Schools in session: Is the GTR and others cars like it forgetting about the driver?

[Motominded]

Let me just go over some things before i start.

It's pretty apparent now that the holy Nurburgring lap time is the ultimate test of a car. Cars like the GTR are now boasting about its amazing numbers but i feel like there are too many variables to really see that number as a final means to judge a car. I think that allot of people just don't really understand what goes into putting together a Nurburgring lap. That's why i wanted to write this.

So let me begin.

I read an excellent article from this month's Excellence magazine. It was an interview with Walter Rohrl, former World Rally Champion and current head Porsche test driver. Now Walter has to be one of the most gifted drivers of our time and he's been lapping the Ring for the past 40 years. So I'm sure he knows what he's talking about whenever he is describing how a car feels. He is the man that set the 7:32 second lap in the 997 GT2, the 7:49 in a 997 Turbo, and the 7:28 in the Carrera GT.

One thing to consider about all those cars it that they used a standard 6 speed transmission instead of the lightning fast paddle shift unit. But the biggest reasons for these laps being what they were is Walter's knowledge of the track and luck.

Yes, Luck. When Walter did the 7:32 sec lap in the GT2, he almost hit a car coming out of Tiergarten which is the left hander after the 2km straight.
We know that the track is open to the public on most days of the week and have seen cars being passed on other record attempts at the track. Walter has told Porsche that from now on, he refuses to do any timed attempts with other cars on the track.

Now as i pointed out in another thread, the GTR is so advanced that it doesn't need an ace driver in order to accomplish amazing results. While this is good for lap times, it might not be so good for the driving experience. Porsche had this problem with the 959. That car was genesis but it was too technological for its own good.

On another forum i frequent, we had a poll on which drive train is the most popular and RWD won easily. Why? Because of fun and being a part of the driving experience. It is also why most of us still own manuals while Americans keep complaining about sitting in traffic.

On paper a 4wd car with a semi box just cant be as driver oriented as a rwd with a 6 speed but results are results and even with a genius driver, sometimes the equipment wins.

Well Porsche has listened and the return of the PDK double clutch transmission is set.

Here is an article from todays Autoblog.

"Porsche decided to do a little 'Ring running in three different 2009-spec 911 models and quietly let the results slip during a press event. A 2009 911S fitted with Porsche's new twin clutch system (PDK: Porsche Doppelkupplung), Porsche Active Stability Management and "sport tires" took the top place, scoring a 7:50. The new PDK shifts a whopping 60-percent faster than the old Tiptronic S.

The first place getter was followed by what is assumed to be a 2009 911S with a manual transmission some eight seconds back, and then a 2008 911 S another four seconds back, at 8:02. There's no word on who was driving the cars, or what exactly counts as a "sport tire."

I want to know that if a 911 S with the PDK is 1 second slower than a 997 Turbo around the track, what will a combination of :

1. 997 Turbo + PDK
2. 997 GT3 + PDK
3. 997 GT3 RS + PDK (expected in late 2009)
4. 997 GT2 + PDK

Be able to accomplish. Oh and let's not forget the successor to the Carrera GT is in the works right now as well. But there is too little info to discuss this.

What im trying to say with this article is this. To all the people that keep saying the GTR will destroy other cars that are far more expensive than it is, so what? It is not as enjoyable to the driver.

It's kind of like having a drag racing car with a trans brake, yes its faster and more consistent. But it feels better to get the same result using a clutch and throttle combo.

Porsche along with other established marks realize that there are those of you that see numbers but dont know what to make of them. Well know that there is a reason to go after the GTR, i see Porsche, other European and American makes but mostly other Japanese companies doing what ever it takes to beat the GTR. But in order to do this, you have to give unskilled drivers, cars that do the work for them.

I ask. With this onslaught of tech and electronic aids, will the need to be faster force the automakers to make cars that forgot about the driver?
__________________

 

[Leonidae]

You know, being able to afford a Carrera GT doesn't mean that you know how to drive it fast without killing you and 20 other people in process. Look at Hamilton senior for example. most of rich people buy fast cars that are easy to drive in any conditions, such as mercs, Audis or other GT cars.

