I agree with you Brian -- the M3 is a great car, but does not approach the overall appeal of driving a Ferrari. I've had a friend take my 355 out while I've taken my M3 out, and I would argue that -- unless you are a really skilled driver -- the M3 outperforms the 355 (I certainly beat my friend around town). That being said, it is a much cooler experience (sound, feel, interaction with car) driving the 355 than the M3. They're both amazing cars, just very different. And a Viper is about as different as you can get from either of those cars... But I would say a Viper, for what it is, is also a really great car.
I've had both MB and BMW. Some observations. The earliest BMWs i experienced were the 2002 (and particularly, the "tii") and the 3.0CS. The 2002 was, in the early 70's a sort of cult car, looked boxy, but relatively high performance, and involving to drive. (Just look at its dashboard today and realize how simple it is and how unnecessary most of the gadgets are). The 3.0CS was a looker, quite elegant even today. I owned a '69 300 SEL 6.3 back in the early seventies, as well. This was still the heyday of tanklike construction, the use of real wood, high quality leather, etc. Car was very high performing, looked like a muscular sedan. I got turned off to BMWs for a long time, when everybody seemed to drive one in the NY area; it became a status symbol, like the MB, but no longer signified a real driver behind the wheel. With the exception of the CL, (and perhaps the SL), i find the more recent range of MB's to be lower in overall quality of manufacture. I had a new C 320 Sport, on their introduction, for about a week. (Thing had software problems, and it was quite expensive, fully loaded, for what it was. It was not in the same league as the 740 BMW that replaced it and cost a few dollars more). I can't speak to their reliability, although i've heard stories about the S class electronics, which are no better than the new 7's from BMW. I had a 2001 740i Sport, and it was one of the best cars i ever had. I drove the CL 600 on its introduction, and was very impressed, but the car was pricey, and even at that, it was still a little plasticy inside. (The slab-sided MB's, built before the Chrysler merger, seemed to retain the traditional overbuilt quality of MB, but i don't think that quality exists in the newer cars, at any price. Even the Maybach looks a little too "production" inside, despite its opulence). I currently drive a new M3 convertible with SMG and its wonderful. Handling is sportscar like, fast enough for anything on the street, and build quality is exceptional. I think MB's current focus on high powered engines is great, but i doubt that the rest of the car is up to that level of performance. The same cannot be said of the M3. (The M5 replacement should also be interesting, even if Banglized.)
Yes, you must be on the right track. I have a 530 (2nd one I've had) that's about at the end of the lease and am going to work on a 6 this time. I've owned two MB's, both 300's, and never really liked 'em, but the ex wife sure did, including the one she took with her. The biggest difference I felt was that you are more involved in the driving with the BMW. The Benz just seemed more detached. I have not driven one since the early 90's though, so that may have changed.
My 97 MB E420 (big engined, E-class) was a wonderfully smooth car -- when it ran. While the big V8 might have been bulletproof, everything else in the car was poorly constructed. I am a very easy driver -- basically, highway miles at or below the speed-limit. Window regulators broke, steering rack broke, suspension parts failed, sunroof rails jammed, cracked dash, on and on.... A Xenon blew on the car, and MBNA refused to cover it under warranty. Bang -- $900 to replace. How's that happen? A Xenon is supposed to last basically forever. When I sold the car, I seriously considered a CLK55 or CLK430. Both cars were fun to drive, but I feared the constant dealer trips for service. (The E420 was a predictable 2K of service every 4 months... just awful for a Benz. To top things off, the dealership was pretty arrogant about the whole thing too. Once they got their Maybach franchise, I think they set their sights in the CL, SL, and Maybach realm -- leaving out the lowly "E". Pathetic, because the C and E are where the real money can be made...) On a whim, I went by the BMW dealer because I enjoyed the driving experience in my wife's '5', and the service had been just stellar. Anyway, they had a 2001 740i sport CPO which was about the same price as the CLK430. One drive in the '7', and I was hooked. No rattles, no squeaks, everything seems to work as you'd expect. Will I get 100,000 miles from the car? I don't know... but I'll give it my best! To date, I've had only one problem with the car (O2 sensor -- covered by warranty), and every time I open the door, it makes me happy. Now, with Bangle messing up everything with a Roundel, I'm not sure what I'll do next. I certainly won't be one of those ugly new designs. Maybe I'll drift back to MB -- but I doubt it. I'm tempted to try Audi... (?) Just my 2c.
BMWs rule IMHO. I have had an e28 M5, an e36 M3 and now own an e39 M5 and drove each of them well over 100k miles each with few problems other than tires, brakes and service. They have all been very well built, handle great, perform better than most two seater sports cars and even some exotics and sound pretty good too. In fact, the straight six in my e28 M5 was one of the best sounding engines I have ever owned, including my six Ferraris ! Plus, BMWs come with manual transmissions rather than the autos in MBs and Audis. I heard an old racer once say...."driving an auto transmission car is like paying someone to make love to your wife...it gets the job done, but is not nearly as much fun " ! I shall live by that motto for life. Amen.
