Just something about em.

[Slash]

So we all know how far cars have come. They have progressed into incredible capable machines. We are are power levels never before seen, we've reached great levels of efficiency, safety, comFort and what have you.

But is it just me, or is there nothing exciting or appealing about them anymore. We all know about how I prefer everything old school. There's just something about the sound, styling etc that new vehicles just don't appeal. Am I alone in this?

 

[Greycap]

Alone, certainly not. I don't drive old station wagons from 1992 and 1998 because I have to, but because I want to. The newest car I've tried that didn't feel like a floating spaceship was a '06 model and even that one had its origins in the nineties, the model series having been launched in 2000.

And it's not like the newr models have been crappy low quality clunkers, no, they include a '13 MB E-series which, albeit being loaded with gadgets, bells and whistles, was a horrible thing to actually drive. No road feel, the drive-by-wire throttle had a mind of its own, the gearbox even more so, and yet it cost something like four times my annual salary.

Give me a car with electronics in the engine, lights and audio system, equip it with a true manual gearbox, and I'm all set. At least then I know the car is doing what I tell it to, and it'll tell me things in return.

 

[homeforsummer]

But is it just me, or is there nothing exciting or appealing about them anymore. We all know about how I prefer everything old school. There's just something about the sound, styling etc that new vehicles just don't appeal. Am I alone in this?

You're not alone, but given I'm in the fortunate position of having been able to drive plenty of old and new cars, there are a lot of modern vehicles that are still deeply appealing in different ways. I'm not really a supercar person for example, but the last few supercars I've driven have been absolutely spectacular and felt very special indeed.

However, having a chat with someone recently, I did conclude that I'm more excited by the way modern cars drive than by them as objects - in the right situation they can be pretty mindblowing to drive, but I lust after them less than perhaps some of their older equivalents. I'd rather have a '65 Mustang over a 2017 for instance, or an EK9 Civic Type R over an FK8.

I find older cars more mechanically and visually intriguing, and they've obviously benefitted from the kind of interesting stories that can only amass with the passage of time. Which on the plus side means new cars also have the opportunity to amass these stories - we just have to wait for them. Many cars in the 1980s were probably boring to people who grew up with cars in the 50s and 60s...

 

[Slash]

That's not to say they aren't good or intriguing in their own way. I sometimes just feel as if they just don't capture the essence.

It's difficult to explain.

 

[homeforsummer]

I sometimes just feel as if they just don't capture the essence.

It's difficult to explain.

Any particular cars that have prompted the thread?

 

[Slash]

Not particularly, but I've been cruusing around a lot lately in a lot of older cars. Mostly 70s and 80s, and they have an edge about them.

 

[Aphelion]

See for me its the exact opposite. I have a much stronger connection to newer cars than older ones for some reason.

 

[Murcie_LP640]

For some I agree with the sentiment, for an example about one of the only new cars I actually truly enjoy driving in the current Mazda line-up at work is the ND MX-5 for very obvious reasons.

Mazdas have always had a bit more of a sporty flavour in their run of the mill cars but in their current generation I'm not really feeling it, I feel like they're trying to emulate Volkswagen a little bit too much.

Other than the MX-5 really the main modern-ish cars that I've enjoyed driving over the past few months have been *cue the violins* Commodores which is quite surprising.

 

[Rage0329]

My girlfriend likes old cars. Like 60s/70s. I don't get why. The styling never attracted me. I think, hmmm no abs, no tcs, no asm.

I'd take a C7 Z06 over a C2 Z06 easily.

There's just so many more cars on the road now, that only certain ones stand out as something special. If we have fond memories of older cars is because we're only thinking of the good ones, not the heaps of crap that most people could afford. It's like when people say music was better in the 60s or 70s. It really wasn't persay, it's just that we only remember the good songs, not all the other songs that weren't that great.

 

[Danoff]

If we have fond memories of older cars is because we're only thinking of the good ones, not the heaps of crap that most people could afford. It's like when people say music was better in the 60s or 70s. It really wasn't persay, it's just that we only remember the good songs, not all the other songs that weren't that great.

This is what I was going to say.

 

[homeforsummer]

@Rage0329 makes a good point. People do tend to look at the past through rose-tinted spectacles and imagine everything was better, and that very much applies to cars. I enjoy driving older cars, but I've driven plenty of pretty poor ones too.

That said, I can still see where @Slash is coming from. He even says in his first post that he recognises that modern cars are objectively very good.

I think it's the more intangible aspects. I certainly know from having tested older cars for features in the magazine that you tend to be prepared to overlook certain objective failings since an older car will obviously not be better than a newer one in certain areas, and it's unfair to compare something say, a quarter-century old with something that's brand new. We're inclined to see character in older things and tolerate their flaws, be it cars, architecture, or even people.

There are certain things that I think older cars are generally better at than newer ones. Visibility is one of the most important ones - while I understand that thicker pillars used today are primarily for safety, they compromise visibility, and it's usually compounded by the work of car stylists trying to make things look more dramatic. I can probably count the number of newer cars with genuinely good visibility I've driven in the last few years on one hand.

Older cars tend to be physically smaller too, which might be more of a benefit here in the UK than it is in the US say, but helps with everything from parking to having more space in your lane to play with on a twisty road. And while older cars certainly don't have a monopoly on control feedback, I'd say that of the older performance cars I've driven, that's almost always the case. Steering feedback, the response of the pedals, the feel of the shifter etc.

And I'd say most older cars have a better "secondary ride" quality than newer ones - their ability to absorb smaller-amplitude but higher-frequency road imperfections. That's mainly a function of softer springs and dampers and taller tyre sidewalls (and probably lighter bodies, which don't require the same compromise between ride and body control as heavier cars do).

In most other areas - safety, performance, grip, economy, braking, comfort, convenience, equipment etc - newer cars tend to be better.

And in others still, I think it's down to personal preference. Rage says he's not particularly fond of the styling of older cars. In contrast, I very much am - I do like modern car design, but I think older cars (and particularly ones from the 60s/70s, but plenty from the 80s and 90s too) are more beautiful and better-proportioned, and I'm very tired indeed of the aggression of new cars (which psychologically, I'm fairly certain reflects in the way people drive today too). Between an old and new Mustang, an old and new Golf, an old and new Ferrari, an old and new Mini, even an old and new entry-level Toyota like the Corolla, there's no contest for me.

 

[eiriksmil]

Older cars usually have more feel because they are more mechanical, newer cars are better in all aspects because of improvements made in technology.

This I believe, is correct now, was correct ten years ago, fifty years ago and will be in twenty years from now.

 

[TheCracker]

As much as i love older cars, i wouldn't want to have to use one as a daily.

If you're talking about having one as a second car, one to enjoy on weekends etc, then sure why not. The difference in, well, every aspect between old and new would give you a sense of occasion every time.

 

[homeforsummer]

If you're talking about having one as a second car, one to enjoy on weekends etc, then sure why not. The difference in, well, every aspect between old and new would give you a sense of occasion every time.

This is much of why I have the Mazda and the Peugeot. I wouldn't want to use either every day - not because they're not capable of it, as I've no doubt they both are, but because it would make them less special.

Now this does depend on the car of course. And what we're considering "old", I suppose. The next car I buy (could be a while, since I've no immediate plans to get rid of either of the current pair) will likely be something bigger, quicker, and less sporty, likely built some time between the early 90s and mid 00s. There's nothing fundamentally about driving a car 10-25 years old every day that puts me off the idea - most are more than capable of it - but it has to be the right kind of car.

 

[Danoff]

And in others still, I think it's down to personal preference. Rage says he's not particularly fond of the styling of older cars. In contrast, I very much am - I do like modern car design, but I think older cars (and particularly ones from the 60s/70s, but plenty from the 80s and 90s too) are more beautiful and better-proportioned, and I'm very tired indeed of the aggression of new cars (which psychologically, I'm fairly certain reflects in the way people drive today too). Between an old and new Mustang, an old and new Golf, an old and new Ferrari, an old and new Mini, even an old and new entry-level Toyota like the Corolla, there's no contest for me.

It depends on the era for me. I've never been a fan of the flashy 50s styling in the US for example.

The 60s toned things down quite a bit, and I like those. But then the 70s got a bit weird, with a few notable exceptions.

The 80s never really did it for me either, a little too... miami vice for the good cars, and a little too econo-box for the bad ones.

The 90s were amazing of course. I don't even need to go there. There are some great cars from the 2000s as well.

And then we get to the teens. And we start to have problems:

That last one is a ford I think, or maybe the latest Lamborghini, not sure. We're going through an ugly phase right now, we'll come out of it. Some manufacturers are managing to keep their wits about them when it comes to styling (VAG, except lambo, Aston, I'm running out of examples).

