I have yet to find a car I enjoy driving as much as my 1986 SAAB. Its steering was telepathic and the suspension made it handle like it was on rails (despite the rear solid axle with a Panhard rod). The faster it went, the more it seemed in its element. It was a much more visceral experience than driving modern cars that try too hard to save us from ourselves...

In article in last month's "Roundel", they drove many of the new 5-series examples (550i, M5, 535ix, etc.), and they said the car's steering feel was worse than the previous gen (E39) with or without the active steering.

Well, you said it. Car companies are in business to make money, and new technology sells.
 
And let's face it; for every driver who can have fun behind the wheel AND be safe/responsible at the same time, there's two or three dodo birds who will spin their Vipers into oncoming traffic.

While there may be less hard edged sporty cars than in years past I don't think cars are getting more boring. sure some top end products may have gotten softer in order to become safer and more luxurious but the "average" car is far more capable than it was 20 years ago. I mean power is part of the excitement equation and power is way up these days. Braking and handling are also better than they used to be pretty much across the board although there are exceptions. Manuals and borderline dangerous handling may be on their way out but hp, brake sizes, tranny gears, wheels/tires, etc. are on the way up and that generally means more fun behind the wheel.

I couldn't agree with you more, Karl! Now I know I wasn't imagining things when I drove a 2007 Mazda3 and my Protege one after the other. The Mazda3 is faster, (presumably) safer, larger, more refined, and has better skidpad numbers....but despite all that I was somewhat bored with it within 15 minutes or so. (Hmmm, the refinement and larger size may have been part of the problem..........)
 
While it is understandable that most manufacturers move towards "mainstream" traits like cushy ride, annoyingly quiet engines, and larger (and heavier) vehicles, I think it's a huge mistake for companies like BMW and Mazda to move in that direction!
 
1487, power alone does not make cars fun-to-drive. Even handling (as in skidpad numbers) and power combined do not make cars fun to drive. I just gave the example of the Protege and Mazda3, where the latter has more power and skidpad numbers but is still less fun. In Edmund's recent Mini-C30 comparison, the C30 matched or bettered the Mini's number but the Mini was still more fun. Somehow, there are som "intangibles" that make cars fun and automakes in general soom to be shying away from those.
 
As for the manual thing, manuals may be going out only here in the US. Elsewhere (well, in Africa) nobody buys automatics, inspite of traffic jams being far worse than in the US.

Karl,
 
Compare your 1984 Ferrari's numbers to a modern Camary. Now compare those to a roadster like the MX5, and please explain to me how modern cars are becoming less fun.
 
Yes, there exists an environment of regulation that makes it more difficult to make better cars. But this is offset by the better engines, suspensions, materials, etc that have been developed over the years.
 
Automobiles have taken a step backwards before (i/e after the oil crisis in the 70's) but have managed to recover. Many vehicles have been stated as being better in their new generation. For example, the MX5 may have gotten heavier, but it went from (I think) a 1.6L engine to a 2.4L. You can't reasonably expect a bigger engine without more weight, but you do get more power and more fun than the previous generation.
 
Saying that cars are going downhill based on the Viper is just, to me, being silly. In the showdowns of the last generation of American Supercars, the Viper performed the worst and was the least fun of the Z06, Viper, and GT competition.
 
I also believe that your website stated that the new Mini was bigger in part to meet more stringent crash regulation, which required a larger bumper to absorb more of the energy of an impact.
 
New Toyota's may be less fun than their predecessors. But this is the direction Toyota has taken in general, as their cars are more sold to be appliances than toys. Who buys a Prius to go to the track and race?
 
And the idea that the Porsche 911 Turbo is anything but one of the best vehicles ever boggles my mind.

Agree with Karl totally. And Blackadder, I miss my 03 Protege ES expressly for the light, tossable, connected feel that's not present in the "better" Mazda3. Ggetting rid of that car was a huge mistake...almost as big of a faux pas as passing on a used 95 RX-7 for 13k in 2003.
 
For me the current BMW 3 series is a prime example of a car that's obscenely fast, can easily out-handle most cars on the road and it can put you to sleep faster than an episode of 'Murder She Wrote'. The technology's all there and it's helped make a faster, safer, quieter, better handling sedan than just about every other car around. Yet at 140+ mph on the Autobahn the car was as serene as my old 91 Stanza felt at 25 mph. My friends, family and coworkers stare at me blankly when I explain this is why I had to get rid of my BMW. To most of them, quiet, comfortable serenity is a goal of car ownership...

Heffling, you're confusing numbers with intangibles. The 911 Turbo may smack the living daylights out of the 993 turbo but that doesn't mean it's more fun to drive.
 
Ever heard this sentiment:
 
"It's more fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow."
 
Today all cars are capable of some solid handling, acceleration and comfort levels. But in the process of making a 2007 NC Miata almost twice as fast as the NA Miata, Mazda lost what made the Miata special. I still recall the thrill of sliding into our 91 Miata - stripped to the bone with a cheesey pull-out stereo - for just a spin up to the store. The car was simple, pure, loud and a gas to drive. My mom got an NB Miata in 2000 and suddenly the car didn't feel as raw and entertaining. It was far more comfortable, it had power everything and AC. The car can be driven on a roadtrip and not cause you to worry your ears will bleed from the exhaust drone.
 
 In March I took out two NC Miata's (touring and hardtop): nice cars. Put the top up on the hardtop and it's like you're in the smallest RWD coupe on the planet. It's planted, secure, loaded with safety features and gizmos but it no longer feels like a Miata - it feels like the Miata's cousin who went to business school, and then became a SEAL. Everyone thinks he's more grown up and polished than his lowly NA/NB cousins. And he is. Heck, he can slap them around easily but in the end he's not nearly as much fun to be around because he's so capable and good at just about everything.

Its not just that cars are becoming less fun to drive....roads are becoming less fun to drive as well.
 
Where I live, houses are built with no new roads or expansions to accomodate the additional traffic. Existing roads are no longer maintained, so they become rutted and pot-holed - patched up only when a complaint is filed with the city. As the suburbs expand, the outlying 2-lane roads become clogged with trucks and slow-pokes.
 
I can't help but think that automakers are responding to the deteriorating infrastructure by making cars more comfortable and better-riding - at the expense of handling that fewer and fewer people will exercise on their daily commute. They are trying to provide enough room and comfort in their basic models to attract customers who finally realize they don't need (and can't use) the prowess and technology at the top end of the spectrum.
 
After a week of commuting to and from work, my average speed is about 25mph on stop-n-go surface streets. At those speeds even bluedotguy's 1991 Stanza feels like a 3-series Bimmer!

To people like Heffling and 1487 the spread sheet is the answer of all inquiries. Intangibles are mere illusion. To those of us that fell in love with driving with a 1.6 L 115 hp Miata, driving is a passion and an art.
 
I presently drive a 4 cylinder version of a coupe when the 6 cylinder was available. I drive the 5 speed with the Manumatic was available. These decisions are "crazy" to my wife, and yet they mean more fun for me. It is not the ultimate speed I crave it is the act of having a tossible car that responds to my input and does what I want it to do with the viseral appeal of feeling the road and hearing the engine.
 
It looks like the new Accord won't do that, but I am pinning my hopes on the new 1-Series. I don't even want the overpowered 135i, give me the 128i with a manual and sport package.

You raise valid points Heffling -- let's tackle them in order:
 
"Compare your 1984 Ferrari's numbers to a modern Camary. Now compare those to a roadster like the MX5, and please explain to me how modern cars are becoming less fun."
 
Because the Ferrari has no power steering and an exciting exhaust note. The faster Camry is a snoozer, despite it's numbers. The Miata is close to Ferrari fun, but still doesn't have that top-end V8 rush of power.
  
"Yes, there exists an environment of regulation that makes it more difficult to make better cars. But this is offset by the better engines, suspensions, materials, etc that have been developed over the years."
 
'Better' in what ways? Isolating passengers from the road? Being more comfortable and refined over bumps? Having soft-touch interior materials? None of those, by themselves, make a car more fun to drive.
  
"Automobiles have taken a step backwards before (i/e after the oil crisis in the 70's) but have managed to recover. Many vehicles have been stated as being better in their new generation. For example, the MX5 may have gotten heavier, but it went from (I think) a 1.6L engine to a 2.4L. You can't reasonably expect a bigger engine without more weight, but you do get more power and more fun than the previous generation."
 
Actually I can. A larger displayment engine by itself doesn't have to weigh more than a smaller one. The Miata does have more power, and like the CTS and Altima, it is one of the exceptions to the rule of getting "less fun" over the past 10 years. But these are the exceptions.
  
"Saying that cars are going downhill based on the Viper is just, to me, being silly. In the showdowns of the last generation of American Supercars, the Viper performed the worst and was the least fun of the Z06, Viper, and GT competition."
 
Actually, in the first American Exotics comparo from 2000 the Viper was the most fun to drive. It was faster than the Z06 and the Cobra R, but more importantly is was far more entertaining (and challenging) to drive around the Streets of Willow than the other two. When you turned the wheel the car actually responded, and if you weren't careful it would spin. But if you were careful it was the most responsive of the three cars in terms of handling. Now the Z06 is far more responsive than the new Viper, so its horsepower numbers mean nothing to me.
  
"I also believe that your website stated that the new Mini was bigger in part to meet more stringent crash regulation, which required a larger bumper to absorb more of the energy of an impact."
 
Exactly. Not saying cars aren't safer today -- just saying they aren't as fun (generally) to drive. The reason you just mentioned is an example of why. The new Mini is both quicker and more comfortable than the previous version -- and it's not as fun to drive. Once again the steering (among other things) has been compromised to make it easier to turn the wheel -- at the expense of feedback from the rode (just like the latest 5 Series).
  
"New Toyota's may be less fun than their predecessors. But this is the direction Toyota has taken in general, as their cars are more sold to be appliances than toys. Who buys a Prius to go to the track and race?"
 
It's not just that they are less fun, they are becoming downright undriveable in my opinion. If a modern Toyota even senses later G force it cuts all engine power and applies the brakes to one or more or the wheels. Electronic nanny is too kind a description here...
  
"And the idea that the Porsche 911 Turbo is anything but one of the best vehicles ever boggles my mind."
 
Then you should drive a new GT3 back-to-back with a new Turbo. Then drive the new Turbo back-to-back with a 1997 Turbo S. Un-boggled mind guaranteed!
 
One final point I need to make here: Ultimately I don't care if Toyota wants to dumb down the Camry's handling or even if Honda wants to dumb down the Accord's handling. These are mass-market products that pay the bills, so the "lowest-common-denominator" engineering philosophy makes sense here.
 
But when Vipers and 5 Series and Mini Coopers and 911s (all but the GT3) slip in the FTD factor? Dodge has the Avenger and Ram, Porsche has the Cayenne, BMW has the X5 and Mini...well, they have the X5 too (they're part of BMW). Those are the products to put all the gadgets on to make Mr. and Mrs. non-enthusiast safer and protect them from the rigors of having to use real muscle to turn the wheel. But they shouldn't be "Toyota-ising" their supposed enthusiast products by trying to make them super-safe for the most idiotic drivers (Viper, 911) or trading in their iconic models' core values like intuitive steering feel (5 Series, Mini) so more folks will buy them.

I don't want to go back to the days of 160 hp pony cars, solid rear axles, and suspensions that wallow all over, and up and down. Nostalgia is nice, but don't deceive yourself.
Cars are better today - power, handling, ride, fuel mileage - all better than 10 or 15 years ago.
 
Toyota, at one time, made cars that were a blast to drive. The Celica All-trac, and the Supra Turbo. They were so much fun, they couldn't sell them (damned high prices may have had something to do with it too).
 
 "Who buys a Prius to go to the track and race? "
Good question. But expand it. Who buys any car to go to the track and race? A few do, but very few.

"To people like Heffling and 1487 the spread sheet is the answer of all inquiries. Intangibles are mere illusion. To those of us that fell in love with driving with a 1.6 L 115 hp Miata, driving is a passion and an art. "
 
never said that at all. "fun to drive" is a largely subjective phrase than can mean anything to anyone. It cant be quantified easily and most of it is in the driver's head. Cars today can out accelerate, out brake and out corner their predecessors and that is a fact. Its not just about the numbers, its reality. Now if you dont like doing all those things in a car that is quieter, more refined and more efficient that is a problem. Lets not confuse the way cars get the job done with saying they cant get the job done. It find it funny that the same people who are so pro-refinement when it comes to bashing domestics are now saying in fact import cars (or all cars) are too refined and have dulled the driving experience. I never thought engine noise or steering wheel reverberations were a good thing when domestics had more of it than imports. Now lo and behold we want MORE NVH so cars can be "fun" again.
 
Sounds like the Viper is the perfect car for many of you or maybe a used Saab 9-3 Viggen. That was an exciting car to drive from what I remember.

"I don't want to go back to the days of 160 hp pony cars, solid rear axles, and suspensions that wallow all over, and up and down. Nostalgia is nice, but don't deceive yourself.
Cars are better today - power, handling, ride, fuel mileage - all better than 10 or 15 years ago. "
 
right on, I am with you 100%.

1487,
 
You never get it. The auto enthusiast who loves the magazines and the numbers more than the car itself.
 
I know that a current Camry can probably beat every muscle car build between 1967-1971. So what?
 
It is not the refinement, is the what is now consider refined. Isolation is not necessarily refinement. If this amount of subtlety is too great for you then I don't know how to illustrate it any more clearly.
 
I love a great buttoned down interior, and smooth "communicative" steering. This does not mean vibrations that are unrelated to the driving surface.

"Lets not confuse the way cars get the job done with saying they cant get the job done."
 
When did any of us say or alluded to what you have argued. Please keep your head in the game.

It seems to me that "fun-factor" is a bit cyclical. It even has a certain rhythm to it or, alternately if you are a musician, a certain attack-delay-sustain-release envelope. Way back when, economy cars were so... economical. Then along comes the AE86 and things are fun again. Then it decays to FWD, the GTS name plods along until it disappears and the later cars are nowhere near as fun as the original. Then along comes the Miata and things are fun again. Then it gets bigger and fatter and people miss the original. Then along comes the Mini and people slaver over the go-kart handling. Then the beancounters take over and it gets soft and fat. Perhaps the upcoming BMW 1-series will be the next blip in the cycle.

