Cars We Drive!

[HRoi]

Guys, guys—you are boxing with shadows. I never suggested one should pick between two cars based on ‘Ring times alone.

I only said that developing for the Nurburgring tends to make better driving cars and that times around the track remain one of the single best benchmarks for assessing a car’s overall sporting capability. None of that adds up to: “I’ll take that Lambo over that Porsche because it’s two seconds faster!” It does add up to: if a car’s lap time is meaningfully worse than its peers, perhaps there is something not so great about how it was developed/engineered and its on-paper virtues don’t add up in real life.

And I wasn’t putting words into your mouth. My initial post on the topic was borne from general frustration about ‘Ring time sudddenly becoming the be-all-end-all for many in the industry and the public. It wasn’t intended as a counter to anything you said - I actually agree with everything in this last post.

on the bolded text : this is true, but now I’m thinking on the inverse...it’s certainly possible for a car to have equivalent laptime to its peers and still be much worse. I’m thinking specifically of a race prepped, stripped v8 vantage with upgraded suspension, brakes and racing tires that I drove on the Yas Marina circuit....2 secs off the pace of the 997 GT3, but that car was a mess - vague steering, front heavy, a pig in the corners, super unpredictable traction control (yeah I know, if TC intervenes on the track you fucked up somehow...but on other cars I knew what I was doing wrong. This one slipped seemingly randomly)

 

[HRoi]

The other interesting point to consider is that BMW has been one of the oldest, continuous users of the Ring for car testing but if you believe the popular press and enthusiasts, their cars’ dynamics are going backwards. So does the Ring take or give?

Going back to this statement from another old BMW-head...I realized something about a year into F82 ownership. They are worse to drive than the old M3’s, but despite losing the ‘feel’ that we loved about the old cars, they’re actually immensely capable.

Take the steering - it has little feedback, is weighted just for the sake of feeling heavy, and feels more like one of those Xbox force feedback wheels than an actual steering wheel attached to a car. But I took it on the track and it was exceptionally precise. The feel just sucked.

So we all probably have bewildered BMW who were thinking - damn guys, I just delivered to you a beast of a car that whips all previous versions in every way...wtf?

I did read that they’re paying extra attention to building more of the old feedback and dynamics into the G80 so perhaps we can have our cake and eat it too

 

[UnFacconable]

Foo - would love to hear more about the cars you cross shopped your GT3 against and how you felt their real world performance and feel compared to your car. What else did you consider and what in particular sealed the deal (if it was anything other than availability of NA+manual)?

The reason I posted what I posted about the simulations is that it shows a clear performance advantage for the type of setup you don’t prefer. In particular, it appears the Turbo S (not a track setup) is comparable to your GT3 (based on Gebhardt times) but it gets there a bit differently.

Also incidentally since you keep talking about factory efforts, a lot of the times you cite are not from manufacturers but from Gebhardt and other racer/journalists. It’s not necessarily that they can’t drive as fast but they might not have the resources to wait for ideal conditions or have the perfect setup - fresh tires, etc. His GT3 time was 6 seconds off the official mark but who knows how representative that delta is.

While I’m here - there’s another reason that it’s hard to compare the Civic Type R against all of those other cars. Tire tech has made a massive difference in the last decade so who knows what those cars would have run on the Pilot Sport Cup 2s thst the Civic ran (and which incidentally is not a factory option with that car).

EDIT: just to be clear I’m not knocking the Civic. That’s a cracking good time for a FWD 300 hp car. But the list is also suspect. The 997 Turbos run faster than 7:50 (7:38 looks like for the 997.2). I wouldn’t be surprised if others were off too. GT-R’s time is way off as well - the official time was 7:29. And then you have some of the ancient cars. The C5 Z06 time is from 2002. The 2005 Z06 ran sub 7:43.

 

[OtterMeanGreen]

Foo - would love to hear more about the cars you cross shopped your GT3 against and how you felt their real world performance and feel compared to your car. What else did you consider and what in particular sealed the deal (if it was anything other than availability of NA+manual)?

The reason I posted what I posted about the simulations is that it shows a clear performance advantage for the type of setup you don’t prefer. In particular, it appears the Turbo S (not a track setup) is comparable to your GT3 (based on Gebhardt times) but it gets there a bit differently.

