The most practical "driver's" car(s)

[YSSMAN]

Murano? RDX? You always seem to defer to the 'just out' cars on the market, YSSMAN - they're not always the best, and if they're domestic, they're usually also-rans.

So a Nissan that is on a platform that is about to be replaced and an Acura that compromises capacity for sport makes them both automatically better than the Outlook? I beg to differ. What it comes down to is that Saturn is offering the best bang-for-buck in the growing crossover segment by giving you 7/8 seating, a 276 BHP 3.6L V6, a six-speed automatic, and a 4500lb towing capacity? Not to mention it drives like a car to boot...

Sure, it would be great the have the all-new RDX out there mixing it up with the other crossover/SUV things. But to be honest, it is just a CR-V with a turbocharger, and certainly isn't the best in it's size class. That award goes to the CX-7 for the combination of capability and sport, however the note here once again was "practicality", and I would deem the Outlook XR a better choice here.

 

[JCE]

YSS any current Nissan is automatically better than any current Saturn. I'm sorry, but its true. Until the Astra VXR gets over here this will always be the case. And I'd take the Acura, Toyota, or Nissan SUV over any GM SUV with exception to the SRX. And if I HAD to choose between an SRX and a FX35/FX45 I'd choose the FX in a heartbeat.

 

[Troux]

Too bad it's gotta be brand new. Had somethin' in mind.

 

[///M-Spec]

What measure of practicality are you willing to give up for performance? And vice-versa?

And also (trying not to sound like a smartass) how would you define a 'driver's car'? Is it a 'I know one when I see one' sort of thing, or are there certain characteristics the car must have to be considered?


M

 

[TYP-27R]

simple once again m5, evoIX=supercar beater, 4 doors, a boot, drivers car most likely means has an enjoyability factor if you know what i mean, such as a raw edginess that makes you say now thats a piece of machinery!!!👍

 

[Kent]

Just wanted to remind everyone that "fun" in driving comes from your own enthusiasm.
I mean hell, one week we're all in here talking about how this car or that one doesn't have enough feel and then a week later we're talking about how this cross-over or that cross-over is the best driver's car.

That doesn't bother me but it does remind me that the "fun" of driving is something we create on our own.

 

[YSSMAN]

YSS any current Nissan is automatically better than any current Saturn. I'm sorry, but its true. Until the Astra VXR gets over here this will always be the case. And I'd take the Acura, Toyota, or Nissan SUV over any GM SUV with exception to the SRX. And if I HAD to choose between an SRX and a FX35/FX45 I'd choose the FX in a heartbeat.

I'd care to debate the differences between Nissans and Saturns most times, but that is generally a car-by-car difference. Nissan is better compared to Chevrolet, as both brands do the whole car/truck thing, while Saturn focuses more on cars and "low-lying" SUV/Crossovers. I think until you have seen an Outlook in person, both inside and out, you probably won't believe me. It is arguably the best "truck" GM makes right now, with high standards set with build quality, efficiency, and the use of space. I have yet to find a three-row crossover that actually has space behind it to carry a decent amount of cargo.

...As for the "any SUV" deal, I think that is a bit misguided as well. Considering that Nissan dropped the ball with their big SUV group, Toyota hasn't been relevant since they first appeared early in the decade, and Honda has never really tried, what else is there? Full-size SUVs are what we do best, and there really isn't any way around that. Knocking it down a notch, the SRX is arguably one of the best out there as it too has an emphasis on practicality all while remaining sporty. As someone who has driven an FX45, I'd be happy to tell you that it is a great truck, but by comparison to an SRX, I'd go for the Caddy. The FX45 was too cramped, and didn't offer enough space for the junk we would presumably be carrying with us on long-distance trips. Sure, its fun to have a truck that can out-accelerate most "modern" sports cars, and handle as well as they do to boot, but when it comes to practicality, that doesn't always win-out in the end.

---

It is very easy for all of us to think like the 20-something folks that we are when it comes to shopping for a new car, but if you were to add even 10-15 years onto your life, will you be as likely to make the choices you are making right now when it comes to cars? Practicality seems to have a bit of a variance as life goes on, beyond that a tolerance for "sport" when it comes to the ride/handling of most cars and trucks.

...Thus I made the choices as I saw fit. Sure, I want to have something that can be "fun" when it needs to be, however I don't want to be driving what amounts to a race car all the time...

 

[JCE]

What measure of practicality are you willing to give up for performance? And vice-versa?

