Can One Metric Define a Driving Experience? — Carmudgeon w/ Jason Cammisa & Derek Tam-Scott — Ep 217

Hello, and welcome to this episode of The Carmaging Show. My name is Jason Space Camisa. That is Derek Tam, Space, Hyphen, Scott, Derek Hot, whatever. Space, Tam, Hyphen, Space, Derek Space, Scott, that should be actually how you introduce yourself. Hello, my name is Derek, Derek Space, Tam, Hyphen, Scott. I'm never going to do that. Please do it. This episode of The Carmaging Show is about

AMA question, and ask me anything question, which someone posed, which is in essence, what one characteristic of a car will tell you the most about the experience that you're about to have. We have a variety of suggestions that we put forth and discuss the merits and de-marits of the respective options and conclude that we concluded something. Yeah, we concluded several things probably, probably. But anyway, if you want to know what all of those things are,

and also if you have topics or answers to this question that we forgot, please add them in the comments on YouTube. We're just dealing with what's going to ask.

I'll read them. I will actually repose the stories if they're offensive enough. I'm kidding, I can't do that. I'm going to clap now.

I'm going to open my shirt and show us the contents of your shirt, Jason. I'm revealing my URL. Well, that's, I feel very, I'm just gay. I'm back to the shit claps.

By all means, spend the entire podcast drinking. Derek has a drinking problem. No, I did a great job of drinking just now. There's water exclusively inside me and not anywhere else.

If I were that guy, I would have just thrown this glass of water at you. But I'm not that guy. So instead, I'll throw this glass of water at you.

Anyway, hello, we're back. We are here to talk about things that are data. Okay. If you would have told me, there's a car in the background and it is my BW cabriolay,

which has a number of properties, properties. If you would have told 12-year-old Broadway and Baltic Avenue.

We're not allowed to be in an awfully terms. When you're a young car enthusiast, there are numbers mean more than anything else to you because you don't have a frame of reference for experience.

I think we've talked about this many, many hundreds of episodes ago. But, you know, young Jason was very much obsessed with numbers, which is why to this day, I can tell you that my mom's 1987 Pujo 505 STX had a V6 of 2,849 cubic centimeters and a 145 horsepower and a 173 pound feet of torque.

And all of these other weird statistics like stopped from 70 miles an hour and 181 feet.

It's because when you cannot drive, you engage with cars in the only way that you can at that point, which is, you know, numbers.

Part of the reason why I wouldn't read automobile magazine as a kid because I was like, they're not testing these cars. They're just eating, you know, eating wine and drinking cheese.

And I believe if anyone could, David E. Davis probably could have figured that out. Plus I was in summer camp at the time when I started reading car magazines and I did drink cheese because it was cans of easy cheese.

If you've ever eaten that sort of like the same serving treatment as whipped cream.

Yes, without the side effects of whippets or whatever they're called when you snort the gas. Anyway, I never did that. But I've seen people do.

You really know what that is, right? No, no. The propellant. Yeah, you do how I have to teach how on the air have to teach Derek had to do drugs.

Whippets I think is what they were called back in the day where you take like a can of ready whip and you don't turn it upside down.

You turn it right side up and sniff the propellant. Really high. I don't know if it works. But all I know is I did it the opposite way around to get cheese.

Now I want to get to get cream with whipped cream. Anyway, how the numbers summer camp summer camp. Yes, anyway, I was reading magazine summer camp and I would I memorized all these numbers.

I'm a little bit embarrassed to say to the tender age of 30 something 20 whatever whatever I actually am. I no longer remember numbers the way that I used to.

And part of it I think is getting older and you know, your memory just changes and part of it is I just don't really care so much.

And I mean, I do remember the weights of all my cars and VIN numbers and stuff like that when it's I guess it's important. But I think numbers rarely define the experience.

But we were at lunch and you found a request from a right so in the past we have done ask me anything episodes and periodically our way of kicking the can.

Usually and definitely on a question that is too complex to answer in the space of few minutes is to say we'll do a full episode about this topic and we have actually returned to a number of

episode topics that we promise to do that with this one was one that we stumbled across as a potential topic for today, which is what single metric tells you the most about a cars likely driving experience before you drive it.

That's such a great question.

Especially in light of the fact that we are not numbers people right so that car behind us that you know the mark one Volkswagen Carrelay shouldn't be fun right by most metrics.

I would though argue that if you were in the showroom you were if you were buying a new car in nineteen eighty nine right eighty eight.

And you said you know if you could have the consumer rank cars for most to least fun like where would that car be I would imagine it would be closer to the fun and the spectrum than the like.

Yeah price there many van I just actually came across a road test of this car when I was looking at for other stuff and it was actually I think one of the it made one like one like a ten best list on car drivers and he was like the best value and they just gushed about how much fun it was maybe.

Maybe I should give more perspective when I say that in twenty twenty five.

A journalist who drives the fastest cars in the world and some of the most expensive cars in the world in my career I shouldn't be declaring that car as the single most fun car that I've ever driven in my life.

I did I did in a couple of episodes ago in fact our producer Mike just drove it and would you agree that it's basically the most fun car yeah he's shaking his head yes and you can't see him to prove it.

Right could you can you please confirm.

He's nodding yeah he's not it right shaking it is this is shaking I'm sorry not nothing yes he's doing this and you would

agree that this is yeah it's really fun.

Like against judged against.

I'm interested I think I don't know I'm curious to see what you think if you have a chance to drive a Pujo 205 GTI or rally that car is quite fun.

I've driven one but let's get another one how about next week we'll try.

Do you have a two or five that you can bring me we can do that be nice we can do that back to I mean that's kind of unfair to this car because it's

convertible in the two or five isn't and this is also severely modified in the two or five isn't but I have driven a two or five and I

did like it but I pronounced it in my notes better than a better car than a mark one rabbit which I was driving.

Yeah remember it was it's 15 years newer 10 years newer.

So it's a 10 year newer car but I better car but less fun did you drive a GTI or rally it was a GTI but it was the little

motor I don't have to go through my it doesn't matter point is we're sitting here as people have experienced you know you've

driven a McLaren F1 this is at the top of your list of the most fun cars you've ever driven.

It shouldn't be that way so I think when you start to look at the numbers of cars they really do fade away and

there are a lot of things that really are irrelevant zero to 60 kind of a relevant we just had a VIN fast experience that's a

five second car to 60 it's faster than anything I own including my V12 powered 850 CSI is it more fun.

I laughed a lot push a dumpster down the down the driveway we did laugh at it but not with it that's true.

So I think it's a really interesting question to force us to look back into numbers and say what metric doesn't even need to be a

number just needs to be a characteristic point but your one data point right now something that's not the sort of

finger spits in the food as the Germans would call it like a finger fingertip feel of the you know the intricacies in the

yes yes it's reductionist yeah right that question is fundamentally a reductionist question which we normally react

against which is a word we don't usually yes well it's to say like you're could you're you're condensing the

entire essence of something into one characteristic that I can call you life in and then everyone knows who you are I'm

kid I kid that's contextual though I can just call you without content that would be more illustrative I

guess Christmas is the word see where I'm talking about it's it's that Merry Christmas to you as well and your

generous warm spirited heart which you have just amply demonstrated okay so what was in that soup I had for lunch

socks not for socks I'd laughing gas room yeah we didn't back this card in a while ago is probably still

emitting that's that's carbon you're trying to knock carbon ice idea there is a CO2 CO sensor and it's not

going off yes you're right it's reductionist and it's it's often I think I would say it's not possible to

describe a car with even one or two bits of information characteristics or numbers but I thought of

something immediately that is a really interesting way to define your experience here about having a car

and two others that are less so but you threw out something that I mean I think this is fairly obvious but

mass it that's that is the most obvious answer but I think you really could go a number of different ways right so

2399 pounds what does that tell you it's much lighter than a modern car so it tells you it's probably old

right or at least with you know and a cow or your calf sitting in the cabin but yeah the problem with that

mass is that that probably is one of the single most defining characteristics because when you say

7,000 pounds you're not expecting a life light on its feet and you just not going to have that

that didn't exist back when cars weighed that little and I don't know if it would be possible to make

I shouldn't say that a Rivian a quad motor Rivian R1 will throw itself around a racetrack quite

sideways and slippery and slithery and you know in ways it yeah but 2399 pounds could be a sports car or

it could be a Honda Accord yeah from the late 70s or the 80s right there will be presumably a

directness I guess to the to the car it also is likely to be an old car or a very

pared down new car and so what you're likely to get is probably texture guarantees you some

texture and I think probably proximity to like the mechanicalness of the cars doing

things either because it's an old car or because it's a very carefully thoughtfully designed

modern car to be that light to be that light you're right I mean my mind goes to try to

buckle in that argument and I'd go to for example like a BMW i3 or a Chevy spark

which were 20 little bit heavier 26 2700 pounds spark doesn't exactly put you

close to the mechanicals and make it laugh but it there is one thing you you can

engineer around the weight of something by increasing the weight of the size of

other things right in in modern cars I think that's true in old cars I find that

to be less true there's not a lot of life old cars that weigh 4,000 pounds and

yet 4,000 pounds is the new 2,000 pounds in terms of you know modern stuff there's

plenty of stuff that weighs 4,000 you'd never know it but you you can you can make

them pull g's so you know you can make weight do all of the different

differentials of of vectors right so speed and then acceleration

but where they fall apart is jerk yes right which is rate of change of

acceleration the second derivative the second derivative of speed first derivative

of acceleration right god I sucked it calculus but that's where you really

really that's that reason reluctance to turning reluctance to changing direction

yes reluctance to start this is why motorcycles are difficult to

I mean the the performance of a motorcycle is so especially low speeds is so

remarkable tell me I don't I mean I know like it's very easy to launch off the

line in a not a very aggressive way and just absolutely rip in a motorcycle assuming

