Okay guys, as you all know, I've been toying with the idea of picking up a sports car on the cheap. I've brought it down to these few cars.
1987-88 944 Turbo
1993-95 RX-7 Twin Turbo
1997 M3 (4 door preferred)
1998-00 Trans Am
Any thoughts? Opinions? Suggestions? What would you do?
944 Turbo is the way to go imho.
I do love the 944, but I think the M3 will be more reliable and the RX7 and TA (even an LT1) will be faster.
QuoteI do love the 944, but I think the M3 will be more reliable and the RX7 and TA (even an LT1) will be faster.
I know it makes the least sense, but the 944 Turbo is my favorite. Sort of like how I like the A4 2.0t more than the 325i despite the fact the 325i is really a better car. There's just an unexplainable attraction. Of course, if you don't have that same attraction to the 944t, then one of the other cars would work better. Just get what you want, even if it doesn't look as good on paper.
QuoteQuoteI do love the 944, but I think the M3 will be more reliable and the RX7 and TA (even an LT1) will be faster.
I know it makes the least sense, but the 944 Turbo is my favorite. Sort of like how I like the A4 2.0t more than the 325i despite the fact the 325i is really a better car. There's just an unexplainable attraction. Of course, if you don't have that same attraction to the 944t, then one of the other cars would work better. Just get what you want, even if it doesn't look as good on paper.
My issues with the 944t are that of reliability and availability. I know the RX7 won't be much more reliable, but it's so bloody fast! It's also a few years newer.
If I go for an M3 4 door, I could very well just replace the Passat. No need for two sedans--I'd never drive the Passat.
Raza, are you sure you can handle the interior of the Pontiac?
(http://www.vintagemotorssarasota.com/Car_pages/Pontiac/02pontiac/02pontiac15.jpg)
I've sat in a couple. It's no worse than my friend's Mustang.
Oh ok. But I think it might be hard find one in 6 speed form. I always seem to come upon autos.....
QuoteOh ok. But I think it might be hard find one in 6 speed form. I always seem to come upon autos.....
I've found a bunch of sticks. Don't think I've seen a V8 with an auto before, actually.
QuoteQuoteOh ok. But I think it might be hard find one in 6 speed form. I always seem to come upon autos.....
I've found a bunch of sticks. Don't think I've seen a V8 with an auto before, actually.
Really? Ive never seen a V8 with a stick. But if you do, I say go for one, and then do a spring/shock/swaybar upgrade.
QuoteQuoteQuoteI do love the 944, but I think the M3 will be more reliable and the RX7 and TA (even an LT1) will be faster.
I know it makes the least sense, but the 944 Turbo is my favorite. Sort of like how I like the A4 2.0t more than the 325i despite the fact the 325i is really a better car. There's just an unexplainable attraction. Of course, if you don't have that same attraction to the 944t, then one of the other cars would work better. Just get what you want, even if it doesn't look as good on paper.
My issues with the 944t are that of reliability and availability. I know the RX7 won't be much more reliable, but it's so bloody fast! It's also a few years newer.
If I go for an M3 4 door, I could very well just replace the Passat. No need for two sedans--I'd never drive the Passat.
I understand those concerns, but if you really want the 944t then get it anyway, no reason to compromise!
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI do love the 944, but I think the M3 will be more reliable and the RX7 and TA (even an LT1) will be faster.
I know it makes the least sense, but the 944 Turbo is my favorite. Sort of like how I like the A4 2.0t more than the 325i despite the fact the 325i is really a better car. There's just an unexplainable attraction. Of course, if you don't have that same attraction to the 944t, then one of the other cars would work better. Just get what you want, even if it doesn't look as good on paper.
My issues with the 944t are that of reliability and availability. I know the RX7 won't be much more reliable, but it's so bloody fast! It's also a few years newer.
If I go for an M3 4 door, I could very well just replace the Passat. No need for two sedans--I'd never drive the Passat.
I understand those concerns, but if you really want the 944t then get it anyway, no reason to compromise!
True, but I love all these cars. The M3 for being practical speed (though an E46 325i would be at a similar price), I love the RX-7 (if I can find one unmolested), and the T/A is just so bloody brutal. The 944 has been my lust object for a while, and I don't want to venture away from German cars, but the RX7 is a sexy auto.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI do love the 944, but I think the M3 will be more reliable and the RX7 and TA (even an LT1) will be faster.
I know it makes the least sense, but the 944 Turbo is my favorite. Sort of like how I like the A4 2.0t more than the 325i despite the fact the 325i is really a better car. There's just an unexplainable attraction. Of course, if you don't have that same attraction to the 944t, then one of the other cars would work better. Just get what you want, even if it doesn't look as good on paper.
My issues with the 944t are that of reliability and availability. I know the RX7 won't be much more reliable, but it's so bloody fast! It's also a few years newer.
If I go for an M3 4 door, I could very well just replace the Passat. No need for two sedans--I'd never drive the Passat.
I understand those concerns, but if you really want the 944t then get it anyway, no reason to compromise!
True, but I love all these cars. The M3 for being practical speed (though an E46 325i would be at a similar price), I love the RX-7 (if I can find one unmolested), and the T/A is just so bloody brutal. The 944 has been my lust object for a while, and I don't want to venture away from German cars, but the RX7 is a sexy auto.
Definitely, the RX-7 is a very nice car, I have looked at them more than once but with my budget I would end up with N/A version in crappy condition.
Yeah, the old ones are hot too, but the third gen rocks!
(http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jc/images/93mazda_rx-7.jpg)
That one's got no spoiler.
QuoteYeah, the old ones are hot too, but the third gen rocks!
(http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jc/images/93mazda_rx-7.jpg)
That one's got no spoiler.
You said 1991-1993, the 3rd gen didn't come out until 1993.
If you mean 3rd gen, I'd definitley go for a RX-7. So sexy.
Upgrade the cooling system and leave the rest stock and you shouldn't have reliability problems.
QuoteQuoteYeah, the old ones are hot too, but the third gen rocks!
(http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jc/images/93mazda_rx-7.jpg)
That one's got no spoiler.
You said 1991-1993, the 3rd gen didn't come out until 1993.
Then I meant 93-95.
QuoteQuoteQuoteYeah, the old ones are hot too, but the third gen rocks!
(http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jc/images/93mazda_rx-7.jpg)
That one's got no spoiler.
You said 1991-1993, the 3rd gen didn't come out until 1993.
Then I meant 93-95.
That makes more sense.
Yeah, just a little mistake on my part.
Wanna know what I'd do?
Find a '99 323i (You can find those for around $15K. I nearly got one for $10K before I bought the A4 [a high-milage model]) and throw that AA supercharger in there.
QuoteQuoteI do love the 944, but I think the M3 will be more reliable and the RX7 and TA (even an LT1) will be faster.
I know it makes the least sense, but the 944 Turbo is my favorite. Sort of like how I like the A4 2.0t more than the 325i despite the fact the 325i is really a better car. There's just an unexplainable attraction. Of course, if you don't have that same attraction to the 944t, then one of the other cars would work better. Just get what you want, even if it doesn't look as good on paper.
I agree with you on the 944 turbo part (though not on the audi vs. BMW part :lol: ;) ). The 944 is also my favorite. It is just so incredibly good looking, handles great, and is very fast. Every time I see one I think its one of the best looking cars ever made.
QuoteIf you mean 3rd gen, I'd definitley go for a RX-7. So sexy.
Upgrade the cooling system and leave the rest stock and you shouldn't have reliability problems.
Guess you don't read the RX-7 boards much, do you?
I'd say go with the 944 Turbo or Trans Am. Even though I'm a rotary engine fanatic, the third gen, twin turbo RX-7's were not reliable by any means. I'd steer away from it until you know what you're getting into with that car.
QuoteQuoteIf you mean 3rd gen, I'd definitley go for a RX-7. So sexy.
Upgrade the cooling system and leave the rest stock and you shouldn't have reliability problems.
Guess you don't read the RX-7 boards much, do you?
I'd say go with the 944 Turbo or Trans Am. Even though I'm a rotary engine fanatic, the third gen, twin turbo RX-7's were not reliable by any means. I'd steer away from it until you know what you're getting into with that car.
Nope, that just the basics on what I know (they have weak cooling systems).
I'm a MKIII Supra guy, since they are more feasable to me ATM.
QuoteI do love the 944, but I think the M3 will be more reliable and the RX7 and TA (even an LT1) will be faster.
But my guess (well, i'm almost positive) that the M3, RX7, and 944 will handle a good deal better than the Trans.
For me, I would narrow it down to the RX7 and the 944. IMO they are the best looking and offer the same amount of performance as the M3.
QuoteQuoteI do love the 944, but I think the M3 will be more reliable and the RX7 and TA (even an LT1) will be faster.
But my guess (well, i'm almost positive) that the M3, RX7, and 944 will handle a good deal better than the Trans.
For me, I would narrow it down to the RX7 and the 944. IMO they are the best looking and offer the same amount of performance as the M3.
I've always had a soft spot for the F body. But they don't handle poorly, however on a road course, it'll probably be embarassed by an RX7, M3, or 944. The M3's just a pipe dream. I imagine if I pick up an RX or 944, I'll try and get an E46 328i 5 speed later on to replace the Passat.
QuoteWanna know what I'd do?
Find a '99 323i (You can find those for around $15K. I nearly got one for $10K before I bought the A4 [a high-milage model]) and throw that AA supercharger in there.
But, you can just wait a little while and get a new 325i/330i!
QuoteQuoteWanna know what I'd do?
Find a '99 323i (You can find those for around $15K. I nearly got one for $10K before I bought the A4 [a high-milage model]) and throw that AA supercharger in there.
But, you can just wait a little while and get a new 325i/330i!
I prefer the E46 to the E90.
(http://members.roadfly.org/tec926/1998%20BMW%20M3%20Sedan%20GOTG%20009.jpg)
(http://www.fasterfords.com/mazda/pictures/rx7/rx7_01_05.jpg)
(http://www.universalautosalesandclassiccars.com/images/1999%20Trans%20Am/99TARightSide.jpg)
(http://jimweb.free.fr/944turbo_lr.jpg)
(http://home.arcor.de/handtuch/foto/944/944_rweber01.jpg)
(http://www.lowriderimpala.com/carsiveowned/porsche.JPG)
The only one that might be worth more in 15 years, assuming it is already in good condition and will be well kept, is the Porsche.
But on the other hand, we're talking many years from now. The T/A will be cheapest, not only to buy, but to maintain and fix. It is easily upgradable and can be made even faster for cheap. Stock handling is not as bad as is made out to be and can be improved with a few quick mods.
The Bimmer has the smooth 3.2. 0-60 in 6 secs and BMW handling. Nice. Good resale too. And as long as you don't trash up the looks you won't look like a boy racer as you might with the T/A. or the:
Mazda RX-7. Don't know too much about these. Fast with the twin-turbo and good handling. You could embarass pretty much everyone probably.
In conclusion, I don't have an answer for you. If I were the one making the decision, I would choose the Muscle cause I don't have much money. Hopefully you do. May I suggest a Camaro too? Or an older Vette? Good luck.
Quote
The Bimmer has the smooth 3.2. 0-60 in 6 secs and BMW handling. Nice. Good resale too. And as long as you don't trash up the looks you won't look like a boy racer as you might with the T/A.
That's the hard part of finding an M3 or RX7--one that's been unmolested by "tuners" who think their car looks good in the body work touches the ground.
1997 M3 5sp (http://cars.com/go/search/detail.jsp?tracktype=usedcc&searchType=21&paId=173401044&pageNumber=0&numResultsPerPage=50&largeNumResultsPerPage=0&sortorder=descending&sortfield=PRICE+descending&certifiedOnly=false&recnum=7&leadExists=true&criteria=K-%7CE-%7CM-_5_%7CB-20000%7CD-_47_%7CN-N%7CR-50%7CI-1%7CP-PRICE+descending%7CQ-descending%7CZ-19002&aff=national)
Another, but 2dr and a little body kit action (http://cars.com/go/search/detail.jsp?tracktype=usedcc&searchType=21&paId=171146948&pageNumber=0&numResultsPerPage=50&largeNumResultsPerPage=0&sortorder=descending&sortfield=PRICE+descending&certifiedOnly=false&recnum=6&leadExists=true&criteria=K-%7CE-%7CM-_5_%7CB-20000%7CD-_47_%7CN-N%7CR-50%7CI-1%7CP-PRICE+descending%7CQ-descending%7CZ-19002&aff=national)
Private owner, and this one's a beaut (http://cars.com/go/search/detail.jsp?tracktype=usedcc&searchType=21&paId=171966674&pageNumber=0&numResultsPerPage=50&largeNumResultsPerPage=0&sortorder=descending&sortfield=PRICE+descending&certifiedOnly=false&recnum=8&leadExists=true&criteria=K-%7CE-%7CM-_5_%7CB-20000%7CD-_47_%7CN-N%7CR-50%7CI-1%7CP-PRICE+descending%7CQ-descending%7CZ-19002&aff=national)
Does it have to be a 1997?
'01 TA T-tops (http://cars.com/go/search/detail.jsp?tracktype=usedcc&searchType=21&paId=131567933&pageNumber=0&numResultsPerPage=50&largeNumResultsPerPage=0&sortorder=descending&sortfield=PRICE+descending&certifiedOnly=false&recnum=4&leadExists=true&criteria=K-%7CE-%7CM-_40_%7CB-20000%7CD-_377_%7CN-N%7CR-30%7CI-1%7CP-PRICE+descending%7CQ-descending%7CZ-19002&aff=national)
Same thing, cheaper (http://cars.com/go/search/detail.jsp?tracktype=usedcc&searchType=21&paId=173709882&pageNumber=0&numResultsPerPage=50&largeNumResultsPerPage=0&sortorder=descending&sortfield=PRICE+descending&certifiedOnly=false&recnum=6&leadExists=false&criteria=K-%7CE-%7CM-_40_%7CB-20000%7CD-_377_%7CN-N%7CR-30%7CI-1%7CP-PRICE+descending%7CQ-descending%7CZ-19002&aff=national)
nice porsche turbo (http://cars.com/go/search/detail.jsp?tracktype=usedcc&searchType=21&paId=163825288&pageNumber=0&numResultsPerPage=50&largeNumResultsPerPage=0&sortorder=descending&sortfield=PRICE+descending&certifiedOnly=false&recnum=1&leadExists=true&criteria=K-%7CE-%7CM-_41_%7CB-20000%7CD-_389_%7CN-N%7CR-75%7CI-1%7CP-PRICE+descending%7CQ-descending%7CZ-19002&aff=national)
another 944 turbo (http://cars.com/go/search/detail.jsp?tracktype=usedcc&searchType=21&paId=161434678&pageNumber=0&numResultsPerPage=50&largeNumResultsPerPage=0&sortorder=descending&sortfield=PRICE+descending&certifiedOnly=false&recnum=2&leadExists=true&criteria=K-%7CE-%7CM-_41_%7CB-20000%7CD-_389_%7CN-N%7CR-75%7CI-1%7CP-PRICE+descending%7CQ-descending%7CZ-19002&aff=national)
Link with Porsche (http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=171068606&dealer_id=55221637&car_year=1987&make=POR&distance=0&lang=en&max_price=&model=944&end_year=2006&min_price=&certified=&address=17302&search_type=both&advanced=&start_year=1981&isp=y&cardist=null)
That car is only 10K and has 98K miles, and is in great condition.
Raza, if you can spend 27K, this is your car. Its a 86 Porsche 944 Turbo GT racing widebody, with an engine pushing 500 hp!
Link with Amazing Porsche (http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=151531146&dealer_id=87389&car_year=1986&make=POR&distance=0&lang=en&max_price=&model=944&end_year=2006&min_price=&certified=&address=17302&search_type=both&advanced=&start_year=1981&isp=y&cardist=2008)
Link with Porsche 944 for a little less than 6K dollars (http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=183409855&dealer_id=554026&car_year=1987&make=POR&distance=0&lang=en&max_price=&model=944&end_year=2006&min_price=&first_record=151&pager.offset=150&certified=&address=17302&search_type=both&advanced=&start_year=1981&isp=y&cardist=69#vdptop)
Red One for 4,495 (http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=180224679&dealer_id=50161733&car_year=1988&search_type=both&make=POR&model=944&distance=0&address=17302&advanced=&certified=&max_price=&min_price=&first_record=226&end_year=2006&start_year=1981&isp=y&pager.offset=225&lang=en&cardist=724)
Red 944 with no dents or dings (http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=175504376&dealer_id=55723721&car_year=1987&make=POR&distance=0&lang=en&max_price=&model=944&end_year=2006&min_price=&first_record=151&pager.offset=150&certified=&address=17302&search_type=both&advanced=&start_year=1981&isp=y&cardist=762#vdptop)
One Very Cool Vert 944 (http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=135854716&dealer_id=47537539&car_year=1990&make=POR&distance=0&lang=en&max_price=&model=944&end_year=2006&min_price=&first_record=26&pager.offset=25&certified=&address=17302&search_type=both&advanced=&isp=y&start_year=1981&cardist=498#vdptop)
Probably should be somewhat local. I'm just using 19002 area code which shouldn't be too far.
Wow, definetely check this one out (http://cars.com/go/search/detail.jsp;jsessionid=KOK4ZM42HIDB3LAZGQ0E2UY?tracktype=usedcc&searchType=21&paId=172828088&pageNumber=0&numResultsPerPage=50&largeNumResultsPerPage=0&sortorder=descending&sortfield=PRICE+descending&certifiedOnly=false&recnum=13&leadExists=true&criteria=K-%7CE-%7CM-_9_%7CB-22000%7CD-_86_%7CN-N%7CR-50%7CI-1%7CP-PRICE+descending%7CQ-descending%7CZ-19002&aff=national)
QuoteProbably should be somewhat local. I'm just using 19002 area code which shouldn't be too far.
Wow, definetely check this one out (http://cars.com/go/search/detail.jsp;jsessionid=KOK4ZM42HIDB3LAZGQ0E2UY?tracktype=usedcc&searchType=21&paId=172828088&pageNumber=0&numResultsPerPage=50&largeNumResultsPerPage=0&sortorder=descending&sortfield=PRICE+descending&certifiedOnly=false&recnum=13&leadExists=true&criteria=K-%7CE-%7CM-_9_%7CB-22000%7CD-_86_%7CN-N%7CR-50%7CI-1%7CP-PRICE+descending%7CQ-descending%7CZ-19002&aff=national)
Holy shit, there has got to be a catch on that car!! :o
QuoteQuoteProbably should be somewhat local. I'm just using 19002 area code which shouldn't be too far.
Wow, definetely check this one out (http://cars.com/go/search/detail.jsp;jsessionid=KOK4ZM42HIDB3LAZGQ0E2UY?tracktype=usedcc&searchType=21&paId=172828088&pageNumber=0&numResultsPerPage=50&largeNumResultsPerPage=0&sortorder=descending&sortfield=PRICE+descending&certifiedOnly=false&recnum=13&leadExists=true&criteria=K-%7CE-%7CM-_9_%7CB-22000%7CD-_86_%7CN-N%7CR-50%7CI-1%7CP-PRICE+descending%7CQ-descending%7CZ-19002&aff=national)
Holy shit, there has got to be a catch on that car!! :o
Use the link provided in the ad...
WWW.AUTOSOURCE.WS/NOW/Z6.HTM
"Here's a 2003 Z06 that was in a fresh water Texas street flood. This is an insurance claim settlement vehicle. Mileage reported as 5,706. Known Defects: The engine will not start, no mechanical evaluation has been conducted to determine it's condition. Will be sold "AS IS" in a non-running condition. "
QuoteQuoteQuoteProbably should be somewhat local.? I'm just using 19002 area code which shouldn't be too far.?
Wow, definetely check this one out (http://cars.com/go/search/detail.jsp;jsessionid=KOK4ZM42HIDB3LAZGQ0E2UY?tracktype=usedcc&searchType=21&paId=172828088&pageNumber=0&numResultsPerPage=50&largeNumResultsPerPage=0&sortorder=descending&sortfield=PRICE+descending&certifiedOnly=false&recnum=13&leadExists=true&criteria=K-%7CE-%7CM-_9_%7CB-22000%7CD-_86_%7CN-N%7CR-50%7CI-1%7CP-PRICE+descending%7CQ-descending%7CZ-19002&aff=national)
Holy shit, there has got to be a catch on that car!! :o
Use the link provided in the ad...
WWW.AUTOSOURCE.WS/NOW/Z6.HTM
"Here's a 2003 Z06 that was in a fresh water Texas street flood. This is an insurance claim settlement vehicle. Mileage reported as 5,706. Known Defects: The engine will not start, no mechanical evaluation has been conducted to determine it's condition. Will be sold "AS IS" in a non-running condition. "
I knew it had to be something like that....theres a site called readytofix.com that has all these types of cars.
QuoteOkay guys, as you all know, I've been toying with the idea of picking up a sports car on the cheap. I've brought it down to these few cars.
1987-88 944 Turbo
1993-95 RX-7 Twin Turbo
1997 M3 (4 door preferred)
1998-00 Trans Am
Any thoughts? Opinions? Suggestions? What would you do?
Well to start off i will say that i've had experience with most of these(sans RX-7). I've owned a N/A 944 and driven a couple m3's and TA/Camaro's.
Personally i'd rank them like this(on what i'd shoot for)
1. 944
2. RX-7
3. M3
4. TA
I loved my 83 944, great car. Personally i think it and the RX are the lookers of the group. My 944 handled great, had tons of grip, and felt great at speed. Having the turbo motor would have made the car wayyy better.
As for the other rankings i picked the RX-7 second mostly based on the previous cars. Of the couple M3's i've driven all i had to complain about was the interior being narrow. Other than that great cars. The TA is probobly the fastes of the group, and the most reliable. I'm also guessing they are cheaper and more available then the others. The only reason i ranked it 4th was because of exterior design, i'm not a fan of it.
QuoteQuoteQuoteIf you mean 3rd gen, I'd definitley go for a RX-7. So sexy.
Upgrade the cooling system and leave the rest stock and you shouldn't have reliability problems.
Guess you don't read the RX-7 boards much, do you?
I'd say go with the 944 Turbo or Trans Am. Even though I'm a rotary engine fanatic, the third gen, twin turbo RX-7's were not reliable by any means. I'd steer away from it until you know what you're getting into with that car.
Nope, that just the basics on what I know (they have weak cooling systems).
I'm a MKIII Supra guy, since they are more feasable to me ATM.
Yeah, their cooling systems is weakest part. But they are finnicky as all hell. If you are going to get a 3rd-gen RX-7, be prepared to learn a ton, and pay a shitload to constantly get it fixed.
It's a costly car to buy, but many think it's worth it.
QuoteRaza, if you can spend 27K, this is your car. Its a 86 Porsche 944 Turbo GT racing widebody, with an engine pushing 500 hp!
Link with Amazing Porsche (http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=151531146&dealer_id=87389&car_year=1986&make=POR&distance=0〈=en&max_price=&model=944&end_year=2006&min_price=&certified=&address=17302&search_type=both&advanced=&start_year=1981&isp=y&cardist=2008)
Holy shit! I've got to start liquidating my assets now!
QuoteOne Very Cool Vert 944 (http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=135854716&dealer_id=47537539&car_year=1990&make=POR&distance=0〈=en&max_price=&model=944&end_year=2006&min_price=&first_record=26&pager.offset=25&certified=&address=17302&search_type=both&advanced=&isp=y&start_year=1981&cardist=498#vdptop)
I don't do racing stripes, generally.
QuoteRed 944 with no dents or dings (http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=175504376&dealer_id=55723721&car_year=1987&make=POR&distance=0〈=en&max_price=&model=944&end_year=2006&min_price=&first_record=151&pager.offset=150&certified=&address=17302&search_type=both&advanced=&start_year=1981&isp=y&cardist=762#vdptop)
No red! Ticket magnet.
QuoteLink with Porsche 944 for a little less than 6K dollars (http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=183409855&dealer_id=554026&car_year=1987&make=POR&distance=0〈=en&max_price=&model=944&end_year=2006&min_price=&first_record=151&pager.offset=150&certified=&address=17302&search_type=both&advanced=&start_year=1981&isp=y&cardist=69#vdptop)
Red One for 4,495 (http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=180224679&dealer_id=50161733&car_year=1988&search_type=both&make=POR&model=944&distance=0&address=17302&advanced=&certified=&max_price=&min_price=&first_record=226&end_year=2006&start_year=1981&isp=y&pager.offset=225〈=en&cardist=724)
The black one's a 4 cylinder automatic!
QuoteQuoteRaza, if you can spend 27K, this is your car. Its a 86 Porsche 944 Turbo GT racing widebody, with an engine pushing 500 hp!
Link with Amazing Porsche (http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=151531146&dealer_id=87389&car_year=1986&make=POR&distance=0〈=en&max_price=&model=944&end_year=2006&min_price=&certified=&address=17302&search_type=both&advanced=&start_year=1981&isp=y&cardist=2008)
Holy shit! I've got to start liquidating my assets now!
Take out a loan or something....thats not a car to pass by B)
QuoteQuoteQuoteRaza, if you can spend 27K, this is your car. Its a 86 Porsche 944 Turbo GT racing widebody, with an engine pushing 500 hp!
Link with Amazing Porsche (http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=151531146&dealer_id=87389&car_year=1986&make=POR&distance=0〈=en&max_price=&model=944&end_year=2006&min_price=&certified=&address=17302&search_type=both&advanced=&start_year=1981&isp=y&cardist=2008)
Holy shit! I've got to start liquidating my assets now!
Take out a loan or something....thats not a car to pass by B)
It is red, however. I've got 5 points on my license as is!
don't do it raza
Quotedon't do it raza
No red for me. It's a hard and fast rule.
I'm thinking of turning on my sunroof rule, I'm not giving up my red rule. As long as there are speed limits, I will not own a red car!
You might as well paint look at me speeding on my car if it's red.
QuoteYou might as well paint look at me speeding on my car if it's red.
Yup. I learned that in AP Psychology. Pay attention in school kids, and stay off drugs! Well, the crappy ones, anyway.
Right on, only do the good drugs.
QuoteRight on, only do the good drugs.
Seriously. I'm talking acid, clean coke, and absinthe.
Oh...absinthe...how I long for thee...
QuoteQuoteRight on, only do the good drugs.
Seriously. I'm talking acid, clean coke, and absinthe.
Oh...absinthe...how I long for thee...
Don't forget MDMA, lab grade of course.
QuoteQuoteQuoteRight on, only do the good drugs.
Seriously. I'm talking acid, clean coke, and absinthe.
Oh...absinthe...how I long for thee...
Don't forget MDMA, lab grade of course.
X? Eh, to each his own. I like the natural stuff. Or anything that will FUBAR you.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteRight on, only do the good drugs.
Seriously. I'm talking acid, clean coke, and absinthe.
Oh...absinthe...how I long for thee...
Don't forget MDMA, lab grade of course.
X? Eh, to each his own. I like the natural stuff. Or anything that will FUBAR you.
that's why I said lab grade, not bathtub and press grade.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteRight on, only do the good drugs.
Seriously. I'm talking acid, clean coke, and absinthe.
Oh...absinthe...how I long for thee...
Don't forget MDMA, lab grade of course.
X? Eh, to each his own. I like the natural stuff. Or anything that will FUBAR you.
that's why I said lab grade, not bathtub and press grade.
Dateline says X is bad for you... ;)
FUBAR!
Link (http://autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=180696478&dealer_id=56163108&car_year=1988&make=BMW&distance=0&lang=en&max_price=&model=&end_year=1992&min_price=&certified=&address=10024&search_type=both&advanced=&start_year=1987&isp=y&cardist=15)
Raza, have you checked out this 87 M6?
Raza wants a fun car, not a grand tourer.
QuoteRaza wants a fun car, not a grand tourer.
The M6 was NOT a Grand Tourer! :o
QuoteQuoteRaza wants a fun car, not a grand tourer.
The M6 was NOT a Grand Tourer! :o
Yes it was, it was a large coupe that most likely weighed over 3000 lbs.
QuoteQuoteQuoteRaza wants a fun car, not a grand tourer.
The M6 was NOT a Grand Tourer! :o
Yes it was, it was a large coupe that most likely weighed over 3000 lbs.
Hardly GT by any measure...the Corvette and 911 both weigh over 3000 pounds...a very unsuitable measurement of a GT car, if you ask me.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteRaza wants a fun car, not a grand tourer.
The M6 was NOT a Grand Tourer! :o
Yes it was, it was a large coupe that most likely weighed over 3000 lbs.
Hardly GT by any measure...the Corvette and 911 both weigh over 3000 pounds...a very unsuitable measurement of a GT car, if you ask me.
Fine then, maybe weight isn't the best measurement, but size certainly is and there is no debating the fact that the M6 was a large coupe. Don't get me wrong, I like the M6, it was one of my favorite cars for a long time. But, I don't think it is what Raza is looking for.
Does anyone know how much power the 944 Turbo has?
i would go for the RX7 with twins....fast as hell...tinker with the suspension a little and you will beat the pants off a lot of guys...i know a couple guys that run about 10lbs of boost and can do low 13's consitently...i would settle for a nice lookin first gen...a third gen that hasnt been screwed up would be a great car...even though they have wierd maintence needs...once you learn a little bout them...they can be fast as hell!
(http://www.autosrapidos.com/superautos/m/mazda-rx701.jpg)
QuoteQuoteRaza wants a fun car, not a grand tourer.
The M6 was NOT a Grand Tourer! :o
yes it is.
Raza, get the M3. best looking and most practical, and it's quite fast too.
Personally, i'd the the E30 M3. :praise:
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteRight on, only do the good drugs.
Seriously. I'm talking acid, clean coke, and absinthe.
Oh...absinthe...how I long for thee...
Don't forget MDMA, lab grade of course.
X? Eh, to each his own. I like the natural stuff. Or anything that will FUBAR you.
...Since acid is all natural and all... <_< You've still forgotten 'shrooms, maryjoohuana, and beer. (All of which are more natural than LSD). And if you wanna be
completely FUBAR'd, go find some DMT or DPT.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteRaza wants a fun car, not a grand tourer.
The M6 was NOT a Grand Tourer! :o
Yes it was, it was a large coupe that most likely weighed over 3000 lbs.
Hardly GT by any measure...the Corvette and 911 both weigh over 3000 pounds...a very unsuitable measurement of a GT car, if you ask me.
Fine then, maybe weight isn't the best measurement, but size certainly is and there is no debating the fact that the M6 was a large coupe. Don't get me wrong, I like the M6, it was one of my favorite cars for a long time. But, I don't think it is what Raza is looking for.
It was a large coupe, but was one of the fastest and best handling cars around in the mid 80s. Sure, it could seat you in comfort, but that isnt the only mark of a GT car. The M6 was quite the sporty car.
QuoteQuoteQuoteRaza wants a fun car, not a grand tourer.
The M6 was NOT a Grand Tourer! :o
yes it is.
Raza, get the M3. best looking and most practical, and it's quite fast too.
Personally, i'd the the E30 M3. :praise:
See my argument with TBR.
And an E30 is probably my favorite M3...I just love the looks! Sometimes I wish I had a E30 M3 instead of a regular E30.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteRaza wants a fun car, not a grand tourer.
The M6 was NOT a Grand Tourer! :o
yes it is.
Raza, get the M3. best looking and most practical, and it's quite fast too.
Personally, i'd the the E30 M3. :praise:
See my argument with TBR.
