As many of you know I manage Autofiends.com . Our unofficial motto (can’t get the tech guys to change the site…) is “No Boring Cars.” Which means as the news of the day rolls in (grist to the mill) I need to parse it to determine what is and what isn’t “boring.” For instance there’s those pics of the new Prius that Jalopnik has whipped itself into its daily frenzy over (PRIUSGASM!!!!). And through the magic of search engine optimization Autofiends could probably get some decent traffic out of the post. More traffic makes the boss happy and (maybe) gets me more money! Only problem: the Prius is dull. Like, rock in sand dull. And not fancy Japanese rocks in Zen sand, but regular Texas Hill Country rocks in Great Plains dust. There’s a lady I know and I think she’s massively boring. She falls asleep at parties, says perhaps one sentence over the course of a night out and at restaurants has the tastes of a six-year-old. I mean really, what adult says, “I hate tomatoes?” To further solidify my view I saw her driving away in a white 1998 Toyota Camry. Which makes perfect sense, as I can’t think of a more boring car. Before you accuse me of Toyota bashing, let me state up front that I think the AE86 Corolla is one the most exciting cars ever built. Especially certain nitrous powered Formula D AE86s that pull away from Vipers on the track. Some of them 1,000 hp Supras are pretty damn thrilling, too. So I ask you: what makes boring?
1. soft suspension
2. overly boosted steering with no feedback
3. unresponsive underpowered engine
Nonsense. There is no such thing as boring cars….. just boring drivers.
boredlawstudent –
1. soft suspension
2. overly boosted steering with no feedback
3. unresponsive underpowered engine
4. too quiet engine note
5. boring styling
6. too commonplace on the road
7. automatic transmission (with few exceptions)
Ubiquity.
It’s pretty simple.
Styling and driving experience.
For some reason, a Crown Vic fits all of those items above…but I don’t think it’s boring.
Same with Volvos…I always have a blast in my old 760 Turbo and people think I drive such a boring car.
While I would agree that Toyotas (save certain rwd and 4wd models) are boring, they’re built that way for a reason. They’re solid appliances and marketed for people that want such a vehicle, just point A to point B in the least compromised manner.
Yes, for me I think the combo of an auto trans with a comparatively weak engine. At least with a manual with low power you can thrash it and have some fun.
And I’d have to say, that on a lot of roads too much adhesion is a bit of a downer. These days a lot of roads (or laws) prevent one from driving fast enough to exceed the grip of the tires. A little bit of drift can make an otherwise ordinary drive fun, bring back skinny tires!
On second thought, there are some boring vehicles out there. Buses, kiddie bikes, pogo sticks, escalators, and most of all… anything Jeremy Clarkson talks about.
Jonny, you nailed it the first time. There are no boring cars. Just boring people.
I’m not sure. I can appreciate a car that might not drive well if it’s wholly and completely competent at what it does.
To whit: I spent some time in a rental Camry LE recently. It’s not an exciting car, but you have to admire the way Toyota more or less nailed the ride, fuel economy and ergonomics. I was particularly excited (yeah, maybe I lead a dull life) about the smart design of the climate controls and radio: you could operate them with arctic-grade mittens on.
I think it’s safe to say that some cars are more exciting than others, but there’s nothing truly boring out there, or if there is then it’s more an issue of one’s outlook than actual execution.
E nannies, amorphous blob styling, bland styling, body roll, slow acceleration, too much sound deadening, too much suspension damping, steer by wire, anything with a Toyota logo post Supra, design for unserviceability, ground clearance, understeer, soft unsupportive seats, and most of all automatic transmissions.
I’m an adult.
I hate tomatoes. Always have.
I don’t care if you think I’m boring. The woman you wrote about probably doesn’t care what you think either. She may well be boring, or she could be shy.
Personally, I think most cars with more than 2 doors are boring. I will grant there are some exceptions (I like the Quattroporte, for instance, as well as the CTS-V).
I too, hate tomatoes.
