“Fun” is a subjective thing, and when it comes to so-called “fun” cars, there’s often a big chasm between what is sold as an entertaining ride and one that actually is. What are some cars you can think of that don’t deliver on the good-times promise?
It would be easy to bring up seventies “muscle” cars and beat up on them for their sheer lack of performance relative to the lurid graphics covering their exteriors. However, more power is not always the solution. To me, big, high-powered SUVs like top-level Porsche Cayennes and similar BMWs fit into that category. They’re certainly fast, but “fun”?
Even more run-of-the-mill examples like the older Hybrid Cayenne I own can supposedly get to sixty in under five seconds, but it isn’t a “fun” car to me in any sense of the word. Oh, it’s competent and certainly drives well, but you need to be doing triple-digit speeds to feel like you’re going fast, and even then, you’re always aware that you’re in a two-and-a-half-ton machine.
Seriously, hop into a Renault 5 Le Car with a stick and an open fabric sunroof on a nice day, and I’ll show you what “fun” is: cornering on three wheels at speeds barely above the limit.
That Renault will also be far more fun than some supposedly “sporty” cars, like a base-model Celica or a later Mitsubishi Eclipse. Another example of this might be the Mercury Capri from the early nineties; a front-drive convertible that was supposedly a competitor for the Miata, but it didn’t even come close to offering the capabilities and entertainment value of the car that is always the answer.
Still, that Capri would be a lot more fun in any sense of the word on American streets than some mid-sized AMG or BMW M sedan with 800 horsepower.
What other disappointing “fun” cars you can think of?
Top graphic image: Mercury
I had a six-speed Volvo V70R for a while, and shed no tears when I sold it. It made some fun turbo noises and the seats were wonderful, of course, but compared to older Volvo’s I’d owned/driven, I was shocked at how cumbersome the handling was. With the adjustable suspension in the right setting, it could tighten up a little on back roads, but generally it just felt big and bulky, not sporty or fun. I will forever maintain that engineering the P2 platform for a transverse inline-six (in the S80) ruined its handling capabilities.
Space efficiency was also disappointing compared to the older Volvos, which I suppose is only a Scandinavian metric for fun.
I look forward to the future opposite question of “which car was much more fun than you expected when you finally got to drive it.”
I am very much a “slow car fast” person, so I agree with getting a car that’s fun in everyday driving rather than a track. I love driving MG’s, even one with 62.5 HP. Even the Saturn Astra manual that I had for 9 years was a good amount of fun.
While most of the high power stuff is fun to drive once, I really wouldn’t pick it as a daily.
To answer the question, the Cadillac STS we have is less fun that I would have expected for a 320hp V8 RWD luxury sports sedan. It’s comfortable and a great cruiser, but I expected it to have a little more performance chops than it does. I guess you have to step up to the STS-V to get more performance.
As a small car enthusiast, I had looked forward to getting into a Fiat 500 for a while when it came out. (the modern one, not the original, I’m not that old) When I finally did drive it… well, meh? I think it was mostly the driving position that did it in for me. I just couldn’t manage to get comfortable. I felt almost as if I were sitting on the car rather than in it. Granted the one I tried was an auto which certainly knocked down the fun factor, but I don’t think the stick would have made a huge amount of difference. I’ve driven a couple base engine Mini’s with the auto and still enjoyed them alot. The 500 just didn’t hit which is a shame because I still like the looks.
I had to opportunity to drive a beater C3 Vette 1.5 hours to an auction at a dealership job in highschool. Fun to brag about, but not so much fun to drive a cruiseless, automatic, fithly 80s car in the rain with bad wipers. The drive side wiper was pretty cool though; it would cover a full 180 degrees, which meant it went off the side of the windshield into thin air before returning to the windscreen.
Wasn’t necessarily a fun car but on paper I should have liked it. A 2012ish Impreza hatch with 5 speed manual. It belonged to the person I was dating at the time, even then I hated that car. It was so slow didn’t like to rev out and the dynamics did it no favors as well. That car put me off of Subarus in general even ones like the STI even though I know that is a much different car entirely.
Maybe this is controversial, but the new current FL5 Civic Type R. Not a particularly characterful engine (especially comparing it to older Type Rs), and it didn’t actually feel as quick as I thought it would.
I test drove a 3rd gen Firebird Formula as a potential fun/cheap project car in college. The body flex, vague steering, lack of power and overall gm-ness of the inside shocked my Gen Z sensibilities.
Visually I still like those cars, but there are better ways to spend $5-10k.
Honestly, I was quite underwhelmed by the Acura RSX-Type S that I drove. I expected it to be much sharper than it was… especially since I thoroughly enjoyed the 8th Gen Civic SI that came shortly after.
Also, the C4 Corvette ZR1 was meh for me.
This one on me for not doing research. Had a w210 e430, loved it, handled much better than expected. Hey the w208 clk430 is the same car but in a coupe form, should be great too right!?
Took it home, hmm I don’t remember my w210 driving like this. Threw a bunch of money into maintenance, still not right. Did research, dammit this car is based on the w202 with the recirculating ball steering and not rack and pinion!