And an E30 is probably my favorite M3...I just love the looks! Sometimes I wish I had a E30 M3 instead of a regular E30.
that was my dream car, but those things are extremely rare where i live, and all are probably high mileage cars, i'd think, so it wouldn't be a good idea to get one. maybe as a restoration project when i'm older.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteRaza wants a fun car, not a grand tourer.
The M6 was NOT a Grand Tourer! :o
yes it is.
Raza, get the M3. best looking and most practical, and it's quite fast too.
Personally, i'd the the E30 M3. :praise:
See my argument with TBR.
And an E30 is probably my favorite M3...I just love the looks! Sometimes I wish I had a E30 M3 instead of a regular E30.
i guess everyone has different standards on what's a sports car or a GT car.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteRaza wants a fun car, not a grand tourer.
The M6 was NOT a Grand Tourer! :o
Yes it was, it was a large coupe that most likely weighed over 3000 lbs.
Hardly GT by any measure...the Corvette and 911 both weigh over 3000 pounds...a very unsuitable measurement of a GT car, if you ask me.
Fine then, maybe weight isn't the best measurement, but size certainly is and there is no debating the fact that the M6 was a large coupe. Don't get me wrong, I like the M6, it was one of my favorite cars for a long time. But, I don't think it is what Raza is looking for.
It was a large coupe, but was one of the fastest and best handling cars around in the mid 80s. Sure, it could seat you in comfort, but that isnt the only mark of a GT car. The M6 was quite the sporty car.
If it has a back seat it is a grand tourer and the M6 had a back seat.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteRaza wants a fun car, not a grand tourer.
The M6 was NOT a Grand Tourer! :o
Yes it was, it was a large coupe that most likely weighed over 3000 lbs.
Hardly GT by any measure...the Corvette and 911 both weigh over 3000 pounds...a very unsuitable measurement of a GT car, if you ask me.
Fine then, maybe weight isn't the best measurement, but size certainly is and there is no debating the fact that the M6 was a large coupe. Don't get me wrong, I like the M6, it was one of my favorite cars for a long time. But, I don't think it is what Raza is looking for.
It was a large coupe, but was one of the fastest and best handling cars around in the mid 80s. Sure, it could seat you in comfort, but that isnt the only mark of a GT car. The M6 was quite the sporty car.
If it has a back seat it is a grand tourer and the M6 had a back seat.
so a 911 Turbo is a grand tourer?
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteRaza wants a fun car, not a grand tourer.
The M6 was NOT a Grand Tourer! :o
Yes it was, it was a large coupe that most likely weighed over 3000 lbs.
Hardly GT by any measure...the Corvette and 911 both weigh over 3000 pounds...a very unsuitable measurement of a GT car, if you ask me.
Fine then, maybe weight isn't the best measurement, but size certainly is and there is no debating the fact that the M6 was a large coupe. Don't get me wrong, I like the M6, it was one of my favorite cars for a long time. But, I don't think it is what Raza is looking for.
It was a large coupe, but was one of the fastest and best handling cars around in the mid 80s. Sure, it could seat you in comfort, but that isnt the only mark of a GT car. The M6 was quite the sporty car.
If it has a back seat it is a grand tourer and the M6 had a back seat.
so a 911 Turbo is a grand tourer?
Actually, it is.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteRaza wants a fun car, not a grand tourer.
The M6 was NOT a Grand Tourer! :o
Yes it was, it was a large coupe that most likely weighed over 3000 lbs.
Hardly GT by any measure...the Corvette and 911 both weigh over 3000 pounds...a very unsuitable measurement of a GT car, if you ask me.
Fine then, maybe weight isn't the best measurement, but size certainly is and there is no debating the fact that the M6 was a large coupe. Don't get me wrong, I like the M6, it was one of my favorite cars for a long time. But, I don't think it is what Raza is looking for.
It was a large coupe, but was one of the fastest and best handling cars around in the mid 80s. Sure, it could seat you in comfort, but that isnt the only mark of a GT car. The M6 was quite the sporty car.
If it has a back seat it is a grand tourer and the M6 had a back seat.
so a 911 Turbo is a grand tourer?
Actually, it is.
well, i never thought it was. :shrugs:
The fact that it has AWD almost makes it an automatic GT, the GT2 on the otherhand are definitely a sports car, as is the regular Carrera and Carrera S. What I should have said is that if a car has a useable backseat it is automatically a GT.
QuoteThe fact that it has AWD almost makes it an automatic GT, the GT2 on the otherhand are definitely a sports car, as is the regular Carrera and Carrera S. What I should have said is that if a car has a useable backseat it is automatically a GT.
AWD doesn't make it a GT. A lamborghini Murcielago has AWD, and there's no way that thing's a GT. a bit heavy, but it's a supercar, not a GT.
QuoteQuoteThe fact that it has AWD almost makes it an automatic GT, the GT2 on the otherhand are definitely a sports car, as is the regular Carrera and Carrera S. What I should have said is that if a car has a useable backseat it is automatically a GT.
AWD doesn't make it a GT. A lamborghini Murcielago has AWD, and there's no way that thing's a GT. a bit heavy, but it's a supercar, not a GT.
It is both a supercar (because of its price) and a GT (because of its drive configuration and massive weight).
QuoteQuoteQuoteThe fact that it has AWD almost makes it an automatic GT, the GT2 on the otherhand are definitely a sports car, as is the regular Carrera and Carrera S. What I should have said is that if a car has a useable backseat it is automatically a GT.
AWD doesn't make it a GT. A lamborghini Murcielago has AWD, and there's no way that thing's a GT. a bit heavy, but it's a supercar, not a GT.
It is both a supercar (because of its price) and a GT (because of its drive configuration and massive weight).
drive configuration doesn't mean it's a GT at all. Does that mean that a base 911 is a sports car while the much faster and better handling AWD Turbo is a GT? your view of GT cars doesn't make sense.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe fact that it has AWD almost makes it an automatic GT, the GT2 on the otherhand are definitely a sports car, as is the regular Carrera and Carrera S. What I should have said is that if a car has a useable backseat it is automatically a GT.
AWD doesn't make it a GT. A lamborghini Murcielago has AWD, and there's no way that thing's a GT. a bit heavy, but it's a supercar, not a GT.
It is both a supercar (because of its price) and a GT (because of its drive configuration and massive weight).
drive configuration doesn't mean it's a GT at all. Does that mean that a base 911 is a sports car while the much faster and better handling AWD Turbo is a GT? your view of GT cars doesn't make sense.
IMHO AWD makes a car a GT car because it doesn't improve the way it drives and adds weight. It may make it faster, but it doesn't make it feel better.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe fact that it has AWD almost makes it an automatic GT, the GT2 on the otherhand are definitely a sports car, as is the regular Carrera and Carrera S. What I should have said is that if a car has a useable backseat it is automatically a GT.
AWD doesn't make it a GT. A lamborghini Murcielago has AWD, and there's no way that thing's a GT. a bit heavy, but it's a supercar, not a GT.
It is both a supercar (because of its price) and a GT (because of its drive configuration and massive weight).
drive configuration doesn't mean it's a GT at all. Does that mean that a base 911 is a sports car while the much faster and better handling AWD Turbo is a GT? your view of GT cars doesn't make sense.
IMHO AWD makes a car a GT car because it doesn't improve the way it drives and adds weight. It may make it faster, but it doesn't make it feel better.
it may add weight, but even with AWD, there are some cars with awesome performance, and i think it's not fair to call them GT cars, while their performance may exceed an RWD car.
If it is a case where a car has so much power that it can't get it to the pavement without AWD that would be one thing, but that certainly isn't the case with the 911 Turbo.
QuoteIf it is a case where a car has so much power that it can't get it to the pavement without AWD that would be one thing, but that certainly isn't the case with the 911 Turbo.
You can always get the GT2-no AWD :P
QuoteQuoteIf it is a case where a car has so much power that it can't get it to the pavement without AWD that would be one thing, but that certainly isn't the case with the 911 Turbo.
You can always get the GT2-no AWD :P
Yep, and that is my preference.
QuoteIf it is a case where a car has so much power that it can't get it to the pavement without AWD that would be one thing, but that certainly isn't the case with the 911 Turbo.
then what would the upcoming (hopefully) Bugatti Veyron be? a sportscar because it needs AWD, but a GT because of it's massive weight. lol
QuoteQuoteIf it is a case where a car has so much power that it can't get it to the pavement without AWD that would be one thing, but that certainly isn't the case with the 911 Turbo.
then what would the upcoming (hopefully) Bugatti Veyron be? a sportscar because it needs AWD, but a GT because of it's massive weight. lol
Definitely a GT because of its weight. A car can need AWD and still be a GT.
QuoteQuoteIf it is a case where a car has so much power that it can't get it to the pavement without AWD that would be one thing, but that certainly isn't the case with the 911 Turbo.
You can always get the GT2-no AWD :P
Mine too....if you can afford the extra 90 or so grand.
QuoteQuoteIf it is a case where a car has so much power that it can't get it to the pavement without AWD that would be one thing, but that certainly isn't the case with the 911 Turbo.
then what would the upcoming (hopefully) Bugatti Veyron be? a sportscar because it needs AWD, but a GT because of it's massive weight. lol
the upcoming Veyron is by no means a sports car. No true sports car weighs as much as it does.
QuoteQuoteQuoteIf it is a case where a car has so much power that it can't get it to the pavement without AWD that would be one thing, but that certainly isn't the case with the 911 Turbo.
You can always get the GT2-no AWD :P
Mine too....if you can afford the extra 90 or so grand.
jus get a cayman s.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIf it is a case where a car has so much power that it can't get it to the pavement without AWD that would be one thing, but that certainly isn't the case with the 911 Turbo.
You can always get the GT2-no AWD :P
Mine too....if you can afford the extra 90 or so grand.
jus get a cayman s.
Excluding price, I would take a GT2 over any cayman, any day.
QuoteThe fact that it has AWD almost makes it an automatic GT, the GT2 on the otherhand are definitely a sports car, as is the regular Carrera and Carrera S. What I should have said is that if a car has a useable backseat it is automatically a GT.
The GT2 is more of a sports car than the 911 Turbo is, because it's RWD and only has two seats, but it's still a coupe. That's the gray area of the sports car definition.
QuoteQuoteThe fact that it has AWD almost makes it an automatic GT, the GT2 on the otherhand are definitely a sports car, as is the regular Carrera and Carrera S. What I should have said is that if a car has a useable backseat it is automatically a GT.
The GT2 is more of a sports car than the 911 Turbo is, because it's RWD and only has two seats, but it's still a coupe. That's the gray area of the sports car definition.
Being a convertible is no longer a necessary attribute for sports cars.
QuoteQuoteQuoteThe fact that it has AWD almost makes it an automatic GT, the GT2 on the otherhand are definitely a sports car, as is the regular Carrera and Carrera S. What I should have said is that if a car has a useable backseat it is automatically a GT.
The GT2 is more of a sports car than the 911 Turbo is, because it's RWD and only has two seats, but it's still a coupe. That's the gray area of the sports car definition.
Being a convertible is no longer a necessary attribute for sports cars.
I don't believe that.
link (http://cars.com/go/search/detail.jsp?tracktype=usedcc&searchType=21&paId=171966128&pageNumber=0&numResultsPerPage=50&largeNumResultsPerPage=0&sortorder=descending&sortfield=PRICE+descending&certifiedOnly=false&recnum=1&leadExists=true&criteria=K-%7CE-%7CM-_5_%7CB-20000%7CD-_47_%7CN-N%7CR-30%7CI-1%7CP-PRICE+descending%7CQ-descending%7CZ-19002&aff=national)
oh my (http://cars.com/go/search/detail.jsp?tracktype=usedcc&searchType=21&paId=172260122&pageNumber=0&numResultsPerPage=50&largeNumResultsPerPage=0&sortorder=descending&sortfield=PRICE+descending&certifiedOnly=false&recnum=23&leadExists=true&criteria=K-%7CE-%7CM-_5_%7CB-20000%7CN-N%7CR-30%7CI-1%7CP-PRICE+descending%7CQ-descending%7CZ-19002&aff=national)
Quotelink (http://cars.com/go/search/detail.jsp?tracktype=usedcc&searchType=21&paId=171966128&pageNumber=0&numResultsPerPage=50&largeNumResultsPerPage=0&sortorder=descending&sortfield=PRICE+descending&certifiedOnly=false&recnum=1&leadExists=true&criteria=K-%7CE-%7CM-_5_%7CB-20000%7CD-_47_%7CN-N%7CR-30%7CI-1%7CP-PRICE+descending%7CQ-descending%7CZ-19002&aff=national)
Not bad, but it's too expensive, red, and a coupe. I prefer the E36 sedan.
I don't think I'll be able to get a second car...it's possible, but I'm going to focus on replacing the Passat. I'm working on a plan, and I'll start a thread detailing that and asking for suggestions and comments.
That seems like a nice deal ^^
Quoteoh my (http://cars.com/go/search/detail.jsp?tracktype=usedcc&searchType=21&paId=172260122&pageNumber=0&numResultsPerPage=50&largeNumResultsPerPage=0&sortorder=descending&sortfield=PRICE+descending&certifiedOnly=false&recnum=23&leadExists=true&criteria=K-%7CE-%7CM-_5_%7CB-20000%7CN-N%7CR-30%7CI-1%7CP-PRICE+descending%7CQ-descending%7CZ-19002&aff=national)
That's very nice, but still too expensive. And if I get that, the Passat becomes utterly redundant.
QuoteQuoteoh my (http://cars.com/go/search/detail.jsp?tracktype=usedcc&searchType=21&paId=172260122&pageNumber=0&numResultsPerPage=50&largeNumResultsPerPage=0&sortorder=descending&sortfield=PRICE+descending&certifiedOnly=false&recnum=23&leadExists=true&criteria=K-%7CE-%7CM-_5_%7CB-20000%7CN-N%7CR-30%7CI-1%7CP-PRICE+descending%7CQ-descending%7CZ-19002&aff=national)
That's very nice, but still too expensive. And if I get that, the Passat becomes utterly redundant.
Well, you sell your Passat once you get that car.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe fact that it has AWD almost makes it an automatic GT, the GT2 on the otherhand are definitely a sports car, as is the regular Carrera and Carrera S. What I should have said is that if a car has a useable backseat it is automatically a GT.
The GT2 is more of a sports car than the 911 Turbo is, because it's RWD and only has two seats, but it's still a coupe. That's the gray area of the sports car definition.
Being a convertible is no longer a necessary attribute for sports cars.
I don't believe that.
So a Z06 isn't a sports car? Or a Elise Exige? If not, what are they? GTs? Hardly.
Someone I work with has a 93 RX-7. It's an awesome car. He's running the stock turbos and it's still mad fast. I wasn't allowed to drive it, but I rode in it, and it was impressive. In any case, my vote would probably go for the RX-7.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe fact that it has AWD almost makes it an automatic GT, the GT2 on the otherhand are definitely a sports car, as is the regular Carrera and Carrera S. What I should have said is that if a car has a useable backseat it is automatically a GT.
The GT2 is more of a sports car than the 911 Turbo is, because it's RWD and only has two seats, but it's still a coupe. That's the gray area of the sports car definition.
Being a convertible is no longer a necessary attribute for sports cars.
I don't believe that.
So a Z06 isn't a sports car? Or a Elise Exige? If not, what are they? GTs? Hardly.
The body on frame days are over. Nowadays, the convertibles are HEAVIER than the coupes which would make them less sporty.
Convertibles are merely for novelty purposes today and they actually hurt handling, acceleration and aerodynamics.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe fact that it has AWD almost makes it an automatic GT, the GT2 on the otherhand are definitely a sports car, as is the regular Carrera and Carrera S. What I should have said is that if a car has a useable backseat it is automatically a GT.
