No One Has The Balls To Build A Simple Cheap Sports Car

"Nick Has an Exocet" (nickallain) 01/31/2016 at 13:18 • Filed to: None

2

53

(With the exception of Mazda) We’ve seen many great simple sports car concepts over the years. Yet no one really has the balls to build one. The 86 twins are close but frankly, I want less - less interior, less tech.

I’m looking at you Kia, Opel, and Nissan. Stop teasing.

Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis > Nick Has an Exocet 01/31/2016 at 13:23

1

Trust me, if such a segment would make them lots of money I promise you that they would be making them. But if almost every automaker has made the same decision to avoid such a car its probably because no one would buy them.

CB > Nick Has an Exocet 01/31/2016 at 13:23

10

Because they don’t make money. Car companies are businesses, and if something can’t be justified for their bottom line, they usually won’t make it, no matter how many armchair enthusiasts want them.

signintoburnerlol > Nick Has an Exocet 01/31/2016 at 13:23

0

The Mazda MX-5 has more tech and interior than my FRS.

415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°) > Nick Has an Exocet 01/31/2016 at 13:25

0

Yeah, the Nissan or Open could be cool. Fuck Kia haha. Maybe the Miata and the BRZ are just too formidable, there must be a very loyal Miata base and then there are the Scion/Subie choice for a hard top which is a similar but different crowd. I really like the new Miata, I was doing the Jag/Land booth last year and it was next to them, I kept going over and sitting in it haha. I just wish they had a hard top version, I’m a Z owner and I like the hatch.

Steve in Manhattan > Nick Has an Exocet 01/31/2016 at 13:33

1

I recall a sweet BMW 2002 I drove in high school. 4 speed, remarkably direct manual steering, crank windows, great brakes, optional radio. I’m not saying a modern sports car shouldn’t have ABS and safety aides, it should. But manually adjustable seats and other simple things save weight.

Urambo Tauro > CB 01/31/2016 at 13:34

1

Truth hurts.

That Bastard Kurtis - An Attempt to Standardize My Username Across Platforms > Nick Has an Exocet 01/31/2016 at 13:36

2

GM tried, nobody bought the Sky or Solstice. Nobody would buy that Opel, nobody would buy the Datsun, and nobody would buy the Kia...not because they're not super cool, but because enthusiasts don't buy enough cars to make those profitable. Frankly it’s amazing we still have the Miata and the BRZ/FRS because when the automakers listen to people like us and build what we want, they don’t sell nearly enough.

TheOnelectronic > Nick Has an Exocet 01/31/2016 at 13:39

2

Considering the Miata is about the only small sports car that’s managed to pull decent sales, I think it’s more about logic than about “balls.”

Hell, the BRZ/FRS are arguably the next most popular in that segment, and they’re having trouble getting those off of lots. I would know, I gave the dealer a complete bullshit offer for their BRZ and they took it with no hesitation.

I think the crucial element there is “cheap.” Cars like you want exist, they’re just often more expensive than their better-appointed relatives, because that’s how manufacturing works, and it turns out that people looking at cheap cars won’t tend to pick a more expensive model with less features. So the market remains limited to the GT3, stripped out caymans, and the various open-topped track toys.

Dr. Zoidberg - RIP Oppo > Nick Has an Exocet 01/31/2016 at 13:42

6

There’s no one in the market for a new bare bones sports car. They buy used, from an era of bare bones sports cars.

boxrocket > That Bastard Kurtis - An Attempt to Standardize My Username Across Platforms 01/31/2016 at 13:49

1

In fairness, the solstice and sky were cramped, cheap, and underwhelming pillboxes on wheels. They, like the Camaro, ssr, H2, and H3, stuck too closely to the concept, sacrificing substance for passing style.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > boxrocket 01/31/2016 at 14:03

0

But then when they deviate from the concept, people whine. You don’t win trying to appeal to enthusiasts. We are car hipsters.

My bird IS the word > Nick Has an Exocet 01/31/2016 at 14:08

0

I do think the Nissan would have sold volume, but the truth is once you get into “cheap” territory you begin competing with the used market. And I can get a used viper 1st gen with low miles for 30 large, or any number of older Shelby get mustangs. In the low 20 k price range you are competing with top shelf cars from the late 90s and early 00s

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > Nick Has an Exocet 01/31/2016 at 14:17

2

Jumping into the pile of “they don’t make money”, honest question. Ask yourself. 20-24k. You have that money. You’re on the lot. Do you buy it? Really? Honestly? Cause I’ll bet my own money you won’t. Even if you had it (and I doubt you do). The stripped down car doesn’t save as much money as you’d like it to. And then you’d go “Well for only a little bit more I get all these features!”. And then you’d buy that instead.

Jarrett - [BRZ Boi] > Nick Has an Exocet 01/31/2016 at 14:20

0

Even the BRZ/FRS/Miata, the cheapest of the new sports cars, are too expensive in my opinion. Automakers are just trying to cash in too hard.

I’m going to throw a stone at Mazda for a second, and post this:

Brand new Mazda 3s, low-mid range trim:

New Miata, midrange trim:

Do you see 16 grand worth of differences in terms of tech, fit and finish, etc? I see a RWD instead of FWD, Bilsteins, and an LSD. Same motor. Same-ish transmission.

I’m willing to admit I’m completely delusional, but when automakers say “nobody will buy a new, cheap, sports car”, it’s because they aren’t making them as cheap as their other offerings. They feel as though because sporty cars are less of a necessity, they all charge a luxury tax on them. Like Apple with computers, automakers with sports cars.

Bytemite > That Bastard Kurtis - An Attempt to Standardize My Username Across Platforms 01/31/2016 at 14:33

0

The Sky and Solstice were huge. GM doesn’t know how to make something lightweight.

Just look for the SF-R coming up.

SNYDAMAAN > Jarrett - [BRZ Boi] 01/31/2016 at 14:41

0

Not worth it. The Mazda 3 is actually quite a sports car. It can hold speed around corners quite well, has great steering, and the manual shift is laid out correctly - forward to downshift, back to upshift. (Most companies get that wrong)

SNYDAMAAN > SNYDAMAAN 01/31/2016 at 14:42

0

And of course it's available in manual too.

TheOnelectronic > Jarrett - [BRZ Boi] 01/31/2016 at 14:53

3

Or MAYBE, just maybe, they’re actually more expensive to produce since they sell in limited numbers and generally can’t share platforms, not to mention the higher grade of components necessary to make a performance car.

The 3 can be cheap because they sell a lot of them. That means that the cost to manufacture each unit is lower, and they can get away with much narrower profit margins.

The BRZ is barely selling. As I mentioned in another reply I got mine for several grand under MSRP, and the dealer didn’t even try to haggle. I think if they could lower the price and still make money on the car, they would.

boxrocket > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 01/31/2016 at 14:54

0

http://oppositelock.kinja.com/2015-ford-f-15…

True. Folks like to complain.

I think the execution of the Volt (except the truly-horrendous center stack and short windows with black panels beneath) was better than the concept, but people whined about the changes. The Solstice/Sky felt like 85% scale vehicles, that could/should have been bigger to their benefit. The Camaro needed (and needs) a taller greenhouse, a lower shoulder line, and a larger trunk opening.

I remember when the current F-150 debuted, and folks were upset about how untrue it was to the concept. Yet, it shared more than 90% of the same, being a thinly-disguised production model. ..

Jayhawk Jake > Bytemite 01/31/2016 at 14:55

0

They weren't though. Also GM makes everything light now. The new Camaro, ATS, and CT6 are all very light in their class

Bytemite > Jayhawk Jake 01/31/2016 at 15:05

0

I’m pretty sure a 3000+ lb 2 seater “sports car” is huge.

Deal Killer - Powered by Focus > Bytemite 01/31/2016 at 15:09

0

I think the term you should use is “didn’t know”, as several of the cars GM has released in the past year or so are significantly lighter than its predecessor and many competitors as well. And to be fair, the Sky/Solstice were sort of rushed to market to take advantage of the positive response to the concept models. Sort of like the Dodge Viper in the early 90's. The first generation was under-engineered and over-weight, but was refined over a period of time.

Bashell > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 01/31/2016 at 15:10

0

I actually did just that. I got a brand new V6 Mustang for $25k. Yeah, I can afford to spend $10k more for a fully loaded ecoboost or $20k more for a fully loaded GT, but why? 150 more horsepower isn’t worth a lot in rush hour traffic.

duurtlang > Bytemite 01/31/2016 at 15:41

0

Sky/Solstice/GT weren’t exactly huge, but they were too heavy, their transmissions weren’t great, the dash/material quality was from the 80s and it was ergonomically questionable. Unlike an MX-5 (not sure about the dash).

How expensive (relative to other cars, like the MX-5) were these in the US when they were new? In Europe they were way too expensive and a massive flop.

Jayhawk Jake > Bytemite 01/31/2016 at 15:45

0

They were right around 3000 and could come with a turbo engine. I’ve driven a Sky, it isn’t huge.

duurtlang > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 01/31/2016 at 15:46

0

Depends on what you’re after. When looking for a daily driver you’d be correct. Give me the more comfortable car. Looking for a fun weekend car I’d look for completely different things. I’d like a great chassis and drivetrain combined with great seats and decent ergonomic qualities. That’s it. How well (/if) it connects with my phone would be utterly irrelevant.