you have the traction problem solved like just because they don't weigh

anything and you can feel even among motorcycles there's a really market

difference between 200 or 250 pounds and 350 or 400 pounds I mean I've weighed

both of those numbers in my life and I can tell you this resistance to getting

out of bed I'm kidding I haven't but no I mean you know go lose 20 pounds

and you would be dead but you know somebody else or go get 20 pounds for it yeah

it is pretty amazing no but it is pretty amazing the difference put a 20 pound

backpack on and you'll see you can probably still accelerate and you could work

out to the point where you could still accelerate and attain the same speed

but you're never going to be able to change direction as quickly as you

were without that backpack on and so that really fundamentally changes your jerk

right and so heavier cars feel syrupy because of that and so

you can't and you really can't engineer around that or I don't think it's

possible you can get you know quicker steering Ferrari is probably the best of

this right you drive a Roma and it feels weightless or a 296 lot of modern

Porsche's to they're the closest I would say Ferrari and Ferrari saw

as a Porsche saw as steering that weights up and so you don't

they do a good job of it but there's this characteristic of masslessness

that really permeates all modern for us and I think they're the only ones

of really engineered mass out of the equation of feeling but I so

my mind immediately went to powertrain right so I think different chassis

tuning different sizes different whatever definitely tailor or

determine what the experience is but to me the single most important part

of a car is its engine in terms of determining what kind of experience

you're about to have.

Uh oh why are you what?

The first example that came to my mind is alpha male because alpha

male built a whole bunch of sports cars but they also built a bunch of

like trucks and vans and shit and they use the same engine in all of them

and it's the twin cam busso in line four and so there was like a 1300 cc

alpha male ambulance which you know of course the Italians are like well

we have this engine we're going to put it in everything and so it's a very

sporting heart but it's in an ambulance that weighs a lot.

No no change in tuning like no milder cam.

I imagine it has milder cams and a single carb.

Okay okay okay okay.

But also what you're doing is you're choosing a variable that

encompasses so much within it.

I didn't tell you what my variable was yet.

Okay.

It's so I went to power train but I didn't specify what.

Okay.

My answer to that question is the RPM at peak horsepower.

Okay.

Are we done? Can we go home?

Yep sounds good.

Bye.

No you don't because when you take that 1300 cc engine and you have it in a

little sports car it's probably cammy and it probably reaches its power

peak at six six six six thousand right that's high.

And then you you put a less aggressive cam shaft in it because it's

twin cam less aggressive cams less less aggressive state of tune that

peak RPM number is going to peak power number is going to come down in the

in the rev range and I think the single biggest determinant of an

engine's personality is where in the rev range it makes peak power.

So for example you take American V8s from the seventies and eighties

thirty six hundred RPM four thousand RPM forty two hundred even a

GMC cyclone I think was forty two going into the two thousands

you had the Mercedes natural turbocharged V12 the six six hundred

engine that was forty eight hundred or fifty two hundred RPM.

These are engines that never come alive and they're just big torque

monsters yeah and then you have an engine like a V tech Honda which is

a little bit it's got two sets of cams in it but you tell me you have an

engine with an eighty one hundred RPM power peak it's a monster and

there is no two ways about it that is not going to be an engine that

doesn't want to rev doesn't come alive at top.

Now and the reason I bring this up the reason that car is here perfect

I'm backing into this logic just bear with me is the original Volkswagen

one point sixteen valve that went into production at a seventy two hundred

RPM red line so initially I wanted to say oh red line is what determines

but its power peak was at fifty six or fifty eight hundred it was way

lower than that and actually the car was seconds slower to sixty if you

revved it all the way out to seventy two hundred now in European tune its

port power peak was at sixty two or sixty four hundred way higher and so

that was a reasonable red line was seventy seventy two hundred they just

didn't change the Revloner for the U.S. and they just kept it they detuned

the order even go up there it would it's I think I mentioned years

episodes ago that I did a G tech pro runs on my Shirako and I think we even

had a screen grab of this and it was something like eight something eight

and change seconds to sixty if I shifted where my butt told me to do so

and where my little spreadsheet that I wrote told me to do show so

and it was like eleven if I revved it to seventy two hundred so not even

close so yeah it's not red line it's where on the rev range that is

and that occurs that really determines the character of the engine

and then that's the car and the car right because I think the biggest

determinant of the character of the car is the engine so that's my theory

what say you I would point to a variety of pretty fun sporting cars

with the low red lines that exist such as Porsche 356 Speedster

it's an eighteen hundred pound car with you know seventy five horsepower

if you get the super and it has this sort of like direct sporty character

and the it's not from the powertrain but the overall experience that you get

because the car is so light it doesn't feel like the like a strangled

American engine that is really you know and the only rev to forty nine hundred

thousand for the normal engine which is sixty horsepower I think it's five

thousand is where the way it starts to go orange it's not orange it's just

lighter stripes of red and then I think at fifty five hundred is where it goes

red and then in the supers it's maybe five hundred rpm higher than that so

fifty five okay so you get that does I don't know where power peak is but

the point is they're telling you to be thinking about shifting at five thousand

rpm yeah in the pushrod and or you go to any of the long stroke British cars

which are really quite fun despite the engine not being very high revving

a cyclone's fun sure but does it if we're not talking about fun we're

talking about character would the for example if you had a three fifty six

and I've not I've experienced one replica so I don't I've really driven these cars

