Koenigsegg Faces Trouble

By Bruce McCulloch

Last week, an Australian publication by the name of Autocult, reported that Swedish supercar manufacturer Koenigsegg is heading into dire financial troubles. And according to Sweden’s Realtid, Koenigsegg, the company known for it’s over-the-top 240mph various “CC” models is currently 240,000 euros in debt and is desperately in search of new investors. Mind you, that debt of 240k is hardly anything compared to what Koenigsegg Automotive reportedly lost in 2006 – an eye-watering $3.6 million USD.

While company turnover actually rose slightly from $24.7 million to 24.8 million (2005 and 2006, respectively), the company claims its losing money at an unbelievable rate. The company makes the claim that it’s costing them a ridiculous $4 million dollars to produce each vehicle and the only way to offset the negative cash flow will be to increase their current yearly production of around 15 units.

For those who have followed the supercar world, this isn’t going to be much of a surprise. This company has been nothing a multitude of disasters since Day One. The company’s young and wealthy entrepreneur, Christian Von Koenigsegg (CVK), has showed every sign of being a pushy business man with little understanding of the automotive world.

Koenigsegg’s first real troubles are within its research and development program. Despite CVK’s great mass of wealth, his personal money is not enough to turn the company around. Of course, this all could have been avoided had the company not set such high production standards; I’m not sure how much of the exact number which they aimed to achieve, but if they were expecting 50+ units per year, they were as high as a kite on a windy day.

Tis true, today’s market gives most any company the chance to indulge themselves in success, but nevertheless, in limited quantities. This is where comparable companies such as Spyker Automotive and Pagani Automobili are in a much better position; Spyker is having much success selling some 100+ vehicles per year with the latter selling some 15 vehicles per year. The difference here is that these companies have backed up their costing development by properly estimating annual production and having a sufficient amount of back-up funds (investors included).

For instance, Pagani Automobili (producer of the “Zonda” supercar) is absolutely thriving at the volume of business they have currently, and is planning to release a track day-inspired Zonda at the upcoming Frankfurt Autoshow in Germany. One of the main reasons why Pagani is such a successful company for its size is because of the company with which it’s affiliated with, “Modena Design”. Modena design, set up in 1988, is an industry supplier that offers a numbers of carbon fibre applications and designers to those who desire same; this arrangement thus allows Horacio Pagani and his supercar to make up for any possible losses in profit. It’s an excellent quid pro quo which can only leave Pagani successful. What also contributes to their overall financial health is when Horacio Pagani and affiliated dip their hands into a number of other projects including the design of a boat and even a Hi-FI stereo system. Yes, its not auto-related, but this type of product planning is not only complimenting his brand by establishing new high-end name items to the company, but linking him with a number of investors and ultimately helping him create a upscale image and upscale brand image for the company.

Entrepreneur and tuner-car-extraordinaire, Steve Saleen, also runs on this general (and rather logical) concept. The extreme success and backing which his former tuning company is known for has helped to offset any possible losses in income; however, unlike the Swedish manufacturer, Saleen generally planned his future (production limits, etc) on reasonable expectations. This approach was instrumental in Saleen commanding a premium price when he sold the majority ownership of his company to an outside firm. He is now involved with both a company that will import Chinese pickups and SUVs into the States, as well as another, brand-new company that will build high-performance vehicles in the U.S. Suffice to say, both Horacio Pagani and Steve Saleen have, or, have had, companies which are thriving because they were set up properly. Over years of business, the two manufacturer companies (Modena Design and Saleen) were not only able to establish reasonable profit but bring a whole crop of investors. One can strongly doubt whether Koenigsegg ever had any real investors; perhaps he thought he could compensate with his own check book if they ever came across financial troubles like this?

What’s also might be worth mentioning is Koenigsegg’s ever-declining image thanks to the poor performance and awful reliability of its cars. When his 655bhp CC8S supercar was released in 2002, CVK claimed it would immediately be the world’s fastest car. He claimed that it would easily achieve zero-to-sixty mph in just 3.0 seconds and take the top speed world speed title from the almighty McLaren F1. Truth is, each and every model has consistently failed to achieve their claims. The initial model, which claimed such bombastic figures, pulled up a zero-to-sixty figure of 4.4 seconds and a zero-to-one hundred figure of 8.0 seconds by the British publication AutoCar; a far cry from what was expected from a horsepower-to-weight ratio like it has. Nor did the first model (coined the “CC8S”) ever achieve its claimed top speed of 245 mph. Instead, it took Koenigsegg a few years later with an insane 200+bhp increase to achieve a top speed of just 241 mph. A full one mph faster than the McLaren F1.

