Used car heaven: S2000, 350Z, G35, 330i/Ci ZHP

[SVT666]

reported

I hope you're joking.

[Secret Chimp]

asks the person with a Miata?

I don't live in New Yawk.

[sportyaccordy]

Getting in and out of cars every few months has got to be killing you financially - it seems with each you do some basic mods or at least buy some parts, and then you're off to the next.

The cars are pretty cheap, and when I'm done with them I sell off what I can. And I keep them for at least a year. Plus I'm still able to save a lot of my take home, even at an avg pay rate in my field in one of the most expensive cities in the country. What does it matter to you anyways, Dwight?

I already know what car I'm getting next, and I am gonna get something decent enough to not need significant mods that I can keep for at least 2-3 years. This thread was just to talk about what choices people would make given the opportunity.

[FlatBlackCaddy]

I hope you're joking.

[Raza]

The Mustang gets my heart pumping and the adrenaline flowing.  The BMW and Infinity don't.  I can also get a loaded 1 year old Mustang GT (maybe even a brand new one depending on how bad Ford wants to sell their current stock), whereas I would have to go with a 4 year old BMW or Infinity.

I'm actually probably with you here, but make mine a convertible and a 2005.

[BimmerM3]

Who are all of the weirdos voting for the S2000?

That's what I wanna know...

It's the slowest & least practical. I liked it initially cause people took a lot of pretty pictures of well done ones. But then I remembered my old H22 Accord packing more punch, passenger capacity and practicality. The only place where it fell short was on a long sweeping left hander at about 80 MPH...

First of all, the S2000 is at least as fast as the BMW, and won't be more than a few tenths slower than either of the Nissans to 60.

The original question was if I were living in a metropolitan area. Well, I live in Atlanta currently, and I would totally rock an S2000. NYC, I might reconsider, but then again, I don't think I'd ever live in NYC.

Finally, I S2000s. I've had plenty of seat time in one (AP1), and no offense Sporty, but I seriously doubt that "The only place where [the S2000] fell short was on a long sweeping left hander at about 80 MPH..." Everything about the S2000 is wonderful: the screaming engine, the buttery smooth, but insanely precise shifter, perfectly weighted, tight, precise steering. Not to mention it's the only car on the list that doesn't have a roof (the 350z roadster is an abomination to 350Z coupe, and thus I ignore its existence as much as possible). The only car I've had more fun than in the S2000 was an E46 M3.

Shit, if I were just looking for a fast, good-handling sedan, I'd get an SRT-4 and call it a day.


Disclaimer: I wouldn't actually get an SRT-4 because they're overpriced and likely abused. I was really just trying to make the point that a SRT-4 is a pretty good, modern equivalent of Sporty's H22 Accord.

[BimmerM3]

I'm actually probably with you here, but make mine a convertible and a 2005.

Why specifically a 2005?

[Minpin]

Why specifically a 2005?

Year of the big re-design for the Mustangs, if I interpreted what Raza said right. 2005 was a big year interestingly enough, along with the Mustang, we also got the C6 Corvette, and the 997, among others.

[BimmerM3]

Year of the big re-design for the Mustangs, if I interpreted what Raza said right. 2005 was a big year interestingly enough, along with the Mustang, we also got the C6 Corvette, and the 997, among others.

I know that, but why get a 2005 over a 2006, 2007, or 2008, like Hemi was talking about?

[nickdrinkwater]

Just don't get an M3.  Check Edmunds InsideLine Long Term Tet Blog for my reasons why.

I guess you'd rather have a Genesis, right?

[sportyaccordy]

First of all, the S2000 is at least as fast as the BMW, and won't be more than a few tenths slower than either of the Nissans to 60.

The original question was if I were living in a metropolitan area. Well, I live in Atlanta currently, and I would totally rock an S2000. NYC, I might reconsider, but then again, I don't think I'd ever live in NYC.

