2008 Best Car Series Final: FIAT 500 vs Audi R8

[Venari]

500 = very good small car. It's an FF (like all the other cars in the class) and Fiat do FF very well. Actually, everything in the class is pretty good, which is why the car looking so good inside and out as well as being 'good' means it's a winner.

R8 = very, very good junior supercar. It's mid-engined, new in that segment. It has an absolute gem of an engine. It goes and grips like nothing else in it's class. Sorry, but 911 is simply shot down in flames by it, and the heavier Aston Martin Vantage only has it's looks (inside and out) and that sound going for it. In every other respect (apart from, perhaps luggage space) the R8 is a fabulous class-debut car for Audi, and the benchmark for cars in this class, by quite a large margin.

 

[MustangSVT]

It really is down to the driver though. As I mentioned earlier, the sort of general poseur who would buy the R8 probably won't be the best driver suited to extracting it's performance.

It's also interesting to note that the 500 has two things the Audi doesn't - good visibility and a narrower width. You'd be amazed how much more you can push a car when you've got that much more of the road to play with! And put an R8 on the average British country road and you wouldn't be able to even slightly see around most of the corners, wheras in the 500 you'd at least have a chance of seeing more over the hedges and bushes lining the road.

This is just completely made up, especially the 2nd part. The FIAT 500 has better visibility? How would you know? You've actually driven the R8 at high speed?

And saying that an Abarth 500 could keep up with an R8 is besides the point. An Abarth 500 could keep up with a Bugatti Veyron if they're both doing the posted speed limit if you want to put it that way. What does that prove? Nothing.

 

[forza2.0]

This is just completely made up, especially the 2nd part. The FIAT 500 has better visibility? How would you know? You've actually driven the R8 at high speed?

And saying that an Abarth 500 could keep up with an R8 is besides the point. An Abarth 500 could keep up with a Bugatti Veyron if they're both doing the posted speed limit if you want to put it that way. What does that prove? Nothing.

Oh crap, I just remembered. I HAVE driven the 500 and rear side visibility leaves a bit to be desired as it goes.

 

[Joey D]

This is just completely made up, especially the 2nd part. The FIAT 500 has better visibility? How would you know? You've actually driven the R8 at high speed?

Having sat in an R8 at the NAIAS this past January I would have no doubts that the 500 has better visibility. The rear window is at an odd angle and their is an extensive side blind spot like other mid-engined vehicles. You also sit fairly low in an R8 while I would imagine you sit up quite a bit in the 500 as it's a tall vehicle

 

[slidesquad#1]

Stereotyping, obviously.

I was responding to a point that a 500 could keep up with an R8, that's all. And I was referring to the Abarth model, at that. I wasn't saying that it would, in any circumstance I kept up with a spiritedly-driven Audi S4 in a PT Cruiser - it doesn't mean the PT is faster but it does show that you can keep up with quick cars in pretty average ones when the person in the quicker car has more ego than talent

But again, that has very little to do with the car, and a lot to do with the driver.
As much as I dislike quoting Top Gear, this reminds me of the Ascari vs Daihatsu comparo. "When doing 85 mph, it'll easily overtake the Ascari doing 70."

Just about any car can keep up with something faster given the right conditions and a vastly better driver, but that doesn't make the car itself any better or worse.

 

[homeforsummer]

Just about any car can keep up with something faster given the right conditions and a vastly better driver, but that doesn't make the car itself any better or worse.

I never said it did make the car any better or worse. I'm just stating that it's possible, I never said they had to be in a race. I would have thought that such a general statement could be taken as such as opposed to turning into a discussion about little Fiats being faster than junior supercars. Which they aren't. But as I mentioned, several magazines in the past have noted how rather humble cars can keep up with rather less than humble cars given certain roads or conditions.

And again, I was talking about the Abarth version, as mentioned by Jim Prower in the post that started this.

I can repeat this all night until it sinks in 👍

This is just completely made up, especially the 2nd part. The FIAT 500 has better visibility? How would you know? You've actually driven the R8 at high speed?

I'd ask you to think a moment which car might give you a better view over objects - a low slung sports car, or a city car in which the driving position is relatively high (even by city car standards)? If the figures I've found on the internet are accurate, the Fiat is 239mm taller than the Audi and you can presume the driver sits roughly that much higher up in the car. If you were 239mm taller than someone I suspect you'd have a much better view down the street while shopping, and that kind of height advantage is also useful for spotting hazards on the road, especially down the kind of narrow, hedgerow-lined roads we get in the UK countryside - which if you re-read my post is the scenario I was referring to, and have been all along.

I also mentioned that the Fiat is narrower. Quite consierably in fact. 1904mm for the Audi versus 1627mm for the Fiat. Just under 300mm then, or just under a foot. Again on the sort of country roads I'm used to, having a foot less width means having a foot more tarmac to play with. It means having extra room to maneuvre in your lane so you don't have to use the lane occupied by oncoming traffic. Even in a small vehicle (especially in a small vehicle, you might say) this can help increase your pace to a nice degree as people in wider cars worry about clipping the verges or clipping oncoming cars' wingmirrors.

So, in summary, I guess, nothing that I wrote was "made up". It was simple logic.

Anyone else want to make any mountains out of molehills tonight? A lot of you are taking a hypothetical comment made by Jim and then expanded on by myself way too seriously. I'm not trying to denounce all supercars as slower than superminis

 

[gator of kana]

Aw, shoot. I knew I shouldn't have made the X6 comparo. Okay, that's enough offtrack...

May I say something, Gator? I realize you're pissed, I know I was, But, I think it's time to get over it. I mean, It's not like we were alone in thinking the GT-R deserved to be here more than the R8. I really think that one was the true fight for the title, there, and, in retrospect, as well as it did, I think it's justified that the GT-R is definitely a great car. It's just not the latest thing. The R8, on the other hand, is. Thus, more of the undecided people were more apt to vote for it.

I just can't swallow the results that the GT-R still lost. It's one of the best revolutionary cars out there. I've been talking about the multifunction meter for a while but you guys can't tell me that's not an awsome thing to have in a car

Multifunction Meter

 

[nissan tuner]

heh, I can't believe both these cars made it to the finals.

or that the 500 made it out the Italian region alive

 

[Rotary Junkie]

I just can't swallow the results that the GT-R still lost. It's one of the best revolutionary cars out there. I've been talking about the multifunction meter for a while but you guys can't tell me that's not an awsome thing to have in a car

Multifunction Meter

Woo, a LCD connected to a ton of sensors that will cost thousands to fix if it goes most likely... Woohoo!

The worst bit is that from that article, I see nothing about datalogging... So it has no real use IMO.

In fact, gimme a proper datalogger in place of the wacko nav system/multifunction meter, save me a couple grand, and I'll be happy.



Now then, I loathe the GT-R. I respect the performance but I would not buy one. Yet I voted against the R8 last round.

The R8 is a cookie-cutter supercar, done the same way everything else has been done (save the exceptions) for years. The 911? The Corvette? Those I do not see the same way. It is nothing special in my eyes. It may be good on the road, perhaps better than most/all it competes with... But it is nothing that changes the game. At all.

To some extent the 500 is the same. Cheap little FWD POS right? But yet I voted for it this round. It is still a 500. Cheap, economical transport, although this time with a bit of a nod to the past in looks and FWD. It ain't ugly, and it is really one of few vehicles I can stand enough to buy if I had the cash and indeed if it came to the states. (Aston DB9 really being the only other...)

 

[niky]

=

But the NSX is gone. Goner. Zippo. Zilch. Pushing Daisies.

And while the R8 may seem overpriced for the performance, what other mid-engined luxury sportscar can you buy for the same price?

I wish this had been an R8-GT-R final, as that was a closer vote, but what I said still stands... the R8 is something really different... an all-wheel drive mid-engined exotic for sportscar prices. That's worth the vote, in my book. The Fiat may be a sensationally stylish subcompact, but unlike the NSX, the Mini is still alive and kicking.

 

[YSSMAN]

And while the R8 may seem overpriced for the performance, what other mid-engined luxury sportscar can you buy for the same price?

• Porsche Cayman/Boxster
• Tesla Roadster
• Lotus Evora (probably)
• Noble M400 (or whatever they're calling it these days)
• Noble M15
• Mosler MT900 (probably not the best choice...)

Not exactly major threats in all points of performance, but enough, especially coupled with the price differences to seem like viable options. But, as I've said before, the two biggest thorns in the R8's side will always be the far-cheaper Corvette and even the cheaper Porsche 911 Carrera S/Carrera 4S.

 

[Muzaffar]

May I remind you that the R8 beat the Porsche. I seriously doubt it would have gotten this far if it wasn't better or at least matched the 911 in at least one of those categories.

Well this just a Gran Turismo forum and not everybody here are knowledgeable car reviewers who worked for car magazines like Evo, Top Gear, etc. The R8 did beat the 911 in a few categories (being faster, looks better, had more techy stuff inside, etc.) but the 911 still wins in terms of sales and developments. I mean, if you really want a good comparison for the R8, why not compare it over a Turbo or a GT3 instead of the base 911 Carrera?

Why is the R8 being mid-engined not practical?

Because it takes up space and is practicality is little.... (other than better weight distribution, what else is there?) so is an R8 considered an everyday sports car if it can't even do everyday things? (for example: grocery shopping, taking kids to school, go to work, family outing, etc.) Look, maybe I just look at it differently, if the R8 was listed more as a performance sports car like Ferrari and Lamborghini then I would have agreed towards it, but basing it on a normal 911 is just wrong for some reason.....

Also, if you really think the R8 is that much better than the 911, tell me when will the R8 is going to win Car of the Century? (which the 911 made it into the top 5)

 

[McLaren]

• 
  Porsche Cayman/Boxster

• 
  Not exactly an R8 competitor though, and nowhere near the same price.
  The R8 is worth over 2 Caymans.
  

  Tesla Roadster

  Possibly considering they're a $100K, but I don't think it's an exact competitor.
  

  Lotus Evora (probably)

  Have to wait and see.
  

  Noble M400 (or whatever they're calling it these days)
  Noble M15

  The M400 is no longer built. We get it as a Rossion Q, but it doesn't perform like a R8.
  

  Mosler MT900 (probably not the best choice...)

  This will easily out perform the R8. But at the cost of any form of luxury. This is a car just like the ACR.

 

[slidesquad#1]

And again, I was talking about the Abarth version, as mentioned by Jim Prower in the post that started this.

I can repeat this all night until it sinks in 👍

Fair enough, I still don't see the relevance of that in this particular thread, but I'll drop it.

 

[niky]

Darn... missed it... Reventon basically answered what I would have posted.

Simply... the only luxury mid-engined car you can get in the R8's price range is the Porsche 911... (okay, rear-engined... but close enough...) ...but the ever-ubiquitous Porsche lacks the sense of occassion that the R8 possesses, due to its more traditional body-style.

It's strange to be arguing on the side of a car that I've voted against a lot... ...but whether I like it the best or not, there's no denying that the R8 has been more of a newsmaker than the Fiat 500 over the past year... and it's a worthy addition to the list of "desirable" cars on the market nowadays... whether or not you consider it as a watered-down Gallardo or the love-child of an RS4 and a Lamborghini... automotive jewelry, it is... but there's no denying that it can actually drive nicely... which is quite a feat for an Audi.

 

[///M-Spec]

• 
  But, as I've said before, the two biggest thorns in the R8's side will always be the far-cheaper Corvette and even the cheaper Porsche 911 Carrera S/Carrera 4S.

• 
  
  I seriously doubt the Vette would be cross shopped with the R8. At least, not to any significant degree. Don't discount the snob-factor that is well entrenched in the R8's 100k+ price range. The Z06 and ZR1 may make a few conquest sales, but not enough to worry Ingolstadt.
  
  A higher-end 911, most probably, but I strongly suspect that R8 customers have already had a 911 at some point. I bet Audi's more worried about Beatle Evolutions, Merc SLs and BMW M6s than Corvettes.
  
  
  M

 

[Kent]

What I find so strange about this is how many people are referring to the R8 as simply the mid-engine, luxury, sports car but when the GTR was in the picture the AWD system of the GTR made it super friendly for daily driving in adverse conditions... A year-round sports car, yet in this thread the R8 showing all the same qualities doesn't get any mention as a year-round sports car.

Further, I wonder whats with the talk of practicality or rather, the impracticality of the R8 when compared to luxury sports cars... Makes me wonder how many people have seen, none the less, tried to use the trunk or backseat of these other cars being mentioned... Every 911 I've seen had a backseat that was nothing more than a small cubby hole that, at best, could hold a small child.
I imagine the GTR is very much the same (as every video and photo I've seen of the interior implies the GTR's backseat is just like all the other luxury sportsters).

So the question becomes, why is practicality so important suddenly?
Likewise, why doesn't the all wheel drive play into that practicality rating?

At any rate, my opinion of the matter hasn't changed... Practicality and price should play no part in a contest of this nature. This sort of contest should be about the driving dynamics, performance, and appeal. 👍

Btw, if I were to drive the R8 through town I'm sure the reactions of other people would leave no doubt that the 911 and Vette aren't quite as well suited for comparison as Lambos and Ferraris (although in performance and price the vette and 911 are indeed worthy of mention for comparison purposes).

Also, the more narrow car praise is laughable...
I can't remember the last time I saw someone praise a car for not being as wide as a supercar so there would be more road to use. Personally, I'd rather have the width of the R8 and less road to use than the width of the 500 and a little extra road. I mean, you could have an extra 3 feet of road and I would still be confident the 500 could never corner like the R8 (especially at high speeds or under full power).

That said, when practicality and everyday use are considered I can see the importance of not being too wide... None the less, I don't think practicality has a place in this contest.
But then again... Even if practicality is addressed, I don't think the practicality of the 500's width is enough to overcome the value of R8's width when the performance gains are considered.

 

[Greycap]

R8 = very, very good junior supercar. It's mid-engined, new in that segment. It has an absolute gem of an engine. It goes and grips like nothing else in it's class. Sorry, but 911 is simply shot down in flames by it, and the heavier Aston Martin Vantage only has it's looks (inside and out) and that sound going for it. In every other respect (apart from, perhaps luggage space) the R8 is a fabulous class-debut car for Audi, and the benchmark for cars in this class, by quite a large margin.

Call me whatever you want to but I can't see how the R8 is a benchmark for its class when the GT-R kills it in power, grip, acceleration, interior roominess, cargo capacity and tops it off with a noticably lower price. Unless they're miraculously in different classes now, that is. I'm not doubting the Audi is a good car but it's nowhere near as special as it's made out to be, the only special thing in it is the company that made it. If it had Lamborghini badges on it it would be just another model in the line-up. The V10 model is likely to change the situation but for now it's a sports car that wants to be a supercar, looks like a supercar, is even priced like a supercar, but still doesn't quite get the package together.

 

[YSSMAN]

I seriously doubt the Vette would be cross shopped with the R8. At least, not to any significant degree. Don't discount the snob-factor that is well entrenched in the R8's 100k+ price range. The Z06 and ZR1 may make a few conquest sales, but not enough to worry Ingolstadt.

I don't outright disagree with you, but you have to think that someone at Audi was thinking "Hey, shouldn't we be a little worried about the Corvette?" when designing their North American program. But yes, its tangerines and oranges here. Similar, but not the same.

Simply... the only luxury mid-engined car you can get in the R8's price range is the Porsche 911... (okay, rear-engined... but close enough...) ...but the ever-ubiquitous Porsche lacks the sense of occassion that the R8 possesses, due to its more traditional body-style.

For some reason I got hung up on the "mid-engined" part of the equation. As it has always been, the 911 is the biggest threat to the R8... Or, well, the R8 being the biggest threat to the 911. Traditional or not, you end up getting nearly identical performance figures out of a Porsche 911 Carrera 4S for about 9/10ths of the price. Odd when the Porsche is the "value" alternative, isn't it?

 

[///M-Spec]

So the question becomes, why is practicality so important suddenly?

Cynical me has a theory: because people have a strong tendency to make decisions that satisfy them emotionally, then find facts or use 'logic' that support the decisions they've already made, rather than the other way around. It's called rationalizing, but I despise the term, because it is anything but rational.

Thus, if you have a strong affinity for say, five-arsed monkeys, you conclude that it must have something to do with the monkey's five arses that makes them superior. (because after all, anything you like must necessarily be superior to anything you don't)

This is as opposed to the rational approach of postulating: "ideally, how many arses should a monkey have?" and going from there. But that sort of approach would require a degree of honesty and courage most people lack.

Thus logically, you declare that any business of judging and evaluating monkeys must be based on the criteria of how many arses they possess: Four arses are not enough, for any number of completely arbitrary reasons. Six is just way too many, and you conclude that only an idiot would want a six-arsed monkey, for a completely different set of arbitrary reasons.

That great thing about rationalization is at the end, the choice you've already made also happens to also be the best one! Hurray for intellectual laziness!



(No, I'm not in a bad mood)

(Yes, it does feel good to get that off my chest)


M

 

[buickgnx88]

But wait, Mephesto just came out with a seven arsed monkey, that's the coolest thing ever!

 

[///M-Spec]

But wait, Mephesto just came out with a seven arsed monkey, that's the coolest thing ever!

Don't be such a seven arsed monkey fanboy. They aren't any better than six arsed monkeys in most circumstances. And honestly for seven arses, I'm just not that impressed. I'd rather go all the way to eight.

But five? Five arses are perfect. Five arsed monekeys FTMFW.


M

 

[buickgnx88]

DUDE! This convo sounds like it could be talking about the number of speeds in a car transmission!

 

[Wolfe]

As it has always been, the 911 is the biggest threat to the R8... Or, well, the R8 being the biggest threat to the 911. Traditional or not, you end up getting nearly identical performance figures out of a Porsche 911 Carrera 4S for about 9/10ths of the price. Odd when the Porsche is the "value" alternative, isn't it?

Top Gear addressed this straight away with the R8, don't you remember? The R8 is more refined, has much more visual presence, and is generally "nicer." The 911 is sportier, louder, and more involved.

Honestly, if I had over $100,000 to spend on a car it would likely go to the 997 Turbo, but if I bought an R8 instead I'm sure I wouldn't be the least bit disappointed. As for your Carrera 4S comparison, I just don't think anyone considering the R8 would cross-shop it with any 911 that doesn't have "GT" or an engine part in its name.

 

[Kent]

I just got a heck of a shock I think all the Americans might get as well...

Go to Fiat's site. Select a nation you'd be willing to build under (in my case I used the United Kingdom).
The price of the Fiat 500 I'd buy was 10,900 (a zero option model of the 1.4L sport model). When I did a google search for "pounds to dollars" I got 1 to 1.8508 (google ). That meant a Fiat 500, still not as fast 0-60 as my '06 Corolla S, would cost over 20,000 dollars (before any taxes or anything). Now I recognize how much more fun the 500 would be to drive but for the 4,000 extra (the cost of my corolla compared to the cost of the 500) I'm sure I could get new struts, a brace, and new springs (but I'd still be faster on my base engine and an automatic).

To me, 20,000+ for a 500 capable of 10.? 0-62mph isn't a good deal. There are bound to be better cars in the price range.
Heck, I'd rather have a Honda Fit fully spec'd with every option (while still being cheaper) than have a 500 (nothing personal to you 500 owners but I just don't have the money for style like the 500). All of that is without mention of the other cars at the 20,000 dollar range.

That's just something to consider when we talk about these cars.
On the positive side though, the fuel economy looked great. 👍

Btw, while the same sort of argument could be made about the R8. The difference is that an R8's price isn't for most buyers, it's for rich people who can afford to ignore the "bargain" and go for the car that makes them hot above any other considerations.

 

[Wolfe]

That meant a Fiat 500, still not as fast 0-60 as my '06 Corolla S, would cost over 20,000 dollars (before any taxes or anything)...

...That's just something to consider when we talk about these cars.
On the positive side though, the fuel economy looked great. 👍

Something else to consider -- in the UK, cars are almost always more expensive than they are here, and their gallon is about 1.2x the size of ours.

 

[Kent]

Something else to consider -- in the UK, cars are almost always more expensive than they are here, and their gallon is about 1.2x the size of ours.

Something else to consider is that you can do the same work with other countries...
Being that Mexico is the closest to America geographically I decided that might be more fitting than the UK.
The result came out to over 21,000 USD.
(that's based on the first 500 model advertised on the mexican site)

That's even worse so maybe another comparison is in order. How about we use the GTR R35 logic and go to the homeland where there is none of the guaranteed mark-up.
16,327 - 21,964 USD based on prices from the Fiat Italy page.
I'd be cool with the 16,000 except for the fact it uses an engine capable of 0-62 runs over 12.9 seconds.

Again, I think the Fiat is cool but it's not my idea of a competitor for "Best Car of 2008."

 

[Rotary Junkie]

I just got a heck of a shock I think all the Americans might get as well...

Go to Fiat's site. Select a nation you'd be willing to build under (in my case I used the United Kingdom).
The price of the Fiat 500 I'd buy was 10,900 (a zero option model of the 1.4L sport model). When I did a google search for "pounds to dollars" I got 1 to 1.8508 (google ). That meant a Fiat 500, still not as fast 0-60 as my '06 Corolla S, would cost over 20,000 dollars (before any taxes or anything). Now I recognize how much more fun the 500 would be to drive but for the 4,000 extra (the cost of my corolla compared to the cost of the 500) I'm sure I could get new struts, a brace, and new springs (but I'd still be faster on my base engine and an automatic).

To me, 20,000+ for a 500 capable of 10.? 0-62mph isn't a good deal. There are bound to be better cars in the price range.
Heck, I'd rather have a Honda Fit fully spec'd with every option (while still being cheaper) than have a 500 (nothing personal to you 500 owners but I just don't have the money for style like the 500). All of that is without mention of the other cars at the 20,000 dollar range.

That's just something to consider when we talk about these cars.
On the positive side though, the fuel economy looked great. 👍

Btw, while the same sort of argument could be made about the R8. The difference is that an R8's price isn't for most buyers, it's for rich people who can afford to ignore the "bargain" and go for the car that makes them hot above any other considerations.

A MINI Cooper base model is 24750 or so USD (converted from pounds) from the UK market...

A base Cooper is 18k when purchased stateside. (18,550)

So about 75% less.

Using the same converter I did with the MINI, the base 500 is 20221 USD. 75% of that and it's a perfectly reasonable $15,165. For a decent small car, I would say that it's very far from bad. The Honda Fit starts at 14,550.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

I mean, if you really want a good comparison for the R8, why not compare it over a Turbo or a GT3 instead of the base 911 Carrera?

I never said you couldn't.

Because it takes up space and is practicality is little.... (other than better weight distribution, what else is there?)

All engines take up space.

...so is an R8 considered an everyday sports car if it can't even do everyday things? (for example: grocery shopping, taking kids to school, go to work, family outing, etc.) Look, maybe I just look at it differently, if the R8 was listed more as a performance sports car like Ferrari and Lamborghini then I would have agreed towards it, but basing it on a normal 911 is just wrong for some reason.....

Why couldn't you go grocery shopping or to work in the R8? You can also take one kid to school. Even if you can't take the whole family somewhere that still doesn't mean you can't use it nearly everyday.

