Sports Cars - The Definitive Discussion

starrow68 · September 2005

Talk about driving fast, if it is related to being on public roads, doesn't come close to what driving fast at a track involves. Any curve or turn in the public realm is always subject to dogs/deer, other stationary objects and/or the chance that someone else has put themsleves into a bad situation that requires reaction that may not be best done if at or close to any limits. In many cases, if not just about all, there is no alert system beyond staying with the limits of reason.
Driving fast at the track on the other hand involves flaggers who watch out for what is over the blind turn entry as well at what info you already have to process about the cars you last saw on the straight, etc. They have radios to alert flaggers who are not seeing an event unfold but can get you info well ahead of the incident.
Well, off to Buttonwillow at the end of the month and Sears Point in early Oct. Good luck with the new Porsche's and hope to see some out at the track one day.
Randy

auxyone · September 2005

I absolutely agree. I was fortunate some time ago to attend Bondurant's school, and would definitely recommend it to anyone serious about driving their high-performance car. My next refresher stop will be Porsche's DE in Atlanta.

However, I do differ about one thing if I understand you correctly: Sharp turns during acceleration are actually more planted in the 911; it's understeer that you're more likely to encounter. Going into a corner a bit hot while braking would produce that effect, though.

starrow68 · September 2005

Not sure of the references in the prior post but from the track, braking while turning in a 911would seem illadvised at best. Even lifting the throttle some after turn in seems to get instant results that are obvious from off track as you note the change in exhaust note and then the squeel ..... very touchy it seems.

auxyone · September 2005

Yep, we're on the same page... However that touchiness is less so, I think, in the newer models. In 993s, braking or lifting off the throttle in that circumstance produces very undesirable effects. The 996/997s are less so, but still exhibit that tendency.

kyfdx · September 2005

Your point about public roads is a good one...

I had an '84 Targa.... I'm sure I never would have been able to get even 80% of its performance at a track (never tried it), but for public roads? Anything that I was stupid enough to try, it could handle....

But, once you commit to a turn, lifting or braking is not really an option... you are better off adding throttle to get out of trouble...

I miss it dearly...

regards,
kyfdx

piscean · September 2005

Ok, so what I gather, it seems that one major difference in driving the rear engine 911 would be that when you would normally and instinctively have a tendency to break late just before entering a curve and then accelerate once you've completed most of the turn, this might not be the best course of action with this Porsche. Instead, it would be better to break early, then actually start accelerating thru the curve (assuming road conditions are good).

Hmmm...I hope it takes me less time to learn this then it did to develop an adequate golf swing.*LOL*

Piscean

ultimatedriver · September 2005

Just went Porsche shopping and instead of going to 997 route, I decided to save a few quid and jump into a 1997 993 Turbo. The newer Porsches, regardless of the performance potential, don't have the excitement of the past models (bar the GT2/GT3 which I love to death, but cant tolerate on anything but a racetrack) IMO.

I found the suspension forgiving enough on the car to make the switch to lightweight wheels with a harder compound tire. This switch alone has dramatically improved the steering feel to telepathic proportions. In addition, the inevitable rear breakaway one experiences from lifting early or mid-corner (letting physics work its magic) is now very catchable, and the breakaway is nice and progressive though still inevitable.

The engine has had a few modifications by a little company called Ruf, so I'm unable to give an accurate description of power or response differences (because my throttle system is very altered from stock). However it is surprising how differently this vehicle behaves in comparison to the newer models. The suspension was left alone, but the rebound damping on the 993 seems to be more forgiving than the 996. The 997's compression damping seems to be a lot more stiff the my car's.

I drove a 6 speed S with the PASM and Sport Chrono option in case anyone wants to know. The active dampers are truly amazing. The sport option firms things up noticeably, however if you drive the car with some aggression, the dampers automatically switch to a different rate. I still prefer a stationary setup, but if one can get used to the changes the suspension makes, the level of confidence is thus increased.

It's got more than enough power for whatever the owner may want to do and the throttle response is indeed sharper in sport mode, though one can get used to it eventually. The 997 takes advantage of the awesome dynamic weight distribution of its rear engine design and loads the rear with horsepower upon launch. I guess that's why it can reach 60 in less than 4 seconds with only 355 horses.

