99% of modern sports cars, any cars, can kiss my....

[BNF]

Call me old fashioned, call me green, it doesn't matter: Once you have experienced the thrill, even joy, of driving a small, lightweight sports car, you can never go back.

I am sick and tired of 99% of modern cars, whether they are sports cars, sedans or (cheeks puffing, mouth held closed, stomach heaving while typing this) SUVs.

Every single car out there, save literally 2 or 3 models, gets bigger and heavier every year or model revamp.

What happened to quick and lightweight? What happened to lightening fast handling?

Ferrari and Porsche can kiss my ass, anymore. They had better have 300, 400, 500+ horsepower just to maintain an acceptable power to weight ratio. (And still these monsters are weighing in at 3500+lbs/1600+kgs)

Rant continues:

And what about these 18, 19, 20+ wheels? :wtf: Boy racers... ghetto cruisers... Not one of them knows a thing about unsprung weight.

If you know what I'm on about, great. If this is just too poorly written, I apologize.

I'm just soooooooo tired of people thinking that a sports car can be front wheel drive .... or that somehow a Mini (wtf) is a sports car...

Here's the greatest single link I've found about this (extreme, but makes the point): http://crazyjim.ramelot.com/14seconds.htm

Rant over. Blood pressure decreased. Able to focus again.

 

[McRocket]

Well, I love V8's. I love the sound and all the grunt way down low in the power band. To me, turbos and superchargers are cheats.
And since V8's are pretty heavy, they usually are put in a fairly heavy car (AC Cobra excepted).

I got my racing license driving 2000cc open wheel cars (basically, baby F1 cars). And they got allot of fun out of a very light package. And right after I did my daily runs (I was at a racing school) I would get into my Corvette and it would feel HUGE.
So you make a good point.

But I just love V8's too much.

And BTW, I used to own a Mini. The original type. And no, it was not a sports car. But it was fun to drive. It was like driving a big go cart. Crude, fun and it turned on a dime.

 

[D-rock]

Ferrari and Porsche can kiss my ass, anymore. They had better have 300, 400, 500+ horsepower just to maintain an acceptable power to weight ratio. (And still these monsters are weighing in at 3500+lbs/1600+kgs)

When you take into account the fact power will do absolutely nothing to help you stop it gets worse. When you add weight and have all that momentum with the car it's only going to make it that much more difficult. Having them be able to pull more Gs safely is also nice, unless you just plan on doing nothing more than having it go down an airport runway the entire time you drive it.

 

[Facial_King]

Okay, BNF, I'm listening, but could you give us some examples of the thrilling, lightweight sports cars you have in mind??

I used to be a huge exotic car fan back in the day. Porsche 930 Turbo (aka 911 Turbo) was my dream car, along with the Porsche 959. Mostly Porsches, but I also loved Lamborghini Miuras, Ferrari 512BBs, and the old Aston Martin Vantage, among others. I could get into a handful of old American muscle cars, too, mostly the classic Pontiac GTO and Steve McQueen's Mustang in the movie "Bullitt"...

Now, I mostly just think cars are a problem in numerous ways, but I understand the thrill of fast driving (even though I think it's stupid and reckless the way so many people think public roads are their personal racetracks) and I can appreciate a smooth-running engine and, most especially, the swooping feminine curves of a gorgeous auto that makes it like a piece of artwork, even if I also think that the internal-combustion engine powered by petroleum has proven to be an enormous problem that has fucked humanity over in numerous ways (even if it is convenient to have your own car to drive to the mall!)....

Anyway, which sports cars do you think are the sweetest???

And I really loathe SUVs, too. The whole faux-machismo schtick w/ Hummers and all those pieces of shit, it's really appalling....

Call me old fashioned, call me green, it doesn't matter: Once you have experienced the thrill, even joy, of driving a small, lightweight sports car, you can never go back.

I am sick and tired of 99% of modern cars, whether they are sports cars, sedans or (cheeks puffing, mouth held closed, stomach heaving while typing this) SUVs.

Every single car out there, save literally 2 or 3 models, gets bigger and heavier every year or model revamp.

What happened to quick and lightweight? What happened to lightening fast handling?

Ferrari and Porsche can kiss my ass, anymore. They had better have 300, 400, 500+ horsepower just to maintain an acceptable power to weight ratio. (And still these monsters are weighing in at 3500+lbs/1600+kgs)

Rant continues:

And what about these 18, 19, 20+ wheels? :wtf: Boy racers... ghetto cruisers... Not one of them knows a thing about unsprung weight.

If you know what I'm on about, great. If this is just too poorly written, I apologize.

