Sports Cars are Dead

i have to chime in: i hated 911s for some reason. avoided them for years. made a new friend a few years ago who introduced me to them, properly. now i have had 3 of them. i have had carb and injected Ferrari's, Lamborghini's, a turbo Lotus, a Pantera, and i still hold a well sorted 911 coupe above all of them as a car you a really, really drive. my ideal garage would have a 911, a 308, and a muscle car. i am only missing the 911 now, i have the other two covered.

very cool thread idea. i dont really agree per se, but there has indeed been a shift in the market, and peoples perception. i really dont give a crap what is trendy to drive, or what joe public thinks. i buy cars for ME.

i am not a fan of driving like an idiot in our Police state public roads. there is no "need" for a super-duper car anymore. but i tip my cap to the guys and gals who buy them because they can.

 

Same here. I never "got" 911s, because I always just looked at them from the standpoint of aesthetics. Too high, too dull, not at all appealing the way the sleek looks of the Italians got my attention. Also didn't help that I had driven a 944 and a Boxster belonging to friends, and while they were fine vehicles, I didn't understand how a mystique could be created around the line.

Until another F-Chatter, AJS328, suggested I really look at the no-nonsense interior of a mid-80's Porsche. Hmm...maybe I could see myself in there. Then he hooked me up with a drive. Wow! The balance, the steering, the fact that it responds to my every input, but only after I really, REALLY tell it what I want. Now I get it!

So I got one, a 1985 model, and it shares the garage with my 1986 Ferrari. Of the two, I drive the Porsche more.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

?? Why would you call him a troll?? Thats always an easy expression to use when one disagrees with another poster.

 

I wouldn't say I hate porkers, and I've looked at them several times .... they've just never made it to the "short list".

... But I do know the reasons:

- Geometry: Every time I look at a 911, it looks like the engine is trying to catch up with the car.
An engine that far behind the rear wheels has two strikes against the handling before you begin.

- Price: I remember passing on a Porsche when they were only an extra $1000 a letter for the name.
(I bought an Alfa for half the price of a 924.)

I recently considered a 911C4 as a winter car for the milder DC winters.
But --- I could buy three EVO X's for the price of a used C4,
... and I can run circles around most 911's with my old EVO VIII.

I can, intellectually, appreciate the engineering that managed to wring performance out of the disadvantages of a VW bug.

But I just can't see spending that much money for one, when there are cars that either (a) were built for performance from the ground up (Elise, Ferrari, MR2T), or (b) adapted far more inexpensively (EVO, STi, GTR).

Consider: For the price of a used 911C4, you can get a new Skyline that would give a GT3 a run.

(Scotty! Warp power to the flame shields! )

Porkers aren't bad cars, they're just (IMO) overpriced, and they have a lot of competition.


... Based on this logic, I couldn't say that sports cars are "dead" ---
--- Not while 911's keep getting knocked off my "short lists" by *other* sports cars.


But then, neither 911s nor their competition address the original concept of the raw, single minded, no-compromise, masochistic sports "buckets" of the stripped down to raw speed days.
(I remember how scandalized aficionados were when sports cars got roll-up side curtains. )

 

I try to avoid calling someone else a 'troll' whenever possible. The first couple of times you do it, you appear to be a 'forum veteran' admonishing a newcomer's sole intention of instigating an argument - however, this doesn't hold water when you eventually apply it to someone with a significant history of forum contribution. In such a circumstance, you'd look silly and/or not really committed to the expression of your disagreement. Should you continue to apply it after this, such an inarticulate response simply becomes a linguistic hindrance and attention is drawn away from the coherence in the rest of your argument.

Doug subsequently made a very good point about the ability to turn off the traction control to deliberately make a modern sports/super-car a more difficult machine for a driver to tame, so let's focus on that. I'm sure in the 'golden' days of sports/super-cars, they would have been equipped with the sorts of options we get to enjoy today: traction control activated/deactivated upon request, softer or heated seats (why not?), radio, air conditioning, etc. To my knowledge, there are very few instances where a driver has gotten out of a car and said:

"You know, that'd be an excellent car if only the steering was less precise, it was more unstable at speed with the loss of control at the limit not as progressive, and perhaps had a big spike sticking out of the steering wheel instead of the airbag."​

Even in a modern car with all the safety, comfort, and control that current technology provides, you can still scare yourself silly. However, I do agree with certain elements of the original argument in that I wish manual transmission was still an option on many modern sports/super-cars and analogue or 'classic' dials feel much more involving than a digital readout.

I don't think sports/super-cars are by any definition of the word 'dead', but I suspect many of the premier marques have evolved to produce more sophisticated machinery. The challenge is to still maintain a feel of driver involvement and satisfaction... which, by and large, many manufacturers achieve. If you're really after something even more visceral than is currently on offer, why not buy a sports/super-car from a previous era of design? That's one of the reasons (all costs aside) I'm aspiring to own a Ferrari 348 and not one of the later models.

It's an interesting debate for the sake of debate, but if you're really not enthused by current efforts then you do have options.

All the best,
Andrew.