And you obviously haven't seen a video about GT-R spinning out and nearly crashing at Fuji raceway, Thus, you should look for it. GT-R does NOT drive for you. If you think so, it's your own misinterpretation. GT-R can be just as playful as evo or STI when driven in correct manner. And about Porsche.. Porsche's PDK will help the driver to concentrate on his driving, instead of wondering what kind of attempt he should do to heel and toe while the corner approaches at 200km/h, which will eventually lead to the sad fact that there will be less 911-shaped holes in the hedges.

If you want new, raw, unsophisticated car for driving fast, good luck with that. There is hardly any cars that doesn't have any sort of electronic safety nets around them, and GT-R isn't even the tip of the iceberg when it comes to gadgets. if fun and adrenaline rush is what you're after, included with near death experience, get an MX-5, Elise or something along those lines. andd if you really want play with death, get a Ford Pinto.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

GT-R can be just as playful as evo or STI when driven in correct manner.

And you'd know because you've driven one, right?

That said... The Evo and STi have grown into overweight compacts loaded with gadgetry... In fact, the Evo X weighs in at merely 300lbs below the GT-R! I wouldn't call them "playful" anymore.


I call pot-shot on the Pinto bit.

At least it tries to kill you by blowing up rather than not letting you do more than a very little slide and cutting the fun.

 

[Leonidae]

I call them playful because that's what they are.. for a 4wd sedans and/or coupes. especially STI and GT-R. they might be too heavy for your liking, but that's unavoidable in a modern car.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

And you'd know because you've driven one, right?

That said... The Evo and STi have grown into overweight compacts loaded with gadgetry... In fact, the Evo X weighs in at merely 300lbs below the GT-R! I wouldn't call them "playful" anymore.


I call pot-shot on the Pinto bit.

At least it tries to kill you by blowing up rather than not letting you do more than a very little slide and cutting the fun.

I call them playful because that's what they are.. for a 4wd sedans and/or coupes. especially STI and GT-R. they might be too heavy for your liking, but that's unavoidable in a modern car.

I at both of you for thinking that either WRX or Evo have ever been or ever will be "playful". I've seen video that shows footwork on an Evo, simply put the pedal to the medal at the apex and the AWD takes care of the rest. That's why Evos are so good at Road Rallies. Now watch the footwork on a V8 with RWD, and you can plainly see that they have to feather the throttle and the tail can still slide. Now that's playful. If the new GT-R is less playful than an Evo with that much damn power then I would take a drive in a Focus XR5 Turbo before I even look at the GT-R.

Of course, if you want a roar driving experience I imagine the Z06 would be pretty fun. They say Bimmers are good too but to me it sounds like they are getting too technological too. I'd go with GM or Ford for that kind of driving experience.

 

[Leonidae]

And I at your narrowminded interpetation.. You might think highly of RWD cars only because you yourself drive a car with extremely light rear. as I said, Evo and STi are playful FOR AN AWD CAR. Get it? A playful car means different things for different drivers.

If I can get the tail out of a freaking Daihatsu Hi-Jet microvan during the summer and on dry tarmac, it IS playful with mere 1l of displacement and 3 cylinders, and I'm happy with it. It's more rewarding when you have to work to get it slide, instead of just doing the American thing and stomping the throttle in JC's "POWAAAAAH!" style to break the traction. Overpowering the grip is easy. Overcoming the grip with your actions is something else.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

And I at your narrowminded interpetation.. You might think highly of RWD cars only because you yourself drive a car with extremely light rear. as I said, Evo and STi are playful FOR AN AWD CAR. Get it? A playful car means different things for different drivers.

