'You should have bought a better car'

Keith Tanner wrote: This could easy devolve into arguing individual models, but my basic point stands - it's very difficult to match what's coming out of the OEs when they make performance a priority.

Called it

Of those cars, how many can be beat by starting with something else and modifying it? Sure, the Grand Sport is a parts bin special. But it's a good one. There might still be untapped potential in some of those cars - there is in almost anything if you're willing to sacrifice emissions and/or durability/reliability - but that doesn't stop them from being a high water mark. So the RS is a "pudgy half step", what's the alternative modified car?

And yes, the new Miata. It's not everything it could be given an unlimited budget (although I haven't had the "we had to compromise this" discussion with anyone from Mazda other than one packaging issue), but it's pretty hard to do any better by starting with something else and bootstrapping it unless you pick a very specific set of parameters. My 1990 Miata is faster than an ND and has a stronger transmission, but it's very obviously built on a platform that's getting close to 30 years old and would probably be hard to duplicate for the price of an ND.

Actually, I did just that a few years back. I thought it would be fun to build a Singer-esque Miata, the ideal of the NA given modern technology and access to the next 15 years of parts. I gave myself a budget of the MSRP of a new Miata. And I couldn't make the numbers work unless I used a junkyard engine or worked for free.

I'd love to see Tim take this on in an editorial in the next few months. In some ways it's the antithesis of the magazine, in others not. Great conversation.

P.S. Keith's idea of a Singer style NA Miata. Now that's a modified car I could certainly get behind.

The "Pure Edition". First time I've mentioned it in public. Someday I may still build it, I'm still working through the concept and exactly how it would be spec'd out. The ND is what would have to be beat, and you couldn't charger Singer prices for it which definitely requires a bit more creativitity

'You should have bought a better car' - I think that every night when I go out to work on the Vette... But then I'd probably still be spending the same amount in fixing whatever problems the "better" car had. That probably goes for any ~30-year old car though, unless you have Barrett-Jackson money.

In reply to Keith Tanner:

Given that the qualifications were a major OEM letting engineer's go nuts, of course it was about individual models. It was always about individual models. It is the equivalent of saying, "called it. When ice melts its wet."

I didn't bring in price except on the Miata. Of course Mazda could have went crazy and made a bagillion dollars. They also could have kept the same price and put a bigger engine in it. Might even have been cheaper since those engines would have been from an already produced set up.

Yes, there is tons of potential in all those cars with factory reliability and emissions. Mazda seems to be clearing the table a little more over what's left, but hell Keith, you guys wouldn't be there if they took it all. Besides, what do you think the cost difference would be with the after market stuff you guys use, at manufacturing cost minues the cost of the stuff they are replacing? There is performance left on the table for similar money.

The Cayman GT4. At $85k new, you could easily get that above the GT3 at $145k. $60k is alot of engine work. Even for a Porsche. I believe the GT3RS engine is $40k from Porsche. So $20k to get it installed. So even smashing the easy button the option is there.

I get what your saying. The OEMs can do magic when they let the people that know make the decisions. At a level of fit and finish that is extremely rare in the modified market.

My point is, they aren't allowed that often. I know from my stint as a Tier 1 supplier a lot is left on the table that could even be cheaper.

As far as the "Pure Edition" goes, do it. Throw it out there and see who salutes it.

You have Singer literally remanufacturing air-colled Porsches. You have the Jag XKE Eagle recreation. You can buy factory licensed 1966-1970 Mustang bodies and Gen 1 Camaros, now. I remember JC Whitney selling entire flat fender Jeep and Bronco bodies in fiberglass and steel. Not to mention Caterham, in its entirety is a recreation of something another company stopped building decades ago.

You know if you build it we would pimp it from here to hell and back.

The discussion is now "model X doesn't fit the criteria because of...", which is what I predicted. Not a general discussion, it's now typical internet arguing over cherry-picked specifics.

Mazda couldn't have just stuffed a bigger engine into the Miata. That would have meant making everything else beefier and heavier, which they already knew from the NC and the Solstice was a mistake Actually, the 2.0 US model IS the "bigger engine" version, and that's why there are Miata transmission parts littering the road and the exhaust manifold is compromised from packaging.

I don't have the luxury of having driven both the GT4 and GT3, so I can't comment on if simply stuffing a bigger engine in the Cayman would make it the equal of the obsessively developed GT3. I do remember reading that the front side marker lights on a previous generation GT3 cost Porsche over $100k to retool and get certified - that's some attention to detail. I also know that there's a lot more to making a good car than just opening the hood and wedging a big engine in there.

