Poll
Question:
You have 20-25K to spend. Pick your poison
Option 1: S2000
votes: 7
Option 2: 350Z
votes: 3
Option 3: G35
votes: 8
Option 4: 330Ci ZHP
votes: 6
Say you have 20K or so to burn on a new car. You're a bachelor living in a metropolitan area w/a 15-20 mile commute. What would you go with???????????????????????????????????
G35
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
Out of these cars G35. I'd rather have an RX-8 then any of them myself.
a 3 series or 5 series or a used 911
It's between the G and the Z. I'd go with the Z.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 23, 2008, 08:57:49 AM
Say you have 20K or so to burn on a new car. You're a bachelor living in a metropolitan area w/a 15-20 mile commute. What would you go with???????????????????????????????????
FWIW, I bought the Caddy under those exact circumstances
G coupe or sedan (or doesn't it matter)?
S2000
330ci ZHP in a heartbeat. My favorite E46 and possibly my favorite BMW period.
It's a tough pick between the S2000 and the 330i (I'd rather have the sedan). I'd probably go for whichever one was in better condition and lower mileage for the money.
Quote from: TBR on November 23, 2008, 10:18:50 AM
330ci ZHP in a heartbeat. My favorite E46 and possibly my favorite BMW period.
Just out of curiosity, why the 330ci ZHP over the E46 M3?
Quote from: BimmerM3 on November 23, 2008, 10:25:32 AM
It's a tough pick between the S2000 and the 330i (I'd rather have the sedan). I'd probably go for whichever one was in better condition and lower mileage for the money.
Just out of curiosity, why the 330ci ZHP over the E46 M3?
More liveable on a daily basis and without the gawky fender flares.
Plus the regular 3 has the more modern looking headlights.
Quote from: TBR on November 23, 2008, 10:29:14 AM
More liveable on a daily basis and without the gawky fender flares.
Plus the regular 3 has the more modern looking headlights.
Gawky? No.
And I like the pre-facelift headlights better. Of course I own a pre-facelift car.
I voted S2000 because I already have a 3er.
http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?ct=u&car_id=252777638&dealer_id=71752&car_year=2001&rdm=1227465890490&num_records=25&model=M3&systime=&make2=&highlightFirstMakeModel=&start_year=1981&engine=&keywordsrep=&keywordsrep=&keywordsfyc=&keywordsfyc=&certified=&fuel=&body_code=0&awsp=false&search_type=both&distance=200&marketZipError=false&search_lang=en&showZipError=n&first_record=26&make=BMW&color=&keywords_display=&page_location=findacar%3A%3Aispsearchform&min_price=&drive=&default_sort=priceDESC&seller_type=b&max_mileage=&style_flag=1&sort_type=priceDESC&address=15213&advanced=&end_year=2009&pager.offset=25&transmission=&doors=&max_price=&cardist=196
[/thread]
S2000 w/ hardtop.
See last post.
I'd even buy one in this ugly color and with a top that goes down so I could even flaunt the limited taste and unlimited showoff abilities I have.
(http://images.autotrader.com/images/2008/11/8/254/523/9330932185.254523519.IM1.MAIN.565x421_A.562x421.jpg)
Just don't get an M3. Check Edmunds InsideLine Long Term Tet Blog for my reasons why.
Quote from: Secret Chimp on November 23, 2008, 09:01:25 AM
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
G35 back seats are usable but not really a concern. 350Z looks pretty good in 2006+ guise w/the new wheels. Plus you get better performance, gas mileage, and parking opportunities in an urban area.
A 3-series is cool, maybe even better than a G stock, but w/the aftermarket and improved performance over a 3 I think the sacrifice in 'un-quantifiable performance' is worth the $$$ saved
Quote from: Onslaught on November 23, 2008, 09:17:58 AM
Out of these cars G35. I'd rather have an RX-8 then any of them myself.