If I can get the tail out of a freaking Daihatsu Hi-Jet microvan during the summer and on dry tarmac, it IS playful with mere 1l of displacement and 3 cylinders, and I'm happy with it. It's more rewarding when you have to work to get it slide, instead of just doing the American thing and stomping the throttle in JC's "POWAAAAAH!" style to break the traction. Overpowering the grip is easy. Overcoming the grip with your actions is something else.

Well then I fear your interpretation of "playful" for cars is incorrect, as I don't believe that it can be interpreted as anything else other than having a tail-happy rear end. BTW, before you go criticising American cars....again....I might remind you it takes far more skill to drive a torquey RWD V8 than a powerful AWD car, far more skill. Being able to slide the tail out and having it happen without intention are very different. If you need to intentionally overcome the grip with driver actions, i.e. really work to get the tail sliding, then the car is not playful, you are.
Honestly Leo, I had more respect for you, but your posts lately seem to be so heavily biased I am beginning to wonder. Having a playful car doen't mean it is a more involving drive, or a faster/better car, it means the rear end is tail-happy.

 

[Leonidae]

I'm biased just like you are. Playful is a driver preference. I prefer to DO something to get the car slide instead of having unpredictable "OOPS!" moments. And as long as you know how to react, light rear end in a car that has a lot of torque is easy to manipulate with throttle modulation just like you said. But I find it more entertaining if I need to work for my fun.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

I'm biased just like you are. Playful is a driver preference. I prefer to DO something to get the car slide instead of having unpredictable "OOPS!" moments. And as long as you know how to react, light rear end in a car that has a lot of torque is easy to manipulate with throttle modulation just like you said. But I find it more entertaining if I need to work for my fun.

I don't think I'm biased, I have huge respect for Japanese and European, and even Korean sports cars. But I do feel I have to step up when someone claims a car is something it isn't. And like I said, it sounds like you are more playful than the car.
I sould also rephrase what I said, getting the rear out in a powerful/toquey RWD car isn't accidental, but it's easy to do. It's not an OOPS! moment unless the driver makes an error. The car doesn't make the error, but the car is playful, and will do it easily if you ask it to.

PS- Sorry if I misinterpreted what you said with my response, I'm tired and get a feeling we're on the same playing field.

Edit: Having preference to one car does not mean someone is biased. Not acknowledging that your preferred car is not the best, or saying it is everything anyone could ever want in a car is biased, as no car can fulfill every desire of every car enthusiast out there.

 

[niky]

Well... playful is as playful does...

A "playful" car, to me, is one that is responsive to control inputs, maneuverable and which can rotate quickly.

A GT-R is, by all accounts, playful. You can rotate it at will. In fact, for a modern AWD car to handle well, that's a given. Look at the Evo. Look at the RS4.

I think the TS and N4HS are confusing two items. The need to feather the throttle on corner exit or to coordinate hands and feet in shifting are not playfulness, fun or enjoyability.

It's challenge.

While some reviewers have noted that the GT-R is ridiculously easy to drive, I have yet to hear one complain that it is complete rubbish. Some have complained that it lacks driver interaction compared to the Porsche 911 GT3, but that's about it. None have said that it wasn't playful or fun.

Sadly, very few cars nowadays are as much fun as cars of yesteryear. AWD too safe? That's not the main problem. An AWD car can be just as lairy or even more so than some RWD cars (GTRs of old)... no... modern cars are equipped with suspensions that are too good... tires that are too grippy. The new M3? Too much damn grip. Herbert Grunsteidl told me on a test drive a few months ago that it was too difficult to drift the thing. Too much suspension, too much grip. He then demonstrated what he meant by pushing it to triple digit speeds and still having a drift come up short as the car regained grip too quickly.

Not even the Mazda Miata has escaped this. It still has more approachable limits than many new sportscars, but it's still too fast, with too much grip, to provide much of a challenge on a good road. Not like the old one, where you'd be slipping and sliding at half the speed... and loving every minute of it.

As for cars doing the work for the driver... I don't see it that way. Automated transmissions, traction control and ABS do one thing... they allow the driver to concentrate on the act of driving without worrying about such niggling items as wheelspin, brake lock-up and fiddling around with a grouchy, grindy transmissions that require deft footwork (shifter karts and open-wheeled racers only use the clutch from neutral to first... I dare anyone to say that those aren't fun...).

Now such things as DSC and Porsche's PASM... those things actually affect driving to a greater degree... actually making the car deviate from the line that you're trying to pilot it through.

Thankfully, on cars like the GT-R, GT3 and the M3, those things come with an "off" button. Unfortunately... many road-going cars don't have those buttons. It's a shame that the new Merc C-Class... the first small Merc in decades to actually challenge the 3-series head-on, the first small Merc in decades that actually handles well, has a nannying ESP that makes it about as fun as a Toyota Corolla at the limits of adhesion.

So the GT-R gives you the ultimate traction coming out of the corner... doesn't make it unfun. Just gets you to the next corner quicker, so you can go sideways a whole lot sooner. Personally, fighting for traction coming out of the corner may be a chest-hair growing challenge, but it gets boring after the first few laps. After the next ten, you're sitting there wondering how to get more traction... higher spring and damper rates? More camber? LSD, perhaps? Better tires? You're not thinking... hmmm... how can I get the car to go slower...

 

[Leonidae]

Fianlly someone who understands..

 

[Motominded]

You know, being able to afford a Carrera GT doesn't mean that you know how to drive it fast without killing you and 20 other people in process. Look at Hamilton senior for example. most of rich people buy fast cars that are easy to drive in any conditions, such as mercs, Audis or other GT cars.

That is always the case with any car. You know that there are people that cant handle a car with fwd doing regular street driving. But on the issue of the Carrera GT, i feel that an auto maker should include driving coarses along with the purchase of the car. For one it is a good experience to let the drivers understand what they are really dealing at the limit and it is an enjoyable event for the new owners to meet other owners and jut have fun in general.

And you obviously haven't seen a video about GT-R spinning out and nearly crashing at Fuji raceway, Thus, you should look for it. GT-R does NOT drive for you. If you think so, it's your own misinterpretation. GT-R can be just as playful as evo or STI when driven in correct manner. And about Porsche.. Porsche's PDK will help the driver to concentrate on his driving, instead of wondering what kind of attempt he should do to heel and toe while the corner approaches at 200km/h, which will eventually lead to the sad fact that there will be less 911-shaped holes in the hedges.

But i feel that heel toe and rev matching with a clutch is just as important of an element of driving as the gas + brake and steering wheel.

One thing you should know about me, I do frequent the track in real life as i have been on Road Atlanta many times in various track days. I feel that it is my own responsibility to improve my driving and the only way to keep me "out of the hedges" is practice and keep getting more and more experience. I also go on a stepping stone like system where i brake latter and latter every time so i can trust the car and my own abilities every time. I guess not everyone sees driving as an important thing as i do, it is the reason i give so much respect to the race drivers from the 60's and 70's.


You mentioned the Evo and Sti. I have driven an EVO VIII, IX, and an X. And i'm an owner of a 2006 STI so i can see where the "symetrical" AWD takes care of me. I felt that on my first visits to the track that the car was taking care of me until i got better and began to push the car closer to its limit. I have yet to go the wall with my car but i know that one of the main reasons im faster than some M3s and S2000s is my corner entry and how stable it is. But i also take pride in knowing that a bigger portion of that came from practice and developing my skills to where i'm exactly where i need to be at all times and getting smoother and smoother every time. All this going along with heel toe action with what has to be the best 6 speed transmission i have ever driven (No really).

I along with most of my friends have never owned anything but manuals and i see this continuing. If i were able to purchase a 911 or a F430, it would be one with a manual even if they charged more for it. (I know they don't)

If you want new, raw, unsophisticated car for driving fast, good luck with that. There is hardly any cars that doesn't have any sort of electronic safety nets around them, and GT-R isn't even the tip of the iceberg when it comes to gadgets. if fun and adrenaline rush is what you're after, included with near death experience, get an MX-5, Elise or something along those lines. andd if you really want play with death, get a Ford Pinto.