I think Benz has a lot better cars than Bmw. Their new line of cars looks crappy. The 5 series is the uglyest car it sucks.
Whoa! Let's not get too carried away I love my M3 but it is not in the same "excitement league" as my 360. Gary
Sounds to me like your friend has excellent judgment. If I were driving a friend's Ferrari, I certainly wouldn't be pushing it to the max. The E46 M3 and the F355 are probably pretty well matched, performance-wise, from what I've seen at track events. Gary
The 355 and the M3 are not even in the same leage. The M coupe I have beats the M3 just about in any conditions and it allways comes short next to the 355.
For driving experience, the 355 is miles ahead of the M3, but I've been to several track events where the E46 M3 and 355 were matched up very well, both driven by extremely competent drivers. Gary
I too own a BMW as my daily driver. It is a 750 iL. I have owned MB 600 SEL, and several others, but in my opinion, the largest BMW sedan is much more nimble and fun to drive that the large and very heavy feeling MB cruiser. True, the luxury appointments of MB are a step above BMW, but the latter is definitely more sporty. Having said that, I hate the new technology of the newer 7 series (mine is a 2001) and wont buy another Bimmer with that smart stick for sure. Why not look at the Japanese...they copy BMW and MB quite well for 1/2 the price...
I have a BMW 530, sport package, Manual, as my daily driver. Would not even consider a MB. I appreciate them to a point, but they are kinda staid, and forget getting a manual. As far as the comment about interiors, I agree, it is not as nice as what you would hope for (Audi is the BEST in that dept, without question). BUT, the bimmers are just plain fun. A 3 series with sport and a manual is great...hardly gets any better than that.
As previsouly stated, both MB and BMW build great daily drivers. It is more a matter of preference over which one is actually "better". BMW is more sporty and driver involvement while MB is more about luxury bahnstormer. The real competition starts when you get into the M and AMG sectors. The quaity, power, and performance all go up to a level that is near sub exotic (Porsche 996tt, etc). I am a BMW man, but I can definately see myself driving a MB E55 AMG in my future.
No BMW here. I'm an italian car guy. Here in socal, everyone and their brother drives either a BMW, Mercedes, or Lexus. My 13 year old Alfa 164 still looks better than any of these cars, and drives like a dream. If you want driving pleasure, then definately stick with alfa. Too bad they don't sell them here in the US anymore. For my wife, we went with a SAAB- Less common, better price for what you get. Dom
My cars form a triangle of driving experiece, with the Ferrari in one corner, the BMW M3 in another corner, and a Porsche 911 owns the last corner of the triangle. My wife's Lexus fits at the center of the triangle because it excels at nothing, but it gets the job done.
Awesome! I have a 98 750iL. BTW, The interior on our cars IS better then the equal year benz, as after 1999, they really started cheaping the interiors of the Ss...(Read plastic)
BMW's really are phenom driving machines, depending on the model. My M Coupe is (a) very entertaining, (b) reliable (running costs are quite low), (c) unusual enough that I don't feel like I'm driving "just another" sport coupe. I'm sure the Ferrari owners here get more, but the M Coupe certainly gets a substantial amount of attention and inquiries.
I bought my first BMW in December: 2004 X5 4.4 with sport package. Although I don't regret buying the vehicle I am disappointed with a few things and only rate it about a 6.5 out of 10. 1) The paint quality is very poor. Really bad orange peal. Looked at others and there the same. BMW says that it is because they are using water-based paint, which is more environmentally friendly. 2) The Steptronic (manual shifting) is only good to set the RPM's when going up or down a hill or whatever and has no performance characteristics. It is very slow shifting between gears. When you stomp on it, it down shifts automatically and by the time it up shifts you are way off using the powerband to its best advantage. The vehicle is faster just stomping on it in drive. 3) It is a vehicle I wouldn't own when the warranty expires and BMW does not offer factory extended warranties (What's up with that!) 4) Brakes fade quick under pressure and are only adequate for normal driving. Great to drive anyway and like I said if I could go back I'd still buy the thing as I think it is the best looking in it's category. I only wish I waited until the 4.8 came out. DrewH
This is a little off subject... but here is a Car and Driver Article from Sept 1997 They would never compare a MB against these cars. Much less the little E36 M3 wins!!! I was shocked also. The reason I haven't picked up an E46 M3 is that I'm saving for my F355. FEATURE: The Best-Handling Car for More Than $30,000 Handling without limits. Price, that is. By DON SCHROEDER Photography By AARON KILEY September 1997 You may have picked up the June 1997 issue of Car and Driver, read the ten-page Best-Handling Car for Less Than $30,000 story, and put it down, figuring that you d read just about all there was to read about handling. Are you kidding? We were just getting started! In that last test, we crowned the Honda Prelude SH the best-handling car for less than $30,000. This time, we re repeating the test for cost-is-no-object cars. If you want a review on the topic of handling, or on how we conducted the physical tests used to arrive at our conclusions, go back and fish out that June issue from the cat box. For this test, we re using the same evaluations, but they were conducted near our Ann Arbor office rather than in Southern California. We re testing very different cars than we did last time, too. In choosing our contestants, we selected the best-handling cars we could think of that cost more than $30,000 and represent a broad array of driveline configurations. We arrived at eight contenders. Acura s NSX was on everyone s list. So was the steamy but composed Ferrari F355, one of which was graciously lent to us by Ferraristo Mike Farmer of Grand Rapids, Michigan. Our third mid-engined, rear-wheel-drive entry was Porsche s brand-new and thoroughly modern Boxster. BMW s M3 coupe was one of four contestants with the classic front-engine, rear-drive configuration. Chevy s new Corvette (with the race-ready Z51 suspension) was another, as was Dodge s burly Viper GTS coupe. We also included Toyota s front-engine, rear-drive Supra Turbo, a favorite handler of some staffers. The Porsche 911 Turbo was to be our four-wheel-drive contestant, but we ve noticed that four-wheel-drive 911s have light and somewhat distracted steering. Not a fatal flaw, mind you, but a significant one in a handling evaluation. Instead, we agreed on a two-wheel-drive 911 Carrera S, the sole rear-engined contestant in this group. The prices of our test cars ranged from $42,657 for the Corvette to $135,020 for the Ferrari. We can hear the rumblings already. Aren t the least-expensive cars at a disadvantage, you ask? We don t think so. This is not a conventional comparison test where the car is considered in its entirety, but a specific test of handling. Handling is as much an art as it is a science. It doesn t necessarily take money to do it right. One last thing. Among these exotic and almost exotic machines was a tagalong the Honda Prelude SH. Without it, we would not be able to answer The Question. So, no peeking at the end of the article for The Answer. On to the test track. The Test Track We subjected each car to a battery of evaluations under the controlled conditions of a test track. The tests included an emergency lane change, increasing- and decreasing-speed slaloms, and maximum lateral-acceleration tests on bumpy and smooth surfaces. The tests were conducted on the smooth, paved black lake at the Chrysler proving grounds in Chelsea, Michigan, so the results of these tests aren t directly comparable to those of the first handling test, conducted on the parking lots of the Los Angeles County Fairgrounds. No problem. We re more interested in comparisons among the cars in each group. We ran the Prelude through all the tests at Chrysler to ensure that its numbers compared accurately with those of this new round of competitors. (CONTINUED) In the emergency lane change, the car must change lanes twice: right lane to left lane, and back again, in the space of 160 feet. The course is defined by cones, and we record the fastest speed at which we can drive through the cones without knocking any of them down. Although faster is better, we also note how easily the car can negotiate the course. First place went to the BMW M3, which snaked through the cones at a brisk 74.2 mph. Intuitive; no-brainer; goes exactly where its surgically precise steering points it, wrote tester Schroeder. Next up was the Carrera S, at 72.9 mph. Light and agile-feeling, wrote the tester. Rear end steps out, but it helps steer the car. After the Carrera S was the Viper GTS, at 70.6 mph. Remarkably quick steering and tremendous grip. Its extreme width means you have to drive this car through the cones more than the others. The F355 finished fourth, at 69.7 mph. Its steering felt sluggish with dominant understeer in this abrupt maneuver, but oversteer was on tap. Adequately controllable when tail is out, wrote Schroeder. Just behind the F355 was the similarly handling 69.5-mph NSX-T. Initial understeer was prevalent, and then we had to countersteer quickly to keep the rear end from swinging wide. The Supra Turbo, at 68.8 mph, was limited by understeer. Schroeder: Rear of the car stays planted, nose seems to do all the work. The Boxster was slower still, at 67.0 mph. Although lacking grip, it still felt nimble. Controllable and predictable; easy in this test. The Corvette was the slowest, at 66.2 mph. It felt big and unwieldy. A bit of a handful through the cones, noted Schroeder. A slalom is a series of back-and-forth lane changes that test a car s ability to make smooth cornering transitions. Instead of consistently spaced cones, our 1000-foot slalom had cones spaced 20 feet apart on one end, progressing to 47 feet apart at the other end. Driving the course in one direction allowed us to check the car s ability to cut from side to side while slowing down, and driving in the other direction allowed us to observe its behavior while accelerating. The Viper GTS negotiated the accelerating direction the quickest, averaging 57.1 mph. Relies on considerable raw grip to get the job done and puts its power down well, wrote driver Schroeder. Second up was the narrow M3, at 56.3 mph. Precise, with excellent chassis coordination. Third place was taken by the Boxster, at 54.6 mph, with the Carrera S close behind, at 54.0 mph. Both cars felt quite nimble. Cat-quick steering and suspension responses make carving up cones easier, noted