what makes a car good?

This afternoon I got to thinking (dangerous, I know, but bear with me), there are more than a few cars currently in production or in the concept stage that are designed to be obscenely high mileage city cars, and they are great as tiny, fuel-efficiencymobiles for city driving, but they aren't terribly practical as an only car unless you're single or dating/married w/o kids and don't eat at home very much, and a lot of them are slightly less than inspiring to drive.

On the flip side, there are a whole boatload of cars that are genuinely good vehicles to live with if you have more than one other person or two postage stamps to transport at any given time, or are inspiring to drive, or aren't punishing to drive long distances, but don't get quite as good mileage as they perhaps could.

On the [other] flip side, there are a few cars that are reasonably fuel efficient and are great fun to drive, but aren't terribly practical for anything and aren't exactly the first car you would chose for a long day behind the wheel.

This got me thinking that there aren't many vehicles that do most things decently well. A fuel-sipping city car that doesn't suck to take on the highway or the Tail of the Dragon or can carry more than two people and half a can of soda, for instance, or a good fun-ish family car that is good on gas (40MPG or better), or a properly fun car that's decently fuel efficient (30-35+MPG) and can carry more than one bag of groceries at a time. (yes I know the Cooper/Cooper S, hell I DD a Cooper S, but it can't be the only one?)

That thought lead to another and another and eventually, my ADD-riddled mind ended up on the idea of designing a halfway practical, fun city car that wouldn't be exorbitantly expensive to keep on the road. I've got my own ideas as to what makes a car "good," but I want to get the GRM consensus.

If you were designing a car that would spend most of it's time in an urban or suburban environment, what would your design criteria be? Or rather, if you were in the market for such a car, what features/design elements/attributes/driving characteristics would you be looking for? For instance, if there was an alternative that performed just as well but was more fuel efficient and didn't remove you from the driving experience too much, would you really chose a manual transmission? (if the alternative was, say, a CVT/IVT programmed to feel like a sequential, or the automanual that was an option on the MR-Spyder) Inquiring minds (read: naive teenager who thinks he knows more than he does about car design and has no concept of production constraints) want to know!

they used to be able to combine the two. I think the problem is that people are no longer willing to accept a "fun" car that is also green. They think they have to suffer for the good of the world

that was true a few years ago but, judging by the fact that midsize 5 door hatches/4 door sedans are starting to pop up with at least sporting notions and 35+ MPG and decently good emissions (not ULEV or PZEV necessarily, but not a pre-smog Suburban either), and of course cars like the CR-Z, the NSX hybrid concept, and the funny little mid-engine VW diesel concept thing from 1-2 years ago, that notion may be slowly changing for the better

in all honesty, good handling and brakes IS an economy feature. The less time you spend slowing or braking, is less time you need to do accelerating.

In my opinion, near as I know, everything made today is numb. Okay, I haven't driven all, or most, or many new cars. I just don't like the damn things.

What makes a good car? Character. Not much of that lately. Really hopeful for the new Toyota, though.

well.. numb and isolated is what people want. You have to remember, the new crop of "drivers" are more interested in the gadgets

I'm an Industrial Design student, let me try to answer some of your questions. I don't design cars, but I spend a ton of time with my friends who do.

There is a reason most cars aren't designed to do everything well: they end up doing most things adequately and end up being rather un-special because of this.

Problems start to surface immediately. The first thing when designing a new car is establishing the wheelbase. A car with a short wheelbase will be an agile car, but it won't ride nearly as comfortably when you encounter a bump. A car with a short wheelbase will also give you less room. A way to counteract this is to make the car taller, but that makes it top heavy and increases drag because of the increased frontal area. Another answer is to increase the overhang, I.E. like the back end of a bus, lots of space after the rear wheels. However, this also hinders handling. So you compromise, and end up with a Corolla S or some other also-ran sedan. In the end, you get something that really isn't that special.

I think that here you will find people that like a car that does one thing really well, and the more other things it's good at the more we like it.

But it's got to have one thing that it's good at! There are many different people on this board with many different kids of cars, because we want a car that is good at the one aspect we value above the others. Too many different people with different cars on this board to give a straight answer. The difference of opinion here is what makes this place so interesting.

mad_machine wrote: they used to be able to combine the two. I think the problem is that people are no longer willing to accept a "fun" car that is also green. They think they have to suffer for the good of the world

I think most people dont even understand what makes a car fun. When I have to back off going around a freeway onramp in my 300sd because there is a STI infront of me going too slow, there is something wrong. lol

mr2peak wrote: There is a reason most cars aren't designed to do everything well: they end up doing most things adequately and end up being rather un-special because of this.

Didn't you just describe every new car on the market?

Perhaps yes, but at the same time no. Most cars have a design goal to make them special in some way. They just end up failing in that goal, not designed to fail at that goal.

The best car ever designed is in my avatar. Ok, stop laughing and bear with me, because I'm no fanboi of British cars just because I have one. Until you've driven one of these any distance, you really can't appreciate just how perfect it is in the sense of having everything you need (not want) and nothing you don't. Good fuel economy, light weight, extremely nimble handling, inexpensive to operate (well, mostly), an amazing level of room for 4 people and enough space to bring home groceries, provided you don't shop at Costco. You can fit two of them in a garage where one domestic car will fit. So really, what more do you need than a transportation device that will move 4 people, reasonable luggage, easily dodge potholes and errant drivers and put a smile on your face while getting almost 40 mpg?