Bytemite > Jayhawk Jake 01/31/2016 at 15:49

0

Alright we have different definitions of what a bare bones sports car should weigh then. Hint: The number shouldn’t be starting with a 3.

Dsscats > That Bastard Kurtis - An Attempt to Standardize My Username Across Platforms 01/31/2016 at 15:49

1

No one bought them because the interior was absolute crap.

Out, but with a W - has found the answer > TheOnelectronic 01/31/2016 at 15:58

1

It also seems to be a case of market-dependent pricing? Over here (continental Europe), the 3 and MX-5 are about equally expensive for comparable trims and engines.

Jayhawk Jake > Bytemite 01/31/2016 at 16:00

1

They aren't barebones. I never said that, I just said they aren't huge.

ranwhenparked > Nick Has an Exocet 01/31/2016 at 16:05

1

Unfortunately, the Baby Boomers were the only ones that really bought affordable sports cars in big numbers, and then only until they got older and started having families. They still form the core customer base for the Miata, though Mazda has been aggressively courting Gen X with some success.

Millennials haven’t shown any real interest in sports cars - they buy cars, and cars in the same price range as the Miata, but they don’t really buy Miatas.

Non-luxury sports cars are a very small niche market, and there just isn’t much profit in it. Neither is there much room for many more models beyond the Miata. Adding more cars to the market wouldn’t really grow the market, they would just fight each other for the same small customer base and gradually put each other out of business, much like Atlantic City casinos.

Affordable sports cars had their moment in the 1960s and ‘70s, and as much as I would like to see them come back in a big way, I’m afraid it’s going to be all crossovers from here out.

Bytemite > Jayhawk Jake 01/31/2016 at 16:11

0

Oh okay. I just disagree with them being called an attempt at a sports car. It’s more like a GT.

A real attempt is the SF-R, the Nissan IDx, and maybe the Stinger? The stinger looks more like it’ll be another fat GT.

Eric @ opposite-lock.com > Jarrett - [BRZ Boi] 01/31/2016 at 16:15

0

The Miata was originally a fairly cheap car. If they sold it for a much smaller premium over the 3, they’d sell a lot more of them like the original sold. If it was mid-20s (10k less), you’d probably sell more of them than you do the 3.

Chasaboo > Nick Has an Exocet 01/31/2016 at 16:17

0

I owned a BRZ, it’s plenty simple.

That Bastard Kurtis - An Attempt to Standardize My Username Across Platforms > Bytemite 01/31/2016 at 16:24

0

The Sky only weighed about 200lbs more than a BRZ. Should have been smaller and lighter though, yeah.

That Bastard Kurtis - An Attempt to Standardize My Username Across Platforms > Dsscats 01/31/2016 at 16:32

0

Also because one was a Pontiac and one was a Saturn sports car that nobody asked for.

Eric @ opposite-lock.com > duurtlang 01/31/2016 at 16:36

1

The problem is that anything that needs to be a second car will sell very low volume and that affects the price. There is a very small portion of the population that can afford multiple cars that they only drive periodically.

You can sell a souped up sedan or hatch all day long because someone that likes a little fun but can only own/maintain one car will buy it, even at a reasonable premium. That’s why fast practical cars sell well and retain resale value.

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > Nick Has an Exocet 01/31/2016 at 16:54

0

When thinking of the golden age of sport cars 60/70's, one has to take into account the alternative to the MG, Porsche, Triumph,etc was at best a 3.5k lb pony car with a V8 and 3 speed transmission.

I also think it owes itself to the high purchasing power of a 20 year old back then.

V12 Jake- Hittin' Switches > Nick Has an Exocet 01/31/2016 at 18:01

0

Because no one, not even most enthusiasts, will buy one. Why spend a pile of cas developing a car 40 people want when you can keep cranking out crossovers

V12 Jake- Hittin' Switches > Eric @ opposite-lock.com 01/31/2016 at 18:04

0

But you just wouldn't. Not everyone can use a Miata for everyday driving. Sometimes people needs 4 seats, or a trunk.

dailydoseofmindlessness > Nick Has an Exocet 01/31/2016 at 19:06

0

Cliche but quintessential if one is to bemoan the lack of available/desirable/affordable simple sports car with minimal interior and technology.