I'm not sure how long I'll want to hang on to my Turbo. Probably until I'm able to test drive the new ZO6. Until then, it's on to the 'Ring.

xkss · September 2005

Have most of the weight behind the rear axle is awesome for acceleration and braking, but hurts handling. The new Cayman is what the 911 should have transformed into back in the 1980s except for the dumb name and awkward styling.

merc1 · September 2005

Ok, I'm back sorry for the late reply, while on vacation I don't touch a computer.

Well you make a strong case on the logical for getting the Boxster S, but neither of these cars are "needed" or very pratical imo. I personally wouldn't desire the extra razor like handling of the Boxster compared to the more comfortable and faster 911, which is still far from being a slouch in the handling department.

There is also something about the Boxster's look that, while better then the previous Boxster, isn't as balanced as the latest 911. The 911 just screams classic to me, even more so in Cabrio form.

Think about this, you daughters can ride in the 911S too from time to time.

Now if you're going to get another sporty car for the family duties that is roomier and more comfortable than the 911, then by all means get the Boxster for contrast, but my heart (and I'd make the logic fit

) would pine away for the 911.

M

designman · September 2005

"I personally wouldn't desire the extra razor like handling of the Boxster compared to the more comfortable and faster 911, which is still far from being a slouch in the handling department."

Wow, there's a lot of concession made to Boxster in that statement. Although they handle differently, "razor-like" is never to be taken away from the 911. I think the 911 is more razor like, cat like due to its shorter wheelbase and rear weight bias which really come into play at high speed.

As far as comfort, I don't know what you mean by that. If being able to utilize the rear cargo area is considered comfort then I'll agree, but as far as the cockpit they are virtually identical. I THINK the 911 has a little more seat travel. The 911 comes across bigger than it actually is.

Can't wait to drive Cayman. I think this one is going to be pure driving nirvana. I'd get it but really need the drop top.

habitat1 · September 2005

Well, merc1, as you now know, I went for the 911 S Cabriolet. And my daughters are having nearly as much fun as me!

Thanks for your comments and insights. I feel that this was a well thought out decision, thank to folks like you and others here at Edmunds that aided the process immensely.

merc1 · September 2005

Well I meant that to me the 911 at least seems to be roomier, either that or I just fit into the 911 better. The seats in the 911 seemed more comfortable to me too.

On the handling issue (maybe I didn't word it right) I would most likely agree when I'm able to drive the new 997 and Boxster. I haven't driven the new 997 or Boxster, only the "old" 996 in Coupe form. I agree they both handle exceptionally, but the Boxster seems to have an edge this time around no?

M

merc1 · September 2005

NP - long as you enjoy the car and don't have any regrets I'm sure everyone here is happy for you, I know I am.

M

designman · September 2005

Well I meant that to me the 911 at least seems to be roomier, either that or I just fit into the 911 better. The seats in the 911 seemed more comfortable to me too.

Ive heard tall people say they fit better in a 911 but as I mentioned the 911 may have a little more seat travel because the Boxster seats are limited by the engine cover. Also, the seatback angle is limited in the Boxster so if you use all of the available seat travel you are screwed with seatback angle. At 6 0 I find my height the limit for total seat comfort in a Box. As far as the seats themselves, the Boxster and 911 have the same seats in addition to the same cockpit, the only differences are the instrument cluster and shape of the vents.

On the handling issue the Boxster seems to have an edge this time around no?

I was kind of teasing you because if I recall correctly you never really cared for the Boxster. Anyway, many people have said that the Boxster always handled better than the 911. Both have evolved but I think the lesser disparity in power between the two today is allowing the Boxster to be more noticed and come into its own.

Despite power I think we have to concede an edge to the mid-engine design. And if anyone wants to argue this they should pick on the super cars obviously. But the 911 is more of a live wire and people love its hallmark handling like cowboys love to ride bulls, so that was also the basis of my response to you. Which do I like? Both, its that simple. But they are inherently different even though you know who the manufacturer is.

I guess I have a small issue with this time around because the Boxster S has been getting rave reviews ever since it came out. The incremental improvements in 987 are not groundbreaking, just the slow evolution that is part of the Porsche MO. If anything, maybe the power threshold has been reached that the press is starting to find acceptable vs the 911. Boxster press has been extremely positive and Cayman is irrigating perception with all of this talk about it outperforming the C2. There has even been speculation that Cayman is the first step in retiring the 911. I wouldnt hold my breath on that but there was talk two years ago about 997 being an interim design. Will be interesting to see what transpires with them over the next several years especially now with the hybrid venture.

merc1 · September 2005

I was kind of teasing you because if I recall correctly you never really cared for the Boxster. Anyway, many people have said that the Boxster always handled better than the 911. Both have evolved but I think the lesser disparity in power between the two today is allowing the Boxster to be more noticed and come into its own.