There is, of course, the downside...it's got a lawn tractor engine, rusts like it doesn't have paint on it, has zero safety equipment and no crumple zones and leaves oil trails everywhere you go. However, if we could build this same car with 2012 technology and not 1959 technology, how amazing would it be?

Unfortunately, we can't. The level of required safety equipment and on-board electrical nannies (plus the NEED people have for things like air conditioning and a radio) would add excessive amounts of weight and eat up valuable space. They only quit making the damn things because they simple could not exist any longer nor be adapted to modern 'demands'. Thus, we have the bloated MINI which, while a nice enough car, isn't particularly any improvement in concept over the original.

I own much faster cars, much nicer cars and certainly much more reliable cars, but I've learned that 37 bhp, 4 speeds and a lot of oil dri really are all you need to get through this life while still having a blast behind the wheel.

ddavidv wrote: I own much faster cars, much nicer cars and certainly much more reliable cars, but I've learned that 37 bhp, 4 speeds and a lot of oil dri really are all you need to get through this life while still having a blast behind the wheel.

QFT! (...and deserves to be in Say What)

In an urban environment like NYC the perfect car would be a bicycle if it weren't for all the cars, trucks and busses trying to kill you. Fuel efficient, easy to park, can go on the subway with you... cheap to buy own and maintain. Capable of sweet jumps.

Travis_K wrote: I think most people dont even agree what makes a car fun. When I have to back off going around a freeway onramp in my 300sd because there is a STI infront of me going too slow, there is something wrong. lol

FYP.

Even here- you have people who are having fun with 0-60 times well in excess of 10 seconds, whereas others are not happy without at least 300hp. Some would love to have the simplicty of a 60's GP car, others think that it's so hard to live with it, it's no fun.

For that matter, there's no such thing as perfect. Well, there is to you, but I don't think you'll find that this board has a distict measure of perfect.

Well, unless you can have a 2000lb car that can circle any track safely all day, tow 11,000 lb safely, carry 4 adults, luggage, groceries, in a small- easy to park- pacakge, that gets 50mpg, will survive a roll over after being struck by an SUV, and still costs less than $15k.

To many conflicting variables to define fun or perfect.

Things that make a car fun: - crisp steering
- taut, responsive handling to go with the steering
- predictable brakes
- reasonable acceleration
- nice engine/exhaust sounds
- tactile feedback (like Yamaha ball bearing stereo knobs of the 70s, the snick of an S2000 shifter, the weighted draw of a mechanical clutch linkage... etc)

A turbo.

ddavidv wrote: The best car ever designed is in my avatar. Ok, stop laughing and bear with me, because I'm no fanboi of British cars just because I have one. Until you've driven one of these any distance, you really can't appreciate just how perfect it is in the sense of having everything you need (not want) and nothing you don't. Good fuel economy, light weight, extremely nimble handling, inexpensive to operate (well, mostly), an amazing level of room for 4 people and enough space to bring home groceries, provided you don't shop at Costco. You can fit two of them in a garage where one domestic car will fit. So really, what more do you need than a transportation device that will move 4 people, reasonable luggage, easily dodge potholes and errant drivers and put a smile on your face while getting almost 40 mpg?

I can certainly agree with this every other small car since the original Mini is directly related to it. It was a major revolution for small cars.

My stick shift 2011 Elantra fits the bill in every area

I agree with Alpha. Too many variables.

aussiesmg wrote: My stick shift 2011 Elantra fits the bill in every area

Please tell us more about your Elantra! Does it get 40mpg?

For me, what makes a car good is it being matched to it's task.

For instance, I loved my 2.3L auto Mustang convertible, despite it technically being a horrible car. Why? Because it was perfect for the 35 mile canyon run of a commute I had. Just enough power and handling so that absolutely wringing it out I would do speed-limit-plus-5 the whole way and have a blast doing it.

While I lived up in the mountains, I couldn't see life without a Bronco. It was perfect up there; 2-doors, decent enough handling for the speed of the roads, laughed at snow and mud, etc. Now that I've moved to the flatlands, the thing bores the hell out of me(though I don't get rid of it because it fills all the needs, even if it doesn't tick any wants). Haven't even shifted the transfercase except for those occasions of "I probably need to run this thing in 4x4 to keep things lubricated."

The Cobra was awesome when my commute was 20 miles at 70+ highway, not so great when it was 7 miles of 35-45 surface streets. It was awesome for just taking me, or self+wife for long trips, not even an option when the junior Reverend showed up.

<-- is a good car to me. I think it comes close to much of the criteria mentioned so far.

Power: 223 WHP 188 Lb/Ft torque
Mileage: 25 city - 33 highway My drivng style hurts the city mileage.
Handling: SVT suspension including 4-wheel disk brakes
Seating: 4 adults comfotably, can do 2 bay seats in the rear.
Hauling: With the rear seats folded down can haul 8" lumber easily.

Didn't come that way from the factory but 5 years and $5K got it to that point. But I have gotten 11 good years out of it and expect to get at least 11 more.

What makes a car good?

Germans

It's all about packaging. Can you get four adults in a 2200-lb box? Can you get enough grip with narrow enough tires to give your drivers the luxury of manual steering?

The "do-all" cars are the '86-01 Integra and '88-00 Civic, and they stopped selling them because Honda thought the world was turning away from the $25,000 compact. It never did. They just stopped selling them.

You hear people singing the praises of the Mazda2 and Mazda3 and if you could get the 2 with manual steering and the 3 with less power lag than a '77 Renault RS01 they'd be the exact sort of complete car you're talking about.

This would fit your description if only Ford would bring it to America. If they did, that would be a candidate to eventually replace my Sentra.