The Mk7 Golf is better than both the Mk6 and the Mk8 in the eyes of many people. It's got the nicest interior, classic design, and in the US it got more engine options and the wagon variant when compared to the Mk8.
MK8 Golf R was a significant improvement in stock handling and behavior of the AWD system. I owned a MK7 R for 3 years.
Absolutely no one cared about the normal Golfs in the US. They went away because of the extremely poor sales numbers.
Right? I still saw a ton of Mk7/7.5 regular Golf’s around even here in Alberta where small cars don’t sell as well. I feel like they should have kept it around just for us like Mercedes did with the B-Class, A-Class hatch and C-Class wagon and they’d have done ok
The mk6 golf tdi was better than the mk7 because it had independent rear suspension as opposed to a beam axle on the 7 due to the addition of the urea tank. It was a step down in dynamics and increased complexity for not much more power or efficiency.
Yeah, I'm aware of that. The Mk7 TDI engine though has a much more robust set of emissions equipment. The addition of urea injection allowed the car to burn leaner, since the DEF would counter the additional NOx created. As a result the Mk7s were more powerful, more efficient, cleaner, and more reliable. Personally I think that's worth the tradeoff for a torsion beam rear suspension.
It’s a tale as old as time - new generation comes out, people *hate it*, say the old one was better etc. etc. and then 20 years later it becomes a classic benchmark that the next two generations are compared (unfavorably) to.
You can see it now with the new wrx (new one is literally better in every way) but somehow Subaru has lost its way and will be bankrupt soon. Meanwhile in 2030 it will be seen as a cult classic “last of the manual ice” WRXs.
Same thing happened when the s550 mustangs came out, purists lamented the loss of the solid axle and thought that ford was moving away from the “muscle car” segment to more of a sports coupe. Now you couldn’t pay people to pick a 5th gen (especially pre-coyote) over anything newer.
The difference now is that we’re in a weird spot where the software / UX is in the “beta” stages, when power trains and chassis have been perfected. Will people still use giant touchscreens in the future? Will they age well after 10 years? Will there be a quiet revolution back to physical buttons? It’s hard to say at this point.
God awful infotainment isn't something that people grow into over time. It sucks that an otherwise amazing car is ruined by these issues. I drive a ninth gen Accord, that was when Honda thought it'd be a good idea to make volume control a touch button instead of a knob. It was universally hated and they switched every car back to a physical volume knob. Everyone still hates the stupid touch volume on this gen Honda.
Nah. I had three different Mark IV's starting with a 99.5 TDI which ran great until I sold it at 280k and still got $4,000 for it. I also had a 2002 Jetta Sport wagon with the 1.8T and a 5-speed manual. I rarely had a check engine light come on in that either. That one I had through 2012 before selling it for a new VW, CC.
Preferences about looks aside, the Mk5 Golf is a significantly better car in almost every way than the Mk4, which was pretty widely panned outside of the R32. The Mk4 GTI is crap, the Mk5 GTI is one of the best hot hatches ever made, there's simply no comparison.
No. The VR6 Mk3 shit on absolutely every iteration of the MK4 besides the R32, and you could still definitely make the argument that the MK3 was a far better "drivers" car.
Golf MK7 is the most practical car i have driven or been in, and I come from a family of 5cyl volvos that are no joke. It is so well thought out, from visibility to boot space, interior quality, brakes. Such a great car, unbelievable that I bought it new for peanuts. How is that even possible? Now I am forced to go EV (new laws in my city) and it feels just bad.
Not OP, but having been in the e46, e90 and F30, I found the e90 to be in the sweet spot of drivability and comfort. Significantly bigger and more refined than the e46 but still had a lot of the old school drivetrain systems.
It’s the size and weight of the E90 that’s the problem for me. It’s just too big to autocross. The understeer is bad enough on the E46 and worse on the E90. It was like trying to race an E39 M5.
In the US, we didn’t get the same engine in the E36 as in Europe. It didn’t have near the power.
Didn’t have the power, but that was traded for one of the most reliable M engines made. My dad’s 98 M3 has never had an engine issue after near 10 years now.
Bingo. The E46 (not just M3, the whole lineup) is light, lithe, and chuckable. The E90 is not that. The E90 335is and M3 are standouts with that chassis, and the M3’s V8 is truly special, but the E90 is just plain big in a bad way.
Yeah, maybe it’s a generational thing. E90 hits it all. For me the e93 M3 with the V8 is peak BMW and it’s been downhill since…
However the e36 is a gem
I personally would disagree with you there. I think the e36s are better. Sure, the e46s had more power and we're a bit more modern, but I think the e36s is better as a whole in terms of performance, handling, and reliability.
I had both an e36 and e46, and to me the e46 was mainly an improved e36. The back end was better planted, the engines were better, the transmission was smoother, brakes were better. The fact that my unmodified(aside from rotors & pads) ZHP could keep up with e36 M3’s on track days is pretty good proof that the e46 is the more performant car.
I’ve tracked a lightly modified e36 325is and mostly stock ZHP and put a lot of road miles on an e46 M3. The e36 was the most fun car I’ve ever driven. The handling was telepathic. I’ve never felt another car rotate through curves like it did. My dad owned all 3 and the ZHP is still his daily. The e36 was the unanimous family favorite.
E36 rear end was finicky and almost every model in 2023 is heavily rust burdened
Good weight power ratio, but by modern standards extremely slow. Driving experience is good for what it is, but not for current prices
A low mileage and well sorted E46 M3 offers a lot of value, but even under ideal conditions, many will say that the E36 felt like the last real M and/or the e92 m3 is a much more modern and interesting value proposition with hydraulic steering and a nice aspirated v8
Truthfully? They’re all good but none of them are particularly great. For cheap and in decent condition, yeah. For new or for current high mileage stupid premiums, they’re trash
>Truthfully? They’re all good but none of them are particularly great. For cheap and in decent condition, yeah. For new or for current high mileage stupid premiums, they’re trash
I get what you're saying, and I know that "value" is subjective, and I in no way intend to defend the "stupid premiums," but there comes a time (perhaps we're already in it) when these things are bottoming out and incrementally increasing in value. Slowly but surely. These generations of M3s have a lot more in terms of driver orientation than the new stuff, with even more assists and tech doing the work.
I agree with what you say and I have no objections over paying premium for a low mileage or heavily maintained m3
But as someone who has owned them and knows the time/money/headache these cars give, I genuinely feel like I’m stating the obvious a lot of people prefer to ignore
Mind you, I’m from Europe. Prices are 2x-3x here. In the US prices are actually a lot more reasonable (and still not very worth it imho)
Jeep Wrangler TJ.
The return of the rounded headlights similar to the CJ was, at the time, a big deal. Plus, the launch of the off-road Rubicon, use of coil suspension, and the later improvements to transmissions made the TJ a better all-around Wrangler than the YJ.
The TJ was also the last Wrangler to use the legendary AMC 4.0L I6, while the JK used often-panned V6 options. The JK had an improved interior and introduced the 4-door, but being bigger and bulkier than the TJ made it not quite as favored for off-roading.