The point is not that there's nothing left to do on a production car. It's that they're really hard to match or beat for similar money. I may have painted myself into a corner with the comment about letting engineers "go nuts", let's back that off to "make performance a priority" instead. Given a Z06 budget, can you make a better car than a Z06? And "better car" is not just "fast with a big engine", but better. As refined, as composed, factory levels of fit and finish - something that looks and behaves like it could be sitting on a showroom floor. The answer is "yes, but it's really really hard". Most individuals can't pull it off. Most shops can't pull it off.

Flight Service wrote: As far as the "Pure Edition" goes, do it. Throw it out there and see who salutes it. You have Singer literally remanufacturing air-colled Porsches. You have the Jag XKE Eagle recreation. You can buy factory licensed 1966-1970 Mustang bodies and Gen 1 Camaros, now. I remember JC Whitney selling entire flat fender Jeep and Bronco bodies in fiberglass and steel. Not to mention Caterham, in its entirety is a recreation of something another company stopped building decades ago. You know if you build it we would pimp it from here to hell and back.

So, when you say "you", are you saying "Keith Tanner, on his own dime and his own time", or are you saying "Flyin' Miata on their own dime as a service to the community because I want it to exist"?

In reply to Keith Tanner:

I think we are saying the same thing from different directions.

As far as the Pure Edition, whichever way you think would be most in line with "your objectives"

Keith Tanner wrote:

Flight Service wrote: As far as the "Pure Edition" goes, do it. Throw it out there and see who salutes it. You have Singer literally remanufacturing air-colled Porsches. You have the Jag XKE Eagle recreation. You can buy factory licensed 1966-1970 Mustang bodies and Gen 1 Camaros, now. I remember JC Whitney selling entire flat fender Jeep and Bronco bodies in fiberglass and steel. Not to mention Caterham, in its entirety is a recreation of something another company stopped building decades ago. You know if you build it we would pimp it from here to hell and back.

So, when you say "you", are you saying "Keith Tanner, on his own dime and his own time", or are you saying "Flyin' Miata on their own dime as a service to the community because I want it to exist"?

Put it out there on the website for sale on 4/1 and see who buys it with a years lead time. I'm sure you have all kinds of time on your hands there at FM to answer the "are you serious?" question.

I'd love to see a FM Singer-esc recreation of the Miata.

Keith Tanner wrote: The point is not that there's nothing left to do on a production car. It's that they're really hard to match or beat for similar money. I may have painted myself into a corner with the comment about letting engineers "go nuts", let's back that off to "make performance a priority" instead. Given a Z06 budget, can you make a better car than a Z06? And "better car" is not just "fast with a big engine", but better. As refined, as composed, factory levels of fit and finish - something that looks and behaves like it could be sitting on a showroom floor. The answer is "yes, but it's really really hard". Most individuals can't pull it off. Most shops can't pull it off.

I would rather be driving my car than doing something to my car with tools. 10,000%, I'd rather be driving it. Going back to my stock E46 M3, the checkered flag would come out and I would pit and park, get out of the car, and... Well, that's it. Maybe check tire pressures as soon as I get out. Maybe check the oil once it's settled down. But that's it. I never had to do anything to the car. There were guys fiddling with every little thing, replacing broken parts after a 25 minute session, and I simply pulled off, parked, and I was done. Stuff simply doesn't go wrong all the time on a stock performance car.

I'd rather have the stock Z06 than some boosted, lowered, stiffened, gutted, faster Corvette, because (and I say this without any hubris) would that modded Vette really turn faster laptimes than me? And I wouldn't have to monkey with it all the time. Take the numbers off and drive it to work the next day. This is what I like.

Flight Service wrote: In reply to Keith Tanner: I think we are saying the same thing from different directions. As far as the Pure Edition, whichever way you think would be most in line with "your objectives"

That objective would be to make a profit, because that's how it works unless you consider it a promotional expense. And neither Keith Tanner nor FM has those sort of pockets. So, who's putting down the deposit?

Keith Tanner wrote: ...it's pretty hard to do any better by starting with something else and bootstrapping it unless you pick a very specific set of parameters... I thought it would be fun to build a Singer-esque Miata, the ideal of the NA given modern technology and access to the next 15 years of parts. I gave myself a budget of the MSRP of a new Miata. And I couldn't make the numbers work unless I used a junkyard engine or worked for free.

This is compounded by the pace of change in the performance envelope of many new cars. Park an original Boxster next to a brand new 718 Boxster S and they're obviously versions of the same car. But when you take a look at the stats, the new car (350hp, 0-40 in 4.4s) is on a whole different planet than the original (200hp, 0-60 in 6.7s).

It's a similar story for recent Vettes, Mustangs, Camaros, etc--the late model cars are so capable that tuning an older version to match their performance gets increasingly difficult and more expensive every year.

