|
Who cares? I loved my 2012 E89 Z4 convertible.Was the best car I ever owned because it always put a smile on my face when driving even if only going to work and back.
|
Who cares? I loved my 2012 E89 Z4 convertible.Was the best car I ever owned because it always put a smile on my face when driving even if only going to work and back.
The Z4 looked terrible but did drive well, sadly it was made from old egg boxes, the quality and reliability were poor. Thus the reason why you see so few Mk I Z4’s around. The earlier Z3 had the opposite issue. It was well made and pretty but awful to drive.
|
|
|
|
Porsche 924 . Powered by an engine lifted from a VW Lt van . Well at least it did have pop up headlights.
Yeah, somewhat disappointing when a Mk I Golf GTi tore you up from the lights despite costing half the price. Later Porsche engined 924S did lift it but took the price too close to the 944. To be fair to the car was a joint effort with VW and was meant to be sold as a bottom of the range Porsche and a top of the range VW. Things changed and VW went for the cheaper, more basic Golf based Scirocco.
Edited by SLO76 on 02/05/2020 at 00:47
|
|
Well the first thing i am going to do here is defend the Porsche 924!.
No, 125bhp is not a lot, but remember we are talking about 1975 here. For comparison other sports cars of the time include the original Mazda RX7 (105bhp), MG BGT (90bhp), Ford Capri MK2 2.0 (100bhp), Toyota Celica 2000 (105bhp), E21 BMW 320 (120bhp). So the power output, while not exceptional, was above average for its day. Also, the old "its got an engine from a VW LT van" line. Yes, this is true, but that same engine was also used in, amongst others, the 2nd generation Audi 100, a car which had to go up against BMW and Mercedes competition. As for the comparison with a MK1 Golf GTI, yes, the Golf is quicker to 60 by about half a second due to a better power to weight ratio. But on a twisty road?, the 924's front engine-rear transaxle layout gives it near perfect 50:50 weight distribution, so very doubtful the GTI would keep up. Also, the 924's exceptionally slippery shape gives it a top speed 14mph higher, which would make it a far superior prospect on the Autobahn!.
While VW is in mind, i will nominate the MK4 Golf GTI 2.0. It is fairly widely agreed that while the MK4 Golf set new standards for interior quality, it is also agreed that dynamically they were the low point for the Golf. The GTI first came out with a n/a version of the 1.8 20V engine which developed an OK 125bhp. But VW decided in their wisdom that the engine was too peaky and replaced it with a 2.0 8v engine (which i believe is a derivative of the one used in the Porsche 924, but not 100% sure) developing a lowly 115bhp which dropped the 0-60 time to 10 seconds. I worked at a VW dealer during this time, and it is telling to me that when these cars turned up on the transporter, they were simply badged 'Golf 2.0'. We had to remove '2.0' and put on 'GTI' instead!. This lack of oomph along with the poor dynamics meant that it was certainly no hot hatch!.
Alfa Romeo Arna. Hmm, lets take a Nissan Cherry, remove the running gear and replace it with that of an Alfasud instead, what's not to like?!. I think there was also a Nissan badged version with the Alfa running gear, the Cherry Europe(?). And while we are looking at this car, how about the Nissan Cherry turbo?. Quite ironic given the Alfa Romeo connection and Alfa's sporting heritage, that the most powerful version of this car was badged Nissan turbo!. With a half decent 115bhp from its 1.5 turbo engine, it was quite fast in a straight line, but i don't think they handled all that well, and as for the looks........!
Slightly off script here, but i am also going to mention the Ford Gran Torino (Starsky and Hutch). I remember when David Soul was on Top Gear, they were discussing Starsky and Hutch and David was going on about how awful the car drove!. Not sure if this was a generic thing with the Gran Torino, or because of its 'stance' (nose down, tail up) along with having much wider rear tyres than front. But according to 'Hutch', the 'beat up' motors he ran in the show, invariably all went better than the Gran Torino!.
|
|
Biggest issue with the 924 isn’t so much that it was a bad car, it wasn’t. It was very well made and lasted far better than anything else of the era. The problem was that it was expensive and carrying a Porsche badge expectations were justly high, a level the 2.0 couldn’t meet. The later 2.5 could but it was dated by that stage and too close to the glorious 944 in price.
|
|
MK3 and 4 Golfs were the worst ever made. I had two MK1 - both GTI, and 2 MK2v - both 1.6 GL. Not had another Golf since. Always fancied a 924S, still doubt I'll ever own one.
|
|
|
|
I had to look up that generation of 300ZX.
Phew! The one that followed it was stunning. It had such good looks. Menacing yet elegant too. A high point in Nissan's design language. The interior was great for the era too.
I still lust after a black one though have never driven the model.
Anyone ever driven one?
|
I had to look up that generation of 300ZX.
Phew! The one that followed it was stunning. It had such good looks. Menacing yet elegant too. A high point in Nissan's design language. The interior was great for the era too.
I still lust after a black one though have never driven the model.
Anyone ever driven one?
Sadly never had the pleasure. Nissan produced some great cars at the time, from Primera to 300ZX Twin Turbo through 200SX they were all great, even the rather bland Sunny from 1991. Shame it all went pear shaped afterwards. I’d love a Primera ZX or a 200SX Mk II 2.0.
