Im a little bit frustrated because I noticed enthusiasts are so broad in acceptance of older cars but pretty superficial with new cars. I can’t figure out what is going on other than it seems as if attractive vehicles are treated better than unattractive vehicles. This is in spite of the fact that a majority of the enthusiast memes involve aspects of cars rather than appearances. You know, manual, RWD, cylinder counts, blah blah blah yerny blerny diesel. No hot takes here but if you take them personally then they may feel a little fresh out the dryer. Let’s get started!

Here are the things that I don’t understand:

Why does everyone love current Volvo so much? They are literally everything most people say they hate. FWD based platforms, 4-cylinder only, giant touchscreens, automatic only, everything gets turned into a CUV (remember the S60 Cross Country). Heck, the current S60 will cost you $47,500 just to get it up to 300 hp. You can get a RWD, 400 hp twin-turbo V6 Infiniti Q50 Red Sport for $1,200 more. That’s a $25 increase on a 48 month loan. But Acura and Lincoln are jokes? A top ten list of the most powerful Honda production cars ever wouldnt be filled with current Acuras, after all Acura has always been a performance brand. I’m honestly not sure what the issue is that people are having with Lincoln, but they sure seem mad about something!

I guess enthusiasts forgive for daytime running lights being the only distinguishing feature of a cars “incredible” design.

Then I look at Mazda. Fantastic design and some how even better handling. But no one is going to say anything about the lack of engines for the price points? Not one word? Over five years they still refuse to crack 190 hp? And the one time they finally toss on a turbo they decide 227 hp was plenty for a 3-row crossover? “But Waffles, the torque is like a diesel engine!” I know, torque is everything whenever the car we like doesn’t make power.


That’s fine though, Mazda is small afterall which means there is no flexibility for them. Small manufacturers are definitely not renown for producing the most ridiculous performance vehicles. “Well Mazda can’t make a 200 hp sportscar until they figure out how to make the wankel work. They have a Skunkworks for it!” You’re telling me that they couldn’t make or borrow ANY engine that can make 200 hp and call the damn thing an MX-7? All I’m saying is that Mazda is making appliances just like everyone else. Great ones at that! Why is everyone pretending that everything they are building is a sportscars, a kind of BMW or Lotus for the common man? I hate crossovers, but that CX-5 though. The CX-5 is an outstanding crossover, you don’t have to pretend it’s anything else. Shift your paradigms, bro!

Being good looking and humble creates a lot of amnesty, no matter the bodystyle I guess.


And then there’s the F-Type. Less of a sportscar than a Camaro but somehow rivals the 718 when it has a V6 and the 911 when it has a V8. I’m going to tell you all something about current Jaguars, they all drive the same way! I’m serious, you drive an XE it feels like an F-Pace, you drive an F-Type and it feels like an XF which feels like an XJ. Yes, you notice the bodystyle differences but this is why current Jaguars are awesome! There is a signature feel to every vehicle no matter the powertrain. But, to me, the F-Type sportscar is the grandest tourer to ever tour grandly with two seats before you get into an Aston Martin so I’m not understanding where these Corvette and Porsche references are coming from.

In my eyes Jaguar makes a two door XK but calls it something that steals heritage from their actual sportscars (which they stopped building decades ago). Everyone claps. I mean the AMG GT is what an actual F-Type should be including in the design! Then they give the F-Type AWD and more weight. Everyone claps, definitely sportscar. Then they say they’ll put a 4-cyl engine into it and drop the price by two floor mats and a speaker. Everyone claps. Finally a 4-banger sportscar from Jaaag may drive like a 430i, get me a scotch! All the weight of a vehicle that would come with four seats without the trouble of having them in the car. *solitary clapping resumes*

I understand, beautiful and stick. I love Wayne Gretzky too. If any cars are praised for the excellence of their manual gearboxes it’s definitely portly British cars. Totally characteristic of the class I dare say. All I’m getting at is one of the greatest grand touring values and innovative market ideas to ever grace our lack of money. But just because we love it doesn’t make it a sportscar. If this had two unusable rear seats then all of sudden we would compare it to M4, C63, Mustang, Camaro and you know what...the value is lost.


But look at it! Im not saying it isn’t a sportscar, I’m just saying it makes perfect sense as a touring car and should get credit for being one of the best around at any price point.

Just small points of confusion since I’m not an enthusiast, I just find the automotive world intriguing. I had another question about why US enthusiasts view Audi the way they do. I understand from a European perspective but considering what we got in the US you would think Lexus at best. But comparing those two brands from a US offerings perspective would definitely be a bit too much. Mostly because Lexus isn’t attractive. But maybe it’s OK now since Audi isn’t quite so cute currently...


Hmm, I guess it isn’t unconditional if the only condition is be attractive.