Best Car Ever

bazz26

RobAMerc wrote:

?????

Corolla may not be everyone's cup of tea but it should still be acknoledged for what it has done for the car industry over the last 30 years or so.

The Corolla had seat belts and a rear heated windscreen fitted as standard back when they were expensive options on other similar cars such as the Ford Escort at the time.

Also one of the first real global cars produced, the platform being build in no less than 21 different countries around the world. It should also be noted that each generation of Corolla over the years has consistantly sold on average about 5 million units worldwide. Like the Model T and Beetle it appeals to the masses.

Tabnabs

I'm gonna say the Volvo 1800S. The reason being simply that this car holds the world record for milage. A Volvo 1800S has been on the road for the last 40 years and has managed to clock up over 4,000,000 km's. That's almost 100 times around the world!!

Has to be the best car ever, ever.

Golferx

When you mention Corolla you are being disingenuous. Corolla describes at least five different cars and is purely a Marketing invention, a name. Therefore one cannot say Toyota Corolla is the "best" car.

(To say a car is the "best" for having a seat belt and a heated rear window is taking the biscuit!)

Similarly, to say Ford Escort would be to include a minimum of 4 different models.


The original question was too loose and one which cannot be answered.

Kali

Golferx wrote:

The original question was too loose and one which cannot be answered.

Of course it can... the Ferrari 288 GTO. The sexiest car ever created. Sexiest = best

rowanh

eggplantman wrote:

The ferrari f50 is the best car ever

You think? Seems everyone who has driven one things they are pants in comparrison to the f40 and they dont look great. I was under the impression that they tried to make a road going f1 car and totally failed.

cormac_byrne

Series Land Rover,
not just cos I've got one or cos Top Gear said so!

bazz26

Golferx wrote:

When you mention Corolla you are being disingenuous. Corolla describes at least five different cars and is purely a Marketing invention, a name. Therefore one cannot say Toyota Corolla is the "best" car.

(To say a car is the "best" for having a seat belt and a heated rear window is taking the biscuit!)

I never said the Corolla was the best, there is no one car the best at everything, most cars excel at one or more things but can be poor in others.

The Corolla and the like constantly get slated on this forum for no reason other than being being bland to look at and somber to drive. This doesn't take away from the fact that it is a well known global product which appeals to the masses and consistantly sells in millions. No mean achievment all the same.

Also I never said it was best for having seat belts and heated rear windscreen, I simply said that it offered safety features as standard to the ordinary person at no additional cost that other manufactures charged extra for at the time in this class of car. For all we know if this wasn't the case then you may still be paying a premium for these features today in your average car.

Anyway this is starting to vier in one direction off topic.

Marcus.Aurelius

unkel wrote:

Bugatti Veyron, but not because Clarkson said so

QFT, legendary car

RobAMerc

I think this thread is in danger of dying - but I must say its been fun reading the replies.

I should have been a bit more specific, with regards to model etc -

Corrolla - "Best Car Ever" lol..........

maidhc

RobAMerc wrote:

Corrolla - "Best Car Ever" lol..........

I don't see how that is all that funny!

The corolla was introduced in 1966, has been the worlds best selling car (granted the design has changed, but the underlying philosophy and persona of the car has not). People bought Corollas in the 70s for the same reasons they buy them now.

It also introduced the western world to the concept of japanese reliability, and showed up pretty much every European and American manufacturer for making shoddy and substandard cars.

Many books have been written on the impact toyota have had on the global automotive industry, and the corolla more than any other car exemplifies how a tiny company emerging from post WW2 Japan prospered while the big names are struggling to survive. The emergence of the Corolla marked a huge change in how cars were manufactured in the entire world!

Blue850

Dyflin wrote:

I'm gonna say the Volvo 1800S. The reason being simply that this car holds the world record for milage. A Volvo 1800S has been on the road for the last 40 years and has managed to clock up over 4,000,000 km's. That's almost 100 times around the world!!

Has to be the best car ever, ever.

