http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2014/11/quote-day-sports-car-dead/ (http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2014/11/quote-day-sports-car-dead/)
Quote
"The sports car market is roughly half of what it used to be," Ian Robertson, BMW's head of sales, said in an interview at the manufacturer's headquarters in Munich. "Post-2008, it just collapsed. I'm not so sure it'll ever fully recover."
Speaking to Automotive News, Robertson noted that SUVs and crossovers have replaced the sports car's function as a status symbol, while emerging markets tended to gravitate towards large sedans that one can be driven in.
While those of us who love driving will scoff at the notion that a CUV could ever replace a sports car as the most desirable automobile, market data has shown that the CUV is the most desirable body style not just in North America, but in many emerging markets – in both locales, it serves as a symbol of affluence and high status, despite what we may consider to be inferior attributes vis a vis a passenger car.
The other factor is that driving conditions have changed. Increased congestion, urbanization and a demonization of speeding (backed by harsh, if not draconian penalties) has made the notion of a sports car an outmoded one for many people. Even the latest 991 Porsche 911 GT3 has abandoned the manual transmission. And while Porsche claims this was done in the name of technological advancement, let's not fool ourselves: it was a careful, calculated move designed to appeal to the poseur who wants the GT3 because of its racing heritage, despite never intending to take it on track, much less above 60 mph.
I would tend to agree. Unless you live on the side of a mountain or have the time n money to track your $30-100K car regularly, seems like a lot sacrificed for not a lot gained. G sedan version of my Z is maybe 95% as fun but 400% as practical. Don't get me wrong, I love sports cars, but they seem to be on the theoretical/philosophical side of the "good automotive things" balance sheet
Doesnt help that the performance bar of the average car has moved up so much. Bench racing wise cars are a lot "sportier" than they were even just 15 years ago.
I have to say the X6M/X5M twins are amazingly fun to drive. More fun than the current M5, even.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on November 17, 2014, 01:35:04 PM
I have to say the X6M/X5M twins are amazingly fun to drive. More fun than the current M5, even.
Maybe that is true, doesn't change the fact that they are NOT a proper substitute.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on November 17, 2014, 01:35:04 PM
I have to say the X6M/X5M twins are amazingly fun to drive. More fun than the current M5, even.
I think that says more about the M5 than the SUVs TBH.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on November 17, 2014, 02:23:18 PM
Maybe that is true, doesn't change the fact that they are NOT a proper substitute.
True, but in the case of the avg Joe who was looking at something like a Miata vs an MS3 or something, who had no plans to do any track days and rarely gets out onto awesome roads, the MS3's driving experience is prob more than "good enough" and the overall package is just more agreeable.
I can see the "track day" comments making sense for something like a 911 GT3, but for your every day run of the mill sports car track days shouldn't be the deciding factor IMHO. A sports car should be fun to drive on normal roads. Maybe MORE fun on twisty, curvy roads with no traffic...but still fun in everyday driving (keeping in mind that the vast majority of driving is NOT done in downtown NYC/LA/ATL/PHL/Etc...).
For myself, looking back at the only "sports car" I've owned (a BMW Z3 with the smaller 2.5L I6) I had a blast just driving around town with the top down. It did encourage a bit more hooliganism than any other car I've owned, but even without breaking laws it was still fun to drive.
All that being said, I understand the quotes in the OP. A significant chunk of the "sports car" market was people who were just buying them to show off to the neighbors and didn't really enjoy driving them. Those people are switching to SUVs not because SUVs are fun to drive, but simply because they are a more up to date status symbol (for "non-car people" anyway).
Quote from: SJ_GTI on November 17, 2014, 02:38:00 PM
I can see the "track day" comments making sense for something like a 911 GT3, but for your every day run of the mill sports car track days shouldn't be the deciding factor IMHO. A sports car should be fun to drive on normal roads. Maybe MORE fun on twisty, curvy roads with no traffic...but still fun in everyday driving (keeping in mind that the vast majority of driving is NOT done in downtown NYC/LA/ATL/PHL/Etc...).
For myself, looking back at the only "sports car" I've owned (a BMW Z3 with the smaller 2.5L I6) I had a blast just driving around town with the top down. It did encourage a bit more hooliganism than any other car I've owned, but even without breaking laws it was still fun to drive.
All that being said, I understand the quotes in the OP. A significant chunk of the "sports car" market was people who were just buying them to show off to the neighbors and didn't really enjoy driving them. Those people are switching to SUVs not because SUVs are fun to drive, but simply because they are a more up to date status symbol (for "non-car people" anyway).
Yea the pool of real enthusiasts is pretty damn small. People who buy Miatas/FRSs/Caymans. Lot of other cars (911, Corvette, Mustang) are either too mainstream or tied to an image to really be counted as representative of sports car interest.
I was gonna ask you.... what didn't you like about your GTI? What year was it? What do you like about the S4 that you didn't about the GTI?
I actually agree.
Not even from a social stand point, but there just isn't the huge performance gap anymore between sports cars and more practical cars. As technology advances too, you can get practical body styles that can transform into something more sporty at the push of a button.
