Yahoo! Top 5 most fun cars to drive under $35,000

[mwjcyber]

Review and Video:
http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/open-ro...221902513.html

You can’t beat fun for a good time. And you can’t beat a really fun car for less than $35,000. No matter how fun your Ferrari 458 Italia is, no matter how great your Lamborghini Aventador makes you feel, anyone who is larking about with a $27,000 grin-mobile can look at you and say: “I bought this with what it costs you to service your brakes.”
At least that’s what I’d say.


So with that in mind, here’s our list of top five fun cars under $35,000. (Why $35,000? It just seemed like a sensible number that had at least five cars that make me smile).


#5 Fiat 500 Abarth: When Fiat left America in 1983, no-one thought they would come back with a charming, well-engineered, and (so far) reliable car like the 500. And certainly no-one guessed that they’d offer a wheel-smoking Abarth performance version. This is why small cars are fun. And, oh yeah, there’s that girl in the ad.


#4 Subaru WRX STI and Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X: Despite being bitter rivals for years, battling it out in the World Rally Championship, these are really the same car. And they’re both ludicrous. Want to feel like ten times the driver you really are? These are your vehicles.


#3 Volkswagen GTI: Since 1983, the GTI has been putting smiles on the faces of American drivers. And it has always been an absolute blast to drive. Think front-wheel-drive isn’t for enthusiasts? Think again. This latest GTI is maybe the best ever. How great is this car? I just bought one. No really, I just went out and bought one.


#2 Ford Mustang 5.0: This is the culmination of everything that’s good about muscle cars. You just wanna break the law. It’ll drift, it’ll burnout, it may get you a girl. What’s not to like? OK, everybody’s got one. But don’t let that stop you.


#1 Scion FR-S (and Subaru BR-Z): God bless Toyota. They built the “Hachi” – the mid-eighties Toyota Corolla GTS AE86 – and now they’ve gone and built it again. It’s underpowered (but upgradeable…) but so, so, so much fun. Balanced, poised, and as much fun as spiking the punch at the retirement home. Pure gold.


In a way, this is a nonsensical list. Why would you drive a car that isn’t fun to drive? That’s like eating things that don’t taste good. Or dating people you’re not attracted to.
Or driving cars that aren’t fun to drive.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting cars missing from this list.

• Nissan 370Z
• Hyundai Genesis Coupe
• Etc

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by mwjcyber

In a way, this is a nonsensical list. Why would you drive a car that isn’t fun to drive? That’s like eating things that don’t taste good. Or dating people you’re not attracted to.
Or driving cars that aren’t fun to drive.

Some cars are not fun to drive, but incredibly practical. Others are simply a reliable form of transportation that won't give you problems.

Everyone has different needs, that's why we have so many choices on the market.

-alex

Edit: Sorry I just realized the author of the piece wrote that, not you.

[Suberman]

Funny how everybody and his dog trashes the Subie engine, which incidentally produces 100 bhp/litre. Same as the base Cayman and more than the Cayman S.

Those same idjuts praise the latest Corvette which produces only 75 bhp / litre.

In what way, exactly, is Subaru to improve the power output of this engine?

The engine in my BRZ seems perfectly matched to the car. The whole driving experience puts a smile on my face every time I get behind the wheel.

The engine loves to rev. I drive the wheels off this little car all of the time, can't stop myself.

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by mav1178

Some cars are not fun to drive, but incredibly practical. Others are simply a reliable form of transportation that won't give you problems.

Everyone has different needs, that's why we have so many choices on the market.

-alex

"She may be a looker, but hey she sure is a good cook!"

Or for women

"Yeah, he's ugly.. but he's rich."

So yeah, practicality matter too I suppose.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by Suberman

Funny how everybody and his dog trashes the Subie engine, which incidentally produces 100 bhp/litre. Same as the base Cayman and more than the Cayman S.

I'm against you on this one, drop in an LS V8 and all of a sudden your car is ~2900 lbs and 400 hp, nobody cares that it's a 6L ONLY producing 400 hp, you've got 400 hp in a package that handles well. From an objective standpoint the motor could have a higher output via more displacement, turbo, whatever, people in this day and age want numbers.

But I completely agree that the motor is excellent and I wouldn't change it for anything. If that power upgrade happens I probably won't even bat an eye, very happy with the performance of my car.

[frs10]

lol tell us something we dont know...

[bcj]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

drop in an LS V8

Would you stop dropping LSs in every bloody thread on an 86 site?

please?

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by bcj

Would you stop dropping LSs in every bloody thread on an 86 site?

please?

Personally, I think it's the second time I've posted positively about an LS swap.

LS are great motors, but it's not the point. The point is that this car COULD have been sold with more power, but market analysts and engineers thought that 200hp was the sweet spot. Anything with LS like power would have been appreciated by a great number of people who thought this car was the second coming of jesus in a supra. But whatever, I can live without LS or it's power, I like my boxer.

LS*

*This post brought to you by the coalition to annoy people by using phrases over and over. LS.

[OICU812]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

Personally, I think it's the second time I've posted positively about an LS swap.

LS are great motors, but it's not the point. The point is that this car COULD have been sold with more power, but market analysts and engineers thought that 200hp was the sweet spot. Anything with LS like power would have been appreciated by a great number of people who thought this car was the second coming of jesus in a supra. But whatever, I can live without LS or it's power, I like my boxer.

LS*

*This post brought to you by the coalition to annoy people by using phrases over and over. LS.

I didn't think it was going to be a supra, that will hopefully be in a few years and yes I do hope it literally comes with a jesus approves card, even though I am not religious in one way possible.

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by Suberman

Funny how everybody and his dog trashes the Subie engine, which incidentally produces 100 bhp/litre. Same as the base Cayman and more than the Cayman S.

Those same idjuts praise the latest Corvette which produces only 75 bhp / litre.

In what way, exactly, is Subaru to improve the power output of this engine?

The engine in my BRZ seems perfectly matched to the car. The whole driving experience puts a smile on my face every time I get behind the wheel.

The engine loves to rev. I drive the wheels off this little car all of the time, can't stop myself.

I don't give a damn what hp/liter figure this car has. It still should have come with 220-230 hp from the factory with NO torque dip.

[Kelbyat07]

Lol I saw this last night and was waiting for someone to post a thread about this. I was surprise and very happy to know how good of a sport car the twins really are.

[thill]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

I don't give a damn what hp/liter figure this car has. It still should have come with 220-230 hp from the factory with NO torque dip.

The problem is that it never ends. If it came with 220, people would say it needed to have 250. If it came with 250, people would say it needed 275.

The torque dip was intentional. I think the engineers (good or bad) wanted the car to produce the bulk of the torque down low, and then give you a bump for people who like to live above 5K.

It took me awhile to get used to it, but I am living more and more in the 5-7k range and it has really woken the car up.

That said, would I like another 20-30hp and another 20-30 ft lbs of tq? Hell yeah. But I don't think things are THAT bad either. I mean you can really wring the car out without getting in too much trouble as opposed to a hp/tq muscle car that would be in an instant ticket....

[thill]

And sorry, but the GTI? The MX-5, 370z, Focus ST,or Gencoupe are all better options.. You cannot even disable the nannies without a workaround on a GTI..

[WolfpackS2k]

^agreed

Originally Posted by thill

The problem is that it never ends. If it came with 220, people would say it needed to have 250. If it came with 250, people would say it needed 275.

The torque dip was intentional. I think the engineers (good or bad) wanted the car to produce the bulk of the torque down low, and then give you a bump for people who like to live above 5K.

It took me awhile to get used to it, but I am living more and more in the 5-7k range and it has really woken the car up.

That said, would I like another 20-30hp and another 20-30 ft lbs of tq? Hell yeah. But I don't think things are THAT bad either. I mean you can really wring the car out without getting in too much trouble as opposed to a hp/tq muscle car that would be in an instant ticket....

And no, disagree. The more power you add to a car, the fewer people there are that will continue to say it needs more power. It's the same fallacy that people try to apply to increased speed limits. When the speed limit is 65 some people go 80. So when you propose raising the limit to 75-80 the detractors say "no, because then people will go 90-95 mph!" Sure a small fraction will, but the vast majority will not, because it's seriously fast and gas mileage really starts to nose dive past 80 mph.

Do you see anyone out there complaining that the new Corvette "only" has 460 hp, and not more? Or that the Mustang 5.0 needs more than 412 hp? I haven't.