if you had one variant that had like the four cam motor that rev to eight

thousand rpm would it fundamentally change the character of the car not

rev to made power peak at seventy seven hundred rpm versus forty seven hundred

rpm would the character of the car fundamentally change yeah I think so

but if we're trying to use peak power rpm as a proxy for fun this I think you

lose some certainly for fun for character just describing the experience

okay if I you know line up a bunch of cars and say that one makes peak

power at forty nine hundred that one makes peak power peak power at fifty six

hundred and that one makes power at seventy six hundred which one are you

going to well okay let's let's let's say that's another way like would you

would you say that a Alfa Romeo Julietta Veloce which has a high

revving naturally aspirated engine and three fifty six are closer in

character to each other than a Lexus LFA which also makes power very high in

the rev range or a E90 M3 oh God I mean there we go to your mass right but

we can't we can't discuss mass yes we're choosing one metric only but so

oh but I'm you know like a three fifty six and a beetle way the same so

mass doesn't work either this I mean we know the answer is we can't

it's reductionist and that we shouldn't be doing this exercise in the first but

it is interesting I mean I think really you can you can definitely say that the

I mean I've I've spent very little time in like British sports cars right I've

driven like an MGB GT for example adorable I think it's super cool the engine

was the weakest part of the car yeah in terms of Fizz yeah and all I can

think was it's great looking it's amazingly like impossibly small super

cool if only it had a motor like even a one six from an NA Miata that made

peak power probably at sixty two sixty three versus five thousand it would

change the character of the car and I'd enjoy it more because I want something

spicy at high RPM well if you're using if you want something spicy at high

RPM then to the man with a hammer every problem looks like a nail I guess is

what I'm saying if that's the one most important thing to you then I

I'm a determined of character determined of the experience now that was

a question right was what one what's the language so that we're

determines the character of the tells you the most about the cars likely driving

experience before you drive it and so the dry the likely driving experience

and this is a question is to return to my three fifty six speedster versus an

Alfa Romeo Giulietta is that more those more alike to each other than a you

know choose a modern direct injected high revving engine car that has a

power peak that's at seven thousand RPM like the automatic can always

drive sure I got well that's why it's it's a good I think it's good metric it's

maybe one of the better metrics but you know it's a somewhat difficult

exercise answer so I was thinking about what other potential things you could

look to this whether a car I started thinking about just lumping

all old cars together and what are the ways that you could do that and so I started

thinking about just carbureted make a good example or does whether it has

four wheel drum brakes or the absence of synchromesh to sort of convey to

you that you're going to have a particular type of driving experience that well

okay yeah I love all these three so let's talk about absence of synchromesh that

would mean that the that the experience of so absence of synchromesh means we know

it's old and we know it's you're going to have to really be driving this car to

drive it and then you say everything with synchromesh and could you compare

for example a Ford Pinto with a 911 GT3 yes and with a Dodge Ram diesels

manual 6p that that one falls apart pretty quickly was another one four-wheel

drum brakes four-wheel drum brakes same kind of thing right trying to think if I've

driven anything spicy with four-wheel drum brakes like an Alfa Romeo sprints

a gato right something like that or a three-stop yeah like you know they're

great yeah so once warm carbureted that's it but that could be a 1920s

Cadillac or it could be a 1960s Alfa Romeo and I have nothing to do with each other

