This is going to surprise some people. But, FD RX7.
I had a 93 with bolt ons and suspension and it was just boring. I had heard wow wonderful they were but there was no drama, just too smooth and did what it needed to do but didn't "scare" you a little.
That sounds dumb looking back on it but when you are expecting something else and get a very capab;e car that just doesn't do it for you.....that's how I felt.
My old silver hooptie:
E90 BMW 3 series. Yawn.
Porsche 944S. Wouldn't have traded my wimpy Audi Coupe GT for one.
Audi A4. Numb steering was a complete turn-off.
Saab 900 turbo. Dull...dull...BOOST, shift...dull...dull
crankwalk wrote: This is going to surprise some people. But, FD RX7. I had a 93 with bolt ons and suspension and it was just boring. I had heard wow wonderful they were but there was no drama, just too smooth and did what it needed to do but didn't "scare" you a little. That sounds dumb looking back on it but when you are expecting something else and get a very capab;e car that just doesn't do it for you.....that's how I felt. My old silver hooptie:
I believe JamesMcD shares the same sentiments about his FD.
Saab NG900 Turbo. Much like said about the WRX above.. mash the throttle and once it got up to speed, the turbo would finally kick in.. I will add that it kicked in with a might twist of torque steer.
the Classic 900 Turbo was a much better car
In reply to M030:
My first car: http://m.flickr.com/lightbox?id=6138822150
Ultimate teenage freedom? No, complete embarrassment...
oldtin wrote: formula mazda. for some reason I did not fit in any way that seemed remotely comfortable. It was a miserable drive on a great track (road america).
Not surprising after watching them on the track compared to the other formula cars they looked like understeering pigs in comparison.
Close tie between this
and the 2.3 16V
I cant think of a particular CAR that was an unexpected letdown..
But in the spirit of things, i will say : RWD. I have found RWD to be totally overhyped by enthusiasts. I've driven tons of RWD stuff on the street as an auto tech, and co-driven some RWD stuff at autox (in which i beat the owners' times). There's nothing there that makes me long for RWD for all my cars. There's nothing there that makes me think LESS of FWD. There's plenty of stuff i dont like about the RWD layout for mundane vehicles. The best thing most RWD cars have going for them is better weight distribution than FWD, and that tends to be exacerbated on FWD when people start taking weight out of all the wrong places. Also FWD people are stuck on running square tire setups for some reason. I think rear driven wheels definitely matter on bigger tracks, but slow speed stuff like autocross, im just not seeing anything so great that i want to build a RWD car. I HAVE a couple RWD cars and have had a few more in the past. They dont tempt me to mod them out just by being RWD.
You guys want to talk about blasphemy? 
Fisker Karma.
Bryce
Vigo wrote: I cant think of a particular CAR that was an unexpected letdown.. But in the spirit of things, i will say : RWD. ...
For me, the only reason why RWD is "better" is that it feels more natural. I learned to drive on it, FWD just seems funny to me every time I drive it. I'm actually a better driver in FWD, but I just happen to like RWD.
In reply to Vigo:
I wouldn't call it being let down by RWD for me.... it's just that i don't care in the slightest.
I like fast cars. I don't give a E36 M3 how they do it.
Joe Gearin wrote: 350Z / 370Z I wanted to love these cars so much, but the driving experience just wasn't that great. Each horsepower seems to be working very hard all the time. Nothing fluid or smooth about these.
Have to agree on this one, I've always loved Z cars then was finally in a position to buy an '06 350Z.........got rid of it after a few months.
It was a fun car but seemed like it just fell a bit short. I wonder if the weight loss/extra HP of the 370Z would have worked for me.
I'd like to see Nissan make a 400Z with a lightweight, high revving V8 like the new M3 but in a smaller tighter package like the 370Z.
Imagine a car like 370Z, with 285s all around 3200lbs and ~400-450HP.
Alan Cesar wrote:mtn wrote: Similarly, I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would drive a Wrangler, yet people out there love them.After a bit, you begin to appreciate things like, "I can pull straight through to the next parking spot even though there's one of those concrete stops in the way." Curbs, potholes, steep driveways all disappear. It does have a funny way of bobbing the cab around on those heavy stick axles. I think I've finally nailed it down. It feels kind of like you're driving one of these:
But of course, most SUVs can conquer the same obstacles just as easily, and have much better overall road manners.
