Nice MB, Godfrey!
Kinda like the 'x100 isn't a real rangefinder' discussions, there are the purists who consider only mid- or rear engine, rear drive to be real sports cars.
...
I've had all of them.
- Never liked the Porsches as much as I was expecting to, the dynamics of the mid-1970s 911 just didn't appeal to me.
- The MG-B, Triumph TR3 (a little crude), Jaguar XK-E were all lovely, nicely balanced designs that handled very well (until ruined by old age and emissions crap); the TVR Vixen and Lotus Elan were a cut above if a hair to tight for a 6 footer to be comfortable driving for long. The Alfa Romeo Spider Veloce and Guilietta Spider were truly delightful. I had my last Spider Veloce until 2008. The Lamborghini 350GT was amazing if way more than I ever needed (or could justify on costs of operation). The FIAT 124 Spider was great fun but too cheaply built.
- The FIAT X 1/9 and Porsche 914 were disappointing. The Toyota MR2 was superb. A Maserati Bora I was loaned for half a year was stunning.
- The SAAB Sonnett was basically a pretty body on the 96V4 chassis. Fun but crude. The only other FWD sports car I drove for a little bit was the abortive Lotus which handled well if oddly.
But overall, the sports cars I find I like the most are the traditional, front engine-rear drive layouts with modest displacement, good power, and good responsiveness. I like their nimbleness, relative simplicity, and easy balance.
However, what I really meant was that the last nine years, aside from a few miles with the Spider before I sold it in 2008, what I've been driving most are Land Rovers and the Toyota Prius. Both excellent cars for their intended purpose. But not sporty, not "fun", and rather more complex than I really like. The SLK does have some sophisticated bits in it, like the traction control and the supercharged, EFI engine, but its overall design and feel is not that far removed from the simple, elegant basics presented by the Guilietta or MG B.
And, darn it, it's very Yellow. ;-)