What makes a good handling car?

low weight, stiff and balanced suspension, sticky tires

 

The best handling car I've driven was the 430 I used to own.
I don't know the precise words to use to describe car handling, so I'll try to say it in layman's terms.

On a race track, the car felt great through the corners.
The mid-engine design was very forgiving when the car was in the middle of the corner under maximum g-load and on the edge of adhesion.

If I was going quickly, I could steer the car in the middle of the corners using just the gas pedal. If I lifted a little on the gas, the nose of the car would slowly tuck-in and tighten the turn. If I pressed more on the gas, the nose would slowly drift out to maximize my exit speed without running out of race track width at the end of the corner going into the next straight-away. The car would pivot nicely around that central wight bias.

The other aspect of handling that is great on the 430 is how linear and predictable the suspension is under hard braking (going into a corner) or hard acceleration (start of a straight-away). The car never felt like the geometry of the suspension ever changed, even though the weight transfer was extreme.

 

Great description of driving a 430 on a track. I've never driven a 430 but I have a good idea what it feels like now. I wonder if I can get the same feeling out of my Mondial. All I will say is I live in an area with some curvy roads. I don't have to slow down at all on the curves and it doesn't feel like I'm in a curve. Most cars will move back and forth if you stand on the drivers side and rock the car. My Mondial is solid and doesn't move.

Regards,
Brian

 

simple....... a "Lotus" badge on the hood

 

Light weight.

I've had lots of sports cars. Street car handling is all about feel and fun to drive.

For a sports car driven on the street, IMO you can't have a truly great handling car if it weighs more than 3,000 lbs.

 

Balance with a little bias towards understeer.

Maybe you've never driven a Ferrari. The 328 is a little over 3200 lbs. and aside from when the tires are cold, I would never ever call it skittish or scary or unpredictable. More skilled drivers may be turned off by all the understeer but I've never gone into a corner wondering if the car is going to break away or surprise me.

-F

 

Turn 9 TWS is a 180 degree hairpin wiht a 120-130 foot radius, just right for 85-87 MPH on street tires. When your capabilities get to the point in this turn where if you add gass the tail comes out and when you subtract gass the tail comes out, you know where the limit is.

The quality of a car that allows you to find this point is consistency, that is given the same inputs does the car always emit the same response. The essence of handling is in this consistency. Handling is not so much about numbers (max latteral Gs,...) but about the delicasy of the balance and whether that balance is easily and reliably controled by the controls the pilot has at his disposal.

 

I read that article and enjoyed it. I never thought the Z06 "smoked them all" by reading it but it did indeed post the fastest overall lap-time by a fraction of a second.

Going further into the article they gave the win to the Porsche Boxster Spyder. Second went to the Lotus supercharged Elise, third a Mazda RX8 R3 package, fourth a V8 M3, fifth the Nissan GTR, sixth the Z06 and finally the VW GTi.

I believe that I would have ranked them similarly haven driven all but the RX8 in anger.

What does that tell us? That tells us that lite & agile make for a wonderful experience. One of the quotes in said article is: "...The lotus made the rest of the cars feel like they were wrapped in a wool blanket..." Well said.

I cant warm up to the GTR as its just too heavy. Yuck. I don't love the Z06 because it has too much of some stuff - and not enough of other stuff. The Lotus may be a bit too like a toy. The M3 is too disconnected. The VW too underpowered. I found the Boxster Spyder to be a fine drive but it came away unremarkable to me (yet still gets my vote from the lot of them).

So what makes a good handling car to me? I know the answer...

Its balance. Not chassis balance mind you, but total package balance.

I.e.; Porsche GT3.

Power (just enough / not overpowered), chassis (sublime), braking (perfectly matched), low weight, steering feel, vehicle size - all a perfectly matched package.

You cant say that for the GTR, Vette, GTi, M3 V8, RX8. You can jussssst about say it for the Spyder & the Lotus. Look to the popular Spec Miata series for a textbook example. Not a particularly fast 0-60 car but without argument a fantastic momentum racecar that quite literally will drive circles around exotic machinery on the racetrack. Its another perfectly balanced package of weight, power & braking - equaling - handling.