Big motor gas mileage, small motor torque.... middle of the road straightline performance. :confused:
As far as the E46 M3, it's a great car but it's too over the top looks-wise for me. Plus while the capabilities of all cars here are well beyond anything that should be achieved on the street, the sacrifice in ride quality, gas mileage and maintenance costs aren't worth the benefits IMO. Granted, an S2000 or 350Z aren't exactly grocery getters either, but the lowered running costs of them vs an M3 would lower ownership costs in the long run.
I drove my friend's S2000 in the same awful streets I drive my car now on. I think with *better* shocks it would ride decently. It wasn't too different from my car now.
Quote from: the Teuton on November 23, 2008, 11:51:13 AM
See last post.
I'd even buy one in this ugly color and with a top that goes down so I could even flaunt the limited taste and unlimited showoff abilities I have.
(http://images.autotrader.com/images/2008/11/8/254/523/9330932185.254523519.IM1.MAIN.565x421_A.562x421.jpg)
I'd want one in Laguna Seca Blue.
As far as the original post is concerned, your city traffic is pushing me away from the S2000, which was my knee jerk reaction. For some reason, AP2s have dropped drastically recently, and they've become attainable at my 15K price point. AP1s are being reported as being sold for as little as $7,500.
The 350Z is enticing. They sold roughly four hundred million of them, so finding a good one at the right price would be easy as pie. The 350ZR is also enticing.
But if you want a hardtop, I think I'd take the G35 coupe over the 350Z. Yes, it's slightly heavier, but you get about the same power, just about the same speed, just about the same looks, and of course, two extra seats and a sunroof.
The 330i/Ci ZHP is the Performance Pack, right?
Quote from: CJ on November 23, 2008, 11:58:09 AM
Just don't get an M3. Check Edmunds InsideLine Long Term Tet Blog for my reasons why.
Care to give us a hint?
Quote from: CJ on November 23, 2008, 12:48:03 PM
Upkeep is very expensive.
Who would have guessed that a fifty thousand dollar would be expensive to own after the warranty period?
Quote from: CJ on November 23, 2008, 12:48:03 PM
Upkeep is very expensive.
I think the $25,000 bargains in C&D outlined the ownership costs relatively well. An M3 is going to be expensive no matter what. My friend Ebay'd a rubber driveshaft bushing that would have cost $300 from the dealership for $100.
You can affordably own an M3.
ZHP stands for "zee high perhformur"... yes it is the Performance Pack. I like it more than the M3 because it is more subdued, it has the face-lift headlights and a better bumper, and cool wheels. Plus it's available as a sedan, and I've always preferred the looks of the 4dr to the overly sedanish coupe.
I believe some of them are available with the totally unnecessary SMG as well.
I haven't seen any AP1s for less than about 12K around here, up in the cold northeast during the winter. I imagine that unless the economy completely tanks, they'll be back up to about 13-15K on the low end.
Gs are cool but in the northeast their ubiquity is second only to big body Maximas and Altimas. That really dilutes their appeal. They are unbelievably fast though; the S2K I drove was peppy in that VTEC way (speeds are attained quickly, but you never forget it's a 2.0L 4 banger)... however the G35 was frighteningly fast, and only worse with every upshift. Plus I am on the love side of the polarizing exhaust note.
I like the Z though. '03s are dirt cheap, and to a degree butt ugly stock. But with 07 headlights, some aftermarket bumpers + skirts and 07 wheels they would look great. Plus a slide-over aftermarket sunroof is only 1g.
But the S2K has the ultimate sunroof... and better gas mileage.
Great time to be an enthusiast.
Quote from: CJ on November 23, 2008, 11:58:09 AM
Just don't get an M3. Check Edmunds InsideLine Long Term Tet Blog for my reasons why.
When you look at the specs of an M3 vs. a 335i, I have to wonder why you'd buy an M3.
The 335i has more torque, costs thousands less, and is nearly as fast.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on November 23, 2008, 12:57:28 PM
When you look at the specs of an M3 vs. a 335i, I have to wonder why you'd buy an M3.
The 335i has more torque, costs thousands less, and is nearly as fast.
I doubt it's more fun.
Granted, the 335i I drove was an automatic, but it feels like driving a big easy button. I like to have to work, at least a little, to get some power.