I see that as a shame. Most of the people that join me on track days are owners of mid 90's Mustangs, 70-mid 90's Bmw's, pre 98 Porsche 911s, and an ocean of first and second gen Miata's. That's why i see the idea of customer race cars as a good idea. Like the Ford Mustang FR500C. It gives regular people a way to enjoy their cars on a race track and learn to drive them at the same time. + They come with a clutch and shifter.

 

[Duke]

So the GT-R gives you the ultimate traction coming out of the corner... doesn't make it unfun. Just gets you to the next corner quicker, so you can go sideways a whole lot sooner. Personally, fighting for traction coming out of the corner may be a chest-hair growing challenge, but it gets boring after the first few laps. After the next ten, you're sitting there wondering how to get more traction... higher spring and damper rates? More camber? LSD, perhaps? Better tires? You're not thinking... hmmm... how can I get the car to go slower...

I agree with this with one big caveat - for a truly involving drive, particularly in a track car, I think it needs to be done 100% mechanically without electronic or automatic assistance.

I'm not talking about turning fastest laps in a race or getting from A to B most quickly or proving a point about engineering capability. I'm talking about pleasure in driving for the sake of it. To me that is an analog experience and always will be.

Manipulating steering, throttle, clutch, and shift lever are all part of the dance. If that slows the pace, then so be it. The pace is probably better off a little slower, anyway. That's what sports cars are all about to me.

Now, if we're talking GT cars, made to cover territory on regular roads with civilian traffic and bad weather quickly, comfortably, and safely, then I'm all for assistance systems.

If we're talking race cars, then speed is the ultimate goal, and by all means use as much technology as the rule book will allow. But personally, I find that the more hypercomplex, hyperassisted, and hyperexpensive the race cars are, the less I'm interested in them.

I'd much rather watch the SCCA Runoffs than all the F1 in the world. But that's just me.

 

[Loon]

I've read something sorta like what MM has, except on Evos. With all the different automatic electronic systems going in the new cars, IX and X, anyone can drive like Tommi, but some would agree that driving a V or VI is a lot more fun because you're more connected with the car and road. You're driving the car instead of the car driving you.

 

[Motominded]

I agree with this with one big caveat - for a truly involving drive, particularly in a track car, I think it needs to be done 100% mechanically without electronic or automatic assistance.

I'm not talking about turning fastest laps in a race or getting from A to B most quickly or proving a point about engineering capability. I'm talking about pleasure in driving for the sake of it. To me that is an analog experience and always will be.

Manipulating steering, throttle, clutch, and shift lever are all part of the dance. If that slows the pace, then so be it. The pace is probably better off a little slower, anyway. That's what sports cars are all about to me.

Now, if we're talking GT cars, made to cover territory on regular roads with civilian traffic and bad weather quickly, comfortably, and safely, then I'm all for assistance systems.

If we're talking race cars, then speed is the ultimate goal, and by all means use as much technology as the rule book will allow. But personally, I find that the more hypercomplex, hyperassisted, and hyperexpensive the race cars are, the less I'm interested in them.

I'd much rather watch the SCCA Runoffs than all the F1 in the world. But that's just me.

That's what im getting at right there. On another forum, we made it clear what the difference was between a:

1. Race Car
2. Street car
3. A drivers car

1. Race car: you abuse the rule book to the nth degree to get that last tenth of a second. No matter what it takes with electronics, winning is everything.

2. Street car: where you must obey speed limits and typically put the a to b commute as the main reason for owning the car and not wanting that 500hp to come around on you when you are not focusing because you are changing the radio station. This is when i feel, yeah! More tech gets me home safer.

