What is the Most Overrated Car Of All Time?

LittleBahamut
After reading your statement, I got to say the most overrated car must be pick up trucks. Where I live, I see many F-150s, Tacoma, Tundra, Rams, and such drive around with nothing in the bed. I bet the masses who buy these trucks don't have the job that makes it easier to have a pick up truck. I have so many friends who buy these pick up trucks and they rarely ever load up that truck to the top.

Construction workers and such are ok. Everyone else...why the hell you buy it for if you are never going to use that big bed in the back?
Click to expand...

yea and its worse when there lifted i hate loading a unit of wood when the bed is at my nipple what are they thinking
 
Heh, combo.

SmartCarPlain.jpg
 
Why is the Smart overrated? It's never been too highly "rated" in the first place. It's a car you have to actually like in the first place in order to rate it. And if you like it, then it's neither underrated or overrated. I like Wendsleydale cheese but I wouldn't say it's overrated. It's just an acquired taste...

niky
Although you could make a case that styling alone is more than enough reason to love/rate a car.
Click to expand...

I would. And again, for something as universally panned as the Beetle, i'd struggle to make a case for it being overrated. People drive it because it's "cute", not because it's actually any good...
 
homeforsummer
I would. And again, for something as universally panned as the Beetle, i'd struggle to make a case for it being overrated. People drive it because it's "cute", not because it's actually any good...
Click to expand...

Well... we were talking about the masses... who actually seemed to love the thing... but then... good looks often covers up many flaws.

But yeah... amongst motor-heads, the Beetle struggles to be rated at all.
 
niky
Well... we were talking about the masses... who actually seemed to love the thing... but then... good looks often covers up many flaws.

But yeah... amongst motor-heads, the Beetle struggles to be rated at all.
Click to expand...

It all depends on expectations. The masses don't claim that it performs well, or is ridiculously practical, or handles well - they just like the styling and at the end of the day, it's still a Golf so it still drives/rides/goes like a Golf. The "Golf in a frock" look is apparently what a lot of people want. If they don't claim it's the best car in the World evar then I wouldn't even call it overrated for the average joe.

It'd actually be easier to make a case for the original Beetle being overrated. Don't get me wrong here, I'd love a Beetle, and it did indeed get a country on it's wheels (Germany) and kept another one on it's wheels (Mexico), but it's still just a car whose reputation vastly outweighs it's abilities. Novice drivers can run into trouble because of where the engine is, they rust like fishing boats, they're noisy, they're aerodynamically awful, not very economical for a "peoples' car", slow, and had a nasty habit of releasing exhaust gases into the cabin on occasion.

Yet despite the number of times VW tried to get rid of it and replace it with something else, people inexplicably kept buying them. The same goes for the original Mini, which I also love. Hopelessly outclassed towards the end of their lives and therefore completely overrated as far as ability was concerned, but still sold well because for some people, nothing but an original Mini or Beetle will do.

I don't actually blame VW for doing the new Beetle the way they did - it was a very low-cost way of doing it, and they no longer needed a genuine "Volks Wagen" as they already had the Golf and Polo, and subsequently Lupo and Fox, below it in the model range. So VW could benefit from people buying into the "image" whilst still having, essentially, a Golf.
 
niky
Same with the GT-R. Smaller, lighter, more powerful cars are supposed to be faster. The fact that some of them aren't much more faster, and that many of them aren't even as fast, is reason enough to give it some respect.
Click to expand...

Anything with computers should be better, more precise. That's why I don't like the GT-R, it takes away the fun of driving the car yourself.
 
Codename L
Anything with computers should be better, more precise. That's why I don't like the GT-R, it takes away the fun of driving the car yourself.
Click to expand...

...so say the people who've never driven one ;) Because I've not often heard complaints from those who have...
 
niky
Thank you for so clearly interpreting what I am saying. I don't think I am being unclear about what I am saying, and in fact, I consider myself an excellent communicator. My job relies on me being able to fathom what other people are saying to me, and for me to be clear and concise about what I say to them. And they get it when I do speak or write. I'm good at it.