I'm just soooooooo tired of people thinking that a sports car can be front wheel drive .... or that somehow a Mini (wtf) is a sports car...

Here's the greatest single link I've found about this (extreme, but makes the point): http://crazyjim.ramelot.com/14seconds.htm

Rant over. Blood pressure decreased. Able to focus again.

 

[Facetious]

Host -

I get it !

You're too much !


** :hammer:
:rofl2:

and even 22 in. (U.S.) rims on a 2000 and something, Buick Regal . . . . eh ! (Seen crusin down the 101 freeway)

 

[tunsty]

Every single car out there, save literally 2 or 3 models, gets bigger and heavier every year or model revamp.

.

Classic example: The MkI Golf GTI..awesome/fun hothatch - Now a bloated lumbering beast

 

[AFA]

I know what you mean. I've always made a case for small and nimble.

 

[drewmiln]

ROFL to that 'extreme stripped down' car I agree with the sentiments of

-no true car is a crossover of anything
-theres no substitute for rear wheel drive
-N/A engines kick ass, turbo's get the job done but its like losing your soul!

I'm a massive fan of Australian Holdens, HSV's. whilst not being purely sportscar, they probably come closest to; at a wicked budget!

here is a pic of the new model:

http://news.windingroad.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/HSV-GTS-f-3-4.jpg

 

[Undertaker]

Classic example: The MkI Golf GTI..awesome/fun hothatch - Now a bloated lumbering beast

actually the first and second generation golf gti's were made to be fun and fast.

mk3,4 were very poor if comparing to the first two. however it is said that mk5 is supposed to have it's fun back, concentrating more on the original concept

 

[Peter Gazinya]

You makin' fun of my car??



http://carblog.99rides.com/images/box-car.jpg

 

[BNF]

Yes, I think that the Golf series is a perfect example of how things have gone wrong. Like most people's waistlines, the car has grown and grown through the years.

This was sparked because I've been looking at new rides and it is absolutely frustrating to see all of the junk that is installed without me having a choice: navi, computer infos, dual zone climate, vanity lights all over the place, "comfort" features.... I get stared back at like I am a baboon when I try to spec out a ride with a little weighty items as possible.

I'm just exhausted by this conceited "executive" crap. I want to go fast, stop short and pin my date to the side glass when cornering - I don't care about making it a rolling den or living room!

 

[paosti]

To each their own. However, having a family, house, land, and bills up the wazoo. Not too mention the threat of snow for 5 months.

I went the heavy, "cheating", japanese route.

A 3200 lb, tubocharges, AWD, Subaru Impreza STi.

I'm never going back. I've driven a lot of cars in my time, and this one just takes the cake for pure driving enjoyment.

Not too mention i can blast down a road with better than super car handling, all while in less than ideal road conditions.

The understeer is a bit of a pain on the track, however the fact its more than a capable daily driver makes up for it.

like I said- to each their own. enjoy what you like.

 

[marquis2]

The term "sports car" is too widely used. It has been used for decades but in the formative years a sports car was an open topped two seater driven for enjoyment.Just to tweak up a family banger like the Golf does not create a sports car.Perhaps a sporting saloon.
Talking about increased weight , the Polo (which must be just about the most uncomfortable car I've ever been in) was brought out as a little brother to the Golf. The Polo is now bigger than the original Golf.I agree what you say about the present GTI. My son had one and it was about the dullest car imaginable.And with the VW reliability problems thrown in.

 

[AFA]

The term "sports car" is too widely used. It has been used for decades but in the formative years a sports car was an open topped two seater driven for enjoyment.Just to tweak up a family banger like the Golf does not create a sports car.Perhaps a sporting saloon.
Talking about increased weight , the Polo (which must be just about the most uncomfortable car I've ever been in) was brought out as a little brother to the Golf. The Polo is now bigger than the original Golf.I agree what you say about the present GTI. My son had one and it was about the dullest car imaginable.And with the VW reliability problems thrown in.

I agree. I blame US auto makers for that who copied a lot of original ideas from Europe, including bucket seats, radial tires, on the floor shift, etc. and incorporated them into crude designs, (Even now they spell Towne with an "E"). Raising the horsepower did nothing to enhance these cars for fast drives around turns. (Thus Nascar vs. Formula 1). They had to have every behemoth sharing the same basic chassis in a sport version, a luxury version, a wagon, a GT version and all with a chrome hood ornament as per the style (at the moment. They don't design, they copy small parts of what they feel is in vogue in Europe at the moment. Adding racing stripes, or big tires a sports car does not make.

