I agree it is subjective, and will add that our preferences are defined in large part by how and where we drive.

This will raise a few eyebrows around here, but for the roads around me, the S2000 became a very UN-fun car to drive. The roads were too tight and had no runoff mading it impossible to safely test the car's challenging handling. That kept the engine off cam, unless I wanted to rev the piss out of it in 2nd gear all the time. This became very frustrating and I actually don't miss the car one bit.

For someone who lives in an area with long flat straight roads such as Florida or Texas, having a C6 with 400hp under their foot is going to be more fun than a car with a lot of handling and feedback.

For someone who lives a half hour from a track, a GT3 is ideal. That same car would be pointless somewhere else on backroads too tight to use even a fraction of the performance. Maybe that person still loves it for whatever personal reason, but the fun to drive factor has been severely limited.

If I lived in LA, I would own a flappy-paddle car.

etc...

 

GT3 all the way... i would use the 2009 S vs. 2010 Mustang V8 and see what people say.

 

Done and done.

 

Plain and simple, I like that and agree.

 

Cayman: it's a BLAST to drive around!

 

Simple.

Fun to drive: for the streets;
Performance: tracks.

There are cars that have both qualities, but are expensive.

 

I was reading some 911 owner comments on edmunds and a couple of owners traded a turbo and a GT3 in on a Carrera S. They said those cars were just way too fast on the street. GT3 owner said you could not even use 50 percent of the car on the street.
The other thing I hear way too much is the S2000 has no torque so they write it off. Geez have these people driven the car? For me the only car I have driven that is more fun to drive comes from the Porsche line. After I paid off the S I went on some test drives to see what other car needs to set beside it in the garage and was shocked at how some of the cars I drove let me down in the fun to drive department! Once you get used to the "Go kart feel" of the S you seem to evaluate other cars in a whole new light!
And for those that bitch about the price of the 911 why not get a 5 to 7 yr old one? Price is right if you can find a good one and you get a helluva car . I will take that over a brand hammer new Vette anyday.

 

If I'm not having fun @ the track, no way am I going to blow all that money doing it. Who cares how fast you're going if you're not having much fun doing it?

 

i think that this is an odd comparison. i find the way a car performs to be the fun part about the car. though it seems that the way you guys define performance is the ability to go in a straight line very quickly, and not do much else.

i consider the s2k to be much more of a performance oriented car than most any straight line bullet.

 

"Performance" is the ability to beat your competition, whether it's by power, light weight, downforce, mechanical grip, or whatever. Performance is what determines your finishing position on the salt flats, around Laguna Seca, at the Texas Mile, down the quarter mile, through Baja, etc. It's even a factor in those fuel economy challenges and robotic driving challenges, if that's your form of competition.

"Fun to drive" is whatever makes you smile, whether it's by acceleration, cornering g's, top speed, high torque, high revs, responsiveness, stability, in-car entertainment, air conditioned vibrating seats, or whatever. For some, it even is affected by whether or not their car can be judged superior in some way (acceleration, top speed, whatever) than somebody else's car.

My initial answer still stands.
Am I being paid to drive? Then performance wins. Doesn't matter if it's boring, or scary, or uncomfortable, or totally impractical - I want maximum possible performance.
Am I driving for my own enjoyment? Then fun-to-drive wins. I have my own personal definition of fun-to-drive that's probably shared by a lot of other S2000 owners, but there are many other definitions of fun-to-drive.