Cars.com Best Bets for New Sports Cars
To rank models as first, second and third best, and so on, is to suggest that all people want the same thing in a vehicle, and that's just not the case. For this reason, cars.com Best Bets include one or more models that are "best overall," but all other citations center on a subcategory or a particular aspect in which the model excels. To understand the methodology behind the picks,
click here.
| Cars.com Best Bets for 2005 Sports Cars |
|---|
Here, cars.com staff reviewer Joe Wiesenfelder applauds 11 sports cars, which are ordered from lowest to highest starting manufacturer's suggested retail price. The destination charge is not included.
Exotic and super-high-performance sports cars are excluded from consideration, and the three models labeled best overall are tied for that distinction, even though they differ significantly in character and price. |
|---|
| Dodge SRT-4 |
$20,650 |
| Best pocket rocket: When Dodge announced in 2003 that it would put more than 200 horsepower in its compact Neon, I knew they'd have the quickest affordable pocket rocket. I didn't expect them to engineer a chassis to match. The word "Neon" is nowhere on the SRT-4 and nowhere in your mind as you throw this surprisingly agile car into a tight turn and unleash the turbocharged 230 hp and 250 pounds-feet of torque. This much power for the price is unprecedented, and you can goose it as high as 280 hp and 300 pounds-feet with relatively simple Mopar parts. Dodge wisely offers more livable front seats from the Neon SXT as a replacement for the restrictive racing-style seats, and once you feel the rush and hear the intoxicating exhaust burble, you won't mind the firm ride. With an EPA-estimated 22/30 mpg (city/highway), even the required premium gasoline isn't a deal breaker. |
| Mazda MX-5 Miata |
$22,098 - $24,903 |
| Best non-sports car: Ask anyone what makes something a sports car, and the answer is likely to be power or speed. Despite recent output boosts — and a turbocharged Mazdaspeed variant — the regular MX-5 Miata is not and never has been particularly quick. How can it be so fun to drive? Credit the steering, the handling and the rear-wheel drive with perfect weight distribution. It lets you go sideways all you want without ever becoming unmanageable. You have to drive it to believe it. |
 | Ford Mustang (GT edition) | $24,600 - $25,780 | | Best overall sports car (tie): Because this is such a newly reengineered model, I hesitated to cite it. But having considered all of its merits — and giving it the benefit of the doubt on issues such as reliability — it's more than a niche Best Bet. It's an overall winner. The new styling is more than enough to convince many people, and the standard 300 horsepower should convert anyone with the need for speed. (I don't include the V6 model in this citation because I didn't drive the manual, and the automatic transmission didn't impress.) There's simply no comparison between this 'Stang and the prior beasts. The steering is worlds more precise, and the roadholding is damned impressive even on all-season tires. The responsive throttle lends balance in turns, and the slight understeer bias prevents any surprises. It's not a perfect car. The gauges are way too dark in daylight, for example. But it drives and looks so much better than the previous model, which sold pretty well, that I suspect Ford will sell every car its factories can squeeze out. If that's not a Best Bet, what is? |
| Nissan 350Z |
$26,500 - $36,450 |
| Best overall sports car (tie): From sedans to sport utility vehicles, everything is getting sportier, but whatever happened to the vehicle that is first and foremost a sports car? How about an affordable one? We've watched one example after another disappear. Then along comes the 350Z with a return to the tried-and-true formula: two seats, a big-displacement, a normally aspirated engine, a manual transmission and rear-wheel drive — and a ton of fun for about $27,000. Another $7,500 or so will net you a handsome convertible version, the solid Z Roadster. |
| Subaru Impreza WRX STi |
$32,295 |
| Best people mover: If you want to throw open four doors, load five occupants and blaze from zero to 60 mph in about 5 seconds, your options are few. The most affordable include the Impreza WRX STi and its World Rally Championship nemesis, the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution, both powered by turbocharged four-bangers driving all four wheels. What tips the scales in Subaru's direction? More displacement for more torque, quieter tires, a more livable ride and niceties like cruise control. If they would tone down the hood scoop and rear wing, even us older folks would buy 'em. |
| Honda S2000 |
$32,950 |
| Best small roadster: The category of roadsters (two-seat convertibles) priced at roughly $30,000 to $40,000 is saturated. Many of them are desirable on several levels, but when the sole criterion is performance, to my own surprise I choose the Honda S2000. This car stole my heart only after Honda increased the four-cylinder engine's size from 2.0 to 2.2 liters and smoothed out the ride markedly for 2004. The torque is now great enough in the low rpm range to satisfy us bigger-block snobs, and the juice comes on earlier under a redline lowered to 8,000 rpm. The quick-flick shifter is a thing of beauty. The utterly rigid body makes you forget it's a convertible and ensures excellent dynamics and tractability. There are quicker roadsters in this class, but the S2000 has the whole package. |
 | Audi TT (1.8-liter quattro) | $33,500 - $39,700 | | Most well-rounded (no pun intended): Automakers are on a power trip, making their models more interesting by adding horses, which results in a lot of one-trick ponies. The TT offers a more well-rounded performance package. A successful sports car requires style as well, and the TT has loads, inside and out. You can choose 180, 225 or 250 horsepower. I recommend passing on the front-wheel drive. It has to be quattro all-wheel drive and a manual transmission. For me that leaves the 225-hp model, because the 250-hp version has an automatic only. Did you ever play with slot cars as a kid and wonder what it would be like to drive one? Stop wondering. Drive this car. |