There are redeeming values to any vehicle: Acceleration, handling, and styling. For a car to avoid being labeled ‘boring’ it must have at least one of these values, with a heavier emphasis on acceleration and handling over styling, which is a purely subjective value. If it does have only one value, it must be in such an overwhelming quality that it overshadows the absence of the other two factors.
Most ‘exciting’ cars do well with just one factor. Higher caliber vehicles will add that second factor, and every once in a blue moon, you’ll find a car that combines all three. But when it comes to a boring car, you will find it lacking of any of the values.
1. Ugly, utilitarian styling (anything Camrylike)
2. Ugly, geek styling (WRX, Mini Cooper, Pri(k)us)
3. Bland styling (new Silverados, many CUV’s)
4. Ugly and Gutless
5. Ugly with good performance
6. Bland and Gutless
7. Bland with good performance
8. Great style but Gutless (Prowler, Thunderbird)
I would say a car is boring if the most effective way to drive it is boringly. take an automatic corolla, for example. if you floor it, you get a long wait and then a clunk. if you go fast into a corner, you get body lean and tire squeal, and you just slow way down. the only way you can really drive it with any pleasure is just to relax and be incredibly boring. that is a boring car.
put a manual on that car though and it perks up a bit; sure, the handling isn’t any better, but with some control over the engine you can at least push it a little bit without it just folding like a paper bag. that’s a non-boring (though not yet exciting) car.
Personally, I think most cars with more than 2 doors are boring.
This always bugged me. How is a two-door car inherently more exciting, unless you definition of “exciting” is trying to get into the goddamn back seat without pulling a muscle.
Maybe I’m a bit of a curmudgeon, but if a car has two rows of useful seats (ie, not like the 911) is should have two rows of doors.
Front wheel drive makes cars boring
Automatic transmissions make cars boring
Roofs make cars boring
Weight makes cars boring
Whether boring is bad is an entirely different discussion, but the above things do make a car boring.
Certain cars can have the above flaws and not be boring, but that is rare – Citroën DS rare.
NickR : I agree that, on normal roads, too much adhesion can make a car boring. My 240SX on 15″ all weather tires could be a lot more fun than my 6MT G35 sedan on 18″ summer performance tires was.
an excess of weight
automatic transmission (with a few exceptions) but definitely all 4cyl + auto
anything car appeals to my father :)
If you forget what kind of car and/or the fact that you are driving then you are probably driving a boring car. I agree that a NA 4 cyl w/auto really makes a good case for a boring drive.
Jonny, you are aware that DED Jr. copyrighted “No Boring Cars” as the tagline for the original Automobile Magazine?
No? Huh.
BMW 328i, automatic.
Slightly more interesting with the sorority sticker on the back, but only because the driver is likely to be visually appealing.
Modern SUVs are dull, and they get duller as they go up in price.
Why? SUVs become less interesting as they become less likely to go off-road. I will make the exception for the Infiniti M45 (and maybe the Cayenne S)however, since there is something perverse about an SUV with better driving dynamics than most sports sedans.
Boring is a difficult thing to pin down, and boring is heavily dependent on where you drive. For me boring is a car where I don’t have to think when using it; this can change with speed, weather and traffic. It’s less about what the car does and more about what I have to do with the car.
My one word answer to what makes a car boring?
Toyota
Reliable cars are boring.
There’s nothing better for a little spontaneous excitement than having your car break down…out in the middle of nowhere/during a thunderstorm/in the winter in a snowstorm/in a bad section of town.
Reliable cars deprive people of retelling the dramatic horror stories they had with their car leaving them stranded, and then having to deal with the shop to get it repaired. Some cars can leave you with stories you can retell to your grandkids.
I guess the first question is, what makes a car interesting. For me, that’s at least one of the following things:
– Noteworthy performance
– Noteworthy technology
– Noteworthy styling
– Unusual or notable production or backstory.
Note that I say “noteworthy,” rather than “good.” I would be hard-pressed to call, say, a Citroën 2CV a good-looking car, but it’s certainly fascinating in every respect.
Obviously, cars that combine several of these aspects tend to be more interesting.