 

i am on the same page. If you want a thrill, get a Ducati!

 

I won't speak to the OPs definition of sports car, but I think there is something to the idea that simple, straightforward, lighter (I won't say lightweight) cars designed for driving and oriented to 'performance' (a decidedly relative term) and driving feel -- and, yes, even appearance -- rather than creature comforts are becoming rare.

As many here have pointed out, the market demands more in the way of luxury (more cupholders, another LCD screen, 32-way-adjustable power seats!), and, with it, more in the way of weight and electronics. Whether that is a 'good thing' depends much on one's attitude toward driving. (It also opens the question of whether cars have become too complicated...but that's for another discussion thread)


I should like to think that there will always be a small segment of the population who wants a 'bare bones' car (such as it is - one can dicker about what counts as 'bare bones') oriented to driving experience, but if that percentage of the population is tiny, perhaps building cars for them is something that should be left to 'niche' manufacturers. For that is certainly what Porsche and Ferrari were in the '50s and '60s.


We may not all - or always - want a sportscar, but I think they'll always be there (if maybe harder to find).

 

I have a Caterham R400 and it makes the Exige feel like driving a school bus.

....it also makes the Exige feel like a luxury car

 

True, and the complete absence of safety features from 1950s sports cars isn't a reason for nostalgia.

I sort of agree with you, but mostly in your argument against complexity. Though it's more of a GT, the BMW M6 represents to me everything that went wrong in modern cars -- overweight, self-indulgently styled, and with layers of computerized menu options that no one (other than BMW engineers) needs. Modern Ferraris make many of the same mistakes.

What he said.

As others posted, there's still the incredibly cool Lotus Elise/Exige, which is a true and traditional sports car. It has very high performance limits, due to engineering and not computers and an eight-way adjustable suspension.

(The Caparo, Ariel Atom, and others probably are pure adrenalin machines, but realistically you can't use those as everyday, public road cars.)

I also see a sizeable market niche if Jaguar, Porsche or Ferrari wanted to make a real stripper sports car in the tradition of the old XK-SS or Speedster. It would tick all the boxes for a real sports car: compact proportions, seat only two, have no top, have no power accessories, weigh well under 3000 lbs, and allow easy conversion of components (windscreen, exhaust, wheels, etc.) for track use. It would also be the least expensive car in each marque's line. Jag had the right idea with the aborted F-Type during its Ford ownership.

I don't see a problem with Ferrari, Jag, Porsche, et al keeping the cushier cars (599/California/612, XK, 911, etc.) for buyers who like gadgets and mostly want to get from point A to point B in comfort. But the spirit of the real sports car has largely vanished, except for Lotus.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

That's why I still have a TR3...we don't need no stinkin' windows!
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

How did they fit the airbags in those little cut doors?

 

Hey, awesome! My Dad's got a red Triumph TR3A (named 'Vicky') in his garage. He entered it into a car show about a year ago and received the Runner-Up trophy in the category!

.................Admittedly there were only two cars competing in his category. But the trophy has pride of place on the garage worktop all the same.

It's the only time I've ever driven a car that was made before I was born - it has some 24 years on me, actually. The gearbox, steering, brakes, it was all a totally new experience for me - certainly not a 'performance machine' by modern standards, but the drive is utterly charming. Triumphs initial campaign to sell them had the slogan: "100mph and the safety of disc brakes!"

Very cool car to own.

All the best,
Andrew.

 

I agree, and it wouldn't have to be a "down-market" or "entry-level" car per se. Just a proper, pared-down sports car, not a GT. Even the 430, 911, Gallardo are really just small(er) GT's and not true sports cars, even though that's how they are marketed.

Compare the specs of the Elise to a 308 in terms of overall dimensions and weight...rather surprising!

 

I've had an Elise and a Challenge Stradale. I've also had an F430 and several 911's, both normally aspirated and turbocharged. It's true that the Elise and Challenge Stradale are more fun to drive, especially to drive spiritedly, but they are not the "go-to" car for a quick trip for errands or a car to drive to work or out for a night of carefree pleasure. The quiet (stealth), easy to park, easy to wash, safe on icy,snowy streets, that doesn't get camera-phone snapped everywhere-you-go-car has its appeal, too.

Sports car purists especially like manual shift transmissions. Originally this was because they were faster, lighter and got better gas mileage. This is no longer true (except maybe lighter, and that weight disadvantage has been minimized). Digital instrumentation is demonized as not necessary and driver aids like navigation and rearview cameras are sneered at as if they have to be used. They don't.

A car as expensive as a new Ferrari or a new Porsche is hard to justify as a weekend only toy and the more modern conveniences you can add (usually as options), the more the car moves toward daily driver for some or at least dual use for others. There are cheaper, track oriented cars without the modern conveniences available and guess what. There is no shortage of used cars that both meet the purists requirements and are also cheap enough for single use or reckless use if you prefer. These are not going away anytime soon since cars last so long these days. They would be the competition for new purist-style sports cars and would make these cars less likely to be a financial success than they would be if the old cars disappeared.