| Chevrolet Corvette |
$43,710 - $51,445 |
| Best overall sports car (tie): The previous-generation Corvette was already a force to be reckoned with, and the 2005 C6 model, the first redesign in seven years, raises the Vette's performance, accommodations and styling further still. A 400-horsepower V-8 and six-speed-manual transmission are standard, the interior quality has improved, and there's even a second cupholder. With a standard electronic stability system and a choice of suspension and tire packages, including Magnetic Selective Ride Control, the Corvette is as refined or as randy as you want it to be. Even the cargo space is generous for this vehicle type. You could pay a lot more for a car that's far less refined — the Dodge Viper SRT-10 — or one that's arguably too refined, the Porsche 911. But why? You won't find a world-class sports car for less. |
| Audi S4 |
$45,850 - $53,950 |
| Best all-wheel-drive luxury rocket: There's a divide among sport enthusiasts along, well, drivelines. Rear-wheel drive probably has the most devotees, and all-wheel drive is a likely second. Comparing the two types in a drag race is like measuring the diameter of apples and oranges; two can be the same in that sense, but they still taste totally different. Front- , all- and rear-wheel drive are a similar story. For acceleration and handling that's virtually free of wheelspin, the surefooted S4 is tough to beat. Quattro — Audi's highly refined all-wheel-drive system — ensures that all the engine power goes to the road. The V-8's low-rev torque is a welcome addition to a model that formerly topped out with a turbocharged V-6 and its associated turbo lag. Despite the 4.2-liter's weight, the S4 exhibits impressive balance and predictability. Unless an all-wheel-drive BMW M3 or Cadillac CTS-V comes along, the Audi S4 has this one in the bag. |
| BMW M3 |
$47,300 - $55,800 |
| Best rear-wheel-drive luxury rocket: The 3 Series is the next model BMW will redesign and reengineer; some say it's overdue. That doesn't stop the M3 — which predates many of the "alphabet-souped" set (such as Audi's S and RS, Cadillac's V-Series, Jaguar and Volvo's R, and Mercedes Benz's AMG) — from remaining the best rear-drive luxury rocket. The M3 delivers abundant, even power through fat rear tires, its brakes can detach retinas, and its handling makes a joke of competitors' higher-tech suspensions. Option the sequential manual transmission if you must. I'll take the conventional six-speed manual and a long, exceedingly winding road. |
| Cadillac CTS-V |
$49,300 |
| Rear-wheel-drive luxury challenger: The first Cadillac to receive the V-Series treatment stunned a skeptical automotive press, myself included. Cadillac's decision to launch this line of souped-up luxury cars was surprise enough. That the company went all the way, powering the CTS-V with the Corvette Z06's 400-horsepower V-8, with suspension and braking to match, proves that the automaker means business. The result is the first American car to give the BMW M3 a run for its money. The CTS-V's relative heft and controversial styling, inside and out, are all that keep it from matching or surpassing the current M3. |
|
Excluded from consideration were the following new and redesigned 2005 and 2006 sports cars. Once tested, they will be removed from this list and, if worthy, added to the commendations above.
- Mercedes-Benz SLK-Class
- 2006 Pontiac Solstice
- Porsche 911
- Porsche Boxster
Best Bet Selection Methodology
In most cars.com Best Bets, practical considerations carry the most weight. Sports cars (and sporty ones, such as souped-up sedans) are a departure from that approach. To understand all of the explanations below, it would help for you to climb inside the mind of a sports-car buyer. In cars.com's experience, that buyer's main three criteria are, in order: how fast it goes, how fast it goes and how fast it goes. OK, for some it's how well it handles or how good they look in it, or some such thing. But you get the point. What minivan buyers see as important, a sports-car buyer sees as . . . oh, let's be honest: They don't see those things at all.
To be perfectly clear, cars.com doesn't conduct track testing or time trials. We've flogged some of the Best Bet designees on racetracks, but the emphasis here is on what they're like to drive in normal situations. For this reason, what happens between 0 mph and 55 mph is more important in cars.com's considerations than the car's performance at 100 mph. Further explanation appears in the details below.
Dynamics describes how the car handles, how its weight affects its movement through space and a bunch of other aspects that are felt and not seen. When you think about it, there's not much to straight-line acceleration. One car may be a jackrabbit off the line and then run out of steam, while another is slow to get moving and then takes off once the engine winds up. But beyond that, it's all a numbers game: 0-to-60 mph, quarter mile, etc. Yawn. It's what happens when you throw these cars into a turn that makes them what they are. It doesn't matter how much power a car has if you go to make a turn and end up in a tree. Aside from the more obvious factors such as suspension design and tire selection, weight distribution plays a critical role in how well a car holds the road. This is why there are very few front-wheel-drive cars cited, as they invariably have a lopsided weight distribution of roughly 60/40 percent (front/rear). Most sports cars are rear- or all-wheel drive. The weight-distribution goal for rear-drive cars is 50/50 percent or thereabouts. All-wheel drive may have some front heaviness, but the distribution of power to all four wheels helps compensate for the tendency of powered front wheels to slide.
My judgment of a
powertrain focuses not on numbers but on the experience of driving. I tend to think of how quick a vehicle is (that means how quickly it accelerates; in the sporting world, "fast" tends to represent top speed) in broad categories like: not quick enough, quick enough, very quick and good lord. With maybe one or two exceptions, all of the sports car Best Bets are very quick or good lord. My selections depend more on engine and transmission performance. Even if a model exceeded the good lord designation, if it had poorly selected gear ratios, throttle lag, a rubbery shifter, a bad clutch or an unresponsive automatic transmission, it wouldn't be in the running for a Best Bet. I am particularly hard on automatic transmissions. Bear in mind that big, powerful engines tend to make automatic transmissions look good. It takes excellent engineering for an automatic to perform effectively with a turbocharged four-cylinder.
 |
| Ford's redesigned 2005 Mustang incorporates interior and exterior styling elements from past models. |
|
I generally give
styling very little or no consideration because it's such a subjective issue. I make an exception in sports cars because image seems to be part of the game here. An ugly car might sell if it were an outstanding performer at a bargain price . . . but then again, maybe it wouldn't. I make any judgment of a vehicle's appearance based more on reactions I've collected from others than solely on my own tastes. Styling that is controversial or has many detractors is no secret.
Like many other practical considerations,
cargo capacity is not the first priority for most sports car buyers. Further diminishing this issue as a consideration is the fact that the variance within different classes is relatively minor. For example, all the small roadsters have limited cargo space. If two models were neck and neck on the performance issues, the one with more cargo space might put it over the top. Nowhere has this been the case. Limited cargo volume is more of a problem for the sports car class than it is for any given model up for consideration. Cargo capacity specification data can be found in cars.com's
Research section.
Where
ride quality is a big deal in many vehicle classes, sports car buyers are less concerned. For much of history, sporty handling came only with a firm — sometimes punishing — suspension. That becomes less true every year, though sporty cars are still the vehicle type with the firmest ride. Sometimes the sport versions of more mundane coupes and sedans are defined by their firmer ride. That said, any sporty car with a more comfortable ride that doesn't compromise handling is a bonus.
 |
| Sport sedans like Cadillac's CTS-V provide room for four in addition to impressive performance. |
|
Interior quality and comfort are very personal issues. Though I may see differences in interior quality, others may have different opinions. Across the board, it seems that interior quality corresponds to price, and interior space is relatively consistent within sports car subcategories. This being the sports car category and not the luxury class, interior quality issues are best left to the buyer.
Reliability, one of the more important criteria for other vehicle classes, is another of the most frequently ignored by sports car buyers. Any car that had proven to be a complete reliability disaster would be disqualified, but the relative reliability between two models pales in comparison to the other attributes buyers seek in a sports car.
Safety features is another of many categories that gets little weight. One reason is that passive safety features such as side-impact airbags have a theoretical advantage, but we've learned that one vehicle without some of these features can protect its occupants as well or better than one with the features. In this area, we rely on crash tests, but, as explained below, that's something of a dead end in the sports car category. Some active safety features, such as antilock brakes and electronic stability systems, are undeniably effective, but here's where the buyer plays a part. Sport enthusiasts are the most likely to do without something like electronic stability, or to defeat it even if it's provided. Unlike most of the other car categories, sports cars aren't likely to be family vehicles, and their drivers have proven to be the least concerned about safety. Safety feature information can be found in cars.com's
Research section.
As explained in the
Safety section of this Sports Car Buying Guide, relatively few sport models are
crash tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and our preferred source, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, tests fewer still. Not to sound repetitive, but here, again, the sports car buyer is the least concerned about safety. Though we at cars.com consider safety in all cases, the dearth of test results makes it impossible to compare models. This aspect is not considered in the sports car Best Bets.
Fuel economy is an important consideration in most vehicle categories, especially light trucks. You can probably see it coming already: Sports car buyers aren't concerned with fuel economy. That's overwhelmingly true. The premium fuel sporty cars tend to require is no deterrent either. With few exceptions, sporty cars are not the worst fuel-economy offenders anyway. That distinction belongs to sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks. To maximize acceleration, automakers minimize weight and strive for slippery aerodynamics in their sports cars. With its composite skin, sleek design and tall overdrive gear, even the 6.0-liter V-8-powered Chevrolet Corvette with a manual transmission earns an EPA-estimated 18/28 mpg (city/highway), avoiding the gas guzzler tax. It's hard to get worked up over a motorist driving alone with one empty seat and getting average fuel economy in the mid-20-mpg range when far more Americans are driving alone in their full-size SUVs with seven or eight empty seats and getting average mpg in the low- to mid-teens. Fuel economy is not considered in the sports car Best Bets. Fuel-economy estimates can be found in cars.com's
Research section.
