Defining Fun-to-Drive: Not an easy task, but I'll try
Well, it would appear there's some passion when it comes to the definition of "fun-to-drive." First I must say I'm glad to see this, for if nothing else it proves people are at least still thinking about the concept of fun-to-drive (the Toyota-ization of so many modern cars had me thinking it was a dying topic of concern).
Ironically (or maybe appropriately) I happen to be driving my Ford GT yesterday (versus a random test car) and as many of you can probably guess I consider the GT one of the most fun-to-drive vehicles I've ever had the pleasure of experiencing. After reading through all the comments yesterday I drove it home and was more congnizant of FTD than I've been in a long time. But I can appreciate the fact that most folks haven't experienced a GT, and I would emphasize that it certainly doesn't take $150,000 to experience FTD.
Rather than argue which cars are or are not fun-to-drive, I'll describe the various components that, in my opinion, define it.
1. The most important component of "fun-to-drive" relates to how responsive a vehicle is. When I turn the wheel, press on the accelerator or push on the brake pedal I need the vehicle to respond. And there is a responsiveness "sweet zone." Too little is bad, as you might expect, but too much is also bad. So is a "non-linear" response, meaning the level of response changes at an abrupt or unpredictable rate. In general, the lighter a car is the more responsive it will be, particularly in the areas of suspension reaction and body roll. This is why trucks and SUVs are at a natural disadvantage in terms of being fun-to-drive, and smaller, lighter sports cars are better suited to delivering FTD -- though as usual there are occasional exceptions.
2. The next most important component is intuitive. This is a more nebulous trait than responsiveness, but it's just as important, and they are related to each other. I'll use steering to describe and differentiate the two. Responsive steering will provide a consistent, predictable change in the car's direction based on how far the driver turns the wheel. But intuitive steering will "talk" to the driver via the weightiness and resistence felt while turning the wheel. In other words, a car could have very linear steering that still doesn't "talk" to the driver. The intuitive aspect goes a step beyond just being responsive, and this trait applies to everything from steering to braking to throttle response and more.
3. I would describe the final element as cohesive. Basically, all the primary control elements of the car (steering, brakes, drivetrain, suspension) have to work together. Having 600 horsepower is great, but if the shifter makes accessing those horsepower an excercise in frustration they become a lot of wasted potential. Conversely, a 65 horsepower car with a responsive and intuitive shifter can deliver a far higher fun-to-drive factor -- even if it's not as fast. A cohesive vehicle doesn't have a glaring deficiency (or deficiencies), though it can have a few "quirks" that keep it from being "perfect." In fact, trying to make a "quirk-free" or "perfect" car is a great way to kill FTD.
Now I'll throw out some real-world examples of what I'm talking about:
1. Responsive: The Toyota Camry has responsive steering, meaning the change in the car's direction is properly matched to the change in steering wheel angle. The newest BMW 5 series does not have responsive steering -- when you turn the wheel you don't really know what you'll get because the response can change based on speed, amount of steering input and/or how nervous you're making the stability control system (make it too nervous and it will cut your steering input -- regardless of what you do to the wheel).
2. Intuitive: The Toyota Camry does not have intuitive steering, meaning you don't get a sense what angle the front wheels are at or how much traction you have left through the wheel. It should be noted that Toyota is getting better at this, at least in the Camry, but it's still not as good as its primary competitor, the Honda Accord. The Ferrari F430 and Porsche Cayman/911 GT3 probably have the most intuitive steering on the market, though the BMW 3 Series, Lotus Elise and Ford GT are not far behind. The Mazda 3, Honda Civic and Ford Focus are strong here as well.
3. Cohesive: The BMW 3 Series is extremely cohesive. The engine, steering, brakes, transmission and suspension all work together in harmony. Same goes for the Mazda Miata and Ford GT. The Corvette is close, though the manual transmission is still the weak spot. The Viper is a mess. It's powerful but the transmission dilutes the horsepower potential, and the steering is unnecessarily slow (or maybe necessarily slow to protect owners...). These Viper traits go beyond "quirky" -- they're just plain annoying, and they hamper FTD.
That's the short (blog) version. A book could be written on the subject, but I need to find an agent first.
Thanks for that.
You're editor in chief, go make those three items standard metrics in edmunds reviews!
Fun to drive is subjective. It all comes down to opinion. As we all know; opinions are like annal orifices, everybody has one. And they all stink but mine.