Theres a guy in Greece whose 1976 Mercedes W115 diesel has higher mileage but he has rebuilt the engine a few times. I think Mercedes have the car in Germany now.

nastysimon

maidhc wrote:

I don't see how that is all that funny!

I agree, it is sad.

The corolla was introduced in 1966, has been the worlds best selling car (granted the design has changed, but the underlying philosophy and persona of the car has not). People bought Corollas in the 70s for the same reasons they buy them now.

Yes, it is the most popular car made. People buy them because they need transport on which they can rely. They are bought by people who don't actually want to drive, people who want tried and tested technology that has as much soul as a microwave.

It also introduced the western world to the concept of japanese reliability, and showed up pretty much every European and American manufacturer for making shoddy and substandard cars.

I think that while it might have showed how reliable cars could be, early ones are known to disolve quicker than a bisodol in fizzy water. Similarly, it was actually quite cheap in both senses of the word, especially when compared with European offerings of the time. It was also technologically backward with tried and tested tech rather than cutting edge.

Many books have been written on the impact toyota have had on the global automotive industry, and the corolla more than any other car exemplifies how a tiny company emerging from post WW2 Japan prospered while the big names are struggling to survive. The emergence of the Corolla marked a huge change in how cars were manufactured in the entire world!

I fear that you are right. Toyota have had a huge impact and thus cars are getting more and more bland to drive.

The Corolla was never particular influential in terms of the technology that was used in cars. It was never particularly advanced. Never great to drive. It was the one car which has pushed forward the whole car as a white-good thing more than all others combined. The one Corolla of note is the AE86, which was really only a Corolla in name. It was RWD and had an engine which was remarkably similar to one that Cosworth had developed 12 years earlier. The layout was also very similar to the car that the Cosworth engine was developed for (Escort MkII). So in effect, the most interesting Corolla is a copy of a Ford Escort that was built 12 years earlier.

maidhc

nastysimon wrote:

Yes, it is the most popular car made. People buy them because they need transport on which they can rely. They are bought by people who don't actually want to drive, people who want tried and tested technology that has as much soul as a microwave.

Maybe, but Hillman Hunters, Austin Allegros and Vauxhall Chevettes weren't exactly balls of fun either. At least toyota made something that allowed millions of people have hassle free transport...

Thats why it gets my vote.

JHMEG

nastysimon wrote:

They are bought by people who don't actually want to drive,

There was a documentary on a while back about the Japanese car invasion of the US. Small cars like the Corolla and Civic took off for the 1st time in the 70s primarily because of the oil crisis and spiralling "gas" costs. In addition cars sold in the US all required an "average number of defects" on the sales sticker. Most American cars at the time had 3 or more. While the public started buying Japanese for economy they soon noticed the average number of defects on the sales stickers was 0.

There is no reason to think that people are buying them now because they don't want to drive. They're still buying them because they want something reliable and fuel efficient above all else.

A US company, AMC, tried to copy the Japs with the Pacer. Remember this from Wayne's World? They did a horrible job.. the passenger door was actually longer than the driver door. What an idea!

Andrewf20

Id say the following are contenders:

E60 535d, M tech
E90 335d, M tech
Peugeot 205gti
Ferrari F40
E46 M3
E30 M3
Porsche 911
Ford Mondeo Mk 2, 2.0tdi. Great car for little money.
Mini mrk 1.
Ford Escort RS2000, Mrk 2.
Honda NSX

Id probably put the 535d (or 335d perhaps?) as the best as its the most complete car, roomy, 4 doors, big boot, not too thirsty, looks really well with M tech kit and as a fast around a track as an RX8.

pburns

In no particular order:

Merc W126 ('80s S-class)
Citroen Traction Avant
Citroen DS
Mini (original, not the fashion victim's noughties girly toy)
911
Honda NSX
BMW E46 (the zenith of 3 series? the 'Porsche 993' of baby Bimmers?)
Golf Mk I
Mid '80's Carina II:D

MAYPOP

nastysimon wrote:

It's such a shame that they didn't keep up the good work. The rivalry between Porsche and them could have produced some great sports cars, but instead, they developed it (17 years ago, not 20) and did very little to improve it over its 15 year life time.