Interesting piece and conversations. Karl, I think you may be biased or "spoiled." (I don't mean that offensively). I think some of the sports cars today are geared towards the person that hasn't driven sports cars in the past. I think if you put a majority of people in a viper, they will tell you its a BLAST! I think your experience with driving many high end vehicles has allowed you the luxury of comparison.
 
On the other hand, you mentioned the fun to drive factor comparatively, in relation to previous models. I think the problem is we want it both ways, we get reviews of cars like the Nissan 350z Nismo and the Honda s2000 CR and we are discouraged with words like "too stiff" or "too extreme." When these are refined, we lose part of that fun we are looking for. It seem we want our cake, to eat it too, and to have another piece waiting for us when we finish.

It is the evolution of things, safety regulations and markets. We have become lately a bunch of "nagging, confy, old farts" (with me included) that some how we are moving to the silence, cushing ride of things. We judge the cheap that needs better quality and the luxury that needs more stuff. Want more or better? Is going to cost weight and power to move it.
 
Many car companies are opening their doors to new customers and they want to get that librarian or college professor to buy a new BMW or Cadillac as an example. Yes, so they can handle the horsepower safely without spinning the tires or loosing control of the 300+ engine. Yep, even if they are not going to drive faster than 75 MPH in their whole life.
 
Simple question. How many of you use cruise control regularly? How many nag the Mitsubishi EVO IX for not having cruise control or other cars? Aha! Reversing technology, regulations and safety is not going to happen and all car manufactures are on board to move foward bigger and safer. Want fun and control of things! Get an old car or kit car. Most of you have your favorite choice.

I had a ton of fun in my old '91 Tercel. It weighed the same as an Elise, shared with it a lack of power steering... and obviously the similarities end there and it was a pretty lousy car. But it was my first stickshift, and most of all I could feel steering stiffen as I accelerated down a (downhill) 270-degree onramp and at maximum effort it would go slack and then I knew I was beginning to slide. That's what it's all about, for me, and my '02 Miata does an ever job at it.
 
Yes... the NB, luxobarge of pre-'06 Miatas. And here's where I see the decrease in fun - making the compromise that people demand of their daily drivers. The NB is a better commuter car than the NA, and I don't doubt something was lost in the process. Some improvements (like the top, doubly so on the NC) didn't come with a penalty, but a bit more vibration and steering kickback would add to the fun. Still not a great road trip car though... for that I prefer to take my girlfriend's RSX (a luxury car, to me).
 
I don't know if it was less true before, but nowadays every car is marketed as "the only car you'll ever need," hence the popularity of SUVs and crossovers, and sports sedans over sports cars. Part of the problem is that people see that 'regular' cars can put down the same numbers as sports cars. And they've gotten so refined over the years that hardcore sports cars have been forced to follow because the mainstream has moved away and left them in a tiny niche. Hmm, not sure if that makes much sense.
 
Steering wheels should vibrate more and suspensions should be like rocks.

"Its not just that cars are becoming less fun to drive....roads are becoming less fun to drive as well. "
 
Amen to that. Existing roads poorly maintained, and few new roads.
Roads that used to have light traffic are now packed.
 
Also don't forget the age factor. Older folks aren't as interested in fun as functionality and comfort.
 
But even with all that, I don't agree that cars are less fun now than in yesteryear.

Having recently purchased a 2006 MX-5, which I've been driving more than my 2006 A4 2.0T Quattro, I can agree with many of the points that have been made. I have more fun driving the MX-5 than the A4.
 
To me, the real issue is that cars are turning into, or are expected to be a mobile version of our office/living room/etc. The level of isolation from what the car and road should be communicating to the driver has reached a point where people are completely oblivious to their speed and reckless driving habits.
 
They expect the vehicle's safety systems to bail them out if they screw up, and then sue the manufacturer when something goes wrong. Sorry for going off topic, but I think the issues are related...

You're right. The trend toward "less fun" and "less responsibility for my driving skill -- or lack thereof" are undeniably related. Thus BMW's active steering, which will "actively steer" the car to keep it from rotating...even when you want/need it to rotate.
 
Annoying (and depressing to see a BMW behave in such a way).

Karl, now that you have said what makes cars not fun to drive, why not list your top 3 picks of practical cars that __are__ fun to drive?
 
My guess is your picks will be light weight, RWD, have few power accessories (including steering), be 100% manual trans (with solid shift linkage and light clutch), and have a high reving engine.
 
Could a Lotus Elise, Honda S2000 and Porsche Cayman could be those three? With one possibly replaced by the Ford GT ?

Brett:
 
"To people like Heffling and 1487 the spread sheet is the answer of all inquiries. Intangibles are mere illusion. To those of us that fell in love with driving with a 1.6 L 115 hp Miata, driving is a passion and an art."
 
I'm an engineer, so I can certainly appreciate the value of a "spreadsheet". By the same token, I understand that the items on the spreadsheet work together to create a total fun (or non-fun) package.
 
I was responding to Karl's comment about the Miata getting heavier, and having driven a 2004 and a 2007, I think the 2007 is more fun with the new engine. It adds some oomph to the vehicle that nicely complements the handling, even if the additional weight did compromise the handling slightly.
 
"It is not the refinement, is the what is now consider refined. Isolation is not necessarily refinement. If this amount of subtlety is too great for you then I don't know how to illustrate it any more clearly."
 
Agreed, to a point. However, if I can keep the same performance in my vehicle and at the same time improve the ride quality by reducing the amount of bounce'n'jounce I feel from the road, why shouldn't I? I don't need to know every chip in the roads surface to drive well, I need to know how my vehicle is responding and what to do next. Yes, there is a connection between suspension and my ability to interpret how my vehicle is performing, but I don't have to knock my teeth out in the process.
 
Driving a car doesn't have to be a roller-coaster to be fun.
 
Karl,
 
""Yes, there exists an environment of regulation that makes it more difficult to make better cars. But this is offset by the better engines, suspensions, materials, etc that have been developed over the years."
  
'Better' in what ways? Isolating passengers from the road? Being more comfortable and refined over bumps? Having soft-touch interior materials? None of those, by themselves, make a car more fun to drive."
 
Better engines mean more torque and horsepower from the same weight as an older engine, while increasing fuel economy and decreasing weight.
 
Better suspension means the ability to transmit torque to the road at a reduced weight and decreased sensitivity to road conditions.
 
"Actually I can. A larger displayment engine by itself doesn't have to weigh more than a smaller one. The Miata does have more power, and like the CTS and Altima, it is one of the exceptions to the rule of getting "less fun" over the past 10 years. But these are the exceptions. "
 
You are correct. However, an optimized larger engine will weigh more than an optimized small one. This is because increased material will be required to withstand the pressures and forces exerted. And I can't believe that auto manufacturers want to provide us sub-optimized engines (keeping in mind, that their criteria for optimization is different from ours).
 
There are alot of good comments here overall, but it seems to me that the general feeling by Karl, Bret, and others is that you need to rattle your teeth loose to be getting a good road feel and have a fun experience. I don't feel that way. I like a properly developed power steering to keep me from developing Popeye arms.
 
And I drive a 2004 Mustang GT for some of the reasons Karl has given. The 2005 model got heavier, didn't add alot of horsepower (20% increase in weight for 10% increase in hp...I'll pass), and softened the ride. You can all my solid axle suspension alot of things, but soft isn't one of them.
 