Schroeder of the Boxster. The 911 earned similar accolades: Toss-able. Slithers through the cones expertly. At 53.8 mph, the Corvette was next up. It felt better in this maneuver. Good body control, despite roll. Rear stays planted, too. The NSX-T, at 53.3 mph, felt heavier than we expected. Steering is a workout at low speeds, and tail feels like it might break loose as speed climbs. Behind it was the Ferrari, at 52.8 mph. Again, the F355 and the NSX drove like peas in a pod. Wide rear tires and slow-responding steering make the F355 a handful when the cones are tight. Bringing up the rear in the accelerating slalom was the Supra Turbo, at 52.4 mph. It was again hindered by understeer. Good response until tires start to slip and steering becomes numb, wrote tester Schroeder. Webster took the helm for the decelerating slalom, where the F355 clipped off the fastest average speed of 60.7 mph. Sharp turn-in. Car just goes where it s pointed. Behind the F355 was the Viper GTS, at a still-quick 58.8 mph. Its girth was evident, but it didn t feel unwieldy. Webster made maximum use of the Carrera S s big rear tires for its third-place 58.3-mph finish. Rear end is just stuck there. The way to drive it fast is to brake late. The M3 and the Corvette tied at 57.7 mph and displayed similar characteristics, too, including an ability to stay in control, despite considerable body roll. The Boxster s 56.8-mph finish was hard won. Back-and-forth transitions made the tail want to step out, which Webster found harder to control than on cars like the M3. The Toyota, at 56.1 mph, was a handful, too. It was hard to scrub off speed as the cones tightened, because the brakes provoked excessive oversteer. The NSX-T, bringing up the rear at 55.8 mph, had a similar oversteer problem. Steady, but not exactly nimble, wrote Webster. Looking over the slalom results, we were surprised. In the less-than-$30,000 test, all cars but the Prelude SH were faster in the accelerating slalom than in the decelerating slalom. This time around, the more-expensive contestants were all faster in the decelerating direction. It seems the superior grip of these cars and their more optimized weight distributions enhanced stability, allowing us to carry higher speeds into the slalom. Smooth- and bumpy-pavement skid-pads measure a car s cornering grip in the best- and worst-possible circumstances. We calculate grip, or lateral acceleration, by timing each car s fastest laps around a 300-foot circle painted on the pavement. On the smooth skidpad, grip levels varied from a low of 0.86 for the Carrera S to 0.97 for the massively tired Viper GTS. On rough pavement, the Viper s grip suffered the most, but it still managed 0.92 g. The M3, the Corvette, the F355, and the Boxster all suffered a loss of 0.04 g of grip over the bumps; the 911 was down by 0.03 g. The two cars best able to maintain grip were the NSX-T and the Supra, both of which lost only 0.02 g. The Racetrack Both test tracks and racetracks allow us to safely explore the outer edges of car handling, but they serve different purposes. The test track helps distinguish specific handling abilities like grip and transient response. Racetracks allow us to observe those abilities working in concert. For this test, we used the venerable Nelson Ledges road course, a 2.0-mile, 12-turn loop of asphalt nestled in the rolling hills of northeast Ohio. (CONTINUED) We hand-timed the fastest laps of each car with Schroeder, a Nelson Ledges endurance-race veteran, behind the wheel. But handling scores cannot be assigned based on lap times alone, because of the undue influence of power. For additional information, we hooked up our Datron optical fifth-wheel and a g-force sensor to our computer to log speeds and maximum lateral acceleration through each corner. The 450-horsepower Viper GTS was fastest around the track with an average speed of 93.1 mph, but power couldn t take all the credit. At each of the three corners we analyzed, the Viper was among the top-three finishers in average lateral acceleration, too. This car felt brutish at Nelson Ledges, with seemingly bottom-less reservoirs of power, braking, and grip with which to experiment. Relaxed it was not. Schroeder: Bump-steers a lot, making smooth lines a challenge. Driven deliberately, with a steady hand, its affinity for speed was obvious. Just barrels through this course with enough stability and predictability to hang on. The F355 was also an excellent track car. It turned in to corners with enthusiasm. Its brakes were powerful and sure-footed, and it offered plenty of grip without the Viper s nervousness. Like the Viper, there was a learning curve involved in going fast, which included dealing with the F355 s gated shifter and an odd driving position with a distant steering wheel and close-up pedals that would force your knees to splay out. The 43/57-percent front-to-rear weight distribution meant oversteer was a constant threat, but the rear gave ample warning before swinging out, and we soon began to trust it to help us around corners. Finesse allowed the F355 to lap Nelson just 1.1 mph slower than the Viper, despite carrying 1.1 more pounds per horsepower. Third place went to the Corvette, with an average speed of 90.1 mph. Like the Viper, it was not serene behind the wheel. There was plenty of squat, dive, and body roll to contend with, and the steering required frequent correction. Yet the chassis was resolute in its coordination. Terrific balance. Rear obeys the throttle and brakes proportionately, and car hangs on tenaciously. A laudable cockpit layout, from the pedals to the steering wheel to the grippy driver s seat, made it easy to explore the Vette s limits. The Supra Turbo tailed the Corvette by a 0.2-mph margin. This car worked better the harder we drove it. With increasing speed, the steering came alive and was less prone to understeer, while the chassis telegraphed every move explicitly, which allowed us to spend more time at the limits of the tires adhesion. The turbocharged six comes on strong at low rpm. We could brake late in corners and get back on the throttle early. Then the turbos would segue in and keep the rear end coming around, gently tightening up the corner. Chassis don t get much more coordinated. The Porsche Carrera S was nowhere near as balanced. The 911 has a different feel than the other cars, partly due to its upright driving position, but due mainly to its driveline layout. With the heavy engine in back, the rear tires dominate the handling, forcing the fronts into perpetual understeer. There was a vertical pogo-stick motion to contend with over bumps that made the 911 more difficult to position on the track. On the upside, we couldn t over-work the brakes, and the steering was responsive. The 911 averaged a best-lap time of 88.6 mph. The M3 was the easiest to drive hard around Nelson Ledges. The steering had a meaty eagerness, like the F355 s. The rear end stayed put, but understeer never threatened to wash out the front tires, as with the 911. When steered in a different direction, the chassis accepted every command gracefully. If a tighter line was required, backing off the throttle or tapping the brakes would ease the nose into a tighter arc. This poise allowed drivers to push the M3 much harder on the track than some of the other cars it was consistently among the four fastest cars through the turns we analyzed (see Minimum corner speed on the Nelson Ledges chart). With a 13.5 power-to-weight ratio, the M3 finished just 0.4 mph slower than the 911, with its more-advantageous 11.0 ratio. With 290 horsepower on tap and a power-to-weight ratio of 10.8, the NSX-T s second-to-last-place finish at Nelson was a surprise. Not that the NSX wasn t composed. It has the most syrupy-smooth body motions and responses on the track, wrote Schroeder. Steering is drama-free, and suspension soaks up bumps expertly. The rear end of the NSX helps to steer it around corners, much like the F355. But where the Ferrari would hunker down and tighten the line as it accelerated out of a corner, the NSX s tail bounded around with less stability. The brakes were powerful. With a more secure suspension, we would have been able to press the NSX harder. Against the stopwatch, Porsche s little Boxster had a tough row to hoe at Nelson Ledges. With 201 horses on tap, it was out-gunned by all but the tagalong Prelude. But a power-to-weight ratio of 14.3 was not its only shortfall. Its steering was so quick it felt twitchy at speed, and the body never seemed to settle down, as if it needed firmer shock damping. Lots of wiggling out here, wrote Schroeder. The suspension had good balance despite the nervousness, allowing controllable four-wheel drifts through each of Nelson s 12 turns. The Boxster managed an 86.2-mph lap average. Test tracks and racetracks tell us a lot about the strengths and weaknesses of a car s handling. But rating the cars by these tests alone would be like judging meals at Balthazar solely by their fat content, or rating action films simply by explosion count. A real-world assessment is more important. Ultimately, the most important test of handling takes place on the roads these cars were designed for, with changing speeds, weather conditions, and even surprises once in a while. We selected a route that included the twisting roads of the Hocking Hills in southern Ohio, as well as the interstates and byways that took us there and home. After 9000 vehicle miles were logged on public roads, the votes were tallied. We ll present the results from last place to first. After that, we ll answer The Question by comparing the winner of this test with the Prelude. Porsche Boxster A fine-handling protégé that needs more discipline. The long-awaited Boxster is Porsche s newest chassis. It s an agile and balanced car, but the Boxster never quite felt locked enough to the road to become one of our favorites. This is the lightest car of the eight by at least 200 pounds, which made it feel tossable on Ohio s twisty roads. As is typical of mid-engine designs, the front of the car offered cat-quick steering response, and the rear end followed with less enthusiasm. The steering lacked feel. Feels heavy and slightly disconnected, wrote Csere. Numb-feeling, added Berg. Not the best in this group. The suspension also lacked discipline. The body would rarely settle down in undulating turns, and steering correction was often required midcorner. Feels floaty, wrote Spence. Never seems to carve the line I intended, added Csere. At higher speeds, it felt nervous. Jiggly in fast sweepers. Not confidence inspiring, noted Idzikowski. There are no glaring ergonomic short- falls, and body stiffness was admirable considering it s a roadster. As such, Porsche may have tuned it more for grand touring than for careening around corners. A Technic sport package with stiffer springs and shocks might have improved the Boxster s finish. With a score of 88, this is still a very good-handling car. Porsche 911 