[1966-TR4]

Originally Posted by bodtwo

I like that very much, maybe the onset of greyness in me!

I bought it when I was 35 [46 now]. My first car of any sort was another Triumph which I bought when I was 32.

At that age, I had the energy and time to do all my own work on them, they were both used for commuting in 3 quarters of the year.

Glad I did it at that age, kids etc now and scratched an itch I had had since I was a kid.

[XWV]

Originally Posted by Tengocity

Watching the video it kinda looked fun, but not like a sports car! He could take massive liberties with the kerbs, and it looked pretty squirmy under heavy braking. Nevertheless, no doubts it's brutally fast, but not sure how enjoyable it would be a normal speeds on the public road.

I don't know, that's mightily impressive. It's obvious that it's a heavy, high car, and yes there were a few corners where he used the outside kerbs in a way I'd never want to in a car, but it seems remarkably planted. The section through Flugplatz to Aremberg in particular looked both fast and composed.

Braking into Pflanzgarten looked horrific, but then it is anyway.

Videos like this are great though, they make it blatantly obvious to me why I'd never be able to drive an 8 minute lap in anything at all, no matter how much faster cars get.

[Tengocity]

Originally Posted by XWV

I don't know, that's mightily impressive. It's obvious that it's a heavy, high car, and yes there were a few corners where he used the outside kerbs in a way I'd never want to in a car, but it seems remarkably planted. The section through Flugplatz to Aremberg in particular looked both fast and composed.

Braking into Pflanzgarten looked horrific, but then it is anyway.

Videos like this are great though, they make it blatantly obvious to me why I'd never be able to drive an 8 minute lap in anything at all, no matter how much faster cars get.

Oh definitely impressive, but in regard to the point of this thread being that just being very fast and impressive is not enough to make something a fun car to drive I thought it was perhaps a good example...

[XWV]

Originally Posted by Tengocity

Oh definitely impressive, but in regard to the point of this thread being that just being very fast and impressive is not enough to make something a fun car to drive I thought it was perhaps a good example...

Fair enough. I thought this looked closer to a sports car experience than I'd expect from the other fast SUVs.

[Tengocity]

Originally Posted by XWV

Fair enough. I thought this looked closer to a sports car experience than I'd expect from the other fast SUVs.

I guess it's fun in it's own kind of way, but beating a road in to submission like that requires a certain level of commitment that would be difficult to replicate on a British A or B road, and for me that's the kind of fun that makes you get up early on a Sunday morning to go for a blast.

[XWV]

Originally Posted by Tengocity

I guess it's fun in it's own kind of way, but beating a road in to submission like that requires a certain level of commitment that would be difficult to replicate on a British A or B road, and for me that's the kind of fun that makes you get up early on a Sunday morning to go for a blast.

Yes, absolutely. Something like that Stelvio QF is very much a brutal demonstration of technical performance, though I suspect I'd feel the same even about the Giulia QF. Like you I'd prefer something more, well, lightweight.

[isleaiw1]

And that is why the mx5 has always been so popular - not necessarily fast in a straight line but great fun on the twisties...

[Tengocity]

Originally Posted by XWV

Like you I'd prefer something more, well, lightweight.

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

And that is why the mx5 has always been so popular - not necessarily fast in a straight line but great fun on the twisties...

Indeed. I've had two MX5s and ran one as a track toy for a few years. They're great fun on a back road but I just started to feel that it was just too slow!

Currently a 987 Boxster S seems like a good balance of having enough poke to allow for decent overtaking, but still light and small enough to have the agility and handling to be fun at any speed.

[XWV]

Originally Posted by Tengocity

Currently a 987 Boxster S seems like a good balance of having enough poke to allow for decent overtaking, but still light and small enough to have the agility and handling to be fun at any speed.

Yes, lovely things indeed. Personally a 987 Cayman would have been my sweet spot, I tried desperately to justify running one as a 15-20k/year daily driver but even some pretty flexible man maths couldn't make that work.

[Tengocity]

Originally Posted by XWV

Yes, lovely things indeed. Personally a 987 Cayman would have been my sweet spot, I tried desperately to justify running one as a 15-20k/year daily driver but even some pretty flexible man maths couldn't make that work.

I hummed and hawed but always liked a convertible so went with the Boxster. The occasional shudder over bad roads sometimes makes me wonder if I'd have preferred the Cayman though!

[BnB]

Originally Posted by XWV

Yes, lovely things indeed. Personally a 987 Cayman would have been my sweet spot, I tried desperately to justify running one as a 15-20k/year daily driver but even some pretty flexible man maths couldn't make that work.

987 Cayman S was my favourite steer of all. Why did I sell it? What a fool.

[Postcab]

Originally Posted by BnB

987 Cayman S was my favourite steer of all. Why did I sell it? What a fool.

My 987 Cayman S (which replaced an MX5) was indeed fantastic, and needed a thorough recalibration of my driving senses.

However, I must say my 981 Boxster S is in a different league to the 987 in every department except, perhaps steering feel and even that isn't as bad as some say. Easily the best value car I've driven for point to point tomfoolery.

[pjs]

The Macan is very well 'sorted' , but imho you've got to be going quick to really appreciate it. Had once since March when it replaced a 335d. For me the 335d got a bit ragged at the limits, the Macan seems to get better.

[Drek]

Originally Posted by pjs

The Macan is very well 'sorted' , but imho you've got to be going quick to really appreciate it. Had once since March when it replaced a 335d. For me the 335d got a bit ragged at the limits, the Macan seems to get better.

Which Macan do you have?

[pjs]

Originally Posted by Drek

Which Macan do you have?

It's an SD on 21's with PASM. Not as quick at the 335d granted but it's the family truck. Fortunate to have the M6 for something a little quicker

[Drek]

Why did you make the move to a Macan? Quite curious having been through it and not getting one in the end.

[pjs]

Originally Posted by Drek

Why did you make the move to a Macan? Quite curious having been through it and not getting one in the end.

Think of a Venn diagram. Wife had previously had an Evoque and preferred an SUV. There was a long list of potentials. RRS, XC90, SQ5, X5, GLC. Macan was the only one we both agreed on. More a process of elimination.

[BnB]

Originally Posted by Postcab

My 987 Cayman S (which replaced an MX5) was indeed fantastic, and needed a thorough recalibration of my driving senses.

However, I must say my 981 Boxster S is in a different league to the 987 in every department except, perhaps steering feel and even that isn't as bad as some say. Easily the best value car I've driven for point to point tomfoolery.

The steering feel is the standout feature of the 987 and early 997s. Never the same again. The 981 doesn't come close in that regard even if it is undeniably superior in every other way.

[Drek]

Originally Posted by pjs

Think of a Venn diagram. Wife had previously had an Evoque and preferred an SUV. There was a long list of potentials. RRS, XC90, SQ5, X5, GLC. Macan was the only one we both agreed on. More a process of elimination.

Got you. I think the thing for me was that I actually didn't want, or need, an SUV. I just thought I did! Still, when all's said and done, the Macan is still a fine car.