Well you got me there! I thought I had said something wrong on a Porsche board, and that is a huge no-no.

I've always liked the way the Boxster drove, but I couldn't stand the first-gen design. The front overhang seemed too long, like a lip being poked out or something.

I can't imagine Porsche getting rid of the 911. I don't think they can make it without it. Problem is at some point they're going to have to take the 911 to the next level like they did with the 996 compared to the 993, and the purists are going to groan big time. I too remember reading that an "all-new" 911 was due in 2007-08, but I don't see that happening now. The 997 is perfect imo. Hell by the time Porsche finishes rolling out all the 997's variants it may well be time for a facelift or redesign.

M

xkss · September 2005

The 997 is nice, but you can't get a limited slip differential for it in North America. Plus, Porsche refuses to fix the (RMS) rear main seal leaks of the 997 which go back to the early 996s. The base 996's block is just too weak.

habitat1 · September 2005

What exactly would be the benefit of limited slip differential? As you know., the 997 comes standard with PSM (Porsche Stability Management, which as I understand it, intervenes to control wheelspin, as well as maintain the cars directional control). And from the recent Road and Track comparison test between the 911S and Corvette, the 911S out accelerated (and outhandled) the Corvette in spite of a horsepower and torque disadvantage, because the 911S was much better at putting the power to the pavement and avoided the uncontrollable wheelspin of the Corvette. So is the lack of limited slip differential really an issue, and/or isn't it effectively superceded by PSM?

xkss · September 2005

An LSD helps plant the power better than PSM.

Let's just wait and see how the new aluminum Corvette Z06 competes against a 997 S on a race track...

habitat1 · September 2005

You can wait, I'll pass.

I will likely put 12k-15k+ miles a year on my 997. If I couldn't have comfortably afforded it, I would have gone for a $58k Boxster S. If I couldn't have comfortably afforded that, I would have gone for a $32k Honda S2000. Whether or not the 500+ horsepower Corvette can beat the 355 hp 997 S on a racetrack is irrelevent to me. It's a car, like the Viper, that was never on my shopping list. For those that understand why, great; for those that don't, that's O.K. too.

On an intellectual and business level, however, don't you find it a bit disconcerting that it takes Chevy 500 hp, 7+/- liters and tires as wide as a professional wrestlers butt to essentially match the "race track" performance of Porsches 355 hp, 3.8 liter, sophisticated chassis/suspension approach. American companies are leaders in many areas of engineering prowess - aircraft design, medical instruments, nuclear power,..the list goes on. But in terms of automobiles, the Chevy Corvette (and Dodge Viper) sledgehammer approach is, at least to me, as unattractive as the oversized tract house in the suburbs with a brick front and vinyl sides. Thankfully, I don't have to move to Germany or Japan to get good architecture.

I am not tring to incite a domestic vs. import battle here. For those that find the Chevy Corvette their cup of tea, good for you. But with GM, Ford and Chrysler all struggling for survival while Honda, Toyota and, especially, Porsche, thriving, I think my sentiments are not inconsistent with a lot of other consumers and driving enthusiasts. And offering us "employee pricing" isn't going to fix the underlying problem.

dweiser · September 2005

The Vette was never on my list either and for the same reasons you enunciated. Is it a "bad" car, of course not. It has greater "value" in some ways (like $ ways) over the Porsche. Some people in the mountain community where I live have the huge house with the fake brick front and vinyl on the sides and back. I either giggle or just shake my head each time I pass them.
But no slur or fights intended; a Vette is what it is and Porsche is what it is and you pays your money and you buys the one you wants.

starrow68 · September 2005

ignoring the obvious. "...avoided the uncontrollable wheelspin of the Corvette...",
any one who would use that bit of bad driving to justify the Porsche, is really in need of some good lessons at Russell or another good driving school. If the driver feels that 400 hp is uncontrollable then they ought to drive something they can get comfortable in. Weight transfer without having an engine hanging out the back for a 33/67 distribution is what the rest of the world does every day, even on the race track. Where the Porsche does well is against itself, seems like most Porsche series don't attract competition, Go Panoz, but I don't think it's because a balanced weight to HP package can't beat a similar Porsche. Beating them dollar wise is a snap, after helping a GT3 driver at Laguna Seca he got his times close to my stock coupe on street tires. Next year if he is there I expect that he might even be doing better lap times, for what $? I'll take my under $50k sledgehammer.
Randy

xkss · September 2005

On an intellectual and business level, however, don't you find it a bit disconcerting that it takes Chevy 500 hp, 7+/- liters and tires as wide as a professional wrestlers butt to essentially match the "race track" performance of Porsches 355 hp, 3.8 liter, sophisticated chassis/suspension approach.