My '06 WRX Limited wagon meets Karl's criteria, at least for me it does. :)
KB,
That was a detailed explanation and its good to see what YOU think defines fun to drive. Alas, as norm1 said its still subjective and people can say whatever. I think a lot of people would disagree with the idea that a weak engined car is still fun to drive just because the steering responsiveness is spot on or the shifter is fluid. To me engine power is definitely part of the equation even though all cars on the market today have more than enough power for everyday use.
I agreed with the post until he mentioned the vanilla-plain 3 series. That car is like a trip to the accountant. I don't care if we're talking aobut barging down canyon roads in Switzerland - totally ignoring speed limits - or cruising the Autobahn, it's a placid, Buick-like car with little personality, fun or excitement. It's capable, removed-from-the-road, quiet and huge...
Thanks Karl, I now have a new word to accurately describe my S2000
"To sum it all up, I find it very cohesive"
Rolls off the tongue quite nicely actually...
Karl,
I tried to leave a temporary comment for the Temporary Tittle article. It was an easy read.
I enjoyed the read. Cohesive designs are what breed car clubs and individual car passion. There is a post in the long terms tests relating wind buffeting in a positive light in a Jeep. As that is part of what makes a jeep a Jeep. I have found one of the greatest downfalls of current cars with excellent execution is being overwieght. Honestly, 3500+ lb cars lose something, destroying their cohesion in my mind.
Thanks Karl, I also think you should add this type of discussion to your reviews merely for comparison
BDC, I would agree that the BMW has gotten larger (fatter?) over the past 15 years, and it isn't as fun, overall, as it used to be. But it is still a cohesive package. I guess a more positive (or negative?) way to say it would be, "The BMW 3 Series has consistently lost its core FTD factor across the board, meaning the brakes, steering and suspension have all deteriorated at the same rate."
Well I guess you can boil it all down to this, when you sit in the drivers seat and drive the car, when you get out of the car with a big smile on your face, you know you had fun. I've had a lot of fun cars and some were $500 winter beaters. I might not be able to define fun, but I sure know it when I'm having it.
Good points all around here. I do think there are many good cars out there, as the 3 series is still FTD, as is my G35 Coupe. I'm only 31, but of all the cars I've owned, the 72 BMW 2002 I had in high school may have been the most fun. It wasn't a Ti, but it had a 2 barrel downdraft carb & high output iginition coil. It was a responsive and a hoot to drive. I do think choices are becoming limited though. My dads 2007 Civic isn't too bad for what it is, but my mom's 2004 Camry is an absolute bore to drive. Now my friends new 2007 Mini S, also fun. I think the challenge in today's auto market is finding the car that meets your needs while still maintaining the FTD factor. I know I struggled with that when I ultimatley settled on my G35 Coupe. For example there are plenty of 4 door, mid-size sedans on the market, but I'd argue that only a handful really have that FTD factor.
Great article there, Karl. I would add a 4th component: communicative. It's the ability of the car to somehow delight the driver's senses. It is similare to Intuitive, but is more about entertainment and fun than functionality. Things like how good the engine sounds would fall under this component.......if the engine sounds great and, at the same time, conveys an "appriopriately fun" sensation about how fast the car is travelling (all while not being too noisy to the extent that conversation at 70mph is impossible), it contributes a whole lot to the FTC factor!
I would say older 3-series models are more communicative than the current one. Similarly, the Protege is more communicative than the Mazda 3.
LOL mnorm, LOL! Mnorm and 1487, there are of course different opinions and definitions about what makes a car fun to drive. My mother would probably think the V6 Camry is fun to drive!
But this post is primarily about what car enthusiasts and semi-enthusiasts (and NOT necessarily car lovers....there's a difference) would consider as fun-to-drive. Most enthusiasts and semi-enthusiasts would agree with Karl's definitions.
Also, remember that most non-enthusiasts see cars as tools for transportation, a means to pamper themselves in luxury or as a status symbol. All these people care about is taking their car to school, work or running errands......and driving under "normal" circumstances: driving on interstates and normal roads. For these people, power, quietness (to an uncommunicative degree), "ease of driving", styling (sometimes) and utility are the priorities. The don't care about the "thrill" of driving, or taking the car to its limit on curvy roads. Hence, they're more likely to define a boring, fast , "easy-to-drive" and quiet car like the current Camry as fun-to-drive!
Apart from power and styling, the other traits are not priorities for enthusiasts! Enthusiasts consider a fun-to-drive car as one with the components Karl has just listed.....and communicative!