Edited by SLO76 on 02/05/2020 at 17:10
|
|
A 'sports car' is designed to be just for fun, for the driver and perhaps one other tolerant person as cars are wide enough for two seats abreast. Practicality comes right at the bottom of the list of desirables. So anything with four doors, four seats or a solid irremovable roof is not really a sports car, although it might be labelled a 'sports saloon' by the manufacturer. Power and top speed are irrelevant. An MG Midget is a sports car, a Jaguar XF is not.
|
A 'sports car' is designed to be just for fun, for the driver and perhaps one other tolerant person as cars are wide enough for two seats abreast. Practicality comes right at the bottom of the list of desirables. So anything with four doors, four seats or a solid irremovable roof is not really a sports car, although it might be labelled a 'sports saloon' by the manufacturer. Power and top speed are irrelevant. An MG Midget is a sports car, a Jaguar XF is not.
That may well be the case if you agree with those very specific criteria as being the defination of what a 'sports car' is.
Going by that criteria, not only is an MG midget a sports car, but also a Meyers Manx beach buggy, in fact the buggy would be more of a sports car seeing as it doesn't even have doors, thus making it even less practical. Plenty contenders for what was the earliest sports car did have had 4 seats, such as the 1914 25hp Vauxhall 'Prince Henry' Sports Torpedo, probably (but not definitely) the first time the word 'sports' was used in the name of a car. And while pretty much all of those early contenders were open top, that was only because back then, hardly any cars had a roof anyway.
But it is, in reality, a pretty meaningless term, like SUV or crossover. So saying one car is a sports saloon rather than a sports car is absurd, given a saloon is a type of car. You might as well say the Midget is a sports roadster or sports convertible rather than a sports car.
|
|
Or could be 3 abreast. The Matra Murena and Bagheera. Given they were French, quite clearly designed for the man who had a wife and......................a mistress.
|
Or could be 3 abreast. The Matra Murena and Bagheera. Given they were French, quite clearly designed for the man who had a wife and......................a mistress.
Quite so, lovely things they are too!.
But another discrepancy in John’s theory of what a sports car is would be the Porsche Boxter vs the Cayman. Essential the same cars, but the Cayman, being a hardtop, isn’t a sports car whereas the Boxter is?.
|
|
Years ago a friend had a Citroen Dyane whch had recessed interior door handles whuchwere hard to find in the dark. He said 'French cars are designed for Frenchwomen not to be able to get out of'.
I think 'sports car' is one of those expressions that means what you want it to. For John it has to be open-top: fair enough, and that's what I have always tended to think: the same car with a fixed head is to me a coupe.
But I have to admit that, say, a Jaguar F-type (or an E-type, come to that) even with a fixed head is a lot more sporting than the BMW Z3 I used to have. It was a straight-six and I loved driving it, but it was more grand tourer than out-and-out sports car, despite being a convertible.
|
I think 'sports car' is one of those expressions that means what you want it to.
Yes Avant exactly right, it isn't much different to what makes a car 'cool'. It depends on how the term is percieced, which in turn is just too much of a grey area to be defined.
For John it has to be open-top: fair enough, and that's what I have always tended to think: the same car with a fixed head is to me a coupe.
But the fundamental flaw with this notion is that what a particular car is, in essence, and what kind of body it has, are two seperate things. What defines a sports car should only ever be determined by how it drives and how it makes you feel. The problem with the above statement is that, just as a coupe is a body style, so is a convertible, or roadster. Which only determines how the car is packaged and how it looks, not how it drives or makes you feel. If in the above example, the fixed head version is a coupe, then the open top version is a convertible or roadster. So both can be a sports car, or if they don't have that essential element, neither are.
|
|
|
|
|
Porsche 924 . Powered by an engine lifted from a VW Lt van . Well at least it did have pop up headlights.
You beat me to the punch! I remember that when I was featured on Top Gear with the Three Amingos going on one of their 'challenge trips':
youtu.be/_jPaYnaKVDk
It certainly brought a smile in the current dark times!
Edited by Engineer Andy on 03/05/2020 at 12:21
|
|
Going to defend the Corolla fast jobbies, both the NA and the much better supercharged version, if they had design faults its that they were not discreet enough.
I love sleepers, cars that look like the base version but hiding an engine of effortless urge, where only those in the know will have the slightest idea what the car is capable of, dislike intently badged and blinged up versions especially the modern trend of sticking multiple (usually fake) exhausts into the rear moulding to impress small boy minds in following cars.
|
I love sleepers, cars that look like the base version but hiding an engine of effortless urge, where only those in the know will have the slightest idea what the car is capable of, dislike intently badged and blinged up versions especially the modern trend of sticking multiple (usually fake) exhausts into the rear moulding to impress small boy minds in following cars.
Me too GB!. When i worked at a Saab dealer in the 90's, we had a 9000CD (the saloon version of the 9000 hatchback) 2.3 turbo demonstrator. It was in the most basic trim level with steel wheels and finished in an unassuming dark green metallic. Oh what fun i had with that car, blowing away various blatantly sporty looking machines, ranging from hot hatches to BMW 3 and 5 series!. There was very little available at the time (at any price) which could stay with a Saab 2.3 turbo on mid range acceleration. Wasn't the best handling car though (wasn't bad mind, just not that great), and it did struggle to put its prodigious torque through its relatively narrow front tyres, especially in the wet!.
I also remember a friend having a Proton Wira saloon. It was white, with the steel wheels and looked like a poverty spec 1.3. But it was actually a 1.8, the exact same engine fitted to the Satria GTI. 133bhp isn't considered much these days, but back then it wasn't too shabby (plus the Wira didn't weigh very much), and the effect was very much magnified by being in such an utterly drab looking machine!.
|
|
|
|
|