But for some reason, and ONLY on this board, some people don't understand what I am saying. It's inexplicable. Maybe it's the big words I sometimes use. Maybe there isn't enough slang terms. Maybe I don't use "like" "cool" "dope" etc enough. Maybe the correct punctuation/ grammar throws them off, I don't know.
But thank you for understanding, and illumining what I've posted, so many times, in so many threads. Because I am a good communicator I tend to speak in terms that are plain and clear, so I can't fathom how my comments are being misconstrued. And I can't "further simplify" what I say since it's already boiled down to it's essence, but you manage.
And for that, I thank you profusely.

niky
Not ignoring... it's just that... one of those cars has active downforce (a rear ladder-framed wing and a front-splitter that must be taken off for road use) and the other has 600 supercharged horses (the supercharger being the important part, as it gives it the same midrange grunt as the GT-R)... and the last one, the Porsche 911 GT2, is only quicker on some tracks (tracks where AWD isn't as big an advantage).

Wait... they're all lighter. It's like saying that Spud Webb isn't as prolific a dunker as Michael Jordan.

Well... duh... the guy's all of five foot nothing. :D

5ae184f10f5e80d6.jpg


Doesn't make his ability any less spectacular. In fact... it even makes it more so.

Same with the GT-R. Smaller, lighter, more powerful cars are supposed to be faster. The fact that some of them aren't much more faster, and that many of them aren't even as fast, is reason enough to give it some respect.
Click to expand...
 
Codename L
Anything with computers should be better, more precise. That's why I don't like the GT-R, it takes away the fun of driving the car yourself.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Those pesky computers. I'd rather have my carburetors back.

What? Isn't that what we were talking about? :loL:

Oh... you mean traction control, stability control, etcetera? The same stuff that Porsche packs into its (s)PASM? The same stuff you can get on the Corvette ZR1... which, by the way... has an ultrasophisticated computer controlled real-time magnetorheological transmission, to boot? All that computing power in that abso-tively incredible suspension, plus 600 force-induced ponies just to go a smidge faster than a GT-R? Wow.

Oh... and somebody tell the Dodge Viper that anything with computers should be better. Might convince it to finally grow up and get ABS. Oh... wait... it has that, already. :lol:

Fun in driving is a matter of opinion. And you can't have an opinion on the car unless, as hfs says: you've actually experienced the fun or lack thereof of the car in person.

Saying a GT-R is no fun because it's computerized is like saying a Corvette is no fun to drive because it has four wheels instead of two. If you've never driven either... how would you know?

homeforsummer
It all depends on expectations. The masses don't claim that it performs well, or is ridiculously practical, or handles well - they just like the styling and at the end of the day, it's still a Golf so it still drives/rides/goes like a Golf. The "Golf in a frock" look is apparently what a lot of people want. If they don't claim it's the best car in the World evar then I wouldn't even call it overrated for the average joe.

It'd actually be easier to make a case for the original Beetle being overrated. Don't get me wrong here, I'd love a Beetle, and it did indeed get a country on it's wheels (Germany) and kept another one on it's wheels (Mexico), but it's still just a car whose reputation vastly outweighs it's abilities. Novice drivers can run into trouble because of where the engine is, they rust like fishing boats, they're noisy, they're aerodynamically awful, not very economical for a "peoples' car", slow, and had a nasty habit of releasing exhaust gases into the cabin on occasion.

Yet despite the number of times VW tried to get rid of it and replace it with something else, people inexplicably kept buying them. The same goes for the original Mini, which I also love. Hopelessly outclassed towards the end of their lives and therefore completely overrated as far as ability was concerned, but still sold well because for some people, nothing but an original Mini or Beetle will do.

I don't actually blame VW for doing the new Beetle the way they did - it was a very low-cost way of doing it, and they no longer needed a genuine "Volks Wagen" as they already had the Golf and Polo, and subsequently Lupo and Fox, below it in the model range. So VW could benefit from people buying into the "image" whilst still having, essentially, a Golf.
Click to expand...

Not just where the engine is... but the way that engine was connected to the rear wheels (those darn swing axles), which caused them to jack-knife in turns, with copious amounts of positive camber. (When I was a kid, I got so used to the sight that I thought positive camber was a normal trait for road-going cars!)