And also (trying not to sound like a smartass) how would you define a 'driver's car'? Is it a 'I know one when I see one' sort of thing, or are there certain characteristics the car must have to be considered?


M

Well everyone's definition of a "driver's car" will differ, which is good. What I would consider a driver's car is a car that is fun to drive even in the daily commute to work. The fun can be subjective, some people may like more acceleration and some people may prefer what the car is like around corners. And some (like me) prefer a combination of those two followed by the overall driving "feel"--like from how direct the steering is...etc.

Just wanted to remind everyone that "fun" in driving comes from your own enthusiasm.
I mean hell, one week we're all in here talking about how this car or that one doesn't have enough feel and then a week later we're talking about how this cross-over or that cross-over is the best driver's car.

That doesn't bother me but it does remind me that the "fun" of driving is something we create on our own.

That is certainly true, but the car's abilities have alot to do with the "funfactor" of driving. At least in my opinion anyway.

I'd care to debate the differences between Nissans and Saturns most times, but that is generally a car-by-car difference. Nissan is better compared to Chevrolet, as both brands do the whole car/truck thing, while Saturn focuses more on cars and "low-lying" SUV/Crossovers. I think until you have seen an Outlook in person, both inside and out, you probably won't believe me. It is arguably the best "truck" GM makes right now, with high standards set with build quality, efficiency, and the use of space. I have yet to find a three-row crossover that actually has space behind it to carry a decent amount of cargo.

...As for the "any SUV" deal, I think that is a bit misguided as well. Considering that Nissan dropped the ball with their big SUV group, Toyota hasn't been relevant since they first appeared early in the decade, and Honda has never really tried, what else is there? Full-size SUVs are what we do best, and there really isn't any way around that. Knocking it down a notch, the SRX is arguably one of the best out there as it too has an emphasis on practicality all while remaining sporty. As someone who has driven an FX45, I'd be happy to tell you that it is a great truck, but by comparison to an SRX, I'd go for the Caddy. The FX45 was too cramped, and didn't offer enough space for the junk we would presumably be carrying with us on long-distance trips. Sure, its fun to have a truck that can out-accelerate most "modern" sports cars, and handle as well as they do to boot, but when it comes to practicality, that doesn't always win-out in the end.

---

It is very easy for all of us to think like the 20-something folks that we are when it comes to shopping for a new car, but if you were to add even 10-15 years onto your life, will you be as likely to make the choices you are making right now when it comes to cars? Practicality seems to have a bit of a variance as life goes on, beyond that a tolerance for "sport" when it comes to the ride/handling of most cars and trucks.

...Thus I made the choices as I saw fit. Sure, I want to have something that can be "fun" when it needs to be, however I don't want to be driving what amounts to a race car all the time...

I appreciate this post because you (as usual) make sense. Nothing like a healthy debate eh?

Oh, and I'd still take my less-interior spaced much faster FX over anything GM. The only GM SUV that is probably faster is the Trailblazer SS--which is one bad mofo having seen one in person.

 

[///M-Spec]

Well everyone's definition of a "driver's car" will differ, which is good. What I would consider a driver's car is a car that is fun to drive even in the daily commute to work. The fun can be subjective, some people may like more acceleration and some people may prefer what the car is like around corners. And some (like me) prefer a combination of those two followed by the overall driving "feel"--like from how direct the steering is...etc.

Given your response, the G sounds like a good fit for you. You sound like you want interaction with the car, not just to waft along on a wave of torque (though the G can do that too). I haven't driven the new ones, but the older ones had a lot going for them. If you want a stick, though, you might have a hard time getting your hands on one for much less than retail. I tried like heck to get a 'good deal' on a 6MT several years ago and the dealers would barely budge.


M

 

[1X83Z]

Sure, it would be great the have the all-new RDX out there mixing it up with the other crossover/SUV things. But to be honest, it is just a CR-V with a turbocharger, and certainly isn't the best in it's size class. That award goes to the CX-7 for the combination of capability and sport, however the note here once again was "practicality", and I would deem the Outlook XR a better choice here.

Practicality = 50%
Drivers' car = 50%

The Outlook is NOT a drivers' car in any sense of the term. I renew my statement that you're too focused on the just-released products, when they're not usually the best.

And by the way, can someone explain to me why the Mazda CX-7 is such a drivers' car? I agree it's being pitched the way, but I've looked at the stats and it's really not. For one, it's the second-heaviest vehicle on the market that's under 185 inches in length. Furthermore, it comes with no sport suspension (even on the 'Sport' model) and regular H-rated tires like every other family car on the market. It's got the same horsepower rating as the Hyundai Santa Fe despite being several hundred pounds heavier, and its 0-60 time is on-par with the Mazda Tribute it temporarily replaces.

In my book, the CX-7 is only sporty when it comes to its styling, which is so expressive it intrudes on interior space, and the efficiency of its engine, which is only par for the course in terms of power but falls behind when it comes to fuel economy. In a word, it's weak.

 

[McLaren]

simple once again m5, evoIX=supercar beater, 4 doors, a boot, drivers car most likely means has an enjoyability factor if you know what i mean, such as a raw edginess that makes you say now thats a piece of machinery!!!👍

What supercars are these? 1980's?

Because the only Evo beating supercars is the FQs, and last I checked, I don't believe there were plans on releasing them in Texas, let alone, the U.S.

 

[=V8 Power=]

Easy...

1. Pontiac GTO 6.0L V8 400HP

2. Dodge Charger SRT/8 6.1L V8 421HP

3. Chevy Trailblazer SS 6.0L V8 391HP

Notice a trend here....

 

[McLaren]

The Charger sits $1,000K under his budget and a loaded runs $43,330 so like the 335i, he'd only be left with a couple options to stay within reason.

The other 2 are great choices. 👍

 

[=V8 Power=]

The Charger sits $1,000K under his budget and a loaded runs $43,330 so like the 335i, he'd only be left with a couple options to stay within reason.

The other 2 are great choices. 👍

bah, what options do you really need when you have a 6.1L V8 under the hood

 

[YSSMAN]

Practicality = 50%
Drivers' car = 50%

The Outlook is NOT a drivers' car in any sense of the term. I renew my statement that you're too focused on the just-released products, when they're not usually the best.

And by the way, can someone explain to me why the Mazda CX-7 is such a drivers' car?

The Outlook may not be able to take the esses at 90 MPH, but for its size it drives quite well. For example:

Speaking of driving—the Outlook is impressive on the road. We took it on a cross-state, 300-mile round trip from Pontiac to Grand Rapids, Michigan, which it easily handled on far less than a single 22-gallon tank of gas. We found a comfortable, exceptionally quiet ride from the all-independent suspension, more than adequate performance and decent handling for such a large vehicle.

The Outlook and the Acadia may not be as much fun to drive as the new Mazda CX-9, but four-wheel independent suspension, a relatively low center of gravity, and GM's willing new six-speed manu-matic help make both the Saturn and the GMC far more nimble than a full-size SUV, and that's all that will matter to most people... but the crossovers' incredibly stiff chassis and good wheel control almost make up for any shortcomings.

Like many modern people movers, the Outlook has a standard (non-defeat) stability control system. Yet even with its safety handcuffs firmly tightened, the Outlook provides lively, precise, rack-and-pinion steering up to the 57-mph slalom-test limit. On the skid pad, the story is similar, with a modest 0.72g lateral acceleration figure. These handling numbers are surprisingly close to those of a similarly sized Mercedes-Benz GL450, but we'd also point out that the $55,000 V8-powered Benz is quite a bit quicker and much thirstier.

...It isn't a race car, and nobody expected it to act that way. There is plenty of positive feel from behind the wheel, and that what matters. Nobody in their right mind is going to go out and buy the XR because it is a quick truck, if they wanted that they would shop for the smaller, next-generation VUE, but because it offers a solid value, decent feedback, and more than enough practicality for the whole family.

But even then, it is a difference of opinion as to what one would want, and what one wouldn't. I'd prefer a crossover that performs moderately well, but includes plenty of value, safety, and fuel economy. Beyond that, they build them not too far from where I live, and that is indeed supporting your neighbors more than ever...

 

[JCE]

Easy...

1. Pontiac GTO 6.0L V8 400HP

2. Dodge Charger SRT/8 6.1L V8 421HP

3. Chevy Trailblazer SS 6.0L V8 391HP

Notice a trend here....

As much as I love your choices the GTO loses because I can't call it practical with only 2 doors. If we had the Commodore here I would put it at the VERY TOP of my list. According to Edmunds.com the Charger SRT-8 has an MSRP of $35,320 USD. If that is the case then what a deal that thing is...420bhp for $35k? I'm sold. Plus, what's awsome is when it came out I hated it--mostly for being a saloon--but after driving an orange R/T with black stripes and trim I fell in love with it. The SRT-8 may have more power and a larger engine but I'd get either the standard R/T or the Daytona R/T. I just prefer the stripes and the R/T badge.

Charger pricing: http://www.edmunds.com/new/2006/dodge/chargersrt8/100640711/prices.html

The Trailblazer SS sticks right under the price limit, its MSRP is $37,955 (plus or minus $1000).

I might have to change one of my choices again...the Charger R/T or SRT-8 is just too good to refuse.

Charger R/T:

Good god that orange one is sexy.

*edit*
Oh and I forgot to mention that the normal Charger R/T has an AWD option...so the acceleration is even better...though I still prefer RWD.

 

[1X83Z]

The Outlook may not be able to take the esses at 90 MPH, but for its size it drives quite well. For example:

The strongest statements from any of those quotes are, from the first one, "decent handling for such a large vehicle;" from the second one, "more nimble than a full-size SUV;" and from the last one, "lively" and "precise." Faint praise considering things said about vehicles such as the Infiniti FX and the RDX.

But even then, it is a difference of opinion as to what one would want, and what one wouldn't. I'd prefer a crossover that performs moderately well, but includes plenty of value, safety, and fuel economy.

Alas, that's not the point of the thread, as we're looking for the most practical drivers' car - not something that has value, safety, and fuel economy with performance tacked on as an alterior benefit. That's how I took it anyway.

 

[YSSMAN]

Alas, that's not the point of the thread, as we're looking for the most practical drivers' car - not something that has value, safety, and fuel economy with performance tacked on as an alterior benefit. That's how I took it anyway.

Well, I'm happy to agree to disagree. It would have been too easy to just run around and point out cars like the G35, 335i, Charger, etc. Hence the reason why I did a sedan, wagon, and a crossover. Of the three, I would be far more likely to go out and get the G8/Commodore in a heartbeat, but I figured the crossover vote needed attention since JCE did say that they counted. The Trailblazer SS certainly is a helluva lot more sporty and indeed carries as much, tows as much, and in some respects is a bit more "cool" (although a twin-turbocharged Atlas Envoy would have been awesome!)... But that wasn't the whole point.

Meh, whatever. The vote is practically interchangeable with the CX-7 or CX-9 anyway. I'd be happier with the Outlook in most cases, but it isn't exactly what I'd be looking for (personally). I've been spoiled by Volkswagen, and you have to demand some level of luxury and moderate personal involvement with the drive. If I was looking for that much space and cargo room, the Passat gets the automatic vote here. I could save quite a bit of cash and just go for the 2.0T, but who doesn't love a high-output 3.6L VR6? Here's to hoping that we do get the R36 Wagon in America, as that would be an automatic shoe-in.

...Which gets me thinking. We're supposed to be getting the R32 this year as well. Thats a shoe-in for me as well, that is once we get it here, as IMO it is pretty much one of the most "perfect" brand-new cars outside of the Commodore/G8 and the 335i...

 

[1X83Z]

Meh, whatever. The vote is practically interchangeable with the CX-7 or CX-9 anyway.

And to that point:

And by the way, can someone explain to me why the Mazda CX-7 is such a drivers' car? I agree it's being pitched the way, but I've looked at the stats and it's really not. For one, it's the second-heaviest vehicle on the market that's under 185 inches in length. Furthermore, it comes with no sport suspension (even on the 'Sport' model) and regular H-rated tires like every other family car on the market. It's got the same horsepower rating as the Hyundai Santa Fe despite being several hundred pounds heavier, and its 0-60 time is on-par with the Mazda Tribute it temporarily replaces.

In my book, the CX-7 is only sporty when it comes to its styling, which is so expressive it intrudes on interior space, and the efficiency of its engine, which is only par for the course in terms of power but falls behind when it comes to fuel economy. In a word, it's weak.

 

[McLaren]

The Trailblazer SS sticks right under the price limit, its MSRP is $37,955 (plus or minus $1000).

According to GM, the SS is MSRP at $32,055.

 

[///M-Spec]

The SRT-8 and R/T are wicked cool cars, but neither can be had with a manual tranny, thus removing a signifigant layer of 'driver interaction'. Still, they make a good argument for the whole 'wafting along on a tsunami wave of torque' style of driving.


