Good car Vs nice car???
#1
Good car Vs nice car???
I was out in my old mans car today, a 330 clubsport.
It's a very nice car, but is it a good one? I mean it's well made, very comfy and has enough performance to keep him happy but is that enough?
Then there's my car. I may be biased but I consider it to be a good car but not necessarily a nice one. It's way too loud, uncomfy, poorly built (partially by me) and is a general pain in the **** if your not in the right frame of mind.
So, whats better? Nice car or good car?
It's a very nice car, but is it a good one? I mean it's well made, very comfy and has enough performance to keep him happy but is that enough?
Then there's my car. I may be biased but I consider it to be a good car but not necessarily a nice one. It's way too loud, uncomfy, poorly built (partially by me) and is a general pain in the **** if your not in the right frame of mind.
So, whats better? Nice car or good car?
#3
I've had a nice car which isn't a good car for the last year. 200bhp, fwd and wet roads are not a joyous combo. That's exactly why I'm thinking our family needs a 3rd car - a proper 'good car' in fact
P.S. Did you know you can get child seats in the back of a 911?
P.S. Did you know you can get child seats in the back of a 911?
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: RIP Tam.
Posts: 5,108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously alot depends on the individual, for me you can have both a nice car and a good car all in one depending on what you want and the criteria you set out.
If a good car is one that is fast and makes you smile like a scooby
And a nice car is the BMW, which is comfy, has enough power for most people and is reliable then the definative criteria is speed against comfort
However if you are not too fussed about speed and want a comfortable ride with something else you can have both wrapped up in one? I have an Astra TT which provides me with a nice car and a good car as it is both reliable, comfortable and provides me with a smile when i take the roof and and drive it, thus meeting both the criterias set out, it is no means a pace maker but it was never built for that.
Sorry for the over analysis.
If a good car is one that is fast and makes you smile like a scooby
And a nice car is the BMW, which is comfy, has enough power for most people and is reliable then the definative criteria is speed against comfort
However if you are not too fussed about speed and want a comfortable ride with something else you can have both wrapped up in one? I have an Astra TT which provides me with a nice car and a good car as it is both reliable, comfortable and provides me with a smile when i take the roof and and drive it, thus meeting both the criterias set out, it is no means a pace maker but it was never built for that.
Sorry for the over analysis.
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ascended to the next level
Posts: 7,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there such thing as a "good" car though?
Its either too soft or too stiff. Not practical enough or too heavy when it is, too thristy on fuel or too poor on perfromance. Too easy to drive or too tiring to drive. IMO Its always a mix up those and more factors. And for whoever that person is, the balance is always different. The compromise is always there.
I've been knocking round in a Golf MK5 R32 for the past week: Great car, but a good car? Hmmm, well. Its focused, fast, comfy, good handling and easy to drive. But, its thristy, heavy, over-assisted everything (brakes, steering etc), huge external dimension for a supposedly medium 3 door hatchback. And doesn't feel fast, nor comunicate to the driver via steering feedback.
I think part of the size/weight issue is all crash safety and consumer group orientated. Its a bloody tall car (compared to a Mk1 Golf) And the bonnet/waistline is so high that visibilty is awful, its easier to manouver my dad's old XJ-S or my old Monaro. I feel that these characteristics that have ruined the small/light hatchback sector, and I blame the consumer groups demanded things without realising the consequences: Such as better crash safety, more interior headroom, a "big feeling, small car", "Safe" handling, Tall driving position etc. It all adds compromise, shame
Same with the driving sensation, people demand easier cars to drive with "good" brakes, but that just results in extremely light steering with little or no feedback, ditto with brakes; A hard solid pedal needing effort to press turns into a soft, oversensitive on/off switch, that results in a emergency stop should you sneeze whilst braking.
And thats the thing...what I want in a car, is clearly not what others or the supposed majority want in their car.
Back in the day, I think it was more simple: Comsumer demands used to only really affect "normal" everyday cars...For example: the Ford Cortina/Sierra (commuting a to b rep mobile) Volvo 240 (safe and practical), Vauxhall Nova (small, shopping car), Whilst the high performance cars where very focused edgy widow-makers, like any pre-1988 911 (superb steering feedback, nice solid brake pedal, no PAS, light, superb handling, with a tendancy to spin you off into a feild, a uncooperative gearbox that you can't just ram into gear - which you shouldn't do with any car anyway plus a habit of stalling when your clutch leg gets tired). 1970's Lotus Elan (super light, super handling, tiny, cramped, unreliable, unpractical with no crash safety whatsoever), Jaguar XJs/6/12 (smooth, comfy, waft-able, although a thristy tank that handled well, but made passengers sea-sick) and Land Rover 88"/109" (4x4 for off-road use...not on-road comfort).