I think Karl's definition of intuitive is what you guys are calling communicative.
My weak-engined '92 Miata was fun to drive precisely because the steering was responsive, and the shifter was fluid. It was all about balance. You could feel like you were going fast and driving at the limits in that car, and do so at everyday driving speeds. You didn't need to be on a track or going fast to have a blast.
I can still remember blasting down a winding road in my Miata leaving my friend in his 944-S2 in the dust. Of course, in the straightaways he was a tiny red dot way ahead of me.
If I recall, in its day, my '84 Prelude came in second only to the Porsche 924 in Car and Driver's "best handling car" competition. It was also fun to drive due to its overall balance, sweet shifter and communicative steering.
The ability to extract the "fun" depends upon where the 'sweet spot" of power, handling, steering, and transmission is. If its too high, then the opportunity for fun is limited.
Good Karl! Maybe you need to write a book. We all have a car of choice that give or gave us good memories. I think to sum up all the above is a car that "talks to you" when you drive it.
blackadder5639,
"Most enthusiasts and semi-enthusiasts would agree with Karl's definitions. "
I agree with your statement, and I agree with most all of Karl's article. But the problem is, it is still subjective.
Most enthusiasts and semi-enthusiasts, think the BMW 3 series is virtually the definition of fun to drive. Blueguy thinks they are bloated over weight, uncommunicative and "placid as a buick". (Blueguy, hope I didn't put too many words in your mouth.)
One of the most fun to drive cars I've owned was a Contour SVT. I really enjoyed driving that car. The ride, the drive, the sound; all of them were right on my target. I'm equally sure someone out there will be rolling their eyes, laughing that some clown liked the Contour SVT.
Describing fun to drive is like describing the taste of a banana.
By the way, if I include the repair bills on the SVT, I bought it twice. But I did really enjoy driving it.
You didn't.
Cool post Karl, and it made a lot of sense. I think the FTD factor also depends heavily on how many cars a person has actually driven. Automotive journalists definitely drive more cars than the average consumer so when they say the 3 Series "communicates" better than the G37 or something it may be lost on the reader. Of course potential buyers could test drive and find out for themselves I suppose.
While I was car shopping last year, I drove a late-model BMW 3-series coupe (328, I think).
It was all I could do to not smile behind the wheel, lest I tip my hand to the salesman who was riding along. It just "felt" great. There was something well-connected about the driving experience.
If a car can put a smile on your face when you are behind the wheel, then it is fun to drive.
Thanks, Karl. Very clear explanation and follow up to your last blog.
Wrt one comment about "intuitive .vs. communicate":
one on-line Visual thesaurus linked communicate to interact.
It then linked intuitive to visceral, and to nonrational.
Thoughts?
I think Blueguy is just a lot more hardcore than the rest of us, which is awesome. I have some friends nearly as crazy as him. His Civic for all intents and purposes is a race car. So of course nearly all stock production cars feel like Buicks in comparison. My ex-roommate had a Mk.II Jetta GLI that was not even in half the state of tune of his Civic, it was riding on Autotech springs I think, KYB GR-2 shocks because we were poor, Autotech front and rear sway bars, that was it really. Oh...at the end of its life it was also gutted, 1 seat, no carpet. While this vehicle was always FTD, with the suspension upgrades and gutted interior it made you nearly giddy when you were driving it, sounded like a race car (forgot it also had an Autotech exhaust). However I would never want that thing as a daily driver, esp. on the highway, though I'm sure Blueguy would love it.
Mnorm1, although Im not a fan of Fords, I think the SVT team hit the nail on the head with the Contour/Focus SVT. These cars were very fun and actually reminded me of some high strung Honda cars.
Too bad these cars didnt last long and that the Contour wasnt reliable. If Ford could inject some of that tactile/communicative feel in the Mustang it would be a much better car. Seems like when Ford does make something good they kill it ; normally aspirated 32V SVT Mustang Cobra, Focus SVT, Contour SVT and the Lincoln LS all had lots of potential.
Bbetchel, I have a few friends like that also with gutted 92-95 Civic hatchbacks, Integra Type Rs, S2000's, a couple of turb E36/E46 turbo M3's, a very nasty 800+hp Lexus SC300, a handful of Suparas, Camaro SS and a few Evolutions. Some of the guys (and girls) only have a race bucket, dashboard, and a roll cage. While thats a bit extreme for me it does give a sense of a racing car and it does tickle the senses.