Performance inconsistency (and failure), even with the 800+bhp CCR, has continued with its various performance figures from the track to its straight line acceleration.

Furthermore, Koenigsegg’s vehicles have gained a deserved reputation for being amongst the most unreliable supercars on the market. Just about every one which was sent to journalists around the world has failed and in every way imaginable too; from engine failures to overheating. Even the loyal owners of Koenigsegg cars have showed much concern about the vehicle’s unpredictable reliability.

This to me would indicate that this vehicle was always a victim of rushed development. There’s no excuse for such poor reliability, especially when companies like Pagani Automobili are not suffering from it; they are keeping their image clean and their customers happy.

As if over-promising on performance and unreliability issues weren’t enough, Koenigseggs have also gained a reputation for being un-drivable and uncontrollable near their limits with many owners and journalists pileing them into walls with unsettling frequency.



Whether any of these attributes are actually affecting Koenigsegg sales is up for debate. I think most would agree though, it certainly can’t help.

Poor Product Planning:

What makes the companies operations even worse is their product planning, or rather, the lack thereof.

The company’s first effort in 2002 was the CC8S and with 655bhp it should have been enough. It wasn’t though and for a reason unbeknownst to anyone it was deemed appropriate to introduce an updated model which they called the “CCR” benefiting from an extra 200bhp. And in 2005, the company thought it was yet again appropriate to release a car technically identical to the CCR, but in a slightly new body shell and throw a “CCX” badge on it. And in 2006, both a bio-fuelled and racing version of the CCX were released. Both of these cars were answers to questions no was asking. There was and still is no demand for either type of car. This is utterly ridiculous and obviously ill-considered marketing from a company without much clue as to what they’re doing. While I won’t deny the market can sometimes be unpredictable, it’s clear that a general lack of knowledge of market demand existed at Koenigsegg.

In the opinion of this enthusiast, this company has always been a disaster. Indeed, many supercar manufacturers in the past have fallen in the same pattern in which Koenigsegg is exhibiting, but this should not have happened to a company run by a man who is a very wealthy entrepreneur; he should have known better. It is not unreasonable to expect that a successful businessman like Koenigsegg would figure out at some point that he needed more management talent with auto experience at his company, but it seems that hasn’t happened so far. Much of this could (and should) have been forecasted; failure is prevailing thanks to cockiness.

Lexus Storms Rampant

By Bruce McCulloch

Over the last week or so, Lexus has been letting potentional customers try out of their upcoming and introductory performance model, the IS-F, at no other track than the fabulous Laguna Seca.

I've been reading through out Lexus forums to see what the various reactions are and thankfully, all have been postive. Most implying that the IS-F is the best handling Lexus ever made; but of course, it most certainly should be if Lexus is serious.

While I am afraid I cannot give you my personal impression (as I haven't driven one) or the keys to an IS-F any time soon, I suggest you watch the below video. She's sounds like a monster, eh?


Thanks to the Club Lexus forum for the video

Impression/Pictures:

A while back I made a post about the Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG and it's many competitiors, and in that article, I slammed the IS-F saying it was hugely overdone and vulgar. I am now seriously eating my words; I am afraid I have jumped to conclusion far too early. This thing Looks awesome.

Pebble Beach Concours: Lexus IS-F Carves Raceway Laguna Seca - Jalopnik

Sports Car Interior - How Important?

By Bruce McCulloch

You know, there’s always been one opinion on sports car interiors that I could never understand. That opinion is as follows: “well, it is a sports car, so the interior means little as you’re focusing on the driving experience”.

Such an argument is one which you’re likely to come across very often; for instance, just a few days ago I read where a Viper owner said just exactly that. The question is, was what he saying merely an excuse considering the original nature of the topic to which he posted in (which was downplaying the Viper’s interior), or did he really believe what he was saying? I have come to the conclusion that it was perhaps a little of both; take note that this enthusiast has a collection of other automobiles which span from a Porsche 997 GT3RS to a Lamborghini Gallardo.

In any event, it’s quite interesting to examine people’s general perceptions and the way manufacturers cater to the individuals who purchase their vehicles.