Today there is still the same car genres, but they are musch more closer together...the need to make niche market cars more appealing to the masses, such as performance cars means to tone them down and make them more like "normal" cars; Make them easier to live with day to day, safer handling, and better to crash in. And whilst on paper that seems like a great idea to create the ultimate good car. Sadly it doesn't. As each change to add one characteristic compromises another - which might be something a the not so average consumer wants.
~fin.
Its either too soft or too stiff. Not practical enough or too heavy when it is, too thristy on fuel or too poor on perfromance. Too easy to drive or too tiring to drive. IMO Its always a mix up those and more factors. And for whoever that person is, the balance is always different. The compromise is always there.
I've been knocking round in a Golf MK5 R32 for the past week: Great car, but a good car? Hmmm, well. Its focused, fast, comfy, good handling and easy to drive. But, its thristy, heavy, over-assisted everything (brakes, steering etc), huge external dimension for a supposedly medium 3 door hatchback. And doesn't feel fast, nor comunicate to the driver via steering feedback.
I think part of the size/weight issue is all crash safety and consumer group orientated. Its a bloody tall car (compared to a Mk1 Golf) And the bonnet/waistline is so high that visibilty is awful, its easier to manouver my dad's old XJ-S or my old Monaro. I feel that these characteristics that have ruined the small/light hatchback sector, and I blame the consumer groups demanded things without realising the consequences: Such as better crash safety, more interior headroom, a "big feeling, small car", "Safe" handling, Tall driving position etc. It all adds compromise, shame
Same with the driving sensation, people demand easier cars to drive with "good" brakes, but that just results in extremely light steering with little or no feedback, ditto with brakes; A hard solid pedal needing effort to press turns into a soft, oversensitive on/off switch, that results in a emergency stop should you sneeze whilst braking.
And thats the thing...what I want in a car, is clearly not what others or the supposed majority want in their car.
Back in the day, I think it was more simple: Comsumer demands used to only really affect "normal" everyday cars...For example: the Ford Cortina/Sierra (commuting a to b rep mobile) Volvo 240 (safe and practical), Vauxhall Nova (small, shopping car), Whilst the high performance cars where very focused edgy widow-makers, like any pre-1988 911 (superb steering feedback, nice solid brake pedal, no PAS, light, superb handling, with a tendancy to spin you off into a feild, a uncooperative gearbox that you can't just ram into gear - which you shouldn't do with any car anyway plus a habit of stalling when your clutch leg gets tired). 1970's Lotus Elan (super light, super handling, tiny, cramped, unreliable, unpractical with no crash safety whatsoever), Jaguar XJs/6/12 (smooth, comfy, waft-able, although a thristy tank that handled well, but made passengers sea-sick) and Land Rover 88"/109" (4x4 for off-road use...not on-road comfort).
Today there is still the same car genres, but they are musch more closer together...the need to make niche market cars more appealing to the masses, such as performance cars means to tone them down and make them more like "normal" cars; Make them easier to live with day to day, safer handling, and better to crash in. And whilst on paper that seems like a great idea to create the ultimate good car. Sadly it doesn't. As each change to add one characteristic compromises another - which might be something a the not so average consumer wants.
~fin.
Last edited by Shark Man; 24 August 2008 at 01:26 PM.
Trending Topics
#8
Scooby Newbie
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Huddersfield
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm glad this question has been asked about good car over nice car as I am struggling to decide what to buy now. I sold my Scoob to by a house with the (ex) Girlfriend, Which has since all gone **** up and I'm now back at my parents with a bit more cash in my pocket I miss the Scoob so much but people have been saying & I've been wondering if I should get something a bit more Classy like a TT or Porsche Boxter etc, although tempting I still find myself drawn back to looking at Scoobies. If I buy one of the above will I be satisfied with the drive or will I be hankering back for the Lairyness of the Scoob? Any help would be appreciated
#9
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (11)
Is there such thing as a "good" car though?
Its either too soft or too stiff. Not practical enough or too heavy when it is, too thristy on fuel or too poor on perfromance. Too easy to drive or too tiring to drive. IMO Its always a mix up those and more factors. And for whoever that person is, the balance is always different. The compromise is always there.
I've been knocking round in a Golf MK5 R32 for the past week: Great car, but a good car? Hmmm, well. Its focused, fast, comfy, good handling and easy to drive. But, its thristy, heavy, over-assisted everything (brakes, steering etc), huge external dimension for a supposedly medium 3 door hatchback. And doesn't feel fast, nor comunicate to the driver via steering feedback.
I think part of the size/weight issue is all crash safety and consumer group orientated. Its a bloody tall car (compared to a Mk1 Golf) And the bonnet/waistline is so high that visibilty is awful, its easier to manouver my dad's old XJ-S or my old Monaro. I feel that these characteristics that have ruined the small/light hatchback sector, and I blame the consumer groups demanded things without realising the consequences: Such as better crash safety, more interior headroom, a "big feeling, small car", "Safe" handling, Tall driving position etc. It all adds compromise, shame
Same with the driving sensation, people demand easier cars to drive with "good" brakes, but that just results in extremely light steering with little or no feedback, ditto with brakes; A hard solid pedal needing effort to press turns into a soft, oversensitive on/off switch, that results in a emergency stop should you sneeze whilst braking.