EDIT: Are you talking about the current M3?
Quote from: Raza on November 23, 2008, 01:00:14 PM
I doubt it's more fun.
Granted, the 335i I drove was an automatic, but it feels like driving a big easy button. I like to have to work, at least a little, to get some power.
EDIT: Are you talking about the current M3?
I hope he's not talking about the E92; those are well beyond the scope of this discussion.
The 335 is beyond the scope of this discussion as well.
I was also wondering how the WRX STi/EVO IX fit in here; but I really hate AWD.
04 and 05 STIs can be had at your $20,000 cap, and I know Evos can. They sell for less usually.
Quote from: hotrodalex on November 23, 2008, 11:40:31 AM
Gawky? No.
And I like the pre-facelift headlights better. Of course I own a pre-facelift car.
I voted S2000 because I already have a 3er.
Gawky? Yes. They aren't that bad, but they are over the top imho and almost ruin the otherwise very classy E46 coupe. An Alpine White E46 M3 with red leather and a good price would certainly give me something to ponder if I was ZHP shopping.
I don't understand red leather. I think it's the ugliest possible leather color.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 23, 2008, 01:16:19 PM
I hope he's not talking about the E92; those are well beyond the scope of this discussion.
The 335 is beyond the scope of this discussion as well.
I was also wondering how the WRX STi/EVO IX fit in here; but I really hate AWD.
I digress.
I want a 350Z, but I wouldn't spend 20-25k on one. 15k tops.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on November 23, 2008, 01:30:11 PM
I don't understand red leather. I think it's the ugliest possible leather color.
It can be over the top:
(http://images.google.com/url?q=http://home.comcast.net/~cjeleftheriou/ttsale3.jpg&usg=AFQjCNHwnBBlgAlX0LRC8psNtClCSqBcog)
(TT ALMS)
But in a more subdued color like BMW uses I love it:
(http://66.160.188.111/.eea3967/cmd.233/enclosure..eea3968)
Quote from: NACar on November 23, 2008, 01:34:33 PM
I want a 350Z, but I wouldn't spend 20-25k on one. 15k tops.
You can find one for 15K easily. I saw a base 07 for about 18 not too long ago.
With the aftermarket being what it is for the Zs, I can't see why anyone would spend a significant amount to get a "Track" or top of the line Z... (especially when none of them come with sunroofs)
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 23, 2008, 02:07:58 PM
You can find one for 15K easily. I saw a base 07 for about 18 not too long ago.
With the aftermarket being what it is for the Zs, I can't see why anyone would spend a significant amount to get a "Track" or top of the line Z... (especially when none of them come with sunroofs)
I would like whichever one has the limited slip. Then it can be my winter beater. :lol:
Quote from: BimmerM3 on November 23, 2008, 01:30:11 PM
I don't understand red leather. I think it's the ugliest possible leather color.
I dig red leather.
Quote from: NACar on November 23, 2008, 02:09:42 PM
I would like whichever one has the limited slip. Then it can be my winter beater. :lol:
On the earlier models, I believe all it took was an Enthusiast trim to get a slippy diff. I'd go for Touring to get the leather and uprated stereo.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 23, 2008, 02:07:58 PM
You can find one for 15K easily. I saw a base 07 for about 18 not too long ago.
With the aftermarket being what it is for the Zs, I can't see why anyone would spend a significant amount to get a "Track" or top of the line Z... (especially when none of them come with sunroofs)
IIRC, the base model is pretty stripped. No LSD, no TCS, no cruise (and yet it had auto climate control, heated mirrors and xenons)
Quote from: MX793 on November 23, 2008, 02:20:41 PM
IIRC, the base model is pretty stripped. No LSD, no TCS, no cruise (and yet it had auto climate control, heated mirrors and xenons)
No LSD? I thought they all had them. Weak sauce.
How do the EVO & STi hold up against the likes of the Z and S as road cars? I see a lot of WRXs on Best Motoring International videos in the touge races.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 23, 2008, 02:23:17 PM
No LSD? I thought they all had them. Weak sauce.
