Four-door Sedan: Which would you choose? - Page 5

I can't think of anything sold in the US - cars, that is, excluding trucks/SUVs on the grounds that we're all decent people - that can't hit 60 in 9.9 seconds or less when driven aggressively.

Performance is perhaps the dumbest category on which to judge cars, because there is not a single car to my knowledge sold in America that is incapable of single-digit 0-60 acceleration - see above explanation of "single-digit" - and a top speed well in excess of any posted speed limit anywhere in the country. In other words, there is effectively no new car - I'm excluding trucks/SUVs on the assumption that we're all decent people - that is low-performance. The problem with very high performance is that it is very deleterious to cars of all stripes In terms of the driving experience. There are two primary reasons for this apparent paradox. First, the insane obesity epidemic in the automotive industry. Simple physics that CAD cannot alter dictate that a 3500lb car is going to be much more ponderous to drive than a 2500lb car. Especially if that 3500lb car has a heavier engine up front, and thus inferior weight distribution. And above 4000lbs, you might as well put on your shiny brass button DB blazer when you're behind the tiller, because your experience will be nothing but nautical. However, with practically everyone having a 400hp engine available and modern wide and sticky tires, these boats can go extremely fast. Though note that a car with modern technology and reasonable mass will perform truly astoundingly in some areas of performance; according to edmunds.com the 2500lb Miata stops shorter than the expensive, fast, and porcine BMW M3. The second reason, ironically enough, is that the imperative of improving performance for look good in magazine copy is in direct opposition to enhancing the amount of feel and control offered the driver in realistic conditions. The faster a car is designed to go, the less that its designers can afford to allow the driver to feel anything at speeds he will actually be allowed to drive. That's why the driving experience of most new "sports sedans" (BMW 3-Series, A4, G35, and so on) sucks so hard compared to obsolete sedans such as the BMW 2000 or Triumph 2500PI. And anything bigger than those is a failure before you start it up, unless you have someone to drive you around. PS: The only thing uglier than a Chris Bungle 6-series is a Chris Bungle 6-series with a Dodge grill grafted on top.

SWell, I think you're taking cars a little too seriously. Having driven my cousin's 330i(we did the entire european delivery experience), it's a fantastic car. Unless you're extremely discriminating about performance, your average driver's going to be satisfied. and i sincerely hope that your last comment wasn't on the latigo, cause if it was, you've got some strange taste in automobiles

You're comparison does not work. You can't compare a car the size of the BMW 2000, with the required specifications and technology of its day with a modern M3 (E46). You might as well compare a 1937 MB 540K Spezial Roadster to an SLR. The safety requirements (airbags, ABS, ESP, etc...) add quite a bit of weight to a modern car. Plus, the modern cars are bigger. You can fit 4 people in perfect comfort and their luggage in an M3, whereas you would have problems doing the same in a 2000.

Also, the 2000 doesn't have anywhere the radio system, Nav, hands-free communication, steering wheel controls, power seats, etc... that a modern M3 has. Which of course, add weight to the car. At the same time the 2000 doesn't stop anywhere as well as the M3, isn't as fast, and can't corner as well in both perfectly dry and completely horrendous driving conditions.

But, yes, the steering wheel feel on the 2000 is better. But, if you equate better steering feel to a better driving experience...then to each his own.

Jon.

The BMW 3-series IS a fantastic car (really the E46 more so than the E90, but that's really personal choice...).

Jon.

When I checked on Edmunds, the 2006 Miata stopped in 115 feet, while the 2001 M3 stopped in 112 feet, both for 60 MPH to 0, but different test conditions.

--Andre

Yeah, that's a farcical argument; the fastest accelerating car in the world stops faster than it can accelerate...

Jon.

In other words, lower your standards and you'll be happy with garbage. Besides, and this is probably the fifth time I've written this in this thread alone IT'S NOT ABOUT PERFORMANCE!!! Every stupid little shitbox offers "performance" today. What is generally not on offer in moderns is a superior driving experience. I agree that a modern 3-series is an extremely high performance car. However, for a car with the pretensions it has it is a really shitty drive, with poor electronic throttle programming, useless steering, and even now a suspension that would just as soon you didn't have any idea what it was doing. BMW can do better, because they have done much better in the past. I think they're going through the same kind of degradation that Mercedes underwent in the 1990s, with the wretched-excess W140 successor to the instant-classic W126 S-Class, the horrifically cheap W202 C-Class that was in every way inferior to the W201 190E it replaced, and the last nail in the coffin being the replacement of the exceptional W124 E-Class with the shoddily built and forgettable W210. (Yes, except for the W124 and W126 I had to look those platform codes up.) Is the "latigo" that picture someone posted of a 6er with a Dodge bullseye grill and some tupperware on the lights? If so, then yes.

You really don't think that you can fit four people and their luggage in this car:


(Hint: the 2000 is the longer wheelbase, four door version of the 2002 you're thinking of.)


With its standard DIN head unit, the 2000 can easily be upgraded to have all of that stereo/nav/communication stuff. Even a wheel remote. And if you use drivers with composite or alloy baskets and neo magnets like elite carmakers should but don't, you won't even add more than ~20lbs for a 5.1 channel speaker install. As for power seats, what kind of effete nancy needs that kind of ballast, anyway?

What about power moon roof? And how about ESP? And ABS? And heated seats? And Comfort Access? Airbags? Impact door beams?

Because all of these are the bare minimum that most BMW owners opt for, unless you think that you know the market better than BMW, or you're willing to spend +$50K on a car that basically has no modern comfort and isn't a real "˜sports sedan', since according to you there aren't any real "˜sports sedans'.

Jon.

The loss of "˜feeling' is the move towards electronic instead of purely mechanical driving. It's the Clarkson "˜F40 vs. Enzo' argument, and you know what? The Enzo is STILL quicker than the F40 and thanks to the electronic options lets you do more with the car in more terrains.

Jon.

I want an Allroad, but they aren't making them anymore. Supid SUVs..

I see. So what you're trying to say is that performance should be the paramount consideration when shopping for a new car, correct? I'd suggest anything by AMG. Lots of power, big heavy wheels, compliant suspension, and an excellent automatic transmission. The dynamic seats are wonderful.

Given that both cars offer far more performance than anyone who doesn't hold and maintain an FIA Superlicense could ever realistically exploit on a huge racetrack let alone on real world roads, who the fuck cares which one is "quicker"?

This ridiculous masturbation over irrelevant differences on spec sheets is the bulk of the reason why moderns suck so hard. Dumb people will buy the stupid things because they are fast, without bothering to learn if they're any good.