Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Bread
The motors both sucked and the manual felt pretty bad too. Trust me, I thought an ATS or ATS V might be the answer, but after driving both, I was really disappointed.
Chassis was great, ergonomics were good and size was just about perfect. But the drivetrain, dash and details were all pretty poor.
|
I drove the 2.0T ATS extensively for a week. It was the early years 6sp auto, but I'm not sure why anyone thought the engine sucked. It made class-level power and was very smooth. I also drove a 2.0T manual, and I do agree the clutch and shifter was not perfect, I don't think it detracted from the ability to affectively drive the car and not take advantage of the chassis. I also drove the 3.2L (auto only) and I thought the V6 unbalanced the chassis a bit compared to the 4-cylinder turbo.
But I'm really not sure what you are asking, then in either case of the Miata - Boxter gap, or the MT RWD sport sedan replacement for the 3-Series(?).
I'd say the E89 Z4 is (was) the car between a Miata and a Boxter. With a flat-4 turbo, the Boxter isn't even a Boxter anymore in my mind.
Regarding the ATS, it is the closest to the 3-Series. It wasn't perfect, but neither is the E90 or F30 for that matter.
Not really sure what you are saying...