|
Originally Posted by NFRs2000NYC,Apr 27 2010, 10:02 PM
Just wanted to see if anyone noticed...if you go to motortrend.com, and click on ROAD TESTS, the icon for convertibles is an s2000. Good times.
|
Originally Posted by GinoGT,Apr 28 2010, 12:54 PM
Decent finish for the Audi, considering it's a hyper-Beetle with a drivetrain setup that's a complete and utter disgrace as far as roadsters are concerned. :LOL: BMW has really lost its bearing to be beaten by that.
|
[QUOTE=Saki GT,Apr 28 2010, 12:44 PM]Thats what I was thinking - how bad do you have to be to lose to a TT?
|
:spitcoffee:
|
The result isn't shocking at all, but what is shocking is how good of an article that was.
Before heading out, we established some ground rules. We wouldn't count cupholders nor factor in legroom. We logged fuel economy for those who care, but didn't count it in the final tally. Such practical issues are for practical cars. We put aside the stopwatches and calculators in favor of softer data collected by ours hands, feet, eyes, and ears. How can such a heart-and-soul approach so accurately and positively identify the Boxster S as the roadster that best fulfills the mission profile? See for yourself. |
Good point, when did MT become CandD?
|
Originally Posted by Dr. WOT,Apr 28 2010, 12:48 PM
The result isn't shocking at all, but what is shocking is how good of an article that was.
Wow, did I really read that on MT? When did they hire Evo's writers? Taking the "heart and soul" approach to reviewing roadsters is how it should be. |
Boxster S is the best roadster in its class for like the 10th year in a row!
Aside from an Elise it's the best driver's roadster in the world. (nevermind exotics) I still believe the chassis can take more than 310 or 320HP. The Boxster S should have around 350HP. |
Those four cars are such different vehicles it's almost nonsensical to rank them. No two really share much more than two doors and the lack of a roof. AWD, RWD, mid-engine, front engine, V6, flat-6, straight-6, inline-4, trubo, naturally aspirated, retracting hardtop, traditional soft top, etc., etc., etc.
Funny though: When the Boxster first came out it was "the Porsche for posers," the TT was a "failed attempt at a sports car," the 350Z vert was a "fat ugly pig" destroying the lines and handling of the coupe, and the 3.0 Z3 was the only one that had any credibility. Have standards changed or have the cars gotten better? [note for the slow: I am using quotes to indicate common criticisms of the time, not saying I feel/felt that way about the cars myself.] |
Originally Posted by NuncoStr8,Apr 28 2010, 04:22 PM
Those four cars are such different vehicles it's almost nonsensical to rank them. No two really share much more than two doors and the lack of a roof. AWD, RWD, mid-engine, front engine, V6, flat-6, straight-6, inline-4, trubo, naturally aspirated, retracting hardtop, traditional soft top, etc., etc., etc.
Funny though: When the Boxster first came out it was "the Porsche for posers," the TT was a "failed attempt at a sports car," the 350Z vert was a "fat ugly pig" destroying the lines and handling of the coupe, and the 3.0 Z3 was the only one that had any credibility. Have standards changed or have the cars gotten better? [note for the slow: I am using quotes to indicate common criticisms of the time, not saying I feel/felt that way about the cars myself.] I think the TT still is a failed attempt at a roadster, unless you're cool with VAG's platform sharing obsession and a front transverse engine with FWD or FWD-based AWD in a purist's type of car. I'm not. I think both of the recent Z cars are ugly as convertibles. Too round and puffed up to pull off the roadster look. The last Z4 was a beautiful car, and the new one is just gorgeous. Gotta love straight-6 engines too. Retracting hardtop though? No thanks. Plus it seems BMW can't get the suspension tuning right, which is the kiss of death in a car like this. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:39 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands