'You should have bought a better car'

The group that Matt is referring to is something different.

If you're a 30 y.o. with a flat-brim cap and $100k to blow on a car you can mod an M4 and be the king of the forums. You'll be the envy of every HS student with a $700 E30 325e and a dream. You'll have your picture taken at every DQ parking lot meet in San Dimas.

Or, you can buy a stripper 991 Carrera and be the young douche with the base-model car. The 60 year old hedge fund managers will smile politely as you try to explain why your car is just as good as their Turbo S or GT3.

In reply to Lugnut:

I'm not trying to be argumentative here but here's the thing:

People modify cars for all sorts of reasons, not just to be faster. That's the reason the VIP, drift scene, stance scene, and off-road scene exist along side of street and track.

Yea I could buy a 'competent' off road truck tomorrow, but do you remember the results of the Barstow to Vegas Raptor run several years ago? I'll give you a hint 10 of the 14 trucks bent their frames. Yea you could argue negligence there, which I'm sure is warranted, but the way Ford advertised the truck it should not been a problem, at least not without breaking suspension bits first. I, however, could build an F150 which would likely match the performance of the Raptor and not have those issues from currently available aftermarket parts.

I've been in VIP cars which sound like a tomb and ride fantastically. I could see myself buying one wtih air just to hard park and eat up miles. Why? Because it looks good and good lord is it comfortable. Could I buy that in wagon format? Sure if I had 68k for a new E Class wagon. Or I could buy a 40 thousand dollar V70 spend 5k on air and sound deaden the heck out of it and come out 18k ahead.

On the flip side, I've been in cars with horrendous track type suspensions on the street. The owners didn't do their research before purchasing parts and ended up with something they don't want to drive every day, something I see a lot in the MS3 forums. I opted for a softer spring/dampener setup, didn't swap everything to poly, and chose motor mounts which have lower NVH properties. Then I topped it off rest of it with a quiet BPV some sound deadener, and a downpipe which necks into the axle back. As a result the car attracts very little attention due to noise or general garishness and rides exactly the way a hot hatch should in my opinion. Stiff but not uncomfortable. It's also quicker and stops better than the majority of cars I share the road with every day keeping me out of trouble.

Am I going to win solo nationals with it? Nope my driving skills automatically disqualify me.
Am I going to be a front page feature of GRM? Nope the car isn't a barn burner despite turning my own wrenches.
Am I going to have a full feature in Speedhunters and build my own twitter brand? Nope it was built for me and me alone.

I think that's the crux of the "modified car" issue. People start out wanting more and more from their car and without doing their due diligence and planning then it turns out to not be what they want, get frustrated and sell it. Then run to the internet to bitch about how bad modified cars are.

Obviously a better starting point often provides a better result because fewer compromises need to be made in pursuit of your goal, which is a valid point. Compromises are still made from the factory, see my last post the whole masses vs enthusiasts argument. If I need to spend a bit to get what I want, so be it. That doesn't necessarily justify spending the full amount I can afford to get something that still is not necessarily what I actually want.

Now mind you I'm the guy that bought a rotary powered station wagon, on purpose. So I'm basically the definition of a non-sensical enthusiast. I am however spending a lot of time planning this build so I don't end up with something I don't like to drive or spend absurd amounts of money. There is a very definitive goal in mind and conditions beyond "fast." Maybe that's the project manager part of me or maybe I'm mellowing out.

I am a Best Motoring nerd, and this very subject came up when Keiichi Tsuchiya brought back his highly modified AE86. The car had been freshly redone with a 7A bottom end (mighty 7AGE "stroker" config with 1800 cc of fury), cage, fuel cell, suspension tuning, etc. And then it got spanked by the new FR-S/BRZ. He is then derided for obstinate love for an outdated design. He reveals that to date he had spent the equivalent of $58k USD developing the car.

Was that a waste of money? I think not...the new car is better in every objective way but feel and personality. Where the $$$ amount that correlates to falls is individual.

