road & track: best all-around sports car.

[lemming]

want to guess which car they chose?

which car was the fastest over the buttonwillow west loop?

:D

the base corvette with the LS2.

the subjective & objective finishing order:

1. corvette
2. 05 boxster S
3. 05 carrera S
4. elise
5. s2000
6. viper srt-10
7. z4
8. nissan 350Z anniver. ed
9. mb slk350

i don't know who the hell came up with these cars as half of 'em are lame to me, but.....

[clyde]

Only 4 of them are sports cars anyway

[BahnBaum]

Only 4 of them are sports cars anyway

I count 5.

Alex

[lemming]

they did mention the M z4 will have hte current M3 motor whilst the m3 will migrate to the 4.0 litre v8.

[undefined]

i think I perused this issue in the grocery store last week. if it's the one I'm thinking of, the elise finished dead last by a few of the editors/writers

:|

[FC]

Funny, my top 4 most appealing sports cars are their 4 top cars.

The Carrera S is just too damn expensive and the Elise will probably not be around or will be different, so it's the C6 or Boxster S looking for a new car in a few years.

[SteveM]

Funny, my top 4 most appealing sports cars are their 4 top cars.

The Carrera S is just too damn expensive and the Elise will probably not be around or will be different, so it's the C6 or Boxster S looking for a new car in a few years.

Oh man, here we go again! :smile:

[lemming]

Funny, my top 4 most appealing sports cars are their 4 top cars.

The Carrera S is just too damn expensive and the Elise will probably not be around or will be different, so it's the C6 or Boxster S looking for a new car in a few years.

Oh man, here we go again! :smile:

BMW z4: 5.5 to 60mph, 14.5 to 100mph, 14.1 1/4 mile, 70.71 second laptime

corvette: 4.5 / 9.8 to 100mph, 12.8 1/4, 66.32 second lap

viper: 4.0 / 8.7 to 100mph, 12.1 1/4, 66.6 second lap

s2000: 5.4 / 13.8 to 100mph, 13.9 1/4, 69.88 second lap

elise: 4.6 / 12.4 to 100mph, 13.3 1/4, 68.65 second lap

SLK350: 5.5 / 12.9 to 100mph, 13.8 1/4, 68.91 second lap

350z: 5.6 / 13.7 to 100mph, 14.1 1/4, 70.86 second lap

boxster S: 5.0 / 12.2 to 100mph, 13.4 1/4, 67.27 second lap

carrera S: 3.9 / 9.6 to 100mph, 12.3 1/4, 66.71 second lap

__________________

the carrera S times are amazing (it's rear engined, remember?) and the new boxster S has some serious speed whereas before the boxster S wasn't worth the added money; the elise is superquick, but you can see from the times that it lacks a top end and is at a disadvantage on this west loop of buttonwillow track where HP is a factor; the viper must really be hairy (they said it was) because its speed didn't show up on the track; the 350z is P A T H E T I C. you call that a sports car?

i'll get some turbocharged family cars are that fast, in a straight line or at the track.

:lol:

i also think their thinking is lame about the BMW issue. they reasoned that the m3 was more of a GT and they wanted "sports car"; why the hell do people insist on roadster as sports car? the m3 would have been incredible, even in this company of car --the z4 3.0 isn't really all that impressive (recall that it's likely more expensive to buy than the Elise which soundly trounces it in any quantifiable measure).

[FC]

Funny, my top 4 most appealing sports cars are their 4 top cars.

The Carrera S is just too damn expensive and the Elise will probably not be around or will be different, so it's the C6 or Boxster S looking for a new car in a few years.

Oh man, here we go again! :smile:

No dammit! :mad: I'm sticking up for this post. That post is 100% consistent with what I have been writing re: my "sportscar" for the last year or so. :twisted:

[FC]

...and the new boxster S has some serious speed whereas before the boxster S wasn't worth the added money.

I held very little hope for the new Boxster, that is why until reviews came out, I hardly was considering one. The C6 is still the one to get (on paper), especially when it is about 10K cheaper than the 987S the way I'd get them. But as we all know, I'm a few years out and Porsche tends to add horsepowere here and there just about every year. I'm sure when I'm ready to look at one, it will be up to 300hp. It is amazing what it can do with 276hp.

Kudos to Mercedes-Benz for coming out of the blue with an all-of-a-sudden competent sportscar with a MT. If I cared a little less about performance, it would be worth looking at. It is comfortable and beautiful and the hardtop is a huge plus. Plus I'm sure MB tuners could make it handle like it's on rails for relatively short money (in the 50K+ world).

