If money was no option, would you rather own the 3.0 Supra or the GR86?

[series.trackday]

Originally Posted by ZDan

The problem with most "sports" cars is that they are really high performance luxury cars. For me, the ideal minimalist lightweight sports car would be a fixed-roof Miata or a cab-rearward 50/50 FT86. Pretty much all the more expensive "sports" cars are overwrought and overweight, by hundreds of pounds. Every car is a host of compromises, most performance cars are compromised by having to coddle rich people. Ideally there would be a ~300hp 2-seat sports car version of the FT86 (what the new Supra *should* have been!), but I guess there's no money to be made producing one, and Porsche has long since abandoned ideals of simplicity and lightness... FT86 and Miata are still at the top of my list if I had to buy a new car, even if price is no object.

Shrug, guess I'm one of those guys.
I don't care for a track-only car, but for a dual-use vehicle, I'm not going to pay over 35K for a vehicle with the interior quality of the Twins.

[Dadhawk]

@ZDan I mostly agree with you except for the "coddling rich people" statement.

The manufacturers build what will sell and unfortunately base cars (as I would define it from the 60's and 70's) don't sell any longer. Even the least expensive entry level cars sold these days (at least in the US) are expected to have air conditioning, electric everything, cruise control, a head unit (vs a radio), and a minimum of 152 cup holders, not to mention all the safety gizmos either dictated by the government or the competition.

That's not "coddling to rich people" that's good business, by building what sells. As @series.trackday stated, very few people are going to pay for the performance of a sports car without some expectation of a level of luxury above a base Toyota Corolla. Well, except maybe enthusiasts that specifically seek that out, but to do that you are going to pay extra because it's going to be a bespoke, limited build vehicle.

[ZDan]

You guys are kinda missing the point I think...

Originally Posted by series.trackday

Shrug, guess I'm one of those guys.
I don't care for a track-only car, but for a dual-use vehicle, I'm not going to pay over 35K for a vehicle with the interior quality of the Twins.

I'm talking about a dual-use daily-driven vehicle. If I were talking about a track-only car I wouldn't even consider a production road car, I'd be looking at single-seat sports-racers and open-wheel cars.

Interior quality of the twins is OK with me. I like my BRZ's interior better than I liked my '11 Cayman's. I specifically didn't buy a WRX in the mid '00s because of interior so it's not like I don't care. No qualms whatsoever about my '17 PP interior. Other than extremely laggy touchscreen infotainment (don't get me started on how touchscreens with menus suck).

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

@ZDan I mostly agree with you except for the "coddling rich people" statement.

The manufacturers build what will sell and unfortunately base cars (as I would define it from the 60's and 70's) don't sell any longer. Even the least expensive entry level cars sold these days (at least in the US) are expected to have air conditioning, electric everything, cruise control, a head unit (vs a radio), and a minimum of 152 cup holders, not to mention all the safety gizmos either dictated by the government or the competition.

None of those are really the issue, they don't really add much size and weight. The twins have all of that (well, mine only has 4 cupholders not 152) and weigh ~2800 lb.

That's not "coddling to rich people" that's good business, by building what sells.

To rich people. The poors don't buy new cars.

"Coddling" also includes stroking egos with huge power numbers and performance numbers to point to.

But yeah, people's tastes aren't the same now vs. 60s/70s. Back then people bought smaller lighter-weight sports cars not because they were FAST (any same-era musclecar would destroy them in a straight line), but because they were FUN. Desire for simple basic FUN seems to have waned, and Porsche have decided that the Corvette model of being oversized with massive power was the way to go all along. Doh...

[series.trackday]

Originally Posted by ZDan

...I'm talking about a dual-use daily-driven vehicle. If I were talking about a track-only car I wouldn't even consider a production road car, I'd be looking at single-seat sports-racers and open-wheel cars.

Interior quality of the twins is OK with me. I like my BRZ's interior better than I liked my '11 Cayman's. I specifically didn't buy a WRX in the mid '00s because of interior so it's not like I don't care. No qualms whatsoever about my '17 PP interior. Other than extremely laggy touchscreen infotainment (don't get me started on how touchscreens with menus suck)...

I'd disagree with you. I bought my '17 for the fun of it, as a dual-use vehicle. I accepted the interior quality issues because I wanted a lightweight, responsive car that wouldn't be expensive to modify and that wouldn't send me straight to jail if I had fun with it on the street. Like many of my previous cars might. Another option at a different price point would have been a used Elise/Exige, but there isn't much out there anymore for reasons I'll describe later.

The interior of the Twins is NOT a nice place to be for anything other than track use. Most Subarus' interiors are 10-15 years behind where they should be in terms of design, materials, or quality. Much like their engine design before they partnered with Toyota. I've looked at getting two different generations of WRX STI and couldn't stomach the interior quality. Unlike you, I think my Cayman's interior was much nicer than the BRZ's.

I do not find the head unit to be acceptable from a functionality standpoint, the stock audio/speakers (and design) sucks, the feel and look of the interior trim isn't where I'd like it to be and the quality isn't where it should be - on a 5/6 year old car with low mileage, the pleather around the instrument cluster is already loose, there are rattles and squeaks coming from everywhere, and even the dashboard crash pad is actually pleather over hard plastic.

As Dadhawk said, it's not "coddling to rich people". The US government has mandated an amount of safety equipment that prohibits passenger cars being under a certain weight and a certain cost.

Manufacturer's can't sell a car with 40% of the manufacturing cost being safety equipment because consumers won't pay $26K for a car with pedestrian impact mitigation camera system; auto-braking; front, side, and auxiliary airbag systems, drunk-driving detection system, and active whiplash mitigation head restraints; but with no aircon. That's one of the reasons manufacturers aren't selling certain models in the US, or have completely done away with them (IE Elise/Exige).

That leads to a lower bound on what manufacturers can design and product in terms of weight and cost. Lower bound on cost limits the cheapest vehicle you can sell, and that price influences what features/design/quality it has. If your cheapest model is $35,000; you'd better make your $40,000 model a bit nicer with more features, and your $50,000 model a bit more than that. So yeah, cars are heavier. Most of it is directly or indirectly due to government regulations on what safety features vehicles have to have combined with consumers not buying expensive cars with poor features in the name of being light.

PS: I don't really think Porsche is making porkers. You can't judge today's cars weight against 70s/80s cars weight, because those things were/are deathtraps.

[Ohio Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by ZDan

But yeah, people's tastes aren't the same now vs. 60s/70s. Back then people bought smaller lighter-weight sports cars not because they were FAST (any same-era musclecar would destroy them in a straight line), but because they were FUN. Desire for simple basic FUN seems to have waned

I don't think tastes really changed. Back then the gulf between a fun car and a utility car was large and there were no cars that could do both. Today there are plenty of fun cars that can be used everyday as well. The European market's long love for hothatches over sports cars show this well. People can have the cake (a fun car) and eat it too (a usable car), so why bother with a compromised sports car?

This leaves the enthusiasts that find the dual-purpose car not fun enough and prefer a purer offering, but that's a small market. Huge kudos for Mazda, Subaru and Toyota for sticking to it!

[Ohio Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by series.trackday

The US government has mandated an amount of safety equipment that prohibits passenger cars being under a certain weight and a certain cost.

And yet Mazda manages to sell a 2400lb car for $30,000. Do they lose thousands of dollars for every Miata sold? Regulations certainly play a part, but throwing all blame for big and heavy cars on the government alone is disingenuous.

[bcj]

With "Money No Option" you'd have too barter for a vehicle.
Would you take a jet ski with no motor and a sculling oar on the back and a couple Chipotle coupons?

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

8 pages of people choosing CDEX+ would say otherwise.

You're comment was the question should have been more specific, which in fact, is quite specific. Choosing to follow the premise of the OP's question is a different matter altogether, I didn't. People tend to take the phrase, "money is no object" as if that means you have 44 billion to buy Twitter.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by series.trackday

Unlike you, I think my Cayman's interior was much nicer than the BRZ's.