1955 Maserati Zagado

That's what I like about Lotus. Well designed, they still make driver's cars, space frames from the ground up. Light and fast on turns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Elise
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Europa_S
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Europa

 

[titsrock]

If we all agree that cars from the mid/late 80s--early 90s were lighter and more fuel efficient...why won't the automakers dust off the old plans and while keeping the core dimensions the same...the core engine components the same (4cyl/6cyl etc..)....why won't they re-introduce earlier designs with freshened "sheet metal," colors, updated entertainment options (ipod connectors etc)....

My 1994 VW Jetta was lighter and drove better then today's Jettas and TRULY got me 32 mpg...sometimes better on the highway even. It has a smallish 4banger, nothing to brag about, but it was fun to drive and it had a sunroof and a nice radio. What else does a guy need in a car to get laid!!

 

[E-Ann-Hilden]

I have no interest in returning to the past for performance. Yes new cars are heavier, I agree that has been a downfall. With modern saftey requirements and amenties such as navagation and power moonroofs, this has added weight to most cars.

1960 to 1980's sports cars were often with medicore build quality, expensive to maintain, difficult to handle and poor stopping power.

However, modern sports cars are faster, handle better, stop faster, more comfortable, more features and provide far better safety. Fuel economy has suffered a bit, but few cars with over 300HP get great gas mileage anyway.

Well on your note, I plan to order a BMW 135i next year. It is in the spirit of the 70's BMW 2002 model, a great sporty 2 seater. It will be the fastest non-M car and provide great performance and handling for the dollar .

Take a look at wiki info on the Porsche 930, which was a very popular sports car..

The 930 proved very fast but also very demanding. The 911 was prone to oversteer because of its rear engine layout and short wheelbase; combining those traits with the power of the turbocharged motor, which exhibited significant turbo-lag, made the problem more prevalent. Even though the rear engine layout provided superior traction, sudden bursts of power to the rear wheels in mid-corner could break the tires loose, causing the car to literally spin out of control. This effect was amplified if an unexperienced driver would instinctively lift the throttle in reaction. The vehicle needed to be kept at high revvs during spirited driving to minimise the turbo lag. Skilled drivers quickly learned how to drive the 930 properly, and with that knowledge came the ability to drive the car above and beyond the levels of most other sports cars. Nevertheless, some fatal accidents resulted in product liability law suits brought against Porsche in the U.S.

 

[Christmas_Ape]

All I know is, if I had an electric or hydrogen car, I would kiss it all day long.

 

[AFA]

I think cars get bigger as people perceive that as more luxurious. During the 80's gas crunch, people scaled down with smaller cars from the auto makers, while some people still bought bargain priced like new, Cadillacs and Lincolns. I think we're still at that point now. People think they are getting something that represents luxury on the cheap. Like a fake Rolex. :dunno:

 

[Facial_King]

I had an '88 Honda CRX HF (the most fuel efficient CRX, not quite as zippy as the Si, but still pretty quick), and I would often get 48mpg or more. One time, on a long highway drive I checked and, being careful not to go too fast, but not dawdling either, I got just under 52mpg! I think when it was new it was rated as 56mpg highway, 42 city. What amazes me is that here we are nearly 20 years later and a little VW Beetle can't even match that. And of course Honda doesn't even offer CRXs any more - that was a mistake, IMHO.
Even some of the hybrids seem to have only so-so fuel economy, considering the trade-off in oomph.

Sorry for that bit of a sidetrip...

 

[titsrock]

I had an '88 Honda CRX HF (the most fuel efficient CRX, not quite as zippy as the Si, but still pretty quick), and I would often get 48mpg or more. One time, on a long highway drive I checked and, being careful not to go too fast, but not dawdling either, I got just under 52mpg! I think when it was new it was rated as 56mpg highway, 42 city. What amazes me is that here we are nearly 20 years later and a little VW Beetle can't even match that. And of course Honda doesn't even offer CRXs any more - that was a mistake, IMHO.
Even some of the hybrids seem to have only so-so fuel economy, considering the trade-off in oomph.

Sorry for that bit of a sidetrip...

No sidetrip at all. THis is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. The CRX is a perfect example. Those things were incredibly popular where I lived.

That car COULD be "refreshed," with new lines, new rims, new interior, new electronics...and if it still delivered that MPG it would fly off the lots today. People would buy it as the daily driver.

The current Civic, I believe, is 2 inches smaller then the Accord of 4 years ago. Automakers are either responding to the fact that our nation is getting older and fatter or they have the attitude AFA expressed--they've got us believing that bigger is more luxurious (again)...