How do the EVO & STi hold up against the likes of the Z and S as road cars? I see a lot of WRXs on Best Motoring International videos in the touge races.
The Evo VIII was actually quite comfortable when I drove it, and very exciting. Much better than the STI and 350Z coupe, both of which I found quite boring unless you were really booting it. The Evo was more fun more of the time.
Quote from: Raza on November 23, 2008, 02:25:28 PM
The Evo VIII was actually quite comfortable when I drove it, and very exciting. Much better than the STI and 350Z coupe, both of which I found quite boring unless you were really booting it. The Evo was more fun more of the time.
They are so tall and doofy though. That's my only beef.
Quote from: TBR on November 23, 2008, 01:37:55 PM
It can be over the top:
(http://images.google.com/url?q=http://home.comcast.net/~cjeleftheriou/ttsale3.jpg&usg=AFQjCNHwnBBlgAlX0LRC8psNtClCSqBcog)
(TT ALMS)
But in a more subdued color like BMW uses I love it:
(http://66.160.188.111/.eea3967/cmd.233/enclosure..eea3968)
BMWs red leather isn't terrible (I guy I worked with at Toyota had a black Z4 with red leather), but I would still rather have a more traditional leather color (black, brown, tan).
I wouldn't ever get any weird colors either, like blue or green.
Quote from: TBR on November 23, 2008, 10:29:14 AM
More liveable on a daily basis and without the gawky fender flares.
Plus the regular 3 has the more modern looking headlights.
How do fender flares effect "livability?"
Quote from: Soup DeVille on November 23, 2008, 03:11:23 PM
How do fender flares effect "livability?"
They don't, those were two different statements (hence the "and").
Quote from: BimmerM3 on November 23, 2008, 02:37:10 PM
BMWs red leather isn't terrible (I guy I worked with at Toyota had a black Z4 with red leather), but I would still rather have a more traditional leather color (black, brown, tan).
I wouldn't ever get any weird colors either, like blue or green.
I could do dark blue, but not green. I think green on exteriors is weird too.
Quote from: TBR on November 23, 2008, 03:14:04 PM
They don't, those were two different statements (hence the "and").
Oh, nevermind.
Quote from: TBR on November 23, 2008, 03:14:25 PM
I could do dark blue, but not green. I think green on exteriors is weird too.
I love the baby blue leather that Lincoln used to use. (its actually what inspired the team colors for the Detroit Lions)
G35 :rockon:
Who are all of the weirdos voting for the S2000?
Quote from: Secret Chimp on November 24, 2008, 06:28:25 AM
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...
In any case, I have made my pick and it's nothing on this list. E36 M3s are going for under 10K for solid examples. That's a definite no brainer.
I voted for the G35, but if I could pick one that is not on the list, it would be a 2007 Mustang GT
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 24, 2008, 06:48:16 AM
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...
In any case, I have made my pick and it's nothing on this list. E36 M3s are going for under 10K for solid examples. That's a definite no brainer.
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.
G35....best blend of performance and comfort.
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 24, 2008, 07:36:16 AM
I voted for the G35, but if I could pick one that is not on the list, it would be a 2007 Mustang GT
Choosing a Ford over a BMW or Infiniti?
You can't save the Big Three all by yourself...
Quote from: Secret Chimp on November 24, 2008, 09:23:23 AM
Choosing a Ford over a BMW or Infiniti?
You can't save the Big Three all by yourself...
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.
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 24, 2008, 10:18:28 AM
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.
it's infinit
i fourd boy
Quote from: Secret Chimp on November 24, 2008, 06:28:25 AM
Who are all of the weirdos voting for the S2000?
asks the person with a Miata?
Quote from: GoCougs on November 24, 2008, 09:09:23 AM
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.
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 24, 2008, 10:18:28 AM
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.
Quote from: Secret Chimp on November 24, 2008, 06:28:25 AM
Who are all of the weirdos voting for the S2000?
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 24, 2008, 06:48:16 AM
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 :wub: 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.
Quote from: Raza on November 24, 2008, 09:00:52 PM
I'm actually probably with you here, but make mine a convertible and a 2005.