The TSX/RSX-Type S powered 93 Civic hatchback just absolutely hauls ass. It has a fully built/ turbocharged RSX Type-S drivetrain (TSX block) running 18psi (one of 3 boost settings) on the street and pumps out around 417hp TO THE WHEELS on pump gas. This is in a 2200lb car. But the car does everything well as its primarily used for road racing but can easily be transformed to compete in other kinds of racing within minutes. His lisence plate says "8YURV8"...LOL!
Im currently deciding on my next project and as of now its between a 01-03 Lexus IS300 manual and a E36 BMW M3 sedan. Im just wondering how Im going to get this past the wife?
I'ma big fan of the the Contour SVT and Focus SVT. Both cars were extremely well sorted in terms of the three factors I mentioned above (responsive, intuitive, cohesive).
The potential of the Lincoln LS versus what Ford let happen to it boggles my mind. We had a long-term LS and the automatic was a constant headache the first six months of ownership (they finally replaced it under warranty, and then it was a little better). But in terms of steering and handling dynamics it was heading down the BMW path -- with not too far to go before arriving.
Sad...
I really like the IS300. (Chronograph gauges FTW!) If the performance wasn't significantly worse than the E46 and the price the same or higher (IIRC) I would be all about the IS300 because of its assumed Toyota reliability vs. BMW maybe-it's-reliable reliability. But at the end of the day I think a BMW (E36/E36 M/E46) is the better choice. But that IS sure is sexy...
honda,
I don't know what your climate is like where you are and maybe this car wouldn't be your daily driver anyway.....a friend of mine had an IS 300 here in the Northeast and it was really bad in the wet and a disaster in the snow. It is a cool car though and it would probably be a ton of fun to modify.
Climate isnt bad here normally, Im located in central Kentucky. We usually get maybe a couple to 4 inches of snow once or twice in the winter so Im not worried. I can always buy a set if winters wheels/tires.
Ill probably go with the IS as it should prove to be more reliable than the Bimmer, its a is newer model, priced very simular to the E36 M3, and I think the platform is just as capable as the M3's, of course not in the stock configuration. But it does have plenty of potential.
This will be my daily driver also so I cant go to the extreme with modifications. Probably something around the 400-430whp mark, full coilovers, wheels/tires, brake upgrade. It will remain very simple and reliable.
My tuner/best friend is a locally well known tuner who specializes in performance upgrades for the Toyota Supra Turbo and other Japanese imports. His current project is a 1991 Supra Turbo with a 94 Lexus LS400 4.0L DOHC V8 which has somehow sprouted two large turbochargers. Ive seen the majority of his work and its flawless. So im not worried about him helping with the IS.
Hondacura4, please keep us updated on Carspace about the progress of the IS300. I would really like to know how it goes! :) Sounds very exciting! All the best of luck.
Thanks blackadder. I wont be spending any money on the IS because Im going to sell my Acura CL-S coupe. I should break even or maybe come out on top. I might sell my modified Civic sedan too but Im somewhat emotionally attatched to it...LOL!
CarSpace sounds great as I certainly wouldnt mind sharing the progress of the car with anyone. Ill have to buy a much better camera and check out CarSpace.
Karl, I too was suprised when I first drove the LS. My uncle has a newer LS V8 (not sure the yar) and it was actually nice to drive. Much better than I thought a Lincoln could be. I know the platform was more expensive but Ford should have used it to its full potential instead of selling rebadged FWD based Fusions as "luxury sport sedans". I dont understand Fords way of thinking.
Sounds like fun hondacura - I'm a smidge jealous. Good luck with it!
Well if I had a friend who worked with 2JZs I guess it would be a no brainer. Good luck with the IS300!
Someone should put Ford management out of their misery!
The 2JZ is absolutely rediculous. People actually think all the internals are forged but in reality they arent. Just VERY well engineered and super strong. Ive witnessed more than a few Supra Turbos with stock internals put out more than 750hp to wheels. And the sound of a inline 6 with high boost is just intoxicating. I cant wait!
Ive also been thinking about a E30 M3 with the E39 M5 3.5 inline 6 as thats a popular high powered swap for that car. My main thing is to be a bit exclusive and do something that not everybody can or has done. But if I do the E30 the Civic will have to go and the CL-S will stay. So like I said before it will probably be the IS.
Don't you mean E34 M5, hondacura4?
I think the E30 M3 would definitely be cooler and more fun to drive than the insanely-modded IS. :o)