The0retical wrote: In reply to Lugnut: I'm not trying to be argumentative here but here's the thing:

Nah, not argumentative. This is a good discussion. I know I'm an anti-mod, use-what-you-got evangelist.

The0retical wrote: Yea I could buy a 'competent' off road truck tomorrow, but do you remember the results of the Barstow to Vegas Raptor run several years ago? I'll give you a hint 10 of the 14 trucks bent their frames. Yea you could argue negligence there, which I'm sure is warranted, but the way Ford advertised the truck it should not been a problem, at least not without breaking suspension bits first. I, however, could build an F150 which would likely match the performance of the Raptor and not have those issues from currently available aftermarket parts.

Okay, this meets my criteria for modification. Durability, letting you do more with it than you can do stock, if you actually use it for off-roading. If you only use your Raptor to go to the mall and commute but you have twin shocks and frame gussets... I mean, come on...

The0retical wrote: On the flip side, I've been in cars with horrendous track type suspensions on the street. The owners didn't do their research before purchasing parts and ended up with something they don't want to drive every day, something I see a lot in the MS3 forums. I opted for a softer spring/dampener setup, didn't swap everything to poly, and chose motor mounts which have lower NVH properties. Then I topped it off rest of it with a quiet BPV some sound deadener, and a downpipe which necks into the axle back. As a result the car attracts very little attention due to noise or general garishness and rides exactly the way a hot hatch should in my opinion. Stiff but not uncomfortable. It's also quicker and stops better than the majority of cars I share the road with every day keeping me out of trouble.

And were all of these people with these terrible suspensions completely outdriving their stock suspensions? If they're only doing suspension on street cars, then they're dropping it like it's hot, yo, and is there any purpose to that other than cosmetics? You can't use 100% of what a Mazdaspeed3 gives you on the street, so it couldn't possibly be to go faster around exit ramps...

Lugnut wrote: And were all of these people with these terrible suspensions completely outdriving their stock suspensions? If they're only doing suspension on street cars, then they're dropping it like it's hot, yo, and is there any purpose to that other than cosmetics? You can't use 100% of what a Mazdaspeed3 gives you on the street, so it couldn't possibly be to go faster around exit ramps...

Sometimes an aftermarket suspension is just more fun.

Lugnut wrote:

The0retical wrote: On the flip side, I've been in cars with horrendous track type suspensions on the street. The owners didn't do their research before purchasing parts and ended up with something they don't want to drive every day, something I see a lot in the MS3 forums. I opted for a softer spring/dampener setup, didn't swap everything to poly, and chose motor mounts which have lower NVH properties. Then I topped it off rest of it with a quiet BPV some sound deadener, and a downpipe which necks into the axle back. As a result the car attracts very little attention due to noise or general garishness and rides exactly the way a hot hatch should in my opinion. Stiff but not uncomfortable. It's also quicker and stops better than the majority of cars I share the road with every day keeping me out of trouble.

And were all of these people with these terrible suspensions completely outdriving their stock suspensions? If they're only doing suspension on street cars, then they're dropping it like it's hot, yo, and is there any purpose to that other than cosmetics? You can't use 100% of what a Mazdaspeed3 gives you on the street, so it couldn't possibly be to go faster around exit ramps...

I think it's more a situation where people are trying to multirole a car to be competitive but end up going too far into the actually competitive track spectrum. There's something to be said for not having multiple cars but I sure as hell wouldn't want to be driving a highly competitive spec racecar every day unless we're talking showroom stock.

That said I like the way the car feels with the setup I chose. Stock was fine, and probably well beyond my abilities to find the limits of on the track (full disclosure I never really tried), but day to day it would wallow a little bit here and there on the backroads as it aged. The new setup was driven by the desire for it to be just a hair more responsive, not something I'd trade a car in for. The camber plates are only there because I got a screaming deal on them and the car sees a Track Night in America from time to time. Most of the other stuff was getting bit by the power bug before I reeled it in.

I was actually going to do an AirRide setup on it initially, but since there isn't an off the shelf kit for the car the quotes ended up being close to five grand for parts.