Finally, I S2000s. I've had plenty of seat time in one (AP1), and no offense Sporty, but I seriously doubt that "The only place where [the S2000] fell short was on a long sweeping left hander at about 80 MPH..." Everything about the S2000 is wonderful: the screaming engine, the buttery smooth, but insanely precise shifter, perfectly weighted, tight, precise steering. Not to mention it's the only car on the list that doesn't have a roof (the 350z roadster is an abomination to 350Z coupe, and thus I ignore its existence as much as possible). The only car I've had more fun than in the S2000 was an E46 M3.

Don't get me wrong, the S2K is a phenomenal car. And of course, it was a lot faster than my Accord as speeds increased. I take back that the only place it fell short was on that sweeper; the S2K was a much better road car, if for nothing else because of its infinitely higher chassis rigidity...

The engine does indeed sound great, especially when both ends of it are opened up. But it really didn't have enough kick for me. Even the VTEC crossover wasn't as strong as in other Hondas.

It's good, but for me it needs more to be great. Plus, it has like a 2.0cf trunk, and I wouldn't be able to enjoy the drop top for like 6 months of the year. If the S2K were a 4 seat fixed roof coupe with maybe a 2.4 liter motor it would be an absolute no brainer; but for me, the benefits don't outweigh the sacrifices necessary for ownership.

I haven't driven a 350Z, but I've had a lot of seat time in an assortment of Gs, and while they are nowhere near as fun to drive as an S2K (Nissan has yet to get its shifters right) I think they are a good compromise of everything an enthusiast is looking for... at least up here.

[Soup DeVille]

Who are all of the weirdos voting for the S2000?

Me, for one.

[Soup DeVille]

It's good, but for me it needs more to be great. Plus, it has like a 2.0cf trunk, and I wouldn't be able to enjoy the drop top for like 6 months of the year. If the S2K were a 4 seat fixed roof coupe with maybe a 2.4 liter motor it would be an absolute no brainer;

No, then it would be pointless. The trunk is large enough for two people on a weekend trip, to haul a pair of golf bags, or a week's worth of groceries.

Of course, it'll never be an accord...

[sportyaccordy]

No, then it would be pointless. The trunk is large enough for two people on a weekend trip, to haul a pair of golf bags, or a week's worth of groceries.

Of course, it'll never be an accord...

If I could get an S2K for 1500...

[Madman]

Living in the city, I'm going to value the ride and round-town flexibility, so forget the S2000.
Why get a 350Z when you can have a G35, so forget the 350Z
Why get a 3-series imitator when you can get a 3-series
Therefore 3-series

My sentiments exactly.  You've hit the nail on the head perfectly!  The 3 Series wins hands down.

Cheers,
Madman of the People

[Vinsanity]

The engine does indeed sound great, especially when both ends of it are opened up. But it really didn't have enough kick for me. Even the VTEC crossover wasn't as strong as in other Hondas.

Please elaborate. The s2k's VTEC crossover is like Chuck Norris compared to the TL's (and other Hondas I've driven) girly emo boy.

[BimmerM3]

Please elaborate. The s2k's VTEC crossover is like Chuck Norris compared to the TL's (and other Hondas I've driven) girly emo boy.

+1. The VTEC crossover on my Accord is hardly noticeable.

No, then it would be pointless. The trunk is large enough for two people on a weekend trip, to haul a pair of golf bags, or a week's worth of groceries.

I couldn't agree with you more. Of course, Sporty and I are in different situations. My parents live 20 minutes away, so if I need any serious cargo room, I can borrow one of their cars. I also live in the south, where I could drop the top a lot more out of the year than Sporty can.

[Raza]

Why specifically a 2005?

Oldest new model.  They haven't been changed much at all, and I'm not looking for a special edition, and I'm not looking to keep it stock, so the 2005 is the cheapest.

[Raza]

Disclaimer: I wouldn't actually get an SRT-4 because they're overpriced and likely abused. I was really just trying to make the point that a SRT-4 is a pretty good, modern equivalent of Sporty's H22 Accord.

Likely abused, yes, but overpriced?  Last I checked the market, they were shockingly reasonable.  I considered one briefly for a while, but they weren't cheap enough for me to be able to afford one when I bought. 

[BimmerM3]

Likely abused, yes, but overpriced?  Last I checked the market, they were shockingly reasonable.  I considered one briefly for a while, but they weren't cheap enough for me to be able to afford one when I bought. 

I guess they aren't too bad.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Cars-Trucks___2005-Dodge-Neon-SRT-4-ORANGE-BLAST-N-Carolina-Trades_W0QQitemZ200275247674QQddnZCarsQ20Q26Q20TrucksQQddiZ2282QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_Cars_Trucks?hash=item200275247674&_trksid=p4506.c0.m245&_trkparms=65%3A7|39%3A1|240%3A1318

But I could get this for the same money:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Cars-Trucks___1998-BMW-M3-COUPE-DAKAR-YELLOW-70K-HARD-TO-FIND_W0QQitemZ150312086920QQddnZCarsQ20Q26Q20TrucksQQddiZ2282QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_Cars_Trucks?hash=item150312086920&_trksid=p4506.c0.m245&_trkparms=65%3A7|39%3A1|240%3A1318

[sportyaccordy]

Please elaborate. The s2k's VTEC crossover is like Chuck Norris compared to the TL's (and other Hondas I've driven) girly emo boy.

I have driven a bunch of semi-built DOHC VTEC Hondas, and yea, the S2K just didn't have the punch they did

Granted, the S2K was among the fastest of the ones I've driven, and having a big VTEC kick is inefficient, but the change at the crossover wasn't that crazy to me.

Plus if I were to get an S2K, I'd prob box it up with a hardtop most of the time. Too much of a hassle.

[Vinsanity]

I have driven a bunch of semi-built DOHC VTEC Hondas, and yea, the S2K just didn't have the punch they did

The dual-cam TSX engine certainly doesn't have as much punch as the s2k. And if you're comparing "semi-built" motors to factory stock ones, then sorry amigo, that's a classical logic fail.

[Raza]

I guess they aren't too bad.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Cars-Trucks___2005-Dodge-Neon-SRT-4-ORANGE-BLAST-N-Carolina-Trades_W0QQitemZ200275247674QQddnZCarsQ20Q26Q20TrucksQQddiZ2282QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_Cars_Trucks?hash=item200275247674&_trksid=p4506.c0.m245&_trkparms=65%3A7|39%3A1|240%3A1318

But I could get this for the same money:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Cars-Trucks___1998-BMW-M3-COUPE-DAKAR-YELLOW-70K-HARD-TO-FIND_W0QQitemZ150312086920QQddnZCarsQ20Q26Q20TrucksQQddiZ2282QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_Cars_Trucks?hash=item150312086920&_trksid=p4506.c0.m245&_trkparms=65%3A7|39%3A1|240%3A1318

Yeah, but then again, it's 7 years older and higher mileage, and slower.

[BimmerM3]

Yeah, but then again, it's 7 years older and higher mileage, and slower.

Except that it has 600 fewer miles, but I get your point. You're right, they pretty reasonably priced.

EDIT: The M3 is hardly slower than the SRT-4 as well.

BMW:
Horsepower: 240 hp       Max Horsepower: 6000 rpm
Torque: 236 ft-lbs.    Max Torque: 3800 rpm
Weight: 3175 lbs.        0-60: 5.6s

SRT-4:
Horsepower: 220 hp     Max Horsepower: 5100 rpm    
Torque: 245 ft-lbs.        Max Torque: 2400 rpm
Weight: 2900 lbs.          0-60: 5.3s

I'd bet that the SRT-4 is faster in autocross, but the M3 would be faster around a track.

[Raza]

Except that it has 600 fewer miles, but I get your point. You're right, they pretty reasonably priced.

Oh, does it?  I honestly just looked at the links and guessed that the SRT4 would have lower miles.  That SRT4 is actually probably a bit overpriced. 