Also incidentally since you keep talking about factory efforts, a lot of the times you cite are not from manufacturers but from Gebhardt and other racer/journalists. It’s not necessarily that they can’t drive as fast but they might not have the resources to wait for ideal conditions or have the perfect setup - fresh tires, etc. His GT3 time was 6 seconds off the official mark but who knows how representative that delta is.

While I’m here - there’s another reason that it’s hard to compare the Civic Type R against all of those other cars. Tire tech has made a massive difference in the last decade so who knows what those cars would have run on the Pilot Sport Cup 2s thst the Civic ran (and which incidentally is not a factory option with that car).

Pretty sure those times the Civic Type R beat were official best lap times with the right tires and car setups for optimal lap record attempts.

I think when you have to come up with excuses how a FWD 305HP Civic whomped a 552HP Lamborghini or a 997 Porsche Turbo at their own game, you might be reaching a little here.

 

[OtterMeanGreen]

EDIT: just to be clear I’m not knocking the Civic. That’s a cracking good time for a FWD 300 hp car. But the list is also suspect. The 997 Turbos run faster than 7:50 (7:38 looks like for the 997.2). I wouldn’t be surprised if others were off too.

I hear you. Also they don’t make mention of what year the Porsche’s were or other manufacturers. Could be all over the place, especially for the Porsche. Multiple articles say the same cars as I provided.

 

[A Y]

Going back to this statement from another old BMW-head...I realized something about a year into F82 ownership. They are worse to drive than the old M3’s, but despite losing the ‘feel’ that we loved about the old cars, they’re actually immensely capable.

Take the steering - it has little feedback, is weighted just for the sake of feeling heavy, and feels more like one of those Xbox force feedback wheels than an actual steering wheel attached to a car. But I took it on the track and it was exceptionally precise. The feel just sucked.

So we all probably have bewildered BMW who were thinking - damn guys, I just delivered to you a beast of a car that whips all previous versions in every way...wtf?

I did read that they’re paying extra attention to building more of the old feedback and dynamics into the G80 so perhaps we can have our cake and eat it too

That's what early reviews have said about the G80, but some people (Jason Cammisa for example) don't think they've really improved the G80 that much. Part of it is driven by regulation: the whole electric steering assist thing is driven by fuel-efficiency standards, for example. And from reports out there, no one's really figured out how to make electric steering assist feel good yet. And part of it is that these are actually faster cars, but a faster car often feels more effortless because you're further from the edge of its performance envelope.

The funny thing is how standards have degraded: we used to argue about different kinds of steering assist, like rack and pinion vs. recirculating ball in the E39 5 series, or how the steering feel evolved over the E46's lifetime (it's widely thought that the first few years were the best), but now we're just trying to get some semblance of feel back after moving to a totally new system.

 

[TheFoo]

Going back to this statement from another old BMW-head...I realized something about a year into F82 ownership. They are worse to drive than the old M3’s, but despite losing the ‘feel’ that we loved about the old cars, they’re actually immensely capable.

Take the steering - it has little feedback, is weighted just for the sake of feeling heavy, and feels more like one of those Xbox force feedback wheels than an actual steering wheel attached to a car. But I took it on the track and it was exceptionally precise. The feel just sucked.

So we all probably have bewildered BMW who were thinking - damn guys, I just delivered to you a beast of a car that whips all previous versions in every way...wtf?

I did read that they’re paying extra attention to building more of the old feedback and dynamics into the G80 so perhaps we can have our cake and eat it too

You hit on a similar theme with your prior response to me: going fast around the ‘Ring is not everything, as there are different ways to set a lap time and sometimes the selected means and compromises are not amenable to a car’s real-life enjoyability. In BMW’s case, they have decided to take the sledgehammer approach: add more power. The giant horsepower and torque increases in M cars since the E46 allow the newer vehicles to outperform, despite increasing deficiencies in balance, traction, and worst of all perhaps, steering feel.

What kills about BMW is that much of the new cars’ sterility and imbalance is by design. As I’ve referred to in the past and as I think you directly linked to in the Car and Driver article, BMW’s current point of view is that “steering feel” is a flaw. They programmed it out on purpose. There is no reason EPAS needs to be that numb.