I feel that the fact of the matter is most vehicles under 40k are targeted to as wide an audience as possible. This is driven by the fact that A) Car companies need to make money and B) Lower price vehicles bring in a lower margin of profit. So higher sales are needed.
 
But I do think it's unacceptable for a Viper to be selling out. I think rather than dumming down the vehicle, Dodge should include a training class on a track when you buy one.
 
P.S. Karl, if yo

mnorm, nobody is saying cars aren't better today. Cars ARE better today (well, the ever-increasing size and weight aside)! They are faster, safer and handle better overall, while maintaining or slightly improving fuel economy.
 
The issue we're debating is the fun-to-drive factor. In this regard cars have actually gotten worse overall! The basic reasons are safety regulations and economic reasons. I can't say much about safety, except that cars can and should be made safer without killing the fun factor too much.
Like Karl, it's the economic aspects that I've an issue with....in seeking wider audiences and thus higher profits automakers are making compromises between the demands of those who see a car as a tool to convey passengers in comfort and those who actually enjoy driving........and of late, automakers have focused a bit more on the my-car-is-a-drving-in-comfort-tool crowd. It's okay to make models like the Camry, Accord and Sonata for that crowd for more profit, but when more enthusiastic cars or brands like BMW, Porsche and Mazda also have most of their models suited for that crowd, it makes those of us who enjoy driving feel cheated.

I definitely agree. One of the SUV's great crimes in this regard is that a new generation of drivers have no idea that "fun" is even possible in driving.
 
They think that fun to drive is a trade off of lack of safety, be it in the form of ablity to withstand a colision or the possiblity of getting caught in a once a season bad snow fall.
 
That being the case, fun to drive is way down on an Engineers checklist of what will sell. As always, if people don't demand fun cars and buy them when they're offered, they won't be.

Y'all don't get me wrong: refinement and comfort are good things. Great things, in fact. But too much or a good or great thing is bad. In my opinion, most recent models have focussed too much on refinement and "comfort" to the point that cars have become boring. I don't want my car so quiet that I don't hear the engine. I like to hear and enjoy the engine note. I don't like my steering so soft that I don't feel a connection between my hands and the road. In short, I like to feel "in touch" with my car when I drive. Most latest cars don't offer that feeling, not even the latest 3 series. I haven't driven one so I can't comment of the steering, but I've ridden in one and it is way too quiet for my liking.....even boring!
Apart from power and handling, the key to a fun-to-drive car is how the car "communicates" with the driver. Too much communication gets annoying, too little is boring.....the key is providing the right amount (for enthusiasts and semi-enthusiasts).
 
Iskch. I use cruise control a lot (on long distance trips) because I need a way of not exceeding the speed limit by a large amount. I don't see how cruise control can affect driving fun.....don't forget that most interstates, where cruise control is most necessary, are boring straight roads, anyway! In a 35k vehicle like an Evo, CC is a necessity. CC and fun-to-drive are not mutually exclusive.
 

brett,
 
the problem with your entire line of thinking is simply that all cars are not the same. You are describing a camry and yet you act like your description fits every damn car on the road. It doesnt so the bottom line is SOME cars are numb and dull and SOME are not. I dont think anyone is going to chose a regular family sedan or econobox as an example of a sporty ride for 2007. There are more dull cars than exciting cars, but its ALWAYS been that way. Dont tell me that muscle boats from the 70s were more fun overall. Yes they may have been fun when drag racing but when you started to turn or brake they werent as much fun. I do wish engine noise wasnt considered a bad thing today because I like exhaust notes that are audible. Other than that its ridiculous to argue that all the fun has been engineered out of cars across the board. I can think of a dozen fun to drive cars right off the top of my head and none of them are called Camry or LS460.

Heffling
 
"There are alot of good comments here overall, but it seems to me that the general feeling by Karl, Bret, and others is that you need to rattle your teeth loose to be getting a good road feel and have a fun experience. I don't feel that way. I like a properly developed power steering to keep me from developing Popeye arms. "
 
I don't want my teeth rattled, so I will try to illustrate my ideal car. For an everyday driver I'd like something like the 1992-1998 3 Series. It was relatively smooth, compact, fun to drive. It was sophisticated and had a proper power to weight distribution. That is why I want the 1 series now.
 
I enjoyed the early 90's Accord, the Miata, early 90's Prelude, 1998-2001 Prelude, Protege, Mazda 323 GT, RX-7, Integra GSR, 1990-2003 5 Series, Mazda 6, 1995-1998 911, 1999-2001 Civic Si, ...

1487
 
"I can think of a dozen fun to drive cars right off the top of my head and none of them are called Camry or LS460."
 
I want to see the list.

"Annoying (and depressing to see a BMW behave in such a way)."
 
It may be depressing but you cant be surprised. I dont understand how anyone can be shocked that BMW continues to re-engineer the wheel and add technology where its unecessary. This is what German automakers do, they refuse to leave well enough alone because they always want to stay ahead of the other two competitors over there. More tech, more airbags, more weight, more electronics, more hp, etc. Thats what they do.

"....the bottom line is SOME cars are numb and dull and SOME are not......" 1487, you're perfectly right. But when you compare the fun-to-drive cars now and fun-to-drive cars between 5 and 20 or 30 years ago, it's safe to say the recent models are less fun. Thus, cars have on the whole become less fun to drive.Let's take some examples:
 
1. VW Golf GTI. The '70s, '80s and very early '90s modesl are more fun than the latest models.
2. BMW 3-series. I couldn't agree with Brett more: the '92 -'98 model was far more fun to drive than the current E90 version.
3. Protege/3. No contest, the Protege is more fun to drive than the Mazda 3. In fact, I'm surprised most auto journals describe the 3 as fun-to-drive at all. They must have forgotten the Protege.
4. Current M5 versus previous M5. The previous M5 wins by a huge margin.
5. Current and previous Dodge Vipers.
 
Brett has already provided a list so I won't go on. Of course, there are very few cars that have improved in the fun-to-drive factor, the most notable being the Mercedes C-Class.
 
But here you are wrong: "I dont think anyone is going to chose a regular family sedan or econobox as an example of a sporty ride for 2007". There are many of us who cannot afford luxury and high performance cars as of now. We seek econoboxes or mid-sized cars that offer as most driving fun as possible for our money and cars like the Protege and Mazda 6 fit the bill perfectly. (The Mazda 6 is a tad too refined, but compared to the Accord and Camry it's great.) When/if companies like Mazda, who have promised a Zoom-Zoom campiagn to cater to our needs, go back and "dilute" their cars, we don't apprecialte it!

"want to see the list."
 
Ha! why so you can pick apart each one with your specific criteria? Give me a break, I know how you operate. If I say the sky is blue you say "in my opinion its not blue and you cant tell me otherwise since its my opinion and we all know you evaluate blue based on what you read in magazines when its really defined by how a color expert like myself understands the real meaning of blue".
 
Here is a list of under $100k cars I can think of quickly:
 
MS3, TL-S, CTS-V, Cobalt SS/SC, 300/Charger SRT8,Caliber SRT-4, C6/Z06, Mustang GT/GT500, civic Si, GP GXP, 335/M3, G35 Sport, 350Z Track, G37, Evo, Sti, Legacy GT, Solstice GXP/Sky redline, JGC SRt8, TB SS and R32

"When/if companies like Mazda, who have promised a Zoom-Zoom campigne to caer to our need, go back and "dilute" their cars, we don't apprecialte it!"
 
If you mean making a car quieter and adding more features when you say "dilute" than I would say you are out of luck. Cars usually get better performance, more features and more refinement with a redesign because customers associate refinement with quality. The customer made that decision, not the automakers. They would love to sell cars with rattling gear shifts, minimal sound insulation and small engines like your dream cars of the 80s, but the buying public doesnt want that. Not even in a cheap car.

The rattle your teeth aspect is only a byproduct of the incredible weight gain of todays cars. Stiff suspensions are the easiest way to keep these porkers from flopping around.
 
In that vane, I'd love to see all the current technology used to create something like my 65 Alfa GT. With the current tech but no options that it didn't come with originally (A/C, power windows and seats, etc...) I think it would turn a nice light fun to drive car into a scapel. While the first comparison would be a BMW 128, it would be half the weight and twice as fun to drive.

"It was relatively smooth, compact, fun to drive. It was sophisticated and had a proper power to weight distribution. That is why I want the 1 series now. '
 
How much you want to bet the current 3 series has a better power to weight ratio than the model you are worshipping now? As for compact- isnt the 3 series about 180 inches long? Hardly a Town Car by anyone's standards. Yes the car is bigger and no the car is not big, even in 2007.

$100k, 1487? How many people can afford more than $40k on a car? Anything more than about $25k is not "easily affordable"....and beyond $40k is downright expensive!

1487, points of correction:
 
1. The Protege is definitely NOT a car "with rattling gear shifts, minimal sound insulation and small engines like your dream cars of the 80s.....". It seems you've not driven one. For a compact car, anything larger than a 1.8 L is not small!
 
2. "The customer made that decision, not the automakers." Not quite correct. Automakers made that decision, in order to attract potential Toyota or Honda customers. Zoom-Zoom fans did not make that decision!

I cant afford a $40k car but a lot of people can. A lot of the cars I listed are under $30k so lets not act like I said you had to spend $100k or close to it to get a car that is entertaining. Hell, the MS3 is like $24k- how much cheaper do you want me to get?
 
I'm sure in your (not just you but all of you here) younger days when cars were a lot slower and boxier the cars you are reminiscing about seemed really fun and exciting. I cannot see anyone who has been brought up on cars in the 90s and 2000s thinking that some of the cars being mentioned here are fun. I do not think refinement and fun to drive are mutually exclusive as you people seem to be saying. Just because today's vehicles are more refined does not mean they are dull or watered down. Sorry, but ability to accelerate is part of the equation and cars today are way faster than cars of 15+ years ago. I do not get excited thinking about driving some late 80s Honda rust bucket with 100hp, 14" wheels and a stick shift. That aint exactly sex on wheels in my book.
 
I think if we could go back in time and drive some of these "great" cars being mentioned here they would seem quite tame by today's standards in spite of their "exciting" NVH characteristics and lack of power steering.

"1. The Protege is definitely NOT a car "with rattling gear shifts, minimal sound insulation and small engines like your dream cars of the 80s.....". It seems you've not driven one. For a compact car, anything larger than a 1.8 L is not small!
  
2. "The customer made that decision, not the automakers." Not quite correct. Automakers made that decision, in order to attract potential Toyota or Honda customers. Zoom-Zoom fans did not make that decision!"
 
Protege is pretty recent so I'm sure its relatively refined. In fact too refined for most poeple posting here.
 
As for the 2nd point, its bigger than Toyota and Honda, its about people associating NVH and lack of isolation with lower cost cars. People dont want a car that rides and sounds like a base bones car because it makes the car sound and feel cheap to them. In fact, I would argue that Toyotas and Hondas got larger and more quiet so they wouldnt seem like a step down to people converting from cushy domestic vehicles that could cruise the interstates at 75mph in quiet comfort.
 
My Suburu was slow, had non variable steering that needed considerable effort, a buzzy engine and an OK at best ride over bumps. I assure you it wasnt fun to drive in any way, it was a great commuter car. Oh and it had wind noise too so that was icing on the cake.

1487,
 
"Cars usually get better performance, more features and more refinement with a redesign because customers associate refinement with quality."
 
There you go again with a warped definition of "refinement". I would love the car to have some new technology and safety materials (airbags, etc.) but does it need to grow by 5 inches and 300 lbs. every generation.
 
"They would love to sell cars with rattling gear shifts, minimal sound insulation and small engines like your dream cars of the 80s, but the buying public doesnt want that. Not even in a cheap car."
 
Again mischaracterizing the setiment. I don't want rattling anything. Did a 1998 Prelude have a rattling gear shift? Was it underpowered? You clearly don't understand the concept, so just admit it.
 
You state over and over that the customer wanted it and the industry is just responding to the market. Well yes you are right, but we are stating that we just don't like the market trend regardless of the economic parameters.

1487
 
What you forget is that Mazda already tried the Conventional route to mirror Toyota and Honda once before. In 1998 the 626 was far bigger and more conventional. And it was hammered. Their customers went elsewhere.
 
If the new one is more along the lines of the new Accord and Camry they will merely buy an Accord or Camry. Shareholders are not the wisest car people. Ford, GM and Chrysler should tell you that. If you design autos to appease the shareholders' perception of the market you will eventually get hammered.

The First Taurus is a perfect example. The Market said that Americans did not want an adventurous design. The Shareholders demanded cost cutting and conventional.
 
The focus groups prior to the Taurus did not like the design compared to the present LTD II. Well the power of group think on display.

1487,
 
I couldn't disagree with you more. I can only speak from personal experience, but here is mine.
 
In the garage I've got a 100hp 65 Alfa, a 200hp 84 AlfaGTV6, a 238hp RX8, a 250hp Legacy GT Wagon, and a 400hp 65 Pontiac GTO
 
The quickest are easily the GTO and the Subaru, but their also the least fun to drive.
 
The slowest by a long shot is the 65 Alfa with it's 1600cc motor and skinny tires. It is always my favorite to drive because it has that elusive fun factor. It's been that way for several years now.

blackadder,
I understand the discussion, I just don't agree with the loss of the fun to drive factor. I think if you compare cars of today, with similar size cars of the past (and similar relative prices), todays cars are better in every way, including fun to drive.
 
If you are saying that Accords of today (as an example) aren't as much fun as Accords of 1995, you are probably correct. However, I think the 1995 Accord is closer to todays Civic, than todays Accord. Which is more fun to drive the 1995 Accord or the 2007 Civic? I vote Civic.
 
Generally the same model name gets bigger with each new generation. I suspect it's a marketing tool; trying to keep customers as they mature (mature sounds better than ageing). But as they grow, at some point new smaller models are introduced; e.g. the BMW 1 series is/will be the new 3 series.
 
My opinion is on mid-priced and lower cars. I don't know enough about cars priced 40k and up to say.
I am specifing cars, not SUVs, or trucks. If you include SUVs, well then, the world has gone to hell as far as fun to drive.

1487
 
I am still waiting for your list of cars you said you were going to provide

Brett,
 
He provided them:
 
MS3, TL-S, CTS-V, Cobalt SS/SC, 300/Charger SRT8,Caliber SRT-4, C6/Z06, Mustang GT/GT500, civic Si, GP GXP, 335/M3, G35 Sport, 350Z Track, G37, Evo, Sti, Legacy GT, Solstice GXP/Sky redline, JGC SRt8, TB SS and R32
 
I agree with a few: Sti and evo. The rest are boring and great examples of what's wrong with sport motoring.