-

Hmmm... the original Beetle is a tough one... Yes... fuel economy really wasn't so good... and the crudity of design and tendency to fly off bridges in crosswinds ( :lol: ) left a lot to be desired... but we should bear in mind that the reason it looks so crude in hindsight is that it outlived its expiry date by a good number of decades. It's like the Ford Ranger or Ford F150 argument... yes... they're hopelessly outdated... but as long as people still want them...
 
Last edited:
TVC
I don't really see what point you are trying to make. The GT-R weighs 1,000 pounds more? It was designed that way. It doesn't depend on the same things other car depend on to be fast.

I don't see where anyone mentioned .3 seconds (or the Vspec) but the point that some people were trying to make (at least the point I was trying to make) is that there are faster cars than the GT-R that some people tend to ignore.

Unless you think I am saying the GT-R is overrated because I never said that and I don't think that.
Click to expand...

Sigh. :rolleyes:

When you compare an item, there is something else that it is compared to.
In your comparison, you need to look at the merits of both items, and the demerits. You need to evaluate the (in this case) metrics, figure out which is better, and come to a conclusion.

I get it. You think there are faster cars than the GTR. I agree. Even Nissan doesn't claim it's the worlds fastest car.
But to completely overlook the porkiness of that car, and what it can do is to show a clear disdain for the facts. And that, is not evaluating. It's completely ignoring. It undermines your argument. You can't compare without evaluating. You can't evaluate if you ignore the facts.

In ANY performance car comparison that includes the GTR, its weight and its capabilities MUST BE mentioned together. Read that again. And again and again and again until you get it.


The performance of the GTR is.......... staggering. Yes, staggering. Not because it is faster than other cars. It isn't. Some are faster. But because of how fast it is, and HOW HEAVY it is. The conjunction "and" is the key word in that sentence. It's performance is good, but average for the group of cars it is constantly compared to. But not one of the cars it is constantly compared to weigh anywhere near its weight.
It's performance may be eclipsed by other cars. But not by much. And the figures belie its weight penalty.

Since you conveniently ignored my "add 1000lbs to the Vette and Viper and how would they do?" comment, let me beg you, implore you, to consider this; how much more staggering would the GTR be if it weighed the same as the Viper and Vette? Take 1000bs out of the GTR, what do YOU think it would do. CONSIDERING what it already does.

And before you go on about it being designed and engineered for the weight, so were the competitors. And they aren't much faster. They are hardly faster if the truth should be spoken.

It's not the fastest car. It's not the best car. It's not the be all and end all. It's not the second coming of Jesus. But even if it ain't, at a minimum, it's the four horsemen of the apocalypse.

Is it overrated? Maybe. But perhaps rightfully so.

And I reiterate, I am NOT a fanboy.
 
neanderthal
In ANY performance car comparison that includes the GTR, its weight and its capabilities MUST BE mentioned together. Read that again. And again and again and again until you get it.

...

Since you conveniently ignored my "add 1000lbs to the Vette and Viper and how would they do?" comment, let me beg you, implore you, to consider this; how much more staggering would the GTR be if it weighed the same as the Viper and Vette? Take 1000bs out of the GTR, what do YOU think it would do. CONSIDERING what it already does.

And before you go on about it being designed and engineered for the weight, so were the competitors. And they aren't much faster. They are hardly faster if the truth should be spoken.
Click to expand...

What it does is extraordinary for its weight. But you also have to account for that if it didn't have that weight it wouldn't have those capabilities. So you can't cross out that engineering argument. You can't take off 1000 pounds off of the GT-R as much as you can't take 1000 off of the ZR1 and ACR.

That's like asking "what if the ZR1 and ACR had the AWD,technology, etc. of the GT-R?" They don't. That's as far as the answer to that question should go in my eyes.

edit: You can't act like the 1000 extra pounds doesn't contribute anything. You either get 1000 extra pounds with the technology, etc. or you get neither.
 
Last edited:
homeforsummer
...so say the people who've never driven one ;)
Click to expand...