The GT2 is more of a sports car than the 911 Turbo is, because it's RWD and only has two seats, but it's still a coupe. That's the gray area of the sports car definition.
Being a convertible is no longer a necessary attribute for sports cars.
I don't believe that.
So a Z06 isn't a sports car? Or a Elise Exige? If not, what are they? GTs? Hardly.
The body on frame days are over. Nowadays, the convertibles are HEAVIER than the coupes which would make them less sporty.
Convertibles are merely for novelty purposes today and they actually hurt handling, acceleration and aerodynamics.
most convertiables are heavier because they are reinforced for structal stability....arent they??
Yes, they are because they are unibodys now.
Back in the day they didn't have to because they were body on frame. My dad's Corvette convertible is lighter than the coupe because the vinyl top weighs less.
That old idea about sports cars needing to be topless is from the days of MGBs, Triumphs, Fiats and Ausitn Healeys.
Now they are also heavier from the complex mechanism used to operate the top....the Porsche 911 Convertible is not stiffened in any way over its coupe (read that in the 2004 NYIAS Porsche Brochure) but still weighs more, due to the top.
You guys are so unhappy with definitions, eh? Why don't we start calling red yellow? Why don't we call cars sofas? Because they are not so.
No, the Exige and Z06 are not sports cars.
Quote
No, the Exige and Z06 are not sports cars.
wtf???
QuoteQuote
No, the Exige and Z06 are not sports cars.
wtf???
They are very close to being sports cars, but they need an open top. The 911 is not a sports car, the Z06 is not, the Elise is, the MX-5 is, but the Evo is not.
QuoteQuoteQuote
No, the Exige and Z06 are not sports cars.
wtf???
They are very close to being sports cars, but they need an open top. The 911 is not a sports car, the Z06 is not, the Elise is, the MX-5 is, but the Evo is not.
that's very flawed.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
No, the Exige and Z06 are not sports cars.
wtf???
They are very close to being sports cars, but they need an open top. The 911 is not a sports car, the Z06 is not, the Elise is, the MX-5 is, but the Evo is not.
that's very flawed.
No, it's not. It's a definition. My table is not a chair, it's not a car, it's not a house. It's a table.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
No, the Exige and Z06 are not sports cars.
wtf???
They are very close to being sports cars, but they need an open top. The 911 is not a sports car, the Z06 is not, the Elise is, the MX-5 is, but the Evo is not.
that's very flawed.
No, it's not. It's a definition. My table is not a chair, it's not a car, it's not a house. It's a table.
No, your definition is definitely flawed. A convertible top doesn't make a car more sporty, in fact, convertible tops typically make cars softier.
Gotta be an open top for sure.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
No, the Exige and Z06 are not sports cars.
wtf???
They are very close to being sports cars, but they need an open top. The 911 is not a sports car, the Z06 is not, the Elise is, the MX-5 is, but the Evo is not.
that's very flawed.
No, it's not. It's a definition. My table is not a chair, it's not a car, it's not a house. It's a table.
No, your definition is definitely flawed. A convertible top doesn't make a car more sporty, in fact, convertible tops typically make cars softier.
Nothing can make anything softier.
And often, power tops can add weight, but a manual top removes weight. Cars like the Miata, MR-2, and Corvette are all sports cars in convertible (and targa) tops. I don't even like power tops, unless it's very complicated (for example, the MR-2's top can be operated fully from the driver's seat, the Corvette's can't).
Sports cars generally don't exist in the market anymore.
I just found this...maybe you should make a low offer Raza, and see if they jump at it.
http://www.readytofix.com/Inventory/M3_Flood_99_Silver.htm (http://www.readytofix.com/Inventory/M3_Flood_99_Silver.htm)
QuoteI just found this...maybe you should make a low offer Raza, and see if they jump at it.
http://www.readytofix.com/Inventory/M3_Flood_99_Silver.htm (http://www.readytofix.com/Inventory/M3_Flood_99_Silver.htm)
What's a low offer? $1000? You think they'd sell for that?
QuoteQuoteI just found this...maybe you should make a low offer Raza, and see if they jump at it.
http://www.readytofix.com/Inventory/M3_Flood_99_Silver.htm (http://www.readytofix.com/Inventory/M3_Flood_99_Silver.htm)
What's a low offer? $1000? You think they'd sell for that?
I would think in the region of 8K would be a low offer...you can always offer as low as you want and then just up your bid.
Oh, but there is one problem...the vehicle is in Miami...so unless youre going there on vacation soon, it really isnt plausible to get this car.
Hmm...it runs...I wonder what it smells like?
QuoteHmm...it runs...I wonder what it smells like?
The description says it has no odors or mildew. :)
FOr a grand, I wouldn't care much.
What's the email address? I've got 2 grand in my account now.
QuoteQuoteHmm...it runs...I wonder what it smells like?
The description says it has no odors or mildew. :)
Not yet atleast.
Anyway a vast majority of flood cars will run. Flood damage occurs over a long period of time.
The car may run great for a year or two, once it develops problems, the odds are they will increase at a high rate.
i wouldn't get a flooded car. NEVARRR!!!
I would, but i would have to see just how bad it was flooded.
EX> was it just the engine bay(lower), or did it just go a inch or two above the rocker panel. Was it fresh water or salt water.
The percentage of "good" flood cars is probobly in the 1-5% area.
Still it just wise in general to avoid flood cars, certainly from areas like florida or maine(coastal states, salt water).
QuoteI would, but i would have to see just how bad it was flooded.
EX> was it just the engine bay(lower), or did it just go a inch or two above the rocker panel. Was it fresh water or salt water.
The percentage of "good" flood cars is probobly in the 1-5% area.
Still it just wise in general to avoid flood cars, certainly from areas like florida or maine(coastal states, salt water).
if i'm going to keep the car for maybe a year or two at most i'd get a flood car, but otherwise, i'd stay away from all flooded cars.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
No, the Exige and Z06 are not sports cars.
wtf???
They are very close to being sports cars, but they need an open top. The 911 is not a sports car, the Z06 is not, the Elise is, the MX-5 is, but the Evo is not.
that's very flawed.
No, it's not. It's a definition. My table is not a chair, it's not a car, it's not a house. It's a table.
from websters (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=sports+car&x=0&y=0)
Main Entry: sports car
Function: noun
: a low small usually 2-passenger automobile designed for quick response, easy maneuverability, and high-speed driving
doesnt say anything about a convertible top.
I've ridden in my dad's "true sports car" many a time, but the feeling the wind in your hair and scorching your ass on hot black vinyl seats isn't that remarkable. It doesn't make it any sportier, it's more of a novelty thing than anything else.
The "split window" coupe offered a stronger chasis and better aerodynamics.
You can't just cling to an archaic definition of a sports car without supporting it.
QuoteI've ridden in my dad's "true sports car" many a time, but the feeling the wind in your hair and scorching your ass on hot black vinyl seats isn't that remarkable. It doesn't make it any sportier, it's more of a novelty thing than anything else.
The "split window" coupe offered a stronger chasis and better aerodynamics.
You can't just cling to an archaic definition of a sports car without supporting it.
:praise: Convertables add weight...if i had a sports car i would either want it to be a hard top or "split window" :praise:
Have you considered a Z32, Raza?
(http://auto.consumerguide.com/images/autoreview/400x266/1990-96-Nissan-300ZX-92809101990002.JPG)
^My favorite Z. :praise:
Okay, I've given the sports car enough argument, that if you guys don't get it by now, we can at least contain it to one thread, so do it in the M6 thread.
The Z32 seems like a good idea, but it may be too...modern...for me. It's kind of large too, and I'd prefer something smaller with either better performance (RX7) or more class (944 Turbo). Though, the 300ZX is a good alternative to the TA, and it probably handles better as well.
Needs a little work, but bloody fast. Give it a look. (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4561979609&category=6327&rd=1)
QuoteNeeds a little work, but bloody fast. Give it a look. (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4561979609&category=6327&rd=1)
that interior is riced.
QuoteQuoteNeeds a little work, but bloody fast. Give it a look. (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4561979609&category=6327&rd=1)
that interior is riced.
If he got a different steering wheel that matched the modern look of that modified center stack it wouldn't be so bad.
QuoteQuoteNeeds a little work, but bloody fast. Give it a look. (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4561979609&category=6327&rd=1)
that interior is riced.
Easily fixed with a little paint ;) Looks pretty clean to me.
QuoteQuoteQuoteNeeds a little work, but bloody fast. Give it a look. (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4561979609&category=6327&rd=1)
that interior is riced.
If he got a different steering wheel that matched the modern look of that modified center stack it wouldn't be so bad.
d00d... that red trim is plasticky and tacky. i wouldn't want to even look at that crap.
QuoteThe Z32 seems like a good idea, but it may be too...modern...for me. It's kind of large too, and I'd prefer something smaller with either better performance (RX7) or more class (944 Turbo). Though, the 300ZX is a good alternative to the TA, and it probably handles better as well.
Too modern? I agree, but that's because I work on my cars. If you don't work on it, I don't see a problem.
I don't know much about them, but I can check with some Z32 owners that I know on your behalf. I think they're pretty cool cars.
Check this out (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Porsche-944-944-1-Owner-PORSCHE-944-Great-Color-Combination_W0QQitemZ4562051927QQcategoryZ6434QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting)
boo ya Dave
That 944 is sweet!
I'm not sure how that compares to the price of a Z32 N/A or Z32 TT.
QuoteThat 944 is sweet!
I'm not sure how that compares to the price of a Z32 N/A or Z32 TT.
I know, its amazing, and it has a sunroof. And its extremely well kept also.
QuoteCheck this out (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Porsche-944-944-1-Owner-PORSCHE-944-Great-Color-Combination_W0QQitemZ4562051927QQcategoryZ6434QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting)
w00t! nice find, Dave!
Theres only 2 hours left on it! Raza better check in soon!
Beautiful car and a great deal, but I see nothing that indicates that it is a turbo.
QuoteBeautiful car and a great deal, but I see nothing that indicates that it is a turbo.
I was wondering that too, but perhaps Raza can forget about the turbo aspect since the car is so nice and has a sunroof :lol:
(http://motorcars.holmanauto.com/Used_car_pics/WP0AA0947FN454474-neotmp20565_full.jpg)
It's for sure N/A. See, the air flow meter goes right to the throttle body.
It must have Bosch L-Jetronic EFI because it has a flapper style air flow meter like my car.
N/A engines are cheaper and easier anyway. And no lag!
Look how clean that engine is! But there is only 1 hour left, and I doubt Raza will come on in time to get it. But if the reserve isnt met on this, then it might be re auctioned.
I dont have an ebay account...can anyone check what the reserve is?
If I had some dough I would definitely place a bid on that car. Just look at that engine compartment, it is immaculate!
QuoteIf I had some dough I would definitely place a bid on that car. Just look at that engine compartment, it is immaculate!
I know!
I wonder if the folks would loan me $4500... ;) Just kidding, I have no intention of ever going into debt for a car.
QuoteI wonder if the folks would loan me $4500... ;) Just kidding, I have no intention of ever going into debt for a car.
Damn, I want that car!
RAZA!! LOG ON AND BID FOR THE CAR, QUICK!!!!!
QuoteQuoteBeautiful car and a great deal, but I see nothing that indicates that it is a turbo.
I was wondering that too, but perhaps Raza can forget about the turbo aspect since the car is so nice and has a sunroof :lol:
i think he said that he hates sunroofs or something. or that may be Wimmer. or both. :lol:
QuoteQuoteQuoteBeautiful car and a great deal, but I see nothing that indicates that it is a turbo.
I was wondering that too, but perhaps Raza can forget about the turbo aspect since the car is so nice and has a sunroof :lol:
i think he said that he hates sunroofs or something. or that may be Wimmer. or both. :lol:
Raza LOVES sunroofs, if I recall correctly.
You do.
QuoteYou do.
I do, but Raza likes them a LOT more.
I was saying that you remembered correctly.
QuoteI was saying that you remembered correctly.
ohhh :lol:
Well the auction ended and the reserve wasnt met. Raza can always call the people and negotiate a personal sale if its still available.
Here is another deal. (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Porsche-944-951-1986-944-TURBO-PORSCHE-951_W0QQitemZ4561660916QQcategoryZ6434QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting)
Another GREAT deal, the same colors as the other amazing deal, and you can buy it now for only 5,500. It says on top of the page that its an automatic, but in the details it says its manual, and in the pictures its manual.
GREAT DEAL!!! (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Porsche-944-1984-Porsche-944-Fast-Car-Low-Reserve_W0QQitemZ4561699776QQcategoryZ6434QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)
The wheels on the black one are horrid and I don't care for the color, but it looks to be in good shape. The interior on the other one is a bit rough imho.
Here are some more deals I found:
Link (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Porsche-944-Porsche-944-Red-5-Spd-1984-Air-Cruise-Blk-Leather_W0QQitemZ4561708131QQcategoryZ6434QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)
Link (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Porsche-944-944-1984-Porsche-944-Coupe-ONLY-76K-MILES_W0QQitemZ4561756934QQcategoryZ6434QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)
Link (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Porsche-944-1983-porsche-944-in-great-shape-N-R_W0QQitemZ4562194039QQcategoryZ6434QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)
Link (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Porsche-944-LOW-MILES-1805969134_W0QQitemZ4561116328QQcategoryZ6434QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)
Link (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Porsche-944-Nice-Porsche-944-Southern-Car-Track-Race-Project-Car_W0QQitemZ4561814704QQcategoryZ6434QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)
Link (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Porsche-944-N-A-1985-5-1985-5-944-N-A-Looks-Great-Runs-Great-Drives-Great_W0QQitemZ4561839090QQcategoryZ6434QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)
QuoteThe wheels on the black one are horrid and I don't care for the color, but it looks to be in good shape. The interior on the other one is a bit rough imho.
Leather looks very used, but other than that, its not bad.
The first two are nice, but Raza won't by a red car; I don't want to even imagine what is under the seat covers on the 3rd one; the 4th one is expensive and the wheels are dorky; the black one looks great, though the mileage is a tad high; and the wheels on the maroon one don't fit the styling of the car at all.
QuoteThe first two are nice, but Raza won't by a red car; I don't want to even imagine what is under the seat covers on the 3rd one; the 4th one is expensive and the wheels are dorky; the black one looks great, though the mileage is a tad high; and the wheels on the maroon one don't fit the styling of the car at all.
I like the silver one best. (the GREAT deal one I posted)
The regular 944 isn't even faster than my Passat, I don't think, so I would want something with better performance. Tim's right, I wouldn't buy a red car.
On a car like this, the sunroof isn't as important (though this sunroof is prevalent on 944s and I've seen several) because it's my second car and is supposed to have a small cabin (like the RX7) and is not necessary.
I'm also adding the MR-2 on my list of possibles.
QuoteThe regular 944 isn't even faster than my Passat, I don't think, so I would want something with better performance. Tim's right, I wouldn't buy a red car.
On a car like this, the sunroof isn't as important (though this sunroof is prevalent on 944s and I've seen several) because it's my second car and is supposed to have a small cabin (like the RX7) and is not necessary.
I'm also adding the MR-2 on my list of possibles.
Check it out:
Link (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Porsche-944-944-Turbo-Porsche-There-is-no-substitute_W0QQitemZ4562029553QQcategoryZ6434QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting)
Another 944 Turbo (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Porsche-944-Turbo-NO-RES-77k-MILES-SILVER-TURBO-GREAT-COND-CARFAX_W0QQitemZ4562592344QQcategoryZ6434QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)
Wow. I can see why he wants one. Although, when you're willing to spend that kind of money, why not go with a 911? 944s are nice, but nothing beats the heritage, styling, and handling of an air-cooled 911, IMO. I hear the 84-89 versions are reletively trouble-free.
Also, how about a Saab 900 Turbo? I've been contemplating getting one, but the reliability of the Ranger is too good.