I'm of the same mind set as Lugnut I'm driving my 105 whp 45 year old Datsun vintage race car faster than many of the Z06, Cayman and 911 drivers so why would you need to mod these or similar newer cars. Also I'm adamant that you should not be working on your car at the track.

Now those Z06 & Porsche drivers are going home in a comfortable quiet ride, the Datsun would totally suck if I drove it home rather than trailering it.

Here's where I'm at; I bought a used Outback for 17K 3 years ago and its stayed bone stock because I find souping up street cars silly. I took the money I saved buying a cheap daily and used it to fund a Formula 500. I'd budgeted up to 30k for my new daily so the remaining balance is way more than I need for funding my racing.

I learned my lesson after one souped up street vehicle; a Yamaha RD350 in the early 80s that ran low 12s, did just on 130mph and cornered like mad. It got lousy mileage, needed lots of revs and clutch slipping off lights. For what I spent I could have been racing.

If I was going to blow 50k it would be on an older strurdy D-sports Racer with stock bike engine, a used mid-size truck and small enclosed trailer. I'd still have enough money left over for two seasons of racing and track days. There isn't a street car made that will touch the kind of lap times a bike engined sports racer will do.

So yeah I agree with Matt that he and almost everyone else bought the wrong car.

Also if you want a car like no one else's , keep it stock.

Tom

Lugnut wrote: I can't stand all of the useless modifications so many people do. Why in the world would to put coilovers on a street car? And why would you put coilovers on an autocross/track car unless your stock suspension can't *possibly* do any more for you? High performance OEM suspensions are better than most people give them credit for.

If you want fun, look at the Modified class lineup at any rallycross. Probably 90% of the cars are modified from stock in ways that not only don't make sense, but actually make them worse.

When people figure that out, I'm going to stop being one of the fast guys

Knurled wrote:

Lugnut wrote: I can't stand all of the useless modifications so many people do. Why in the world would to put coilovers on a street car? And why would you put coilovers on an autocross/track car unless your stock suspension can't *possibly* do any more for you? High performance OEM suspensions are better than most people give them credit for.

If you want fun, look at the Modified class lineup at any rallycross. Probably 90% of the cars are modified from stock in ways that not only don't make sense, but actually make them worse. When people figure that out, I'm going to stop being one of the fast guys

Hoping I'm in the 10%.

Keith Tanner wrote:

Flight Service wrote: As far as the "Pure Edition" goes, do it. Throw it out there and see who salutes it. You have Singer literally remanufacturing air-colled Porsches. You have the Jag XKE Eagle recreation. You can buy factory licensed 1966-1970 Mustang bodies and Gen 1 Camaros, now. I remember JC Whitney selling entire flat fender Jeep and Bronco bodies in fiberglass and steel. Not to mention Caterham, in its entirety is a recreation of something another company stopped building decades ago. You know if you build it we would pimp it from here to hell and back.

So, when you say "you", are you saying "Keith Tanner, on his own dime and his own time", or are you saying "Flyin' Miata on their own dime as a service to the community because I want it to exist"?

Yes

Lugnut wrote: I would rather be driving my car than doing something to my car with tools. 10,000%, I'd rather be driving it. Going back to my stock E46 M3, the checkered flag would come out and I would pit and park, get out of the car, and... Well, that's it. Maybe check tire pressures as soon as I get out. Maybe check the oil once it's settled down. But that's it. I never had to *do* anything to the car. There were guys fiddling with every little thing, replacing broken parts after a 25 minute session, and I simply pulled off, parked, and I was done. Stuff simply doesn't go wrong all the time on a stock performance car.

This is what Tom Spangler and I refer to as 'Apply Sticker Racing' After both coming from autocross and track days we did a season of road racing in ITC Fiesta's. It was time and financially crippling, Tom even had a nasty accident that he walked away from 100% scratch free, but if his car had landed 2' differently he wouldn't even be here. A few years later we both had Contour SVT's and tracked them a few times. We did zero except check oil and tires. We both had a blast. Since then we've both had and still have project cars so we haven't learnt our lesson. But stock cars last better and don't break 90% of the time Vs modified cars.

I think the wild card in this whole debate is what makes people happy and why they modify cars. Because that is different for different people no one has the correct answer for everyone.

"because I can" and "it makes me happy". Are the two subjective things that make this topic pointless to argue or even debate.

In reply to Adrian_Thompson:

In a perfect world - one hopefully in a couple more years where our kids are on their own - I'd be leasing whatever the latest hot Street-class car is for 3-years, then replace it with whatever the next hot car is after that. I'd of course need to upgrade some parts, but those would be simple bolt-ons, and I'd be able to sell them afterward.

