW, since I own a Civic, I have to correct you on one point: Civics have NO performance. ;)
Ha ha. I think most everyone has owned a Civic. Mine was a little red hatchback.
LS1Leader wrote:My apologies, my comments was a bit of a hyperbole. I was simply pointing out that a Crossifre is essentially a Merk with different body panels, and thus rides like a Merk.
I probably should've said that I was generalizing the individual companies designs, and not specifying any one car. I talked about BMWs work with sedans, but I don't mean to imply that they don't make great roadsters as well.
LS1Leader wrote:So, a car for the course, the commute, and the country club? I think I understand the difference now. I believe you're looking for a jack-of-all-trades, while I would prefer having multiple specialist cars: one for commuting, one for cruising, and one for the track.
A have a sort of jack of all trades, and the compromises are obvious. I like to be able to drive specialist cars, but my current lifestyle doesn't allow for that. Yet.


And for the record, I'd rather have the F430. I love the design. The way all the parts work together just right (not just the mechanics, but everything). No padel shifters though.

Oh, and I want a 'Race' button! Cars with race buttons don't even need radios.
User avatar
jcprov21
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 2184
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 9:40 pm
Cars: 2009 Mitsubishi Lancer RA
Location: Port Orchard, Washington

Post by jcprov21 »

I am just to lazy too read it all.... what can i say. At least i am honest..... sometimes........ :roll: :wink:
Image
Post Reply