Those two don't matter much, the one that does in an older carb and points car is the ignition coil which generates the high voltage burst needed for the spark plug. Somebody better at electronics could tell us if you can disrupt an ignition coil before doing bad things to the driver... I'm guessing "yes." I'm also guessing that whatever device they've built is not powerful enough to do either.

OK, not sure what the mouse is... But for real, what is that AC's problem with 70s Datsuns? They had some great cars!

That's why I said "today" :)

Also, that's what's fun about "underpowered" cars. You can drive them close to their limits without getting too fast. 90% of the adrenaline rush with 10% of the danger of a supercar!

While the 944 is a fine car, there is a significant difference between it an a Carrera GT. You can't compare a fairly mass market daily driver and a street-legal race car. Even though there have been great gains in the last decade, traction control systems are inherently speed robbers. It wouldn't have made a damn lick of difference in this situation because the professional driver at the wheel would have turned it off as soon as he turned on the car.

Stop being rude about it.

Or more likely, C: You mis-timed the maneuver and careen into another car, lightpost, pedestrians at the crosswalk, etc because the only reason to lose traction from a stop like that is to show off. This is not a practical example. Save it for a closed course.

It doesn't make his point invalid. Traction control for a mass market car has very different requirements than those for a high performance car designed for track days. It takes a much more sophisticated system to be acceptable for a supercar like the Carrera GT, and I'd certainly argue that the systems simply weren't there yet in '04.

While generally true, they'll also keep the tires from skidding in a panic stop, and will give you a shorter stopping distance. How many people do you suppose actually practice threshold braking enough to be able to count on it when they really need it? I'd say for the average driver, they get control and shorter stopping distances.

You're not supposed to tune your carbs while riding your bike...

Hmm, I hadn't realized the car was an '04. Here I was thinking it was one of Porche's latest and greatest. Now this whole discussion feels stupid...

Beat me to it... Drive your car at 10/10ths of its capability in an uncontrolled environment and you have no margin for error and nobody to blame but yourself. There are no cars built today that approach anywhere near their full capabilities when driven in normal traffic and as such require 100% flawless driving.

God I'd love to have a 240z...

That's the thing though - how many kids kill themselves *every day* racing or otherwise driving like idiots in their Civics and Corollas? We don't need high performance cars to put ourselves in very dangerous situations.

This is a case of armchair accident analysts demanding something be done before knowing what the problem is.

Be fair - most of them only kill themselves.

But why? This isn't some mass market car, it is is an exotic meant for sitting outside of Starbucks and admiring (and also track days...). Stability control systems aren't simply a computer you plug into the car's CAN bus which magically glue the tires to the ground. There are design considerations for the entire vehicle suspension that are impacted by stability control. Heaps of sensors and other devices to control the motor, brakes, and more.

On top of this, we're talking about a car that costs what... 250k? More? (I didn't look up the price...). There will be a handful of these on the streets, typically owned by rich people who don't drive them anyway. You're trying to force nannies into a rich man's toy in an attempt to save one, maybe two people - people who by nature would have disabled the nannies anyway.

There are plenty of cars sold through normal retail channels without stability control. Plenty more where it's defeatable with the push of a button.