I had a '90 XJ (which feels much like a Wrangler, but with arguably more body stiffness) and my friend had an '88 4Runner. Granted, the 4Runner had about half the rear fenders rusted out and looked like crap, but it drove much, much better even with worn out suspension (and my XJ had everything refreshed).
Joe Gearin wrote: Imagine a car like 370Z, with 285s all around 3200lbs and ~400-450HP.
OR a car the size of an FRS with 300 hp out of a high revving 2.4 straight 6 and get a modern 240Z. I'd buy 2
Vigo wrote: I cant think of a particular CAR that was an unexpected letdown.. But in the spirit of things, i will say : RWD. I have found RWD to be totally overhyped by enthusiasts. I've driven tons of RWD stuff on the street as an auto tech, and co-driven some RWD stuff at autox (in which i beat the owners' times). There's nothing there that makes me long for RWD for all my cars. There's nothing there that makes me think LESS of FWD. There's plenty of stuff i dont like about the RWD layout for mundane vehicles. The best thing most RWD cars have going for them is better weight distribution than FWD, and that tends to be exacerbated on FWD when people start taking weight out of all the wrong places. Also FWD people are stuck on running square tire setups for some reason. I think rear driven wheels definitely matter on bigger tracks, but slow speed stuff like autocross, im just not seeing anything so great that i want to build a RWD car. I HAVE a couple RWD cars and have had a few more in the past. They dont tempt me to mod them out just by being RWD. You guys want to talk about blasphemy?
I kind of have to agree - I have three RWD cars (four really, since the 4Runner is rarely in 4WD mode). Other than the fact that most of them are well-balanced (GT6 excepted), I don't feel anything "magical" when I'm driving them hard on the street.
Then again, I didn't feel anything "magical" with my long list of former FWD cars either (Integra, Accord, Maxima, others).
In all honesty, I think AWD is by far the most fun on the street because it allows you do to the things you want to do LEGALLY at the highest extreme (e.g. when I need to jet out of a 7-11 parking lot with fast traffic coming both directions, it's nice to know that the AWD is going to lock me in and I can really stomp it to "make the traffic gap." I'm much more hesitant in a FWD or RWD car primarily because I know with FWD I'm gonna be spinning the front wheels while turning, and with RWD I can't stomp it too hard or I'll end up backwards....
For rallycross, however......RWD is FAR more fun than AWD/FWD. It's a lot more work, but a lot more fun too.
crankwalk wrote:Joe Gearin wrote: Imagine a car like 370Z, with 285s all around 3200lbs and ~400-450HP.OR a car the size of an FRS with 300 hp out of a high revving 2.4 straight 6 and get a modern 240Z. I'd buy 2
Wheelbase, length and height are nearly identical. The Z adds another 3" in width.........I'd still call them close enough in size as to be a wash.
I had a '90 XJ (which feels much like a Wrangler, but with arguably more body stiffness) and my friend had an '88 4Runner. Granted, the 4Runner had about half the rear fenders rusted out and looked like crap, but it drove much, much better even with worn out suspension (and my XJ had everything refreshed).
Im right with you on XJ and YJ jeeps driving 'like crap'. Having said that, i kinda love the things. I like things that are very mechanical-feeling and unfiltered. Ive driven a mid-80s 4-runner 2dr and loved it too for similar reasons. I liked the fact that i couldnt push the shifter ALL THE WAY into 5th without leaning forward. That's stupid, but it just adds to the quaint experience of operating an extremely high performance tractor, which is what those vehicles feel like.
Also glad to see non-hostile reaction to my RWD comments. 
350z
I finally drove one after spending a good chunk of time in an s2000, and left thinking this is a, overweight, disgraceful thing trying to pass it self off as a sports car. The fact that the s2000 has more space in the trunk was the final kicker.
z31maniac wrote:crankwalk wrote:Wheelbase, length and height are nearly identical. The Z adds another 3" in width.........I'd still call them close enough in size as to be a wash.Joe Gearin wrote: Imagine a car like 370Z, with 285s all around 3200lbs and ~400-450HP.OR a car the size of an FRS with 300 hp out of a high revving 2.4 straight 6 and get a modern 240Z. I'd buy 2
There is nearly a 700 lb weight difference as well if I'm not mistaken.
I feel that the people who can't appreciate rwd cars on the street have never owned a car with "enough" power.
