GTP Cool Wall: Ford SportKa. Voting Open!

[MatskiMonk]

Has anyone else noticed that the haters of the well balanced ugly, lowish-HP little SlowSportKa seem to overlap quite nicely with those who rate the ghastly, figure-chasing impressive supercharged mess of a 9ff GT9-R as Sub Zero?

Lol, yeah I'd noticed that too!

 

[Leonidae]

*pokes his troll-detector* I could had sworn that it redlined a moment ago.. oh well, Atleast it's an honest Ford, not a FWD BMW that is actually reborn British retrocar with French engine and suffers from identity crisis..

 

[niky]

Has anyone else noticed that the haters of the well balanced, lowish-HP little SportKa seem to overlap quite nicely with those who rate the ghastly, figure-chasing supercharged mess of a 9ff GT9-R as Sub Zero?

Over compensation? Non, c'est impossible!

I voted both uncool.

I love bucking the statistics. I also may have voted the Viper uncool, but I don't really remember.

Now, I still don't know why I voted uncool. The fact that it's like an older Natalie Portman dolled up as a jailbait in "V" may be one reason. The engine may be another. But I could get over that, quite easily. I love tiny cars. Some of the most fun I've had in a car without breaking the law has been a weekend spent with a Suzuki Alto... and not even a sport version... an 800cc lawnmower taxi special. And I'm an honest-to-goodness Ford fanboy... got the club jacket and everything.

But I still don't like it. Never driven it. Might be hypocritical to judge it, thus. But I don't like it.

Of course, since, by accounts of my voting over the past four polls, I'm a chav, there's no need to take my opinion quite so seriously.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Has anyone else noticed that the haters of the well balanced, lowish-HP little SportKa seem to overlap quite nicely with those who rate the ghastly, figure-chasing supercharged mess of a 9ff GT9-R as Sub Zero?

Over compensation? Non, c'est impossible!

I voted the 9ff seriously uncool and the Ka uncool.

Given that the majority of people think the Ka is uncool or s. uncool, there should be a nice overlap.

 

[Jim Prower]

So, what are you complaining about then? Ford Europe tinkered with the chassis, made it a substantially better vehicle, and they came away with a car that was 1000 times better than the "regular" model. No, SVT didn't tune it. Even if they did, they likely would have done the same thing to it. Add a little bit of power, firm up the suspension substantially, and make it look spectacular. The same formula worked on the SVT Focus, and that is arguably the best car SVT engineers ever developed.

They didnt' even develop it. The car was an import of the Focus ST 170!

 

[C-ZETA]

Uncool. Why have this when you can get a Fiat 500? (The diesel is decent, but the 500 outclasses it in every version...)

 

[homeforsummer]

Again, it's their opinion. Not mine.

I've never disputed that. But you cannot claim it's a bad car if the overwhelming body of evidence suggests it is, and if you've not driven one. As with the Swift we previously discussed, you seem to imply that just because it's small and lacks power, then it must be awful. This is not the case. And as good and bad is an objective matter, this cannot be up for much dispute unless you actually drove it and still didn't like it.

I don't think their lieing. It's just that? I'm able to form my own opinion and not just agree with them.

As am I. But again, we're discussing objectivity here. You're free to your subjective opinion but again, without spending time in the seat you cannot say it's a bad car (even if you don't find it cool - which is fair enough).

We're essentially treading identical ground to the Swift thread.

Discuss what ever you like. It doesn't make alot of sense to me when the debate is about car A, to be talking about car B or C, when B & C have nothing to do with the thread topic.

I know rallying is tough on a car. What makes this car a "giant killer" if it's only been raced in a one make series?

*Sighs*

Okay, here is what I actually typed:

The SportKa is one of those breed of old-school hatches that can make significantly more powerful cars look quite silly on the sort of bumpy, twisty roads we get over here.

Though I would say that being a giant-killer is cool. It certainly helped the original Mini, which was more than up to the task of beating MkII Jags and Mustangs on the track.

You've mistaken my suspicion that the car is the sort of car that can upset quicker ones for hard facts. At no point did I say the Ka was a giant killer, I just compared it to it's spiritual predecessor, the Mini, which was a giant killer. Which is why the Mini is entirely relevant to my point, and to the discussion.