MS3, great if you need a lot of power, not as good as the Mazdaspeed Protege.
 
CTS-V overpowered did not have IT as in fun to drive
 
Cobalt SS/SC (PLEASE)
 
300/Charger SRT8 You are killing your own arguement if you think these are fun to drive.
 
Caliber SRT-4 robotic steering, not up to the "caliber" of the Neon SRT
 
C6, Z06 Agree
 
Mustang GT/GT500 TOO BIG, overweight, horrible steering and undermatched chassis
 
335/M3 Although I love them they are are not as FUN TO DRIVE as the earlier generations
 
350Z Agreed
 
G37 More fun to drive than many cars but still not up to par with the earlier generation 3 Series
 
EVO, Agreed
 
STI Not as good as the earlier generations
 
Solstice GXP/Sky Not as good as the Miata even with less power
 
JGC SRT8 ARE YOU KIDDING
 
R32, not any faster than the GTI, over weight and not as FUN as the earlier generation. Good car, but not as fun
 
TB ss (NOW YOU HAVE LOST YOUR MIND)

Allow me to offer my point of view with a quasi-anecdote.
 
One of my first cars (the second, actually) was a 1989 Acura Integra LS. It was my first manual transmission and I'll admit I struggled a bit, doing dumb things like paniciking at the intersection and not making sure it was in first gear...stuff like that. But I digress.
 
Long story short, this car had seen its fair share of use and abuse. The body has over 200k on it and it had a new(er) Integra engine dropped in with high 100k's on it. Safe to say, this car was a bit of a dog and I should've invested in giving it a proper tune up. Being still fairly new to the car ownership thing, I didn't.
 
As a result, the car was hard to shift into 3rd and 4th gear (made highway driving an interesting experience), it smelled like gas from a then-repaired leak and was a real pain to move into reverse. For the handful of months I've owned that car, it was a real love-hate relationship. I was glad when I got rid of because driving it gave me some of the most stressful and frightening experiences I've ever had behind the wheel of a car.
 
But I'll say this much...when I managed to be in sync with that car and the gears shifted just right and everything was how it should be, handling everything fast and tight, it was nothing short of magic. At those points in time I understood the true union of man and machine. I'll never forget that feeling.
 
Since then, I've owned a 2000 Corolla, a 1978 Ford Fairmont (which was actually pretty fun to drive in its own right), a 1998 and 2001 Taurus, a 1990 Mazda 626 and now I own an '04 Mitsubishi Lancer wagon. Not one of all of those cars ever gave me that indescribable, albeit short-lived, feeling of motorists' euphoria. And that's not counting the numerous cars I've driven, but not owned, since then.
 
By no means was that Acura the newest, the most advanced, sophisticated or even in proper mechanical shape but it is proof as far as I'm concerned that some cars possess an intangible driving factor.
 
Having said all that, I agree with Karl and those who agree with him 100%. Cars are not as fun as they used to be. They're getting porky along with a majority of Americans' backsides. That adjective is spot on no matter how objectively you regard it. People are simply opting for ease and isolation over the experience of driving.
 
No wonder I hate driving any car built in the last few years for more than a couple hours at a time.

Here's a question for you guys: how many here have bought a new fun-to-drive car? (I assume used purchases don't keep a model alive.)
 
I haven't yet, so I'm not part of the solution. But at some point I want to "cast my vote" and if that's what automakers are going on, I can't blame them for taking the boring route.

1487
 
You have NO CREDIBILITY on this subject anymore. You believe that a Chrysler 300, Trailblazer SS and a Jeep Grand Cherokee (IN ANY GUISE) is fun to drive.
 
Thanks for playing. I really can't illustrate the delusion with any greater clarity than the opinions of the man himself.

Interesting. I was not aware that credibility was required to have an opinion. Just because his definition of fun does not match yours is no reason for you to be insulting to him. In fact, I have seen at least twice in this thread you have made what I feel to be insulting comments.
 
So, how about acting like an adult and explain why you don't consider the Chrysler 300, Trailblazer SS, or Jeep Grand Cherokee to be fun?
 
And just for the record, my wife drives a 1999 Jeep Grand Cherokee Loredo. And she is absolutely in love with it. She's from Denmark, where a vehicle like that is a big luxury, and she loves how it makes her feel when she drives it. To her, that is Fun.
 
I feel that any car you enjoy driving is a fun car. And it doesn't have to just be a car that you can rip through corners in.

My wife drives a 2007 GJC Laredo. She love it too. She may even have fun in it. But when we in this tread discuss "fun to drive" it is a little different than mere contentment with said car.
 
We also have a Honda Odyssey. For a mini van it is fun to drive. But if I was going to buy a car for that characteristic alone it would not be high on the list.
 
You don't need to defend 1487's feelings, his behavior on this thread is legendary. He is constantly demeaning and whenever anyone responds he is just getting his just deserts.

carlismo,
 
I bought a new "fun to drive" car (IMHO). About 18 months ago, with my wife expecting our first child, it was time to replace my aging Civic coupe. In the interest of space, I was initially looking for a 4 door car and drove both the new 3 (E90) and the G35. Neither car blew me away, so we elected to go w/ the G35 due to the extra power and features you got for the same amount of money. We finally found one a year old for a good price and bought it. After only 6 months of ownership I was miserable. While the car had gobs of power and features (300hp, xenon lights, cd changer, etc), it was just plain boring. Maybe it was the size, maybe the weight, but regardless I knew it was not the car for me.
 
During ownership of the G35, I had an opportunity to drive a Lotus Elise and was impressed with how purposely built it was. It didn't have anything that wasn't required for it's purpose and it was a blast to drive. Like a breath of fresh air.
 
Now obviously an Elise was not practical for my everyday car with a baby on the way, but I knew I wanted something more fun. After driving everything out there, I bought an RX-8. It's not the fastest car out there (my G35 was faster), nor does it have any fancy features (i have cloth seats and old fashioned headlights), but revving the engine up to 9,000 rpm and flying around a corner always brings a smile to my face. It is one of the lighter new cars out there (just over 3,000 lbs) and I love the steering feel. Getting rid of the G35 and buying the RX-8 was the best car decision I've ever made.

"In fact, I have seen at least twice in this thread you have made what I feel to be insulting comments. "
 
Insults? Insults on this thread? I'm shocked, shocked, to find insults going on here. Karl, round up the usual suspects. We'll have a fair trial, then hang them in the morning.

Norm
 
Always a breath of fresh air. LOL

130 HP and 2600 lbs and fun are all part of the recipe for a 2003 Protege. It handles far better than it should and despite my expectations I find it more enjoyable to drive than a Mazda3. I liken it to a very refined go kart.
I have no need for the ever rising HP and big wheel-small tire recipe for fun that has crept into mainstream everyday family vehicles. Simply increasing the HP and adding low 17" and bigger wheels does not equal driving exitement.
I drove a Vega with a 350 V8 this past weekend and while it was a neat hot rod and a riot to drive in a straight line, it also was proof that HP alone does not create greatness.
There are many, many vehicles with 300 HP or 400 HP plus that a large audience will point to as F-T-D, how many vehicles with less than 150 HP have the magical F-T-D factor? The Protege has it.
BMW has the F-TD factor in excess. Mazda has figured out F-T-D. VW has F-T-D. Nissan occasionally includes F-T-D. GM almost lost F-T-D until recently.
Toyota most certainly buried F-T-D when MR2, Celica and Supra met their end. Toyota can not inject fun into Corolla and Camry if BMW handed them the syringe.

atilla, how's the mileage with that RX-8? Curious as I really like those but worry about getting 16-17 mpg.