It went on sale 17 years ago, it was developed 20 years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu7UO9K4Quo

oh and S2000 > Boxster

JHMEG

Class video. Amazing how the 911 turbo, M3 CSL and 360 all get so badly smoked.

bazz26

nastysimon wrote:

Yes, it is the most popular car made. People buy them because they need transport on which they can rely. They are bought by people who don't actually want to drive, people who want tried and tested technology that has as much soul as a microwave.

Could someone provide viable statistics to prove this so as people drive different cars for different reasons, otherwise it just sounds like a regurgated Clarkson sweeping generalisation. My guess is it is about as true as people who buy big SUVs who are really compensating for something missing in the crotch department. :rolleyes:

And I am also of the belief that the driver gives the car in which he/she is driving a soul no matter what car that is, not the other way round.

nastysimon

MAYPOP wrote:

It went on sale 17 years ago, it was developed 20 years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu7UO9K4Quo

oh and S2000 > Boxster

Ok, you found a piece of Japanese footage which shows a Japanese car to be good. That must have been hard. BTW, this was a race, not a measure as to which car is better. There are some 1800cc cars which would trounce the NSX-R on a track, but I wouldn't claim that any of them are better cars. BTW, the Porsche 997 Turbo is 23 seconds faster per lap of the Nordschleife and even the 996 GT3 is 15 seconds quicker than the NSX-R. And a measly 1.8 engined car based on a 50's design is only 8 seconds quicker, which is an eternity in motor racing (a Caterham R500).

Finally, your opinion of the S2000 being better than the Boxster is fair enough, you are entitled to it. I, having never had the pleasure of either for any real amount of time, can't say, but those I know who have claim that the Honda's handling is just not fun. It breaks away at the limit far too suddenly making it a difficult car to explore and properly exploit. Not something that one should expect from a front engined sports car. Just in case it matters, the Boxster S is 7 seconds a lap quicker than the S2000 on the Nordschleife.

Biro

nastysimon wrote:

That's why 911's are mid engined (oh, so they're not, silly me), Ferrari also moved their layout too (oops, sorry, they were there before Honda). If anything, as good as it was, and it did challenge Ferrari and Porsche, it was wholly remarkable that for such a good car it left very little legacy and was completely un-revolutionary (Ferrari did a V6 mid-engined sports car back in the 70's, Porsche had reliable cars before Honda had even thought that building a supercar could be a good idea).
It's such a shame that they didn't keep up the good work. The rivalry between Porsche and them could have produced some great sports cars, but instead, they developed it (17 years ago, not 20) and did very little to improve it over its 15 year life time.

Why don't you say what your suggestion is rather than knocking everyone elses with your lack of knowledge and silly statements.
Anyone who knows anything about cars knows what the NSX did for the supercar world. A 3 litre V6 NSX would easily match a 3.4 V8 Ferrari 348 around a track, would be better to drive, would be infinately more reliable, cheaper to buy, own and run, more comfortable to be in, more practical, smoother to drive around towns and sounded even better.

edit: be nice or be gone!

JHMEG

The Nordschleife is almost 21km long and has long straights which suit more powerful cars. Motegi is only 4.8km, with many bends etc, which will suit better handling/balanced cars.

Are the Japanese not allowed make excellent cars for some reason?

Biro

Don't mind him, he'll go away soon! He'll be bringing up Pearl Harbour next!

Captain Slow IRL

e39 m5 - sensible car 400bhp
or
new accord, 2l i-vtec

nastysimon

JHMEG wrote:

The Nordschleife is almost 21km long and has long straights which suit more powerful cars. Motegi is only 4.8km, with many bends etc, which will suit better handling/balanced cars.

Are the Japanese not allowed make excellent cars for some reason?

I already said that it was a very good car. The Japanese make some very good cars indeed, but this topic is not about whether a car is good, it is whether it is the best or not.
MAYPOP claimed that the NSX completely changed the direction that supercars went, but the truth is that it did very little except push the game on (a fair bit, but there was no revolution). Similarly, it is not up to the standard of current supercars (as was also claimed). I _love_ the NSX, but I don't look at it as being in the same league as the Mini, 911 or DS.

Biro wrote:

You're a tool. Why don't you say what your suggestion is rather than knocking everyone elses with your lack of knowledge and silly statements.
Anyone who knows anything about cars knows what the NSX did for the supercar world. A 3 litre V6 NSX would easily match a 3.4 V8 Ferrari 348 around a track, would be better to drive, would be infinately more reliable, cheaper to buy, own and run, more comfortable to be in, more practical, smoother to drive around towns and sounded even better.

I already did. On page 1. To recap, I nominated the Mini. As for the NSX, yes, it did all of those and yes it did push on the game, but it didn't revolutionise anything. This is nothing new, it was all in my first post about the NSX. I have not said a single remark about the NSX which makes it out to be anything other than a great car (which I wholeheartedly believe it is).
I have only knocked one car, the Corolla. That I did because I can't think of one good reason that it should be even contemplated as a great car, let alone the best. I also feel strongly that the popularity of such anodyne cars is ruining cars for the future. This thread should be a celebration of great cars, not of mediocrity, of which I think the Corolla is a prime example. TBH, to me the Corolla embodies everything bad in modern cars.

Biro wrote:

Don't mind him, he'll go away soon! He'll be bringing up Pearl Harbour next!

I haven't a clue what that film has to do with anything.

bazz26 wrote:

Could someone provide viable statistics to prove this so as people drive different cars for different reasons, otherwise it just sounds like a regurgated Clarkson sweeping generalisation. My guess is it is about as true as people who buy big SUVs who are really compensating for something missing in the crotch department. :rolleyes:

And I am also of the belief that the driver gives the car in which he/she is driving a soul no matter what car that is, not the other way round.

No I don't have statistics, but it is painfully obvious that people drive different cars for different reasons. To suggest that you need statistics to prove this is like claiming that you need statistics to prove that people drink coffee or beer for different reasons.
As for it being a reguritated Clarkson generalisation, I can't honestly say that I have ever heard him talk about Toyotas or Corollas, but then again, I don't watch Top Gear and haven't done so since they dropped Tiff.
I know many people who drive many cars and each and every person I have talked to about driving and who drives a Corolla says that they do so as transport and that they do not want to drive (I'm not claiming that they hate driving, just that they don't want to drive). I have never met a Corolla owner who actually wants to go out and drive it.
As for a driver giving a car soul, that is one of the daftest things that I have heard in a long time. Are you honestly claiming that if I get into a Volkswagen Polo that it will suddenly have the same soul as the car that I currently drive from day to day? Or that when I drive my little sports car that it too will have the same soul as my ordinary driver? Each and every car is different. Some pull me in and I feel at one with them, some needing to be treated like old ladies, others are more like Welsh rugby players and others are like manic little kids on steroids. Most cars are so anodyne that I can never be at one with them and they are just a machine which is so very very boring.

maidhc

nastysimon wrote:

I know many people who drive many cars and each and every person I have talked to about driving and who drives a Corolla says that they do so as transport and that they do not want to drive (I'm not claiming that they hate driving, just that they don't want to drive).

I almost bought one, and I love cars. I just happened to come across a secondhand focus at the right price.

BTW: Modern cars are great. They are so reliable, so cheap to maintain, so fuel efficient, so well rust proofed, and so good and comfortable to drive...

I also have a 34 yr old car. It is none of these things. It may not be "fun", and nice to play with, but my 3yr old focus diesel is a superior car in every way to my 34 yr old capri! The focus won't go around corners sideways, but at 7.30 on a monday morning on my way to work that isn't a bad thing!

As far as I am concerned both cars are machines and should be respected for what they are.