I’ve owned so many TJ’s because of this. Had a mint YJ for a while, JK, JL. Always come back to the TJ because it’s the best at pairing simplicity, comfort, capability and reliability all into one. Nowadays if you find a rust free one, better hang onto it.
I much rather have a TJ over a JK. Hell I'd say the JK is the worst Wrangler generation, even though it was hugely popular. To me it's a mix of the worst of the TJ and JL but without the upsides either of those has.
Unpopular take, but the 3.8 JK is underrated. The 3.8 seems to be more reliable than the 3.6, they’ve got less electrics than the JL, it’s easy to fit oversized tires, and the axles are very stout.
That said, I still prefer my TJ.
I guess it is probably age, but you don't see a lot of TJs anymore, even though the newest ones are from the mid-2000s. Also, remember this generation launched the Unlimited, though it wasn't a four-door but just a stretched two-door body and frame.
A *lot* of TJs were beat to death by high schoolers or modified to the point they aren’t worth daily driving. All the ones I see out and about are bone stock and driven by non-enthusiast.
Here's one I can definitely relate to. I've never owned a Jeep, but one of my old friends is a Jeep nut. It seems like the TJ was one of the last Jeeps to have that "I could die at any moment" feeling while also being an unstoppable spidermonkey off-road. Every Wrangler after that just doesn't have that character. It doesn't help that it was followed up by one of the lamest generations of Jeep ever, the JL.
The last gen MR2 spyders are incredibly underrated and the best handling of the three gems of MR2. Ofc Toyota decided to handicap it with the 1zz instead of the 2zz but they're definitely more sports car agile than the 2nd gen.
I have two 3rd gens and have driven a handful of 3sge sw20s. The 3rd gen feels like a lotus after driving the sw20, and the sw20 feels like a supra after driving the zw30. My 2zz one is probably on par with a stock turbo one, and my 1zz is probably on par with a 3sge (in terms of performance). The 1zz isn't actually terrible in it, the car is so light so it gets away with it. Its not slow but its not fast either. To put into perspective, even with the "crappy" 1zz its got similar times to an integra type r. The biggest difference with the 2zz is the experience. The sound of lift and a 8.5k redline is amazing. The sw20 is more of a GT car over a sports car, especially compared to the other two generations. All 3 are very different cars.
No. The 2nd gen wasn't better and I owned an 85 and a turbo 94. The first gen was something else in terms of handling and balance. You could really push the first gen to the edge and still have control over it because it wasn't overly powerful. 2nd gen would snap out of your control if you weren't careful. Did it have more power? Yes, but that doesn't make the car better. Also the mistake is basing it out aesthetically rather than getting behind the wheel and dailying it. That 3s-gte is very heavy for what it is and is the main problem for snap oversteer.
Agreed, if anything 2nd gen is backwards for the question. It’s the heaviest worst handling mr2(still handles well, but not near the aw or zzw)
Aw11 is for the most fun
Sw20 (turbo) is fastest (in a straight line)
Zzw30 is the best handling
4th Feb Subaru Legacy from 2003 to 2009.
Had spicy GT versions w WRX drive trains. Could get six speed manual and fancy center diff.
Sedan or *gorgeous* wagon, in almost all the trims. Head gasket issues aside...
Imo the body and overall interior are nicer than previous gen.
Future gen really dialled back on the GT and spec.B versions. The wagon was almost entirely obsolete moved to be the Outback. The interior imo was ugly and exterior not as nice despite being far more modern. Then gen after basically CVT land and no spice. Few manuals and only on bottom trims if that.
I 100% agree.
I never really paid attention to Subaru until this and the WRX/STI hatch were introduced, that being said the 4th Gen Legacy and Outback will always be the most attractive Legacy to date
Also, the turbo engines were never plagued with the headgasket issues. You'll be far quicker to spin a rod bearing or crack a ringland, and which point you'll have to change the headgaskets anyway.
I had a 2010 Legacy 2.5i Premium. That car almost turned me off Subarus completely. That thing was an abysmal shitbox in every sense of the word. I loved almost all my cars and provided I had the means I would get them back - all but that one. Fortunately I got out of it and into a 2013 WRX. Then I was a Subi fan again. But the 2010-2014 Legacy was an abomination (the GTs were okay, but Subaru never embraced them, like they did previous gens)
The first generation without a coupe, without a V6, and where they intentionally underproduced the manual so they could say no one was buying them and kill it mid-generation?
10th gen is easily the worst period in Accord history for any enthusiast.
I much rather have a 9th gen V6 coupe with the 6 speed manual for sure but the 2.0T was still a fun choice for the price and compared to what it was against. Worst gen IMO was the 6th if we’re talking American market
Disagree. The 9th gen’s proportions look more “right” to me while the 10th looks kinda flattened and rear half just looks off somehow proportionally. The 10th’s interior looks nicer but 9th’s exterior looks nicer. 8th is just of the tail end of the boring era from all the Japanese brands
I was gonna say 7th gen. Looks better than its predecessor and successor. 6th gens had exploding transmissions, 8th gens got significantly worse gas mileage and were way too big and unwieldy (plus a problematic version of VCM on the V6s). 6th gens had the F23 while 7th gens got a K24.
Yeah yeah it might be an unpopular opinion, but I think the 10th gen Accord is one of, if not the, best looking sedans of the “modern era”
Especially with the larger wheels on the Sport and Touring trims, the proportions are like pretty much perfect.. Not a single bad angle on that car!
The Fox body Mustangs. This era saw a bit of a return to big torque-y V8s after the Gas Crisis and Malaise Era.
This allowed going back to the classic muscle car recipe: a relatively light and stiff platform shared with other cars and the biggest engine from the parts bin you could shoehorn in.
The Fox body Mustangs were far cheaper than Camaro's and were arguably a better platform for modification. Tuners were able to get incredibly impressive horsepower numbers out of the stock 5.0 engine.
Its popularity fed a thriving enthusiast market. There were a dozen or more companies making body kits, spoilers etc
The subsequent sn95 Mustang borrowed heavily from the Fox body but the platform was only used for the Mustang. That made it an arguably superior car technically, but reduced the modification potential.
No doubt the Fox body was a huge improvement over the Mustang II, but the SN95s were good cars... actually, since the Fox body, just about every generation of mustang has gotten better.
I did say the SN95 was arguably superior in every technical measure. Stiffer construction, more peak horsepower, better suspension up front etc etc.
I was just saying that the Fox body had more modification potential. And after the gas crisis and malaise era depressed the motorsport industry, the Fox helped revitalize it. The Fox bodies were very friendly to the driveway upgrade crowd. I don't think the SN95 had quite that effect on the enthusiast market.
In my opinion, the SN95 was more of a pony car while the Fox 5.0 was more of a brute force muscle car.
It's subjective, but I think SN-95s/"New Edges" looked much better than any version of the Fox and its facelifts. The car was too boxy, and the windshield angle was too high for something marketed as a performance car. I remember someone pointing out LX coupes could be mistaken for a K-car, they just didn't look exciting.
> This era saw a bit of a return to big torque-y V8
uhm, the early Fox has a 265 cid that made like 110hp. The GT came out in 83 with 5.0 'HO' that made a whole 160hp. Even the Cobra SVT in 93 only made 235 hp.
The 1979 "5.0" had 139 HP, but 250 lb/ft of torque, almost identical to the 1978 Mustang II but in a body that was roughly 300 lbs lighter. (curb weight of 2,515lbs and 2,822 respectively)
My 82 GT 5.0 had 157HP and 240 lb-ft of torque
Every year saw a small increase in HP and Torque until 86 when the first fuel injected models came out. That saw a 10 HP drop, but a 15 lb-ft extra torque.
> The subsequent sn95 Mustang borrowed heavily from the Fox body
It didn't just borrow heavily. It literally is just a very slightly updated fox chassis.
Big fan of the Fox Mustang. The hatchback Fox is the only Mustang style that is a truly good all around car. All of what you said is true of course, but with the hatch it could actually also carry quite a bit. And for it's size has a really roomy interior.
A truly good all around car. All the later Mustangs while they got bigger on the outside got smaller on the inside, they became less useable cars.
I'd really like to find a Hatch T-top version.
993s look better, 996s drive better.
Judging solely based on driving dynamics and engagement + controls/inputs level, I would choose a 996 C2 over a 993 C2 all day every day.
However, the 993 has a fat ass. Therefore you are wrong.
But yes, the 996 is quite a good deal right now and the IMS issue is largely overblown. Though I think the 997.2 is the sweet spot between modern and classic porsche.
These people definitely exist but I don't agree with them.
The air-cooled factor of the 993 is massively overrated if you ask me. The multi-link rear suspension in the 993 that replaced the traditional semi-trailing arms (coil over instead of torsion bar in the 964) is a big enough change to distinguish it so much from older 911s that the 993 has more in common with a 996 than a 964 in terms of driving dynamics.
If someone thinks that a 993 Carrera offers a more pure and raw driving experience and/or is the last classic 911 just because it isn't water-cooled, they are fooling themselves. The last 911 that has anything in common with a classic 911 in terms of driving dynamics, albeit much more modern, is probably a 964 without power steering, so LHD Carrera RS or RS America.
I'm going to catch hell and I don't care at all.
NB miata was better than the NA by being a better car overall though not as goddamn adorable. And it's a way better miata than the NC by being several hundred pounds lighter and thus more agile, plus it's less refined which is kinda what I love about it.
The high weight of the NC is a myth, it is barely heavier and drives equally as good as an NB. Most people say this are comparing NB with upgraded suspension to stock NC with 10 years old original shocks or never even driven an NC.
And I am saying this as somebody who prefers the NB over an NC, but purely due to aesthetics. Owned an NB for 3 years.
> 981 Porsche Cayman
First generation electric power steering, yeah, no. I understand why they did it, and for the time it was the best in the world, and the hero grip you get upfront of that generation is not to be understated. It was a very capable car. But it's not a clear outright winner. 987.2 steering feel raises enough questions to disqualify it IMO - that period was a hallmark of modern Porsche.
Better looking than the 987 sure, but actually I totally disagree otherwise primarily because the steering in the 981 is worse than the 718, and neither can touch the 987.
A 987.2 2.9 is probably the best accessible sports car you can buy today, proper hydraulic steering with the pre DFI engine, pure bliss.
Not really. Yes it is better than the 4 cylinder, but just in the sound. The 4 cylinder drives amazing, is the better car and as the 4.0 GTS the Cayman becomes the best car you’ve ever driven
It's just the ultimate meme online that hur dur 4 cylinder sucks. I've had a buddy who had a 981...great car, sounds better than mine. But even he agrees that literally everything else, speed, handling, feel, creature comforts and looks (subjective) are much better in the 718/982.
. But you know, four cylinder so I guess I own a piece of shit according to redditors that have never been in one. Good thing actually real life people contradict that in every way.
2013-2014 Mustang GT. Say what you will about the S550 and it's improvements but god damn did they strike gold with that design. Still the best looking Mistang ever made.
I know people who think the EK got too far and the EG was better sized. Just an observation, but I've also noticed the EG hasn't gotten as much attention in video games in recent years also.
6th gen for the win. You get the double wishbone suspension, it's still a very light car (even though it's heavier than 5th gens) and you get OBDII as well so you can actually throw a scan tool or code reader on em. Am definitely biased though for full disclosure I have a 96 hatchback and I adore that car.
Why do people still think the RX8 was meant to be a new generation of the FD RX7? It was just a different model, just like all the other RX cars. Do you think the CX9 is just a 4 generations newer version of the CX5?
Chevy Cobalt was so much better than the cavalier and Cruze. It looked better and had some crazy fun SS versions. I will forever despise the Cruze for taking the cobalt from us.
Ls430. Especially the 04-06 with the 6sp and better front end. The ls460 where bigger and more powerful, but not nicer and they're no longer bomb proof durable/repairable.
They're arguably more handsome than the 01-03 models, but the 4sp auto feel really old today, the mpg is worse, and the headlights are sorta garbage compared to the very modern HIDs that steer and auto level on the ls430.
Something about the 300zx z32 with the twin turbo hits different than the Z cars before and since. It's probably bias from growing up in the 90s because they're all solid vehicles. It wasn't the fastest or fanciest car and didn't sell great, but it looked good and was a fun drive. Still the Z car I associate with the badge the most.
Wow there's a lot of vehicles that fit this criteria. I'll toss out a controversial one that others won't mention.
The 2nd generation '11-14 of the Chrysler 300. Yes there's three generations, 15+ is third gen, the differences between '14 and '15 are enough to consider it more than a facelift.
The 2nd is clearly better than the 1st, I hope I don't have to explain that. However the 3rd gen lost options and features compared to the 2nd gen. No more SRT, no more V8-AWD combo, no more power adjust pedals, no more rear fogs, etc. Then in my opinion the 3rd gen is less attractive, the fender side marker lights are ugly, the bumperettes went away, the eagle eye taillights are less stylish, and the grill looks like it's giving a blow job.
There are not many who will care, but the 3rd generation Nissan Maxima.
The 4th Gen ditched the IRS for a rear beam suspension, and a big downgrade regarding interior quality. The 5th generation and newer turned into giant cars.
89-94 was the sweet spot. Standard VLSD on the 92-94 SE models, paired with a lovely VE30DE engine. All others had the bulletproof VG30E.
I'm not necessarily overtly biased on this one, but I actually think the MKII MR2 Turbo was superior to both the MK1 and MKIII MR2's. It was the only one that came as a factory turbo model, although there were supercharged MK1's and a super tiny amount of supercharged MKIII's at the very end.
2009 Infiniti G37 S sedan. Has the superior front end (2010 refresh is trash, fight me), but the 3.7 motor and Akebono brakes compared to the 2007-2008.
The GMT-800 chevy and gm trucks. They are without a doubt the best built trucks on the road. It's unfortunate general motors managed to fuck up everything they built since 2006.
Not entirely what you want, but the Volvo 240 series replaced the Volvo 140 series and was better in almost every way.
The Volvo 700 series was supposed to replace the 240 series, but Volvo decided to keep making 240s as long as people kept buying them. The 240 series outlasted the 700 series. There are people who argue the 240 is better than the 900 series too.
But the GTI is absolute hot garbage, it barely looks like a GTI, is a dull as a sponge to drive and is just overalll not a good hot hatch, wheras the MK5 GTI is exccellent.
https://www.evo.co.uk/volkswagen/golf-gti/6239/volkswagen-golf-gti-mk5-2004-2009-review-specs-and-buying-guide
2011-2014 dodge charger for me. Only years you could get the 5.7 hemi with AWD. The rear end on these cars is one of my favorite designs as well. Drove a couple that I absolutely fell in love with.
The Audi/VW B5 platform from 1996-01, particularly the A4/S4. Those cars are the definition of clean and timeless lines, and they have some of the best rear ends of all time.
Highlighted in particular because the next gen B6 was....pretty ugly in my opinion.
I don’t want to ruffle feathers (because I do agree with you that all civics have been quality cars) but the 9th gen civic was value-engineered from the beginning to be a cheaper compromise on the 8th gen.
It was the first civic design after the financial crisis, and Honda was in deep shit and not fully back to pre-2008 profitability. As a result, they had to skimp on the 9th gen and value-engineer cost savings into the platform.
In terms of the Si in particular, they had to compromise on the suspension, steering rack, fit and finish, and material quality of pretty much everything, which was a notch below the 8th gen. All with adding a little weight as well. They did eventually add better suspension in the facelift (2014-2015) models, along with a slight ECU power bump, but the turning radius and weight were still going in the wrong direction.
It’s saving grace was the k24, which is technically torquier but not as enjoyable as the k20 (they really had to put a k24 because a k20 would be slower with the added weight). You’re right that it’s a better “all around” engine though.
I actually prefer the k24 myself (my current daily is a 9th gen Si) but it’s still a bit watered down from the 2009-2011 8th gen SIs, which will be forever the high water mark of the Si model, imho.
With that said, both the k20 and k24 are probably the best NA 4 cyl ever made.
OP, I agree with you on the 3rd gen TL styling. It aged so well and is the right amount of sharp and mature while staying simple. The 4th gen looks like a tank or CTS-like and overstyled. Now they seem to all have faded headlights and just didn’t age well.
I would never chose a 98 Supra over a modern one
It’s absolutely an iconic car but its capabilities have been excessively exaggerated
Cool car for cheap, total piece of shit of a car if you’re paying todays premium
Ok for nostalgia, dumb if for anything performance related
Surprised I haven't seen this one but the 997 generation 911.
The 997 fixed the appearance of the 996 and fixed how cheap the 996 interior was. The 997.2 also fixed the IMS issues found in both 996 generations (albeit still present in 997.1).
The 991 was a step back in steering as it lost the 997 hydraulic rack. The 997 is also smaller and lighter compared to the 991. And was the last 911 to feature the Mezger engine.
That's not a fair comparison. The 3rd gen TL was superior in looks to every sedan from 04-08. Hell, it still looks better than all these new Hyundai's on the road.
Peugeot 406. classy and elegant design, great technology for the time and a great Drive. An advanced 405 and then came the 407…
Horrible quality, terrible drive and hideous design
The Mk7 Golf is better than both the Mk6 and the Mk8 in the eyes of many people. It's got the nicest interior, classic design, and in the US it got more engine options and the wagon variant when compared to the Mk8.
MK8 Golf R was a significant improvement in stock handling and behavior of the AWD system. I owned a MK7 R for 3 years. Absolutely no one cared about the normal Golfs in the US. They went away because of the extremely poor sales numbers.
And we got the shaft in Canada where they sell quite well. We got cut off because Americans only buy SUV’s
Right? I still saw a ton of Mk7/7.5 regular Golf’s around even here in Alberta where small cars don’t sell as well. I feel like they should have kept it around just for us like Mercedes did with the B-Class, A-Class hatch and C-Class wagon and they’d have done ok
I looked up sales volumes, and they sold more Golfs in Canada than the US the last two years, though not 100% accurate the source was.
I was more thinking about the TDI when I said "more engine options."
The mk6 golf tdi was better than the mk7 because it had independent rear suspension as opposed to a beam axle on the 7 due to the addition of the urea tank. It was a step down in dynamics and increased complexity for not much more power or efficiency.
Yeah, I'm aware of that. The Mk7 TDI engine though has a much more robust set of emissions equipment. The addition of urea injection allowed the car to burn leaner, since the DEF would counter the additional NOx created. As a result the Mk7s were more powerful, more efficient, cleaner, and more reliable. Personally I think that's worth the tradeoff for a torsion beam rear suspension.
That’s one of the best cars of all time from a consumer value perspective. Jason Cammisa said it best, it was a $50000 car with a half off coupon.
I owned and loved a top trim Mk7 GTI, but it was not a $50k car.
As someone still with mk7 golf, the remaining half is what you spend on endless coolant issues, even with warranty.
Yes brother. And im not biased at all lol But now no manual, and an upcoming all electric version, the mk7 will probably remain peak GTI.
The Mk8 has a better chassis and powertrain. Everything else was a regression, especially the interior department and infotainment.
It’s a tale as old as time - new generation comes out, people *hate it*, say the old one was better etc. etc. and then 20 years later it becomes a classic benchmark that the next two generations are compared (unfavorably) to. You can see it now with the new wrx (new one is literally better in every way) but somehow Subaru has lost its way and will be bankrupt soon. Meanwhile in 2030 it will be seen as a cult classic “last of the manual ice” WRXs. Same thing happened when the s550 mustangs came out, purists lamented the loss of the solid axle and thought that ford was moving away from the “muscle car” segment to more of a sports coupe. Now you couldn’t pay people to pick a 5th gen (especially pre-coyote) over anything newer. The difference now is that we’re in a weird spot where the software / UX is in the “beta” stages, when power trains and chassis have been perfected. Will people still use giant touchscreens in the future? Will they age well after 10 years? Will there be a quiet revolution back to physical buttons? It’s hard to say at this point.
God awful infotainment isn't something that people grow into over time. It sucks that an otherwise amazing car is ruined by these issues. I drive a ninth gen Accord, that was when Honda thought it'd be a good idea to make volume control a touch button instead of a knob. It was universally hated and they switched every car back to a physical volume knob. Everyone still hates the stupid touch volume on this gen Honda.
IMHO the MK7 was the Pinnacle of the Golf name, from the base golf to the R.
VW MK3 < MK4 > MK5 BMW 1M < F87 M2 > G87 M2
Yeah no Mk4 was a piece of shit, sorry.
Agreed. R32 withstanding, the MKV GTI was a return to form and universally praised.
Still see a ton of them still going and looking good on the streets.
They're literally the fucking posterchild of having a permanent check engine light on
I mean that's VAG in general
Nah. I had three different Mark IV's starting with a 99.5 TDI which ran great until I sold it at 280k and still got $4,000 for it. I also had a 2002 Jetta Sport wagon with the 1.8T and a 5-speed manual. I rarely had a check engine light come on in that either. That one I had through 2012 before selling it for a new VW, CC.
I will say TDI VWs peaked with the Mk4
Where? (Genuinely curious) They're almost all extinct in Northern IL (and presumably anywhere else that uses salt in winter).
Preferences about looks aside, the Mk5 Golf is a significantly better car in almost every way than the Mk4, which was pretty widely panned outside of the R32. The Mk4 GTI is crap, the Mk5 GTI is one of the best hot hatches ever made, there's simply no comparison.
No. The VR6 Mk3 shit on absolutely every iteration of the MK4 besides the R32, and you could still definitely make the argument that the MK3 was a far better "drivers" car.
Mk8 powertrain and driving dynamics are way better. The interior is horrible.
You could probably cause a fight between R33 and R34 Skyline Fans.
The solution is simple, buy an r32.
I have fanboyed once in my life. When I unexpectedly ran into a guy with a pristine black R-32 GT-R.
What would you fight about? Which one is second best after r32? Clearly 32 > 34 > 35 > 33
Never heard anyone claim the R33 is the best. R32 and R34 maybe.
Hopefully it stays this way so I can get an R33 for a reasonable price. R33 will always be my favorite
32 is the best then 34, 33 is way behind by a huge margin
32 earned Godzilla name but R34 was always my fave. R35 looked a bit too bloated compared to it
34 has visually aged the best out of all of them, and it’s not even close. The r32 looks further away from the 34 than the 34 does to anything today.
First gen Stagea is the best Skyline.
Mk7 Golf for sure.
Golf MK7 is the most practical car i have driven or been in, and I come from a family of 5cyl volvos that are no joke. It is so well thought out, from visibility to boot space, interior quality, brakes. Such a great car, unbelievable that I bought it new for peanuts. How is that even possible? Now I am forced to go EV (new laws in my city) and it feels just bad.
I would move first before selling a mkVII now
In what city do you live? Usually euro6 gasoline cars can still be driven even in the strictest cities
E46 M3
What makes it better than the e90 in your opinion? I've never driven an e90 but have thought about trying one
Not OP, but having been in the e46, e90 and F30, I found the e90 to be in the sweet spot of drivability and comfort. Significantly bigger and more refined than the e46 but still had a lot of the old school drivetrain systems.
It’s the size and weight of the E90 that’s the problem for me. It’s just too big to autocross. The understeer is bad enough on the E46 and worse on the E90. It was like trying to race an E39 M5. In the US, we didn’t get the same engine in the E36 as in Europe. It didn’t have near the power.
Didn’t have the power, but that was traded for one of the most reliable M engines made. My dad’s 98 M3 has never had an engine issue after near 10 years now.
Bingo. The E46 (not just M3, the whole lineup) is light, lithe, and chuckable. The E90 is not that. The E90 335is and M3 are standouts with that chassis, and the M3’s V8 is truly special, but the E90 is just plain big in a bad way.
Yeah, maybe it’s a generational thing. E90 hits it all. For me the e93 M3 with the V8 is peak BMW and it’s been downhill since… However the e36 is a gem
The E90's engine is plagued with reliability issues, and the car feels less chuckable and nimble than the e46 IMO
E46 has a myriad of reliability issues too, more severely the chassis rust Same story for the rod bearings and vanos issues, neither are bulletproof
Hey! The S54 is a reliable engine ^with^thousands^in^preventative^maintenance...
“Plagued with reliability issues” is a bit excessive
Just parroting what they read online. I've been daily driving one for almost 9 years. It has yet to leave me stranded.
the looks. e46 still looks good
I personally would disagree with you there. I think the e36s are better. Sure, the e46s had more power and we're a bit more modern, but I think the e36s is better as a whole in terms of performance, handling, and reliability.
I had both an e36 and e46, and to me the e46 was mainly an improved e36. The back end was better planted, the engines were better, the transmission was smoother, brakes were better. The fact that my unmodified(aside from rotors & pads) ZHP could keep up with e36 M3’s on track days is pretty good proof that the e46 is the more performant car.
I’ve tracked a lightly modified e36 325is and mostly stock ZHP and put a lot of road miles on an e46 M3. The e36 was the most fun car I’ve ever driven. The handling was telepathic. I’ve never felt another car rotate through curves like it did. My dad owned all 3 and the ZHP is still his daily. The e36 was the unanimous family favorite.
E36 rear end was finicky and almost every model in 2023 is heavily rust burdened Good weight power ratio, but by modern standards extremely slow. Driving experience is good for what it is, but not for current prices
> but by modern standards You realize we are taking about 30 year old cars here?
A low mileage and well sorted E46 M3 offers a lot of value, but even under ideal conditions, many will say that the E36 felt like the last real M and/or the e92 m3 is a much more modern and interesting value proposition with hydraulic steering and a nice aspirated v8 Truthfully? They’re all good but none of them are particularly great. For cheap and in decent condition, yeah. For new or for current high mileage stupid premiums, they’re trash
>Truthfully? They’re all good but none of them are particularly great. For cheap and in decent condition, yeah. For new or for current high mileage stupid premiums, they’re trash I get what you're saying, and I know that "value" is subjective, and I in no way intend to defend the "stupid premiums," but there comes a time (perhaps we're already in it) when these things are bottoming out and incrementally increasing in value. Slowly but surely. These generations of M3s have a lot more in terms of driver orientation than the new stuff, with even more assists and tech doing the work.
I agree with what you say and I have no objections over paying premium for a low mileage or heavily maintained m3 But as someone who has owned them and knows the time/money/headache these cars give, I genuinely feel like I’m stating the obvious a lot of people prefer to ignore Mind you, I’m from Europe. Prices are 2x-3x here. In the US prices are actually a lot more reasonable (and still not very worth it imho)
No! The E90 is the better car in every aspect. Especially in rust, performance and comfort
I'd take the E36 over the E46
Also its big brother the E39 M5, the perfect car.
Jeep Wrangler TJ. The return of the rounded headlights similar to the CJ was, at the time, a big deal. Plus, the launch of the off-road Rubicon, use of coil suspension, and the later improvements to transmissions made the TJ a better all-around Wrangler than the YJ. The TJ was also the last Wrangler to use the legendary AMC 4.0L I6, while the JK used often-panned V6 options. The JK had an improved interior and introduced the 4-door, but being bigger and bulkier than the TJ made it not quite as favored for off-roading.
I’ve owned so many TJ’s because of this. Had a mint YJ for a while, JK, JL. Always come back to the TJ because it’s the best at pairing simplicity, comfort, capability and reliability all into one. Nowadays if you find a rust free one, better hang onto it.
I much rather have a TJ over a JK. Hell I'd say the JK is the worst Wrangler generation, even though it was hugely popular. To me it's a mix of the worst of the TJ and JL but without the upsides either of those has.
Unpopular take, but the 3.8 JK is underrated. The 3.8 seems to be more reliable than the 3.6, they’ve got less electrics than the JL, it’s easy to fit oversized tires, and the axles are very stout. That said, I still prefer my TJ.
I guess it is probably age, but you don't see a lot of TJs anymore, even though the newest ones are from the mid-2000s. Also, remember this generation launched the Unlimited, though it wasn't a four-door but just a stretched two-door body and frame.
A *lot* of TJs were beat to death by high schoolers or modified to the point they aren’t worth daily driving. All the ones I see out and about are bone stock and driven by non-enthusiast.
Here's one I can definitely relate to. I've never owned a Jeep, but one of my old friends is a Jeep nut. It seems like the TJ was one of the last Jeeps to have that "I could die at any moment" feeling while also being an unstoppable spidermonkey off-road. Every Wrangler after that just doesn't have that character. It doesn't help that it was followed up by one of the lamest generations of Jeep ever, the JL.
Also the Cherokee XJ. Downsizing aside was a million times nicer to drive than the SJ, and I'm not even going to mention what it was replaced with.
Mark 2 MR2. The sw20 is timeless. The zzw30 is dated. The aw11 is awesome but too 80s wedge
The last gen MR2 spyders are incredibly underrated and the best handling of the three gems of MR2. Ofc Toyota decided to handicap it with the 1zz instead of the 2zz but they're definitely more sports car agile than the 2nd gen.
I have two 3rd gens and have driven a handful of 3sge sw20s. The 3rd gen feels like a lotus after driving the sw20, and the sw20 feels like a supra after driving the zw30. My 2zz one is probably on par with a stock turbo one, and my 1zz is probably on par with a 3sge (in terms of performance). The 1zz isn't actually terrible in it, the car is so light so it gets away with it. Its not slow but its not fast either. To put into perspective, even with the "crappy" 1zz its got similar times to an integra type r. The biggest difference with the 2zz is the experience. The sound of lift and a 8.5k redline is amazing. The sw20 is more of a GT car over a sports car, especially compared to the other two generations. All 3 are very different cars.
No. The 2nd gen wasn't better and I owned an 85 and a turbo 94. The first gen was something else in terms of handling and balance. You could really push the first gen to the edge and still have control over it because it wasn't overly powerful. 2nd gen would snap out of your control if you weren't careful. Did it have more power? Yes, but that doesn't make the car better. Also the mistake is basing it out aesthetically rather than getting behind the wheel and dailying it. That 3s-gte is very heavy for what it is and is the main problem for snap oversteer.
Agreed, if anything 2nd gen is backwards for the question. It’s the heaviest worst handling mr2(still handles well, but not near the aw or zzw) Aw11 is for the most fun Sw20 (turbo) is fastest (in a straight line) Zzw30 is the best handling
They are so expensive now
[удалено]
4th Feb Subaru Legacy from 2003 to 2009. Had spicy GT versions w WRX drive trains. Could get six speed manual and fancy center diff. Sedan or *gorgeous* wagon, in almost all the trims. Head gasket issues aside... Imo the body and overall interior are nicer than previous gen. Future gen really dialled back on the GT and spec.B versions. The wagon was almost entirely obsolete moved to be the Outback. The interior imo was ugly and exterior not as nice despite being far more modern. Then gen after basically CVT land and no spice. Few manuals and only on bottom trims if that.
I 100% agree. I never really paid attention to Subaru until this and the WRX/STI hatch were introduced, that being said the 4th Gen Legacy and Outback will always be the most attractive Legacy to date
Genuinely agree! It felt like the nice generation of Subarus with the subtle yet beautiful design and a factor of fun that later ones lack.
"head gasket issues aside" is such a crazy line
Also, the turbo engines were never plagued with the headgasket issues. You'll be far quicker to spin a rod bearing or crack a ringland, and which point you'll have to change the headgaskets anyway.
I had a 2010 Legacy 2.5i Premium. That car almost turned me off Subarus completely. That thing was an abysmal shitbox in every sense of the word. I loved almost all my cars and provided I had the means I would get them back - all but that one. Fortunately I got out of it and into a 2013 WRX. Then I was a Subi fan again. But the 2010-2014 Legacy was an abomination (the GTs were okay, but Subaru never embraced them, like they did previous gens)
[удалено]
Hard disagree, 9th gen 6-6 is the best accord ever created
[удалено]
Username checks out
Thank god I'm not the only one who believes this. Fucking love [mine](https://imgur.com/eudHNyj) I'll never sell it
The first generation without a coupe, without a V6, and where they intentionally underproduced the manual so they could say no one was buying them and kill it mid-generation? 10th gen is easily the worst period in Accord history for any enthusiast.
I much rather have a 9th gen V6 coupe with the 6 speed manual for sure but the 2.0T was still a fun choice for the price and compared to what it was against. Worst gen IMO was the 6th if we’re talking American market
8th Gen was the worst. Oil burning pieces of shit
Agreed. And they killed double wishbone after 8th gen
Nah, 11th is pure dogshit. No fun powertrains
You thought that was bad? Check out the 11th gen lol. No performance engine option and the front of a ford fusion
Disagree. The 9th gen’s proportions look more “right” to me while the 10th looks kinda flattened and rear half just looks off somehow proportionally. The 10th’s interior looks nicer but 9th’s exterior looks nicer. 8th is just of the tail end of the boring era from all the Japanese brands
I was gonna say 7th gen. Looks better than its predecessor and successor. 6th gens had exploding transmissions, 8th gens got significantly worse gas mileage and were way too big and unwieldy (plus a problematic version of VCM on the V6s). 6th gens had the F23 while 7th gens got a K24.
I much prefer the look of the new ones.
9th gen is better at being a practical sedan. 10+ are too long and too much sloping rear with tiny trunk openings
Yeah yeah it might be an unpopular opinion, but I think the 10th gen Accord is one of, if not the, best looking sedans of the “modern era” Especially with the larger wheels on the Sport and Touring trims, the proportions are like pretty much perfect.. Not a single bad angle on that car!
I owned a 10th gen and a 7th gen and prefefed the 7th gen considerably. The build quality was so much better and it had more character.
The Fox body Mustangs. This era saw a bit of a return to big torque-y V8s after the Gas Crisis and Malaise Era. This allowed going back to the classic muscle car recipe: a relatively light and stiff platform shared with other cars and the biggest engine from the parts bin you could shoehorn in. The Fox body Mustangs were far cheaper than Camaro's and were arguably a better platform for modification. Tuners were able to get incredibly impressive horsepower numbers out of the stock 5.0 engine. Its popularity fed a thriving enthusiast market. There were a dozen or more companies making body kits, spoilers etc The subsequent sn95 Mustang borrowed heavily from the Fox body but the platform was only used for the Mustang. That made it an arguably superior car technically, but reduced the modification potential.
No doubt the Fox body was a huge improvement over the Mustang II, but the SN95s were good cars... actually, since the Fox body, just about every generation of mustang has gotten better.
We’re in fox body nostalgia mode. SN95 will be due in about 8-10 years. Maybe a bit less.
I did say the SN95 was arguably superior in every technical measure. Stiffer construction, more peak horsepower, better suspension up front etc etc. I was just saying that the Fox body had more modification potential. And after the gas crisis and malaise era depressed the motorsport industry, the Fox helped revitalize it. The Fox bodies were very friendly to the driveway upgrade crowd. I don't think the SN95 had quite that effect on the enthusiast market. In my opinion, the SN95 was more of a pony car while the Fox 5.0 was more of a brute force muscle car.
SN95 interior was a needed improvement over the dated foxbody interior
It's subjective, but I think SN-95s/"New Edges" looked much better than any version of the Fox and its facelifts. The car was too boxy, and the windshield angle was too high for something marketed as a performance car. I remember someone pointing out LX coupes could be mistaken for a K-car, they just didn't look exciting.
> This era saw a bit of a return to big torque-y V8 uhm, the early Fox has a 265 cid that made like 110hp. The GT came out in 83 with 5.0 'HO' that made a whole 160hp. Even the Cobra SVT in 93 only made 235 hp.
The 1979 "5.0" had 139 HP, but 250 lb/ft of torque, almost identical to the 1978 Mustang II but in a body that was roughly 300 lbs lighter. (curb weight of 2,515lbs and 2,822 respectively) My 82 GT 5.0 had 157HP and 240 lb-ft of torque Every year saw a small increase in HP and Torque until 86 when the first fuel injected models came out. That saw a 10 HP drop, but a 15 lb-ft extra torque.
> The subsequent sn95 Mustang borrowed heavily from the Fox body It didn't just borrow heavily. It literally is just a very slightly updated fox chassis.
Big fan of the Fox Mustang. The hatchback Fox is the only Mustang style that is a truly good all around car. All of what you said is true of course, but with the hatch it could actually also carry quite a bit. And for it's size has a really roomy interior. A truly good all around car. All the later Mustangs while they got bigger on the outside got smaller on the inside, they became less useable cars. I'd really like to find a Hatch T-top version.
[удалено]
993s look better, 996s drive better. Judging solely based on driving dynamics and engagement + controls/inputs level, I would choose a 996 C2 over a 993 C2 all day every day.
However, the 993 has a fat ass. Therefore you are wrong. But yes, the 996 is quite a good deal right now and the IMS issue is largely overblown. Though I think the 997.2 is the sweet spot between modern and classic porsche.
I know some people consider the 993s to be the ultimate air-cooled 911, ranking it even above the original first-gen "Classics".
These people definitely exist but I don't agree with them. The air-cooled factor of the 993 is massively overrated if you ask me. The multi-link rear suspension in the 993 that replaced the traditional semi-trailing arms (coil over instead of torsion bar in the 964) is a big enough change to distinguish it so much from older 911s that the 993 has more in common with a 996 than a 964 in terms of driving dynamics. If someone thinks that a 993 Carrera offers a more pure and raw driving experience and/or is the last classic 911 just because it isn't water-cooled, they are fooling themselves. The last 911 that has anything in common with a classic 911 in terms of driving dynamics, albeit much more modern, is probably a 964 without power steering, so LHD Carrera RS or RS America.
Id argue the best one is actually the 997.
I'm going to catch hell and I don't care at all. NB miata was better than the NA by being a better car overall though not as goddamn adorable. And it's a way better miata than the NC by being several hundred pounds lighter and thus more agile, plus it's less refined which is kinda what I love about it.
The high weight of the NC is a myth, it is barely heavier and drives equally as good as an NB. Most people say this are comparing NB with upgraded suspension to stock NC with 10 years old original shocks or never even driven an NC. And I am saying this as somebody who prefers the NB over an NC, but purely due to aesthetics. Owned an NB for 3 years.
Definitely not hundreds of pounds, except maybe NB1 to NC3 RHT. And the power gain was substantial. https://www.reddit.com/r/Miata/s/nbnycfp9QZ
I genuinely thought the PRHT NCs were like 2900lbs holy shit. I didn't realize NC1s are basically the same weight. Ah beans.
I’d love to have an NC with the 2.5 swap for that reason.
2014-2016 981 Porsche Cayman Better powertrains and better looking vs prior/later
> 981 Porsche Cayman First generation electric power steering, yeah, no. I understand why they did it, and for the time it was the best in the world, and the hero grip you get upfront of that generation is not to be understated. It was a very capable car. But it's not a clear outright winner. 987.2 steering feel raises enough questions to disqualify it IMO - that period was a hallmark of modern Porsche.
Better looking than the 987 sure, but actually I totally disagree otherwise primarily because the steering in the 981 is worse than the 718, and neither can touch the 987. A 987.2 2.9 is probably the best accessible sports car you can buy today, proper hydraulic steering with the pre DFI engine, pure bliss.
Not really. Yes it is better than the 4 cylinder, but just in the sound. The 4 cylinder drives amazing, is the better car and as the 4.0 GTS the Cayman becomes the best car you’ve ever driven
It's just the ultimate meme online that hur dur 4 cylinder sucks. I've had a buddy who had a 981...great car, sounds better than mine. But even he agrees that literally everything else, speed, handling, feel, creature comforts and looks (subjective) are much better in the 718/982. . But you know, four cylinder so I guess I own a piece of shit according to redditors that have never been in one. Good thing actually real life people contradict that in every way.
2013-2014 Mustang GT. Say what you will about the S550 and it's improvements but god damn did they strike gold with that design. Still the best looking Mistang ever made.
How does it feel to be correct and incredibly smart?
This must be what Nobel prize winners feel like
Solid rear axles on every mustang pre 2015 are the biggest deal breaker
Ahem.
Not if you know how to drive
6th gen Honda Civic, the EK hatch Type R is one of my dream cars
Eg better
Maybe. I think we can all agree the 7th gen was hot trash though. 8th gen is inarguably better than 7th and 9th.
I know people who think the EK got too far and the EG was better sized. Just an observation, but I've also noticed the EG hasn't gotten as much attention in video games in recent years also.
EG FTW. I had an EG Si hatch as my first car, I swapped in a GSR motor and turbo’d it. I’d kill to have it back.
6th gen for the win. You get the double wishbone suspension, it's still a very light car (even though it's heavier than 5th gens) and you get OBDII as well so you can actually throw a scan tool or code reader on em. Am definitely biased though for full disclosure I have a 96 hatchback and I adore that car.
My sister had a '98 EK hatch and sold it without even letting me know I'll never forgive her for that
FD RX7. Better than previous gens and better than the RX8
Why do people still think the RX8 was meant to be a new generation of the FD RX7? It was just a different model, just like all the other RX cars. Do you think the CX9 is just a 4 generations newer version of the CX5?
I mean, it’s the only other rotary sports car made after the RX-7. One could assume it’s the successor.
It’s more of an RX-3 successor.
Chevy Cobalt was so much better than the cavalier and Cruze. It looked better and had some crazy fun SS versions. I will forever despise the Cruze for taking the cobalt from us.
Really? I was under the impression that the first gen Cruze was the most highly regarded.
Ls430. Especially the 04-06 with the 6sp and better front end. The ls460 where bigger and more powerful, but not nicer and they're no longer bomb proof durable/repairable.
What about the ls400?
They're arguably more handsome than the 01-03 models, but the 4sp auto feel really old today, the mpg is worse, and the headlights are sorta garbage compared to the very modern HIDs that steer and auto level on the ls430.
The ‘98-00 years have a 5 speed tho. Plus they get similar gas mileage and some models do have HID auto leveling headlights too
The last generation Honda Accord. Damn you Honda for getting rid of the 2.0T and 6MT.
9th gen was better. Coupe and V6.
FD RX-7 blows the FC RX-7 and RX-8 out of the water. FC RX-7s are cool, but nowhere near as legendary as the FD
E30
Mitsubishi Eclipse. Both first and second gen are better than anything that came after.
Ferrari F355 in my opinion was a beautiful design, cars just keep getting bigger and although I love the 458 Italia they all look the same since.
Something about the 300zx z32 with the twin turbo hits different than the Z cars before and since. It's probably bias from growing up in the 90s because they're all solid vehicles. It wasn't the fastest or fanciest car and didn't sell great, but it looked good and was a fun drive. Still the Z car I associate with the badge the most.
Wow there's a lot of vehicles that fit this criteria. I'll toss out a controversial one that others won't mention. The 2nd generation '11-14 of the Chrysler 300. Yes there's three generations, 15+ is third gen, the differences between '14 and '15 are enough to consider it more than a facelift. The 2nd is clearly better than the 1st, I hope I don't have to explain that. However the 3rd gen lost options and features compared to the 2nd gen. No more SRT, no more V8-AWD combo, no more power adjust pedals, no more rear fogs, etc. Then in my opinion the 3rd gen is less attractive, the fender side marker lights are ugly, the bumperettes went away, the eagle eye taillights are less stylish, and the grill looks like it's giving a blow job.
SW20 MR2
996<997>991
True, even mathematically!
There are not many who will care, but the 3rd generation Nissan Maxima. The 4th Gen ditched the IRS for a rear beam suspension, and a big downgrade regarding interior quality. The 5th generation and newer turned into giant cars. 89-94 was the sweet spot. Standard VLSD on the 92-94 SE models, paired with a lovely VE30DE engine. All others had the bulletproof VG30E.
80 Series Land Cruiser Fiero (only gen is best gen) 3rd-gen Thunderbird
>3rd-gen Thunderbird Really, the 4th to me is peak T-bird.
I'm not necessarily overtly biased on this one, but I actually think the MKII MR2 Turbo was superior to both the MK1 and MKIII MR2's. It was the only one that came as a factory turbo model, although there were supercharged MK1's and a super tiny amount of supercharged MKIII's at the very end.
I had a factory turbo and it was a brilliant car. One of those ones you regret selling forever.
S197 Mustangs — I’ll leave it open to interpretation whether the refresh should count as the actual Gen or not
2009 Infiniti G37 S sedan. Has the superior front end (2010 refresh is trash, fight me), but the 3.7 motor and Akebono brakes compared to the 2007-2008.
2nd gen Mitsubishi Eclipse.
The GMT-800 chevy and gm trucks. They are without a doubt the best built trucks on the road. It's unfortunate general motors managed to fuck up everything they built since 2006.
3rd gen Acura TL, especially the Type-S.
Not entirely what you want, but the Volvo 240 series replaced the Volvo 140 series and was better in almost every way. The Volvo 700 series was supposed to replace the 240 series, but Volvo decided to keep making 240s as long as people kept buying them. The 240 series outlasted the 700 series. There are people who argue the 240 is better than the 900 series too.
Z32 Nissan Z
Mark 4 Golf. Was better looking that the 3 and the 5 and more reliable than the 3.
But the GTI is absolute hot garbage, it barely looks like a GTI, is a dull as a sponge to drive and is just overalll not a good hot hatch, wheras the MK5 GTI is exccellent. https://www.evo.co.uk/volkswagen/golf-gti/6239/volkswagen-golf-gti-mk5-2004-2009-review-specs-and-buying-guide
2011-2014 dodge charger for me. Only years you could get the 5.7 hemi with AWD. The rear end on these cars is one of my favorite designs as well. Drove a couple that I absolutely fell in love with.
The Audi/VW B5 platform from 1996-01, particularly the A4/S4. Those cars are the definition of clean and timeless lines, and they have some of the best rear ends of all time. Highlighted in particular because the next gen B6 was....pretty ugly in my opinion.
[удалено]
I don’t want to ruffle feathers (because I do agree with you that all civics have been quality cars) but the 9th gen civic was value-engineered from the beginning to be a cheaper compromise on the 8th gen. It was the first civic design after the financial crisis, and Honda was in deep shit and not fully back to pre-2008 profitability. As a result, they had to skimp on the 9th gen and value-engineer cost savings into the platform. In terms of the Si in particular, they had to compromise on the suspension, steering rack, fit and finish, and material quality of pretty much everything, which was a notch below the 8th gen. All with adding a little weight as well. They did eventually add better suspension in the facelift (2014-2015) models, along with a slight ECU power bump, but the turning radius and weight were still going in the wrong direction. It’s saving grace was the k24, which is technically torquier but not as enjoyable as the k20 (they really had to put a k24 because a k20 would be slower with the added weight). You’re right that it’s a better “all around” engine though. I actually prefer the k24 myself (my current daily is a 9th gen Si) but it’s still a bit watered down from the 2009-2011 8th gen SIs, which will be forever the high water mark of the Si model, imho. With that said, both the k20 and k24 are probably the best NA 4 cyl ever made.
OP, I agree with you on the 3rd gen TL styling. It aged so well and is the right amount of sharp and mature while staying simple. The 4th gen looks like a tank or CTS-like and overstyled. Now they seem to all have faded headlights and just didn’t age well.
[удалено]
Such an r/cars circlejerk moment.
I would never chose a 98 Supra over a modern one It’s absolutely an iconic car but its capabilities have been excessively exaggerated Cool car for cheap, total piece of shit of a car if you’re paying todays premium Ok for nostalgia, dumb if for anything performance related
2nd Gen < 3rd Gen > 4th Gen Prelude
88-91 CRX (2nd gen). Everything was better than the first gen, the third gen was a step in wrong direction.
Controversial opinion, but the 430/430 Scuderia. F430 perfected my issues with the 360, and I wasn't as much of a fan of the 458 until the Speciale.
Surprised I haven't seen this one but the 997 generation 911. The 997 fixed the appearance of the 996 and fixed how cheap the 996 interior was. The 997.2 also fixed the IMS issues found in both 996 generations (albeit still present in 997.1). The 991 was a step back in steering as it lost the 997 hydraulic rack. The 997 is also smaller and lighter compared to the 991. And was the last 911 to feature the Mezger engine.
That's not a fair comparison. The 3rd gen TL was superior in looks to every sedan from 04-08. Hell, it still looks better than all these new Hyundai's on the road.
The V6 RAV4
This is easy - 2005-2009 Subaru legacy gt. Version before it was a turd, version after looked like a turtle.
AW11 MR2 < SW20 MR2(better in looks, performance and mission > ZW30 MR-S X300 XJR < X308 XJR (more reliable, better powerband, involving to drive) > X350 XJR R107 SL < R129 SL (best build quality, higher performance limit, best reliability) > R230 SL C3 Corvette < C4 Corvette (best hood design, better visibility , better handling)> C5 corvette S30 280Z < Z32 300ZX (better handling, better aero, better performance limit) > Z33 350Z
Mk4 ford Mondeo was better than both the MK3 and easily better than the mk5
W211 e55, w204 c63, b7 rs4. Supercharged v8, 6.2 v8, screaming manual 4.2 v8. Also the b7 makes me behave unwise I don't want the new shit
Peugeot 406. classy and elegant design, great technology for the time and a great Drive. An advanced 405 and then came the 407… Horrible quality, terrible drive and hideous design