Eric @ opposite-lock.com > V12 Jake- Hittin' Switches 01/31/2016 at 19:09

0

Except, as it essentially was when it first came out, there is no competition for the Miata on the market. It would draw people from other brands, not just people looking to buy a Mazda that would buy one instead of a 3. In fact, they probably wouldn’t affect 3 sales by selling a cheaper Miata.

Jarrett - [BRZ Boi] > SNYDAMAAN 01/31/2016 at 19:31

0

I’ve only had my Miata for a couple months (of which most time was spent learning how to drive stick, and being stored for the winter), but at my level of driving, I feel as though I can get away with more shenanigans in my 3. Time will tell if I can better differentiate the strengths and weaknesses of both cars.

Jarrett - [BRZ Boi] > TheOnelectronic 01/31/2016 at 19:36

0

I agree with you, but what I’m saying is, is that if they get the price down a bit lower, decreased their higher-than-economy-car margins, then perhaps they could get more units off the lot, and therefore reducing the cost of production per unit. Even in your case, the dealer had tons of room to play under the MSRP without batting an eye. It just proves that the automakers are artificially raising the price of these particular vehicles because they consider them non-essential.

Jarrett - [BRZ Boi] > Out, but with a W - has found the answer 01/31/2016 at 19:38

0

If the Miata was the same price as a 3 here, I would have both one brand new, no questions asked. I bought an old 2002 instead. (even the used ones are crazy expensive here).

I should have just flown down to California and drove one back. Probably would have cost me about the same with the exchange rate, but with half the miles, and no rust.

Jayhawk Jake > Bytemite 01/31/2016 at 19:39

0

Huh? A two seat roadster the size of the Sky is not a GT.

The Stinger is really small. It’s BRZ sized.

It doesn’t matter: The IDX will never exist, the Stinger will never exist, the S-FR probably won’t exist and if it does it won’t come to the US.

TheOnelectronic > Jarrett - [BRZ Boi] 01/31/2016 at 19:58

0

Well, I bought the car in September. The photo of it on the dealer’s website had snow on it. I think they just wanted to get rid of it.

Bytemite > Jayhawk Jake 01/31/2016 at 21:18

0

Let’s not count the SF-R out yet. It is my future dream car. I need it. I was too disappointed by the IDx already.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Nick Has an Exocet 01/31/2016 at 23:01

0

There is barely a market for larger coupes.

The smaller, and more basic, the fewer the buyers. Truly cheap and simple, yet not an economy car... (front wheel drive cheap tinfoil crate)

Miata is built with aluminum control arms, quality bushings and decent equipment under the chassis, not an economy car, a small sports car.

That costs money. The fewer buyers, the smaller the economy of scale, the more program-wide fixed costs each unit sold has to pay back, as well as the unit’s own variable costs.

If you want simpler... you may be one of the very, very few. And you could built it yourself.

I want an affordable mid-engined sports car (4th-gen MR2 like the second, or a less expensive Lotus or Porsche), an affordable AWD 3-door CUV high-performance runabout (Crosstrek STI for instance), and a superlative AWD Grand Touring Coupe (return of the Subaru SVX), and the Hyundai SantaCruz concept pickup, or something very much like it (Subaru BRAT). Each for less than $40K...

As the Rolling Stones song goes... you can’t always get what you want.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > duurtlang 02/01/2016 at 08:30

0

But what if the car with more tech handles as well or better? In fact, I’d argue you would still want some of the tech and comforts so long as you didn’t have to sacrifice handling, especially in a second car. Alternatively, if you want the classic feel of an old car, you’d save money and get the original instead of an imposter.

duurtlang > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 02/01/2016 at 08:47

0

if you want the classic feel of an old car, you’d save money and get the original instead of an imposter.

This is true. When it comes to fun cars I personally do prefer the feel of older cars and am more likely to actually get an older car. Having said that, a car like a new-ish Miata or FR-S is appealing to me as well. In cars like that I really couldn’t care less about power seats, multi zone climate control, lane departure warning, rear view camera and similar features I can very easily do without and wouldn’t spend a dime on. Reduced weight and a lower price is more important.

so long as you didn’t have to sacrifice handling

Tech comes at a price, both financially and related to weight. If it’s worth it is a personal preference. When talking about a fun car feel is everything, imho. Actual measurable performance and handling and the like are secondary.

uofime-2 > Nick Has an Exocet 02/01/2016 at 12:08

0

If you want simple and cheap the answer is the less pure “hot hatch” and you’ll find ample options in that segment.

for a lot of people two cars is not realistic and for that reason the do-all “hot hatch” is king.

“”’s because I mean sporty cheap do-all care not necessarily a hatchback

CM > boxrocket 02/02/2016 at 09:59

1

also they weighed about as much a vette with half the power.