Cars that are dull are ones that fail to hit any of these marks. An eighties Toyota Supra is a fine example — it performed well enough, but its performance was not exceptional in any area (largely because it was too heavy); it was generally up-to-date technologically, but not groundbreaking; it was inoffensive to look at, but not notably gorgeous or hideous; and in terms of backstory, it was about as generic a product as ToMoCo ever produced. It might’ve been more interesting if it were uglier, or radically slower, as much as if it were prettier or faster.
Cars can be perfectly hideous and still be interesting. What makes a car dull is mediocrity.
Doors, seatbelts, and airbags.
Stock stereos with two or four speakers.
Lack of gauges: speedo, tach, fuel, and temp are about all you get now in most cars.
This is the inverse of “What makes a car special”?
Isn’t the answer to both questions the same: You feel nothing emotional in a boring car and you feel all sorts of stuff in a special car. All Pontiacs except the G8, all Toyotas, all Hyundais except the Genesis, etc. are boring.
An M3 is special, as is every Ferrari, Lambo, most Audis, Mazda3, etc.
The good news is that even if you like boring cars (Corolla, Camry, Neon, etc) you’re still going to get a pretty good car.
Nonsense. There is no such thing as boring cars….. just boring drivers.
Clearly you’ve never been given a Chrysler Sebring sedan at the Enterprise counter.
dshugart has it right, you say the Camry is boring, but if the current Camry had come out in 1985 it would have been considered groundbreaking, bold or even hideous.
I’d also side with the question; Is boring bad?
Justin B- an automatic 328i is not boring if it is a wagon.
History makes boring cars awesome, in 1972 a Ford Country Squire, Chevrolet Kingswood or AMC Ambassador were boring. Now if one of these is at a car show, it has a huge crowd around it.
Late 1960s/early 1970s muscle cars are boring zzzzz
@ TEXN3:
Thank you for letting me know I’m not alone. I’ve been trying to talk everybody I know who is in the market for a new car into buying a Crown Vic or Mercury Grandma Marquis. Exceptional value, old-school Americana, cheap parts, and a darn-near bulletproof drivetrain. Hard to beat, to me, and certainly not the makings of a boring car in a sea of front-wheel drive jellybeans with ever-decreasing engine displacement. And hey, the mileage isn’t bad, either.
Before I found a deal I couldn’t refuse on my current Ford Ranger, I seriously considered an old Volvo 240, for much the same reason. Tough cars, those, with a drivetrain simple enough back then that you could actually work on them in your garage— a seemingly foreign concept to Volvo and just about every other automaker nowadays.
In fact, perhaps that’s one of the biggest things that makes for, if not a boring car, at least a frustrating car: Unserviceability. You know, the inability to do so much as a transmission fluid change without visiting the dealer (as is the case with my mother’s Lincoln LS, if I remember correctly). If I can’t do my own wrenching and really get to know what makes my car tick, I’m sure to get bored with it as the car/driver relationship starts showing a few gray hairs. So maybe it does make for a boring car, after all. At least for me.
And @ Stephan Wilkinson: You beat me to it. As a longtime reader of Automobile (I know, I know), I was about to post that same thing. They still toss that “No Boring Cars” catchphrase around now and again.
@argentla
I agree with you about the Supra as long as it is only the late 80’s one you are talking about.
The one they made from 1982-86.5 is crazy ugly, you can see one coming from miles away. And it’s handling was amazing… I don’t mean it handled good, but that car was designed to be driven at 12/10th’s. You could drive side ways… all the time… through school zones even. It was completely predictable and perfectly balanced.
Boring cars are the ones that cost over a couple of grand depending on certain factors. There are few “boring” cars below that mark.
I shall prove it:
2007 Chevy Cobalt – boring
1985 Chevy Cavalier – how can owning one of these NOT BE EXCITING?
In an 85 Cavalier you can put your smokes out on the dashboard and not even care, how great is that?
As long as you always purchase cars that cost less than a single paycheck you will never not have fun driving. Instead of worrying about noises your car makes, you will go out of your way to create new ones.
Eventually you will find a car that just will not die, no matter what evil things you do to it. Then it becomes slightly more boring because you have no excuse to go buy that sweet k-car you saw for sale by the freeway.
I still prefer a stick shift though, and with cars that old it’s the only way to be sure you aren’t buying a lemon.
What makes a car boring? Toyota makes a car boring.
Especially the Camry. Check out the Anti-Camry Blog. Funny stuff.
http://www.caroftheday.org/2008/09/17/anticamry/
Yes we can all agree that today’s Toyota is dull. My wife’s ’05 RAV4 and my ’06 Corolla do everything competantly and have never broken down. Both have autos. And both are soul numbingly boring as hell and leave me feeling dead inside. I just can’t bond with either one of these vehicles as much as I would like to.
My ’89 Corolla SR5 was a blast to drive with the 5 speed stick. I thoroughly enjoyed that car and regretted selling it when I got caught up in the SUV craze of the 90s.
My 1971 Ford Custom 500 was a POS but was never boring. It had character and personality. It used to piss me off alot, but at least I could identify and bond with this car, faults and all.
Toyota grew up and is now a safe, responsible, staid, dull, stale, middle aged, menopausal organization. They don’t make cars anymore, they make transportation units – and money. Yawn…
What makes a car boring or enjoyable? It has to be a combination of styling, performance and driving involvement. Yes, I agree that GENERALLY two-door models are more exciting to me than four-door versions. I admit that’s a personal issue with me. If given the choice with any car model, I will almost always opt for two over four doors. Yes, GENERALLY SPEAKING, fast, light, nimble cars with manual transmissions are by default more interesting and fun than vehicles without these qualities. And – yes again – Toyota seems to have a special talent for being able to mix all the ingredients that together add up to a complete snoozefest.
But there are plenty of exceptions:
Mazda3’s (Speed model and not), Subaru WRX’s (STi and not) and Mitsu Evo’s/Ralliart’s have four (and five) doors. No one will call them boring. Whether they’re good-looking or not is a matter of opinion – but you can’t call them boring.
My Ford Ranger XLT, complete with four-banger, manual transmission, 2WD, standard cab and standard bed isn’t boring. It’s not fast – but it is fun. Not sports car fun – but a different kind of fun. A lot of great, 2WD pick-ups have the same quality.
Plus you don’t always need speed to have fun. Remember the original MGs and Triumphs? Fun, yes – fast, no. The same goes for the original VW Beetle. In many ways, I like the non-turbo Mini Cooper better than the S. Sometimes, less really is more.
But I’m also one of those who can actually enjoy a traditional full-sized American car. I prefer two-door models, of course – but they’re not made anymore. Remember the two-door Ford Galaxy 500’s and Crown Vickis… Chevy Impalas… Chrysler 300s? Pure, stylin’ Americana with V8 power. Tough as nails and drop-dead reliable, too. With a lot more luxury and room than a pony car. I’m 51 years old – but I felt the same way about these big cruisers since I was a preteen.
As an aside, I think the only American car that approaches this kind of vehicle today is the new base-model Dodge Challenger. It’s a pony car in name only. It’s really a modern take on the old “personal luxury coupe,” which was usually a coupe version of a full-sized car. Of course, that would make the Challenger more of a modern Monte Carlo, Pontiac Grand Prix or late 80’s-early 90’s Thunderbird. All of these cars, by the way, were also not boring and very fun in their own way. Even with automatic transmissions – go figure.
Of course, there are cars that are just flat-out interesting if you have any auto enthusiasm in you at all. Citroens, Morgans and Saab 96’s are a good example of this. Weirdness is good if it’s interesting and it works.
And, finally, to the Toyota rule: The exceptions include the 2000 GT of the 1960’s, the MR2’s of the past 20 years and various versions of the Celica and Supra over the years.
@ mistrernee
I was talking primarily about the 1986-1992 incarnation, although for my money, the 1982-1985 version is not that different. I don’t find it to be particularly hideous — I had a good friend who found it sexy, believe it or not (to each her own, I guess). I’ve never driven one, so I can’t testify to its propensity for going sideways, although based on its suspension layout, I am not surprised.
I can recognize it at a glance, but I can also readily distinguish the different generations of Camry and Corolla, so that’s not the best criteria.
What’s boring? For me it’s not a car that fits a certain mold, e.g., doesn’t have a manual transmission. Rather, the most boring cars are the ones lacking any design spirit. For example, I’ve owned a Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla sedan from the same year — 1989. The Corolla was competent enough in a TV dinner sort of way, but it just didn’t have the engineering finesse of the Civic. The Corolla didn’t accelerate and handle as well, but just as importantly it felt cheap, anonymous and utterly uninspired pretty much everywhere you looked. The disposable car for drones on the go. Not that the Civic is a towering achievement, but its designers were able to push the envelope a bit. The result is a car that I think has withstood the test of time quite well given its price point.
It’s funny that the posting uses a photo of the Prius. I have found them to be more interesting than Toyota’s other small cars, which lack the novelty of the hybrid powertrain and the Prius’ unusually aerodynamic shape.
@ argentla
The MK 2 Supra was quite a bit lighter than the later generations, it also cost a lot less and sold a lot better (go figure).
When the MK 3 came out most car mags of the time were openly dissapointed and wondered what happened over at Toyota. The Supra lost whatever made it “fun”. I can’t comment on the 4th generation, anything that expensive isn’t worth while by my definition.
Looks wise the MK 2 Supra is very sensitive to the colour of the paint. The two tone paint models are the most common and also awful. I actually really like the looks of them when they are painted white, but that is rare from the factory. Most of the solid colours didn’t look bad but they aren’t common.
I wish to second the comment that big old American coupes are awesome and fit perfectly into my “cheap” criterea.
@ mistrernee
The Civic and Civic Si are nothing compared to the previous generation (2005-2006) Corolla XRS with the 2ZZ engine, 6 speed close ratio manual transmission, 2600 LB curb weight and TRD tuned suspension. I test drove both and while the Si was mybe a hair faster, hitting lift at 6800 – 8200 RPM Redline is a true thrill.
The last gen XRS was really the last “fun” car toyota built. Don’t get me started on the new Corolla XRS. ZZZzzzz.
Blokes, boring is a subjective relative term based upon personal wants, needs and desires.
To expound upon prior utterances the old codger will toss into the tempest this;
any conveyance that gives me the required room to pull into a Mart-Wall parking lot and stretch out and slumber for 6-8 hours while being able to block the ambient light and passers-by view of my corpulent snoring carcass is a vehicle that has dome much to keep boredom at bay.
Even better, a vehicle that would allow me to live within it at an at least rudimentary level in case the faltering economy leads me again to having to utilize the transportation unit as a “house” would fend off any inherent “boringness” of said car or truck.
I suppose utilitarianism beyond the mere transporting of myself from the proverbial point A to another point with a letter in it; from B to Z, is rudimentary to the abeyance of boring.
Thus, vans and/or a pick-up with some type of weatherproof cover over the bed would be the least boring vehicles for this member of the growing working-poor socio-economic class within the US of A.
The front end of this car is the most epic disappointment in Toyota history. The concept looked cool. This front end is a part Corolla and part Maxima, an unoriginal conglomeration of other people’s ideas. It just looks like they gave up on the design.
Boring is numb steering, disinterested tires, and wimpy brakes. I once had a VW Rabbit Diesel, which was bog slow. Still, it was german, and drove well, good steering and brakes. Firm seats. Good Car, but slow. 40 mpg plus, no passing without work. Despite this, it was a decent drive.
Worst car I ever drove ? Olds Cutlass Supreme, mid 80’s.
I once had a Yugo. A good set of tires and tweaking the carb, and you were back to the Fiat 128 it came from…rorty !
Dullest car now ? Camry Solara. maybe my friend’s Honda Accord 4 cyl. No sporting feel.
It’s not about the horses, its about the feel of the car.
A base BMW 3 is set up to be innocuous. The high end version has a sporty edge, which keeps the image, and the M version is hardcore. Still, the base automatic is kinda dull, even if it is hugely competent-it would not upset the honda owner…it might bore the M driver though.
Toyota seems to come out swinging every now and then.
Usually when they team up with someone else.
2000GT – This should be called the Yamaha 2000GT
Mk2 Supra – Lotus did the suspension
Mk1 MR2 – Lotus again
Last Celica – Yamaha in with the 2ZZ
They proceeded to put the 2ZZ into everything for a while, including letting uhhh… Lotus use them.
Now they are in it with Subaru, but Subaru isn’t anywhere right now that Toyota hasn’t been before with the Celica GT-4.
Toyota, ha!
Oh i’m sorry was that too blunt?
seriously though
I think plain blob-like sheetmetal, marshmellow suspensions, wheezy acceleration and of course a bad transmission. I hated my three speed automatic for a good long time before it died.
What makes a car boring? It’s only boring if you think it’s boring. There are people who’d consider a base model Saturn ION exciting and a Z06 Corvette boring.
JL – regarding the ae86, I didn’t think much of my twin cam AE86 when I had it. I wish I kept it, if only to keep it out of the hands of a subsequent owner who made unfortunate additions to the bodywork.
My 09 Elantra with the 5-Speed is a “right-brain” car; I can justify in almost every way why a smart person should consider owning one.
But it’s a boring ride, no doubt about it.
Or maybe I’ve reached the point where I’m just a bored driver.
Stephan Wilkinson :
Jonny, you are aware that DED Jr. copyrighted “No Boring Cars” as the tagline for the original Automobile Magazine?
No? Huh.
+1
Pointed out also by other commenter. This was and still is Automobile Magazine slogan. Since 1986 I think.
I totally agree with the AE86 1.6 litre Twin-Cam 16. Leased a bright BRIGHT red one, a hatchback, in late 1984. One of the first ones in town. (The other one was almost boring—it was silver, the MOST boring color there is.) Here’s the irony. I bought a 1995 Corolla with the 1.8 litre 105 hp engine, and THAT is the most boring car I have driven in 35 years. Bulletproof, as was the AE86, but BORING.
usta bee:
Just get a GM! You’ll have plenty of stories in about 20 minutes, if that long!
The GM nameplate.
My best friend’s old ’94 Geo Prizm was so boring I would have lost my enthusiasm for cars if that was all there was out there. And it was boring even though it had a stick. The suspension was soggy, the steering, no feel, not much power, and the car just had absolutely no personality. You can see Greg with his Geo Prizm on my website, motorlegends.com (click on People & Cars).
Speedlaw and his rorty Yugo. Forgive me, but that’s funny! But I can believe it.
We don’t see things as they are, we see things as we are.
I’ve had extremely good things done to me while inside a Toyota Corolla.
So what can you really say?
And as for tomato hating: put me down for at least 4 if not 5 people. I don’t even like the person making my sandwich to be thinking about tomatoes when they do it. And yes, I can tell..oh yes…I can…
There are boring cars, and there are boring drives. But an exciting car can make even boring drives fun… whether it’s from that extra tickle you get as you pull away from a stoplight or that deliciously giddy feeling you get as you tip into a slow corner and the car pivots around those tiny balance organs hidden behind your ears.
I’ve driven in some pretty fast haulers, big V6s, twin-turbos, V8s… but off the racetrack, they were boring as hell. Computerized traction control, electronic throttles and good ECU mapping gave them a linear powerband that made sub-7 second 0-60 times feel more like… yawn… 10-second times. Lots of grip meant that you were doing nearly 1g at the limits, but a steady 1g… lots of fear and heart-racing there… but more a fear for your wallet than the giggly mock-fear you can get from a cheap roller coaster ride.
The most fun I’ve had in cars has been in penalty-boxes. Didnt matter that you didn’t have enough power to beat a scooter to the next corner, and that you didn’t have enough grip to keep the front tires from spinning away as you put that pitiful amount to the ground… what mattered was that those things tickled your inner ears just right. You get tossed to-and-fro like a log in a log-jam as you saw away at the (often unassisted) steering. You get a pinchful of power that nudges your head back, then forward as you change gears, then back again as you pump the gas and bang away at the gears… it’s like riding a kangaroo, and only marginally faster to 60 mph. More importantly, though, cheap cars tickle your other senses, too.