If I had to go somewhere I had never been before, I would prefer a car with navigation. If the weather was bad, I would prefer traction control and anti-lock brakes. If it was late at night I would like bluetooth connectivity to my cell phone and I would hope the car was quiet enough to not attract too much attention. If I had to have two cars to achieve all of these objectives, I would prefer that some of these conveniences would be in both so I didn't have to choose one over the other because of a deficiency in one or the other.

I'm not saying I'm right or you're wrong on these things, but since I am a buyer for these cars and have been many times over, I am glad that Ferrari and Porsche are keeping up with my wishes instead of holding back for someone or many others who resist change. I often buy for advances in technology only. And I usually buy new.

 

Back to James Dean's fatal accident: Wasn't it caused by a pickup pulling out into the road, and JD t-boned it?

Thought I read that somewhere..

Regarding this thread's main topic--you can thank the lawyers for today's dull, no-edge sports cars. Product liability concerns..

Greg

 

Sports cars as I knew them as a boy-teenager-very young man are dead and buried. So is the environment that allowed enjoyment of them, at least where I live.

I ask myself, why do I bother to own what could arguably be called one example of the last real sports cars.

Because it's there, sitting paid for in the garage, I guess.

 

James Dean was hit almost head on by an oncoming car. Years later it was determined to have been the other drivers fault and that James Dean was not even speeding at the time of the crash.

As for the lawyers...you can thank them for just about every safety feature you can, and the endless navigation bars you have to use to enable certain performance features, but they are not responsible for watered down sports cars, under the modern eye of litigation, we still have the most powerful cars available to us in the history of the automobile, we have also had the Lotus Elise, 1st generation Viper, Viper ACR, and 500HP pickup trucks with very little ability to keep one end in front of the other...we also have 200HP motorcycles and no-helmet laws. You can thank lawyers for safety features and warnings on your underwear, but the watered down sports car owes its genesis to market research and focus groups.

 

Thanks Joe, makes sense..

 

I enjoy my Evo 9 RS more than just about any car I have driven for the same reasons. the car does not come with ABS or any computer aids and for that matter no stereo or speakers from the factory. its truly a drivers car and much faster than my 360 thru the twisties. I have driven it for 75k miles which include 50 track days and it has never been in the shop for repairs.

 

I agree. Something about toggle switches trimmed in chrome, stick shifter in the gate, analog gauges (vs the digital +rap), choke levers to pull, etc etc. different market than the other, of course.

 

911's......heard they are nice, but just to me, they look like baseball hats (the older ones, anyway). Ferrari on the contrary, I believe, has avoided this look, just from what Ive seen here.

For Italians, and not even just for cars, everything, if it doesnt look good, forget it.

 

It's a shame you guys over the pond don't have the air-cooled RS variants of the 911. They are the cream of the crop of the normally aspirated 911s.

 

A sports car won't be the most convenient car for errands, in the same way a Lexus SUV isn't going to be the best vehicle for winding mountain roads or the track.

The 360 and even the 911 are complicated and on the large size for sports cars, and the 911 was always intended as a grand tourer (Porsche himself insisted that there be rear seats and room for luggage.) I remember the Top Gear intro for the F430, where JC said Ferrari had told him it was possible for even an amateur to lap Fiorano a few seconds behind a factory test driver.

The Elise is the definitive sports car of our era, so far.

It's not necessary. We drove for decades without it. Rearview cameras became "necessary" when we suddenly had thousands of suburban housewives on cell phones trying to park 3-ton SUVs.

While you're right that they don't have to be used, the problem is that power seats (in a two seater!), power tops, sat nav, eight-way traction control, stability control, rear view cameras, etc., all add weight and complexity all the time. If the mission is to go for a drive, you don't really need any of it.

That's one way to look at it. I'm a hardcore car guy, and I'm fine with paying to have a Ferrari around for weekend fun drives. All I ask is a no-compromise, exciting experience when I drive it. Within reason, I don't care that my weekend toys have usually cost more than my beat-it-into-the-ground daily driver. To me, the 599 (to pick on my least favorite Ferrari) that isn't a daily driver is a useless car.

I'm with you. All the gadgetry is very useful on a daily driver, especially in the cold. My Audi has all those toys. I just discovered it also has power lumbar support on both front seats.

But I have summer performance tires on the Ferrari (probably would lose traction in morning dew), no radio, no Bluetooth, etc. I do have a Tubi installed, and I throw my cell phone in the door pocket in case I need it. It's a machine for a purpose, and every time car makers try to do an "all-in-one" solution they invariably come up with something that is "kind of sporting" but not really a sports car. That's why the 328 is such a good car, kind of like a V8 version of the Elise/Exige, but using older tech. It offers the kind of visceral experience I don't get in my brother's 997, or my Audi, or my ex-Merc SLK, or my ex-BMW coupe.

The problem is, you can't buy a new 328 anymore. The Elise/Exige is pretty much it, and it would be nice to have other options in the "pure sports car" category.

 

The pre-1974 (safety bumper) 911s that we did get in the States are great cars -- small, light, tactile.

 

Miata