And thats the thing...what I want in a car, is clearly not what others or the supposed majority want in their car.
Back in the day, I think it was more simple: Comsumer demands used to only really affect "normal" everyday cars...For example: the Ford Cortina/Sierra (commuting a to b rep mobile) Volvo 240 (safe and practical), Vauxhall Nova (small, shopping car), Whilst the high performance cars where very focused edgy widow-makers, like any pre-1988 911 (superb steering feedback, nice solid brake pedal, no PAS, light, superb handling, with a tendancy to spin you off into a feild, a uncooperative gearbox that you can't just ram into gear - which you shouldn't do with any car anyway plus a habit of stalling when your clutch leg gets tired). 1970's Lotus Elan (super light, super handling, tiny, cramped, unreliable, unpractical with no crash safety whatsoever), Jaguar XJs/6/12 (smooth, comfy, waft-able, although a thristy tank that handled well, but made passengers sea-sick) and Land Rover 88"/109" (4x4 for off-road use...not on-road comfort).
Today there is still the same car genres, but they are musch more closer together...the need to make niche market cars more appealing to the masses, such as performance cars means to tone them down and make them more like "normal" cars; Make them easier to live with day to day, safer handling, and better to crash in. And whilst on paper that seems like a great idea to create the ultimate good car. Sadly it doesn't. As each change to add one characteristic compromises another - which might be something a the not so average consumer wants.
~fin.
Its either too soft or too stiff. Not practical enough or too heavy when it is, too thristy on fuel or too poor on perfromance. Too easy to drive or too tiring to drive. IMO Its always a mix up those and more factors. And for whoever that person is, the balance is always different. The compromise is always there.
I've been knocking round in a Golf MK5 R32 for the past week: Great car, but a good car? Hmmm, well. Its focused, fast, comfy, good handling and easy to drive. But, its thristy, heavy, over-assisted everything (brakes, steering etc), huge external dimension for a supposedly medium 3 door hatchback. And doesn't feel fast, nor comunicate to the driver via steering feedback.
I think part of the size/weight issue is all crash safety and consumer group orientated. Its a bloody tall car (compared to a Mk1 Golf) And the bonnet/waistline is so high that visibilty is awful, its easier to manouver my dad's old XJ-S or my old Monaro. I feel that these characteristics that have ruined the small/light hatchback sector, and I blame the consumer groups demanded things without realising the consequences: Such as better crash safety, more interior headroom, a "big feeling, small car", "Safe" handling, Tall driving position etc. It all adds compromise, shame
Same with the driving sensation, people demand easier cars to drive with "good" brakes, but that just results in extremely light steering with little or no feedback, ditto with brakes; A hard solid pedal needing effort to press turns into a soft, oversensitive on/off switch, that results in a emergency stop should you sneeze whilst braking.
And thats the thing...what I want in a car, is clearly not what others or the supposed majority want in their car.
Back in the day, I think it was more simple: Comsumer demands used to only really affect "normal" everyday cars...For example: the Ford Cortina/Sierra (commuting a to b rep mobile) Volvo 240 (safe and practical), Vauxhall Nova (small, shopping car), Whilst the high performance cars where very focused edgy widow-makers, like any pre-1988 911 (superb steering feedback, nice solid brake pedal, no PAS, light, superb handling, with a tendancy to spin you off into a feild, a uncooperative gearbox that you can't just ram into gear - which you shouldn't do with any car anyway plus a habit of stalling when your clutch leg gets tired). 1970's Lotus Elan (super light, super handling, tiny, cramped, unreliable, unpractical with no crash safety whatsoever), Jaguar XJs/6/12 (smooth, comfy, waft-able, although a thristy tank that handled well, but made passengers sea-sick) and Land Rover 88"/109" (4x4 for off-road use...not on-road comfort).
Today there is still the same car genres, but they are musch more closer together...the need to make niche market cars more appealing to the masses, such as performance cars means to tone them down and make them more like "normal" cars; Make them easier to live with day to day, safer handling, and better to crash in. And whilst on paper that seems like a great idea to create the ultimate good car. Sadly it doesn't. As each change to add one characteristic compromises another - which might be something a the not so average consumer wants.
~fin.
Couldn't have been said better
#10
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (34)
In an ideal world we'd have a car that would suit our mood. Sometimes you want something smooth, comfortable and quiet. Other times you want something that will do a zillion miles to the gallon. Then on some occasions you'll want a loud, raw and exhilirating car. There will never be an ideal car, all cars have their plusses and minuses. In it's own way the Beemer is good and nice, as is the Scooby.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ossett2k2
Engine Management and ECU Remapping
15
23 September 2015 09:11 AM