Computer-designed, whisper quiet mufflers? Who needs them! A 600cc Suzuki/Maruti Alto has as much burbly character in just 3 cylinders as a Lamborghini gets out of four times that number with ten times that displacement. Of course, the Alto only has 1/10th the volume, but thanks to the poor sound insulation, you can hear it just as well. Unfortunately, very few cars nowadays please the ear, unless they’re extremely cheap or extremely expensive.
One of the few exceptions that falls between the two extremes is the non-turbo Impreza. It sounds like Hendrix. It’s quieter, slower and doesn’t do drugs… but at least it sounds like Hendrix. Most turbo-cars don’t really sound like anything, V6s sound like sewing machines and V10 are droningly dull (and expensive). V8s sound great, without exception, but with gas prices nowadays, who actually buys cheap V8s?
Unfortunately, a new Impreza doesn’t quite look as good as it sounds. It’s a Corolla without the “T” badge in the looks department. And that’s a problem with most new cars… there may be nuggets of excitement in there, but they all try to appeal to the middle of the bell curve so hard that anything “offensive” is ironed out.
Hardcore looks, firm ride, road noise and feel, rorty exhaust notes, surging powerband… these are all “offensive”.
The Honda Fit/Jazz is one bright spot of hope on this bleak and inoffensive landscape of anodyne automobilia. It’s almost kosher except for one thing… that squarish wheelbase and choppy suspension make it a laugh riot on a back road. Like most modern cars, the exhaust sounds like buzzy crud, the steering has less feel than a Daytona arcade console and the styling is fairly family friendly, but the fact that you can feel all four wheels skipping across the tarmac through the seat of your pants means that you won’t be sorry you ever got in one.
Too bad the new one has Honda ironing out some of this offensive playfulness in favor of a better ride. That means the closest you can come to a first-generation Honda Fit now is the ludicrously pricy Mini Cooper (for those of you unlucky enough not to have Suzuki Swifts available for purchase firsthand)… Ah well… there’s always that old Miata you could buy and restore… and if you’re laughing at this conundrum from the driver’s seat of your new BMW M3 or 911, you’re a rich bastard, and you really ought to share some of that trust fund with the rest of us.
All Toyotas. All VWs (from 1980 onwards). Boring.
Most Mercedes, Audis and BMW (yes, I’ll take an Alfa over any of them any time, anywhere, thank you). Most Hondas and GM offerings, too. Come to think of it, most Peugeots, too. Yawn.
I’m sorry, but I remain unapolegetic, I love Italian cars with all their “perceived faults” (Ferrari of course, but I love all of them Fiat, Lancia). And many Fords. And some Renaults and Citroëns (what can I say, quirkiness is appealing). I think the Volvo C30 is pretty sweet, too (at least looks-wise, never driven one). Smile.
Oh, and modern BMW Minis are very boring, too. Like Smart, they try too hard in the looks dept., but have no real panache.
electric powertrains, even in a Porsche (yawn)
What Makes A Car Boring?
Oh, I’d call it “small-minded auto journalists.”
There are actually stories to be told regarding issues like safety, fuel economy, ride quality, reliability, dependability, interior comfort and quietness, control ergonomics, advanced automatic transmissions, vehicle stability controls, resale values, and all sorts of other things, but I suppose it just must take a few more minutes of research to write about these than just quoting some big horsepower number in the publication’s 700th report on some new Corvette or similar.
You’d think that automotive publications might look around every now and then, and notice that only a veritable handful of potential readers actually drive the “non-boring” cars they write about ad naseum, whereas there appears to be a virtually unlimited number of potential readers who might want to learn more about the technologies built into the cars they drive, but these publications have decided that their cars just aren’t worthy of writing about.
Ahh, well, what publication wants more readers, anyway? Must not be very important to them.
People buy the cars they want for what they believe to be very good reasons. It’s too bad that the automotive journalism industry chooses to ignore the vast majority of automobiles, and the people who drive them. I guess it’s just way too much easier to just keep on grabbing the low-hanging fruit of “no boring cars.”