You'll also note, in bold, the point at which my suspicion is put into context. I presume you're a little hazy on twisty, bumpy backroads like the UK is home to but on these sorts of roads, all the power in the world is no good if you can't a) put it down, b) see around the next corner and c) drive along without grounding out everywhere. In these situations, cars like the SportKa can be a match for more traditionally sporting cars. And it's also the reason that calling the SportKa underpowered, just like the Swift, is completely irrelevant. It's more than adequately equipped for the sort of driving for which it was intended.

I've told you before I don't like them, and I'm not trying to force my opinions on you.

Likewise. But you're attempting to call it uncool for being "slow", and what I'm trying to get at is that outright performance isn't important, both in the situations in which the car is mostly found, and for a discussion about coolness in general. Otherwise there'd be a positive correlation between cool and fast on the cool wall, which there isn't.

You love this car, great. I'm happy for you. Can you accept that maybe some others don't feel the same way?

Of course. At no point have I told you "you're wrong" about not finding the car cool. Otherwise, once again, I'd have picked up on other peoples' points too.

And as has been mentioned before, actual performance has nothing to do with cool, so it shouldn't really be the basis of a whole arguement.

Uncool. Why have this when you can get a Fiat 500? (The diesel is decent, but the 500 outclasses it in every version...)

There was absolutely no overlap between the SportKa and the 500, as far as I'm aware, given that the new Ka was released shortly after the 500. There's also the issue that the SportKa, and indeed the Panda 100HP on which the 500 was based, will both leave an equivalent 500 for dead around the corners.

But basically, people wouldn't have chosen between SportKa and 500 as they were both being sold at different times.

And there's no diesel version of the old Ka so I think you might have missed something somewhere...

 

[Jondot]

I voted both uncool.

I love bucking the statistics. I also may have voted the Viper uncool, but I don't really remember.

Now, I still don't know why I voted uncool. The fact that it's like an older Natalie Portman dolled up as a jailbait in "V" may be one reason. The engine may be another. But I could get over that, quite easily. I love tiny cars. Some of the most fun I've had in a car without breaking the law has been a weekend spent with a Suzuki Alto... and not even a sport version... an 800cc lawnmower taxi special. And I'm an honest-to-goodness Ford fanboy... got the club jacket and everything.

But I still don't like it. Never driven it. Might be hypocritical to judge it, thus. But I don't like it.

Of course, since, by accounts of my voting over the past four polls, I'm a chav, there's no need to take my opinion quite so seriously.

I voted the 9ff seriously uncool and the Ka uncool.

Given that the majority of people think the Ka is uncool or s. uncool, there should be a nice overlap.

Alright, fine, I'll rephrase. Most of the people that voted the 9ff as Subzero seem to think the SportKa is uncool or lower

Why have this when you can get a Fiat 500?

Well they don't exactly run parallel to each other do they? You might as well pose the question 'why have a Cavalier when you can have an Insignia?'. (Although the real question there is why not just jump out of a window instead...)

Used SportKas start at under £3,000. Used 500s (with similar performance) are 3 times that. They're attracting a very different buyer. Not to mention that they handle very differently.

 

[Adamgp]

I've never disputed that. But you cannot claim it's a bad car if the overwhelming body of evidence suggests it is, and if you've not driven one. As with the Swift we previously discussed, you seem to imply that just because it's small and lacks power, then it must be awful. This is not the case. And as good and bad is an objective matter, this cannot be up for much dispute unless you actually drove it and still didn't like it.

I can form my own opinion, I don't care if there's an "overwhelming body of evidence" that claims its a good car. I never said it was a bad car, I said I though it was uncool.

As with the Swift, I think it's uncool for other reasons than it's lack of speed. You focused on one then and your focusing on one now.

As am I. But again, we're discussing objectivity here. You're free to your subjective opinion but again, without spending time in the seat you cannot say it's a bad car (even if you don't find it cool - which is fair enough).

You are right, I never driven one. We don't get them in the States. My only "experience" with a Ka is in GT4. As soon as I start crapping money I'll get on a plane to the UK and try a real one.

We're essentially treading identical ground to the Swift thread.

Yeah, really.

*Sighs*

Okay, here is what I actually typed:





You've mistaken my suspicion that the car is the sort of car that can upset quicker ones for hard facts. At no point did I say the Ka was a giant killer, I just compared it to it's spiritual predecessor, the Mini, which was a giant killer. Which is why the Mini is entirely relevant to my point, and to the discussion.