Hp/liter is just a number. The new Z06's 505 hp LS7 weighs less than BMW's new 507 hp V-10.

Also, the new Z06 has more performance than the new 911 Carrera S.

The new Z06 doesn't have just a 427 cubic inch V-8. It has 6 piston front/four piston caliper brakes each with their own individual pads, a dry-sump lubrication system, an aluminum chassis, a magnesium roof and engine cradle, carbon fiber in the floor pan, and some other stuff.

habitat1 · September 2005

Rather than continuing to contrast the 911 S with the Corvette and vise-versa, I found a source for some common ground in our sports car passion:

link title.

Forbes picks the Carrera GT as top "exotic sports car", the 911 S as the top "high end sports car", the Corvette as the top "mid range sports car" and the Corvette again as the "best value". So both cars, albeit different, are winners in the eyes of Forbes.

And, as a result of some additional reading, I am going to make a point of checking out the new Corvette in person when I get a chance. I try to teach my kids to gather all of the facts before forming an opinion - perhaps I should do a better job of leading by example.

P.S. I do disagree with Forbes slightly on the Mazda RX8 as the top "family sports car". Rather, my daughters would disagree. Being in the back of a hard top RX-8 would get two thumbs down compared to being in the back of a 911 Cab with their hair blowing in the wind.

ultimatedriver · November 2005

I too, am looking forward to putting the new ZO6 through it's paces. In truth, I'm more a fan of the way the C5 ZO6 went about it's business than this new bunch of Vettes.

Now that opinion is purely from a driving standpoint. I applaud the reduced levels of NVH and increased levels of build quality in the new models. I just hope that the ZO6 has a bit more feeling than the stock C6.

blacktalon · November 2005

So, the high-tech company I work for just had a successful IPO last week. When I started working for them 7 years ago, they were in a low-rent strip mall -- now they're NASDAQ darlings.

I have a decent amount of stock in the company, and like any car enthusiast, I'm thinking "New Sports Car!" My 2001 Honda Prelude has served me well for the last 5 years, and while I have no complaints at all about the Prelude, it's time for something a little faster and a little sportier.

Suppose you were fortunate enough to be able to spend $40-50K on a new sports car. Which would you pick?

Ground Rules

- It's going to be a daily driver. I want something that puts a smile on my face during the daily commute -- not just a garage queen or a Sunday driver.
- I have a strong preference for new cars over used cars.
- Can be either a coupe or a convertible, with a slight preference for a coupe.
- Power/acceleration is important
- Handling/responsiveness is even more important
- Skidpad grip numbers matter less to me than the sense of being connected to the car

Currently on my list

- C6 Corvette (love the style, but haven't driven one yet)
- Base Boxster (drove one, absolutely loved the handling, but the acceleration seemed a little lacking)
- Base Cayman (maybe, though they're probably going to run well over $50K with options)
- Z4 Coupe (due next summer)
- M3 Coupe (haven't driven one yet, it's got power and handling, but the styling doesn't excite me as much as the others)
- Used Boxster S (haven't driven one yet, but it's the one car that might make me reconsider my preference for new cars)

Other cars I've considered

- S2000 (drove one, great handling, but a little too small for my taste)
- RX-8 (drove one, very nice car, but it just didn't thrill me)
- G35 Coupe (ditto)
- 350Z (haven't test driven it yet, but based on reviews, doesn't sound like what I'm looking for)

Is there anything else I should consider?

What's your favorite in this price range?

iwantonetoo · November 2005

My choice would be the Corvette. I have driven a C6 with manual transmission and was quite impressed. 400hp, mounds of torque, fantastic brakes and glued to the road handling. You'd be smiling all day long after driving this to work.

habitat1 · November 2005

First, congratulations on sticking it out for the past 7 years. You deserve a treat for your perseverence.