I believe the point he was making is that in that dollar category, which if far different than most of us modifying a Miata, is that it makes far more sense just to start by buying something equally as capable than modifying a car for the same money and maybe making it almost as good.

Of course there are arguments the other way, and I think most of us on this forum fall into that category, but for a good number of people, the option above would work out far better in the long run. Keep in mind that highly modified cars are usually worth less to most people so in the end you are flushing that money away. I know from experience on this one.

As I stated earlier, I don't think the dollar category matters. The question is just as relevant at the $10k level as it is at the $150k level - although it's more obvious when you're looking at new cars vs modified old ones. The thing is, it's actually really hard to beat the OEs at their own game when they unshackle their engineers. It can be done, but you can't do it by picking parts at random out of a catalog.

The usual reaction to our "Habu" ND V8 is that "you could totally buy a new X for that". And I relish that conversation, because it becomes about what the car is and what it does. Sure, a lot of people will chose the (slower, heavier, harder to maintain, fixed roof) Cayman GT4 over one of our cars. But those that choose the Habu won't have to compromise and deal with all the crap that a "tuner car" entails. Unfortunately this is the exception rather than the rule.

I was kind of in this situation. My turbo Sentra was a cool, fast car, but it did have limitations, most obviously the drive wheels. I found my performance limited by FWD, between at-the-limit understeer and an inability to apply power soon enough on corner exit. Ford solved my problems for me, and now I have a much faster car without turning a wrench.

I agree with Matt. I've dumped metric tons of money into some of my previous cars, motor swaps, BBK's, adding forced induction etc. (I just got out of an LS swapped 951 that I had a ton of time, effort and money into) They weren't as reliable as stock, didn't ride as well as stock, some were deafeningly loud and all of them were sold for pennies on the dollar compared to what I had in them.

I had fun with the cars but knowing what I know now, I would've gone back and just bought the higher line, better/more sporty/ whatever model instead.

I'd much rather have a GT4 or a 911 instead of a modified M4. While I certainly understand the fun of modding and I'm still doing it on a much more limited scale on my E36 M3, I have no desire to go ape again.

I think most people don't really have a clear vision for their cars, or really have any idea of how much they're going to end up putting into the car for the build. If they did, they'd sit there and go "Hmm, WOW, I can afford a 911 afterall!" Then they'd go buy one...

That tidbit about the stock Z06 stomping every Super Four car in 2003 still blows my mind. I kind of take corvettes for granted, seeing as how they're so popular, but they're legitimately fast.

Keith Tanner wrote: As I stated earlier, I don't think the dollar category matters. The question is just as relevant at the $10k level as it is at the $150k level - although it's more obvious when you're looking at new cars vs modified old ones. The thing is, it's actually really hard to beat the OEs at their own game when they unshackle their engineers. It can be done, but you can't do it by picking parts at random out of a catalog. The usual reaction to our "Habu" ND V8 is that "you could totally buy a new X for that". And I relish that conversation, because it becomes about what the car is and what it does. Sure, a lot of people will chose the (slower, heavier, harder to maintain, fixed roof) Cayman GT4 over one of our cars. But those that choose the Habu won't have to compromise and deal with all the crap that a "tuner car" entails. Unfortunately this is the exception rather than the rule.

I would put the "Habu" under the "better" category though, much as you would a Lingenfelter, RUF, etc. Those are different in my mind as you can purchase turn key, and I would think have a higher resell value when you plan to move on. To Miata guys and girls, Flyin Miata is just as prestigious as RUF is to Porsche fans.

I like old vehicles with a story. 2/3rds of the fun of cars is the build for me. Id rather have the money to build what i want then just buy something done. Then again i find budget builds more interesting then anything else.

DRTL

Build your own from the cheap, ground up and you're more or less on your own regarding resale. Always been hesitant about searching modded cars not knowing the skills of the builder or history of the vehicle. Value drops considerably. Try taking that modded car to a dealer for trade-in and expect a lot less.

A factory built and/ or dealer modified performance car will retain more value fwiw.