QuoteWow. I can see why he wants one. Although, when you're willing to spend that kind of money, why not go with a 911? 944s are nice, but nothing beats the heritage, styling, and handling of an air-cooled 911, IMO. I hear the 84-89 versions are reletively trouble-free.
Also, how about a Saab 900 Turbo? I've been contemplating getting one, but the reliability of the Ranger is too good.
When I have the dough in a few years, I may be buying a 944 Turbo.
QuoteQuoteThe regular 944 isn't even faster than my Passat, I don't think, so I would want something with better performance. Tim's right, I wouldn't buy a red car.
On a car like this, the sunroof isn't as important (though this sunroof is prevalent on 944s and I've seen several) because it's my second car and is supposed to have a small cabin (like the RX7) and is not necessary.
I'm also adding the MR-2 on my list of possibles.
Check it out:
Link (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Porsche-944-944-Turbo-Porsche-There-is-no-substitute_W0QQitemZ4562029553QQcategoryZ6434QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting)
I wouldn't pay over 5 grand for that car--and his reserve isn't even met! It's got a steering leak and an inoperable sunroof. Those will be expensive to fix. Plus, it's got 147K miles!
KBB prices it under 4 grand.
QuoteWow. I can see why he wants one. Although, when you're willing to spend that kind of money, why not go with a 911? 944s are nice, but nothing beats the heritage, styling, and handling of an air-cooled 911, IMO. I hear the 84-89 versions are reletively trouble-free.
Also, how about a Saab 900 Turbo? I've been contemplating getting one, but the reliability of the Ranger is too good.
I was looking at an 83. Drove great, felt great (ugly color though)...over 13 grand. Seller would drop to 12.5, but still that's alot. Plus, the 944's faster, and kind of like a one-off Porsche.
QuoteAnother 944 Turbo (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Porsche-944-Turbo-NO-RES-77k-MILES-SILVER-TURBO-GREAT-COND-CARFAX_W0QQitemZ4562592344QQcategoryZ6434QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)
That one is impeccable. If I had the money, I'd bid.
QuoteQuoteWow. I can see why he wants one. Although, when you're willing to spend that kind of money, why not go with a 911? 944s are nice, but nothing beats the heritage, styling, and handling of an air-cooled 911, IMO. I hear the 84-89 versions are reletively trouble-free.
Also, how about a Saab 900 Turbo? I've been contemplating getting one, but the reliability of the Ranger is too good.
I was looking at an 83. Drove great, felt great (ugly color though)...over 13 grand. Seller would drop to 12.5, but still that's alot. Plus, the 944's faster, and kind of like a one-off Porsche.
83 900 or 911?
QuoteQuoteAnother 944 Turbo (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Porsche-944-Turbo-NO-RES-77k-MILES-SILVER-TURBO-GREAT-COND-CARFAX_W0QQitemZ4562592344QQcategoryZ6434QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)
That one is impeccable. If I had the money, I'd bid.
I thought that was in your price range?
Saab 900 is nice, but it's not what I'm looking for.
QuoteQuoteQuoteAnother 944 Turbo (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Porsche-944-Turbo-NO-RES-77k-MILES-SILVER-TURBO-GREAT-COND-CARFAX_W0QQitemZ4562592344QQcategoryZ6434QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)
That one is impeccable. If I had the money, I'd bid.
I thought that was in your price range?
It is...but in my future price range. I don't have the money now.
QuoteQuoteQuoteWow. I can see why he wants one. Although, when you're willing to spend that kind of money, why not go with a 911? 944s are nice, but nothing beats the heritage, styling, and handling of an air-cooled 911, IMO. I hear the 84-89 versions are reletively trouble-free.
Also, how about a Saab 900 Turbo? I've been contemplating getting one, but the reliability of the Ranger is too good.
I was looking at an 83. Drove great, felt great (ugly color though)...over 13 grand. Seller would drop to 12.5, but still that's alot. Plus, the 944's faster, and kind of like a one-off Porsche.
83 900 or 911?
1983 911SC
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnother 944 Turbo (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Porsche-944-Turbo-NO-RES-77k-MILES-SILVER-TURBO-GREAT-COND-CARFAX_W0QQitemZ4562592344QQcategoryZ6434QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)
That one is impeccable. If I had the money, I'd bid.
I thought that was in your price range?
It is...but in my future price range. I don't have the money now.
Can you perhaps borrow from your parents?
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnother 944 Turbo (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Porsche-944-Turbo-NO-RES-77k-MILES-SILVER-TURBO-GREAT-COND-CARFAX_W0QQitemZ4562592344QQcategoryZ6434QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)
That one is impeccable. If I had the money, I'd bid.
I thought that was in your price range?
It is...but in my future price range. I don't have the money now.
Can you perhaps borrow from your parents?
Perhaps, but I'm afraid to ask.
:(
QuoteSaab 900 is nice, but it's not what I'm looking for.
I thought you loved Saabs?
I'm assuming you want a RWD car?
QuoteQuoteSaab 900 is nice, but it's not what I'm looking for.
I thought you loved Saabs?
I'm assuming you want a RWD car?
Yes. I'm looking for a sports car or a GT. If I get a Saab, it'll probably be to replace the Passat.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnother 944 Turbo (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Porsche-944-Turbo-NO-RES-77k-MILES-SILVER-TURBO-GREAT-COND-CARFAX_W0QQitemZ4562592344QQcategoryZ6434QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)
That one is impeccable. If I had the money, I'd bid.
I thought that was in your price range?
It is...but in my future price range. I don't have the money now.
Can you perhaps borrow from your parents?
Perhaps, but I'm afraid to ask.
:(
Why, there is nothing lost by asking :)
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnother 944 Turbo (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Porsche-944-Turbo-NO-RES-77k-MILES-SILVER-TURBO-GREAT-COND-CARFAX_W0QQitemZ4562592344QQcategoryZ6434QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)
That one is impeccable. If I had the money, I'd bid.
I thought that was in your price range?
It is...but in my future price range. I don't have the money now.
Can you perhaps borrow from your parents?
Perhaps, but I'm afraid to ask.
:(
Why, there is nothing lost by asking :)
You don't know my parents.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnother 944 Turbo (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Porsche-944-Turbo-NO-RES-77k-MILES-SILVER-TURBO-GREAT-COND-CARFAX_W0QQitemZ4562592344QQcategoryZ6434QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)
That one is impeccable. If I had the money, I'd bid.
I thought that was in your price range?
It is...but in my future price range. I don't have the money now.
Can you perhaps borrow from your parents?
Perhaps, but I'm afraid to ask.
:(
Why, there is nothing lost by asking :)
You don't know my parents.
All right, but how much can you spend at the moment?
Maybe 3 grand. Maybe.
QuoteMaybe 3 grand. Maybe.
I see. Did you check ebay fully? I saw some for less than 3 grand. And do you really need a turbo that much? I mean, its not all about straight line acceleration...they both are still sports car.
Is this a summer toy or year-round driver?
Throw the 3 grand at an MR-2 or something. Nothing to lose. And what about a Miata, or did you say you don't like them?
At 3 grand you can't get a lot of sporty cars in good condition.
Even a nice 280Z costs a little more than that.
What you should do is dump the Passat, pick-up a 900 for the winter and a 944 Turbo for the summer. That one turbo looked incredible, very nice, though I still prefer the 968.
Here is a real nice 900:
http://autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=1...ist=1052#vdptop (http://autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=165329241&dealer_id=54548941&car_year=1992&adCertifiedCheck=n&search_type=both&make=SAAB&model=900&transmission=Manual&distance=0&address=75941&make2=&advanced=y&certified=&carfaxGeneric=false&max_mileage=&max_price=&min_price=&end_year=1993&color=&start_year=1981&drive=&car_year=1992&isp=y&engine=&doors=&fuel=&lang=en&cardist=1052#vdptop)
QuoteHere is a real nice 900:
http://autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=1...ist=1052#vdptop (http://autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=165329241&dealer_id=54548941&car_year=1992&adCertifiedCheck=n&search_type=both&make=SAAB&model=900&transmission=Manual&distance=0&address=75941&make2=&advanced=y&certified=&carfaxGeneric=false&max_mileage=&max_price=&min_price=&end_year=1993&color=&start_year=1981&drive=&car_year=1992&isp=y&engine=&doors=&fuel=&lang=en&cardist=1052#vdptop)
I used to have a Saab 900 B)
And his price cap at the moment is 3K, so there is no way he can get that and a 944 Turbo.
If he gets rid of his Passat he can.
I think he wants two cars.
Yes, if he sells the Passat and buys both a 900 and a 944 he will have two cars.
Well, how much is his Passat worth?
Depending on the mileage probably 16-17k.
That's a lot for a car he doesn't even enjoy! Do you know what year it is?
It is a 2004.
IMO, he should definately sell it! I was picturing an older 1990's Passat.
3k isn't that much in the sports car market.
QuoteQuoteMaybe 3 grand. Maybe.
I see. Did you check ebay fully? I saw some for less than 3 grand. And do you really need a turbo that much? I mean, its not all about straight line acceleration...they both are still sports car.
I feel what you're saying, and I'm usually the first to say that straight line acceleration isn't as important as handling, but it is important. Why buy a weekend toy/summer car/sunny day driver if it only offers one advantage (realistically--there's style, exclusivity, et cetera to be considered as well) over my daily driver. I settled with the Passat and it's killing me. I don't want to settle again.
The issue is that the Passat is on a lease. If I renege, it'll free up roughly $300 month, with that I can either up the ante and get something like an RX-8 or 330i, or pick up a Rex for the same price (roughly, may be a little less if I can get one before the facelift) and still nab the 944t.
Forget the RX8, looks too much like a chick car. Nab the 944t or find a nice 93-95 RX7, much more capable.
QuoteQuoteQuoteMaybe 3 grand.? Maybe.
I see. Did you check ebay fully? I saw some for less than 3 grand. And do you really need a turbo that much? I mean, its not all about straight line acceleration...they both are still sports car.
I feel what you're saying, and I'm usually the first to say that straight line acceleration isn't as important as handling, but it is important. Why buy a weekend toy/summer car/sunny day driver if it only offers one advantage (realistically--there's style, exclusivity, et cetera to be considered as well) over my daily driver. I settled with the Passat and it's killing me. I don't want to settle again.
Truthfully, I've found that a turbo is not as satisfying as a torquey N/A engine. In 1st gear theres no guts, but that's when I want it the most. I'm not saying that all turbos are like that, but many are.
Although, I do have an exhaust leak that I feel is costing me spool time.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteMaybe 3 grand.? Maybe.
I see. Did you check ebay fully? I saw some for less than 3 grand. And do you really need a turbo that much? I mean, its not all about straight line acceleration...they both are still sports car.
I feel what you're saying, and I'm usually the first to say that straight line acceleration isn't as important as handling, but it is important. Why buy a weekend toy/summer car/sunny day driver if it only offers one advantage (realistically--there's style, exclusivity, et cetera to be considered as well) over my daily driver. I settled with the Passat and it's killing me. I don't want to settle again.
Truthfully, I've found that a turbo is not as satisfying as a torquey N/A engine. In 1st gear theres no guts, but that's when I want it the most. I'm not saying that all turbos are like that, but many are.
Although, I do have an exhaust leak that I feel is costing me spool time.
Almost all turbo are not as satisfying as torquey N/A ones.
The 944 got to 60 in about 8 seconds. The turbo did it in about 5.3. So there will be a significant difference in acceleration times. but other than that, they are both extremely capable sports car. I wouldnt look to another car though, just because you cant afford the Turbo. There are many attributes of the car which will wow you, so that you dont need to "settle".
You also don't know if the previous owner has properly cared for the turbo. You don't know if they changed the oil enough or let it cool down or let it warm up properly. I'm sure a turbo for a 944 is VERY expensive.
Same problem with the RX7. I want something fast.
Well you had 2 years to grow the mullet out, did you get the trans am.
Would you be keeping the Boxster? If so I'd buy something besides the 944.
He'd probably sell the boxster and get the trans am(with a B&M super shift drag kit).
h0ly thread revival batman
U will be driving the Passat and Boxster for the rest of your natural life
So, these cars are 'sports cars' huh?
:evildude:
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on March 12, 2008, 10:44:56 AM
So, these cars are 'sports cars' huh?
:evildude:
They're all GTs! I misspoke!
Damn, what an old thread. Totally not even relevant anymore. I can't afford any of these cars.
You could sell the porsche and get a trans am
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 12, 2008, 02:53:56 PM
You could sell the porsche and get a trans am
I'd sell the Porsche and get a pristine 951. :rockon:
Or better yet, a 993!
trans am > porsche
Quote from: Raza on March 12, 2008, 02:50:00 PM
They're all GTs! I misspoke!
Damn, what an old thread. Totally not even relevant anymore. I can't afford any of these cars.
the RX7 is not a GT
Quote from: r0tor on March 12, 2008, 05:23:47 PM
the RX7 is not a GT
Has hard top. Is GT. Is Berlinetta, not Barchetta.
its a 2 door 2 seat rotary sports car halo car... pure sportscar
Quote from: r0tor on March 12, 2008, 05:36:06 PM
its a 2 door 2 seat rotary sports car halo car... pure sportscar
Nope, has roof which doesn't come off. Is GT.
Quote from: r0tor on March 12, 2008, 05:36:06 PM
its a 2 door 2 seat rotary sports car halo car... pure sportscar
It's got a roof. It's a GT.
:lol:
Quote from: Raza on March 12, 2008, 10:32:36 PM
It's got a roof. It's a GT.
So the Porsche Carrera GT is actually a sports car and not a GT?
I'd call it a supercar.
Quote from: Psilos on March 14, 2008, 01:09:21 AM
I'd call it a supercar.
+1, but if I had to qualify it as either sports or GT, I'd say sports car.
I wouldn't consider the M3 a GT since it has a usable backseat. It's a sports coupe or a sport sedan.
I'd call an Exige a sports car!
Quote from: Soup DeVille on March 12, 2008, 05:46:49 PM
Nope, has roof which doesn't come off. Is GT.
Its a 2 door 2 seat sportscar... s0rry
GT cars are made for high speed comfortable cruising - not an FD
Quote from: r0tor on March 14, 2008, 06:50:18 AM
Its a 2 door 2 seat sportscar... s0rry
GT cars are made for high speed comfortable cruising - not an FD
That sounds like a marketing-led definition to me.
I side with Messrs Ville and Raza on this issue.
So if I put a hardtop on a Miata, then it's a GT car?
if you get a folding hardtop miata, it transforms from a sports car to a GT car in 16 sec
Quote from: thecarnut on March 14, 2008, 09:14:42 AM
So if I put a hardtop on a Miata, then it's a GT car?
Only if it's not removeable.
Porsches carrera GT is called a GT due to where it would fall in a racing class, much like teh GT1, GT2, and GT3.
Rotor, as to your "high speed comfortable cruising" definition, where does the Ferrari 250 GTO fall in that spectrum? it's certainly not comfy. But it says GT right in the name. here's an interesting article on it: http://www.johnstarkeycars.com/pages/articles/articles_07.html
(http://www.johnstarkeycars.com/images/articles/GTO/GTO_02.jpg)
GT was based on a RACING defintion for closed versions of sports cars. P.E.R.I.O.D. The makers of said GT cars put it right in the name when they made race versions. These are the inventors of the category and they remain as valid a definition as pickup truck and station wagon.
As I've asked before, is the Ford Lightning a sports car? It matches your definition for the FD... Is it a GT? Or is it a pickup truck? No matter how fast, or how well it works, it's still a pickup truck.
Quote from: ChrisV on March 14, 2008, 09:58:39 AM
Rotor, as to your "high speed comfortable cruising" definition, where does the Ferrari 250 GTO fall in that spectrum? it's certainly not comfy. But it says GT right in the name.