You'll also note, in bold, the point at which my suspicion is put into context. I presume you're a little hazy on twisty, bumpy backroads like the UK is home to but on these sorts of roads, all the power in the world is no good if you can't a) put it down, b) see around the next corner and c) drive along without grounding out everywhere. In these situations, cars like the SportKa can be a match for more traditionally sporting cars. And it's also the reason that calling the SportKa underpowered, just like the Swift, is completely irrelevant. It's more than adequately equipped for the sort of driving for which it was intended.

We got crappy roads over here. Larger more powerful cars handle them just fine.

Likewise. But you're attempting to call it uncool for being "slow", and what I'm trying to get at is that outright performance isn't important, both in the situations in which the car is mostly found, and for a discussion about coolness in general. Otherwise there'd be a positive correlation between cool and fast on the cool wall, which there isn't.

I got other reasons, your assuming again that I have only one. Also, reread what I said before about how everyone has a different definition of cool.

And as has been mentioned before, actual performance has nothing to do with cool, so it shouldn't really be the basis of a whole arguement.

Performance has nothing to do with your definition of cool. Maybe others take performance into account when deciding if its cool?

 

[Scaff]

The regular ca is seriously uncool for the engine (ancient OHV engine out of all the engines Ford has at their disposal) and unpainted bumpers alone. The SportKa has a real, modern engine, uprated suspension, better looks, and the banned commercials alone make it cool.

Bugger all wrong with that ancient OHV engine, the Kent is one of the classic engine of all time. Simple to work on, reliable and more than capable of being tweaked.

Ford Ka = Cool.

As for it being a girls car, well I drive my wifes one whenever I can and its a hoot to throw around, any one who claims the Ka has no worthwhile characteristics knows zero about the car.



Scaff

 

[homeforsummer]

I can form my own opinion, I don't care if there's an "overwhelming body of evidence" that claims its a good car. I never said it was a bad car, I said I though it was uncool.

As with the Swift, I think it's uncool for other reasons than it's lack of speed. You focused on one then and your focusing on one now.

You're implying it's a bad car. I'm not sure how you don't see that. I see you've completely ignored where I was putting the performance thing into context, but this is why it being "slow" is completely irrelevant to coolness.

I also see you've not directly disputed my explanation of the "giant killer" discussion. Given that you likely took my comments on this too literally, it's entirely possible that you've taken pretty much everything I've typed too literally too. It's certainly baffling that you seem to think I don't understand that other people have opinions...

We got crappy roads over here. Larger more powerful cars handle them just fine.

I've seen, and indeed driven on some roads out there you'd consider "crappy". They aren't even close to what we get in the UK.

Also, reread what I said before about how everyone has a different definition of cool.

Only if you re-read the part where I mentioned that I'm not disputing that others have differing opinions.

Performance has nothing to do with your definition of cool. Maybe others take performance into account when deciding if its cool?

If this were the case, as I mention in Stotty's thread about the definition of cool, then there would be a positive correlation between outright speed and coolness. Which there isn't. I've no problem with performance being part of someone's definition, but time and time again you've called this, and the Swift, "slow", which is irrelevant in context. As I've already provided the context, I don't see where the issue is.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Uncool.

Because it's anti social. It only sits 4, and atleast 2 need to be double amputees. I had more room in the back of a VW Beetle convertible.

However, the power to weight ratio is actually pretty good, the handling is chuckable, but the styling is dire.

 

[Adamgp]

You're implying it's a bad car. I'm not sure how you don't see that. I see you've completely ignored where I was putting the performance thing into context, but this is why it being "slow" is completely irrelevant to coolness.

I never said it was a bad car, just that I thought it was uncool.

I also see you've not directly disputed my explanation of the "giant killer" discussion. Given that you likely took my comments on this too literally, it's entirely possible that you've taken pretty much everything I've typed too literally too. It's certainly baffling that you seem to think I don't understand that other people have opinions...

You claim this car to be a "spiritual predecessor" to the Mini, which you state is a giant killer, but the Ka itself isn't a giant killer?

I've seen, and indeed driven on some roads out there you'd consider "crappy". They aren't even close to what we get in the UK.

Never been to the UK so I don't know what the roads are like. All I said was we have pretty crappy roads here (especially in the Northern part of the country), big powerful cars do just fine, usually better than the small cars.

Only if you re-read the part where I mentioned that I'm not disputing that others have differing opinions.

If this were the case, as I mention in Stotty's thread about the definition of cool, then there would be a positive correlation between outright speed and coolness. Which there isn't. I've no problem with performance being part of someone's definition, but time and time again you've called this, and the Swift, "slow", which is irrelevant in context. As I've already provided the context, I don't see where the issue is.

I saw Stotty's thread, the title is How do you define a cool car? Everyone states their opinion about what makes a car cool to them. (be it looks, performance, whatever)

I called the Sportka and the Swift slow because they are, lack of performance is just one trait that contributes to their uncoolness. That is my opinion, I happen to count a car's performance when I make my opinion if a car is cool or not.

 

[homeforsummer]

You claim this car to be a "spiritual predecessor" to the Mini, which you state is a giant killer, but the Ka itself isn't a giant killer?

I'm getting bored of explaining this. The Mini, thanks to it's light weight, small size and "chuckability", was a giant-killer on track. The Ka has all the same attributes, so given the aforementioned twisty road, it too has the potential to upset faster cars.

And you mistake your tenses. I called the Mini the "spiritual predecessor" to the Ka - the Ka is the Mini's "spiritual successor".

Never been to the UK so I don't know what the roads are like. All I said was we have pretty crappy roads here (especially in the Northern part of the country), big powerful cars do just fine, usually better than the small cars.

That's because the small cars available over there are, for want of a better word: crap.

I called the Sportka and the Swift slow because they are, lack of performance is just one trait that contributes to their uncoolness. That is my opinion, I happen to count a car's performance when I make my opinion if a car is cool or not.

Opinions: fair enough 👍 But what I'm saying now, and what I said in the Swift thread, is that the performance figures shouldn't come into it with this particular car because they are perfectly adequate for what the car was designed for. It's perhaps unfair to criticise it for lacking performance when it has a) the same performance as it's competitors and b) has enough performance for it's intended market.

If Ford had marketed the car as an "RS" then I'd fully understand if people criticised it's performance, but they didn't. It's simply an upgraded version of the regular Ka and as such does exactly what it says on the tin.

Once again, I'm willing to call truce if you are, as it isn't the first time we've had this discussion and if people keep on nominating warm hatches it may not be the last But for the sake of not covering the same ground a dozen times, we're probably best off "agreeing to disagree" on this one...

 

[Adamgp]

I'm getting bored of explaining this. The Mini, thanks to it's light weight, small size and "chuckability", was a giant-killer on track. The Ka has all the same attributes, so given the aforementioned twisty road, it too has the potential to upset faster cars.

Potential maybe. It has yet to prove that though. Who cares what the Mini did.

And you mistake your tenses. I called the Mini the "spiritual predecessor" to the Ka - the Ka is the Mini's "spiritual successor".

Only times I post here are really early in the morning or at night after a few beers, that kind of stuff will happen.

That's because the small cars available over there are, for want of a better word: crap.

They aren't crap really. Some can be quite nice, (Cobalt SS, SVT Focus, SRT-4) but most just usually not "sporty" when coming from the factory. Just plain old point A to B cars.

Opinions: fair enough 👍 But what I'm saying now, and what I said in the Swift thread, is that the performance figures shouldn't come into it with this particular car because they are perfectly adequate for what the car was designed for. It's perhaps unfair to criticise it for lacking performance when it has a) the same performance as it's competitors and b) has enough performance for it's intended market.

If Ford had marketed the car as an "RS" then I'd fully understand if people criticised it's performance, but they didn't. It's simply an upgraded version of the regular Ka and as such does exactly what it says on the tin.

I don't care if performance is better/worse/on par with competitiors. Slow is slow.

Once again, I'm willing to call truce if you are, as it isn't the first time we've had this discussion and if people keep on nominating warm hatches it may not be the last But for the sake of not covering the same ground a dozen times, we're probably best off "agreeing to disagree" on this one...

Sounds good.

 

[homeforsummer]

They aren't crap really. Some can be quite nice, (Cobalt SS, SVT Focus, SRT-4) but most just usually not "sporty" when coming from the factory. Just plain old point A to B cars.

The difference: I wouldn't really consider these cars particularly small. They're regularly used as family cars. In the UK and Europe those sorts of cars are considered C- or even D-segment. We have two whole classes smaller than that!

Not only that, but of course over here there's a much wider range of cars that size and smaller available. The Neon was considered a pretty decent car over there from what I can gather when it was released - over here it was outclassed by every single car in it's class on sale.

It's just a culture difference really. The States doesn't really "get" small cars, wheras over in Europe and Asia they're prolific.

I don't care if performance is better/worse/on par with competitiors. Slow is slow.

It has to be considered in context though. A Veyron is slow by the standards of stuff that runs at Bonneville or Black Rock. A Spitfire is slow compared to Concorde. Walking is slow compared to running. It's horses for courses, and speed has to be relative to what context it's being used in. A go-kart is essentially pretty slow, but because it's so small and visceral it feels much faster. This is the idea behind things like the SportKa. It doesn't have to be fast to feel it. And this is where the fun comes from.

Sounds good.

👍

 

[Adamgp]

The difference: I wouldn't really consider these cars particularly small. They're regularly used as family cars. In the UK and Europe those sorts of cars are considered C- or even D-segment. We have two whole classes smaller than that!

Not only that, but of course over here there's a much wider range of cars that size and smaller available. The Neon was considered a pretty decent car over there from what I can gather when it was released - over here it was outclassed by every single car in it's class on sale.

It's just a culture difference really. The States doesn't really "get" small cars, wheras over in Europe and Asia they're prolific.

I don't care if there are smaller cars over there.

It's not that we don't "get" small cars. Europe and Asia pretty they are needed, either because a) streets are tight and narrow, and/or b) gas is taxed heavily. In the States we have relatively cheap gas and wide open streets.

It has to be considered in context though. A Veyron is slow by the standards of stuff that runs at Bonneville or Black Rock. A Spitfire is slow compared to Concorde. Walking is slow compared to running. It's horses for courses, and speed has to be relative to what context it's being used in. A go-kart is essentially pretty slow, but because it's so small and visceral it feels much faster. This is the idea behind things like the SportKa. It doesn't have to be fast to feel it. And this is where the fun comes from.

Slow is Slow.

We arent comparing airplanes or land speed record cars.

Sounds good.

 

[Jondot]

Uncool.

Because it's anti social. It only sits 4, and atleast 2 need to be double amputees. I had more room in the back of a VW Beetle convertible.

Oi! Even I can sit in the back with the driver's seat as far back as it'll go. I mean I'm not comfortable, but still

 

[Famine]

It's not that we don't "get" small cars.

He meant "receive" rather than "understand". As pointed out, you class the Focus as a small car whereas in Europe they sell two entire model ranges smaller than that. Three if you include the Th!nk.

Slow is Slow.

Not always.

My friends have a '72 Dodge Challenger running a 572. It runs quarter miles in 9.57s at 142.5mph on pump petrol. Now, by comparison to that, my MX-3 is slow. S-l-o-w slow. 17s at best and I can't even reach 142mph, no matter how much road you give me. But from any given point to any other given point, the MX-3 will get there first - unless those two points are connected by a straight line.

Similarly, point-to-point on typical, non-arterial European roads, this wee SportKa would get from A to B just as quick as - and sometimes quicker than - something which pulls 4 seconds on it to 60mph and 40mph better top end.

Yeah, paper-racing the SportKa doesn't generate much to be confident about. Stoplight to stoplight, you might be better off in a horse-drawn carriage. But that's not what it's meant for - it's meant for tight'n'twisty roads, and that's where slow isn't necessarily slow.

 

[Giancarlo]

Is this one of the few cars where the voting between cool and uncool was actually close? I think only one other car was this close right?

 

[Tornado]

The same formula worked on the SVT Focus, and that is arguably the best car SVT engineers ever developed.

Pfft. SVT Contour.

They didnt' even develop it. The car was an import of the Focus ST 170!

They were developed in tandem, as I understand. The drivetrain was developed in Britian and the suspension/chassis tuning was done in America.

 

[Danny]

The drivetrain was developed in Britian and the suspension/chassis tuning was done in America.

Wow, the worst of both worlds!

 

[Adamgp]

As pointed out, you class the Focus as a small car whereas in Europe they sell two entire model ranges smaller than that. Three if you include the Th!nk.

I'm aware they get cars even smaller than the Focus, and I don't care.

Not always.

My friends have a '72 Dodge Challenger running a 572. It runs quarter miles in 9.57s at 142.5mph on pump petrol. Now, by comparison to that, my MX-3 is slow. S-l-o-w slow. 17s at best and I can't even reach 142mph, no matter how much road you give me. But from any given point to any other given point, the MX-3 will get there first - unless those two points are connected by a straight line.
Similarly, point-to-point on typical, non-arterial European roads, this wee SportKa would get from A to B just as quick as - and sometimes quicker than - something which pulls 4 seconds on it to 60mph and 40mph better top end.

Yeah, paper-racing the SportKa doesn't generate much to be confident about. Stoplight to stoplight, you might be better off in a horse-drawn carriage. But that's not what it's meant for - it's meant for tight'n'twisty roads, and that's where slow isn't necessarily slow.

Your MX-3 is still slow, so what. Congrats on being able to out corner a '72 Challenger though. 👍

 

[Famine]

I'm aware they get cars even smaller than the Focus, and I don't care.

Your MX-3 is still slow, so what. Congrats on being able to out corner a '72 Challenger though. 👍

See, now you're missing the point on purpose - and being obnoxious with it.

hfs's point was that the US doesn't have many small cars on sale - and those that are... suck. Neither is true over here.

My point was that "slow is slow" isn't true. Slow in one place isn't necessarily slow everywhere. Would you call your Pontiac slow?

 

[Adamgp]

See, now you're missing the point on purpose - and being obnoxious with it.

hfs's point was that the US doesn't have many small cars on sale - and those that are... suck. Neither is true over here.

My point was that "slow is slow" isn't true. Slow in one place isn't necessarily slow everywhere. Would you call your Pontiac slow?

You have a plethora of small cars in the UK, I get it. Different countries have different definitions of what is slow, I get it. I don't care.

I wouldn't call my GTP slow, I wouldn't call it overly fast though.

 

[Tornado]

Different countries have different definitions of what is slow, I get it.

That isn't the point in the slightest.

 

[Adamgp]

That isn't the point in the slightest.

If thats not the point what is?

 

[Rykon Zero]

He's said it dozens of times. Here's another analogy: I have a Ford Taurus, it's got a 3.8L V6, and it's got enough torque to spin the earth in the other direction. Now here comes a Ford SportKa, and we head off at the green light. It's obvious that my Taurus will win by mere virtue of sheer torque. Now then, we drive up to a mountain, and there's a mountain road. We start another race, first to get to the bottom wins. And here's where the SportKa will be faster. It'll get down the hill faster because it can corner better, and the person driving will be happier because they aren't like me, worrying about understeer every corner.

Simply put, the Spork is designed to go around corners fast, a trick it pulls off with flying colors. My Taurus was designed to go fast in a straight line, a trick it pulls off with flying colors. Therefore, you must ask which one is faster, the Spork or the Taurus. And with this, you have to ask if the Ka was designed to go against the Taurus, and the answer is no, not at all. The Taurus is miles above the Spork in model range, so you can say that the Spork is the faster.

Recap: The Ka is fast for what it is, a small, tiny hatchback. It's also fast enough to take on bigger cars, like my Taurus. That's why it's fast. It cannot go faster than a Ford GT (Wow, I'm using a lot of Fords) but it might be able to go faster than a Mustang. That's where the "Sport" lies.

 

[Famine]

You have a plethora of small cars in the UK, I get it.

And many of them don't suck.

Different countries have different definitions of what is slow, I get it.

Countries and their definitions have nothing to do with it.

I wouldn't call my GTP slow, I wouldn't call it overly fast though.

And from stoplight to stoplight, the SportKa doesn't stand a chance. But on a good run over the Moors, or the Buttertubs or even the Evo Triangle, a SportKa would spank the GTP. Spank it. Raw. And yet the SportKa is "slow" and the GTP is not?

Look past the power. Look past the acceleration figures and top speed. Look at some more subtle ones... The shouty pedal is only one of your control interfaces.

 

[Adamgp]

And many of them don't suck.

Awesome, I'm happy for you.

Countries and their definitions have nothing to do with it.

I don't care

And from stoplight to stoplight, the SportKa doesn't stand a chance. But on a good run over the Moors, or the Buttertubs or even the Evo Triangle, a SportKa would spank the GTP. Spank it. Raw. And yet the SportKa is "slow" and the GTP is not?

Look past the power. Look past the acceleration figures and top speed. Look at some more subtle ones... The shouty pedal is only one of your control interfaces.

I'm sorry but I don't remember loaning you my car, how do you know what it can and can't do?

I voted the car uncool for other reasons, ya know.