Quote:
Originally Posted by meadowz06
I completely disagree with BOTH articles. The FR-S is NOT a starters sports car. I have owned multiple 500+hp Corvette's and I do not feel out of place one bit in the FR-S. It was not built as a straight line performance car. And just because the FR-S cost 25,000 does not make it a starter car. It is a fantastic driving car REGARDLESS of the price. It drives better than cars costing 3 times as much. And the Cayman has that God awful shape that resembles a 911. Horrible. As far as the Porsche being a dream car, I don't think so. Dream cars are named Ferrari, Lamborghini, Pagani, etc. Actually the FR-S looks more "exotic" than the Cayman. Did I make my point?
:happy0180:
|
As with many of these arguments, it depends on how you define the term being argued over. I choose to define "starter sports car" as "a sports car accessible to someone with limited resources and experience that leaves the owner prepared for more demanding vehicles." (I'll let someone else define "sports car".) A low price is requisite under this definition but not sufficient to make it good.
A $20k sports car that leaves novice owners embedded in trees would not make a good starter car. A $20k sports car that acts like its price won't train the user how to properly handle a performance platform. Fundamentally, a good "starter sports car" will have to be an at least passable sports car and, as
everyone points out, the twins are very good sports cars. Possibly the only feature of the 86 which is at odds between "good sports car" and "good starter sports car" is the lack of excess power. It helps keep newbies (like myself) out of trouble but I can understand how some drivers can find it limiting.
Just because something's good for (or even designed for) amateurs doesn't make it inadequate for serious users.