My cars in my garage mostly are based on the same principle. A total package car is what I prefer. The GT3 is a perfect example. Stick a turbo on one and the package is misaligned (I.e. GT2). Try to accelerate a GT2 at the apex. The power overwhelms the front grip and you skid off to the grass while the GT3 accelerates through and at track out. Its nirvana. No its not 500+HP, but is perfect.

Nevertheless. That is what makes a good handling car to me. And perhaps the C&D editors as well.

 

Good analysis for a road car. For a race car nervous is often faster. I am starting to prefer less powerful road cars. I much prefer my 993RS over my former 997GT3RS

 

I have a GT3 and a GTi, and I agree. The Porsche (996) is a great balance of road car/track car handling. neutral to loose but not going to kill you, unless you do something really stupid. And it is like that all the way up to the limit, so you can build confidence and speed. The car is so well balanced, not just in the handling but the way the steering, brakes, engine, gearbox, etc. all "sync" together so well.

obviously if we're talking full-on race car the GT3 understeers and weighs 500+ pounds too much

The GTi is a great FWD daily driver with a sporting edge, but by no means would I call it a "performance" car in stock form. the suspension is a great compromise of ride quality, ride height, and handling/grip up to about 7 or 8/10ths. after that it goes all squishy, wallowy understeer. it was too underpowered until I had the ECU reprogrammed

 

I read the article and like most C+D and Motor Trend comparisons (and R+T sometimes) it was easy to see that they really wanted to utilize criteria that would render certain cars non-winners, while assuring that others (or one) would win.

As an automotive journalist I'm often very hard on others in my field, but mostly because I believe many of them get tunnel-vision.

Obviously what makes a great handling car is a combination of out-and-out capabilties with the feel to explore them, as well as communication of the approaching of the car's limits with a progressive (or catchable) breakaway when limits are exceeded.

And while I would agree with C+D that seats/ergonomics are important, it is laughable how they approach their scoring in such matters. The Corvette, for instance, got sliced for its "flimsy" seats, but the fact that at 6'4" I can ride in a Corvette daily -- and I can't fit in to test the Lotus or top-rated Porsche Boxster Speedster AT ALL doesn't matter to these journalists. The fact of the matter is that while flimsy, the Vette offers more comfort to more people than the Boxster or Lotus. (And as someone who raced a C5 Corvette with nearly identical seats, they hold fine. They definitely could use improvement, but not to the degree C+D believes.)

It would be easy to just say "best lap time", but that's not fair either. A poorer handling car can win with acceleration via larger engine and hp. A Lotus Eleven was a far better handling car than a '57 Corvette, but I FI Corvette could beat it around a track like Sebring with long straights. By the same token, a first-gen Viper GTS had amazing capabilities, but I've never seen a car more likely to be spun on a track or street. In other words -- what's the value of great abilities if the car kills most drivers before they can safely explore them?

And forgive me for rambling, but I also had a problem with the premise of "Best Handling Car (under $100,000)", but only having newly featured models. Quite honestly, the best-handling Lotus wasn't even in the test -- just the newest offered.

This gets us back to my main gripe: when writing a story, is the publication really writing a relevent story or simply conveniently shilling the products currently on loan to them for free by the automakers? More specifically -- are they rigging their comparos to reflect their pre-determined favorites or the automaker spending the most dollars in ads? I can't say that I have any reason to believe the latter is actually happening, but I suspect the former is at least somewhat in play in some (albeit even small) way.

I'll never forget when Motor Trend ran a Best Sports Car comparo and the M3 beat out the C5 based only on points for the Bimmer "having a usable back seat." There hadn't been a Corvette ad in MT for years, but then Editor In Chief C. Van Tune claimed having the flexibility of a sports car with rear seats trumped the performance figures which were nearly all in the C5's favor. C. Van Tune even tried to defend the story when letters to the editor flooded in calling foul.