If you can get 98% of the performance in a much more usable package, not many people are going to make that sacrifice to eek out those last bits.
Quote from: MrH on November 17, 2014, 06:45:22 PM
I actually agree.
Not even from a social stand point, but there just isn't the huge performance gap anymore between sports cars and more practical cars. As technology advances too, you can get practical body styles that can transform into something more sporty at the push of a button.
If you can get 98% of the performance in a much more usable package, not many people are going to make that sacrifice to eek out those last bits.
Part of the reason I think I generally don't find new cars that interesting. When a minivan's got more performance than I can use w/o getting arrested...
Quote from: J86 on November 17, 2014, 06:48:47 PM
Part of the reason I think I generally don't find new cars that interesting. When a minivan's got more performance than I can use w/o getting arrested...
I don't think it's SUVs or Minivans killing the sports cars though. It's things like the Golf R. Adaptive suspension, DSG transmission, turbo 4, electric power steering. It's comfortable, pretty luxurious, snow friendly, automatic, spacious hatch back that returns good gas mileage for commuting, with plenty of room for things. Hit a few buttons, and it's a <5 sec 0-60, insanely fast paddle shifters, great driving dynamics, and will torch just about anything short of $60k+ dedicated sports cars.
It's cars like that make a dedicated sports car seem really unnecessary.
The cars that are killing sports cars are mainstreamers that provide more than enough "sport" for most family oriented enthusiasts.
Quote from: SVT666 on November 17, 2014, 08:04:06 PM
The cars that are killing sports cars are mainstreamers that provide more than enough "sport" for most family oriented enthusiasts.
Kills me every time :hammerhead:
350z vs Camry (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOsAMUx1Kqs#ws)
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on November 17, 2014, 04:56:23 PM
I was gonna ask you.... what didn't you like about your GTI? What year was it? What do you like about the S4 that you didn't about the GTI?
It was a fun car, I just didn't like FWD. I felt like the S4 was the best compromise. AWD with a RWD bias.
And FWIW, I bought the S4 while living in Toronto so having AWD was a bit more important to me at that point. That being said, the RWD bias really does present itself well in snowy conditions. Easy to swing the tail end around corners when there was snow/ice on the ground.
I hope I dont miss RWD too much. It is a lot of fun in the few opportunities I get to exploit it. The Z's chassis/weight balance is really nice. But a well sorted FWD chassis can be a lot of fun too.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on November 18, 2014, 07:15:15 AM
I hope I dont miss RWD too much. It is a lot of fun in the few opportunities I get to exploit it. The Z's chassis/weight balance is really nice. But a well sorted FWD chassis can be a lot of fun too.
I didn't mind at first, but after about 6 months I was getting annoyed by the FWD dynamics. I am not an enginerd like you guys, so I probably can't explain it very well.
Prior to getting the GTI I was driving an A4 and before that is when I had the Z3. From my experience I generally prefer RWD (preferably with a LSD), then AWD (either RWD biased or 50/50), and lastly FWD.
Unrelated to this particular post, but going back to some comments above I would like to note that while my S4 could wipe the floor with my Z3, the Z3 was way more fun to drive. Note even in the same class (ie: sedan), a Camry might be able to record similar times to a 3-series or A4/S4, but the way it gets there is a lot different. Even non-car people can "feel" the difference when they drive a car like mine (or a 3-series, G37, IS350, etc...) versus an Accord, Camry, or Malibu.
The 911 GT3 went PDK only so as to appeal to posers? Jesus, TTAC is absolutely awful.
Traditional sports cars have always been sorta sucky - they pretty much mostly appealed to girls (= convertibles) and once they started going away from drop tops the market really declined. Only when sports cars get serious (and then it can be easily argued they get priced out of sports car realm - C7, 911) do they not become sucky, and those cars will always be around.
TTAC likes to engage in hyperbole/trolling every now and then. Website after my own heart
They do kind of have a point though. Performance enhancements aside Im sure it doesnt hurt the GT3 that the PDK makes it easier to drive. It is that convenient "race marketing FOG functionality" thing Raza cries about. But then on the flip side something like the GT3 is fast enough to warrant that PDK, even for "purists". So its just goofy shit on both sides of a stupid argument.
Statements like this is why BMW is continually loosing enthusiasts to VW.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on November 18, 2014, 09:40:47 AM
Statements like this is why BMW is continually loosing enthusiasts to VW.
I see what you're trying to do here......(finally)
:cheers:
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on November 17, 2014, 08:38:38 PM
Kills me every time :hammerhead:
350z vs Camry (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOsAMUx1Kqs#ws)
Camry. There is no substitute.
It was dead a long time ago too, then the Miata came into existence.
The new car market is stagnant right now--nothing anyone makes is exciting. Why would I spend any amount of money on a car that's newer without being better than its predecessor, sports car or not?
Quote from: Raza on November 22, 2014, 03:12:38 PM
It was dead a long time ago too, then the Miata came into existence.
The new car market is stagnant right now--nothing anyone makes is exciting. Why would I spend any amount of money on a car that's newer without being better than its predecessor, sports car or not?
Depends on what you feel makes a car "better"...
What generally proclaimed driver's cars would you say are worse off than their predecessors, and why?