[ff]

Weird list. There are so many real sports cars that could've made it, but they chose the Z4, 350Z, and SLK350? :? And how did the S2000 finish ahead of the Viper ?

[FC]

Weird list. There are so many real sports cars that could've made it, but they chose the Z4, 350Z, and SLK350? :? And how did the S2000 finish ahead of the Viper ?

True, there are other cars that should be in there.

But where do you draw the line? How is an S2000 more a sports car than a 350Z? Because it has superior performance? If so, the S2000 is just a better sports car (obviously), but it doens't make the 350Z not a sports car. It just makes it a worse one by comparison.

It's unfair to remove the tag of sports car from a car just because it pampers the customer and adds weight, lowering performance. Now if a car has a soft, cushy ride, a slushy tranny, is grossly over-weight, a motor not willing to play along, etc, then it can be disqualified as a sports car altogether.

Examples of not-sports cars: The previous SLK, Lexus SC430, CLK's, Audi TT's, MB SL's, etc.

There are just too many shitty sports cars out here, but it doesn't mean they aren't a sports car. Because as pathetic as it seems, they all where sold with the intention of offering a more involving, spirited driving experience. No matter how badly they fail.

Is it fair that a Land Rover Defender 90 and a Kia Sorrento are both SUV's/ Hell no!, but it doesn't matter. One is just better than the other (at doing what SUV's are supposed to do).

[clyde]

Weird list. There are so many real sports cars that could've made it, but they chose the Z4, 350Z, and SLK350? :?

The Z4 is a sports car (if properly unoptioned)

[clyde]

Weird list. There are so many real sports cars that could've made it, but they chose the Z4, 350Z, and SLK350? :? And how did the S2000 finish ahead of the Viper ?

True, there are other cars that should be in there.

But where do you draw the line? How is an S2000 more a sports car than a 350Z?

The S2000 is a sports car. It meets all the criteria.

The 350Z is not a sports car. The two big reasons why: 1) It's closed. 2) It's 3,300 lbs.

It's unfair to remove the tag of sports car from a car just because it pampers the customer and adds weight, lowering performance.[/quote]

Performance has nothing to do with what makes a sports car. If it's 3,300 lbs, it ain't a sports car...it's a fat pig.

[FC]

Weird list. There are so many real sports cars that could've made it, but they chose the Z4, 350Z, and SLK350? :? And how did the S2000 finish ahead of the Viper ?

True, there are other cars that should be in there.

But where do you draw the line? How is an S2000 more a sports car than a 350Z?

The S2000 is a sports car. It meets all the criteria.

The 350Z is not a sports car. The two big reasons why: 1) It's closed. 2) It's 3,300 lbs.

It's unfair to remove the tag of sports car from a car just because it pampers the customer and adds weight, lowering performance.

Performance has nothing to do with what makes a sports car. If it's 3,300 lbs, it ain't a sports car...it's a fat pig.[/quote]

I agree. I'm just trying to rationalize why a national car magazine would call these cars sports cars. They probably would call an E46 M3 cabrio a sports car. The thing is nearly 4000lbs! Ask anyone on the street when you point to an SL600, and they'd say it's a sportscar. That one is probably 5000lbs.

They are selling magazines. Comparing "sports cars" gets them revenue.

I propose we start our own "Carmudgeon Magazine" and test only real sports cars. :D

[Rob]

I propose we start our own "Carmudgeon Magazine" and test only real sports cars. :D

GREAT idea! We better get started determining what our criteria are for the sports car category right away!

By the time we agree on the definition, we won't be driving cars anymore. :lol:

[Plaz]

Performance has nothing to do with what makes a sports car. If it's 3,300 lbs, it ain't a sports car...it's a fat pig.

C6 is 3245lbs... so when a driver who weighs more than 54 lbs. gets in, is it suddenly no longer a sports car? :dunno:

[Rob]

Performance has nothing to do with what makes a sports car. If it's 3,300 lbs, it ain't a sports car...it's a fat pig.

C6 is 3245lbs... so when a driver who weighs more than 54 lbs. gets in, is it suddenly no longer a sports car? :dunno:

See what I mean? :twisted:

[Plaz]

Performance has nothing to do with what makes a sports car. If it's 3,300 lbs, it ain't a sports car...it's a fat pig.

C6 is 3245lbs... so when a driver who weighs more than 54 lbs. gets in, is it suddenly no longer a sports car? :dunno:

See what I mean? :twisted:

:lol:

[clyde]

Performance has nothing to do with what makes a sports car. If it's 3,300 lbs, it ain't a sports car...it's a fat pig.