In reply to petegossett:

Most stock vehicles are compromises to meet focus group wants and regulations. For example, later MGBs were lifted to meet bumper height regulations, and a simple change to the suspension makes them work better by reducing them back to previous model heights. Will it work as good as a Miata? No, but for the MGB lover that wants it to be BETTER, that's a mod that works. And that's often the point. The MGB owner doesn't WANT a damn Miata. They want an MGB that happens to be better than it was out of the factory.

I've modded my daily driver street car with little things that make it better for ME. And I'm going to mod it slightly more. I can put on H&R stage II springs that lower it another inch and a half for better looks, a little more body control, and still ride great. I changed the exhaust for a little more rumble and sportier looks. It has the earlier intake manifold for a bit of an RPM bump for those full throttle pulls up an on ramp. It works better than the stock compromise, and didn't break the bank. Are there new sedans that outperform it? Of course. But I didn't WANT those sedans or I would have BOUGHT one. I wanted the last E38 with these mods!

A friend of mine has put a supercharged S62 with 6 speed manual in his E38. it has 450 WHP and drives like a fast stock example. Could he have just bought an M5 and be done with it? Of course. But he didn't WANT an M5. He wanted a badass E38. That's the part some of you (and Matt) no longer get.

BTW, it's a car like no one else's and it's NOT stock. Sorry Tom1200. But you're flat out wrong.

Chris_V wrote: I've modded my daily driver street car with little things that make it better for ME. And I'm going to mod it slightly more... It works better than the stock compromise, and didn't break the bank. Are there new sedans that outperform it? Of course. But I didn't WANT those sedans or I would have BOUGHT one. I wanted the last E38 with these mods! A friend of mine has put a supercharged S62 with 6 speed manual in his E38. it has 450 WHP and drives like a fast stock example. Could he have just bought an M5 and be done with it? Of course. But he didn't WANT an M5. He wanted a badass E38. That's the part some of you (and Matt) no longer get.

If you go back to the original post, that's not what Matt was talking about. The 'what car' scenario was a guy who has a $50K budget who is considering a used BRZ + tens of thousands of dollars worth of mods to make it a supar BRZ, and Matt was comparing that to guys who drop $75K into modifying their new M4s (and maybe thinking of his own broken $50,000 Fox Mustang). That's a an order of magnitude more than just modest mods to make your ride your own.

In reply to nderwater:

We have a bunch of guys here saying "just leave it stock" which is much different than "don't mod the hell out of it," as well. I'm responding mostly to those people. But Matt is also talking "leave it stock" as well, mostly due to his experience with poorly modding a car.

I posted an example of a high dollar build on an E38 with the M5 V8, supercharger, custom suspension custom interior etc. he could have bought a newer 7 series or M5 for that money, but he didn't want either of those. So modding what he WANTED made more sense, and turned out excellent.

Earlier I brought up my V8 RX7, a HIGHLY modded car that still worked better than stock, worked better than cars costing what I paid to build it, and was way more unique than any stock example of it or any car newer than it that is also stock. THAT car is the level of mods that Matt was talking about (engine and trans swap, modded suspension), yet had none of the flaws he or others here describe. And I built it not because I wanted a Corvette or Camaro or Mustang, but I wanted my existing RX7 with a V8 in it for more reliable power in a better looking, lighter, and more ergonomic package with better suspension and brakes than the stock examples of those other cars for the same or less money. I had it for 5 years as a street car and it was dead nuts reliable and still fast as hell. So I'm NOT going to agree that modding a car is bad, nor am I going to agree that modding a STREET car is bad.

Chris_V wrote: Most stock vehicles are compromises to meet focus group wants and regulations. For example, later MGBs were lifted to meet bumper height regulations, and a simple change to the suspension makes them work better by reducing them back to previous model heights. Will it work as good as a Miata? No, but for the MGB lover that wants it to be BETTER, that's a mod that works. And that's often the point. The MGB owner doesn't WANT a damn Miata. They want an MGB that happens to be better than it was out of the factory.

Back on page one I was (and am) one of the 'don't mod' crowd. But if you read it, I and most others are agreeing with what Matt said 'Don't mod out of it's class' I was and am all for minor mods like bars, flash/tune, exhaust etc.

Also the rubber bumper B's are a bad example. The B was raised to meet US 5mph impact regs and they didn't just raise the car, they re-did the front subframe that gives you very limited reboud travel if simply lowered to prior ride height. To do it properly is more involved. Also dropping a car is within my (and others) light mods, you're not trying to mod an MGB into an E type competitor which is what we're talking about with $150K M2's or massivly modded turbo Frisbees trying to be Caymans.