Take your chances either way.

I think at the point where you mod to the point that you seriously limit the comfort and driveability of the car, it becomes somehow less than the sum of its parts. say you take a $2000 miata, and decide you're going to build a 10k rpm screamer for it. say it makes a whole bunch of power and along the way the suspension and tires get upgraded to go along with the speed, so it could realistically keep up with anything for sale in a new car dealer with a 5 figure price tag. BUT, if you go buy that z06 or 911 carrera or whatever, you can drive it every day and not think twice about if "all this is really worth it" because your miata rides like a lumber truck, idles roughly at 1500 rpm and doesn't have A/C because you ditched it to save weight and make room for that sweet hand-made stainless long tube header.

to me, taking a junk car and throwing a pile of money and parts at it to the point where it is nearly unbearable for anything other than dedicated track car is not necessarily GRM. to me, the GRM spirit is the kind of "why the hell not?" attitude that is so embodied in the 20xx challenge, and the crapcan racing series like LeMons, and guys like Mazdeuce, where people just say, "i can make this better" or "I don't need someone to fix this for me, to hell with the dealer!"

The0retical wrote:

Lugnut wrote:

The0retical wrote: On the flip side, I've been in cars with horrendous track type suspensions on the street. The owners didn't do their research before purchasing parts and ended up with something they don't want to drive every day, something I see a lot in the MS3 forums. I opted for a softer spring/dampener setup, didn't swap everything to poly, and chose motor mounts which have lower NVH properties. Then I topped it off rest of it with a quiet BPV some sound deadener, and a downpipe which necks into the axle back. As a result the car attracts very little attention due to noise or general garishness and rides exactly the way a hot hatch should in my opinion. Stiff but not uncomfortable. It's also quicker and stops better than the majority of cars I share the road with every day keeping me out of trouble.

And were all of these people with these terrible suspensions completely outdriving their stock suspensions? If they're only doing suspension on street cars, then they're dropping it like it's hot, yo, and is there any purpose to that other than cosmetics? You can't use 100% of what a Mazdaspeed3 gives you on the street, so it couldn't possibly be to go faster around exit ramps...

I think it's more a situation where people are trying to multirole a car to be competitive but end up going too far into the actually competitive track spectrum. There's something to be said for not having multiple cars but I sure as hell wouldn't want to be driving a highly competitive spec racecar every day unless we're talking showroom stock. That said I like the way the car feels with the setup I chose. Stock was fine, and probably well beyond my abilities to find the limits of on the track (full disclosure I never really tried), but day to day it would wallow a little bit here and there on the backroads as it aged. The new setup was driven by the desire for it to be just a hair more responsive, not something I'd trade a car in for. The camber plates are only there because I got a screaming deal on them and the car sees a Track Night in America from time to time. Most of the other stuff was getting bit by the power bug before I reeled it in. I was actually going to do an AirRide setup on it initially, but since there isn't an off the shelf kit for the car the quotes ended up being close to five grand for parts.

I remember when i had my 07 MS3 all these people were going to coilovers with solid strut mounts. luckily i had remembered that one time i was working under the hood and cycled the suspension, noticing that there was quite a bit of give in the strut mounts where the shock shafts bolt to the mount. sure enough, when people swapped to coilovers, they complained the ride was too harsh..

I was running stage 2+ on mine, around 320-330 crank hp, which was great fun when you want to haul ass. the problem was that the super aggressive boost and throttle curves to get that power made part throttle delivery just.... wierd. at certain pedal positions, the throttle curve was setup so that it would add throttle without changing pedal position. i spent a bit of time in the accesstuner program trying to smooth that out but got tired of it and sold the car before i ever managed to get it worked out. after i swapped everything back to stock, i remembered how much fun the car was to daily drive in stock form, probably more enjoyable to daily than when it was modded.

One quote taken out of context is no reason to disparage Matt.

His One Take series is one of the coolest things for our community ever. Everything from brand new OEM stuff to unfinished garage builds tested by the same guy with honest feedback. His Mustang and old Corvette are built in much the way that "one of us" might build them because HE IS ONE OF US!

Sure, he may not like turning wrenches and that definitely does change some things. However, if you take what he says in context, there is a great deal of wisdom to be gotten. Matt sums it up best himself:

Matt Farah said: Is there a point to all this? Yes, actually: Manage your expectations. If you want to drive the car, buy it, don’t build it. Also: shop objectively, not emotionally. Manufacturers spend lots of time and development dollars making wonderful sports cars you can enjoy right out of the box, for years and years, without any extra work required. And if you must do a build, the rule is double/triple: Double the amount of money you think you’ll spend, and triple the amount of time you think it will take.

In life as in building cars, managing expectations is the difference between a dream and a dream turning into a nightmare (worse than a straight up nightmare, I think).

Many of us WANT projects. If that is part of your expectations, then anything less than a project won't do. That said, for those of us that aren't R&D engineers, we know there are tradeoffs. We know this and Matt knows this.

The thing that Matt likely knows better than any of us is the point at which tradeoffs are made at the expense of the whole package. He likes big power and stiff suspension, but in the context of street cars it's very possible to ruin an experience getting a number you want.

The BMW example is an especially poignant one. There have been lots of examples over the years, but one easy example is MotoIQ's "poor man's M3." The project has progressed to the point that they're no longer even calling it that and they're swapping in an S52 and at the end of the day they have a "really expensive 323i."

The trouble with their 323i project is not anything about the car, but the aspirations for the car. Not only did they not "exceed the performance of the coveted M3," they now have a car that isn't really suited for driving on the street or legal for class competition.

If you are content to say "I like this car, but I want to improve a certain part of it" you are much more likely to end up happy and spend a reasonable amount of money. Another option is to say, "I know I have these goals, is there a way to meet them within my budget (whether time, money, skills or patience)?" It might be that the answer is "no." Adjusting your expectations to that reality is the difference between happiness and disappointment.

Moving beyond Matt Farah fanboyism and into personal experience...

My first car was an old Florida Highway Patrol P71. I knew the car needed a paint job. Rather than put a good enough paint job on a good enough car, I decided to do a show quality job. I mostly succeeded. And then I put two big dents in it with my tow dolly on the way home. Once I realized I was never going to keep a black street car looking perfect I was much happier.

I'm sure we've all spent too much time on particular areas of one car or another over the years. That said, by doing the work myself when I had the time available I didn't really lose anything and I learned some valuable skills and lessons.

I think some of this is a product of different eras as well. Superspeeders Rob recently had a great video about why project cars suck.

He outlines his vette that he has 100k into and it is not worth anything close to it, but at the time, it was the only way to have such a car. New cars are now so much better.

He is also set up a project car show down with Matt Ferra and has opened it to any other youtube car guys.

I remember a few years ago when the new 5.0 stang came out turning to a co-worker who had a built 5.0 foxbody what he thought about the new car coming so much better without the work. We laughed and agreed. He had as much money in late 90's early 2000's dollars in his ride as a new 5.0 GT would cost and it was better in all measurable ways other than objective style.

What the new car was missing was the hours spend with friends bench racing, chasing parts, wrenching and figuring it out out to achieve a goal. I find the best builds are about the buddies and/or family and the time spent with them creating the beast over what it is worth.

I don't understand why people obsess about resale value on modified cars. It's a hobby. How many hobbies are there where you get your money back after you're done with it? You do it to have fun, not to make a profit or even to break even. If a personal business shows a loss for three years in a row, the IRS reclassifies it -- as a hobby. :)

I'm on the fence with this one. My 5.0 V8 RX7 was better than the stocker, docile as a stock Mustang, comfortable enough to use every day ( I had it for 5 years) more reliable than the stock RX7, and cheaper than anything that was comparable in performance. AND I sold it at a profit when I finally did sell. I got asked all the time why I didn't just buy a mustang or Camaro (usually by Rotary fans) and I'd always say if I wanted another Mustang I WOULD have bought one. I wanted something that looked better, was faster, looked better, had better ergonomics, looked better, had better suspension and brakes and oh, did I mention looked better? Id' have another one now with no issues even though modern cars can outperform it.