C. Van Tune soon was no longer E-I-C at MT.

In general, I've long thought the analytical process at C+D was often flawed in their stories, especially safety stories. When they remotely triggered air loss through valve stems in a Ford Explorer and concluded when they could easily control the vehicle it was the same as an unexpected separation of tread and proved driver error, not vehicle and/or tire issues that caused collisions, I almost threw up. Similarly, they concluded driver error in Toyotas because they were able to stop a full-throttle Toyota by standing on the brakes or taking the car out of gear-- not realizing that in a malfunctioning computer-controlled vehicle it was feasible that the transmission wouldn't respond to being brought out of gear at WOT via a throttle/transmission control unit failure AND loss of braking capabilities/performance due to a realistic amount of pad and caliper wear, as well as other possible electronic maladies associated with the events. Not saying it definitely IS or ISN'T all one-hundred-percent driver error, just that C+D's tests look more like publicity stunts to defend their advertisers rather than significant and scientific approaches to real-world testing.

Wow -- how was that for a rant ?

 

I think a lot of it is personal preference.

For me my old M Roadster felt like it handled better than my M3, Viper or F355. But Im an amateur and dont know how to wring out the best a car can give. The MRoadster inspired confidence the others didnt and for me , that made it the best handling.

 

Plain and simple the full dynamic balance and the responsiveness of the car. Everything working in a perfect harmony.

The engine needs the perfect balance of responsiveness and power. There is too much power... well too much power to control. Power without control is when things get dangerous. Badly.

The chassis needs to be light, stiff, again can't be too stiff. This is a road car after all.

The weight. Must be light. But contrary to what I have seen in the local modification scene just ripping things out of the car doesn't necessarily help, as it ruins the weight balance of the car. An unbalanced light car is worse than a balanced heavier car. So lighter is better, but critically must have a good weight balance.

The drivetrain. Very overlooked, must have appropriate gearing for the engine, <- that is so painfully obvious with my current car. and needs to be as light as it can be while able to handle the power and a bit more.

Aerodynamics. Balanced aero is pretty critical, even in road cars.

Suspension and steering. Needs to be sorted out thoroughly. Sadly for most cars it isn't.

Last but not least: Feel.

It's how the car feels when just cruising, or being pushed to its limits. It's also how the car responds to you and how you want it to respond. This varies person to person. Some like just a bit of understeer as was previously posted, but I like me a very neutral balance, maybe even a bit of tail out. Understeer terrifies me. I like the nose to stick, then I like to evaluate the situation and adjust the back end accordingly. Other smaller things like how the seats, shifter, clutch, and steering wheel feels when driving matters too.

 

Sounds right on the money and it didn't cost me $5.99 to get the 'real' scoop!

Reminds me of an old saying - 'figures don't lie but liars can figure'.
CH

 

I might also add proper weight distribution and rwd, unless you're including that under "balanced suspension".

I agree. You can generate some great numbers by applying driving aids (e.g., traction, stability control), but ultimately it's like training a fat guy to play tennis: you may get the skills mastered, but if you want to enjoy the ride you need to get lean.

If I had another garage bay, it would be hard not to pick up an Elise/Exige...

 

Don't confuse chassis stiffness with ride stiffness. The stiffer the chassis, the more potential for better handling there is. You can't be too stiff, unless it comes at the expense of weight.

 

You might as well be asking "how do you quantify love?"

For every different respondent you'll get a different answer none of them will be quite right. The cascading and often contradictory effects of stiffness, response, feel, comfort, balance, rebound and myriad other variables conspire to make it far too complex a subject for a forum, IMO.

A "War & Peace" sized volume on the topic might not get it right!

 

I was including proper weight distro in "balanced", but totally forgot about RWD! Great catch!

 

+1


[/end thread]

 

I think you just covered good handling and love in one post.

Time for a cold shower, brb...

 

Brilliant, Jon!