My preference would be to stretch your budget and negotiate hard on a new Boxster S. There are still a fair number of new 2005's around, that you should be able to get at slightly above invoice ($6k-$7k off MSRP for a loaded one). The one I was considering (before electing to go with a 911 Cab S) stickered at $63.8k and could have been bought for $57.5k. It included PASM, sport chrono, 19" wheels and a bunch of other goodies that make it the best handling roadster (and car) on the planet, according to Road and Track. Certainly not as massively powerful as a Corvette, but darn quick, much more nimble and fun to drive IMO, and a exceptionally refined interior cockpit.

The Caymen S, by the way, is roughly $7k more than a Boxster S, so if you were thinking of that one in a $50k budget, forget it. More like $65k-$70k with little discounting. The base Cayman won't be available for another year or so.

P.S. On your slight preference for a coupe, as a former S2000 owner I can say that both the Boxster S and 911 Cab are considerably quieter inside with the top up at post-legal highway speeds. I have 3,400 miles on my 8 week old 911 Cab, so daily driving is not an issue.

starrow68 · November 2005

If you want the drive time fun I'd have to say a used 911 should be on the list. Not what I'd like but I can't discount that I see more of them at the track than I usually see of Corvettes.

As to performance for the dollar, and I note your skid pad comment, the Corvette is the bang for the buck leader. Just back from two days on Sears Point Raceway with a basically stock C5 Coupe, slower than a Z06 or C6 with similar drivers. For a day and a half I passed a succession of Porsche 911's and Boxster S's and one track set up S with race tires came closest to staying with me but I was pulling about a second per lap faster when we had clear running.

As to test drives, good luck, my experience is that you drive used ones and then buy new ones with 5 miles on the odometer. Buying performance cars with a couple hundred miles on the odo just doesn't seem to work for the dealers much so they try to keep them as delivered. The best deals for a Vette are on the internet through the outfits that get the largest allocations based on prior sales.
Randy

ultimatedriver · November 2005

The Corvette is the football team's running back that can go to the prom and dress nice. He can be just as light on his feet as the guys on the track team, but can kill the 40m a few ticks faster. The '06 Vettes base at just under 45k MSRP. Don't forget the new paddle shift option for the '06 models. It could be fun.

I just got rid of a used 911 Turbo that I happened to steal for just under 59 and change. The previous owner had taken very good care of it and was a true Porsche aficionado. He had all the records meticulously kept and didn't slack once on the service. It was one of the most reliable super cars I'd ever driven and I don't regret driving it one bit.

blacktalon · November 2005

Thanks for all the suggestions.

habitat: Yeah, it's been a rollercoaster ride the last seven years -- lots of work, but fun too.

I am starting to think that the base Boxster won't be fast enough to satisfy me. I'm currently leaning toward the Corvette, but if our stock does particularly well, I'd certainly consider the Boxster S as well.

starrow: Test driving a used Vette sounds like a reasonable option. I might even rent one for a day to see if the Corvette experience is what I'm looking for...

blacktalon · November 2005

Any M3 owners want to chime in on this discussion? Or for that matter, anyone who's driven an E46 M3?

The combination of power, handling, and refinement is starting to grow on me. So is the fact that it would probably be much better (with 4 good snow tires, of course) in Boston's winter, which runs from November until April.

I'm curious how people would compare it's fun-to-drive factor with the Vette and the Boxster...

habitat1 · November 2005

Great coupe. But not a "sports car" in the sense of the Boxster, 911, Corvette or other ground up sports cars.

Same goes for the M5. The M3/M5 are both the absolute tops in their respective categories. But don't confuse a sports coupe or performance sedan with a roadster or sports car. Completely different driving experience, at least for me.

Our 911 is a third car, and I wanted to go the pure sports car route. The M3 is definitely more versitile, but not by the margin you might think. Even with snow tires, it doesn't have the ground clearance to tackle serious snow. Nor would you necessarily want to try. If I had an M3 in Boston, I'd still be looking to have a back up beater for the worst days.

donz1 · December 2005

Let me tell you something vert very important. The boxter S will not turn heads .. It is not consideres as a porsche and never will be .. The cayman is great absolutely .. but the boxter .. fuggetaboutit.

andys120 · December 2005

Well at least you're not telling us it can't be a Porsche if it's not a 911.