OTOH, I was constantly thinking up ways of taking cheap domestic or Japanese sedans and making them the equal of the BMW M and M-sport cars. But the fact is, I could mod them all I wanted and they'd only be the equivalents. So instead I went out and just bought a BMW M-sport sedan that already has the style, suspension and brakes, comfort, speed and agility I wanted.

As for modded cars not bringing any money, hot rods still often financially outperform restored stock examples, especially when talking '20s and '30s Fords and Chevys.

The0retical wrote: This is something, with few exceptions, that happens to automotive journalists over time and causes them to lose touch with their audience.

QFT

As far as Matt personally, he loves all cars, he makes arguments about whether or not good decisions were made in the modification process in value wise.

Although I agree with The0retical he has lost some of his perspective. When he started adamantly claiming how a Lamborghini was a bargain hot rod in line with the Supra of 20 years ago, he demonstrated how his success has completely warped his frame of reference. Other than just coming off as a being a pretentious dick, (and no he wasn't just talking about performance increase, tired of that out of context argument) he showed a lack of reference to true hot rodding which is enjoying the car.

A 5-year-old Lambo isn't the same as a then 5-year-old Supra in any way. Limited and expensive parts supply for modifications and wear items alone make his statement less hot rod and more trust fund.

In general, I like Matt. He has busted knuckles before and grew up doing the things we do. But he has lost his frame of reference, even if it's from his success.

Keith Tanner wrote: The thing is, it's actually really hard to beat the OEs at their own game when they unshackle their engineers.

What cars in the last 10 years from a manufacturer that build more than 20k total units a year (not models but brands) has that happened to?

I can think of a few but they are all "factory" (sometimes in-house, most times out) race cars.

GT4 Cayman (power neutered), New Z28 (this might be a real case).

I think that is what I like about McLaren so much. The engineers are pretty much cut loose. If they can figure out a way to get a car with that spirit into the new Cayman price category. Hold on to your butts.

Flight Service wrote: A 5-year-old Lambo isn't the same as a then 5-year-old Supra in any way. Limited and expensive parts supply for modifications and wear items alone make his statement less hot rod and more trust fund.

Meanwhile, we have someone rebuilding and megasquirting a Jalpa on this very forum GRM hero Andy Hollis is racing a McLaren. And of course, Mazdeuce.

Flight Service wrote:

Keith Tanner wrote: The thing is, it's actually really hard to beat the OEs at their own game when they unshackle their engineers.

What cars in the last 10 years from a manufacturer that build more than 20k total units a year (not models but brands) has that happened to? I can think of a few but they are all "factory" (sometimes in-house, most times out) race cars. GT4 Cayman (power neutered), New Z28 (this might be a real case).

Z06, Z28, ZL1, Corvette Grand Sport, Focus RS, Fiesta ST, any Porsche that starts with GT...I'd even put the new Miata in this category, as it's a dedicated platform for a low volume sports car from a relatively small manufacturer. That's just what's available today and the first ones that come to mind. It's not carte blanche for the engineers, but they are definitely freed from typical mass production constraints and have a greater say in the end result. The lower priced cars are easier to improve upon, but you still have to spend a non-trivial percentage of the original purchase price to make it happen.

This could easy devolve into arguing individual models, but my basic point stands - it's very difficult to match what's coming out of the OEs when they make performance a priority. The aftermarket is so far behind on engine management it's not funny.

racerdave600 wrote:

Keith Tanner wrote: As I stated earlier, I don't think the dollar category matters. The question is just as relevant at the $10k level as it is at the $150k level - although it's more obvious when you're looking at new cars vs modified old ones. The thing is, it's actually really hard to beat the OEs at their own game when they unshackle their engineers. It can be done, but you can't do it by picking parts at random out of a catalog. The usual reaction to our "Habu" ND V8 is that "you could totally buy a new X for that". And I relish that conversation, because it becomes about what the car is and what it does. Sure, a lot of people will chose the (slower, heavier, harder to maintain, fixed roof) Cayman GT4 over one of our cars. But those that choose the Habu won't have to compromise and deal with all the crap that a "tuner car" entails. Unfortunately this is the exception rather than the rule.