"I agree with a few: Sti and evo. The rest are boring and great examples of what's wrong with sport motoring."
 
Thanks for clearing that up. No difference between my list and the camry and Lacrosse. makes perfect sense now.

heffling,
 
here on Karl's blog if you dont agree with Brett you are an idiot- just want to clear that up.
 
After skimming through Brett's idiotic rebuttal I have realized the problem isnt the cars- its the people. I'm sorry but anyone who cant have fun while driving any of the cars I mentioned short of the Sti and Evo has a problem and it simply a dinosaur when it comes to preferences. Give me a break. Basically we have people like Brett who have a very narrow set of parameters for what is a fun to drive car (largely arbitrary and totally based on his own nonsensical preferences) and no cars meet those critieria and then he whines that the automakers dont make any fun cars anymore. I think people like that need something to complain about and something to feel superior about. The logic goes like this" If I dont complain about today's sporty cars how would I be able to separate myself from the rest of these idiots who are stupid enough to think the R32 is fun to drive?". So then if you argue or name cars that are fun to drive he than argues your list is absurd and you are too stupid and unknowledgable about fun driving to realize how off base you are.
 
Most cars are basic transport just as they were in the 80s and 70s and 60s. There are plenty of cars on the market that can be fun to drive.

"You don't need to defend 1487's feelings, his behavior on this thread is legendary. He is constantly demeaning and whenever anyone responds he is just getting his just deserts."
 
you did everything but answer Hefflings question. Shocking. He didnt ask for an explanation of your latest explosion- he merely wanted to know why none of the other cars I named could be fun to drive.
 
I'm awaiting a response as well. OH and "your kidding" isnt a real response. I guess the overall theme of your "response" to my list was anything made by a domestic (vette exempted) or luxury brand is trash- although no specifics were given. As the one who doles out credibility and enforces the law here I do think for once you ought to provide some concrete, objective reasons for your position.
 
BTW, I never said those cars were superior to their predecessors or some other old car that you may be in love with. The fact that they may be slightly more refined than a predecessor doesnt make them not fun to drive. As you shot down all my entries you spent a lot of time telling me what they were not but I dont see how that proves they are not entertaining to drive.
 
I really love the stuff about "overpowered". The CTs-V is not overpowered for a car that weighs 4100 lbs.
 
I never thought I would meet "enthusiasts" who are yearning for LESS power in cars. That is hilarious.

This is stupid debate now. I gave you an entire list of cars that are FTD. And you give me SUV's. That is all that needs to be said.
 
You have made clear that your criteria is high HP and you have fun to drive. If that is your receipe then you are in Hog heaven, go forth and prosper.
 
Some of us demand a little more.

Count me as one who feels they're not as much fun in general. And I agree with those above who theorized that it has to do with the higher levels of engineering and advancements in quality. The cars of today absolutely blow away the cars from 15 or 20 years ago on paper for sure and in many ways in day to day driving. That said - When I was looking to replace my antiquated 01 Ranger, I waited with baited breath for the new Tacoma to come out. Talk about vanilla....what a disappointment, a nice truck but a total bore to drive. I'd finish the test drive(s), hop back in my V6 5spd Ranger with a 4.10 LS rear and I was having fun again. I ended up with a V6 6spd Frontier in large part because it felt like a continuation and refinement of that connected feeling I had in the Ranger. It's no autocrosser but I feel it is fun to drive. Our E90 is really a great car......but, I might look back years from now and realize that the 320i that I drove ONCE may turn out to have left a greater impression on me.
 
For me the fun of driving something bare bones and with less power and tire etc may be best illustrated by the tons of memories a few of my friends and I share from 20 - 25 years ago.........driving the bloody wheels off of golf carts. Anybody here had the chance to push an old school electric golf cart way past the designed limits - risking total carnage of both man and machine? I think it's proof positive that you don't need super high tech to have fun and in some vehicles listed above, it has smothered or snuffed out some or most of the fun.

blueguydotcom,
 
The RX-8 gets about 17-18 mpg for me in the city (all my driving). Are there cars out there that get better mileage? Of course. Do I like them as much as my RX-8? Absolutely not.
 
IMHO people focus too much on #'s, HP, 0-60, MPG, Torque, skidpad, etc. which has led car companies to build cars that compete on their numbers versus the overall package.

1487
 
"I never thought I would meet "enthusiasts" who are yearning for LESS power in cars. That is hilarious. "
 
If HP is what you want and all you want then it is fine. I am at a loss as to ever higher amount of power is needed, when that power eventually compromises the rest of the package.
 
The 1960's era Corvettes are perfect examples. The high dollar Vettes are the 427 V8, when you ask anyone which car was the better sports car of the era and they will tell you it was the 350. It was better balanced and handled better.
 
"I never said those cars were superior to their predecessors or some other old car that you may be in love with"
 
That is the WHOLE point of the Debate. If you really think the 300/Charger are FTD then we have nothing to discuss. For their size they are adequate vehicles, but they don't have excellent handling characteristics or steering for that matter. I have driven both the Charger and 300 and they are good highway cruisers. But they are not well balanced vehicles.
 
By definition any SUV is not within the Cateorgy as FTD. But for the purpose of this debate they are all lacking by the nature of the vehicle. Are you next going to throw our the new Toyota minivan because it's V6 has over 260 hp?
 
I already answered your questions and provided a list of my own. In case you weren't paying attention there is no "PROOF" that a car is FTD. If it were quantifiable it would be easily packaged and sold as a category on your spreadsheet. But you can't, AND I KNOW THAT DRIVES YOU CRAZY.

The most fun car I've driven recently was a used 2004 G35 coupe. It had some good NVH that got past Infiniti in a way Lexus would never have allowed. Nice engine noise and a little vibration in the controls when you accelerate and a little road noise while cruising on the highway. It wasn't up to luxury car standards, but it was fun to drive and was priced in the low $20k range. Missed a turn and a couple of exits on purpose just to extend the test drive.

Atilla, thank's for the info.

I think I feel where 1487 is coming from with the SUV "issue" as the new "sporty-high performance" SUVs sure drive MUCH better than the older models while giving good performance for an SUV. I can think of a few; Acura MDX Sport, BMW X5 Sport, Jeep SRT-4, Porsche Cayene Turbo ETC ETC. You cant knock him on what he thinks is fun to drive because its different than your opinion, you also have to put into perspective that every car isnt in the same segment so some are going to be more fun and have less compromise for maximum performance than others Brett.
 
I tend to like small compact/subcompact modified cars when it comes to seriously hard driving and tight curves. Miatas, 92-00 Civics, Integra Type R, S2000, E36 M3s, Evo, STi, Focus SVT, 330i ZHP, and that certain Honda Fit Sport with the modified Civic Si drivetrain running around here, yes I know its a secret Nick...sorry! As long as it has a good shifter, refined-responsive drivetrain, solid composed willing chassis, good brakes Im there. I dont require a lot of power to have fun.
 
I have a 95 Civic Ex sedan with Integra GSR/Integra Type R mix of drivetrain components, full adjustable coilovers, NSX front brake calipers w/ 5 lug conversion, slotted rotors with Porterfield R4-S pads, SS brake lines, chassis braces, upgraded valvetrain, high comp pistons, ITB's ETC ETC, you get the point. I beat the snot out of this car regularly and it takes it and begs for more, another reason I like the older Hondas. I also ....well WE also own a stock 02 S2000 but Im not allowed to molest it as its....... "her car". My next project will likely be a low milage 97-98 BMW M3 sedan that will likely see a host of refinements also.
 
I dont mind more powerful either cars but they have to deliver the power in a certain way. I prefer the high output, higher revving smaller displacement engines to big ci V8 and V10s because I can put the power down more efficiently on corner exits while not unsettling the chassis. Examples would be NSX, and F360. Not too fond of Corvettes or Vipers because I hate the shifter placement, shifter feel and these cars drive bigger than they actually are and the fact that the thier massive power and chassis dont work as well as they should together.
 
F body and Mustangs I dont care for either. The F bodies driving position was just terrible as was the rest of the car. Bascially a drivetrain looking for a better car. Mustangs tend to be a bit better in this area but I never felt that the chassis was stable as its never seems to settle. Way too much movement in both cars.
 
350z is fine dynamically but I hate the driveline vibrations and the boring powerband of the VQ35. I tend to like that slight rush of power in the 4-6000 RPM range and the relentless pulling power as the revs rise.

"Thus, cars have on the whole become less fun to drive.Let's take some examples:
  
1. VW Golf GTI. The '70s, '80s and very early '90s modesl are more fun than the latest models.
2. BMW 3-series. I couldn't agree with Brett more: the '92 -'98 model was far more fun to drive than the current E90 version.
3. Protege/3. No contest, the Protege is more fun to drive than the Mazda 3. In fact, I'm surprised most auto journals describe the 3 as fun-to-drive at all. They must have forgotten the Protege.
4. Current M5 versus previous M5. The previous M5 wins by a huge margin.
5. Current and previous Dodge Vipers.
  
Brett has already provided a list so I won't go on. Of course, there are very few cars that have improved in the fun-to-drive factor, the most notable being the Mercedes C-Class."
 
Superb examples!! I'm particularly gratified to hear so many people talking about the Protege, because I always liked that car in general, and the Mazdaspeed Protege blew me away with it's FTD factor. I never forgot it but as the years went by i started thinking "maybe my memory is rose-colored...was it really that good?" The combination of steering feedback and excellent turbo tuning (it wasn't necessary to rev it, the car made excellent power even at low RPM) gave the vehicle a real thrill.
 
I also remember how fun the mid-90s M3s were, but I haven't driven them in awhile and again I found myself wondering "were they really that good? I think they were...but it's been awhile."
 
Here's the comparison test line-up: Mazdaspeed Protege vs Mazdaspeed 3. 1996 BMW M3 versus 2007 BMW M3. 2000 Viper GTS versus 2008 Viper GTS.
 
Of course numbers would be run (both performance and interior noise, etc.) but also an EDITORIAL assessment of how much FUN each was to drive.
 
Who's with me?!!

I'm with you, Karl! I think we should add the 2008 M3 to the mix.

<--Very interested in the comparison as the E36 M3 is one of my all time favorites.

Karl, I love the idea you posted here:
 
Here's the comparison test line-up: Mazdaspeed Protege vs Mazdaspeed 3. 1996 BMW M3 versus 2007 BMW M3. 2000 Viper GTS versus 2008 Viper GTS.

"And you give me SUV's. That is all that needs to be said. "
 
actually I named 2 SUVs and about 10 cars, but dont let that get in the way of your next attack response. Its so easy to post when the facts are irrelevent. I wish I had that luxury.

"If HP is what you want and all you want then it is fine. I am at a loss as to ever higher amount of power is needed, when that power eventually compromises the rest of the package. "
 
never said thats ALL I wanted, but I dont see how less power is better when it comes to having fun behind the wheel. The idea that power compromises the package in all cases is simply untrue. I dont think the Civic Si would be better if it had the base civic's gutless 1.8L engine. Do you?
 
BTW, you have driven the SRT Charger and 300? I have a feeling you are basing your assesment on a rental car which would be very silly. The base 190hp rental cars are not the same as the SRT cars with their sports suspensions, Brembo brakes, sports seats and 6.1L V8. If you didnt have any fun behind the wheel of an SRT LX car than I dont know what to tell you. Go get a Tercel or something and have a blast.

I am with you Karl, would love to read that analysis

1487, the Honda Civic's 1.8 L engine is not a ball of fire, but "gutless"? I disagree! I test-drove it and I'd say it's rather sprightly!

I'm with you, Karl! May I drive one (or some) of the vehicles?

Rick8365
 
>
Anybody here had the chance to push an old school electric golf cart way past the designed limits - risking total carnage of both man and machine?
>
 
I have and you are right. I have fond memories of a stopwatch, a tired old electric golf cart, an enormous abandoned room at the university, and a bunch of car geeks. We had more fun during that night of autocrossing than in most cars I have driven...especially after we wet the floor down!

Golf cart, eh?
 
Adds a whole new dimension to "fun-to-DRIVE."
 
Sorry...

I dont think the Civic Si would be better if it had the base civic's gutless 1.8L engine. Do you?
 
Certainly couldn't hurt it much more than the current engine. lol
 
BTW, you have driven the SRT Charger and 300? I have a feeling you are basing your assesment on a rental car which would be very silly. The base 190hp rental cars are not the same as the SRT cars with their sports suspensions, Brembo brakes, sports seats and 6.1L V8. If you didnt have any fun behind the wheel of an SRT LX car than I dont know what to tell you.
 
I didn't. Shrug. The cars are big, numb and fast. Felt like my mom's old Z28 from the 80s but with higher seating. ;)

lightning60
 
Those who haven't.........have no idea. I can see your story in my minds eye and it puts that same stupid grin back on my face
 
We had years of time, ample space and variety in terrain and conditions to play with - you can just imagine. Add a couple of Kawi quad runners to the mix and it was quite a recipe. The fact that we were getting paid at the same time is just the icing. The fact that we all survived - that none of us got a pink slip, lost a limb or worst is a miracle.

Volkswagen GTI MKV -- very fun to drive. Affordably

I agree there are not enough good handling cars. But that has probably always been the case.

As for cars being "less fun to drive", it sounds like many of you including Karl are confusing "
fun to drive" with "crude" or "go-kart".

If you hate refinement, quiet, safety, and smoothness, I'm sure there are plenty of old cars out there for you to buy and drive around like a bat out of hell. Or you could just go get a go cart.

Unless you're doing all this on a track, keep in mind that public roads are not there to be your playground. If a modern Viper isn't good enough for you, you're probably doing stuff you shouldn't be doing out there on the roads. And remember, it's not what you're doing that kills, it's the person on the other side of the rise pulling out into traffic assuming normal speeds are being followed as you crest the hill, Dukes of Hazzard style and T bone them.