Carrera S In its final year, this capable veteran is showing its age. In 1995, the rear-engined 911 received a new rear suspension that did much to improve its infamous handling histrionics. Today s 911s are certainly the best-handling, best-riding 911s ever. Against more-recently designed sports cars, though, the chassis cannot hide its ancient roots. Despite wearing tires identical in size to the Boxster s, the Carrera S is not as balanced as its new sibling. As we discovered at Nelson Ledges, the front, carrying just 39 percent of the 911 s curb weight, under-steers constantly while the rear, with its greater weight and much larger tires, feels stuck to the pavement. The result is a battle between getting the car to turn or making it accelerate, and that makes it want not to turn. The stiffly sprung rear tends to nudge the car off-course over bumps, too. It takes concentration to go fast in a 911 Carrera S. The 911 excels at some tasks. The steering lightens up and gains precision with speed, making the 911 feel nimble and tossable. The harder you lean on it, the better it feels, notes Csere. The cockpit is well laid out for driving (despite kooky locations for some secondary controls), and the anti-lock brakes erase speed with conviction. The standard 911 coupe probably would have done better. This Carrera S model has bigger rear tires, added largely for styling s sake, and seemed to exacerbate the 911 s tendency to understeer under power. From its track and road work, it s obvious this car is capable of good handling. It just takes more work to get there than most of the others do. (CONTINUED) Chevrolet Corvette Soft around the edges, but it hangs on when asked. Corvettes sell to a wider audience than most sports cars, and a good ride was an important priority in the new Corvette s development. As we found, that comes at some price to the Corvette s handling. Our Vette came with the Z51 performance suspension with stiffer springs and anti-roll bars and larger shocks, but it still didn t feel buttoned down. I still think this thing bounces around a lot, wrote Webster. Csere noted: It uses up its travel more readily than the other cars. On rougher roads, its suspension regularly tops and bottoms. The other cars don t do this. The steering felt uncommunicative. Berg wrote: There s no feel and a big light spot on-center. If I want a computer game, I ll go to Vegas. But when pushed, the picture brightened. Despite the body s wayward moves, the chassis remained balanced. Schroeder: In 7/10ths mode, the chassis is willing, with terrific grip and appropriate roll. The steering improved with speed. Csere: I can position this car very accurately. It breaks away tailfirst a little more suddenly than I d like, but it s a sweetheart of a handler. Drivers found the seats supportive and the ergonomics kind. Webster: Everything falls right to hand. Smith s begrudging respect was a common theme: Still feels heavy and ponderous, but it ll get the job done when asked. Which earned the Corvette a sixth-place finish. Dodge Viper GTS As close as you ll get to the moves of a race car. Dodge introduced the Viper GTS coupe last year as a touring version of the Viper roadster. Don t be misled. This is a brash, brutal sports car to the core, with the raciest handling this side of a Reynard Indy car. On the test track, the Viper finished at or near the top in every test, in part because it s equipped with the most tire of any production sports car. Sticks like crazy, wrote Dworin. Webster: Grip is tremendous. Its steering is extremely fast, as in many race cars (see Steering Response chart). This combination unnerved some drivers who found it a little too touchy on the narrow, bumpy, undulating Ohio roads. Once we learned its moves, though, the Viper s righteous handling poked through. Webster: Holy smokes! It took a while to trust the grip and strong brakes. This thing corners like it s on rails. Csere: Despite its lofty grip, it breaks away smoothly and predictably, at either end depending on when you press the throttle. It was stable, too. There s little or no steering correction required on over-the-hill curves and depressions, noted Schroeder. Although the cockpit was tight, most drivers found the seat supportive, but there was no place for the driver s left foot, let alone a dead pedal. What we learned at Nelson Ledges applied on the road. Schroeder: It must be aimed properly, and the throttle and the brakes must be carefully applied. Do it all smoothly, and you can cover ground very quickly. It takes an expert driver to get the most out of the Viper, and this car s race-car- quick steering and grip can make it tricky on the road. We gave it an overall handling rating of 91, for a fifth-place finish. Toyota Supra Turbo Handles best when pushed hard. The current Supra, which has been around since 1993, finished in third place behind the Corvette and the M3 in the most recent comparison test in which it was entered (C/D, August 1997). When just handling is considered, though, the older Supra fares much better. The staff was split on this car. About the only thing we could all agree on was the Supra s astonishing poise. It felt neutral and sufficiently damped in every corner, hump, and depression. Neither spikes of power from the turbos nor injudicious brake applications could fluster it. Webster: Well planted, secure. It digs in everywhere. Csere: Inspires great confidence with its planted stance and impressive grip. I can t unsettle this car. The consensus was lost over the steering. For some drivers, its light, connected feel at higher speeds disappeared when we had to drive slower. Steering feels dull at low speeds, wrote Schroeder. I don t feel like I m entirely connected to this car. Many drivers liked the seat, but it was hard to see the fenders over the high cowl. Some drivers got lost in the six-speed s vague shift gate. This was a controversial finisher, too. Impressive stability apparently doesn t cut it for all the editors. The Supra scored at the top of some editors rankings and near the bottom of others . A 92 average placed the Supra Turbo in fourth. Acura NSX-T Suave, cool, sometimes just a wee bit restless. Exotic performance and user-friendliness used to be mutually exclusive terms. The NSX changed that when it appeared seven years ago. It was a culmination of all Honda had learned about handling at the time. Even today, it s clear that Honda has learned plenty. Imagine a handling computer that translates every input into a smooth out-come. That s the NSX. The steering bends calmly into each turn. Cornering lines seem set in stone, requiring little or no correction. Sticks, tracks perfectly, sends clear messages to the driver, wrote Spence. Bumps are dispatched efficiently. Berg: Settles so smoothly after a jolt. The cockpit is similarly sophisticated. Csere: Location of the wheel, shifter, and dead pedal couldn t be better. Everyone liked the driver s seat. Webster: I left the Supra thinking it was comfy. Now, after a stint in the NSX, the Supra feels like my office chair. All computers have bugs, though. In tighter turns, the NSX s steering seemed a bit too heavy. Some drivers found its body roll disconcerting. Seems to roll first, then change direction, noted Webster. Even though the rear end gives ample warning when it s losing traction, the body roll suggested otherwise to some drivers. The F355, a car with a similar layout, sent no such signals to the driver and was more confidence inspiring. Which is likely why it scored ahead of the third-place Acura. Ferrari F355 Effervescent and engaging, with a few personality quirks. The F355 resembles the NSX in more than chassis layout or even (on our test cars) paint color. Both cars have decisive, sensitive steering and a rear weight bias that offers oversteer on demand to help you around a corner. The Ferrari engages the driver more than the NSX, however. The steering turns in more eagerly than the NSX s and hangs on well. Csere: Doesn t give tons of feed-back, but it gives the F355 an incredibly active and lively feel. This car wants to bend into corners. You sit very low in the F355 and feel a more intimate connection with the road beneath. The brakes can be felt working through the steering. They rub out speed effortlessly. Dynamically, the F355 certainly feels like a mid-engined car. There s a sense of substantial mass, low and just behind the driver s back, that the rest of the car seems to rotate around. Body roll is limited and grip feels substantial, yet controllable oversteer is available to assist you in each turn. Smith: Much more confidence-inspiring than the NSX. Three issues slightly tarnish this other- wise sparkling handler. The cockpit has hints of the annoying legs-splayed-out, classic Italian driving position. The gated shifter a Ferrari trademark must be forced if you want to shift as quickly as in the other cars. Finally, the throttle sticks aggravatingly just off idle, making smooth power transitions off and on the throttle next to impossible. Its abruptness ruins an otherwise faultlessly smooth chassis, Schroeder lamented. Were it not for these niggles, the F355 s engaging manner might have secured it the No. 1 handling spot. BMW M3 A flawless handler. BMW s M3 is one of the least-expensive cars in this group. It s also the tallest and narrowest car and has the most-usable rear seat. Its first-place finish proves that superb handling does not require exotic-car packaging or exotic-car prices. (CONTINUED) The M3 s cockpit works naturally. The driver s seat offers a commanding view of the road and the hood s corners. Hands fall instinctively to the steering wheel and shifter, as do feet to the pedals. Heel-and-toeing is possible, and a dead pedal is included. An adjustable steering wheel would have been nice, as well as more lateral support, but these issues didn t get in the way of our adoration. The M3 possesses uncanny roadgoing ability. This is the most-agile car here. The steering eagerly bites into corners and is alive with feel. Constantly talking to my fingers, wrote Csere. It latches onto a line in corners as if on a mission from God. Webster: Rolls gracefully into curves at a constant rate and goes right where you point it. The M3 covers for you. The suspension shrugs off bumps, swells, and off-camber depressions without upsetting the line. Not once did any driver cross it up. Smith: Overcooked a corner, and the BMW s forgiving nature made it interesting rather than scary. Even at the hairy edge of traction, the M3 is accepting of further driver input, which builds tremendous confidence. Unlike the NSX, the Viper, or even the F355, you feel free to explore the M3 s limits without fear that something awful awaits if you miscalculate. The M3 is like one of those mules that pull tour duty in the Grand Canyon, year after year: It isn t capable of a misstep. This car lets you seek out its limits quicker and more confidently than any of the other cars here. If that doesn