C6 is 3245lbs... so when a driver who weighs more than 54 lbs. gets in, is it suddenly no longer a sports car? :dunno:

C6's physical dimensions (length, width) make it too big to be a sports car to begin with...

[Plaz]

Performance has nothing to do with what makes a sports car. If it's 3,300 lbs, it ain't a sports car...it's a fat pig.

C6 is 3245lbs... so when a driver who weighs more than 54 lbs. gets in, is it suddenly no longer a sports car? :dunno:

C6's physical dimensions (length, width) make it too big to be a sports car to begin with...

Oh, I see.

:?

[FC]

Performance has nothing to do with what makes a sports car. If it's 3,300 lbs, it ain't a sports car...it's a fat pig.

C6 is 3245lbs... so when a driver who weighs more than 54 lbs. gets in, is it suddenly no longer a sports car? :dunno:

C6's physical dimensions (length, width) make it too big to be a sports car to begin with...

Oh, I see.

:?

I don't. :? :? :?




:D

[lemming]

fast, reliable, cheap. choose 2.

that's my favorite saying i picked up over at rennlist.

as you know, i have a seriously defined carmudgeonesque criteria for sports cars and this comparison was not for "us" --it was for the mainstream.

the title was best all around. ergo, the elise lost. they put a lot of value into how well the elise could be as a daily driver or trip car. i have no idea why. but whatever.

i think it's more amazing how quick AND fast the 911 S was in their test. for a GT car to be that fast is amazing to me. i don't find 90k to be that expensive because that car is well-built, reliable and faster than the F360 and likely as fast as the f430.

the corvette is always going to be a blunt instrument, but it had a nice foil character in this test in the viper because the viper is over the top. too much motor, too little money spent into weight reduction and i find the roadster aero package flat out stupid.

that the corvette won is really telling because the c5 never would have won this test. something (or the entire package) about the c6 makes it palatable to a bunch of professional autowriters whereas before it was not.

*useful bit of trivia: did you guys know that ALMS racing doesn't allow aluminum hydroformed rails so that racing C6 z06 has to still make do with steel main rails? strange. must be a safety issue?

[Plaz]

that the corvette won is really telling because the c5 never would have won this test. something (or the entire package) about the c6 makes it palatable to a bunch of professional autowriters whereas before it was not.


I can't help but wonder if it's because it's new. Will be interesting to see the outcomes of similar comparos in a couple of years.

[Roadstergal]

Performance has nothing to do with what makes a sports car. If it's 3,300 lbs, it ain't a sports car...it's a fat pig.

C6 is 3245lbs... so when a driver who weighs more than 54 lbs. gets in, is it suddenly no longer a sports car? :dunno:

A Ferrari F430 with driver weighs about 3,300 pounds

:paranoid:

But I agree that 3000lbs is well into fat pig territory. :smile:

[lemming]

3000 is about the magic mark for fiscal wisdom when selling a mass produced streetable sports car.

[FC]

3000 is about the magic mark for fiscal wisdom when selling a mass produced streetable sports car.

Per Porsche website, both the Boxster S and Carrera S weigh 2965lbs (no luggage or driver), but neither is race-derived so they are not sports cars, right?

;)

[lemming]

3000 is about the magic mark for fiscal wisdom when selling a mass produced streetable sports car.

Per Porsche website, both the Boxster S and Carrera S weigh 2965lbs (no luggage or driver), but neither is race-derived so they are not sports cars, right?

;)

obviously if it were up to me, porsche would also set aside moneys for a boxster racing program.

it would probably be as successful as the gt3r racing teams simply by virtue of better handling.

of course the 911 is a sports car and so isn't the boxster.

i just don't necessarily agree with that 100%.

[Roadstergal]

3000 is about the magic mark for fiscal wisdom when selling a mass produced streetable sports car.

Then why does the Miata sell better than any other roadster in the states? ;)

[FC]

3000 is about the magic mark for fiscal wisdom when selling a mass produced streetable sports car.

Per Porsche website, both the Boxster S and Carrera S weigh 2965lbs (no luggage or driver), but neither is race-derived so they are not sports cars, right?

;)

obviously if it were up to me, porsche would also set aside moneys for a boxster racing program.

it would probably be as successful as the gt3r racing teams simply by virtue of better handling.

of course the 911 is a sports car and so isn't the boxster.

i just don't necessarily agree with that 100%.

BS, if the Carrera S is a sports car, the Boxster S is as well. Unless you are excluding drop-tops. :?

Put the 355hp engine in the Boxster and it would smoke the Carrera. Do it on a hardtop Boxster and it would be a worse spanking. Sad that Porsche will forever underpower the Boxster. It is the better vehicle of the two.

