I've just posted a column on this topic at my site, here: www.truedelta.com/pieces/greatcars.php

Have anything to add? Which cars do you think qualify as great, and why?

I think that the main challenge in building a "great" car these days is in all the trade-offs that have to be made. By that I mean that many of the qualities that go into making a car "great" can work against each other.

For example, a powerful engine often prevents having good fuel economy. The firm suspension needed for a car to handle great can make the ride too harsh. The added weight of larger, more "practical" cars has negative impacts on all of the above. To some extent it all comes down to each consumer's priorities. Engineering advances like lighter frame and body materials, variable valve timing engines, and hybrid technologies all work towards reducing these tug-of-wars, but there are inherently there at all times.

Another interesting trend is the introduction of more and more "intrusive" safety features. You can see it in many of the reviews for the new Lexus GS & IS models. A car company puts out a new technology that they feel makes there customers safer, but the "enthusiasts" (for lack of a better term) all rail against this decrease in human involvement.

So I guess what I'm saying is that, to me, a great car is one that achieves balance among these kind of competing attributes. More of a "jack of all trades and master of none approach", I guess.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

Much headway has been made against these conflicts. The 500-horsepower Corvette Z06 gets fuel economy in the high teens. Many BMWs combine excellent ride quality with excellent handling. But these achievements are still the exception rather than the rule.

I actually had an '87 Audi 4000 that I drove for several years as well. Unfortunately, it wasn't Quattro, but it was fun to drive none the less. At least until I was living in Raleigh and Hurricane Fran threw big pieces of trees at it. :-/

I agree with most of what has been said, though I want to add a few thoughts from my own experience:

- The mentioned diesel VW Rabbit was a rather ordinary car in my opinion. I had one. The suspension and interior didn't last nearly as long as the engine would have gone.

- The VW Beetle was extraordinarily great when you consider what else was available at the time of the Beetle's popularity. In 1990 I drove my old unrestored, original engine, 1966 VW Beetle to a friend's house in the winter. I didn't think I did anything out of the ordinary - just a little trip. He lived up a winding dirt road that passed through 100 yards of fairly serious 4WD-type bumps, plus there was about 1 foot of fresh snow. The only other vehicles that made it up were large 4WD's, then my little VW Bug in the middle of them where we all parked. The Bug and Van were easy to understand and cheap and easy to fix. On the negative side, they required lots of fiddling with and were prone to catching fire if you didn't do a little preventative maintenance. The bug also had zero heat when it was cold outside. It had plenty of heat for a Los Angeles winter.

- I will be in a minority on this one - the 2000-2006 Ford Excursion with the Powerstroke diesel engine! It is very cheap to fix, extremely reliable, roomy, and has really good fuel mileage when compared to any other 7 or 8 passenger vehicle. I average 15 mpg in the city and 18.5 mpg on the highway, with 4 hour flat road averages up to 23 mpg. I get better mileage than my friend's 2003 Honda Odyssey minivan, plus it has more hill climbing power than anything else on the road. On the negative side, I would never own the gasoline engined Ford Excursion. It has horrible gas mileage. It is also too large for my wife's comfort, so after owning it 3.5 years we are going to sell it.

Lots of good thoughts here! I especially like the train of thought that Bob (pvreditor) had goin', though I disagree with a few of his choices --- not because they aren't significant cars, but because they had to make more tradeoffs that pushed them outside the mass market envelope.

Once you start down the path of picking up a few cars on the wrong end of the improvement vs. cost tradeoff curve, it's not a long leap to naming cars like Rolls Royce or Ferrari, which do impressive things for niche markets, but that I don't consider "great" cars simply because they're SOOO far down the path of trading off certain types of small performance improvements for big price jumps, that they're essentially unobtainable.

However, I might name a couple companies as being relevant, without specifying a model. I think what BMW has done for defining precision performance is remarkable and has forced big industry-wide changes as everyone else tries to build a car that drives as well as a 3-series (I'd argue that nobody's accomplished that feat yet, but that would stir up a HUGE hornets nest, I'm sure). Similarly, I think Volvo's leadership in safety engineering is equally industry-shaping, though I don't regard any of their individual models as "best car ever".

Of the cars I've seen mentioned so far, I think the three *MOST* exemplary are:

* Ford Model T
* Volkswagen Beetle
* Jeep

However, I have two more cars that I think belong in that small, elite club of truly "greats"...

* Honda Civic
* Toyota Corolla

The Japanese companies deserve lots of credit for their unstinting dedication to producing well-engineered vehicles that are durable and that are economical to a worldwide mass market. Both the Civic and Corolla have been available in the U.S. for 30 years or more and both have built amazing reputations for delivering bulletproof durability at a price that working families can afford --- basically, the same formula that Adolf Hitler and Ferdinand Porsche nailed down to guarantee the VW Beetle's outrageous success and that you could even argue was Henry Ford's guiding light.

M

It is hard to classify a "great vehicle" in general if you are talking about a Honda Civic as compared to a Ford Excursion compared to a Buick Lucerne compared to... (etc. etc. etc.) It is better to consider a car "great" based on how "great" it is overall within its respective class (and possibly think about it as compared to rival vehicles made at the time it was being built as well).

I consider a vehicle "great" if I cannot think of anything big to complain about. Which is why I think my family's 1999 Toyota Camry is a great car (for a mid-size sedan). It does everything I want a car to do, all within a well-built and great-looking package :)

I can't imagine how great a 2007 Camry is.

I currently have the privilege of owning two great cars:
1995 Buick Roadmaster- This is the quintessential "sleeper". The LT1 V-8 makes this really a muscle car in Grampa's car clothing. Huge, it has room for all five in my family and we can still take the dog with us.(He thinks it's "his" car). Decent gas mileage (17-18 average, better than 24 on the road). Handling? Well, it's a BIG wagon with rear-wheel drive. It handles OK for that. The thing that makes it great, though, is the coolness factor of being able to blow away ricers that challenge it. The long roofs have gained a lot in coolness factor over the last few years, also.
1995 Chevrolet Silverado- Extended cab, long-bed, 350 V-8 and 5-speed manual. This is a bullet-proof reliable truck that has more than adequate power. It will outlast most anything on the road, and require few repairs that I can't handle myself. Plenty of room and plenty of hauling capacity. Comfort inside, good looks outside.

What makes a car great is dependent on the driver. If the car pleases you, then it's a great car for you.



Unfortunately, I find myself in a situation such that no great cars are made, as what I want isn't produced. There are a few that come close, but none that really satisfy.

What would make a car great for you? What are you looking for that isn't offered?

I own a o5 caddy sts with a northstar engine. Great american car, rides great, handles great and the looks are right there with Lexus & BMW. I have aftermarket rims that raise my ride height 6 inches. Great car depends on the driver and what your looking for in a car as for greatness. I also own a 92 Honda accord with 289,000 miles on it, great work car, hasn't had a lot of work did 2 it! So i could consider it a great car if we are talking about reliability. Also i own a 2005 Kenworth T2000, and even though it's not a normal car, i think it's a great vehicle, with plently of room. I love my STS tho..... it's the best overall value in america i think, well it was until the 07's came out

Here's an idea to ponder: I believe what defines a "great car" is changing. The days of mass-merchandising are over. As consumers, we are no longer satisfied to be treated as "the masses." We want to know our companies and have identify with their products and services. We want everything we buy or use to be tailored to each of us and the way we live.

In 1964 it was much easier to come up with a "great car" like the Ford Mustang, when only 2 manufacturers really dominated the U.S. market; GM and Ford. In fact, the Ford Mustang really wasn't really a "great" car, it was a Ford Falcon economy car with a stylish body mounted on the chassis. Mustang had that short deck, long hood look that was so hot in Europe and elsewhere that it instantly caught on. That, and there were fewer contemporary styled cars at that price point from other manufacturers. But underneath the Mustang body was a very mediocre 50's based chassis and drivetrain. (Sorry, not intended to tick off Mustang fans--save the flames, please!) In short, the ratio of people-to-choices was higher in 1965.

Let's jump ahead to our customized IPOD world for a moment. Today, despite our consolidated automotive world, there are more quality choices than ever when it comes to auto manufacturers. But most of them are trying to play in 2007 by 1940's rules. To survive, most of these companies will have to adapt by becoming niche players. They can no longer expect huge market shares or design one model to dominate a "mass market" which no longer exists. The job cuts and downsizing we're seeing in the auto biz are not only inevitable, they're necessary for it's survival.

It is said that the 1964 1/2 through 1966 Mustang sold over 1.2 million examples in just 2 1/2 model years. Regardless of what you think of the styling of new 2005-2007 Mustang, it is fair to say that it is technically a "better" car in every way than the original. Yet it has sold less than 225,000 copies so far. Is that because it is lacking some "greatness" that the original had? I don't think so. But there are many more people on this planet than in 1965, and thanks to import choices and better overall quality, there are many more choices available to consumers in the U.S. And those consumers have more diverse opinions about what makes a "great car."

That's where niche design comes into play. It is a MUST do as we go forward, because there could be and will need to be profitable vehicles sold in 30-40,000 unit quantities per year. This is partly because what is considered attractive styling differs on every continent, and partly because our "customize-me" world demands it. Cars designed for such tightly focused consumer groups are bound to be "great" for their intended purchasers, even if they share a lot of parts underneath the skin. I predict there won't be many "million sellers" in the coming decades. But there may be a lot of "great cars", if only manufacturers can rethink their business models and restructure fast enough to survive that long.

That was very interesting and logical sounding. I think there will always be a need for basic transportation and probably at different luxury levels, so a 60-year-old will probably get a different "basic" transportation vehicle than a 20-year-old. But your idea of efficient building for niches is insightful. Thanks!

Don't you have a car you can review on Epinions?

--Bob

IMO, the Honda S2000 would rank well up on the list. A no-frills driver's car hand assembled in annual volumes of less than 7000 vehicles, the machine is that rare combination of absolute performance coupled with absolute reliability.

Designed by Honda racing's division to be driven--hard, this is not a luxury boulevard cruiser for the tyro who would drive it at speed with little knowledge of its--or their--capabilities. However, the 2000 is as much at home on the boulevard as it is on the track, if one is willing to adapt to a firm, but civilized ride; a low ingress, egress position that's not for everyone and a cockpit that's ergonomically excellent but tight for many.

Classic, minimalist design that wears well over time, a chassis both light and as rigid as a railroad bridge, a dead quiet body structure of excellent fit and finish, and an engine and drivetrain that beg a heavy foot to wring out every bit of performance available are the hallmarks of this instant sports car classic.

The virtually bulletproof 2.3L four hauls this stunner to 60 in 5.4 seconds and tops out in the neighborhood of 150--more than enough performance for most. Immediate steering response is matched by the excellent suspension package for a well-balanced machine that is most controllable with the throttle--no snap oversteer. The 6-speed short-throw gearbox is arguably the finest available and a LSD adds that extra bit of control that is useful on street or track.

The overall N factor is low, with H and V nil. The engine winds smoothly, quickly and with audible authority, to its 8000 rpm redline. The increased displacement of the 2.3L I4 (2004-2007) has enough added torque to minimize rowing through the gears to maintain punch, as was the case with the earlier (1999-2003) maniacal (9000 rpm) 2.0L.

The interior is nearly perfect, particularly for the driver. Pedal layout is excellent, the hydraulic clutch is light and the incredible brakes modulate perfectly. Steering feedback is excellent at any speed. The steering wheel is non-adjustable; an unnecessary option for the vast majority of those in the left-hand seat. All switches and buttons fall readily to hand. From most comfortable seats--extremely well-designed for support and padded accordingly--although for some, they're tight, to the quick-read digital instrument panel, to the excellent heating/AC system, the interior is more than up to the rest of the car. There are pockets and cubby holes for maps, CDs (lockable) and other miscellany, including cup holders on the console--a bit close to the short-throw stick, however--and well-fitted carpeting and secondary carpet inserts that provide a highly finished driver-passenger area.

The powered top is a joy--15 seconds to snug one against the elements. With the top up, road and wind noise are minimal with power windows up. Trunk space, while adequate for a couple of small suitcases or sportgear bags, doesn't invite a lot of stuff therein. Golfers go top down.

Mileage: Depending upon how much use one makes of the throttle. Performance of this magnitude generally excludes excellent fuel economy, but 24-29 is most laudable.

The Honda S2000 is a benchmark high-performance 2-seater with a nice handful of boulevard extras consistently ranked very highly by auto magazine reviewers and owners alike.

At a $34k MSRP, it's definitely a keeper.

The S2000 is definitely a nice car but it is just incrementally more capable than a standard Mazda Miata. A Mazdaspeed Miata might go toe-to-toe with the S2000 for less money.

If we're voting for great cars and the list was just the Miata and the S2000, I'd vote for the Miata. It was there first by 15 years and without the Miata, there might not be an S2000.

Just my opinion, though.

--Bob

I would have to say the most important quality is reliability. This may have not been the most important factor many years ago, but with the costs of repairs, this is vital to keeping a car and roof over your head. I miss the days of being able to open a hood, consulting a guide, and being able to replace engine parts.

Now you have to be a computer technician. I never thought I'd say that I would pay to have the spark plugs changed. Now that is the reality.

Other than reliability, I'd say features for the cost. The one good thing about today's market, is there are plenty of new technologies and choices in this regard.
Mike

I both agree and disagree with the above assessments of the Honda S2000. I do think it is in a different league than the Miata, old or new. But both are great cars.

I'm not sure how you'd call NVH low, though. The engine might be smooth, but the rest of the car is very noisy and even harsh. With the top up, every single piece of the drivetrain comes through loud and clear.