So then, what are the reasons that the Dodge Viper has to stick with an interior which by the majority of enthusiasts, is deemed undesirable?

* Wait a minute *

Anyone notice the contradiction? If the Viper has an interior which is considered awful by the general public, someone must care about interior in a sports car. That being said, I believe the majority who speak that fateful cliché are most usually the one’s pawning it off as an easy excuse to the criticism which a car they like is taking.

So then, is the reason why the Dodge Viper has a lacklustre interior because Dodge themselves are operating on the old mentality which they believe they’re customers have, or perhaps the interior is as it is to control it’s already sky-high price tag; perhaps a combination of both?

Of course, to solely pick on the Viper would be unfair; after all, what about Lotus and their Elise? Lotus has always been known as a company which has focused on creating lightweight drivers’ cars. So, is Lotus’ aim to keep such vehicles as the Elise and Exige with a minimalist and characterless interior because it’s “in-theme” with company’s original motto, or because they can get away with it? If I’ve just lost you, allow me to elaborate with another example.

When Ferrari released their ‘Enzo’ flagship in 2002, it was immediately clear its interior focus was to aim at recreating something like the F40 - which as of now, came out some 18+ years ago. And what’s strange about that is the Enzo has the most simplistic and barren interior since Ferrari’s own 1995 50th anniversary supercar, the F50. But, why? Why, when comparable manufacturers such as Lamborghini and even the smallest of manufacturers – Spyker, for instance – offer interiors which have it all? Leather, luxury and function.

Of course, Ferrari would argue that the reason the Enzo doesn’t have an interior overly pleasing to the eye is because the addition of carpets, leathers and hard plastics would contradict the point of the vehicle. They would also most likely argue that the additions of these particular materials would also add undesired weight to the car. I’m sorry though, I cannot accept that; it all seems like a rather convenient response, an excuse if you will. This brings light to the next question, was the reason the Enzo was not fitted with a more luxurious interior (in a time which welcomes it) because they knew they could get away it; saving a few nickels in the process? Did they target their specific kind of customers knowing they’d buy it no matter what kind of interior it had?

Now, I don’t believe Ferrari, Lotus, or Dodge, for that matter, should take sole blame. Automotive companies world wide do stuff similar to this all of the time.

Nevertheless, Ferrari’s position makes no sense when the Porsche Carrera GT has an interior which not only boasts a design representing its respective brand, but is designed and assembled in a manner which looks modern and luxurious while retaining the ideal of the sports car identity. And you know what; the Stuttgart Monster isn’t a whole lot heavier than the Enzo despite the addition of this supposed ‘luxurious interior’ equipped with side-airbags and what-not. Because of that, I am willing to bet my bottom dollar that Porsche made less money per Carrera GT than Ferrari did per Enzo in this particular category. Frankly, I believe that was their intention.

Anyhow, whether you think a sports car should have a wonderful interior or not, you cannot deny the fact that the world of the sports car is surely evolving; after all, the most basic of sports car from the Mazda Miata MX5 up to the general population of Ferraris can now be ordered with such features as navigation systems, and air-conditioning. And frankly, competent interiors equipped with lavish designs and excellent ergonomics. This alone proves that the old cliché that a sports car doesn’t need to have a great interior is fading away. Truth is that the market is demanding something much more than it once was; we aren’t living in the 1990’s anymore.




Top – Honda S2000; bottom – Aston Martin V8 Vantage

So, after all that, a pertinent question - Do I feel a sports car needs an interior?

Well, considering the nature of the article, I think my opinion should be rather obvious. My opinion is that a sports car – of any sort – should have a good interior; I’m not expecting a Bentley, but I’m not expecting an oxcart either. If anything I think an interior is even more important in a sports car as I’m likely to spend countless miles in the vehicle.

To this end, I believe the following sports cars and manufacturers need to work on their interiors:

Ferrari:
Particularly the flagship models

Noble:
If TVR (Yes, I realize they are at the bottom of the barrel) can assemble interiors which are interesting in a package which is no heavier, why can’t Noble?

Chevrolet Corvette:
While I cannot deny the great improvement in quality and design from the C5 generation, I think they have still got some work to do.

Dodge Viper:
See Corvette…

What may surprise you is that I do not feel Lotus needs to work in this department. Whether it’s cost-cutting or not, I cannot help but feel such is proper for the manufacturer. Mind you, that also means that I’d never consider buying an Elise or an Exige.

Now, before any of the fans of the above manufacturers burn me at the stake, it should be noted that all of the above is my personal opinion. I’m sure there are Enzo fans who wouldn’t have the car built any other way than it is. Or perhaps, those same people feel that sports cars do not necessarily need interiors. That’s all fine, I respect that. Obviously, many rhetorical questions have been asked – most of which can most likely only be answered by the companies themselves. I am merely offering some food for thought.

It’ll be interesting to see what the future years bring for some of the above companies who aren’t exactly going with the trend towards well-designed luxury interiors.

DMAX D-Motor: Marcos TSO GT2

From the German automotive show "DMAX D-Motor". Driving this British war-horse is the fantastic Tim Schrick.

Enjoy!

Ignored Italia

By Bruce McCulloch

The F50 never broke Ferrari tradition, it just revolutionized it



Had you read one of my earlier articles about Ferrari’s shady operations (entitled: The Unmasked Criminals), you probably would have gathered the impression I’m far from the world’s biggest Ferrari fan.

However, I mustn’t kid myself; this iconic firm has produced some of the world’s most fabulous vehicles. From the amazing ‘F40’ to the multi-million dollar ‘250 GTO’, they create many vehicles, which quite simply, are things dreams are made of.

While I’ll greatly admire those models, I feel there is one particular vehicle assembled in Modena that is indeed up with there with the best, but happens to be one of the most overlooked vehicles to ever wheel out of the legendary gates in Modena.

That vehicle happens to be their 50th anniversary supercar which they refer to as the ‘F50’.

Ferrari’s last major supercar previously, the ‘F40’ had been a great success for Ferrari. Released in 1988 with an original planned production of just 400 units, Ferrari was able to successfully produce and sell exactly 1,315 units. By the time Ferrari’s 50th birthday arrived, the idea for yet another ground-breaking flagship had arisen. The concept of the vehicle had been not to further improve on the predecessor as the F40 had done with its own predecessor, the 288 GTO, but to assemble something entirely new. Something that would most properly abide to what Ferrari was aiming at creating, ‘a racecar for the road’.

Problem is, while magazine publications constantly brown-nose Ferrari’s recent crop of vehicles, the foundation on which these vehicles were created on is being forgotten. Mind you, it’s not only the media that deserves a slap in the face, its automotive enthusiast’s world wide - if I may be frank. While general interest in Ferrari supercars is focused on that of the ‘Enzo’ and the ‘F40’ (and to a lesser extent the ‘288 GTO’); the F50 is a vehicle which is constantly ignored but most certainly shouldn’t be.

I suppose the important question here is, why?

Well, the fact that the F50 wore a carbon-fibre body shell that was often criticised as being unambiguously ugly certainly didn’t help it garnish a sterling reputation. Unlike previous attempts which had slowly evolved the hard-edged square-ish designs of the 1980’s, the F50 revolutionized Ferrari design. Ultimately, I think that they tried to blend the old familiar traits which fanatics associated the brand with (like the F50’s rear-end resemblance with the F40), but also tried adding a new degree of allure by making something ‘out of box’. As a result, the F50 could be described as anything but a blocky square; the F50 was a body of curves and shapes, and this alone didn’t sit well with hardcore Ferrari fanatics.

So then, how do I personally feel about the F50’s styling? Well, I think it’s absolutely awful; from front to back I think it’s vulgar in every way imaginable. This is an opinion shared by many other automotives enthusiasts and if styling is your major concern (as I imagine it is for most others) then the F50 is not going to fulfill your needs regarding beauty as it has more or less the same attractive qualities ascribed to catching a venereal disease.



One could argue though, that the preceding F40 was far from the prettiest car on the block. I’d certainly agree that it doesn’t have the beauty of something like an Aston Martin, but in some special way, it’s got a handsomeness which is certainly more attractive than the F50. Think of a Teutonic knight if you will; no delicate features, but brutally attractive and most certainly awesome. Whereas the F50 is all tortured lines to me.

Mind you, Ferrari’s goal with the F50 was never to make a beautiful car, but rather to further push the envelope of aerodynamics. Whilst the F50’s body had a higher drag coefficient than that of the F40 (.34 CD versus .36 CD respectively), the undertray had been sculpted in order to more or less make up for the higher CD. Even the god-awful nostrils gracing the front of the car are functional – equipped with a series of fans they help to create downforce through the front of the vehicle thus increasing its cornering abilities and general performance figures.