[lemming]

3000 is about the magic mark for fiscal wisdom when selling a mass produced streetable sports car.

Then why does the Miata sell better than any other roadster in the states? ;)

we've been through this before.

fast, cheap, reliable. choose two. the miata obviously isn't fast. and i doubt many among us would do an instant recall when one of our friends asked us what comes to mind when we think "sports car" --miata is about at the median for me and i never get beyond the top 5.

the miata wasn't even included in this comparison because its power to weight ratio is pathetic and that was one of the criterion for being included.

[JST]

3000 is about the magic mark for fiscal wisdom when selling a mass produced streetable sports car.

Then why does the Miata sell better than any other roadster in the states? ;)

we've been through this before.

fast, cheap, reliable. choose two. the miata obviously isn't fast. and i doubt many among us would do an instant recall when one of our friends asked us what comes to mind when we think "sports car" --miata is about at the median for me and i never get beyond the top 5.

the miata wasn't even included in this comparison because its power to weight ratio is pathetic and that was one of the criterion for being included.

Fast, cheap, reliable? Choose Mustang.

[clyde]

BS, if the Carrera S is a sports car, the Boxster S is as well. Unless you are excluding drop-tops. :?

Yeah, that would be really weird considering the fact that no car with a fixed roof can be a sports car. :twisted:

[clyde]

Fast, cheap, reliable? Choose Mustang.

It's all three...and it doesn't even have pushrods.

[lemming]

Fast, cheap, reliable? Choose Mustang.

It's all three...and it doesn't even have pushrods.

yep.

it does meet all three. and it's a rare bird for being able to do that.

[Roadstergal]

we've been through this before.

fast, cheap, reliable. choose two.

What does that have to do with anything? "Fiscal wisdom" was the quote. You're saying the Miata wasn't profitable?


the miata wasn't even included in this comparison because its power to weight ratio is pathetic and that was one of the criterion for being included.

Hmm, was it Evo that had the big sports car shootout between Vipers and Porsches and Westies and everything else under the sun, and had the Miata on top at the end? ;)


i doubt many among us would do an instant recall when one of our friends asked us what comes to mind when we think "sports car

That's because y'all have a must-have-gobs-of-power-right-from-the-factory-who-cares-about-handling mentality. :dunno:

I'm a handling-must-come-first-you-can-add-hp-as-needed person.

[JST]

That's because y'all have a must-have-gobs-of-power-right-from-the-factory-who-cares-about-handling mentality. :dunno:



--humming God Bless America--

[lemming]

we've been through this before.

fast, cheap, reliable. choose two.

What does that have to do with anything? "Fiscal wisdom" was the quote. You're saying the Miata wasn't profitable?


the miata wasn't even included in this comparison because its power to weight ratio is pathetic and that was one of the criterion for being included.

Hmm, was it Evo that had the big sports car shootout between Vipers and Porsches and Westies and everything else under the sun, and had the Miata on top at the end? ;)


i doubt many among us would do an instant recall when one of our friends asked us what comes to mind when we think "sports car

That's because y'all have a must-have-gobs-of-power-right-from-the-factory-who-cares-about-handling mentality. :dunno:

I'm a handling-must-come-first-you-can-add-hp-as-needed person.

to reply to your earlier point: roadster does not always equal sports car. see earlier first gen. SLK or z3.

to this, the miata isn't fast. so it fulfills cheap and reliable. that was my more tactful point.

and even now, a loaded up miata is still about 27k and that's not really even the mazdaspeed version --with only 140hp on tap, it's a roadster and it's reliable. it's neither cheap nor fast.

and it did not qualify for this comparison and it won't for any other sports car comparison until it's redone and even then, if it's still slow, it will be kindly excluded, just so mazda can save face.

i also would like to re-interpret a point of yours: the curb weight of the miata is 2500 pounds and it's a tiny car. i think that is sad that it isn't closer to the elise curb weight, given its size and that is rather disappointing and again is anothe rreason why, as it can evolved, as its hp from changed from 1.6litres/100hp to 1.8litres/143hp, that its power to weight has worsened or been the same.

these other cars are much larger vehicles with bigger engines and it's a testament to me of how good they are that many can still be around 3000 pounds. moreover, they have far and away superior power to weight ratios.

i owned a miata, remember? i didn't pull anything out of that ownership experience that i couldn't have gotten out of owning a honda crx. lightweight, nimble, great shifter. is all.

mazda has been obtuse for not putting the 2.3litre 160hp engine in the miata. right now, as it sits, the miata, which has a great chassis, is completely underutilized and outdone by even FWDers with short wheelbases that can rotate as easily around turns (e.g. mini cooper S, mazda 3).