Why specifically a 2005?
Quote from: BimmerM3 on November 25, 2008, 12:01:59 AM
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.
Quote from: Minpin on November 25, 2008, 12:05:46 AM
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?
Quote from: CJ on November 23, 2008, 11:58:09 AM
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?
Quote from: BimmerM3 on November 25, 2008, 12:01:39 AM
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 :wub: 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.
Quote from: Secret Chimp on November 24, 2008, 06:28:25 AM
Who are all of the weirdos voting for the S2000?
Me, for one.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 25, 2008, 07:38:02 AM
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...
Quote from: Soup DeVille on November 25, 2008, 09:14:17 AM
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...
Quote from: Secret Chimp on November 23, 2008, 09:01:25 AM
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
:hesaid:
My sentiments exactly. You've hit the nail on the head perfectly! The 3 Series wins hands down.
Cheers,
Madman of the People
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 25, 2008, 07:38:02 AMThe 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.
:nutty:
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.
Quote from: Vinsanity on November 25, 2008, 10:38:22 AM
:nutty:
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.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on November 25, 2008, 09:14:17 AM
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.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on November 25, 2008, 12:01:59 AM
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.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on November 25, 2008, 12:01:39 AM
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.
Quote from: Raza on November 25, 2008, 11:01:49 AM
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
Quote from: Vinsanity on November 25, 2008, 10:38:22 AM
:nutty:
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.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 25, 2008, 12:21:54 PM
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.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on November 25, 2008, 11:56:11 AM
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.
Quote from: Raza on November 25, 2008, 12:35:36 PM
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.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on November 25, 2008, 12:39:48 PM
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.
Quote from: Vinsanity on November 25, 2008, 12:29:34 PM
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.
Quote from: Raza on November 25, 2008, 12:57:27 PM
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).
Quote from: Raza on November 25, 2008, 12:57:27 PM
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
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.
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...
Quote from: Vinsanity on November 25, 2008, 10:38:22 AM
:nutty:
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.
Honda has been smoothing over the cam phases for the past 10 years. I think he's comparing it to older VTec engines. The Integra GS-R, for example, had a very agressive cam phase.
I'm assuming the crossover in the 2.0 is a lot more noticeable than the one in the 2.2
Depending on the climate and type of commute either a 350Z or S2000.
If the S2000 isn't fast and the SRT4 isn't fast, then what the fuck is?
Quote from: Raza on November 26, 2008, 08:27:55 PM
If the S2000 isn't fast and the SRT4 isn't fast, then what the fuck is?
Ferrari's, Lambo's, Porsche's, my Z, etc.
Quote from: Raza on November 26, 2008, 08:27:55 PM
If the S2000 isn't fast and the SRT4 isn't fast, then what the fuck is?
'92 Honda Accords.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 26, 2008, 11:27:31 AM
0-60 is a good stat, but the 1320 is much better.
0-60 is a much better stat when we're talking about DDing a car considering that most people will never do a 1/4 mile run in their entire life, on the street or on the track.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on November 26, 2008, 11:02:54 PM
0-60 5-60 is a much better stat when we're talking about DDing a car considering that most people will never do a 1/4 mile run in their entire life, on the street or on the track.
I hate that C&D is the only mag that does that test
Yeah, I have never done a proper launch in the Prelude and probably never will; it destroys the tires and the clutch.
Quote from: TBR on November 27, 2008, 02:57:05 PM
Yeah, I have never done a proper launch in the Prelude and probably never will; it destroys the tires and the clutch.
Pussy.
I don't do it often, but once in a blue moon or so it's going to break anything.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on November 26, 2008, 11:02:54 PM
0-60 is a much better stat when we're talking about DDing a car considering that most people will never do a 1/4 mile run in their entire life, on the street or on the track.
Valid point.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on November 27, 2008, 07:49:56 PM
Pussy.
I don't do it often, but once in a blue moon or so it's going to break anything.
Yeah, nothing is going to break if you do it a couple times. If you do it all the time, yeah, but not once every so often.