Very few topics stir the souls of car enthusiasts like questioning what objectively makes a car great. We asked our readers earlier this week for their ultimate automotive benchmarks. The response varied between sensible measures of how cars are used on a daily basis and more outlandish ideas of gauging a car’s appeal. Also, a fair few stepped up to defend the Nürburgring’s vaunted position in the automotive world after I criticized the iconic German track’s usefulness in benchmarking production cars.
While I thought my wholesale disregard of the Nürburgring was a little hasty in retrospect, commenters were quick to mention that countless aspects that can’t be quantified, especially in a lap time. I was surprised that cargo space and cabin noise got earnest mentions alongside towing capacity and curb crossing capabilities. Most people intuitively know that what makes a coupe great isn’t the same for an excellent pickup truck. Without further ado, here are your ultimate automotive benchmarks:
Different courses for different horses
Sports cars: VIR. Enough turns to filter out the vehicles that can’t dance. But a long enough straight to filter out the poor accelerating.
SUVs: Curb crossing. What’s the highest curb it can drive over in a parking lot without flipping over?
Minivans: Hidden cubbyholes. How many places can a child hide uneaten food to make it reek like a cheese factory on a hot day?
Pickups: Tape measure. I guess you could measure bed size and all that, but I’m thinking something different.
Normal cars, like sedans: Crash test ratings when being run into a 10,000 lb SUV that can go over a parking lot boulder.
Submitted by: hoser68
Driving in color
Benchmark: Is the vehicle offered in actual colors?
Submitted by: KCyclone
Colors? Do we have colors!? You can get it in silver, grey, graphite, quartz, charcoal, platinum, pewter….
Submitted by: 1down4up
A defense of the Nürburgring
The ‘Ring is as good as any. It may be a “race track” (technically, it’s a public toll road), but it’s a rather bumpy one. James May famously claimed that tuning a car for the ‘Ring “ruined it”, but a too-harsh suspension is actually going to slow you down on a track like that. The length and accessibility of the track (anybody can show up and have a go without a meeting or tech inspection) means it’s a better benchmark than other famous tracks like Silverstone or anything in the U.S.
When we aren’t talking about a 15-year-old Renault hatchback, there are actually great examples of tuning for the ‘Ring improving handling. Hyundai famously started camping out in the late 2010s with their “N” division, and the result has been cars like the Elantra N and Ioniq 5 N that have been pretty widely praised for fun and handling.
Submitted by: Neal Richards
Forget the Nürburgring, how about gridlock traffic
This may sound silly, but how about how easy a car is to drive in stop-and-go traffic? I’ll probably never drive on the ‘Ring, but I drive in stop-and-go traffic a few times every week.
It’s not the metric you deserve, but the one you need!
Submitted by: LawnMowerDriver
A purpose-built track mimicking the real world
There needs to be one track designed and built specifically for road-going vehicles that all makers should agree upon and use.
Something that is a few miles long and has a bit of everything the average commuter would deal with. So not just long fast straights and corners, but a section that’s forever “Under Construction” where the road is mostly gravel, dirt, and chunks of old asphalt. Then, a section where it’s a sea of those “Slow Bump” style speed bumps used in residential zones. Another section that has artificial rain and is just dumping so hard, there’s standing water on the track. Another section where fake pedestrian obstacles pop out in front of you on the track, and you have to brake or dodge around them. Then, just before the final straight, there’s a section where there is a way to long red light, you have to sit and idle in after pushing the car, before it finally turns green, and you can get your 0-60 drag run at the flag.
Submitted by: Dr.Xyster
Reliability over a decade
The ULTIMATE automotive benchmark?
How about this? After the car is 10 years old and reasonably maintained, I should still be able to get in it, drive 8 hours, and arrive at my destination without any major mechanical issues and with me not feeling like I want to die. And all snack stains should clean up well.
Submitted by: Stillnotatony
The car’s everyday excitement level
The benchmark for me has always been this: If I have to make a tedious drive to the grocery store or the post office or whatever, do I look forward to doing so as a reason to drive my car.
Submitted by: dug deep
After you get out and start walking to your destination, do you turn around for another quick peek?
When you’re driving, do you want to put two hands on the wheel?
Submitted by: Sean Roche
The car’s comfort and convenience
I think things like cabin noise when traveling at 70 MPH – Run a test for 10 minutes, and then you take the average decibel level.
Perhaps a way to measure the impact of a driver when hitting a pothole.
How many packs of Costco toilet paper can fit in the cargo area?
Submitted by: FlashpointZero
Top Gear test track, need we say more?
Forget the Nurburgring, the Top Gear Test Track should be the benchmark test track. Not like we don’t already have a huge list of times to compare to.
Submitted by:Â HemiWagon
Introducing dollar-per-utility ratio
A universal benchmark is totally arbitrary, so just for fun I’m focusing on trucks. Let’s institute a dollar-per-utility ratio.
How much utility does a truck have versus the dollar amount you’re paying for it? This can measure things like bed space, off-road capability, towing capacity, durability, reliability, etc., maybe even a score based on being too big to park (because all things need to park somewhere) or too small for heavier-duty tasks. Look at all the things trucks can and should do, measure those things, and apply a value-per-dollar amount to it so a person actually using that truck for work can measure it against their 30-40 year old Tacoma/Ranger which they’ve been meaning to replace for a while but couldn’t find a good reason to because “trucks are too expensive” and “you can’t use a truck these days for just truck things anymore”. Naturally, those older trucks would score high, but someone who is looking for a work replacement will only be looking at that utilization metric and buying based on what scores highest (beyond things like price bracket, brand affinity, etc.).
Would it stop people from going for the King Ranch or High Country in metropolitan Los Angeles? Probably not. But it would help the people actually using their trucks know what to get and what to avoid.
Submitted by: Xanos