Edit:

Ok, Tesla and Ferrari are looking good, and Subaru of course... just kidding, Subarus look like they came out of the backside of a cat.

 

[Rage0329]

Here's a tail I like. Saw it during the Woodward Dream Cruise back in August. Although the rest of the car is large, heavy, tankish, and probably drives like a boat.

Julia and myself were in my rental VW Golf (in the terrible gold/yellow/chicken crap colour) driving through Hannover 2 weeks ago. I was explaining how I never understood why people spoke so highly of Alfa Romeo Italian styling, till that very morning. I was in a tiny amount of traffic, if it can be called traffic in Braunschweig and noticed an Alfa Romeo Mito. The curves stood out immediately in the sea of VW, BMW, Renault, Citroen. Perhaps people have been right all along. It only clicked then. I picked up a brochure for a Guilia at the Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep/Ram dealership I've had my Viper serviced at last week. It's a striking car, it does look good. I think modern styling has taken steps in some strange directions without a doubt. If I think back to older Alfa Romeos though, they're just plain ugly. Hahaha. Julia said that she wished automakers made more retro looking vehicles. I named the Mustang, and Challenger. Then explained that unfortunately due to modern safety standards, cars from that era just can't be reproduced.

To be completely honest, I didn't like the styling of the Gen V Viper when it was unveiled in New York in April of 2012. I still loved the Gen IV shape. Over time though it's grown on me, and I think I like it more. More because it's modern, not because it harks back to the Gen 2 2000s era.

Road and Track just published their Performance Car of the Year (2018) online, on the Civic Type R: "That leaves the Civic. A machine many of us did not truly understand, or even like that much, at first. The bodywork seems not so much styled as vomited into place."

I think some manufacturers truly hit the nail on the head with their styling at the time. I can't say Mustangs from the 80s are awesome, but the 60s stand out, and the current generation looks fantastic when there isn't 10 of them at the same time.

 

[Wolfe]

If we have fond memories of older cars is because we're only thinking of the good ones, not the heaps of crap that most people could afford.

But I appreciate older affordable cars more than new performance cars. I'd go nuts if I spotted a 1970s Civic that somehow escaped becoming a pile of ferrous oxide. Old cars of modest means tend to have the most character of all.

There are certain things that I think older cars are generally better at than newer ones. Visibility is one of the most important ones - while I understand that thicker pillars used today are primarily for safety, they compromise visibility, and it's usually compounded by the work of car stylists trying to make things look more dramatic. I can probably count the number of newer cars with genuinely good visibility I've driven in the last few years on one hand.

Older cars tend to be physically smaller too, which might be more of a benefit here in the UK than it is in the US say, but helps with everything from parking to having more space in your lane to play with on a twisty road. And while older cars certainly don't have a monopoly on control feedback, I'd say that of the older performance cars I've driven, that's almost always the case. Steering feedback, the response of the pedals, the feel of the shifter etc.

My preference for older cars has a lot to do with the plain facts of their construction. I appreciate high visibility, and I prefer driving a smaller and lighter car. I'm fond of relative simplicity and don't want a cabin loaded with needless extras or a loathsome touchscreen. I want a manual transmission, and over here your chances are better finding one in an older car.

There are brand new cars that suit my preferences well enough, but they're fighting the tide of market and legislative demands. If it's rose-tinted glasses, it's nostalgia for how cars used to be built and sold.

On the subject of styling, I'm personally pleased with '10s styling, while I thought the '00s was the nadir of the last half-century. The Type-R that @Danoff posted is so sharp and visually interesting compared to the misshaped and unrefined slabs, blobs, and Tonka toys of the '00s. Today's Subarus are also nicely appealing, separated from my appreciation for the brand -- I thought their styling went in the wrong direction with their late '00s/early '10s generation of models.

 

[Danoff]

The Type-R that @Danoff posted is so sharp and visually interesting compared to the misshaped and unrefined slabs, blobs, and Tonka toys of the '00s.

Were you talking about this one?

 

[Wolfe]

Were you talking about this one?

Better than:

...with this headlight design:

 

[Danoff]

Better than:

...with this headlight design:

I dunno. That bar of soap and fired egg log a lot more "beautiful" than the transformer/predator/running shoe. They may be less interesting, but interesting isn't the same as beautiful. Here's a bar of soap with a fried egg from the 00's. Busy designs don't typically age well.

 

[Joey D]

There's very few older cars I actually like, and most of them are obscure at best. Muscle cars do nothing for me and the land yachts of the 50's don't really hold my interest either. Once you get back into the early 40's and earlier though, I really like the designs.

Newer cars, especially ones from the last 10 years I really like. I'm impressed by the technological advances and with how much power they can squeeze out of a relatively small 4 cylinder.

 

[Roo]

Modern, new cars are better than older cars, but I wouldn't change my 1998 Micra for anything new on sale today, because modern cars annoy me. I'm going to try not to rant, and I admit the bulk of this is aimed at my boss' 2011 Subaru Outback, with extra input from the 2004 Renault Scenic I'm still trying to decide whether to repair or scrap.

My Micra has 4 electric creature comforts: the heater, the clock, the interior light and the radio. You turn a key to start it, the only buttons smaller than an inch square are on the radio, and the handbrake is a lever. It's simple to operate, simple to maintain, and only shouts at you if you've left the lights on. If I stall it, I'm on my way in less than 2 seconds by depressing the clutch whilst tuning the key, and off we go. It's easy.

Contrast this with the Outback. It beeps at you if you open the door whilst the ignition is on - the engine doesn't have to be running, it'll beep anyway - so you can't listen to the radio with the door open. It beeps at you if you've not got your seatbelt on, which is highly irritating when I'm hopping in and out the car to open and shut gates (having had to unlock the door first). The engine has a button to start it, and the handbrake is another button, so starting and moving off takes much longer than I'm used to. I stalled it (again) at a junction once and it was a full 90 seconds before I got it moving again because I was in a hurry, got the computer confused which then had a sulk, and I had to leave it off for about 20 seconds to reset itself. There's not a lot of clutch feel, so stalling happens more often than I'd like, particularly when backing up a trailer with the fairly long reverse gear.

The Scenic, which I've driven for about 400 yards, managed all of those things and some extra beeps, such as when you put the handbrake on (again, with a button) and then again when you take the handbrake off. The clutch had no feel whatsoever but wasn't slipping, so I guess it's supposed to be like that? Then all the electrics had a hissy fit because the battery was nearly flat and now, with the battery disconnected, the boot doesn't open. Again, I can't tell if that's newer cars generally or just that vehicle, but getting in to the Outback's boot is a mission too.

My sister's 2012 Audi A1 is the newest car I've driven, and that's not as bad - having a key to turn and a manual handbrake goes a long way - but I'd still rather have the Micra.

New cars just seem so unnecessarily overcomplicated, and that annoys me. I'm hoping that when electric cars become the norm someone will offer a retrofit kit that merely makes the car move and nothing else: no touchscreens, no infinite-menu entertainment systems, no pointless trinkets. I quite liked the idea of owning a Tesla right up to the point when I sat in one. That powertrain in a base model 90s shopping trolley would suit me just fine.

Oh, and air conditioning gives me a headache.

I'll say it again: modern cars are better. There's no pink glasses here. I just find them far too irritating.

I may have failed to not rant.

 

[Wolfe]

I dunno. That bar of soap and fired egg log a lot more "beautiful" than the transformer/predator/running shoe. They may be less interesting, but interesting isn't the same as beautiful. Here's a bar of soap with a fried egg from the 00's.

It's not hideous, but it's only the least attractive rear-engined Porsche of the brand's whole history.

Busy designs don't typically age well.

I think cars need sufficient contrasting details to look complete. The '00s moved away from contrast, leaving expanses of unadorned paint-colored surface area that is garish or dreadfully bland depending on the hue and design. A bright yellow 996 is more overly-intense to my eyes than the trim of the Civic.

I also like the slatted decorations, black moldings, and external bumpers of the '70s and '80s. Cars looked "prepared" back then, not so much like plastic appliances, and I like that car makers have come back to the former.

 

[Danoff]

It's not hideous, but it's only the least attractive rear-engined Porsche of the brand's whole history.

 

[kikie]

That's not to say they aren't good or intriguing in their own way. I sometimes just feel as if they just don't capture the essence.

It's difficult to explain.

Let me try.

If you are like me, than you want cars in its basic form without any interference of electronic driving aids, without fly by wire electric steering etc ... .
A modern car without all the driving aids, except ABS and stability control, and all the electronic bells and whistles. A modern car is too complicated and makes driving less involving. They practical drive themselves.

Which car is most interesting? Well, a modern car with a modern suspension, ABS, stability and traction control and that is it. But you have to be able to turn off these safety driving controls. Get in a car, turn the ignition on, shift the thing in first gear and start driving. No electronic steering, no fly by wire stuff, just simply all mechanical part (except for the three safety feature mentioned above). A modern car with modern road holding, modern know how about safety (crumple zone) but old school driving.

Nowadays, all cars feel basically all the same and that's just wrong.


How am I doing so far?

 

[homeforsummer]

Modern, new cars are better than older cars, but I wouldn't change my 1998 Micra for anything new on sale today

To be honest, I don't think any Micra-sized car since that generation of Micra has significantly moved the game on in any way. One or two do things quite well - the VW Up and its ilk - but for their intended use I'm not sure they're leaps and bounds ahead. More safe, obviously, but as far as basic small-car things like visibility, ease of use, running costs, practicality etc... I'm not so sure. Drove a ~94 version at one of our industry days a few years back:

It was about as easy to drive as a car like that is possible to be. Small cars, I think, peaked in the 1990s and while they've not got any worse, they've more or less been holding station ever since - mainly adding safety and equipment and size.

I'm more or less with @Danoff on the 90s thing - some truly brilliant cars were launched that decade (I think America might not have been on a roll in the 90s, but Europe and Japan were smashing it out of the park), and in my experience cars from that decade offer the best mix between modern convenience, comfort and reliability, and older-car involvement, size and simplicity.

However, @Joey D makes a good point about the technological advances. For a start the general standard of cars has never been higher - I can count on one hand the number of genuinely bad cars on sale at the moment, and even those are only genuinely bad by the standards of the last five years or so. But it's also amazing how much reliable, easy-to-use performance modern cars can offer.

 

[Danoff]

But it's also amazing how much reliable, easy-to-use performance modern cars can offer.

Reliability is way up there (although I think it might be down a tad from the 2000s, that might just be my luck though). Ease of use is pretty far up there with modern cars, though visibility is down, and controls have gotten... very complicated. But you were talking about performance. From a numbers perspective, the performance on tap these days, even from a run-of-the-mill offering, is pretty amazing. Cars have gotten staggeringly fast, and turn and stop on a dime too thanks to tire technology. But...

Slow car fast is still better than fast car fast. There is something more visceral about feeling like you're doing 120 when you're doing 80 than feeling like you're doing 80 when you're doing 120. It's not necessarily about fear, but involvement. For performance cars, you kinda want a car you can actually use. A car that makes you feel like you're going fast without risking immediate jail time, a car that you can run through the revs without immediately going irresponsibly fast. And while cars of the modern era are faster, I do feel like they're not quite as fun (on the whole anyway).

 

[Rage0329]

Slow car fast is still better than fast car fast. There is something more visceral about feeling like you're doing 120 when you're doing 80 than feeling like you're doing 80 when you're doing 120. It's not necessarily about fear, but involvement. For performance cars, you kinda want a car you can actually use. A car that makes you feel like you're going fast without risking immediate jail time, a car that you can run through the revs without immediately going irresponsibly fast. And while cars of the modern era are faster, I do feel like they're not quite as fun (on the whole anyway).

Interesting opinion. I'm frequently in Germany now because girlfriend is German and whenever we have to go somewhere there's usually unrestricted sections of the Autobahn. Last year to get us to a concert I rented the cheapest piece of crap I could, an Opel Corsa. Got it up to 112mph/180kph. That car shuddered at speed. I'm not sure if it could go any faster, as my foot was flat on the floor. I paid a little extra for a Golf GTI earlier that year, topped out at 155mph/254kph on the A2 towards Berlin, right up until 220kph the car felt really planted and happy. The last 30kph of speed, then the aero wasn't working as well anymore.

I still think I'd rather own the fast car that I'd never get to use to it's full potential. Simply because from the ground up, it's a better design, better engineered, and with limits so high I'd never reach them. I can't speak for a majority of sports cars, as some I've only driven on the track, and some only on the street. I enjoyed a C7 with my brothers thoroughly when we rented one from Hertz for 2 weeks, we put 4,000 miles on it. It actually felt involving to drive. My Viper is many levels above that in terms of involvement. I feel that slower, more run of the mill cars, the ones I need to rent from airports to get to clients for work, they're dull, lack inspiration, lack involvement and sometimes make me drowsy behind the wheel. Haha.