I would put the "Habu" under the "better" category though, much as you would a Lingenfelter, RUF, etc. Those are different in my mind as you can purchase turn key, and I would think have a higher resell value when you plan to move on. To Miata guys and girls, Flyin Miata is just as prestigious as RUF is to Porsche fans.

Thanks. My poorly-made point wasn't supposed to be how awesome the Habu is, but how hard it is to make something that's not worse than the good OEs given a set budget. It's easy to be better than the crap cars, but very hard to be better than the good ones.

And yes, they have been proven to have much better resale than other V8 Miatas.

Keith Tanner wrote:

Flight Service wrote: A 5-year-old Lambo isn't the same as a then 5-year-old Supra in any way. Limited and expensive parts supply for modifications and wear items alone make his statement less hot rod and more trust fund.

Meanwhile, we have someone rebuilding and megasquirting a Jalpa on this very forum GRM hero Andy Hollis is racing a McLaren. And of course, Mazdeuce.

I'm sorry, which one of those is 5 years old and you can buy parts for at Napa/Autozone/Advanced? My math is failing me...

Keith Tanner wrote:

Flight Service wrote:

Keith Tanner wrote: The thing is, it's actually really hard to beat the OEs at their own game when they unshackle their engineers.

What cars in the last 10 years from a manufacturer that build more than 20k total units a year (not models but brands) has that happened to? I can think of a few but they are all "factory" (sometimes in-house, most times out) race cars. GT4 Cayman (power neutered), New Z28 (this might be a real case).

Z06, Z28, ZL1, Corvette Grand Sport, Focus RS, Fiesta ST, any Porsche that starts with GT...I'd even put the new Miata in this category, as it's a dedicated platform for a low volume sports car from a relatively small manufacturer. That's just what's available today and the first ones that come to mind. It's not carte blanche for the engineers, but they are definitely freed from typical mass production constraints and have a greater say in the end result. The lower priced cars are easier to improve upon, but you still have to spend a non-trivial percentage of the original purchase price to make it happen. This could easy devolve into arguing individual models, but my basic point stands - it's very difficult to match what's coming out of the OEs when they make performance a priority. The aftermarket is so far behind on engine management it's not funny.

I will give you engine management, and I agreed with you on engineer's doing amazing thing when cut loose. But they are so rarely cut loose.

Of all the models you listed the Z28 and only one of the GT Porsches hit the description. I would also argue the Miata wasn't unshackled at all. If anything they are proud of how far they pushed it withing the limited confines of what was the directive. Make an updated version of the NA. They did that. They were far from making the best Miata they could, and they readily admit that. Again, I am not saying that is bad, because they made something special, I am just saying it wasn't a Z28 level of freedom.

"We need a naturally aspirated road race track day Camaro using what we have available. Go" The Z28 stands out in that crowd. GM made something special there. Like the C5 Z06. The new Z06 has so much left on the table it is scary, the ZL1 is in the same boat for the same reason (The ZL1 GT4 I am sure is the exception, but again, factory racer, which is good, but out of the scope of what is street probable), Grand Sport is a great parts bin grab, Focus RS is a half step pudgy bastard, and the Fiesta ST...Really?

What GT Porsche are you thinking of? The GT3 911 might be the most advanced 911, but everyone knows you stuff that engine in a GT4 Cayman and the 911 would be lucky to stay within a second a lap on most tracks. They neutered their best chassis and under chassis-ed their best motor. I know why. It just isn't cut loose like GM did on the Z28. I am sure, somewhere in Germany, there is a Cayman that is spoken of in hushed tones. That would be the car they should have sold. So the GT3 falls into that category.

All my GM bashing aside, the Z28 is something special, and is the only recent memory of a major manufacturer telling engineers to have fun.