I'm sure any Porsche dealer will be happy to sell a PORSCHE Boxster to anyone who wants a new Porsche.

habitat1 · December 2005

Thanks for that great advice. And I assume you know that the Cayman is essentially a hardtop version of the Boxster?

Kids these days. :mad:

donz1 · December 2005

Hello, I own porsche turbo 2001 and a carrera 4S 2005 .. Where I come from a Boxter is not a porsche and considering it's price and it's engine it is definitly not a porsche and infact it defames porsches all arounf the world. The cayman is not a boxter with a hardtop .. It is much more than that .. It is between the boxter and the 911 and it's new and has a new buils whic makes it great ..

habitat1 · December 2005

I'll add my 3 cents to rorr's 2 and give you an even nickel to chew on.

(1) I don't know "where (you) come from" that a "Boxter is not a porsche" (sic), but where I come from it's a safe assumption that a real Porsche owner would not consistently misspell Boxster five times in two posts.

(2) As a real and very happy 2005 911S owner, I have no ego impediment to acknowledging that the Boxster S is the best handling Porsche on the market. Road and Track came to the same consclusion when it broke the slalom record previously held by the Enzo (a "real" Ferrari). And the Cayman S is indeed based directly on the Boxster S - which is a good thing.

(3) I see from your posts in the Corvette C6 forum that you are looking for recommendations as to what options on a new Corvette will enable you to "turn heads". Apparantly you are obsessed with this objective? And you think that the Boxster defames Porsches "all arounf (sic) the world"? :mad:

I think if you try connecting the above dots, you will reach a different conclusion as to what is real and what is fake here. I have.

starrow68 · December 2005

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=108567?mktcat=ins- ideline&kw=HTML&mktid=NL990518&DARTmail

Wonder if it is too long?

billymay · December 2005

I've driven Boxster/S and 911/964/993/996 evolutions of the '911'. I've owned a 911 cabriolet. Frankly the parts sharing between all these cars is enough to confuse anyone who's not a car enthusiast, particularly when it comes to the Cayman.

Ultimately the Cayman S is probably going to emerge as the best of the lot due its mid-engined design - there simply are no engineers left who defend rear-engined cars as the way to go. Credit marketing and tradition with perpetuating this configuration.

I definitely love Porsches (though not so much the 996), but the idea of drawing a line between "real" and "not real" Porsches is pretty suspect.

It's funny though - after I sold the Porsche and bought a Ferrari I had to deal with the "it's not a 12 cylinder so it's a not a real Ferrari" crowd.

merc1 · December 2005

Pagani Zonda F

You decide. Whatever you call it, awesome it is.

M

habitat1 · December 2005

Well, it's nice to see that at least somebody knows what to do with that 602 hoprsepower 12 liter AMG monster. And a real six speed no less.

Thanks for the highly entertaining link. Doesn't tempt me to trade in the 911 (where would the little ones sit?), but certainly has me thinking that I need to take one of those performance driving courses.

andys120 · December 2005

Thanks for that Merc, the Zonda is pretty awesome. When I first saw it I thought it was ugly but then I read about the lengths to which Pagani had gone to make it a great driving car. The bubble canopy gives it the best outward visibility of any mid-engined car (as well as the look of a jet fighter).

Did anyone notice the high rank of the Ariel Atom in the track times at the end of that clip?
It's different kind of sports car>>

Ariel Atom story

carlisimo · December 2005

I feel a little out of place among all the Porsche and Ferrari talk. I can only try to get there someday. For now though, I'm in the sports car thread asking people to talk about the cheap ones...

I won't count the sport coupes, but the line's sometimes unclear. Among what I think are sports cars... the Miata, MR2, MR-S, and Solstice seem to be all there is on the bottom rung. The 350z and RX-8 start in that price range too, and used ones are as affordable as a new Accord.

Do any of them manage to be sports cars, despite the cost-related compromises? How low can a "real" sports car go?

(And why does that Dodge Caravan in the parking lot outside have a "Sport" badge on it? Makes me wonder if there's any point to the "sports car" label at all.)

andys120 · December 2005

The lighter and simpler a car is the sportier it can be so there is no stigma against cars that are small and cheap or even not particularly fast. One of the sportiest cars I ever drove was the old Bugeye Sprite which retailed for less than $2000 in the early 60s. Options were limited to wire wheels, tonneau cover and an AM radio.