so that one falls apart quickly I similarly I thought of other stuff one was

for example rear-wheel drive yes or no

because then you have like trucks yeah but at the end of the day there's

what you are saying is am I able to steer this car with with the rear

rear wheels and the answer is fundamentally yes

it will be if you have a low enough friction coefficient of friction

because I'm just imagining that's like these videos of buses sliding around

but you can't do them if they're front-wheel drive

I mean okay idiot idiot it's an idiotic exercise but yeah I think that

does is one of the are the rear wheels it's not whether they're driven

because then you can have like an understeering Audi Quattro

it's is this car fun really drive and I think that is one that actually

will give you a better indication like now it's on

you've unlocked this but that's only one particular aspect of the car's

behavior it's limit handling exactly and so you know

then you're like Lexus LS versus a

fiat topolino

which for the record you are not sliding around I don't care even in the

snow you're probably not that you could if it low enough friction

for sure ice okay maybe not snow but definitely ice

it's an interesting one but I mean that we you could use that question

to describe over the limit handling behavior but I'm not sure that is

the best predictor and what percentage of the time you're spending past the

limit when and if you're saying driving experience you are

spending 40 oh I'm 60 or so

okay another one was just the presence of a manual transmission

yeah but this to me is like whether the car has synchromesh or not

I mean you can also say okay here's a great loophole for the synchromesh example

is that if the car doesn't have synchromesh because it's an automatic

or because that's no gearbox you say that okay this pre-war Bentley is

very similar to this Tesla because neither has synchromesh

oh god yeah okay that doesn't work that well

that doesn't work that well no it doesn't yeah I think

to me it's mass and strangely not horsepower

not you know horsepower is meaningless for no power in that

power weight ratio is a weight is normalized for that to some extent that's

actually not a bad one if you think about if you're trying to figure out what

the experience is well is it faster slow you answer that question with

part of it period yeah but you just finished talking about how the

been fast and this you're answering a question is it

is it able to accelerate quickly yes no that's that's answered

directly by yeah but it doesn't tell you much about the driving experience

no specific power from an engine yeah

which is just a proxy for revs kind of exactly

you need the relationship between specific power and

peak RPM is linear so yeah I was thinking like a compression

ratio no does everything right now is 15 to 1 not really you know 12

13 to 1 yeah and most of those engines are

kind of soulless anyway okay you could also do engine

configuration like there's definitely a character difference between

a three a four in line four a flat four a V6 a straight

six a flat six a the way we debunked this always is you find two cars that

have a common configuration that are very different from each other

personality wise I don't think you really can separate that from

engine configuration sure I mean imagine like an E90 M3 versus a

1978 Chevrolet Caprice Classic they're both cross-defined V8s

but under 5,000 RPM they both do I mean

driving experience similarity nice try sound

sound that's not driving experience it is a part of the

difference but it's ultimately immaterial okay this is

maybe a foolish exercise no I think it's actually really interesting one I mean

there's something we're not something on I think we agree there is no one metric

question is which is the least bad one yeah and I don't know if it's

mass or like mass is the obvious one but I actually

think peak RPM and peak power is a better determinant

of the engines characteristic and that's the

the biggest part single component of a car striving experience

and I wish you had a better argument against it

because otherwise I win let me see here

so the question that we're now asking is is there a car

with a very high power peak that is just lame as shit

or sedate or underwhelming in some sense

the closest example I could come up with is one of those alpha twin cams

weird application but they were in a later lower state if you would be in lower state

you know this is one of those perfect things for Chan GBT

because it has the database and it's probably not going to get this wrong

give me a list of five cars that have their

horsepower peaks at very high RPMs but are not sporting

or fun to drive you think it's going to be able to do this now it doesn't know what fun to drive is

how to oh no it does this it knows everything because it asks

actually oh my god

well come on okay so number one Toyota Corolla

the 2-ZR FE so the Corolla's engine this is the

horsepower peak between 6,000 and 6,400

now for the record before you got to variable valve timing which kind of can

really change stuff a lot like a lot

6,000 was really high so you have the sort of highest

states of tune were engines that were

revving to 7,000 RPM and had power peaks 6 or 6,200

that'd be the 190 Cosworth the 2,5,16

the EVO 2 was a 7,800 RPM engine and I think it had its power peak at 68

it was really high the regular 2,3,16 the euro car was 62 the US cars 56

in the 1960s Ferrari offered

two 300 horsepower engines

one of which had its power peak at 7,000

and the other had its power peak at 8,000 in 1967

I just ovulated but what the hell revved

8 grand the 275 GTB4

8 I don't believe them so here's the thing about Ferrari

Ferrari often

pulled your ear and gave me a dirty look I think that was like

I was rolling my eyes

when the 308 came out the first V8 came out they listed in their specs

the P-Core's power at 7,700 RPM that was bullshit

they changed it later it was 62 or 6,300 there was a

sort of lost in translation moment I think giving them the benefit of the doubt

of saying they were like oh this is just how we translated but

Ferrari always quoted P-Core's power at redline and that was just non-happening

so if that thing revved to 8 if it made its peak power at 8,000 RPM

then where would it what was its redline

I don't know

not of the day right I mean I don't know I've never even

seen it before cam so I don't know but I do know that later

Ferrari's mistakenly quoted their peak power at redline

so an 8,000 RPM power

power peak even the 8,000 RPM

Rev limit or you know safe rev limit because you're no rev limiters at that point

was theoretically possible and of course racing cars could do that

I don't think I don't think that carbon idle

you know especially when you're carbonated you only have a certain amount of bandwidth

of fueling and I don't think you'd be able to fuel that car

under you know under 2,000 RPM no motorcycles

that rev to 8,000 can idle at 1,500 and you know at the time so

that's interesting but here's a question

there were two Ferrari V12's right

well there was a Colombo and I'm ready

that coexisted effectively or yes

were there were there

variants of that car that had

similar horsepower but it vastly different

RPMs and would they do the have very different characters because I know the

Lempredi is violent and the Colombo is sweet

yeah I mean that would be the 250

Europa engine is a Lempredi with three litres

and you could

some years later buy a three-liter variant of the Colombo engine, the three-liter

variant of the Colombo engine

came out a couple years later in the 250

Europe GT, similar horsepower

different revs or I don't know

probably I don't know these engines well enough to answer those questions

in terms of numbers in character yes

in character yes yeah so I mean the problem with variable

valve timing is if you have VTEC or

VVT which was Toyota's system

where you have two different cam lobes

you can very easily have one cam lobe

be for normal and you can go

fucking crazy with the second one

and so right away

you know there are a bunch of Honda and Toyota engines on

on this list that have really high power peaks

but the question is what is the character of those cars

is chat GPT assuming that those cars are lame

because they are Toyota Corolla's

or is the the high revving you know

that engine was used in some variant maybe

of the Pontiac vibe also or something like that

well okay that's the matrix EZ

so that is the 88,000 RPM

load us a lease engine basically

but this is the 2ZR

and the 2ZR is a 1.8 liter

but its horsepower is 6,000 between

6,400 according to chat GPT was probably wrong

and say why qualifies the Corolla's engine

is rev happy on paper

but the car is tuned for efficiency and calm

comm commuting CVT versions keep it droning

not enthusiastic

if I'm not mistaken this is

this recent generation of Corolla engines

and it is kind of a rev monster

like it does have it gets a second wind

over 5.5 grand and you're like wow

this thing pulls like a mother fucking red line

and actually a Corolla stick shift

hatch is not bad to drive

this is not the GR Corolla

you sort of the engine is a bit spicy

and you're like wow this does have some high rev poll

so there's some validity to it

but they just chose really aggressive cams

for that very top end

that doesn't really change it

Honda Fit 1.5 liter the L15B

6600 RPM horsepower peak

a very high revving VTX small engine

but the chassis tires gearing in CVT

make it practical rather than fun

unless you're an enthusiast forcing it

for normal driving it feels like compliance

see chat GPT knows this stuff

it's just parading what a people have said

who are subject matter

Nissan Versa with the 1.6 liter HR16DE

6300

this is CVT is it's just an exercise

and things that have CVT's get on

Toyota Yaris non-GR versions

1.5 liter which is the 2NRFE

6000 RPM peak horsepower

lightweight and buzzy engine

that doesn't make power into high revs

but the chassis and drivetrain

are driven for economy

and then last but not least is

which is how we know they're wrong

they it chat GPT is wrong

Mitsubishi Mirage

peak horsepower is at 6000 RPM

I don't understand that

I've never driven one

oh my god

rental car Olympics

it's the most hellarious thing

and you'll ever drive best e-break

of any car in the business

it will rotate in its own lane

e-break does that like thing

where it just stops the wheels

and it's like one of these e-breaks

that are just like light effort

and just instantly stop the rear wheels

not that I would have ever done

something like that

you're told

cue the video

okay give me some hand break up

I'm gonna shoot down the back

you know we definitely got air

we definitely got air

good evening

Yikes

I'm in Mitsubishi Mirage

you know the only guy

ever remember ever

in a Mitsubishi Mirage

there's a wall over there

It's the most, that is the most I've ever made any woman scream was in the passenger seat

or produced in the passenger seat, seat screaming and laughing, well, Randy Popes is encouraging

me to do bad shit in a rental mirage on Willis Springs.

Yeah, so I think once you get to VVT, that's a problem, then, you know, you get all these

engines that are 6,000 RPM.

It's cheating, yeah, in some sense.

Except then, you know, in the VTEC era now, it's 7 and 8,000 RPM power peaks that really

define, you know, K20 was like, not 8,000 RPM power peak, but you can't bring it down

to it.

So for your own cars, what does that mean?

The characteristics that you obviously subscribe to, the need for naturally aspirated

high revving engines, although you will have straight from that in recent years, which

one, the Rover, what about the A50 CSI, what does A50 CSI go for, red line, limiter, power

peak, 50, eight, I want to say, hold on, that's the hot, rotted one.

Now maybe it's 6,000, no, I don't think it's, I don't think it's 6,000.

So here's the other thing, you know, as we said before, you can basically figure out an

engine's power peak by its specific output.

To get to a 100 horsepower liter, for 100 horsepower per liter, you're going to need

that power peak to be nearest makes no difference, 7,000, that's my, so 100 horsepower

liter, 7,000 RPM.

And so at, you know, this engine's 5.6 liter that made 380, it's going to be in the 5's

horsepower peak, 850 CSI was, how embarrassing, really embarrassing, 5300, hold on, I'm verifying

that by pulling up the crime to everything, but yeah, it is not.

So all this to say that the character of your fleet is evolving with your age, not,

it's still a, gearing, red line in set, miles per hour at V max in red in second gear on

a manual.

That's actually an interesting one, none of my cars will make it to other than the rover,

will make it over.

I resent that you bring up the rover, that poor thing, it had a hard year, yeah, 372 horsepower

5300 RPM.

Christ, that actually might be lower than the rover's peak, which is the 1960s V8.

But again, you know, push rods and everything, push rods and everything, that's before it,

you know, before we hot-rotted it, but I'm already hot-rotted this V12, but it's not the

most spicy V12 in the world, then again, actually counterpoint to my whole thing, tell me

what the peak RPM is for horsepower peak at, you know, Ferrari 550.

And I bet it's way higher than 5300 RPM, but that engine is actually less characterful

in the BMW V12.

I think that's probably true.

Similarly, it's characterful.

Oops, sorry about the microphone, Ferrari 550 horsepower, what does it say?

485 horsepower at 7000.

Although, do we believe that?

Although, yeah, with torque peak at 5000, I can see that happening.

How big was that in 5.4?

So they're saying 5474 CC, so 5.5 liter with only 485, so that's what 80 something 90

horsepower per liter at 7000 RPM, that's unusual.

It should make more power.

Typically, at 7000 RPM, we'll give you about 100 and that's pretty far off, but okay.

So what did we learn today?

You can't boil down cars down to just numbers.

I think we are sort of writing you that.

Well, yeah, because we said you're driven to McLaren F1 and you think that's more fun.

Did I say that?

You said, hey, listen, I asked you the question, is this not one of the most fun cars

you've ever driven?

You said, yes, and I've been asked you this is previous episode, so we have the receipts.

I said, think of something that's more fun than this car and you're like, maybe a

Carrera 2.7 RS, but it's in that league.

You did not say.

It's not a McLaren F1.

It deserves to be in there, but my point is that you're mentioning that fucking old

Volkswagen in the same sentence as a McLaren F1.

I think a 205 rally potentially is up there, also.

Really?

Yeah.

There's all these little old Italian buzz bum things, you know, alphas and stuff like that.

I think, you know, with the high revving old school carburetid cars, I think there's

definitely some potential there.

There's always a convertible, yes or no, right?

That's another one.

Like, is it a convertible?

Yes, therefore it will be a...

I don't find it convertible to be even more fun than a closed car.

I don't...

I think fun is a subjective term.

I think I would say it's a different experience.

Yes.

It is a different experience.

I will granted that, but it's not...

I don't think it's a better experience, no.

I think it is.

I think you can take a really shitty car, make it a convertible and it will be a less

shitty experience.

Like Nissan Marano Cross Cabriolet.

Put the top down in that.

No, but then I'm embarrassed.

You should be embarrassed.

It's a different experience.

It's a different experience because there's more embarrassing in your head.

You'd be embarrassed in a fucking regular Marano, too, wouldn't you?

No, because then I could feel invisible and feeling invisible is the best antidote

to embarrassment.

Because then you're conspicuous.

We should all have grum and elevate.

Yes.

Then no one could be embarrassed.

Because no one will be...

No one will see you.

Yeah.

Interesting.

Yeah.

We've stunned Derek into silence.

Yeah, I mean, I'm just trying to think about comparable experiences that are particularly...

I don't know.

I tolerate it.

I bought my first 911 and my only 911 was a convertible.

I wanted a convertible.

That's...

Yeah.

That I could all track.

I know.

I mean, and it was a 9.6.

So, you know, let me have it.

But, you know, I needed a car that I really wanted a convertible.

I had never owned one.

And I wanted a convertible.

And I was beating the shit out of my poor golf VR6 on track.

And I was just sort of bored of the front-wheel drive inherent limitations of that on track.

So, I wanted something that was fun and trackable and committed by a boxster.

I don't know.

It didn't occur to me.

So, my choices wound up actually being at the end of the day, Corvette or 911.

And I just couldn't drive a Corvette.

And when I did, I thought, okay, this is actually nice.

But I didn't like the lazy engine response and the long gears.

And I drove a 9.9.6, which I went to a dealership and drove a new 9.9.6, which obviously couldn't

afford.

And I thought, oh my God, this thing is kind of everything that people say about it.

And bought one that was three years old for less than a half the price of a new one.

And it wasn't until years later that I bought a boxster, a 9.8.6 boxster, which I think

made a better convertible, because it had a smaller opening, and therefore it was a little

bit more structurally rigid.

That's always what I struggle with about open 911s and open 4-seat cars generally is that

the size of the missing panel is so large that it starts to become an issue.

And the initial 911 was engineered to be a coupe, and they cut the roof off after 20

years.

Anything that started life as a coupe and then got turned into convertible is always compromised.

And then you have the opposite effects when the car starts as a convertible and then

they put a roof on it and it ends up as being super rigid.

So like-

But also too heavy.

Yeah.

How heavy is a clown shoe?

Are those heavy cars?

That's an example that comes to my mind.

The other one that comes to my mind is gasp the Mercedes SLK slash Chrysler Crossfire.

That was a car where they're like, wow, it's more rigid than the magazine articles are

all like they all they gleefully told us it was more rigid than a 911 because it started

as a convertible and then they put a roof on it.

Okay.

I mean, yeah, I think the boxster made a better convertible, but the bigger issue for me was

that the 9-11 is the bigger sin because the defining characteristic of a 9-11 is its

roof line.

And when you cut that off, the 9-6 wasn't beautiful and by 9-11's tenders.

But cutting the roof off made it even less-

Yes.

That's always how I feel about 9-11.

And the boxer was so fucking ugly anyway from that it did not-

I kind of find the shape to be less offensive as a convertible.

It's less awkwardly executed and there's feels less like there's something missing.

Right.

And the 9-11 does, you were cutting off the-

I mean, and the reality of it is exactly what it looks like, which is that the car was designed

as a coupe and had the roof cut off versus being designed as a convertible.

And you're talking the air-cooled stuff.

Boxster versus 9-6 also.

The 9-6.

Well, not a boxer.

I thought they did a really nice job at keeping some of the shape of the-

Well, yes, especially compared to the way that air-cooled 9-11s had been all of that time,

which was just a sort of less offensive version of what they did with the beetle when they cut

the roof off, where it had that big pile of convertible top sitting with a big boot.

But I think the beetle looked okay with the top up and I think an air-cooled 9-11.

Oh, that's more.

Up or down.

I'm talking about how large the convertible top is when it's sitting on the back.

But like a beetle, I could see a beetle convertible because it looks great with the roof down and

it looks fine with the roof up.

I wouldn't choose one.

But when I bought that 9-9-6, I was looking also at cheaper 9-11s, which were the air-cooled

ones.

I thought I could never do, I know, in that funny.

I could never do an air-cooled 9-11 cap because to me, all the beauty was gone.

I'm with you.

100% with you.

And then you get the experience of the loss of rigidity and it's doubly and the introduction

of wind noise and leaks.

It's just-

There's the reason now that in the market for 9-11s, a cabriolet is half as much as a

coupe.

Well, it's reduction in value is proportional to its torsional rigidity because they are

half as much.

Well, yes, that's actually 100% true because the people who drive the values of those cars

now are enthusiast and the loss of rigidity and the looks, I suppose, is what it makes

the car in there.

The torque is in between.

Yeah.

Exactly.

That's how it is structural rigidity.

I remember when 9-9-7 came out.

I think it was a 33% reduction in structural rigidity to go from coupe to target and 50% to go

from coupe to convertible.

And I'm like, oh, that's right, with values historically.

Hey, that's an interesting metric, you can look at the torsional rigidity.

No, absolutely not.

Because you go to all these old, in terms of defining experience, no torsional rigidity,

it's a shitbox.

We just know that.

It's going to be rattling, you're going to feel all kinds of things you probably don't

want to.

Okay, what about pick up trucks with no torsional rigidity and shitboxes?

But are they experienced?

We're asking the rigidity to stand in as a metric for experience.

You have to separate out box frames from non-box frames because they're the way they're measured

isn't directly comparable, especially in a picture.

So we're talking about monococ construction, unitary construction vehicles.

I think torsional rigidity is n defining characteristic of the experience you're about

to have, right?

Starting with enormous structural rigidity will probably be very quiet and isolating.

Something with very little torsional experience will be raw.

A torsional rigidity will be raw.

What about a Z3M coupe?

High torsional rigidity, pretty unhinged.

You think so?

I think they're too refined for a sports car.

That's my problem.

I guess I'm talking about limit behavior.

It's not very refined limit behavior between the short wheelbase and the rear suspension.

Design?

Yeah, but I think that's limit behavior is one thing.

I'm talking about the overall experience.

I think it's high torsional rigidity and all that.

But that also tells you that the convertible and coupe version of the same car are going

to be very different in experience.

Yeah, you're going to experience with that.

I think you're going to experience more on the open car.

So do you prefer less torsional rigidity?

Depends on the car.

I enjoy the torsional rigidity of my e-golf because it imparts a sense of safety, which

hopefully is real.

It stops rattles, it stops potholes, it stops everything, and the experience is much

more refined.

But then I very much enjoy the complete and total lack of structure in my old cars because

it slower speeds, it's way more colorful, colorful, spicy.

That could be a better metric than even mass.

I think we've solved this.

An old car with everything old has poor structural rigidity.

So you get like an E30 versus a W201 Mercedes.

There's probably a 2X difference in structural rigidity if I had to guess.

The Mercedes is probably twice as rigid as the BMW is.

There's a market difference in those cars in terms of ride quality, NVH, overall

isolation levels, overall refinement levels.

To the point where you could get into a modern Corolla, and I think the Mercedes has better

NVH control, 40 years old than a modern torsional rigidity that probably not that far off.

You think so?

I think the Corolla is probably better, but not that, it's not going to be double with

the Mercedes.

Maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe I'm overstating the Mercedes's.

I don't know.

That's a really good one, though.

OK, in the comments, let us know what we've forgotten, because we will have forgotten

something really obvious and cool, like color or something.

It's going to be something stupid, like a pull street type.

Torsional rigidity is pretty out there.

It's an obscure metric, I think.

Yeah, but I think it's the single biggest determinant of refinement.

Kind of, because you could get like a 1960s Rolls Royce or 1970s Rolls Royce.

Yeah, and that's quite refined, and it's probably not very rigid.

It's not rigid at all, I'm sure.

Refined-ish, but I get, you know, you're still going to get stuck into everything sort

of rattles.

Yeah, no, that's true.

But if you're not hitting stuff, then it's pretty nice.

Well, like they're cushy and refined and quiet, and you know, they always say about

these old cars that the loudest thing in the car is the ticking of the clock, which,

you know, I have experienced old Rolls Royce's and Bentley's, where that's kind of

true, as long as you're not on a bumpy road.

I mean, OK, it's incredibly quiet so long as it's turned off and you're in your garage.

I mean, it's, oh, I mean, it's speed there, remarkably refined, long-legged and civilized

and it comes out a lot of stuff, yeah.

Yeah, despite not being very rigid.

Right.

But the problem is what they're doing is making up for the lecture of structural rigidity

with each suspension move, right?

And the second you hit the end of that, travel whole my god, does the whole system sort

of fall apart?

Interesting.

Interesting thought.

I think it was a great question.

Yeah.

And it was a really, really interesting.

It's an interesting exercise.

I don't know that it teaches us a whole lot about what to buy.

No, just buy a Mark one Volkswagen.

Oh, obviously.

Yeah.

I really want to buy one.

Just in case.

Or kidnolos, those.

Yes.

Exactly.

OK.

Do you want us to next work where maybe we'll have a projop?

Maybe we will have...

Who knows what?

We'll be in the background.

The road certainly will be back for all we know.

Sure.

I'm praying to Santa Claus.

Is that what you do?

You ask Santa?

I ask Santa.

You write him a letter.

No, we don't do that anymore.

Well, I said one of the kids do now.

What do they ask for?

How do they submit their request to Santa?

TikTok.

Really?

No, I don't know.

What do kids do?

You must have an incredible staff of people to review all that.

No, anyway.

Santa is AI.

Oh, we shouldn't tell the kids that.

No kids are watching this.

Is there any more kids that they've been watching?

I watched by Chachi BT, which decided that a Honda Fit was a great day.

Which is not fun.

OK.

Join us next week.

Yep.

Thank you.

Can One Metric Define a Driving Experience? — Carmudgeon w/ Jason Cammisa & Derek Tam-Scott — Ep 217

About this episode

Volkswagen Cabriolet

MGB GT

Request an Explanation

Want to learn more?

Help improve this episode

More from The Carmudgeon Show