[snizzle]

Originally Posted by ChrisBlair

I don't know, I guess I don't agree with the definition of 'driver's cars' that other people have. Lots and lots and lots of cars go fast and do it well.

Here's a bit of a technical and obscure reference, but Jimmy Clark, two time World Driving Champion, once said the the Lotus 49 was hard to drive. His opinion mattered; he was considered the master of the sport at the time.

Now, the Lotus 49 was a great car and in a technical sense, iconic both for its design and its engine. Would I call it a 'driver's car'? It certainly required a real driver to handle it.

To me, a 'driver's car' is one that fits the driver well in regard to the task of driving. To a pilot, they would consider it a reduced workload environment. Going like a raped ape is secondary in this regard, in my opinion. My 1978 Firebird Formula was a piece of shit. I hope to never own a worse car in terms of quality.

It fit me like a glove. Every control fell to hand without changing my driving position, except for the passenger door lock and window regulator. Despite that car having one of the worst V8s GM disgraced a car with- the 305- it handled quite well; it was a WS6 optioned car, and no matter how I sawed the wheel back and forth, I never changed driving position. Driving it was fun, extremely so, despite a low rpm, low torque, low compression, and low hp lump of iron and broken dreams under the hood.

I feel that hunk of junk was a "driver's car" nevertheless. It never won any races except the "first one to rust out wins" race. I once got out of a ticket in that car by explaining to the cop that it broke the laws of physics to have gotten it to 60 mph in just one block, that's not a joke: about 24 pounds of weight for each horsepower. Horrible.

I'd like to hear your take on the Pontiac Aztek next.