You could buy lots of go fast stuff from the aftermarket (Weber carbs). The Sprite Mk I was a pure blast to drive with all of 75 horses under the hood.

IMO the Miata, MR2 and Solstice are not only real sports cars but offer a more pure sports car experience than many more expensive and powerful cars.

habitat1 · December 2005

Everybody's definition of what makes for a desireable sports car for them is a little different. So what might constitute a "real" sports car to you, may not make the cut for me and vice-versa.

Case in point, the 350Z. I guess I'll reluctantly agree that it's a sports car, since what else would you call it? But it weighs several hundred pounds more than my 1995 Maxima and shares an updated version of the same engine that is tweaked to power everything from a current Maxima to a Pathfinder. Sports car, I guess. "REAL" sports car, not in my book. The old 240Z was truer to the term.

Back to your question. While I fully agree that a real sports car doesn't necessarily need to be "real fast", when I was shopping back in 2001, I wanted something that was at least fairly competent in all performance categories. The $32k Honda S2000 was my ultimate pick. Not as inexpensive as a Miata or some of the other cars you mentioned, but performance that could match or beat the base Boxster, Z4, SLK and other more expensive cars. Even today, you would need to spend nearly $60k for a Boxster S to have a better performing sports car, IMO. And the S2000 was designed from the ground up and hand built. The build quality, paint finish, etc. were right up there with my current 911.

I drove my S2000 for 2.5 years, 19,000 miles and got over $23k on a trade-in. Had I wanted to go through the hassle of selling it privately, I probably could have gotten close to $25k for it. In the 2.5 years the grand total maintenance on the car was under $320, including 4 Mobil 1 oil changes. The tires were on there last legs. My point is that the least expensive car to own isn't necessarily the cheapest to buy up front. Anything American is not going to come close to matching Honda resale value.

Good luck.

starrow68 · December 2005

The S2000 from what I've seen at the track for a couple years is the best performance choice, where the Miata is the best economic choice. The Miata is fun and quick in stock form but you can reach its limits pretty quick. The S2000 on the other hand is really fast and for experienced drivers it is something that can be tuned to very high performance levels.

The problem with all of these and the more expensive competition noted is that what fits when you are 20/30 seems very tight when you arrive at 50 and more than 1/2 the baby boom is there. I loved my MGB from 1972 to 1984 when I was about 180 lbs but at 198 all those tight fits just don't work any more. I'll take the compromise and have space for the wife and a couple bags when I'm on track with the 350hp in the Corvette, sportscar enough for me!
Randy

habitat1 · December 2005

Hey, watch it, I'm moments away from 50 myself and don't need to be reminded that I've gained more than 18 lbs from my "fighting weight".

As far as the S2000 goes, it did take me on my annual golf outing for 3 years with a set of clubs, large duffle bag and various other items in the trunk. The mandatory beer cooler went in the passenger seat. I had a friend that had an MGB from 1975-1978 +/- and that was indeed a tiny tiny car in comparison to the 2,800 lb S2000.

Enjoy the New Year.

extremevl · January 2006

I think the Lotus Elise is a great car but for $40,000 plus??? The new 2007 Ponitac Solstice GXP has a 4 banger also with 260hp, turbo charged engine for less than $24,000! The Elise is only pumping out 190hp!!! I know the Solstice weights about 490 - 500 lbs more but is that enough to warrant a price difference of $16,000 plus???

carlisimo · January 2006

If you think it's about the power, then no. The Elise is not worth it for you. To many, the Elise was already an amazing car when it only had 120hp.

(And the Elise is 500lbs lighter than a Miata. 900lbs less than a Solstice, probably more in the GXP's case.)

rorr · January 2006

Like carlisimo said, the Elise is at least 900 (that's NINE HUNDRED) pounds lighter than the base Solstice. I don't know what a GXP version weighs, but I'd be very surprised if it weighed the same as a base Solstice.

Now, think about this: extra HP will help you in acceleration and can help overcome the additional weight. But when braking (and turning), what does the Solstice GXP have that can make up for that 900 (that's NINE HUNDRED) pounds of additional mass?

For perspective, imagine putting a 300 lb offensive lineman in the passenger seat of the solstice and then strapping a fully stocked refrigerator to the deck lid. Now imagine what that does to the handling/braking on a track......

ps - according to the specs, you also get 0.2 cf more storage space in the Elise... :P

Sports Cars - The Definitive Discussion

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles