Yes to both of those, but also for the list of considerations I listed too. And some buy based predominantly based on what the stopwatch and tape measure say.

I think people who have thought about cars and have tested lots of cars build a framework of what is good subjectively. For example, by using this framework to judge steering feel, they would probably judge the Cayman and the Vette to be better than a Mac truck. This is different than having a preconceived preference for a particular car. An umpire can call balls and strikes without liking either baseball team.

You can't have it both ways; marketing and branding and perception of quality and status by a manufacturer to "fool" people into buying their cars, and the manufacturer not being a cabal plotting to do just that.

The traits I described and that you mention above are not "BS". They are without question valid things to consider and assess.

Porsche has status because of it's quality; workmanship, design, and how it delivers the driving experience. Some people undoubtedly buy a Porsche for status, just like some buy the Vette for status. But people also buy Porsche because of the way it delivers the goods.

My suggestion to you is to decide what you like and can afford and then go buy it and be happy. Don't worry that others have a different opinion, and don't worry if another car has better objective numbers or is assessed by experienced drivers/professionals to have better subjective qualities than the car you decided on. Try not to get your feelings hurt if the car you drive doesn't finish first in magazine tests.

The "fact" part is that lateral g is not the only consideration in determining which car is the better driver's car, or which car is more fun.

And if I disagree on the fun part then...?

I cannot believe this guy... wow!


"very similar performance" can be translated into "I really wanted the Porsche to win, damn you c7!"

His assessment might not necessarily be the same as yours or anyone else's. But it's right in line with journalists' opinions on both sides of the Atlantic. It's also in line with what vehicle developers themselves strive for. Tadge Juechter included. If head engineers from Corvette, Toyota/Lexus, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Jaguar, BMW, Lotus, and Porsche strive for something, then it's probably something worth considering.
How well a car corners is not the same as how fast it corners. A Viper ACR can pull big g's on a skidpad or smooth track, but that doesn't mean it goes down a snaking mountain road as well as another car with lower ultimate limits on a skidpad.

Let's make an actual case of an actual sports car vs an actual Cadillac: In Motor Trend's 2009 best driver's car test, the CTS-V outcornered the Miata on both the skidpad (0.94g vs 0.91g) as well as on the racetrack (1.33g vs 1.32g). The Cadillac has higher numbers, but which do you think is more fun? Which car has the more extensive reputation as a track car and club racer?
In the same test, the BMW 135i also outscored the Miata objectively in acceleration, braking, and skidpad. It also turned in a lap time 6.2 seconds faster than the Miata, and peaked higher g in the corners. Yet the Miata finished 3rd while the BMW finished 9th. Here's why:
Those reasons seem reasonable to me. It's well known among BMW circles that BMW set the 135i up for heavy understeer, with its staggered rear tires designed to try to reign in that power on a relatively short platform. Sure, it's very fast in a straight line (clobbering the Miata by 2 seconds to 60 mph), but that setup is not great for on-track balance and fun.

I don't think you can be sure of that. If anything, sales of the types of sports cars that the Corvette is vs sales of the types of cars that the Porsche is suggest most people don't consider outright speed to be an important factor.

Could simply be due to different criteria being used (sort of like different buyers having different criteria when buying a sports car): edmunds may have been using a track where the Cayman's power can match up better with the capabilities of its chassis, while Laguna Seca, with its long run uphill, can bring out the power of high horsepower cars and where the Cayman might feel underpowered.

Is that another way of saying its power level is matched appropriately to the capability of its chassis?

So what you're saying is that Porsche doesn't get a free pass. Got it.
Just because you remove negative idiosyncracies, that doesn't mean the car is less of a driver's car. It could mean that with unpredictable negative traits out of the way, you could now have a car that works with you to help you find the better driver within you, rather than one that frustrates you with its negative traits. I have yet to find a review that actually pines for terminal trailing throttle oversteer.

This is a more fair comparison than the 911 one, bottom line is the Porsche line up 991/981 have been dominating reviews since they came out a few years back, against the C7 as well as most other cars.

To me a car like the GT500 is faster than both, but it is more of the Sledge Hammer, the Porsche is the scalpel, and the Vette falls somewhere between the 2.

I can not recall any time we all had better choices than we do today, this is Great for all of us!!!!! With-out great competition there is no incentive to spend tons of money to better your products.

What a Great time to be a Car Enthusiast!!!

Given how tense everyone is around here and on this forum, I am very hesitant to even try to reply to this, but my lack of better judgement allowed it.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. A Corvette is faster than a BRZ? Sure, but it doesn't mean it is a better driving car.

Just because a car is faster around a corner doesn't mean it 'feels better' than a slower car around that same corner. The BRZ may be measurably worse in terms of sheer G forces it can pull, but subjectively it can 'feel' better than the faster car. As a matter of fact, this is a common trend and why its considered one of the best drivers cars, despite the fact it isn't terribly quick.

How can a car feel better when its slower? Well, it could be due to a number of things, communication, neutrality, predictability, more obtainable/manageable slip angle, more confidence, playful chassis, etc. There are a number of factors, some of which are very hard to describe, but it isn't just about speed.

FWIW, I own both a Z06 and a BRZ and they are VERY different, more than you'd think. There are things that the BRZ is better at than my Z06, despite being measurably slower in every aspect. It is no surprise to me that the reviewer thought the same thing when it came to the Cayman (and 911) and the C7.

"C7-3.7s at Laguna Seca"

Quite the opposite.

I may enjoy the constant respect and attention the vette demands, and the brutish nature of it aiming exactly where you want it... so long as you have the foresight to aim it ahead of time.

I may NOT like the way the BRZ tells you exactly where to place it, and cuts its path almost effortlessly.

Yet post my opinion, as I've seen done'many a time, and the BRZ/FRS fans cry "you just don't get it." Anytime someone prefers a car vs the twins that always gets thrown out.

No I DO get it, and I still might prefer the vette. The outrageous grip and antics you can pull is also just as important, more so even, then the way they feel.

It's what's being pulled here, yet again. The fact that the vette is a much more capable machine, for less money, is seemingly ignored, while steering feel is given 100 extra bonus points. Meanwhile I could jump in the car and hate the way the cayman feels.

But to some, that is just plain impossible. How could someone ever like the way a mustang/genesis drives over a BRZ?' How could someone ever like the way a corvette drives over a cayman/911. Why that's just poppycock!

I for one, enjoy a car that challenges me to get better, whatever model it may be. It sure seems that's not the case with, oh, about 90% of the population anymore...

However, as far as FUN, yes, I have no problem saying a car that digs at the tarmac and pulls 1.1G is automatically more fun then a car that pulls .9G. I have no problem making that blanket statement.

But apparently that opinion is wrong in some people's eyes.

So you would prefer that the car, rather than faithfully responding to how you want it to behave and where you want it to go, does something else and goes where you don't want it to go? Even if you "aim it ahead of time," that's no guarantee that it'll hit your mark by the time you actually get there.

How is it more important?

"Could"...so you haven't driven the Cayman, is that right? Nor the BRZ.

I don't think anyone is saying that. I, for one, am wondering if:
1) You can accept that outright objective performance differences don't matter to a lot of people (who don't race these cars, which most don't), and
2) You can justify the claim that these outright differences are more important

Just because some cars are more rounded or are better driver's car, that doesn't mean they don't challenge you to get better. It could just mean they are removing the frustrating negative traits that hinder your progress as a developing driver. Obviously, 90% of the population don't want a car that behaves unpredictably, especially in the not very unlikely event that raindrops touch the ground or when the ground is cold. GM has specifically stated that predictability and precision feel were paramount in developing the C7. You're saying there's no merit to this pursuit?

Even if all else is not the same? Consider the car that pulls 1.1G:
1) is as mute as a Prius at a stoplight,
2) has a device that removes the sensation to you of pulling Gs
3) bites your ass and spits you out unpredictably should you, or a condition in the pavement, sends it to 1.101G
4) can only pull that high G figure on a smooth, dry, warm skidpad, but on a real-world road with bumps, ruts, and cambers can only pull 0.6g

Consider that the car that pulls 0.90G
1) sounds like a C6.R or Ferrari Formula One racer
2) allows you to kick the tail out all the way around the skidpad at that G level if you wish
3) tells you faithfully everytime you are near the limit, so you can react and back off
4) pulls 0.90G on that skidpad, but out on the real-world road, can maintain a 0.85g figure.

The 1.1G is still automatically more fun?

Regarding Motortrend's comments on the Miata -- How confidence inspiring do you think it would be if it had 400 hp? Or even 300? It's much easier to make a car confidence inspiring if it has a less powerful engine and lower limits.

That right there, for me, is it at the end of the day. This is what it all boils down to.

Get what you want, and enjoy what you have. There is some great machinery out there. If a reviewer likes my car, good for him. If he prefers the other, fine by me. I like my car (and if I don't, I don't buy it or keep it).

So... yeah.

I really like both the Cayman and Vette. What bugged me about this test (especially the video) was how the entire discussion was focused around how the Cayman performed just about as well as the Vette in objective tests, yet was much better in subjective areas. The problem is that the objective measurements in most cases (except braking) were not nearly as close as the reviewer implied. Every time there was an objective measurement, he was saying how close the Cayman was, but that isn't what the numbers indicated.

Then when the talked about electronic aids, they mentioned how poorly integrated they were, and how balky the transmission was. The transmission I can understand, but other reviews have mentioned how well integrated the electronics are and how they don't distract from the feel.

Going back and watching the C7 vs. GT-R comparison makes it seem like they tested two completely different cars.

I realize that ones perception of a car can change depending on the competition, but this test just seemed so different from others I've read that it was difficult to take seriously. The guy really seemed to be trying hard to downplay some of the advantages of the Vette in the video.

I honestly am not surprised that the Cayman won (it really is a great car), but I was surprised at the editorial nature of some of the comments and how different they were from other comparisons (which were all done on the same day). I think the review would have come across as more honest if they weren't trying to apologize so much for the lower objective performance of the Cayman and simply said, "Yeah, it's much slower, but it's also a better car overall." Just gave me a strange vibe. Thought the comparison against the 911 was better, even though the Vette lost that one as well.