The corolla is perhaps the first "modern anodyne car".. and that is not at all a bad thing if you use and need car as a means of transport rather than some sort of extension to your personality. It DOES NOT mean it is not a great car.

bazz26

nastysimon wrote:

No I don't have statistics, but it is painfully obvious that people drive different cars for different reasons. To suggest that you need statistics to prove this is like claiming that you need statistics to prove that people drink coffee or beer for different reasons.
As for it being a reguritated Clarkson generalisation, I can't honestly say that I have ever heard him talk about Toyotas or Corollas, but then again, I don't watch Top Gear and haven't done so since they dropped Tiff.
I know many people who drive many cars and each and every person I have talked to about driving and who drives a Corolla says that they do so as transport and that they do not want to drive (I'm not claiming that they hate driving, just that they don't want to drive). I have never met a Corolla owner who actually wants to go out and drive it.
As for a driver giving a car soul, that is one of the daftest things that I have heard in a long time. Are you honestly claiming that if I get into a Volkswagen Polo that it will suddenly have the same soul as the car that I currently drive from day to day? Or that when I drive my little sports car that it too will have the same soul as my ordinary driver? Each and every car is different. Some pull me in and I feel at one with them, some needing to be treated like old ladies, others are more like Welsh rugby players and others are like manic little kids on steroids. Most cars are so anodyne that I can never be at one with them and they are just a machine which is so very very boring.

I know people who buy BMWs because they look nice, the badge gives the right kudos in the company car park or they simply can afford one. I would even go as far as saying that some woud not know the difference between front wheel drive and rear wheel drive but they know the right badge when they see it. I'm not a big fan of these cars but it doesn't mean though that BMW don't make good cars, that all owners buy them for there image or that I appreciate them any less.

Just because a certain type of person buys a certain type of car doesn't make that car a great or bad car.

caesar

maidhc wrote:

As far as I am concerned both cars are machines and should be respected for what they are.

Nail on the head!! When people here say the corolla is the best car ever they obviously they're respecting it for what it is. It's the same as when some one says that a 130bhp TDI Passat or A4 has great power....you have to respect their opinion in terms of what their talking about. The " best car ever" could be a corolla, a 911 or a Punto:p It depends what point of view your coming from. The lol comments about the corolla been the best car ever are a bit pointless tbh. Interesting thread though.

Anyway If I was to pick one modern(ish) car as the "best car ever" it would be the BMW e46 M3. It ticks most of the right boxes for me.

Tabnabs

Blue850 wrote:

Theres a guy in Greece whose 1976 Mercedes W115 diesel has higher mileage but he has rebuilt the engine a few times. I think Mercedes have the car in Germany now.

Guinness records say different, the Volvo's been up there for a long time. Probably because he's still on the same engine.

http://www.volvoclub.org.uk/press/releases/2006/irv-40-anniversary.shtml

pburns

Biro wrote:

Why don't you say what your suggestion is rather than knocking everyone elses with your lack of knowledge and silly statements.
Anyone who knows anything about cars knows what the NSX did for the supercar world. A 3 litre V6 NSX would easily match a 3.4 V8 Ferrari 348 around a track, would be better to drive, would be infinately more reliable, cheaper to buy, own and run, more comfortable to be in, more practical, smoother to drive around towns and sounded even better.
edit: be nice or be gone!

I recently read an interview with Luca di Montezemelo. Back in '90/'91, during a period where he was not involved in Ferrari, he bought himself a 348. He hated the car and lambasted a senior Ferrari engineer who inquired if he was satisfied. The NSX was a wake-up call for Ferrari and it moved the game on for all 'exotics' - unreliable, idyosncratic engineering was no longer enough. Of course the NSX itself wasn't a huge sales success. Honda is somewhere between Toyota and BMW when it comes to 'prestige' - not strong enough for a mid-engined supercar.

On another topic, I couldn't nominate an M3/M5 for best-ever car - the Germans have lost the plot with the horsepower race - totally out of tune with the times. The next big thing will be weight saving materials and smaller, more efficent engines.
The original M3 became a legend wirth 4 cylinders, the original M5 with six....