According to KBB, that car is slightly overpriced even in excellent condition.  $11,340, and $10,540 in good condition (most likely fair price). 
Private party valuation.

EDIT:  Is that power number for the SRT4 a 2005 car?  I thought they were rated higher (235 or something like that). 

And do you have a documented 5.6 case on the M3?  I tend to recall something more like low 6s. 

[sportyaccordy]

The dual-cam TSX engine certainly doesn't have as much punch as the s2k. And if you're comparing "semi-built" motors to factory stock ones, then sorry amigo, that's a classical logic fail.

My main point of reference is my H22 Accord... it had the Type-S H22 that was rated at 220HP stock. It was slower than the S for sure, but until we actually raced them my friend had a pretty good scare after taking a ride and thought it would be even. Plus the Accord was almost as light as the S, and the H's midrange pull was so much better than the S's.

And in any case, power is power, the S is the fastest DOHC VTEC car I've driven bar none; but it wasn't the most dramatic/exciting. That was my point.

[TBR]

Oh, does it?  I honestly just looked at the links and guessed that the SRT4 would have lower miles.  That SRT4 is actually probably a bit overpriced. 

According to KBB, that car is slightly overpriced even in excellent condition.  $11,340, and $10,540 in good condition (most likely fair price). 
Private party valuation.

EDIT:  Is that power number for the SRT4 a 2005 car?  I thought they were rated higher (235 or something like that). 

And do you have a documented 5.6 case on the M3?  I tend to recall something more like low 6s. 

KBB tends to run on the high side also (actually, they all do).

[BimmerM3]

EDIT:  Is that power number for the SRT4 a 2005 car?  I thought they were rated higher (235 or something like that). 

And do you have a documented 5.6 case on the M3?  I tend to recall something more like low 6s. 

I grabbed the power numbers for the 2005 SRT-4 from Edmunds.

http://www.edmunds.com/used/2006/dodge/index.html

The 0-60 time for the M3 I got from Wikipedia, but an M3 website quoted the US Spec 1996+ model at 5.9. Their figure for the pre-1996 models is 6.4, but they include this bit:

"Car & Driver ran both their routine and extended (35,000) mile 3-liter M3s through their test procedures and returned much quicker results than most. The average figures quoted are fairer for the private buyer's expectations today, but for the record, C&D recorded 0?60 mph in 5.5 seconds in both sessions. They recorded 0?100 mph in 14.6 seconds and 14.2 seconds at 98- or 99-mph terminal speeds for the standing 1/4 miles. Car & Driver ran an automatic-transmission 3-liter M3 through the strip procedures and returned 0?30 mph in 2.6 seconds, 0?60 mph in 6.7 seconds, 0?100 mph in 17.1 seconds, and a 15.3-sec/95-mph ;-mile pass. Both top speed (137 mph) and average fuel consumption (24 US mpg) were reportedly unaffected. Curb weight was up 72 lbs, at a reported 3,304 lbs."

http://www.m3zine.com/index.php/E36-M3.html

[Raza]

Well, I dragged an auto E36 M3 and he was slower than my E320, but that manual 0-60 is pretty impressive.  But do remember that SRT4s can't hook up worth a damn.

[sportyaccordy]

0-60 is a good stat, but the 1320 is much better.

And I can't even believe this is a discussion.

One of my friends has an SRT-4, with a stage 3 turbo kit. First of all, not only is it not even that fast, but the interior is absolutely awful. They have the same switchgear from the early 90s. And they're not even the top dogs in the sport compact world, despite the massive support from Mopar.

And of course, who knows where Chrysler will be in a year...

It has roll up windows in the back.

Granted it is thrilling (in Stg III form; but still underwhelming for a compact car w/330HP) and makes a great case for turbocharging...

...but the refinement, more beautiful exhaust noise and higher possibility of manufacturer existence in 2009 makes the ///M3 the better pick... imo...