 

[homeforsummer]

Interesting opinion. I'm frequently in Germany now because girlfriend is German and whenever we have to go somewhere there's usually unrestricted sections of the Autobahn. Last year to get us to a concert I rented the cheapest piece of crap I could, an Opel Corsa. Got it up to 112mph/180kph. That car shuddered at speed. I'm not sure if it could go any faster, as my foot was flat on the floor. I paid a little extra for a Golf GTI earlier that year, topped out at 155mph/254kph on the A2 towards Berlin, right up until 220kph the car felt really planted and happy. The last 30kph of speed, then the aero wasn't working as well anymore.

I don't think @Danoff was speaking literally about top speed alone, more the act of driving a slower car fast tends to be move involving than driving a fast car, because you can use more of its performance more of the time, and its limits - and therefore the point at which you feel like you're getting the most from the car - are so much more approachable.

Interestingly though, I've had an experience pretty much opposite to yours. A year or two ago I drove a Mk1 Golf GTI to Wolfsburg for a feature I wrote. On the way back, I drove a Golf Clubsport.

The journey to Wolfsburg was so much more fun and memorable than the drive back. The fastest I ever went was about 115mph...

...though the car was indicating a bit higher than that! It took plenty of effort to get there (on a derestricted section of autobahn, I hasten to add), and it's not the car I'd choose if I had to do so every day, but it felt a bit adventurous.

On the way back, my cruising speed was somewhere between 120-130 in the Clubsport. It would get there and hold it pretty easily. And I really can't remember much of the journey back. I was travelling demonstrably faster, but the sense of speed was so much less apparent.

I still think I'd rather own the fast car that I'd never get to use to it's full potential. Simply because from the ground up, it's a better design, better engineered, and with limits so high I'd never reach them.

I agree that faster cars tend to be better engineered (at least, better engineered for going quickly), and admittedly the fact I've never owned a properly fast car is more down to my budget than any desire.

But I could certainly buy faster cars than the ones I've owned for the money I do spend on cars - I just choose not to. My two current cars have no more than about 220bhp between them but they're entirely about feel and feedback. No traction control, no ABS (ABS and TCS are both very good things, but not really necessary in cars I drive solely for fun now and then), skinny tyres (185s for one, 175s for the other). One doesn't even have power steering, and no conventional modern car I've driven (I'm excluding Caterhams etc) has more steering feedback (not all non-PAS cars have great feedback - the Golf GTI above didn't - but this one does).

I want to be able to reach a car's limits, or at least feel like I'm approaching them. Safely. And the only way you can do that on the road is by having a car with fairly low limits. On a track? Different story. Fast cars can be brilliant fun.

 

[Danoff]

Interesting opinion. I'm frequently in Germany now because girlfriend is German and whenever we have to go somewhere there's usually unrestricted sections of the Autobahn. Last year to get us to a concert I rented the cheapest piece of crap I could, an Opel Corsa. Got it up to 112mph/180kph. That car shuddered at speed. I'm not sure if it could go any faster, as my foot was flat on the floor. I paid a little extra for a Golf GTI earlier that year, topped out at 155mph/254kph on the A2 towards Berlin, right up until 220kph the car felt really planted and happy. The last 30kph of speed, then the aero wasn't working as well anymore.

I still think I'd rather own the fast car that I'd never get to use to it's full potential. Simply because from the ground up, it's a better design, better engineered, and with limits so high I'd never reach them. I can't speak for a majority of sports cars, as some I've only driven on the track, and some only on the street. I enjoyed a C7 with my brothers thoroughly when we rented one from Hertz for 2 weeks, we put 4,000 miles on it. It actually felt involving to drive. My Viper is many levels above that in terms of involvement. I feel that slower, more run of the mill cars, the ones I need to rent from airports to get to clients for work, they're dull, lack inspiration, lack involvement and sometimes make me drowsy behind the wheel. Haha.

Obviously slow car slow is no good. Fast car slow can be pretty frustrating too. Some cars make you feel like you're going fast through involvement rather than fear (an example of feeling fast through fear would be shuddering or twitching). It could be engine noise, a convertible with the top down, responsiveness at slower speed.... and for some cars I swear it's just intangible. One of the most fun times I've ever had driving a car on the road was with a '93 NA MR2. If I'm reading wikipedia correctly, that car had 135 hp when it was brand new, and I did not drive it when it was brand new. I can't tell you exactly how it did it, but it made everything fun.