I don’t doubt that for one second that biggest downfall of the mid 90’s supercar was its exterior metal; something which is very unfortunate considering it cloaked what turned out to be such a brilliant car.

Sadly, the F50 fell to further criticism when it came to its engine and more importantly, it’s straight line performance. Whereas previous Ferrari flagships such as the 288 GTO and the F40 maximized power from 8-cylinder engines with forced induction, Ferrari had an all-new trick up their sleeve for the engine of the F50. That trick was to borrow the basic engine plan from their 1993 333 SP LeMans car. In standard guise this engine had: 5 valves per cylinder; 650bhp; a displacement figure of just 4.0 litres and above all else, a redline near 12,000 rpm. That last part though, was the key; no longer would Ferrari settle for forced induction or truthfully, an engine that didn’t resemble a Formula One vehicle.

Ferrari’s first of many challenges was to make this engine suitable for road use and ultimately, compliant with emissions rules across the world. Word around the street was that Ferrari had to actually dial the redline backwards to make it pass emissions; nevertheless, an 8,500 rpm limit in 1995 was quite unheard of. Even the most powerful and blistering of supercars were not as peaky; the Jaguar XJ220 topped out at 7,200 rpm, the McLaren at 7,500 rpm and the F40 at ‘just’ 8,000 rpm.



In a further nod to this goal of ensuring that the vehicle had road-worthy torque, Ferrari bored the engine 4.7 litres thus increasing the maximum torque to 347 lb-ft (or 470 Newton Metres for our European readers) peaking at an astonishing 6,000 rpm. Furthermore, the engine churned out 513bhp (Or 520PS), at 8,500 rpm. Make no mistake, the F50 was a racing car for the road and while the concept of the high-revving engine wasn’t new by any means; this took it to a new level. While one can constantly compliment Ferrari’s recent efforts for their amazing high-revving engines, it should be mentioned that the F50 paved the way for many of today’s recent and greatest Ferraris.

Unfortunately, many did not see such an engine as a positive, but rather a negative. I suppose they can’t be blamed as a quick comparison between the F50 and its predecessor revealed that despite an extra four cylinders with an extra 1.8 litres of displacement; the F50 did have some 40 more horsepower than the F40, but was in no way exceeding the F40 when it came to outright force as the torque had dropped a whopping 78lb-ft. This is something which drew great controversy and confusion among fans.

Additionally adding to its bad karma was the installation of its 12-cylinder engine coupled with the ever-increasing (and restrictive) safety laws which required the gain of an additional 150 some pounds (120+kg) of unsprung weight over the F40.

As a result its performance figures, at best, were are par with that of the F40; zero-to-sixty under 4.0 seconds and zero-to-one hundred in a flash of 8.0 seconds. Even the top speed of the two vehicles, were amazingly similar – both breaching a tad over 200 mph.

So then, at first glance, the F50 didn’t have a lot to offer. It wasn’t particularly good looking; it was heavier, less powerful (in the grand scheme of things), nor was it any faster than its predecessor. Or at least, that’s what the majority believed.

Truth is, in the real world the F50 was a far faster automobile. Let me tell you this, trying to achieve consistent performance figures out of any 1980’s supercar with a turbocharger was about a successful as skiing uphill. Such a statement is proven out by the zero-to-sixty figures of the F40 from different testers varying from 3.6 seconds up to 4.8 seconds.

This is where the F50 truly shined; whereas the F40 was left spooling its multiple turbochargers, the F50 was off the line without hesitation. Suffice it to say, the adaptation of a naturally aspirated high-revving 12 cylinder had done Ferrari well. Had these two cars lined up in mid-range acceleration race, the F50 would have always had the obvious advantage.

This is where the F50’s adaptation of Formula One technology for the road really started to shine. For instance, the vehicle’s technological trumps continued with its ultra-lightweight carbon fibre chassis which was not only lighter than that of its predecessor, but stronger as well. The adaptation of this with the addition of a suspension inspired by that of a race car equipped with race-proven brakes meant the F50 had no trouble handling and feeling very much like a Formula One vehicle. That ultimately, was the F50’s appeal.

Mind you, the boasting around adapting F1 technology for the road didn’t end there because Ferrari also implemented a close-ratio 6-speed manual gearbox with this vehicle. Such a transmission was an advancement at the time as it allowed the F50’s high revving power to be delivered across a wide variety of ranges; furthermore it should be noted that majority of high-end exotics had been optimizing 5-speed manuals – A 6 speed manual wasn’t a common thing back in the good ol’ days. What’s particularly interesting about this 6-speed is how the entire transmission is bolted to the rear subframe (similar to that of an F1 car); this is a feature which is very rare indeed. It’s special because there are only two other vehicles that I am aware of that have this particular layout, the 1994 McLaren F1 and 2004 Porsche Carrera GT.

The advantages of such are as follows: compact size; lightweight, low polar inertia and balance. On a downside, this particular style of engineering can cause major vibration and shudders through the cockpit if the not properly insulated. You’ll be glad to know though that I can’t ever recall reading about or hearing of a single soul complaining about an issue relevant to the potential vibration issue.

However, F1-inspired or not, Ferrari did have as one of their goals to make their 50th anniversary vehicle somewhat more drivable than the F40, which had gained the reputation of being both insane and scary. The goal with the F50 was to make a vehicle that could generally out-perform the previous model, but in a way which was more accessible to the casual driver. They succeeded too, whereas the F40 felt like a somewhat mad shopping cart, the F50 felt like a padded shopping kart with the complimentary addition of brakes, and sublime handling. With this, Ferrari was able to keep much of the driving thrill the F40 had been lauded for, but in a much more suitable package.

Even the interior, which shared much of the same foolishness of the F40, was nowhere as choppy or poorly built. Make no mistake, there still were still crank-up windows and noticeable welds; overall though; this interior – err, chassis tub – had a far more enjoyable ambience.



Assuming you’ve been paying attention you would have noticed I have benchmarked much of the F50 against the F40 and nothing else. To ask “why?” is a reasonable question and I shall answer that. Let’s face it; when a successor comes out the only real thing that is on the minds of the enthusiasts is whether it’s any better than the predecessor. Indeed – “Is it faster”, “is it better?” are important questions – especially when judging a car whose predecessor quickly gained the reputation of being a future legend.

Having said that, I suppose the ending question is, F40 or F50? I personally would take the F40, but in the opinion of this enthusiast, the F50 is the better vehicle.

And had you been wondering how the F50 fared amongst its other competition; let’s just put it this way, amazingly well. While it is indeed true that the F50 was one of the least powerful and slower (writing that sounds so repulsive) supercars, it never failed to do what a true supercar should.

Sure, it was never the fastest in the pack, nor the prettiest, but it’s technology, driving excitement and all the other important attributes – brakes, handling, engine sound – was always up there with the best of them (in some cases, better). For instance, back when the F50 was first released, British magazine journalist Jeremy Clarkson was quoted as saying: “even at this speed a McLaren F1 would have steamship body roll, but the F50 stays as flat as a mill-pond”. Similar comments ensued when the vehicle was compared to other competition; yet here we are, 12 years after the release of the F50 and it remains to be a classic case of “misunderstood”. Suffice to say, it’s a shame most of these facts are not well known.

To this end, allow me to quote a set of lyrics from a song titled “Witch Hunt” by the Canadian rock trio, ‘Rush’: “quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand”. Seems to fit the F50’s situation, and besides, how many articles about the Ferrari F50 have you read that quote a Canadian rock band? Eh?

Specifications:

Engine:
4.7 litre 12-Cylinder
DOHC, 5 Valves per Cylinder
520PS @ 8,500 rpm
347lb-ft of torque @ 6,000 rpm

Performance:
0-62 mph: in the area of 3.7 seconds
0-100 mph: in the area of 8.0 seconds
Top Speed: 202 mph

Misconception

“A Ferrari F430 you say? Oh, those are cool, but you can’t drive stuff like that on the street”.

I can’t tell you how sick I am of hearing such predictable and overused clichés when it comes to talking about supercars. That being said, I’m not sure if people are just misinformed or stuck in the 80’s, or perhaps both - but the fact remains that such a mindset can no longer be used, as the automobiles in this particular segment have started to naturally evolve into cars that are more casually usable . Quite simply, more than most of today’s supercars have been designed with regular road use in mind

The immediate question following is of course, when, and who, for that matter, decided that supercars should be usable?