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on November 22, 2014, 03:25:13 PM
Depends on what you feel makes a car "better"...
What generally proclaimed driver's cars would you say are worse off than their predecessors, and why?
Z4 is a textbook example. Softer, less practical, not as attractive. 350Z to 370Z is another. The 370Z was quicker, but no more engaging to drive than the 350Z, perhaps even a bit less. Jetta V to VI was a big step down not only in fun to drive, but also dynamics and interior quality.
Magazines have also stated that the new 3 series is not as engaging as the previous model.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on November 18, 2014, 06:08:41 AM
It was a fun car, I just didn't like FWD. I felt like the S4 was the best compromise. AWD with a RWD bias.
And FWIW, I bought the S4 while living in Toronto so having AWD was a bit more important to me at that point. That being said, the RWD bias really does present itself well in snowy conditions. Easy to swing the tail end around corners when there was snow/ice on the ground.
Torsen?
Quote from: Raza on November 22, 2014, 03:32:16 PM
Z4 is a textbook example. Softer, less practical, not as attractive. 350Z to 370Z is another. The 370Z was quicker, but no more engaging to drive than the 350Z, perhaps even a bit less. Jetta V to VI was a big step down not only in fun to drive, but also dynamics and interior quality.
Magazines have also stated that the new 3 series is not as engaging as the previous model.
I am not sure I would call the current Z4 or Jetta driver's cars at all. I think that departure was also intentional.
I'm torn on the Zs. I did not come away impressed or regretful after trying the 370Z but I'm not sure I would say it's worse.
Lot of cars are better as well. 991 is supposedly better than 997 (including the GT3!), 6G Rustang def better than 5G with the V8, ND Miata looks to be better than the NC, MK7 GTI is supposedly the best yet; barring top end and engine note new M3 is best yet; new WRX is best yet; I can say from experience flappy shift 458 is better than flappy shift F430 and I don't think a stickshift would have helped either, etc. etc. Not to mention all new cars like the BRZ, Focus/Fiesta ST, etc etc. IDK, I think right now we are in a performance car golden age, but with a huge asterisk- if you don't have the $$$, you are def gonna have to pick and choose between various attributes and have a compromise
I agree with Sporty. There are plenty of exciting cars right now. For me, the issue isn't driving dynamics, or horsepower, it's styling that is the problem.
Quote from: Raza on November 22, 2014, 03:32:16 PM
Z4 is a textbook example. Softer, less practical, not as attractive.
Dynamics may not be as good in the new car, but the styling is so much more attractive.
Quote from: SVT666 on November 22, 2014, 05:56:02 PM
I agree with Sporty. There are plenty of exciting cars right now. For me, the issue isn't driving dynamics, or horsepower, it's styling that is the problem.
Weight seems to be my biggest gripe with alot of new cars. It's like everyone thinks you can't redesign a car without adding 4-500 lbs to it.
Ridiculous
What do you think happens when you add stiffness, refinement, more power and more safety features? Shit gets heavier.
Quote from: GoCougs on November 18, 2014, 08:46:27 AM
Only when sports cars get serious (and then it can be easily argued they get priced out of sports car realm - C7, 911) do they not become sucky, and those cars will always be around.
:hesaid:
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on November 22, 2014, 07:43:01 PM
Weight seems to be my biggest gripe with alot of new cars. It's like everyone thinks you can't redesign a car without adding 4-500 lbs to it.
Ridiculous
For one n dones like the Rustang it's a problem. But most mainstreamers are just up a class from what they used to be. Civic has the same wheelbase/interior room as my old Accord, and is faster and way more fuel efficient while weighing a little less. Cars are generally way better than they used to be, except they are a lot uglier
Quote from: SVT666 on November 22, 2014, 08:09:10 PM
What do you think happens when you add stiffness, refinement, more power and more safety features? Shit gets heavier.
False, it doesn't have to get heavier. It just gets heavier because nobody cares and they aren't going to be bothered with spending the time to not add a crap ton of weight.
Mazda manages, Porsche does just fine as well. I'm sure though for cost reasons the porsche remark will be dismissed but if mazda could do it anyone could. Ford sure as hell could have kept the new mustang within 100 lbs of the last one. But they didn't have to because people buy fat camaros and people will just keep buying fat(er) mustangs.
Not really fair to compare the Rustang with the Miata/Porsches.
Rustang got a 30% boost in power over the same period the 911 got like a 10 HP boost. Plus the IRS adds weight, as does the refinement necessary to convince anyone to buy it in Europe.
Cobra IRS on the old ones add weight, and the older the cars the more they benefit from chassis reinforcement. I do think it's a real shame that the Rustang is damn near 2 tons in GT trim now, but ultimately something's gotta give- Porsche can keep its weight down because it can charge out the ass and employ aluminum parts; Miata can keep its weight down because it doesn't have to have the strength necessary to deal with 600 HP V8s.
How are waffle fries made
Quote from: 68_427 on November 25, 2014, 07:45:55 PM
How are waffle fries made
Install a potato inside of a differential and drift a lap of the Chik-Fil-A parking lot.
We don't have chik-fil-a here