t make for a winning handler, we don t know what does. The Answer So, what s the best-handling car at any price? Is it the less-than-$30,000 handling winner, the Prelude SH, or the more-than-$ 30,000 M3? Bringing the Prelude along allowed a back-to-back comparison. From the start, it looked like a long road for the front-wheel-drive Prelude. The M3 s rear-wheel drive spreads out tire loads more evenly. The M3 also has larger tires than the Honda, with a larger foot-print. The Prelude SH is $17,006 cheaper than the M3, but at least the BMW s victory proved that price and handling don t go hand in hand. The Prelude put up an admirable fight at the test track, beating two of the pricier eight cars in the accelerating slalom and one of the eight in the decelerating slalom. With a 66.4-mph speed, it nipped the Corvette in the emergency lane change. The M3 was faster, though, in all of those tests. With 0.86 g of grip, the Honda pulled ahead of the BMW s 0.85 g on the bumpy skidpad, and it matched the BMW s 0.89 g when the pavement was smooth. With only 195 horsepower, we weren t surprised when the Prelude lapped Nelson Ledges the slowest of all. Its 84.7-mph average speed was 3.5 mph slower than the BMW. At least the Prelude s torque-transfer system was working on the track this time (see sidebar). So far, not so good. The Prelude had to pull ahead on the road. As we found months earlier in California, the Prelude s steering was responsive and crisp and unflustered by bumps. The chassis demonstrated ample stability, too, and the suspension was forgiving. Still, the Prelude couldn t help revealing its humbler roots. Its body shuddered in response to some hard bumps, when the stiff M3 merely registered them audibly. You can feel the torque-transfer system helping to point the front end, but it occasionally stepped in abruptly, nosing the Prelude in a slightly different direction and requiring a correction. The most significant hindrance was the Prelude s front-wheel drive. Two front wheels can only do so much: I m always trying to plant the front wheels by shifting weight forward, attacking corners by unloading the engine, wrote Berg. No such ministrations were required in the BMW. When the votes were tallied, the Prelude SH racked up a very respectable 91 points, tying with the Dodge Viper GTS. It s an eight-horn salute to the BMW M3 as the best-handling car. A Torque-Trasfer System Pays Dividends for Prelude During a press event last spring, Honda PR man Andy Boyd casually mentioned this: At the Tochigi proving ground s 1.6-mile handling track, Preludes with Honda s Active Torque Transfer System (ATTS) run the course two seconds faster than Preludes without the system. Right off the bat, my skeptic s bullometer went into alert mode. Two seconds is a huge improvement on a short track, and besides, during street drives of ATTS Preludes, I hadn t warmed up to the system. I could sense it was working by its effect on steering feel, but I didn t think it would improve performance significantly. The aim of ATTS is to keep the car on the driver s intended path by directing up to 80 percent of the driving torque to one of the two front wheels (see Technical Highlights, November 1996). Unlike other brake-operated skid-control systems, however, ATTS can be felt readily during normal driving. On the street, I found myself constantly having to unwind the steering wheel quicker than I d expected as the system kicked in and compensated for understeer. But who knows? Maybe I would grow to appreciate the system on the track. So, with stopwatch in hand, I headed to the 1.7-mile handling loop at Chrysler s proving grounds in Chelsea, Michigan. Disabling the ATTS is just a pull of a fuse away, so by taking lap times with the system on and off, I could easily determine if Andy s claim were true. After several familiarization laps, I managed to record a best time of 1:21.58 with the system off. It took me exactly one lap with the system on to better that time. A few laps later, my time had dropped almost a full second, to 1:20.66 roughly half the improve-ment claimed by Honda s pro drivers. On the track, the unnatural un-winding I had experienced on the street disappeared. The long, sweeping power-on turns of Chrysler s handling loop were perfectly suited to ATTS. I could carry more speed through the sweeping curves without drifting wide. In short, ATTS worked on the track. But that doesn t mean I grew to like ATTS on the street. And if one could get the Prelude SH, with its more-aggressive- than-base-Prelude suspension, without the system, that would be the hot ticket. For now, just pull the fuse until you re ready to turn some hot laps. (END)
i can't agree with you more, italians know how to put passion behind the wheel. in a month or so im getting an Alfa Romeo Milano 3.0 , dropped and modified and it is much more enjoyable than the bmw of the same league. the bmw does have better qualitative attributes but the alfa comes second to none in driving pleasure.
Interesting thread. Now that you mention it, I realize the same thing. Besides my Ferrari & BMW, my son also has the same combination & I know other with these 2 also. The most exciting car I own is the Ferrari, of course. However, my 540i has surprising power & driving enjoyment as a daily driver, depending on the weather. When it is sunny & I don't have a special occasion to drive the Ferrari, the 03 Corvette is also a fantastic daily driver. I just can't lose ANY time I go to the garage!