Puzzled here... My '11 Cayman's switchgear was atrocious. Fulcrum points were ridiculous and the haptic feel was chintzy as hell. BRZ's switchgear feels WAY better to me, not even close! Ergos of rotary climate controls way better than the goofass rockers in the Cayman. The Porsche's mechanical "sport" seats were *kickass* though, while the BRZ PP/Limited's seats are merely great.

I do not find the head unit to be acceptable from a functionality standpoint, the stock audio/speakers (and design) sucks

This is true.

, the feel and look of the interior trim isn't where I'd like it to be and the quality isn't where it should be - on a 5/6 year old car with low mileage, the pleather around the instrument cluster is already loose, there are rattles and squeaks coming from everywhere,

Funny, I only have one occasional minor rattly noise at the driver side base of the windshield where a piece of foam strip tries to migrate out of place, I can easily shove it back in place. Other than that I'm remarkably free of rattles/squeaks/etc. after 4 1/2 years 70k miles and 40 or so track days.

As Dadhawk said, it's not "coddling to rich people". The US government has mandated an amount of safety equipment that prohibits passenger cars being under a certain weight and a certain cost.

And a Miata meets all of them at $28-33k at 2350 lb.

So yeah, cars are heavier. Most of it is directly or indirectly due to government regulations.

I don't think so... If anything government regs *encourage* bigger/heavier cars. Cars with a larger footprint get a CAFE break, and trucks/SUVs get even bigger CAFE breaks.

PS: I don't really think Porsche is making porkers. You can't judge today's cars weight against 70s/80s cars weight, because those things were/are deathtraps.

The lightest-weight Porsches are over 3000 lb. They could do a lot better... If Mazda can build a 2350 lb. sports car, so can Porsche.

70s/80s cars are irrelevant, suffice it to say that progress means today we can build safer cars that weigh less.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by ZDan

...
And a Miata meets all of them at $30-35k at 2350 lb.
...
If Mazda can build a 2350 lb. sports car, so can Porsche.

And if they did, it would be a Miata clone, which I seriously doubt any significant level of Porsche owners would want to own.

Admittedly, I'm not on the "every answer is Miata" team, but there are a LOT of compromises to getting to a Miata size/weight vehicle. We should be thankful one OEM is willing to do it, and they basically have the market cornered. No other OEM sees the need to knock them off their pedestal in any real way, or they would have at least tried in the last 30 years.

What I want is a modern MG Midget or Opel GT as a fun run around...

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

And if they did, it would be a Miata clone, which I seriously doubt any significant level of Porsche owners would want to own.

I dunno, would you call a '00s/early '10s Cayman a Nissan 350/370Z-clone, or Boxster an S2000-clone?

Porsche could *easily* make a mid-engine flat-4 2-seater weighing ~2500 lb. with >250hp. Unfortunately they are no longer interested in building legit minimalist lightweight sports cars.

What I want is a modern MG Midget or Opel GT as a fun run around...

Still waiting for a modern 240Z... A few cars have come close over the years but *not quite there*!

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by bcj

With "Money No Option" you'd have too barter for a vehicle.

The title of this thread has annoyed the bejeezus outta me from day 1...

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Porsche could *easily* make a mid-engine flat-4 2-seater weighing ~2500 lb. with >250hp. Unfortunately they are no longer interested in building legit minimalist lightweight sports cars.

I'm sure they could, but that goes to market penetration and viability. If they thought they could sell them profitably, they'd build them.

Honestly, I wish more of these type cars existed as well, but wishing isn't going to make it happen, so we need to support the ones that do.

(Given my next car will likely weigh 6000lbs, I suppose that's a bit hypocritical of me!)

[new2subaru]

Right now the FR-S - BRZ - GR86 is the only answer for me. I don't fit in a Miata and the rest are too expensive.

The second car will always be something more comfortable/practical but still cheaper. I toyed with buying more expensive cars but in the end can't pull the trigger. They're a money pit...