-T

By the same token we could ask how many g's the Cayman would pull if it had Corvette-sized tires, or how fast it would be if Porsche allowed it to surpass the 911. But neither of those things have happened, so we look at the Miata: its power is appropriate to the chassis and vice versa.

-- Chevy claims 3.8s 0-60 for Vette, edmunds tested 4.1.
-- Porsche claims 4.7s 0-60 for Cayman S, edmunds tested 4.3.

Both cars are manual cars, probably with the same driver.

I'm not saying Chevy is lying (actually the 3.8 best possible time should be true), but I like how modest Porsche is ...

So what you're saying is that you would prefer a car that
1) countermands your steering input with an opposite reaction of its own,
2) obstructs your chosen gear input by randomly selecting a higher or lower gear than intended,
3) randomly applies an unpredictable level of braking going into a corner,
4) sometimes randomly oversteers or understeers whenever it deems is appropriate
I think you're going to be alone on this one. Would you also enjoy hand-cranking your engine from the front of the car too? How about jetting your own carburetors? Both are very involving.

I didn't read anything in these articles suggesting a lack of adrenaline. I suppose you're the type that enjoys the "adrenaline" from a dance partner who might (or might not; you just never know) stab you in the back. Do you get adrenaline from looking at a stat sheet on a paper? Or do you get it from the actual experience of g-forces and lateral loading, the sound of the engine, the view of the scenery rushing by?

I'm not going to pretend to know what edmunds asked for, nor do I pretend to know what Porsche NA has on hand at any moment within its press fleet. You probably shouldn't either. Sometimes, mags will just get what companies have.

Then you admit you are in no better place to assess the relative qualities of a Corvette vs Cayman than edmunds, nor are you better able to do so for a Corvette vs BRZ than jawnathin, who has both.

Without having driven the BRZ, who are you to despise what the media have made it out to be. The media have not made it out to be the second coming. They readily acknowledge its power deficit.
As for the Aventador, I can easily see how people could have more fun on winding roads than the Aventador. Sometimes, a huge, wide supercar with poor outward visibility can be intimidating to take anywhere near its limits. Plenty of sources have slagged its transmission as well. It's often more fun to take a well-balanced car and be able to extract closer to 10/10ths on a road, rather than being merely able to extract 4/10ths out from another. (Cue the reviews of the F12, for which Motor Trend, Autocar, and Jeremy Clarkson agree that it's too much power for the chassis/tires; that's not by coincidence, nor is it part of some cabal to defame Ferrari. That's what happens when you try to channel 730 hp through two relatively narrow non R-Compound tires.)
Its WRX cousin outperforms it, yet Subaru clearly felt there was something that could be added to its lineup.

Your claim is logical...when all else is equal. With the Corvette and Porsche, we know that all else is not equal. (And we knew this from the previous generations of both cars, with GM having explicitly benchmarked the 911.)
As for my justification, I can merely look at the free market and see what people are voting for with their wallets, to get an idea of what is truly valuable to them, and it is they collectively (along with the engineers, who support my view) that determine how these cars perform. You mention Person A and Person B, but you fail to realize that these tests aren't just about Person A and Person B. They often involve Persons C, D, E, etc. The final writeup is often the result of the collective scoring. And the companies often explicitly ask for magazine journalist inputs (GM even hired them as analysts to critique their products), so I'd say that carries a bit more weight than one single individual on a random car forum.

And what about the 2nd generation Vipers. Did you have fits when the Corvette won for being the better overall rounded car, even though it was 4-5s slower on track?

Who said anything about golden law? I asked if you think there is merit to that pursuit.
Corvette team doesn't get its own engine built from the ground up. It has to share R&D development with other divisions (and gets to amortize those costs, which helps make per-unit prices lower too). You might not approve of it, but I could argue that Tadge is on solid footing when he says there won't be a Corvette at all if they don't take economy into consideration.

Even if I am reaching, what's your answer to that? You didn't answer.
So in your mind, a car that takes 6 years to "practice" and learn the limits of is just as good as another that delivers 95% of the objective performance, but works with the driver, so that he can safely (and responsibly) learn its limits within a much shorter time frame. I think not even racing drivers would agree with you on that one.

But if there is no BRZ for you to pass, how would you know? ;)
You're not getting it: You don't get to pick and choose. I'm saying each of those cars has ALL of those respective characteristics. And nowhere did I say anything about the car sounding like a BRZ. I specifically said:
"sounds like a C6.R or Ferrari Formula One racer"


It doesn't have to be mudding or in the snow. People drive their sports cars on less than perfect pavement all the time. They drive them in rain too. They wake up to a dry morning, only to find rain and cold surfaces for the drive home. Such driving conditions are not limited to purely fictional environments.
That your C4 was your DD for 4 years in southeast PA doesn't mean that another car could do that same job, but much better.

Yes, and apparently many Porsche owners are not satisfied. Perhaps you might want to read this item from the September 16th version of Autoweek. :eek:

Imagine the outcry if this had been a Corvette related issue........:yesnod: