Conference terri::cars_uk

    Urr, it's Boxster, I think.

    re .0
    
    Faster than your 328 ?? - all the magazine reviews I've read seem to
    think the Boxster is slower than your 328 ( nice name sounds like a
    Ferrari ;-) )
    
    The 'S' version sounds nice though !! - But I will wait to see what the
    2.8 litre Z3 is like, since ( i may be the only one in the world ) I
    prefer the looks of the Z3 over the Boxster.
    
    Just my two penneth !!
    
    Rick
     

    .0�>>    I've seen some bad reviews of the Tiptronic version. All the
    .0�>>    disadvantages of an auto-gearbox (gears shift up when lifting up)
    .0�>>    without the advantages of the steering wheel controls.
    
    .0�      ??? The Tiptronic Boxter has steering wheel controls, if fact its the
    .0�    only was to change gears it doesn't have the +/- gate a'la 911.
    
    What I meant is that the reviews said that the gearbox works like an
    auto gearbox ie it was slow to make the decision to shift down but was
    quick to decide to shift up ... especially as soon as you lift off. I
    certainly hate that.

    The things that worry me about the Boxster: 
    
    - length/width, it's bigger than a 911 
    - weight, but that applies to most modern cars
    
    Now I need to test drive one. 
    
    I must say the Kompressor powered Mercedes SLK has a number of
    interesting assets (integrated hard top, peak torque).

    I've test driven the Boxster yesterday, a full two hours.
    It's fast but not really fast. To drive it fast you have to keep
    it above 4500 rpm, then you have some power to play with.
    
    It is a very smooth engine though, accelerating from 1500 rpm in third
    gear is no problem. 
    The enigine sounds great inside the car. 
    The handling of the car is superb. A lot of grip, very neutral in
    corners going into slight understeer. Not as tricky as a 911.
    The suspension might be a bit harder when you want to drive real fast,
    but further it's good.
    
    The breaks are absolutely super.
    
    It is great fun to drive and I think it looks absolutely great. I want 
    one too.... (what would the leaseprice be??? ;-) )
    
    A nice story about a friend of mine who ordered a boxster.
    
    He had already ordered it. The he asked the salesman where the engine
    hood was. The salesman said there wasn't a real engine hood. My friend
    said "then I don't want it.... then I want this one..." while pointing
    at a new carrera 4S...
    He want's to be able to look at the engine.....(and show it to his
    friends...)
    
    what a problems...
    
    cheers,
    
    Frits.
    (who's '67 911 targa is almost finished, finally)
    
    

Frits,

Have you driven an MGF? A lot cheaper, and many reviews say faster 
and more fun!

Greg

    And of course,  Greg isn't biased :-)
    
    Jc
    

    Sorry, but if you think the MGF is faster and more fun there is
    definately something wrong. I've seen numerous performance figures for
    the MGF VVC ranging from Rovers claimed 7 seconds to 8.2 seconds.
    Having driven one I would be more inclined to believe the higher of
    those two since the power to weight ratio isn't that good - certainly
    compared to other cars with 7 second 0-60's times its not even close.
    
    As for fun - ALL of the magazines who have reviewed it have said the
    Mazda MX5 is better handling and more fun to drive - although not as
    practical on a daily basis. Autoexpress rated the MGF number one but
    they said that the Mazda was more fun !!
    
    Personally having tried the two - the Mazda won hands down - the MGF
    being the first mid engined rear wheel drive car I've driven that
    handled like a front wheel drive hatchback ( allbeit a hot one ! )
    
    But then again you could say Im biased since i've now got an MX5 - but
    I wasn't biased when I drove them both !! Only problem with the MX5 is
    it needs more speed ( 131bhp isn't enough although some chip
    manufacturers reckon they can get over 140bho out of it with a chip
    change !! )
    
    Just my two penneth ( besides the MGF is a tarts car ;-)  )
                                                             
    Rick Barrett

    re -.3
    
    Nope, haven't driven the MGF. Good looking it is too, but that's all I
    can say 'bout it.
    But I don't think it has 200 bhp, does it?
    
    Frits.

   > Personally having tried the two - the Mazda won hands down - the MGF
   >being the first mid engined rear wheel drive car I've driven that
   >handled like a front wheel drive hatchback ( allbeit a hot one ! )

All the "hot" front wheel drive hatchbacks I've driven handle appallingly. 
Scabbling front wheels, understeer on acceleration, over-grippy set-up - 
designed to give the average driver the sensation of speed. Is the MFG that 
bad?

Rupert 

The MGF is rear wheel drive, mid-engineered, and hence no scrabbling 
front wheels, no understeer on acceleration etc etc.

Top Gear mag and TV show had it a very close 2nd to the TVR as the 
best 2 seater sports car around.

It's excellent fun, easy to live with, and handles great IMHO.

MX5 owners tend to disagree ;^)

Greg

    If the MGF is a tart's car, what does that make the MX5........
    
    
    Ian

    Read the magazines - none of them rate the MGF's handling and they all
    say the steering is awful. The none VVC version got slated by the media
    - the only difference between the 1.8i and VVC is the engine. Its
    faster alright but no better handling. The MX5 despite its years and
    its lack of pace is still the best handling sports car bar none. Not my
    words but those in Autocar, What Car, Top gear and performance car. The
    MGF has no handling finesse - the VVC understeers very easily, to get
    over steer I had to lift off mid bend at high speeds and then it
    reminded me of a Pug 1.9 205. During my hour long test drive it just
    ploughs straight on during spirited cornering. Its very safe so if your
    new to rear wheel drive its ideal !! At the time of test driving i
    still had my MK1 MR2 which destroyed it in the handling stakes.
    
    The MX5 is an enthusiasts car. Its not fast and if you get one of the
    limited edition models - looks very good ( see mine with the 15"
    alloys) Plus you will have more fun than you ever will in an MGF.
    
    To finish I will use Clarksons words :-
    
    The oldest but still by far the most fun to drive.
    
    Cheers
    
    Rick Barrett
    
    P.s. May be a tarts car as well - but the tart will have more fun in my
    car !!
    
    

Can you guys with the gurly cars go elsewhere, I want to hear about real 
sports cars!

Dave ;-)

Dave, pray tell us what might those be ??

Rupert 8^)

Shelby Mustang? F40? MGA? Jenson Healy!?

    Read a few articles in my favourite car mags on Porsche Boxster vs BMW
    Z3 M roadster (comparable prices) and then on Porsche 911 vs BMW Z3 M
    (comparable performance for half the price).
    
    Those articles also illustrate how difficult it is to drive a
    mid-engined car near or at its limits.
    
    There's one thing everyone seems to agree on: the Porsches have real
    brakes. For me that's already a great plus when considering these cars. 

Patrick, 

Out of interest - what were their final conclusions ?

What were the specific "near-limit" differences between 
driving front and mid (although the 911 is rear - I 
suppose).

Rupert

    .17�Out of interest - what were their final conclusions ?
    
    Well, 
    
    - the BMW Z3 M costs about same as Boxster and half of 911 drophead.
    - BMW Z3 M (much) faster than Boxster, same as 911 drophead
    
    This is interesting: the 911 officially has 285bhp while the Z3 M has
    321bhp and the 911 is heavier. Also the Z3 has variable timing
    camshafts. Yet the acceleration figures are close. Which means that the
    Porsche extracts power from its engine better than the BMW ... or that
    BMW Motorsport are using very optimistic dynamometers ...
    
    .17�What were the specific "near-limit" differences between 
    .17�driving front and mid (although the 911 is rear - I 
    .17�suppose).
    
    The 911 is (very) easy to drive. All the weight is located at the rear
    and the suspension has been tuned to counter this violent oversteer.
    All this makes it very agile. That is a driver can feel the action and
    either counter it or amplify it.
    
    The mid-engined car will travel faster but only because the driver
    knows he/she can do it. The car will not feedback. And when the limit
    is broken ... you better know what the car usually does, ie before you
    try any fast driving (that is faster than with the Porsche) you must
    have tried everything by yourself. Experimenting on a circuit under all
    conditions is mandatory. Otherwise, you'll be following the Porsches. 
                                       

Thanks for the feedback