Re: "these cars are slow"

[ZionsWrath]

Just real quick I met someone today and we were having some fun driving around in the middle of the night. And it got me thinking. This guy was driving a retail price $39,000 car (looked up when I got home lol)

Mercedes C class, it was not any faster than our cars and was no good in turns. So I was thinking, why don't we see people complaining that their C class is a dog?

Because they are paying for luxury, refinement, and the badge. The same way we are paying for an engineered chassis that is light weight and handles well. The mustang guys pay for power.

I hope this small anecdote can put things in perspective for some people.

[DarkSunrise]

A nicely-appointed, luxury interior or powerful engine is very easy to recognize. You don't even need to drive the car - just sit inside and glance at the spec sheet. But a lightweight, well-engineered chassis? Haha. I've owned this car for a year and have done a good number of autocross and track events in it, and I'm still caught off guard sometimes how good it is with just a tire change.

Great handling is impossible to really see in your typical 10-min test drive, which is why I thought the Scion first-drive autocross events were brilliant marketing. Scion should run the event again actually. Bring along some FWD hot hatches and let people see the difference for themselves.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

Great handling is impossible to really see in your typical 10-min test drive,

I disagree, I think it becomes quite apparent even in daily driving commute conditions that this is a taut capable chassis, I really only test drove 3 cars before deciding on the FRS, an Abarth > FRS > Mustang. The other two definitely had shortcomings that would have been painful on the track (although I maintain that the Abarth is the most fun new car you can buy today if you are only daily driving it), drove a friends modded Miata and could tell that with sticky tires and a full suspension setup it was way more capable than any stock 86.

Maybe potential is difficult to see (I honestly can't imagine how good this car could be on a track) but you can immediately tell chassis characteristics with a couple freeway on-ramps in my opinion.

[chrisl]

Originally Posted by ZionsWrath

Just real quick I met someone today and we were having some fun driving around in the middle of the night. And it got me thinking. This guy was driving a retail price $39,000 car (looked up when I got home lol)

Mercedes C class, it was not any faster than our cars and was no good in turns. So I was thinking, why don't we see people complaining that their C class is a dog?

Because they are paying for luxury, refinement, and the badge. The same way we are paying for an engineered chassis that is light weight and handles well. The mustang guys pay for power.

I hope this small anecdote can put things in perspective for some people.

To be honest, I think the C class is kind of crap though. I was not at all impressed with either the C or E class mercedes, and I have test driven both for a reasonable amount of time. I think both the Audi A4/A6 and BMW 3/5 series are much, much nicer cars (both in how they drive, and how nice the interior is).

That doesn't change your point though, since neither an A4 nor a 328i is going to be much faster in a straight line than an FR-S/BRZ (and if you go up to an S4/335i/A6 3.0, you start spending quite a bit more than the $39k you mentioned).

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

I disagree, I think it becomes quite apparent even in daily driving commute conditions that this is a taut capable chassis, I really only test drove 3 cars before deciding on the FRS, an Abarth > FRS > Mustang. The other two definitely had shortcomings that would have been painful on the track (although I maintain that the Abarth is the most fun new car you can buy today if you are only daily driving it), drove a friends modded Miata and could tell that with sticky tires and a full suspension setup it was way more capable than any stock 86.

Maybe potential is difficult to see (I honestly can't imagine how good this car could be on a track) but you can immediately tell chassis characteristics with a couple freeway on-ramps in my opinion.

I definitely agree you can get a sense of the chassis' general characteristics (taut capable chassis) and can see larger-scale differences (e.g., track-prepped Miata v. stock Twins; Abarth vs. Twins vs. Mustang; etc.) from a short test-drive, but to fully appreciate a car's handling, you really need to be on a track or autocross IMO. There's just too many elements on a track that I could not replicate on a typical test-drive without scaring the absolute crap out of the salesman and/or other drivers on the street.

Of course you might just be going on some wild test-drives the likes of which I have never seen

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

Of course you might just be going on some wild test-drives the likes of which I have never seen

Hah, completely agree about pushing to the limit on the track and comparing potentials. I must admit I scared the Fiat guy a bit but I was pretty tame with the Mustang and FRS. I think the most telling thing about a car is how it handles a pothole or rough patch on the street, does it glide or hug? How does the chassis react, can I feel the sensation from each corner? I was glad to be driving over some rough and abused roads on my test drives.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

Hah, completely agree about pushing to the limit on the track and comparing potentials. I must admit I scared the Fiat guy a bit but I was pretty tame with the Mustang and FRS. I think the most telling thing about a car is how it handles a pothole or rough patch on the street, does it glide or hug? How does the chassis react, can I feel the sensation from each corner? I was glad to be driving over some rough and abused roads on my test drives.

Those are good points too. A part of handling I hadn't included (but I probably should have) would be how well does the car handle rough roads. I think that reflects significantly on the quality of the damping on the car. I also like that you brought up what kind of sensations the car transmits back to the driver vs. what does it filter. I agree, you would be able to get a good sense of that from a test-drive.

[charged86]

I would daily the shit out of a brand new c class and tint windows call it a day. and I would most definitely lease

[chrisl]

Originally Posted by charged86

I would daily the shit out of a brand new c class and tint windows call it a day. and I would most definitely lease

I don't know - I just really don't like them very much at all. I'd probably go for a 328i instead.

[The359]

Originally Posted by ZionsWrath

Just real quick I met someone today and we were having some fun driving around in the middle of the night. And it got me thinking. This guy was driving a retail price $39,000 car (looked up when I got home lol)

Mercedes C class, it was not any faster than our cars and was no good in turns. So I was thinking, why don't we see people complaining that their C class is a dog?

Because they are paying for luxury, refinement, and the badge. The same way we are paying for an engineered chassis that is light weight and handles well. The mustang guys pay for power.

I hope this small anecdote can put things in perspective for some people.

You do know the C-Class comes with a variety of layouts and engines, right? I'm going to take a wild stab and say that the car you're looking at is a C250, with a whooping 1.8 liter 4-cylinder. Of course it's going to be slow and not handle very well, it's not meant for that. People aren't complaining about their C-class being a dog because no one is using it as a performance car, unless they get up into the C350 or C63.

[SUB-FT86]

Actually a C250 is kinda quicker than a FRS. A C250 Automatic ran 6.4 seconds 0-60 and the only FRS that can pull that off is a manual version. But if you compare auto vs auto the difference is around 1.1-1.3 seconds. Also I bet the C250 has a more useable amount of torque for a DD.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/2012-mer...enz-c250-sport

[charged86]

Originally Posted by chrisl

I don't know - I just really don't like them very much at all. I'd probably go for a 328i instead.

I worked at BMW for years just bored with them. The BMW would be dinner to drive so your right about that

[chrisl]

Originally Posted by The359

You do know the C-Class comes with a variety of layouts and engines, right? I'm going to take a wild stab and say that the car you're looking at is a C250, with a whooping 1.8 liter 4-cylinder. Of course it's going to be slow and not handle very well, it's not meant for that. People aren't complaining about their C-class being a dog because no one is using it as a performance car, unless they get up into the C350 or C63.

The C350 is still a dog though - yes, it's faster in a straight line, but it's got a mediocre transmission and it isn't great through corners. I haven't driven a C63 though - that looks like it could be fun. I've heard good things about the AMG mercs.

[chulooz]

Originally Posted by chrisl

The C350 is still a dog though - yes, it's faster in a straight line, but it's got a mediocre transmission and it isn't great through corners. I haven't driven a C63 though - that looks like it could be fun. I've heard good things about the AMG mercs.

C63s are very fun to drive, but maintenance and repairs are a constant headache.