gad, just out of interest more than anything, have you drove the new M5?

 

hmmm

take the comparison of the time - 348 vs NSX

348 - dogleg gearbox, recalcitrant second, until hot
NSX - typical Jap knife through butter, hot or cold

348 - non pas
NSX - pas

we can debate the roots of 'pleasant' and to what extent they include 'ease'

I just think we're on a fool's errand looking at cars that are 'driven quickly' rather than 'travel quickly'

the idea that some kind of purity exists in cars like Loti, but that cars like Imprevos and M cars stay on the road because of electronickery, is largely wishful thinking

an easy test is to compare a 70s Elan with today's Exige

I think it's called progress, and there's no escaping it

Lotus may do it through chassis engineering and Mitsubishi via electronics, but no-one is going to persuade me that all moderns aren't anything but easy to drive

 

no, and don't particularly want to

first - 13mpg is just taking the piss (for a car that does not look jaw droppingly good)

second - idrive.........

third - you have to PUSH A FECKING BUTTON to get the full 500bhp!

 

My test drive of the M3 is going to be very interesting as I've heard so many conflicting reports. I'm going to let the car do the talking.

With regards to the M5 being the ring taxi of choice....

Well it's BMW who provide it, and the only quick 5 seater that they produced was the M5 at the time. They now have the M3 saloon, but it's a touch cramped in the back comparatively.

 

you seem an unbiased driver Mark

remember the M3 as a small sports saloon/coupe and you will see why it is the best of that class

and why it will annihilate many so-called sports cars

compare it to a quasi-track car and you won't be so impressed

on the road, it's close to unbeatable

 

That's the degree argument.

I'd have put the E39 closer to an Imprevo or a Lotus, since, whilst they DO have FREDS, they're not dependent on them.

Same way the optional FREDs on a 987S flatter the already excellent chassis.

An E60 or an RS-ole are reaching the stage where they're undriveable by the average idiot, without FREDs. Plus the burgeoning mass is becoming a problem; Look how tiny an E34 M5 now seems.

Having said that, E60 still has the oily bits in the right place, so is probably still my favourite of the modern rubbish.

Actually no; the XF looks gorgeous, not gawky. One isn't always entirely rational!

 

I have NO marque affiliation, although I am biased against FWD and 4WD. My bias against 4WD has no basis though, having never driven one on a handling course.

"But I says it like I sees it. "

I'm going to take it for a b-road blast and see how it hustles. If it fares in that arena, then it'll probably work for me.

 

they are so good - you'll see

there are better cars for that job - but:

a) no better small coupes
b) nothing, short of something REALLY special, much better

of course, you could get an Imprevo, if you could live with the image, the rattles, and bits dropping off

 

Well I have owned 2 Imprezas (I was going to say back in the days before Chavs got hold of them but I guess even back then that was questionable )

No rattles, no bits falling off. Cheap interiors yes, but well put together too.

Image? Well ok, there I agree, dubious even then, but they were fun times so who cares...

 

Most reliable cars i've had too.

I'm not sure about the M3 being that good on B roads.

This will no doubt upset most people, but I know 2 people who have chopped them in and gone back to Evo 9's because they are so much more competant on a B road, esp when it's damp. They really felt it was that twitchy that they got shot.

The 2 in question are decent drivers also.

My boss span his 3 times, which never happened in the Boxter S's he had. No great driver though.

They both did say that in dry conditions the M3 was bloody awesome.

It depends what you want, but if you are used to blasting around back roads then there are quicker things.

I repeat (before anyone gets defensive) that it depends what you want from a car.