3. Drivers car: When you are in a safe location such as a race track or a mountain road and can really enjoy your car at the limit. This includes all of the things DUKE mentioned such as accelerating, braking, steering and shifting with a clutch. You know, DRIVING! With that comes learning how to balance all these and becoming better. And because you are in a safe location, you don't need electronics taking the fun away or your ability to properly modulate the throttle and brakes and steering input and learn from it and become a better driver. So what if your slower than the guy in the gtr, everyone there will respect your skills more and you will feel better because you proved you can accomplish all that without tech.

 

[Duke]

I would never say that anyone can drive like a pro in an assisted car. But it sure is easier to get to 8/10s.

 

[YSSMAN]

That may be the greatest accomplishment of the GT-R in that case, almost anyone can take it to 8/10ths and come out alive. Although I certainly wouldn't imagine it to be as much fun as your basic run-of-the-mill 911 or Corvette, certainly there are people who may not be as performance-focused who want to do what the other guys are doing... Driving, and driving rather fast.

What all of these gizmos are doing is making fast driving more accessible to people with less talent. Although I would personally argue that it shouldn't be the case with sports cars (they demand a level of respect and skill that not all drivers have), I can understand the rationality of some companies to make their fast cars appealing to a much wider audience.

The automakers walk a fine line here with this kind of deal. Where you once had cars that were only for the die-hard fans, they're now reaching out to a far greater audience by making them more acceptable as daily drivers, easier to get ahold of and use properly, all while greatly increasing the complications of technology... And a byproduct of that is the increase in price as well.

I personally will always be a fan of the stripped down, "option delete" style cars that never sell well. I don't want fancy dual-clutch boxes, adjustable suspensions, tire pressure monitors, or lane change sensors... I just don't see the need for it in a sports car. That will always make my cars harder to find, harder to buy, and probably in the end harder to sell when I decide to get rid of them. But that's what I want, that's how I like it, and it sounds like for the most part there still are companies out there who are willing to sell them to me that way.

Maybe this is why cars like the Cayman S and CLK Black Series have gained so much respect/love from me.

 

[Duke]

I personally will always be a fan of the stripped down, "option delete" style cars that never sell well. I don't want fancy dual-clutch boxes, adjustable suspensions, tire pressure monitors, or lane change sensors.

If my 1st-gen Neon ACR was rear wheel drive, I would never have sold it. Ever.

 

[Tornado]

And my father probably should have sold his $10,000 ago.

 

[niky]

I agree with this with one big caveat - for a truly involving drive, particularly in a track car, I think it needs to be done 100% mechanically without electronic or automatic assistance.

Sadly, that's a rarity nowadays. It's for this that the new Miata is an Epic Fail for me. Perfect chassis response, dances like a ballerina... then you consider the electronic throttle and electric power steering, which rob it of linear engine response and steering feel. At least the LSD is still just an LSD. *sigh* It felt terrific carving through the hills at 8/10ths, but then we had to do cover shots for our mag. I did nearly a dozen runs for the cover shot and we just couldn't get the angles through the turn right. Had trouble nailing the apex and sussing out the braking point of the tires, thanks to the numb electric helm... and with perfect tarmac and new tires, no way were we getting a C&D style cover shot without endangering the local guard-rails...

I would never say that anyone can drive like a pro in an assisted car. But it sure is easier to get to 8/10s.

Which is where all the argument begins. People assume that because it's easier to push them, they're doing all the work for you. They're simply putting performance at a level where you have to work harder to challenge yourself.

Actually, one big problem with over-assisted cars is that it's hard to push them to 10/10ths before they start nannying you. And that nannying is damn irritating.

---

I don't really know how much I agree with Duke and Motominded about the clutch and shift dance being part of the experience... I'm a terrible heel-and-toer... to the point that I often just left-foot brake to get the whole thing over with. Maybe when I finally master it... (am just about quick enough without it... probably a few tenths quicker with...). For me, the only reason for manual shifting is complete control over power delivery... but if I can get that without having to fiddle with the clutch (sequential manual, maybe), I'm sold.

If my 1st-gen Neon ACR was rear wheel drive, I would never have sold it. Ever.