I have a RX-8 "GT"... yay. My mom had a Grand Am GT and I also had a Ford Probe GT -double yay-
Quote from: ChrisV on March 14, 2008, 09:58:39 AM
Only if it's not removeable.
The top of any car is removeable. I guess true GT is impossible.
Quote from: NACar on March 14, 2008, 10:01:27 AM
The top of any car is removeable. I guess true GT is impossible.
Cutting them off doesn't count. Or are you saying EVERY car is a convertible?
So, definitions mean nothing? A Jetta is a pickup truck and a Colorado is a station wagon, right? Just becaseau I say so. Right? We can make up ANY fucking definition for ANY word and that'll make perfect sense now, eh?
Oh, and Rotor, the RX8 is a 4 door sedan, the latest in a long line of rotary sedans from Mazda, starting with the R100 and moving up thorugh the RX2, RX3, and RX4, all avaaible as sedan, coupe and station wagon body styles. Or, do THOSE defintions mean nothing anymore, either?
Ferrari and Porsche didn't USE marketing departments to come up with the names of their cars. OR the racing categories they go into. Speaking of which, what racing category does the RX8 fall under?
Quote from: ChrisV on March 14, 2008, 10:25:14 AM
Cutting them off doesn't count. Or are you saying EVERY car is a convertible?
So, definitions mean nothing? A Jetta is a pickup truck and a Colorado is a station wagon, right? Just becaseau I say so. Right? We can make up ANY fucking definition for ANY word and that'll make perfect sense now, eh?
Oh, and Rotor, the RX8 is a 4 door sedan, the latest in a long line of rotary sedans from Mazda, starting with the R100 and moving up thorugh the RX2, RX3, and RX4, all avaaible as sedan, coupe and station wagon body styles. Or, do THOSE defintions mean nothing anymore, either?
Ferrari and Porsche didn't USE marketing departments to come up with the names of their cars. OR the racing categories they go into. Speaking of which, what racing category does the RX8 fall under?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_tourer
At a certain point, it becomes useful to use whatever name will facilitate communication. Classic definitions are nothing more than jargon to the general public. They work for racing series and, presumably, some of our purposes, because they and we are within the field.
There?s no sense in being pissed-off at everyone in general for not following the conventions. That?d be like a doctor getting pissed off at a patient for saying ?I have strep throat? instead of ?I have Streptococcus pyogenes."
Quote from: Tave on March 15, 2008, 11:27:29 AM
At a certain point, it becomes useful to use whatever name will facilitate communication. Classic definitions are nothing more than jargon to the general public. They work for racing series and, presumably, some of our purposes, because they and we are within the field.
There?s no sense in being pissed-off at everyone in general for not following the conventions. That?d be like a doctor getting pissed off at a patient for saying ?I have strep throat? instead of ?I have Streptococcus pyogenes."
So true.
Quote from: Tave on March 15, 2008, 11:27:29 AM
At a certain point, it becomes useful to use whatever name will facilitate communication. Classic definitions are nothing more than jargon to the general public. They work for racing series and, presumably, some of our purposes, because they and we are within the field.
There?s no sense in being pissed-off at everyone in general for not following the conventions. That?d be like a doctor getting pissed off at a patient for saying ?I have strep throat? instead of ?I have Streptococcus pyogenes."
Yeah, but then you have people with 2 door Cavaliers calling their cars, a "sports car"........ :nutty: :rolleyes:
Quote from: NomisR on March 15, 2008, 10:29:35 PM
Yeah, but then you have people with 2 door Cavaliers calling their cars, a "sports car"........ :nutty: :rolleyes:
Then they're being sloppy, I agree.
Why would you want any of these cars if you already have a Boxster?
I can't imagine walking past the Boxster in my garage and getting in a 1998 Trans Am instead. That's assuming I was gay of course, because as long as I'm heterosexual there won't be a Boxster in my garage.
Check the date of the original post.
Quote from: Lebowski on March 16, 2008, 01:44:40 PM
Why would you want any of these cars if you already have a Boxster?
I can't imagine walking past the Boxster in my garage and getting in a 1998 Trans Am instead. That's assuming I was gay of course, because as long as I'm heterosexual there won't be a Boxster in my garage.
This is an old post. However if I had a FD and a Boxster in my garage I'd be looking at the FD more.
But I'd drive the Boxster because it probably wouldn't blow up.
I think raza would still be open to dumping the porsche and getting into a real performance machine(the trans am).
Who bumped this thing then. WTF are we talking about now? I'm too lazy to go back and look.
Edit: Nevermind I just went and looked, lol.
Quote from: Tave on March 15, 2008, 11:27:29 AM
At a certain point, it becomes useful to use whatever name will facilitate communication. Classic definitions are nothing more than jargon to the general public. They work for racing series and, presumably, some of our purposes, because they and we are within the field.
There?s no sense in being pissed-off at everyone in general for not following the conventions. That?d be like a doctor getting pissed off at a patient for saying ?I have strep throat? instead of ?I have Streptococcus pyogenes."
Well said.
Quote from: LonghornTX on March 17, 2008, 06:58:45 PM
Well said.
No. It's having strep throat and telling people you have cancer.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=892.msg777247#msg777247 date=1205802046
No. It's having strep throat and telling people you have cancer.
Keep fighting the good fight. I'd like to know what you hope to accomplish. Do you want every retard with a set of keys to be able to correctly identify the racing class for his Grand Am? How sweet.
Quote from: Tave on March 18, 2008, 09:48:09 AM
Keep fighting the good fight. I'd like to know what you hope to accomplish. Do you want every retard with a set of keys to be able to correctly identify the racing class for his Grand Am? How sweet.
No, but he probably wants what I do: to keep supposedly knowledgeable automotive enthusaists from becoming general everyday retards that don't know the difference between a 2seat, V8 RWD, 2 door TRUCK and the same thing in a car. And keeping the knowledge alive in automotive enthusaists means that when said retards ASK for opinions or help with cars, that knowledge gets passed on rather than watered down. This goes for EVERY area of automotive knowledge, not just definitions.
By keeping it accurate here, where people should know better, then it remains accurate and avaiable to the general public THROUGH the people here.
We all know people that make retarded comments about cars all the time (like so many ricers are so wont to do). Do we want to be those people, too? We
should give a shit that accurate knowledge stays in existence. If you don't give a shit, then why argue? Accept it and move on. If you DO give a shit, then you want it to be accurate, too. And that accuracy relies on retaining those working definitions, rather than making stuff up just because you feel like changing it.
In this case, cars are better in every category than they used to be. That doesn't mean they have swapped categories, just that they are better
in that category. Sports cars still exist. GTs still exist. Sport coupes and sport sedans exist. Newer ones are better performers than older ones in those categories. Why does everything have to be a sports car now? The definitions still work, and there's no compelling need to change other than people being insulted that their fast sedan is not a sports car by definition.
The categories exist, and the cars exist for a reason. And forgetting, especially intentionally forgetting, the reasons is doing automotive enthusiasts everywhere a disservice.
Chris is right on.
Another thing I don't get is why people are so hung up on it. Calling a car a GT is not an insult or anything like that, no moreso than calling a sedan a sedan or a sofa a sofa.
Quote from: ChrisV on March 18, 2008, 10:02:19 AM
No, but he probably wants what I do: to keep supposedly knowledgeable automotive enthusaists from becoming general everyday retards that don't know the difference between a 2seat, V8 RWD, 2 door TRUCK and the same thing in a car.
Because I see people confusing cars and pickup trucks every day. :rolleyes:
QuoteBy keeping it accurate here, where people should know better, then it remains accurate and avaiable to the general public THROUGH the people here.
Notice I pointed that out:
Classic definitions are nothing more than jargon to the general public. They work for racing series and, presumably, some of our purposes, because they and we are within the field.
QuoteWe all know people that make retarded comments about cars all the time (like so many ricers are so wont to do). Do we want to be those people, too? We should give a shit that accurate knowledge stays in existence. If you don't give a shit, then why argue? Accept it and move on. If you DO give a shit, then you want it to be accurate, too. And that accuracy relies on retaining those working definitions, rather than making stuff up just because you feel like changing it.
Accurate for what? For racing series?
QuoteIn this case, cars are better in every category than they used to be. That doesn't mean they have swapped categories, just that they are better in that category. Sports cars still exist. GTs still exist. Sport coupes and sport sedans exist. Newer ones are better performers than older ones in those categories. Why does everything have to be a sports car now? The definitions still work, and there's no compelling need to change other than people being insulted that their fast sedan is not a sports car by definition.
The categories exist, and the cars exist for a reason. And forgetting, especially intentionally forgetting, the reasons is doing automotive enthusiasts everywhere a disservice.
It's entirely possible that the same word carries different meanings in seperate discourses. The distinction between Sports Car and GT Car is very usefull for competition racing. Outside that world, its value as an identifier starts to lose its utility. We need to be able to distinguish between convertibles, pick-up trucks, sedans, coupes, and SUVs; BUT WE DO AND WE CAN.
Quote from: ChrisV on March 14, 2008, 10:25:14 AM
So, definitions mean nothing? A Jetta is a pickup truck and a Colorado is a station wagon, right? Just becaseau I say so. Right? We can make up ANY fucking definition for ANY word and that'll make perfect sense now, eh?
When that actually happens, I'll give some serious thought to "The Fall of the Definition" that you seem so worried about.
Well, if you want to throw out the sports car/GT distinction, why not all the rest as well? What's the difference between a sedan and a coupe now? A truck and a minivan? A giraffe and a chimpanzee?
Quote from: Raza link=topic=892.msg777974#msg777974 date=1205856641
Chris is right on.
Another thing I don't get is why people are so hung up on it. Calling a car a GT is not an insult or anything like that, no moreso than calling a sedan a sedan or a sofa a sofa.
If the distinction is subtle enough and unimportant enough, it becomes a hindrance to communication rather than an aid. I'm not saying that's what happens on here, but it's something to keep in mind.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=892.msg777981#msg777981 date=1205856971
Well, if you want to throw out the sports car/GT distinction, why not all the rest as well? What's the difference between a sedan and a coupe now? A truck and a minivan? A giraffe and a chimpanzee?
I thought my position on this was obvious. "Sports/GT" serves little or no purpose outside competition racing. The other definitions do.
Quote from: Tave on March 18, 2008, 10:19:53 AM
If the distinction is subtle enough and unimportant enough, it becomes a hindrance to communication rather than an aid. I'm not saying that's what happens on here, but it's something to keep in mind.
The difference is no more subtle than sedan vs coupe. Or station wagon and hatchback. Serious.
Hell, I've heard people call a car a sports car just because it's
red. Do we want to be those people?
Again, why throw out perfectly accurate and working definitions? Tell me why it's a GOOD idea to make it a goal to show LESS knowledge of the subject.
A final point:
Your position accounts for cars but not language. The goal is always communication. When the definitions serve communication, use them. When they don't, don't. That's all I'm trying to say.
Quote from: Raza on March 18, 2008, 10:10:41 AM
Chris is right on.
Another thing I don't get is why people are so hung up on it. Calling a car a GT is not an insult or anything like that, no moreso than calling a sedan a sedan or a sofa a sofa.
I agree. They're just terms that identify the physical characteristics of a car separate from its abilities. Sports cars aren't always good; sports sedans aren't always entertaining; GTs aren't always slower than sports cars, and so on.
It seems to me that people want to use the term 'sports car' to somehow identify ability; that is, a car that steers and handles well, is quicker than its more mundane counterparts, and has some kind of sporty-looking body has a claim to the term sports car. A physical classification is not a statement of ability.
Quote from: Tave on March 18, 2008, 10:22:37 AM
I thought my position on this was obvious. "Sports/GT" serves little or no purpose outside competition racing. The other definitions do.
they are distinct configurations. Always have been. Just as distinct as coupe and sedan, 2 door and 4 door. Sedan and wagon. An Aveo hatch is different than an Aveo sedan. What's the distinction? A small roof extension and a vertically opening rear door. That's as much of a distinction as between an MGB and an MGB GT. Or an S2000 and an FD RX7. THAT'S why the distinction still exists. And why the definitions still work.
Quote from: ChrisV on March 18, 2008, 10:25:43 AM
The difference is no more subtle than sedan vs coupe. Or station wagon and hatchback. Serious.
Hell, I've heard people call a car a sports car just because it's red. Do we want to be those people?
Again, why throw out perfectly accurate and working definitions? Tell me why it's a GOOD idea to make it a goal to show LESS knowledge of the subject.
I already said the definitions serve some of our purposes. I have no idea why you continue to ignore that.
Quote from: Tave on March 18, 2008, 10:19:53 AM
If the distinction is subtle enough and unimportant enough, it becomes a hindrance to communication rather than an aid. I'm not saying that's what happens on here, but it's something to keep in mind.
You think roof configuration, seating, drive wheels, number of doors, and transmission are subtle? There are people here who won't buy a car if one of the unimportant details aren't there. Hell, we just had a member get a five door hatch over a three door hatch because he needed the extra two doors; tell him that it's unimportant.
Quote from: Tave on March 18, 2008, 10:30:38 AM
I already said the definitions serve some of our purposes. I have no idea why you continue to ignore that.
the definitions as they exist serve ALL Of our purposes. I have no idea why you continue to ignore that. ;)
Again I ask, why is it a good thing to make a goal of knowing LESS about the subject?
How in the world does anything about an FD classify is as a Grand Touring Car aka translated from Gran Tourismo?
Its a cramped 2 seater, rough ride, gearing that makes the engine scream at 80mph, questionable interior appointments... yadda yadda yadda
Quote from: Raza link=topic=892.msg777998#msg777998 date=1205858000
You think roof configuration, seating, drive wheels, number of doors, and transmission are subtle?
No. I think, for most purposes, convertible is just as useful a term as sports car. Same goes for coupe and GT. I already said we need terms to make the distinctions you're talking about.
We need to be able to distinguish between convertibles, pick-up trucks, sedans, coupes, and SUVs;Quit forcing me to repeat myself.
Chris and Raza, you're not following my point. I admit the distinction serves its purpose, IN CONTEXT. That should be a fairly straitforward observation.
Quote from: r0tor on March 18, 2008, 10:36:58 AM
How in the world does anything about an FD classify is as a Grand Touring Car aka translated from Gran Tourismo?
Its a cramped 2 seater, rough ride, gearing that makes the engine scream at 80mph, questionable interior appointments... yadda yadda yadda
A physical classification is not a statement of ability. Calling a car a GT merely verifies that it has a few key physical features such as body-style, transmission and driven wheels; it in no way attempts to determine what the car is like to drive.
Quote from: ChrisV on March 18, 2008, 10:35:07 AM
the definitions as they exist serve ALL Of our purposes. I have no idea why you continue to ignore that. ;)
What
practical purpose does "Sports/GT" serve outside racing?
QuoteAgain I ask, why is it a good thing to make a goal of knowing LESS about the subject?
My goal is communication. I don't need to prove to people I know more than they do.
AND FOR FUCK'S SAKE MAN! I SAID WE SHOULD USE THE FUCKING DEFINITIONS BECAUSE WE ARE WITHIN THEIR TECHNICAL FIELD.
Quote from: Tave on March 18, 2008, 10:39:28 AM
No. I think, for most purposes, convertible is just as useful a term as sports car. Same goes for coupe and GT. I already said we need terms to make the distinctions you're talking about.
We need to be able to distinguish between convertibles, pick-up trucks, sedans, coupes, and SUVs;
Quit forcing me to repeat myself.
Chris and Raza, you're not following my point. I admit the distinction serves its purpose, IN CONTEXT. That should be a fairly straitforward observation.
Convertible is a useful term. But not all convertibles are sports cars. Not all coupes are GTs either.
Quote from: Tave on March 18, 2008, 10:41:18 AM
What practical purpose does "Sports/GT" serve outside racing?
You mean other than describing a kind of car?