I know I wouldn't like to kiss a guy. Oh, wait, I have to kiss one to know I wouldn't like to? I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to do the test.

niky
Oh... you mean traction control, stability control, etcetera? The same stuff that Porsche packs into its (s)PASM? The same stuff you can get on the Corvette ZR1... which, by the way... has an ultrasophisticated computer controlled real-time magnetorheological transmission, to boot? All that computing power in that abso-tively incredible suspension, plus 600 force-induced ponies just to go a smidge faster than a GT-R? Wow.
Click to expand...

Yes. I don't like them (aids). However, I do like the Corvette for X reason I can't explain. The Porsche, not.

niky
Oh... and somebody tell the Dodge Viper that anything with computers should be better. Might convince it to finally grow up and get ABS. Oh... wait... it has that, already. :lol:
Click to expand...

And in my opinion, it was better when one had to think while braking.

niky
Fun in driving is a matter of opinion. And you can't have an opinion on the car unless, as hfs says: you've actually experienced the fun or lack thereof of the car in person.
Click to expand...

Cars with aids: not fun.
Cars without aids: fun (some may not, but still more fun than if they had aids).

That's my view on the subject.

Knowing that I don't like to be helped from anyone when I don't need to, I don't see what's the difference in knowing that it wouldn't be fun to me to drive a car that does things against my will. For the record, in my opinion, the "do it yourself" rule is my idea of fun.

ROAD_DOGG33J
You can't act like the 1000 extra pounds doesn't contribute anything. You either get 1000 extra pounds with the technology, etc. or you get neither.
Click to expand...

This.


I will bother to quote a post I just found in another thread:

Although the technology in quite a few newer cars is making the driver less and less relevant.
Click to expand...

I do not want the car to be more important than myself when it comes to make it do what I want it to do.
 
Last edited:
The thing with the GT-R being overrated is that people go "OMG the ZR-1 beat it it sucks!" or like that. Then when they're reminded that the ZR-1 takes a pretty handy beating from cars like Maserati MC12, Ferrari Enzo or Pagani Zonda F they proceed to scream that those cars have quite a bit more power and less weight than the ZR-1. Oh yes, they do indeed but apparently those very same differences don't count when comparing the GT-R to the rest of the world.
 
ROAD_DOGG33J
What it does is extraordinary for its weight. But you also have to account for that if it didn't have that weight it wouldn't have those capabilities. So you can't cross out that engineering argument. You can't take off 1000 pounds off of the GT-R as much as you can't take 1000 off of the ZR1 and ACR.

That's like asking "what if the ZR1 and ACR had the AWD,technology, etc. of the GT-R?" They don't. That's as far as the answer to that question should go in my eyes.

edit: You can't act like the 1000 extra pounds doesn't contribute anything. You either get 1000 extra pounds with the technology, etc. or you get neither.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but, i'm pretty sure that if the GTR were to magically lose 1000lbs it's performance would improve.
The AWD is likely not the cause of the 1000lbs, although it is some of it. In the case of the GTR we are talking about adding a propellor shaft, diff, and 2 driveshafts on top of whatever electrical gubbins controls the whole thing. I know that the driveshaft is carbon fiber, so, what is that, all of 4 lbs? An extra diff and two driveshafts. Some of the necessary bracing to mount that stuff. It doesn't add up to a whole lot of the 1000lbs

Betcha if they used lighter wheels and tires, took out all the carpeting, seats were replaced with a single light weight racing seat, take off all the noise insulation/ encapsulation stuff in the engine, lexan windows, lighter battery, stereo and speakers etc etc etc, and just removed as much non essential weight as possible that it's performance would improve, however marginally.

It's pretty much the laws of physics. It easier to accelerate, brake, and turn a light item vs one that is heavier.
 
neanderthal
Betcha if they used lighter wheels and tires, took out all the carpeting, seats were replaced with a single light weight racing seat, take off all the noise insulation/ encapsulation stuff in the engine, lexan windows, lighter battery, stereo and speakers etc etc etc, and just removed as much non essential weight as possible that it's performance would improve, however marginally.
Click to expand...