Feel the same way about the old Sentra. Power steering, but no power windows, no ABS, nothing but a decent exhaust, a carburator and a half-decent suspension.

I guess I could always just pull the ABS fuse on the new car...

 

[slidesquad#1]

I at both of you for thinking that either WRX or Evo have ever been or ever will be "playful". I've seen video that shows footwork on an Evo, simply put the pedal to the medal at the apex and the AWD takes care of the rest. That's why Evos are so good at Road Rallies. Now watch the footwork on a V8 with RWD, and you can plainly see that they have to feather the throttle and the tail can still slide. Now that's playful. If the new GT-R is less playful than an Evo with that much damn power then I would take a drive in a Focus XR5 Turbo before I even look at the GT-R.

With all due respect, and I might be quite biased here (obviously) but thats a load of bull. Have you ever driven a properly sorted "performance" AWD car? Fang an Evo through some properly twisty roads, and if you come out of the other end without having "fun", you're a liar. And the notion that only having the rear end slip out is painful is pretty narrow minded.

First time my boss drove my car, he took it for a 5 minute fang and came back with a s**t-eating grin on his face, and asked if I wanted to trade cars. With? Mk 4 Supra TT, and he's about as 'playful' with cars as you get.

Before making claims like that, get out there and drive an Evo, Sti, GTi-R etc. at 8/9/10ths. Come back and say they do everything for you.
_________________________________________________________________

To contribute to the topic, I think it's very hard to draw a line.

Lightweight is good. No electrical nannies are good. But. Not always. There's always times, such as when you're coming home dead tired after training, or it's pouring down with rain, when your girlfriend is driving, where you appreciate creature comforts/ESP/what have you.

If not, why isn't everyone of you driving along in a Caterham or similar kit car? Doors? Bah, dead weight!

Besides, the reason cars are becoming the way they are is because that's what we expect of them. By we, I mean the people who are actually buying them. Sure, us enthusiasts would be wetting ourselves if the GT-R or the Z06 didn't have TCS, stability control, added weight from the safety features, but how many of us are actually in a position to buy these cars?
For Joe Well-off, the safety features are a selling point. They want to know that their car is fast, but they also want to know it's safe, and that's who the manufacturers, inevitably, cater to.

My 2 cents anyways.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

With all due respect, and I might be quite biased here (obviously) but thats a load of bull. Have you ever driven a properly sorted "performance" AWD car? Fang an Evo through some properly twisty roads, and if you come out of the other end without having "fun", you're a liar. And the notion that only having the rear end slip out is painful is pretty narrow minded.

First time my boss drove my car, he took it for a 5 minute fang and came back with a s**t-eating grin on his face, and asked if I wanted to trade cars. With? Mk 4 Supra TT, and he's about as 'playful' with cars as you get.

Before making claims like that, get out there and drive an Evo, Sti, GTi-R etc. at 8/9/10ths. Come back and say they do everything for you.
_________________________________________________________________

Where did I say they weren't fun cars? Pulling G's is always going to be fun, I'm arguing that playful means the car has a tail-happy rear end, not that it's fun. A responsive cars is responsive IMO, just because a car is responsive doesn't make it playful. Get what I'm saying?

 

[YSSMAN]

Truthfully that depends on the car, in terms of AWD models. They can be designed to be tail-happy, or that can be a fault of the way the car actually is. The Mitsubishi Evolution comes to mind, particularly the change from gen VII to VIII with the addition of the diffuser over the window on the MR. It made the back more stable, and although it was certainly "quicker," it wasn't as much fun to drive as its predecessor.

 

[slidesquad#1]

Where did I say they weren't fun cars? Pulling G's is always going to be fun, I'm arguing that playful means the car has a tail-happy rear end, not that it's fun. A responsive cars is responsive IMO, just because a car is responsive doesn't make it playful. Get what I'm saying?

I guess that makes sense to a degree. For me, playful=fun, but I guess that differs from person to person.