I’ve read similarly that the new 3-series is an improvement, but we’ll see. I think BMW and its target audience have likely irreparably changed.

Foo - would love to hear more about the cars you cross shopped your GT3 against and how you felt their real world performance and feel compared to your car. What else did you consider and what in particular sealed the deal (if it was anything other than availability of NA+manual)?

Interesting question, though I’m afraid not a very interesting answer. At various times the top candidates in the decision process were: Mustang GT350R, BMW M2, Mercedes C63 S coupe, BMW M4 CS, and then finally, the GT3. Obviously, I was elastic as to price point. The choice was more about personal fit and itch-scratching than anything else.

NA + manual was the preferred configuration from the beginning, as a main impetus for buying an unnecessary car was timing: the available choices are quickly dying out. The GT350R was a natural starting point and I still really badly want one. But, at the time, prices were silly: $100K or so, including mark-up. Just not willing to pay the market premium on a car that, though extremely appealing, I did not believe was a good value at such a high price. But prices have come down since, as it’s become clear Ford is going to keep making them on an unlimited basis as long as there are buyers. If I could justify a second toy car, it would be the GT350R without hesitation.

The BMW M2 and M4 CS were mostly inspired by my nostalgia for the older M cars, particularly the E46 generation. I even went so far as to start negotiating a deposit on a CS. But the more I contemplated, the more I realized I was making excuses for their deficiencies in the service of adolescent memories. My wife finally said: “Look, we don’t need a car. This is a toy for you to celebrate all your hard work. I want it to be as close to your dream car as possible. Is the M4 CS your dream car?” Being honest with myself, the answer was no.

The Mercedes C63 S was a real contender. Not naturally aspirated, but if any turbo’ed engine can be forgiven, it’s likely AMG’s V8s. Deal killer was not being manual and an ugly rear end. Though, if I could only have one car for myself and needed to drive regularly, maybe I’d be in the Benz today.

The GT3 I’ve written about already. But, in short, the 911 has always been my dream car. The looks, the history, the sound, the purity—all there. Further, it seemed like we might be at an important inflection point: potentially the last naturally aspirated, manual 911 ever. Reviews were more than glowing. If you think I sound ridiculous calling it “peak 911,” give me some credit: many reviewers have called it the greatest 911 ever made and they almost universally agree the engine is simply one of the greatest, period. Plus, I happen to think it is almost perfect looking. Not very complicated: all the boxes were ticked. Only trouble was figuring out how to get one.

I didn’t consider any pure two-seaters, since I need the ability to fit a car seat in the back (yes I know the GT3 has no rear seat, but there is a workaround). Otherwise, the AMG GT R and Aston Martin Vantage would have been thoughts to consider.

The reason I posted what I posted about the simulations is that it shows a clear performance advantage for the type of setup you don’t prefer. In particular, it appears the Turbo S (not a track setup) is comparable to your GT3 (based on Gebhardt times) but it gets there a bit differently.

As I clarified, I am not saying that ‘Ring times are the be all, end all decision maker. But they do tend to show how well a car comes together given certain inputs. That a naturally aspirated, rear wheel drive GT3 with significantly less horsepower and even less torque can keep up with a four wheel drive Turbo S is what excites me, not that one or the other is ultimately faster by a few seconds.

Also, ‘Ring times are particularly pertinent for the 911: they prove that the car isn’t just about nostalgia. It still wins. It’s always somehow both the underdog and the incumbent. Scrappy, yet dominating. Inherently flawed, yet somehow also perfect. That is Porsche to me and why I love the cars.

 

[clee1982]

Going back to this statement from another old BMW-head...I realized something about a year into F82 ownership. They are worse to drive than the old M3’s, but despite losing the ‘feel’ that we loved about the old cars, they’re actually immensely capable.

Take the steering - it has little feedback, is weighted just for the sake of feeling heavy, and feels more like one of those Xbox force feedback wheels than an actual steering wheel attached to a car. But I took it on the track and it was exceptionally precise. The feel just sucked.