Naturally. Now that would be a GT-R I bet I would have fun with.
 
Codename L
Anything with computers should be better, more precise. That's why I don't like the GT-R, it takes away the fun of driving the car yourself.
Click to expand...

All you need is a slightly damp track and you have your fun back,They don't even like going in straight lines then ether.
 
Codename L
Cars with aids: not fun.
Cars without aids: fun (some may not, but still more fun than if they had aids).
Click to expand...

Fun is a subjective metric that may be influenced by aids, but not solely determined by it.

An old Lincoln Town Car (hate to bring it up in two threads... but...) has no aids. Is it more "fun" than a Mazda Miata?

Unequivocally, no.

But the Mazda has no end of aids. ABS, electronic throttle, electronic ignition and injection, power steering, boosted brakes, hydraulic clutch.

Of course, you may claim that electronic throttle, ignition, injection and etcetera don't count as aids... but they do. Electronic engine management means that you don't have to work as hard at managing engine speed and throttle position as you would in older cars. You don't get the lurch and bog when you mis-shift... you don't need to work as hard to keep the car on boil... Personally, when I drive cars like this... I miss the challenge of driving older automobilies... but I never, in my wildest dreams, would claim that a modern car can't be fun simply because it filters the experience thus.

To take it even further... are gear synchronizers aids? They eliminate the need for double-clutching and rev-matching... yet they're on every single modern road-going sportscar with a foot clutch. I'd definitely call them an "aid".

To say "Cars with Aids: Not Fun" requires a qualifier. "Cars with intrusive aids: Not Fun" would be more accurate. Though having driven cars with active differentials... I'd be hard pressed to say there's no fun in there at all, though there's not as much challenge as I'd like.

The GT-R doesn't steer for you. It doesn't brake for you. It doesn't accelerate or shift for you (when you're in manual mode). In other words, you are still driving the car. And the proof is in the pudding. The supposedly idiot proof GT-R has fallen in the hands of numerous idiots, and has spit them out the backside with no apologies. It's a car that demands respect.
 
neanderthal
The NSX raised the bar in so many ways that to call it overated is to clearly not understand the market that it came into at that time. PERIOD.
Click to expand...
Dead on. I'm sorry I'm WAY late to the party, but the OP was so far off, I had to get this off my chest, too. The car was kept alive too long by Honda without much development, and I think that may have confused the younger generation who are not familiar with the history of the car. But like neanderthal also said, that's not really a fault of the car.

Anybody who thinks NSX is overrated doesn't understand the impact it had on the supercar segment in 1990. It was most definitely an sensation, an game changer, even. Overpriced? Not when it was in its prime. I think it sold for around $60,000, if I remember correctly.

Skyline, or Skyline GT-R, I think you'd have an solid argument on how overhyped & overrated the car is.
 
a6m5
Skyline, or Skyline GT-R, I think you'd have an solid argument on how overhyped & overrated the car is.
Click to expand...

Yep, I mentioned the GT-R last page as an overrated car and look how it exploded! I still feel that the entire Skyline GTR lineup have a lot of hype ever since it came out. Just look at all the hype it gets all the time from Best Motoring and the general car forums. Since it never made it here until the R35, people overseas from Japan were hyping the car up like its the best import ever. Even if many people have never driven the car, they still hang it up as the best.

Another car that comes into mind too is the Supra. I remember my high school days when many people were arguing over the Supras ability to beat the S*** out of many cars on the freeway. Youtube and Streetfire were full of argument wether the supra was overrated. Its like every video you see, its some 700HP + Supra killing everyone. If one Supra was to be defeated, there will be a wave of excuses such as "it was NA!" or "the Supra wasn't even trying" or "the driver in the Supra sucks!"

Supra and Skyline GT-Rs! I love them both, but sometimes I think many import fans think they are the only gods from Japan. I still believe that Evos are great cars to modify too, but they aren't hype as much because they are quite obtainable new or used.
 
a6m5
Overpriced? Not when it was in its prime. I think it sold for around $60,000, if I remember correctly.
Click to expand...
Not even when it wasn't as well. When the Ferrari and Porsches got better, they also got more expensive. The NSX originally competed with 964 Turbos, which cost in the same range or so. When it went out in 2005, 996 Turbos were considerably faster than the NSX, but by that point the NSX was then competing with the similarly-priced-and-performing 996 Carreras so it didn't really matter.
 
niky
An old Lincoln Town Car (hate to bring it up in two threads... but...) has no aids. Is it more "fun" than a Mazda Miata?

Unequivocally, no.

But the Mazda has no end of aids. ABS, electronic throttle, electronic ignition and injection, power steering, boosted brakes, hydraulic clutch.
Click to expand...

But an "old Lincoln Town Car" does have aids if you're going to consider electronic ignition and injection, power steering, boosted brakes, and a hydraulic clutch aids.

Well, skip the injection bit for 1982-1985 models but all of them have automatic transmissions which is nothing if not an aid.

So it has all the "aids" of a Miata, possibly plus a bit.
 
neanderthal
I could be wrong, but, i'm pretty sure that if the GTR were to magically lose 1000lbs it's performance would improve.
The AWD is likely not the cause of the 1000lbs, although it is some of it. In the case of the GTR we are talking about adding a propellor shaft, diff, and 2 driveshafts on top of whatever electrical gubbins controls the whole thing. I know that the driveshaft is carbon fiber, so, what is that, all of 4 lbs? An extra diff and two driveshafts. Some of the necessary bracing to mount that stuff. It doesn't add up to a whole lot of the 1000lbs.
Click to expand...

Either way it's built-in. It's most likely spread out all over. There's some extra in the body, engine, AWD, suspension, etc.
 
LittleBahamut
Yep, I mentioned the GT-R last page as an overrated car and look how it exploded! I still feel that the entire Skyline GTR lineup have a lot of hype ever since it came out. Just look at all the hype it gets all the time from Best Motoring and the general car forums. Since it never made it here until the R35, people overseas from Japan were hyping the car up like its the best import ever. Even if many people have never driven the car, they still hang it up as the best.

Another car that comes into mind too is the Supra. I remember my high school days when many people were arguing over the Supras ability to beat the S*** out of many cars on the freeway. Youtube and Streetfire were full of argument wether the supra was overrated. Its like every video you see, its some 700HP + Supra killing everyone. If one Supra was to be defeated, there will be a wave of excuses such as "it was NA!" or "the Supra wasn't even trying" or "the driver in the Supra sucks!"

Supra and Skyline GT-Rs! I love them both, but sometimes I think many import fans think they are the only gods from Japan. I still believe that Evos are great cars to modify too, but they aren't hype as much because they are quite obtainable new or used.
Click to expand...
Well, I do think that you'd have an valid argument, but that doesn't necessarily mean I agree with that. If you go by the reputation set by ignorant kids, yes, I think they are way overrated. By the press? I don't think so. At least not by what "I" have read. Bottom line though, I can see why those cars would be considered overrated. Since the Fast & the Furious, and Gran Turismo, I guess they are most definitely over-hyped cars. :lol:
 
Rotary Junkie
I reckon a lot of the weight is in how massive the car really is.
Click to expand...

:lol: 👍

niky
To say "Cars with Aids: Not Fun" requires a qualifier. "Cars with intrusive aids: Not Fun" would be more accurate. Though having driven cars with active differentials... I'd be hard pressed to say there's no fun in there at all, though there's not as much challenge as I'd like.
Click to expand...

There's the expression I was looking for but couldn't find when I submitted my original post in this thread. 👍 And I agree with the post this quote comes from. 👍
 
An opinion I can't argue with. And... by the way... I personally feel the GT-R would probably not be as much fun as, say, a much slower Mercedes C63 AMG... but not having personally driven it, I can't say for certain. Many writers whose opinion I respect say that the electronic intervention of the GT-R is seamless. Others (whose opinion I also respect) say that there's still something missing from the equation.

If I ever do get the chance... I'll know for sure.

a6m5
Since the Fast & the Furious, and Gran Turismo, I guess they are most definitely over-hyped cars. :lol:
Click to expand...

Cough... those damn 9-second Challengers... cough... :lol:

Over-hyped... definitely... but the GT-R in its past four iterations has been and still is capable of some amazing things. Nearly limitless upgradeability, incredible race-track pace for the size, weight and power (all generations) and even more incredible pace when modified.

I'll agree, the hysteria over the car seems to drown out everything else about it, but when it comes down to it... GT-Rs are very good performing cars.

Except for those pesky gearboxes. Someone should tell Nissan that real sportscars should have gearboxes that can hold over 1000 hp, warranty be damned. ( :lol: :lol: :lol: means that's a joke) Though I don't know any stock gearboxes on any road car that can take three and a half times the stock output and stay in one piece very long.

Rotary Junkie
But an "old Lincoln Town Car" does have aids if you're going to consider electronic ignition and injection, power steering, boosted brakes, and a hydraulic clutch aids.

Well, skip the injection bit for 1982-1985 models but all of them have automatic transmissions which is nothing if not an aid.

So it has all the "aids" of a Miata, possibly plus a bit.
Click to expand...

Oh... picky picky... how many decades back do I have to go? :lol: :lol: :lol: Didn't they ever bother to offer it with a manual? :grumpy:
 
niky
Hmmm... the original Beetle is a tough one... Yes... fuel economy really wasn't so good... and the crudity of design and tendency to fly off bridges in crosswinds ( :lol: ) left a lot to be desired... but we should bear in mind that the reason it looks so crude in hindsight is that it outlived its expiry date by a good number of decades. It's like the Ford Ranger or Ford F150 argument... yes... they're hopelessly outdated... but as long as people still want them...
Click to expand...

I agree entirely. It's the sort of car that gets outclassed not only by it's competitors but also cars within the same company (for Beetle, see Golf), but then the longer the car is on the market the more iconic it becomes, and people buy them despite their problems.

Codename L
I know I wouldn't like to kiss a guy. Oh, wait, I have to kiss one to know I wouldn't like to? I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to do the test.
Click to expand...

So if someone chucked you the keys to a GT-R you'd refuse on principle that you wouldn't enjoy it anyway? Perhaps you just wouldn't drive it in case you were proven wrong?
 
homeforsummer
So if someone chucked you the keys to a GT-R you'd refuse on principle that you wouldn't enjoy it anyway? Perhaps you just wouldn't drive it in case you were proven wrong?
Click to expand...

That's a very, very hipothetical scenario you are giving to me. But to answer your question, if I knew how to drive, I would. Otherwise, I would gladly accept that "someone's" offer to drive the car with me by his side.

I'm not saying I wouldn't enjoy driving the car. I enjoy doing my homework, because I know I'm doing something that is helping me. I don't find it fun, though. To be honest, I'm pretty sure I would enjoy driving any car. Only way I will find out if the car is fun is driving it as fast as I can. Otherwise, I'm doing daily driving, something I don't find any fun in. As I don't find any fun in running alone, but I do find fun in running against a friend.

And, to make myself clear, I don't know if I will find the GT-R fun or not. But for sure I know that those intrusive aids will take some of the fun of the GT-R, and will make the drive less challenging. And those are negative points already.
 
Codename L
I know that those intrusive aids will take some of the fun of the GT-R, and will make the drive less challenging. And those are negative points already.
Click to expand...
Guess what...the sports cars and supercars of today have aids because the common driver (that's almost all of us) cannot handle the power and grip without them. 500+ hp is commonplace today, so we tend to tell ourselves we want 600. Give a noob a 600-hp car at the track, with no aids, and he will turn it into a $400,000 pile of scrap metal. Ever driven a 600 hp car? Me neither, but I have scared the crap out of myself in a 300+ hp car and a 400+ hp car. Both of those cars will happily swap ends if you think you're Superman. Even though 300-400 hp is no longer considered "a lot", it's still a lot. The traction control and stability control keep the car (and you) in one piece when you inevitably make a mistake. I'm fine with that. They don't take away the "fun" factor, because if you are a good enough driver to push the car to its limit without tripping the TC/SC, they won't intervene anyway.
 

Latest Posts

Back