M

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

I'm going to go with what hasn't been mentioned yet.

-Honda Integra Type S [JP] (Formerly sold in the US, as the Acura RSX Type S)
All around, an excellent choice. Exceptional chassis design and handling, for an FWD car. Good power, both in terms of peak HP and powerband, while still maintaining street usability and gas mileage. Suspension design and setup allows for sharp handling and feedback, while still avoiding being over-agressive for street use. Good interior space, large hatch area, and a nice stereo.

-Acura TSX
Many of the same benefits as the RSX, but in an attractive four-door package. Once again, great motor and chassis, and well appointed interior. Very nice audio system, and an incredibly slick, sharp, 6spd manual transmisson. Several minor, but very cool, features, foremost being the innovative interior "mood lighting", which is simply stunning in person.

-Toyota Celica GT-S [JP] (No longer sold in the US)
The Integra's long-time rival. Has many of the same benefits, but trades the Integra's compact, sharp, styling, for a longer, sleeker, appearance. Interior appointments aren't quite as nice as Honda's offerring, however, it offers the legendary Toyota quality and reliability. Proven, powerful, motor, an extremely neutral handling balance, and very economical.

-Mazdaspeed6
"The everyday Evo". Surprisingly good handling, a very nice motor, and all placed in the 6's proven body, allowing for a great amount of practicality. Has an edge over the STi and Evo in this class, as it's more street-oriented, as opposed to the Subaru and Mitsubishi offerings' track-biased setup. Because of that, the suspension is more livable, and the less agressive motor and transmission tuning makes for better reliability, and a powerband that's more practical for use in day-to-day driving.

The US, sadly, has lost many cars that would fit this class, in the past few years. Many others have been moved upmarket, with higher prices, softer responses, and greater weight, causing them to no longer fit this class.

As for the CX-7... it's sportier than one might think. Its main advantage is its use of a car platform, which gives it a low center of gravity, a chassis tuned towards sporty driving, and a car-based, active AWD system, as opposed to the traditional SUV 4WD system.

 

[JCE]

According to GM, the SS is MSRP at $32,055.

I got my MSRP quote from Edmunds's review of it. So ether way its well within my range. And 391bhp in an SUV is nothing to sneeze at. That's getting into the Range Rover Sport and Cayenne S catagory.

I'm going to go with what hasn't been mentioned yet.

-Honda Integra Type S [JP] (Formerly sold in the US, as the Acura RSX Type S)
All around, an excellent choice. Exceptional chassis design and handling, for an FWD car. Good power, both in terms of peak HP and powerband, while still maintaining street usability and gas mileage. Suspension design and setup allows for sharp handling and feedback, while still avoiding being over-agressive for street use. Good interior space, large hatch area, and a nice stereo.

-Acura TSX
Many of the same benefits as the RSX, but in an attractive four-door package. Once again, great motor and chassis, and well appointed interior. Very nice audio system, and an incredibly slick, sharp, 6spd manual transmisson. Several minor, but very cool, features, foremost being the innovative interior "mood lighting", which is simply stunning in person.

-Toyota Celica GT-S [JP] (No longer sold in the US)
The Integra's long-time rival. Has many of the same benefits, but trades the Integra's compact, sharp, styling, for a longer, sleeker, appearance. Interior appointments aren't quite as nice as Honda's offerring, however, it offers the legendary Toyota quality and reliability. Proven, powerful, motor, an extremely neutral handling balance, and very economical.

-Mazdaspeed6
"The everyday Evo". Surprisingly good handling, a very nice motor, and all placed in the 6's proven body, allowing for a great amount of practicality. Has an edge over the STi and Evo in this class, as it's more street-oriented, as opposed to the Subaru and Mitsubishi offerings' track-biased setup. Because of that, the suspension is more livable, and the less agressive motor and transmission tuning makes for better reliability, and a powerband that's more practical for use in day-to-day driving.

The US, sadly, has lost many cars that would fit this class, in the past few years. Many others have been moved upmarket, with higher prices, softer responses, and greater weight, causing them to no longer fit this class.

As for the CX-7... it's sportier than one might think. Its main advantage is its use of a car platform, which gives it a low center of gravity, a chassis tuned towards sporty driving, and a car-based, active AWD system, as opposed to the traditional SUV 4WD system.

The TSX is a fantastic car. If Honda would only put an AWD system in it I would want one. The Mazdaspeed6 is just one bad mofo. As for the Celica...I disagree. I HATED the last generation. To me the RSX and Celica are in the catagory for me--and that isn't a good thing. The RSX looks 50 times better than the Celica...but the Celica has a better driving "feel" to me. The RSX seems too "stiff" and "understeer" prone around corners. I do not like the fact that they are FWD with high-revving engines. Lack of torque is what kills these two cars for me. I'll take my Sentra SE-R SpecV and Mazdaspeed3 with the torque and bhp over these two with ONLY the bhp.

The SRT-8 and R/T are wicked cool cars, but neither can be had with a manual tranny, thus removing a signifigant layer of 'driver interaction'. Still, they make a good argument for the whole 'wafting along on a tsunami wave of torque' style of driving.

Don't forget the endless and mindless powersliding. That has an appeal as well I think. Think as it a cheap E55 with less of an interior.

 

[=V8 Power=]

Plus, what's awsome is when it came out I hated it--mostly for being a saloon--but after driving an orange R/T with black stripes and trim I fell in love with it. The SRT-8 may have more power and a larger engine but I'd get either the standard R/T or the Daytona R/T. I just prefer the stripes and the R/T badge.

Ahh see I'm the opposite on that. I prefer to have a car that looks stock and boring, but under the hood a beast is waiting. Either way I agree the charger is an awesome ride.

 

[YSSMAN]

*cough*Commodore/G8*cough

I think a 367 BHP L76 and a six-speed T56 will make the difference in showing the Charger R/T "Daytona" who's boss...

 

[JCE]

*cough*Commodore/G8*cough

I think a 367 BHP L76 and a six-speed T56 will make the difference in showing the Charger R/T "Daytona" who's boss...

Badge it under an American carmaker's badge and I'll 100% completely agree with you. Mind you, I want Pontiac to have a GXP/GTP model with 400bhp+.

And, until the G8 is officially sold here the RWD saloon muscle car award is currently being held by the Charger R/T or SRT-8.

 

[=V8 Power=]

Badge it under an American carmaker's badge and I'll 100% completely agree with you. Mind you, I want Pontiac to have a GXP/GTP model with 400bhp+.

It is, in Saudia Arabia that car is sold as the Chevy Lumina
http://www.gmarabia.com/content_data/LAAM/ME/en/GBPME/001/G1/1L/1L_home.html?cntryCd=SA

Even so, the Dodge Charger SRT/8 is still faster. It makes 425 HP vs the Lumina's 360 HP. Charger Wins

 

[JCE]

I meant an American badge. As in, Pontiac.

 

[YSSMAN]

Even so, the Dodge Charger SRT/8 is still faster. It makes 425 HP vs the Lumina's 360 HP. Charger Wins

Once the car hits the American streets, there are going to be a few more versions that just the 367 BHP model.

- Pontiac G8: Basic model, 3.9L V6, good for about 240 BHP. Six-speed manuals and automatics across the board.

- Pontiac G8 GT: A step-up, may see the 3.6L LY7 with direct-injection from the CTS good for 300 BHP. Six-speed manuals and automatics across the board... Although, they could use the LS4 from the current Grand Prix GXP...

- Pontiac G8 GTP: A carbon-copy of the SS-V, 367 BHP 6.0L V8, six-speeds across the board.

- Pontiac G8 GXP: Top-line model, good for 400 BHP with the LS2, probably a six-speed manual only, but an automatic certainly isn't out of the question.

So pretty much on every level the G8 will more than likely knock the Charger out. We won't know for sure until Chicago in a few weeks, but my guess is that the lineup should look similar to above...

 

[bennyrrr]

My 3 choices would have to be grouped into 3 catagories. An offroader, a weekend car, and a daily driver.

The Offroader: Toyota FJ Cruiser. Bang for your buck. Bases at $22,100. 239 HP. 278 ft lbs torque. MPG in the high teens and low 20's. Full loaded it hits near $30,000.

Weekender: Chevrolet Corvette Z06. Costs 1/3 of a Ferrari and can out perform it. You can get it serviced at the local neighborhood dealer. It will run reliably and run fast. Drive it to the track, race it for a day, drive it back. You cant get much better than that.

Daily Driver: Dodge Magnum. Order one up any way you like it. V6'ed for economy, V8'ed for power with daily use, or SRT'ed for really quick trips to the Home Depot and back. It hauls ass and luggage. Not to mention, it flies under the radar (with a load of crap in the back.)