Also, if you really think the R8 is that much better than the 911, tell me when will the R8 is going to win Car of the Century? (which the 911 made it into the top 5)

I never said that it was much better or even better for that matter. Having said that, it will win next year.

 

[///M-Spec]

I don't outright disagree with you, but you have to think that someone at Audi was thinking "Hey, shouldn't we be a little worried about the Corvette?" when designing their North American program. But yes, its tangerines and oranges here. Similar, but not the same.

I think the Corvette Z06 or ZR1 was probably a "blip on the radar", but not a "thorn in the side".

If I were a betting man, I would wager that Audi expects a majority of R8 buyers to be existing Audi owners. People already fairly loyal to the brand, who buy into all the Audi brand values.


Let me tell you about two guys I know, both doctors. One guy is a heart surgeon, a well established one. Seven figures a year. Rolling in mad bank. He can afford just about anything he wants, but is not a car guy. Don't get me wrong: he likes cars, but a car is just another toy, like his boat, his vacation homes or his nurse girlfriends.

Here's the cars he's owned in the last 10 years or so: C5 Corvette, Jaguar XK8 Coupe, Lexus SC430 and now, a DB9. He has no strong sense of loyalty to a brand. He doesn't go to internet forums and argue which exotic is the best bang for the buck. He doesn't give a monkey's five asses because it's JUST MONEY and he has lots.

You know how he picks his cars? He's at work, cutting some dude's chest open and he's talking to another surgeon. Maybe he says, in passing that another doctor he plays golf with just got a DB9 and loves it. My buddy thinks he might remember he saw a recent Aston Martin in a Motor Trend while waiting at the airport for a flight and liked the way it looked. So next week, when he's not quite as astoundingly busy, he goes out and buys one. Just like that.

You gotta understand a lot people who buy very expensive things don't take the time to carefully compare and examine their purchase. They're too ****ing busying making stupid amounts of money. He bought a Corvette because he's always wanted one and that was that. He got the Jag because he thought it looked good. He got the SC430 because he wanted a convertible. I haven't spoken with him since he got the DB9, but I bet you $1000 internet dollars that he got it because it pulls sick, obscene amounts of poon.

The other guy I know is an anesthesiologist. Not as ridiculously wealthy as the heart surgeon, but someone else who can afford to buy a really expensive sports car.

He wants an Aston DBS. Period. Not a ZR1. Not an R8. Not a 911 Turbo. Not an M6 or an SL or a Maserati GranTurismo or an F430 or anything else. He wants a DBS. He tells me his wife won't let him get one until his kids are older and he's more established (read: making more money), so in the mean time, he's driving a 5 year old Volvo S60. Knowing him, he will probably drive that Volvo until the day he picks up his DBS, and then he'll drive it some more.

So what the hell is my point? Why am I tell you about all this?? In a nutshell: people who can afford to buy expensive toys rarely, rarely put much thought into them. It's not like a stock portfolio or an IRA or real-estate where you really need to think a little ---it's a TOY. They buy what makes them happy. My heart surgeon friend buys the "flavor of the week". My anesthesiologist has already made up his mind and there's nothing in the world that will change it.

All this arguing about trunk space and power to weight and value for the money.... frankly, is bull**** that people who can afford these cars don't have the time for. If you tell my buddys that they can get similar performance with a C5 Z51, they'd laugh. Not in a rude way, but in a "so the hell what?" sort of way. If they want a Corvette, they will buy a Corvette. If they want an Audi R8, that's what they'll get.

Now, I'm sure there are plenty of enthusiasts with money out there who DO carefully examine their options before plunking down third-world GDP money for a car. But they are definitely in the minority.

So, sorry for the length, but NO, I don't think Audi is worried about the Corvette too much.

Traditional or not, you end up getting nearly identical performance figures out of a Porsche 911 Carrera 4S for about 9/10ths of the price.

This is incorrect. The R8 posts track times generally better than a 997 Turbo. It should have no trouble spanking a C4S.


M