Fwd cars suck when gratuitous power is put through them. RWD cars = insta-hoonage (ya ya, it's illegal blah blah blah so is speeding). I'm not condoning driving like an shiny happy person, but when you can peel away from a light turning left across an intersection and just drift the ass-end out EVER SO SLIGHTLY it feels like heaven.
I have been disappointed by many cars. Most of VW's products stock come to mind, as well as the Focus (I don't care what anyone says, that is a god awful car).
Part of my disappointment probably stems from driving one of the lightest production cars ever made (turbo firefly/Swift GT's) typically with modifications done to them. Kind of taints the soul a bit in regards to lightweight nimble cars. And then driving high hp rwd cars does the same thing at the heavier end of the spectrum. AND having raced heavier higher powered fwd cars, you realize how much THOSE suck.
Vigo wrote:I had a '90 XJ (which feels much like a Wrangler, but with arguably more body stiffness) and my friend had an '88 4Runner. Granted, the 4Runner had about half the rear fenders rusted out and looked like crap, but it drove much, much better even with worn out suspension (and my XJ had everything refreshed).Im right with you on XJ and YJ jeeps driving 'like crap'. Having said that, i kinda love the things. I like things that are very mechanical-feeling and unfiltered. Ive driven a mid-80s 4-runner 2dr and loved it too for similar reasons. I liked the fact that i couldnt push the shifter ALL THE WAY into 5th without leaning forward. That's stupid, but it just adds to the quaint experience of operating an extremely high performance tractor, which is what those vehicles feel like. Also glad to see non-hostile reaction to my RWD comments.
hah, so true about the shifter. Mine was a 5-speed Renix 2-door. When I was a kid I always thought XJs were the coolest vehicle out there (and I didn't like the 4Runner at all, since it was a "dumb Toyota").
Then years later I finally got the XJ and, although I had a ton of fun rebuilding/refreshing the whole thing and "making it mine" I actually quite hated to drive it. I kept it around for its utility aspect for a few years, but ironically it went up for sale the day after we bought my wife a new 4Runner.....
I'll also say that Renix is the engine management system of the Devil.
Interesting. I think this proves we all have different tastes in cars.
For me, easy, E30 M3. I was totally underwhelmed. It gets the big write ups, but at least for me, an E30 325is is about the same for a lot less money. Of course I didn't drive it on track, and that might sway my opinion, but I left thinking "is that all."
Another that comes to mind is the FC RX7. I remember test driving a new one in '88 I think, and wondering what the hell did they do. I had an '83 GSL at the time. I later raced a GTUs and it did not impress either. To this day it's probably the least favorite car I've ever had on track.
I also remember driving a '72 911 and not being impressed, but later I drove a different one and was blown away. Sometimes it's not the type of car, but THE car you drive.
crankwalk wrote:z31maniac wrote:There is nearly a 700 lb weight difference as well if I'm not mistaken.crankwalk wrote:Wheelbase, length and height are nearly identical. The Z adds another 3" in width.........I'd still call them close enough in size as to be a wash.Joe Gearin wrote: Imagine a car like 370Z, with 285s all around 3200lbs and ~400-450HP.OR a car the size of an FRS with 300 hp out of a high revving 2.4 straight 6 and get a modern 240Z. I'd buy 2
More like 400 according (3200 vs 2800) to what I'm reading, but the Z is also a leather clad/BOSE stereo/NAV having Grand Touring car with a 340HP V6 and sub 5 sec 0-60.......not a spartan, underpowered 4 banger.
They are not really meant to be directly compared.
I was just pointing out your concept of FR-S being "smaller" isn't accurate.
HiTempguy wrote: I feel that the people who can't appreciate rwd cars on the street have never owned a car with "enough" power. Fwd cars suck when gratuitous power is put through them. RWD cars = insta-hoonage (ya ya, it's illegal blah blah blah so is speeding). I'm not condoning driving like an shiny happy person, but when you can peel away from a light turning left across an intersection and just drift the ass-end out EVER SO SLIGHTLY it feels like heaven.
Not that it has much power at all, but the GT6 can easily drift the ass-end out in pretty much any situation. Hell, it practically steps the rear out on a hard lift on slight curves, haha.
Then again, in this county hoonage on the street will earn you a quick reckless driving ticket from the omnipotent police, so it's probably good that I'm not into that.
I hoon on dirt :)
You'll need to log in to post.