What practical purpose does anything have?
Quote from: Raza link=topic=892.msg778009#msg778009 date=1205858580
Convertible is a useful term. But not all convertibles are sports cars. Not all coupes are GTs either.
for most purposes
Quote from: Tave on March 18, 2008, 10:49:08 AM
for most purposes
But why disregard refinement of classification?
Because jargon shouldn't be used outside its technical arena! I can't believe that concept is foreign to you two.
I suppose you could argue that the classifications aren't jargon, but their widespread misuse among the general public suggests otherwise.
So a Murcielago with a hardtop is a GT, but take off the roof and it becomes a sports car?
An Elise is a sports car, but an Exige a GT?
I don't follow. How are the cars with a roof any less sporting?
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on March 18, 2008, 11:21:28 AM
So a Murcielago with a hardtop is a GT, but take off the roof and it becomes a sports car?
An Elise is a sports car, but an Exige a GT?
I don't follow. How are the cars with a roof any less sporting?
Your mistake has been addressed by Omi already.
Also, the Murcielago is AWD and therefore a GT, regardless of roof. The Exige's roof is removeable, and therefore it is a sports car.
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on March 18, 2008, 11:21:28 AM
I don't follow. How are the cars with a roof any less sporting?
They aren't. They are a different bodystyle, Pretty simple. ;) Why do you think BMW called their 2002 a sports
sedan? That was it's BODYSTYLE.
Again, what's the definitional difference between a Mazda Protege and a Mazda Pprotege5? Is one a sedan and the other a hatch? Which one is sportier? Sportiness has nothing to do with bodystyle, but with intention in suspension/engine design.
What's really the layout difference between a Ford Lightning truck and a Corvette? The truck bed. A bit of bodywork. No one confuses them because thats an extreme example. How about that new G8 pickup based on the Holden Ute? it's a 2 seat, V8, RWD performance car with a bed. That bit of bodywork is what makes it a car based truck rather than a sports car or GT. YOU guys might think that no one could mistake a 2 seat car based truck with a sports car, and I would think no one could mistake a GT for a sports car.
At least most of us here are keeping this a civil discussion. :praise:
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on March 18, 2008, 11:21:28 AM
So a Murcielago with a hardtop is a GT, but take off the roof and it becomes a sports car?
An Elise is a sports car, but an Exige a GT?
I don't follow. How are the cars with a roof any less sporting?
They're not. A sports car is just a name given to a car that combines 2-doors, open-top, manual transmission and rear-wheel drive. That's all. The term 'sports car' makes no claim as to the ability of the car itself; certainly, a sports car could well be unsporting, just as a GT could be better around a track and twice as good on the road compared to a sports car.
Quote from: Tave on March 18, 2008, 11:16:58 AM
Because jargon shouldn't be used outside its technical arena! I can't believe that concept is foreign to you two.
An automotive discussion board IS it's technical arena. If we are discussing cars, we are in the technical arena where the definitions are in place. I can't believe that concept is foreign to you.
Quote from: omicron on March 18, 2008, 11:30:41 AM
They're not. A sports car is just a name given to a car that combines 2-doors, open-top, manual transmission and rear-wheel drive. That's all. The term 'sports car' makes no claim as to the ability of the car itself; certainly, a sports car could well be unsporting, just as a GT could be better around a track and twice as good on the road compared to a sports car.
And owing to better aerodynamics and structural rigidity, GTs usually WERE faster around a track than similar sports cars, though monoposto sports cars evolved to be the fastest yet. We know them as formula cars.
Quote from: ChrisV on March 18, 2008, 11:29:40 AM
They aren't. They are a different bodystyle, Pretty simple. ;) Why do you think BMW called their 2002 a sports sedan? That was it's BODYSTYLE.
Again, what's the definitional difference between a Mazda Protege and a Mazda Pprotege5? Is one a sedan and the other a hatch? Which one is sportier? Sportiness has nothing to do with bodystyle, but with intention in suspension/engine design.
What's really the layout difference between a Ford Lightning truck and a Corvette? The truck bed. A bit of bodywork. No one confuses them because thats an extreme example. How about that new G8 pickup based on the Holden Ute? it's a 2 seat, V8, RWD performance car with a bed. That bit of bodywork is what makes it a car based truck rather than a sports car or GT. YOU guys might think that no one could mistake a 2 seat car based truck with a sports car, and I would think no one could mistake a GT for a sports car.
At least most of us here are keeping this a civil discussion. :praise:
Then there are the differences between two-door sedans, two-door coupes, two-door pillarless hardtops, two-door pillarless fastback coupes, two-door liftback coupes....
Quote from: ChrisV on March 18, 2008, 11:31:56 AM
An automotive discussion board IS it's technical arena. If we are discussing cars, we are in the technical arena where the definitions are in place. I can't believe that concept is foreign to you.
Read my posts if you want to reply to them, asshole.
Quote from: Tave on March 18, 2008, 10:41:18 AM
AND FOR FUCK'S SAKE MAN! I SAID WE SHOULD USE THE FUCKING DEFINITIONS BECAUSE WE ARE WITHIN THEIR TECHNICAL FIELD.
Quote from: Tave on March 18, 2008, 11:42:52 AM
Read my posts if you want to reply to them, asshole.
So we're
not arguing then?
Quote from: Tave on March 18, 2008, 11:42:52 AM
Read my posts if you want to reply to them, asshole.
Quote from: ChrisVAt least most of us here are keeping this a civil discussion.
Quote from: ChrisV on March 18, 2008, 11:46:32 AM
At least most of us here are keeping this a civil discussion.
I wouldn't have bet on you and me.
:lol:
Quote from: Raza on March 18, 2008, 11:49:04 AM
I wouldn't have bet on you and me.
:lol:
No shit.
Quote from: Raza on March 18, 2008, 11:44:33 AM
So we're not arguing then?
You guys have willfully ignored my point this entire time, because you pigeon-holed my argument with similar discussions you've had in the past. If you had actually took a second to think about my initial post, you would have realized my advice was quite simple and sound.
Quote from: Tave on March 15, 2008, 11:27:29 AM
At a certain point, it becomes useful to use whatever name will facilitate communication. Classic definitions are nothing more than jargon to the general public. They work for racing series and, presumably, some of our purposes, because they and we are within the field.
There?s no sense in being pissed-off at everyone in general for not following the conventions.
Even in racing some fixed roof cars are referred to as sports cars. The FIA defines sports cars as open top or fixed roof. Personally I think the line is so blurred nowadays that traditional definitions no longer apply to most cars. There is no reason why a Corvette coupe cannot be referred to as a sports car when the convertible version of the exact same car is.
Quote from: ChrisV on March 18, 2008, 11:46:32 AM
At least most of us here are keeping this a civil discussion.
Anything to keep the high-ground, huh asshole? It's so much easier than admitting you were wrong.
I guess that type of "knowledge" doesn't matter.
BTW, I kept the discussion civil until you forced me to repeat myself 20 times. I'm not going to have a civil discussion with people who intentionally ignore what I say. If your that obstinate, it's going to take something harsher to get the point across.
And isn't that what you always say?
But, Tave, I'm not pissed off at everyone in general. I'm dissapointed in automotive enthusiasts that perpetrate this sort of thing. They aren't "people in general" which is WHY we point it out to them. We aren't here arguing with people in general. We are arguing with people who should know better and are in this technical arena!
Quote from: Tave on March 18, 2008, 11:51:48 AM
Anything to keep the high-ground, huh asshole? It's so much easier than admitting you were wrong.
I guess that type of "knowledge" doesn't matter.
Not wrong. See above.
Quote from: Tave on March 18, 2008, 11:49:44 AM
You guys have willfully ignored my point this entire time, because you pigeon-holed my argument with similar discussions you've had in the past. If you had actually took a second to think about my initial post, you would have realized my advice was quite simple and sound.
No, I saw that. Facilitating easy communication isn't always the best thing, when it involves dumbing down the language too much. I have to do it all the time in everyday life (of course, not only in reference to cars; after all, I do Word of the Day on Dictionary.com) and it's tiring. If we're on a car forum (clearly we are), why shouldn't we use the proper terms? I don't see why so many people are vehemently against calling these bodystyles by their names.
Quote from: ChrisV on March 18, 2008, 11:52:39 AM
But, Tave, I'm not pissed off at everyone in general. I'm dissapointed in automotive enthusiasts that perpetrate this sort of thing. They aren't "people in general" which is WHY we point it out to them. We aren't here arguing with people in general. We are arguing with people who should know better and are in this technical arena!
If I had been talking to you, I would've quoted your post. My advice wasn't directed at any one person.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=892.msg778083#msg778083 date=1205862934
If we're on a car forum (clearly we are), why shouldn't we use the proper terms? I don't see why so many people are vehemently against calling these bodystyles by their names.
If someone asks me that again I'm going to throw my computor through a wall.
(http://i.inlive.co.kr/alb/m00/d26/l0026903.gif)
Quote from: Tave on March 18, 2008, 11:58:38 AM
If someone asks me that again I'm going to throw my computor through a wall.
Video tape it and put it on Youtube...when you get a new computer, that is.
Quote from: HEMI666 on March 18, 2008, 11:50:54 AM
Even in racing some fixed roof cars are referred to as sports cars. The FIA defines sports cars as open top or fixed roof. Personally I think the line is so blurred nowadays that traditional definitions no longer apply to most cars. There is no reason why a Corvette coupe cannot be referred to as a sports car when the convertible version of the exact same car is.
Traditional definition? A two or four-door car with a three-box notchback design, fixed top of full-height up to the rear window and pillared doors is traditionally referred to as a sedan, but that doesn't make that definition any less relevant today.
Quote from: omicron on March 18, 2008, 12:06:42 PM
Traditional definition? A two or four-door car with a three-box notchback design, fixed top of full-height up to the rear window and pillared doors is traditionally referred to as a sedan, but that doesn't make that definition any less relevant today.
I'm talking about the taditional definitions of sports cars vs. GT cars. Just like Crossovers vs. SUVs.
Quote from: HEMI666 on March 18, 2008, 12:12:41 PM
I'm talking about the taditional definitions of sports cars vs. GT cars. Just like Crossovers vs. SUVs.
Well, what would be the detail of a modern definition of a sports car, if the traditional one is no longer appropriate?
Quote from: omicron on March 18, 2008, 12:15:37 PM
Well, what would be the detail of a modern definition of a sports car, if the traditional one is no longer appropriate?
Open top or fixed roof 2 door 2 passenger lightweight car designed for high speed driving. Just like the FIA definition. The Z06 is no Grand Tourer, it's a sports car. A Ferrari 612 is definitely a Grand Tourer. If a convertible Vette is a sports car, then so is the coupe version. What is a retractable hardtop MX-5? Is it a GT or a sports car?
Quote from: HEMI666 on March 18, 2008, 12:26:00 PM
Open top or fixed roof 2 door 2 passenger lightweight car designed for high speed driving. Just like the FIA definition. The Z06 is no Grand Tourer, it's a sports car. A Ferrari 612 is definitely a Grand Tourer. If a convertible Vette is a sports car, then so is the coupe version. What is a retractable hardtop MX-5? Is it a GT or a sports car?
I agree with this. It's silly to think of a hardtop Vette as a GT while the convertible is a sports car. They're the same car.
Quote from: Vinsanity on March 18, 2008, 12:41:14 PM
I agree with this. It's silly to think of a hardtop Vette as a GT while the convertible is a sports car. They're the same car.
(http://www.sportscarrentals.com/images/74mgb.jpg)
(http://mg4sale.free.fr/MGB_GT_red.jpg)
? Same car. Ones a GT.
And these cars are still running around on the road, too.
Quote from: ChrisV on March 18, 2008, 02:18:08 PM
(http://www.sportscarrentals.com/images/74mgb.jpg)
(http://mg4sale.free.fr/MGB_GT_red.jpg)
? Same car. Ones a GT.
And these cars are still running around on the road, too.
Here's the problem with your line of thinking: I'm talking about modern cars and how blurred the line is NOW.
Quote from: HEMI666 on March 18, 2008, 02:19:59 PM
Here's the problem with your line of thinking: I'm talking about modern cars and how blurred the line is NOW.
here's the problem with YOUr line of thinking. These cars STILL EXIST AND ARE ON THE ROADS. therefore we need the defintions to still cover them.
Again, just because modern VERSIONS are faster, doesn't mean they jump categories and bodystyles. Why do they HAVE to, when the definitions as stand already WORK for the new ones as WELL as the old ones?
I still think the red one could be classified as a sports car.
Another example: Cayman vs. Boxster. I don't think that the Cayman is any less of a sports car than the Boxster because of the fixed roof.
Quote from: Vinsanity on March 18, 2008, 02:28:52 PM
I still think the red one could be classified as a sports car.
Another example: Cayman vs. Boxster. I don't think that the Cayman is any less of a sports car than the Boxster because of the fixed roof.
The Cayman is a roadster because it drives on roads!
Quote from: ChrisV on March 18, 2008, 02:22:47 PM
here's the problem with YOUr line of thinking. These cars STILL EXIST AND ARE ON THE ROADS. therefore we need the defintions to still cover them.
Again, just because modern VERSIONS are faster, doesn't mean they jump categories and bodystyles. Why do they HAVE to, when the definitions as stand already WORK for the new ones as WELL as the old ones?
Where did I state a Corvette coupe is a sports car because it's faster? I said it's a sports car if the Corvette Vert is a sports car. It's the same car. A Ferrari 599 is faster then a Vette, but it's not a sports car, because it's geared toward being a Grand Tourer and it's also fairly heavy. A Z06 is NOT a Grand Tourer by any means and no rational person could say it was.
Quote from: HEMI666 on March 18, 2008, 12:26:00 PM
Open top or fixed roof 2 door 2 passenger lightweight car designed for high speed driving. Just like the FIA definition. The Z06 is no Grand Tourer, it's a sports car. A Ferrari 612 is definitely a Grand Tourer. If a convertible Vette is a sports car, then so is the coupe version. What is a retractable hardtop MX-5? Is it a GT or a sports car?
How do we define lightweight? Is that an absolute term or a relative term - that is, is there a specific weight at which a car can be defined as lightweight, or is there a certain percentage of the weight of an equivalent fully-specified model that enables a car to be termed lightweight? If the latter is the case, is the lesser relative weight of the light model compared to the standard model constant across all body-styles, or must a convertible deliver a greater percentage of weight-loss than its coupe equivalent to be termed lightweight? Or, is lightweight an entirely subjective term that is applied to each car based on its individual specification and context?
Similarly, what constitutes 'geared toward being a Grand Tourer'? Heavier weight? How much heavier? More relaxed gearing? How more relaxed? Better interior trim? To what specification?
Quote from: Vinsanity on March 18, 2008, 02:28:52 PM
I still think the red one could be classified as a sports car.
the red one is an MGB GT. it is a fixed roof version of the sports car. That was the point of a GT car.
QuoteAnother example: Cayman vs. Boxster. I don't think that the Cayman is any less of a sports car than the Boxster because of the fixed roof.
Sports car or
performance car? Who said GTs
perform worse? I think we're getting to the meat of the problem. You guys think that GT MEANS that they somehow perform worse, therfore if it performs the same or better, then it MUST be a sports car. That's simply not the case. It's a bodystyle difference, much like coupe or sedan (and that difference gets subtle indeed when talking about a 2 door coupe vs a 2 door sedan), not a performace difference.
GT means Grand Touring... means a car that is meant for touring in a grand fashion plain and simple. If its not setup to be a comfortable high speed cruiser - it is not a Grand Touring car regardless of how many doors or roofs it has.
I respect everyone's lines of thinking and reasoning(esp ChrisV), but I have to agree with HEMI on this one.
Omicron, I see your point that GT cars may be faster and better around a track and that Sports Car/GT is a just a definition. But that is the whole point - maybe that definition of Sports Car should be changed, because having a fixed roof (or not) is not the most important factor here (IMHO).