The outcome of that story is subject to great debate, but in my honest opinion such a trend began with the Porsche 959 – which happened to be one of, if not the first vehicle of this type to transcend a barrier that had previously been thought unbreakable. Mind you, that’s not to take credit away from some of the other greats which helped refine that image, like the 911 Turbo and the Honda NSX – both of which arguably served their purpose as daily drivers in ways marques like Lamborghini and Ferrari could only dream of at the time.

The evidence to support my theory of supercars no longer being “hardcore weekend cars” is rather evident by the following paragraphs.

For starters, the equipment levels to which these recent supercars are being subjected to is quite unlike anything before. Since when did vehicles like a Porsche Carrera GT offer such as options as an air-conditioning system that actually works, a proper stereo system (with subwoofers!) and even adjustable pedals? Furthermore, these particular items I speak of are no longer just options, but are becoming necessities and expected on vehicles sporting such ridiculously high price tags.

Also worth noting and unlike the supercars of the ‘90’s, is that these features actually perform like they’re supposed to, and even more importantly when we’re discussing supercars, they don’t break down after 5000 miles! The cabin climate systems they are fitting actually produce more heat than a toaster plugged into the wall and moreover, the speaker systems are being built with actual sound quality in mind and not something reminiscent of a 1960’s radio. Want proof? Honestly, why else does Aston Martin offer a 950-watt stereo with Dolby Logic II for their DB9? While I fully realize the DB9 is a ‘GT’ car, the fact remains such is now expected.

Other such features such as power steering, ABS and traction control are now becoming an industry standard and consequently a must- have for all great supercars.

No longer are owners being left in a bare carbon tub with no comfort as the newer generation of supercars are constantly focusing on ergonomically designed interiors. No one can doubt that these vehicles are still somewhat of a tight fit, yet nonetheless, you no longer have to detach your elbows from your body in order to drive one with skill. Meanwhile, the desire for better visibility has become paramount on the majority of these supposedly ‘un-drivable fancy sports cars’. This is a far cry from the past when rearward vision in an exotic car usually meant looking though something that was just about the size of a mail slot.

My point of view is not unique in this regard; ask an owner of one of these miraculous vehicles or any automotive journalist who has much experience driving them.

Further backing up my point is the constant recent talk of these vehicles actually allowing the owners to drive them comfortably at high speeds and actually use them in an urban environment. While high-end vehicles from the mid-sized Ferrari F355 to the whale-sized Jaguar XJ220 were often labelled in the past with such comments as “awful ride quality”, “inconsistent steering input”, “cheesy build quality” and the “lack of driveability on either road or track”, the same cannot be said for the newer generation of supercars.

For instance, the 600bhp Italian exotic by the name of the ‘Pagani Zonda’, is a vehicle that is constantly praised for its user friendliness (both on and off the track). Often complimented is its suspension setup, which allows a ride quality that is not only sports car like, but also ample and smooth. Ample and smooth enough so that one can actually enjoy his or her supercar while burbling along at legal speeds and with the addition of proper shock absorbers, the Pagani Zonda remains a vehicle that can apparently adapt to various road surfaces without any real trouble. With that being said, the Zonda is clearly a supercar that rewards its owner with the typical excitement expected of such a vehicle, but without the bone-crunching and body-smashing ride typical of the past.

And, a long trip or urban crawling is the same in terms of sound ambiance, because being introduced into today’s supercars is excellent sound insulation and efficient yet restrictive exhausts so that these cars can actually be used in a proper capacity.

Now the Pagani Zonda is merely one example, and honestly, such usability is something that doesn’t apply to all of the supercars being produced today, but most definitely to a majority of them.

The old ‘show and display’ insurance plan (which restricts mileage to low numbers), purposely made for vehicles like the Pagani in the past is now often being thrown away as owners want full and unrestricted use of their vehicles. One practical result of the new everyday driveability and the owner’s desire to to exploit it is that these some of these wonder cars are showing up recently on exotic used car lots with upwards of 60,000 miles! Maybe there’s hope for me yet in terms of buying an exotic car someday, even if I’m still making a not-so-exotic income.

What makes this all even more impressive is the fact that despite these vehicles are now able to act like Clark Kent when needed, they have all most certainly simultaneously increased their level of superpowers. Admittedly and perhaps obviously, supercars are still a far cry from being as useable as a Toyota Camry; but the fact is these cars are no longer pieces intended for track days or the show stand.