So we all probably have bewildered BMW who were thinking - damn guys, I just delivered to you a beast of a car that whips all previous versions in every way...wtf?

I did read that they’re paying extra attention to building more of the old feedback and dynamics into the G80 so perhaps we can have our cake and eat it too

yup, exactly, I would imagine AWD torque vectoring probably feels super "unnatural" even after you get used to it (not BMW but just tech. in general), though see this interview with BMW, they're taking customer feedback, and the feedback is "less feel"...

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a...ng-why-bmws-no-longer-excel-in-steering-feel/

 

[clee1982]

That's what early reviews have said about the G80, but some people (Jason Cammisa for example) don't think they've really improved the G80 that much. Part of it is driven by regulation: the whole electric steering assist thing is driven by fuel-efficiency standards, for example. And from reports out there, no one's really figured out how to make electric steering assist feel good yet. And part of it is that these are actually faster cars, but a faster car often feels more effortless because you're further from the edge of its performance envelope.

The funny thing is how standards have degraded: we used to argue about different kinds of steering assist, like rack and pinion vs. recirculating ball in the E39 5 series, or how the steering feel evolved over the E46's lifetime (it's widely thought that the first few years were the best), but now we're just trying to get some semblance of feel back after moving to a totally new system.

I don't think it's a case of they haven't figure out, it's more a case they know their customer better than we do, and customer doesn't want that kind feel (Yes even in sport mode...), I wish they just add some more software calibration to bring the old school feel back...

 

[clee1982]

What kills about BMW is that much of the new cars’ sterility and imbalance is by design. As I’ve referred to in the past and as I think you directly linked to in the Car and Driver article, BMW’s current point of view is that “steering feel” is a flaw. They programmed it out on purpose. There is no reason EPAS needs to be that numb.

I’ve read similarly that the new 3-series is an improvement, but we’ll see. I think BMW and its target audience have likely irreparably changed.

yea, but I guess if from pure engineer perspective if I gave you a video game kind of fast car (i.e. no feel but precise), is that necessary "worse"? it's worse for us for sure, but from pure "performance" perspective I don't see why (and modern BMW is definitely faster). You can argue you can't feel limit of traction, but electronic nanny is suppose to stop you before you get there...

 

[clee1982]

If I design a car for the video game generation I can see a case of infinite traction until there isn't one, no strong pull/force, goes exactly where it is, and once you get to the limit electronic nanny cuts you off as a practical way going forward. I don't necessary see a performance hit in this case either (unless you're a F1 driver?)

 

[TheFoo]

yea, but I guess if from pure engineer perspective if I gave you a video game kind of fast car (i.e. no feel but precise), is that necessary "worse"? it's worse for us for sure, but from pure "performance" perspective I don't see why (and modern BMW is definitely faster). You can argue you can't feel limit of traction, but electronic nanny is suppose to stop you before you get there...

No, you can’t say it’s simply “better” or “worse” without context. But in assessing driving enjoyability/engagement and control at the limit, I think it’s clear things are not as good as before. The company itself admits to filtering out the stuff that “car guys” like.

 

[clee1982]

metric is faster, no one says fast car need to be felt, we think so, but I'm not so sure. Airplane is something that continue to lost "feel" but perform "better"

 

[TheFoo]

metric is faster, no one says fast car need to be felt, we think so, but I'm not so sure. Airplane is something that continue to lost "feel" but perform "better"

You have to decide for yourself what’s
important. I don’t care about outright speed. I care about feel and engagement much more. That is neither right nor wrong, but I do think speed is much less interesting today: we all
know cars will only get faster and more capable. Whatever is newer will be quicker. What is going away is the other stuff, which is what I’m hunting to get a hold of before it’s gone.

 

[TheFoo]

In all this discussion around choosing cars for myself, I realized that I never gave serious thought to anything used or vintage. I have a psychological prejudice. Hate the idea of someone else having been there first. Not rational at all, but there it is.

That said, to give an idea where my head is at, I have at various times really wanted an S2000, Lotus Elise/Exige, E46 M3, and a ‘73 911 S. Only the latter two are ones I would have remotely considered today, as I need a rear seat area. Can see myself restomodding a junked 80’s 911 one day, but likely when I’m much older and have much more time.