Quote from: ChrisV on March 18, 2008, 02:18:08 PM
(http://www.sportscarrentals.com/images/74mgb.jpg)
(http://mg4sale.free.fr/MGB_GT_red.jpg)
? Same car. Ones a GT.
And these cars are still running around on the road, too.
The first one is a convertible, and the second is a coupe.
See how easy that was! Why do we even need the other two terms if we're not entering the cars into racing classes?
Quote from: Raza link=topic=892.msg778009#msg778009 date=1205858580
Convertible is a useful term. But not all convertibles are sports cars. Not all coupes are GTs either.
Which would be a problem if I called all convertibles sports cars, but I'm not; I'm going the other way.
Tell me, when are you going to have to distinguish between a convertible that isn't a sports car and one that is? I bet almost never, outside sanctioned racing.
Quote from: Tave on March 19, 2008, 07:37:25 AM
Tell me, when are you going to have to distinguish between a convertible that isn't a sports car and one that is? I bet almost never, outside sanctioned racing.
When I distinguish between my '63 Comet convertible and my '81 Fiat Spyder. Sports cars are a particular class of convertible. And then we get into roadsters, which is a distinct bodystyle of convertible (they have no roll up side windows.) Some roadsters are sports cars, some are not (though most new roadsters are sports cars, due to the nature of the beast. Unlike the days of the Ford Model A, when regular passenger cars could be had as roadsters). Again, these cars still exist and we buy them and work on them, so we distinguich them by bodystyle so that we can get the right parts for them when we DO work on them (or when we work on them for customers). We distinguish them so that when we state the term people know what we are talking about without having to reinterpret them every time they are said. So that a red Cavalier with a bodykit and flashy wheels isn't included in the definition... ;)
But, let's say that we dismiss the naming of old cars (this also seems to be a problem for kids that simply didn'e live when these cars were new and discount ANYTHING old as outdated).
What do these three cars have in common?:
Porsche GT1:
(http://www.autocult.com.au/img/gallery/997GT3229.jpg)
Merceded CLK GTR:
(http://damox.com/cars/thumbs/Mercedes%20Benz/Mercedes_CLK_GTR_red.jpg)
McLaren F1 GT:
(http://www.autosrapidos.com/superautos/m/mclaren-f1gt01.jpg)
Other than that all of them are newish cars from companies that have been building performance cars for decades? Why would prestigious European manufacturers name them that if
"sports car" was so important a term to the youth? Or if GT meant more luxurious accoutrements for high speed grand touring? Or if GT was an insult to a performance car?
Why do kids feel the need to redefine things that have worked for decades and still work today? No one has given a good answer for this.
Of course in other new cars, we have the Viper convertible and Viper GTS. Same basic car, one has a roof (guess which one). And the first Vipers were roasters... (damn few of those left in the new car market, as people can't live without roll up side windows for the most part)
Quote from: ChrisV on March 19, 2008, 08:13:04 AM
When I distinguish between my '63 Comet convertible and my '81 Fiat Spyder. Sports cars are a particular class of convertible. And then we get into roadsters, which is a distinct bodystyle of convertible (they have no roll up side windows.) Some roadsters are sports cars, some are not (though most new roadsters are sports cars, due to the nature of the beast. Unlike the days of the Ford Model A, when regular passenger cars could be had as roadsters). Again, these cars still exist and we buy them and work on them, so we distinguich them by bodystyle so that we can get the right parts for them when we DO work on them (or when we work on them for customers). We distinguish them so that when we state the term people know what we are talking about without having to reinterpret them every time they are said. So that a red Cavalier with a bodykit and flashy wheels isn't included in the definition... ;)
But, let's say that we dismiss the naming of old cars (this also seems to be a problem for kids that simply didn'e live when these cars were new and discount ANYTHING old as outdated).
What do these three cars have in common?:
Porsche GT1:
Merceded CLK GTR:
McLaren F1 GT:
Other than that all of them are newish cars from companies that have been building performance cars for decades? Why would prestigious European manufacturers name them that if "sports car" was so important a term to the youth?
Those are race cars that are entered into specific classes of racing. There are hardtop cars in the World Sports Car class. you have yet to address that.
QuoteOr if GT meant more luxurious accoutrements for high speed grand touring? Or if GT was an insult to a performance car?
GT isn't an insult, but it isn't an accurate description of cars like the Z06, Viper Coupe, and Cayman which are very much sports cars.
QuoteWhy do kids feel the need to redefine things that have worked for decades and still work today? No one has given a good answer for this.
I'm hardly a kid. I'm saying the lines are so blurred nowadays that definitions HAVE to change. Just like other words that change their meaning or definition over time.
Chris, can you give me a practical example of when you'd make the distinction (put it in context)?
Quote from: ChrisV on March 19, 2008, 08:13:04 AM
When I distinguish between my '63 Comet convertible and my '81 Fiat Spyder.
In other words, you know the Comet is a convertible, and you know the Fiat is a sports car. OK, so where does that knowledge get you? How can you use it? What purpose does the distinction serve? Are you going to confuse one for the other if you call them both convertibles?
Quote from: ChrisV on March 19, 2008, 04:58:01 AM
Sports car or performance car? Who said GTs perform worse? I think we're getting to the meat of the problem. You guys think that GT MEANS that they somehow perform worse, therfore if it performs the same or better, then it MUST be a sports car. That's simply not the case. It's a bodystyle difference, much like coupe or sedan (and that difference gets subtle indeed when talking about a 2 door coupe vs a 2 door sedan), not a performace difference.
I didn't mean to imply that calling the Cayman a GT meant that it performs worse; heck, I'll certainly agree that the Miata is a sports car even though it's outperformed by an M3 sedan. It just doesn't make sense to me that the Boxster is a sports car and the Cayman is a GT.
Quote from: Vinsanity on March 18, 2008, 02:28:52 PM
I still think the red one could be classified as a sports car.
Another example: Cayman vs. Boxster. I don't think that the Cayman is any less of a sports car than the Boxster because of the fixed roof.
That's as silly as saying "I don't think the 6 series is any less of a sedan than the 5 series" or "I don't think the 5 series is any less of an SUV than the X5."
"Sports car" is a bodystyle, not a declaration of ability.
Quote from: Vinsanity on March 19, 2008, 10:33:49 AM
I didn't mean to imply that calling the Cayman a GT meant that it performs worse; heck, I'll certainly agree that the Miata is a sports car even though it's outperformed by an M3 sedan. It just doesn't make sense to me that the Boxster is a sports car and the Cayman is a GT.
Why?It makes no sense that a car with a roof and a car without one would be classified the same way.
Quote from: Tave on March 19, 2008, 07:37:25 AM
Which would be a problem if I called all convertibles sports cars, but I'm not; I'm going the other way.
Tell me, when are you going to have to distinguish between a convertible that isn't a sports car and one that is? I bet almost never, outside sanctioned racing.
Well, I doubt my life would depend on distinguishing a bodystyle; what do you mean?
Also, should we do away with the geometric shape "square"? They're all just rectangles anyway.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=892.msg778995#msg778995 date=1205945252
Why?
It makes no sense that a car with a roof and a car without one would be classified the same way.
Why does a friggin roof define the entire car? :nutty:
Quote from: Raza link=topic=892.msg778998#msg778998 date=1205945397
Well, I doubt my life would depend on distinguishing a bodystyle; what do you mean?
Also, should we do away with the geometric shape "square"? They're all just rectangles anyway.
Quadralaterals.
Quote from: Tave on March 19, 2008, 08:35:24 AM
Chris, can you give me a practical example of when you'd make the distinction (put it in context)?
In other words, you know the Comet is a convertible, and you know the Fiat is a sports car. OK, so where does that knowledge get you? How can you use it? What purpose does the distinction serve? Are you going to confuse one for the other if you call them both convertibles?
Where does what any of us know about cars get us anywhere? That line of thinking gets us all in mindless cars like Camrys.
Quote from: NACar on March 19, 2008, 10:50:38 AM
Why does a friggin roof define the entire car? :nutty:
Because that makes the body fundamentally different....
And when defining a bodystyle, that's important.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=892.msg779003#msg779003 date=1205945573
Because that makes the body fundamentally different....
I want to see your dictionary of car definitions. And don't you pull out some stupid racing rule book, I'm talking about street cars.
I shall answer my own question this time
Main Entry: sports car
Function: noun
Date: 1928
: a low small usually 2-passenger automobile designed for quick response, easy maneuverability, and high-speed driving
Main Entry: grand touring car
Function: noun
Date: 1970
: a usually 2-passenger coupe
Main Entry: road?ster
Pronunciation: \ˈrōd-stər\
Function: noun
Date: circa 1812
1 a: a horse suitable for riding or driving on roads b: a utility saddle horse of the hackney type
2 a: a light carriage : buggy b: an automobile with an open body that seats two and has a folding fabric top and often a luggage compartment or rumble seat in the rear
Main Entry: cou?p?
Variant(s): or coupe \k?-ˈpā, 2 often ˈk?p\
Function: noun
Etymology: French coup?, from past participle of couper to cut, strike
Date: 1825
1: a four-wheeled closed horse-drawn carriage for two persons inside with an outside seat for the driver in front
2usually coupe : a 2-door automobile often seating only two persons; also : one with a tight-spaced rear seat
Main Entry: se?dan
Pronunciation: \si-ˈdan\
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
Date: 1635
1: a portable often covered chair that is designed to carry one person and that is borne on poles by two people
2 a: a 2- or 4-door automobile seating four or more persons and usually having a permanent top ? compare coupe b: a motorboat having one passenger compartment
Quote from: Raza link=topic=892.msg779002#msg779002 date=1205945544
Where does what any of us know about cars get us anywhere? That line of thinking gets us all in mindless cars like Camrys.
Pretend that I just bought a new car and I'm talking to my friend Tony:
Me: Hey, did you hear? I just picked up a new ride?
Tony: Hey man, that's really sweet. What kind of car is it?
Me: A Saturn Sky.
Tony: A what?
Me: A Saturn Sky.
Tony: Oh, I haven't heard of that before. What is it?
Me: It's really cool man. It's a little two-seat convertible.
Tony: Cool dude. You'll have to take me for a ride this afternoon.
Tony and I just had a conversation, and the term "convertible" proved very useful in describing my new car to him. In fact, it may have been more useful than "Sports Car," because Tony doesn't know much about classical definitions, and "sports car" might have meant any number of things to him.
What about "convertible" is inefficient or incomplete, in that context?
Quote from: Tave on March 19, 2008, 11:08:10 AM
Pretend that I just bought a new car and I'm talking to my friend Tony:
Me: Hey, did you hear? I just picked up a new ride?
Tony: Hey man, that's really sweet. What kind of car is it?
Me: A Saturn Sky.
Tony: A what?
Me: A Saturn Sky.
Tony: Oh, I haven't heard of that before. What is it?
Me: It's really cool man. It's a little two-seat convertible.
Tony: Cool dude. You'll have to take me for a ride this afternoon.
Tony and I just had a conversation, and the term "convertible" proved very useful in describing my new car to him. In fact, it may have been more useful than "Sports Car," because Tony doesn't know much about classical definitions, and "sports car" might have meant any number of things to him.
What about "convertible" is inefficient or incomplete, in that context?
Anyway, "sports car" wouldn't describe the fact that it is a convertible. "Roadster" would have worked.
More importantly Raza, what the hell are you talking about?
I'm asking you to apply knowledge you claim is important. If it's as important as you and Chris say it is, it should be a relatively simple excersize.
Give me a real-world example (outside of auto racing) that shows the distinction facilitates communication.
Quote from: NACar on March 19, 2008, 11:10:22 AM
Anyway, "sports car" wouldn't describe the fact that it is a convertible. "Roadster" would have worked.
Exactly. Sports car doesn't tell anybody that it's a Vert.
Your friend tony is a retard.
Quote from: Tave on March 19, 2008, 11:14:34 AM
More importantly Raza, what the hell are you talking about?
I'm asking you to apply knowledge you claim is important. If it's as important as you and Chris say it is, it should be a relatively simple excersize.
Give me a real-world example (outside of auto racing) that shows the distinction facilitates communication.
"I own a sports car."
"I own a convertible."
These are two different statements.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=892.msg779541#msg779541 date=1205980699
"I own a sports car."
"I own a convertible."
These are two different statements.
No, shit. Wow.
Quote from: NACar on March 19, 2008, 08:40:15 PM
No, shit. Wow.
Apparently he's asking me to use "sports car" in a sentence.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=892.msg779552#msg779552 date=1205980925
Apparently he's asking me to use "sports car" in a sentence.
Feel free to use one of mine:
"I drove a sports car to the park."
"I was startled by a sports car in the night."
"A sports car left the lot at noon."
"Only a sports car could be so cunning."
"What if I was a sports car?"
"Sports cars are interesting."
"If nothing else, a sports car is a good paperweight."
"The sports car is shiny."
"To avoid bordem, drive a sports car."
"I am not going to give you my sports car."
Quote from: Raza link=topic=892.msg779552#msg779552 date=1205980925
Apparently he's asking me to use "sports car" in a sentence.
No, I'm asking you to provide a situation/hypothetical that supports your position.
My position: the definition/term doesn't always facilitate communication, and we shouldn't pick on people when they misuse the term (provided it doesn't
hinder the sharing of information).
You seem to think otherwise, but you refuse to provide a simple example that shows why those definitions matter.
If you can't explain to me why I should use the terms, then how can you expect me to accept your advice?
Fuck dude, I'm tired of talking to a wall, so I'll do it fucking for you.
Awards. Automotive classes, and the knowledge of them, are important when third-parties, such as JD Power, hand out their yearly awards.
Can you think of any others?
No?
Then why does it matter to you?
I could sit on this site all day long and lecture people on misplaced modifiers and the incorrect use of commas. After all, it's "knowledge," and I think it proves to be a bigger obstacle to communication than someone calling a Corvette hardtop a sports car.
But it's also extremely petty, which is exactly what I think of your and Chris's religious policing of this subject.
I want to learn about engines and transmissions. I want to hear what wheels will drive a given car and how much power will push them. I want to hear about design language and styling. I want to discuss interior materials and ergonomics. I want to hear about new cars before they come out. I want to reminisce about the cool and unusual cars of the past century. I want to hear about new innovations in technology and industry. I want to hear the personal stories of other enthusiasts. I want to talk with people about our shared love for the supreme freedom machine that is "car."
I could give a fuck what the SCCA calls an Elise, UNLESS IT'S PERTINENT TO THE DISCUSSION.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on March 19, 2008, 12:54:56 PM
Your friend tony is a retard.
No doubt. Tony is a moron, which is why it's important for us to be on the same page.
Quote from: Tave on March 19, 2008, 11:14:34 AM
More importantly Raza, what the hell are you talking about?
I'm asking you to apply knowledge you claim is important. If it's as important as you and Chris say it is, it should be a relatively simple excersize.
Give me a real-world example (outside of auto racing) that shows the distinction facilitates communication.
That argument could just as easily be applied to any brand name or product-type - I bought cola; I had my computer fixed; I own a car; as opposed to buying Coke, fixing Dells and owning Fords - we don't
need these specific terms or descriptions, but such language is markedly generic and doesn't enhance communication. Our goal shouldn't be to oversimplify language.
I just do not see the difference between using the term 'Sedan' to describe 'two or four door, fixed-top, seating four or more' and using the term 'Sports car' to describe 'two door, open-top, RWD, manual', especially when the alternate definitions of 'sports car' being put forward aren't consistent, objective or even comparable from one car to the next.
Quote from: Tave on March 19, 2008, 10:14:29 PM
No doubt. Tony is a moron, which is why it's important for us to be on the same page.
Okay, I find myself using small words as well. But when I meet with my
Frasier fan club, our garrulous bunch incessantly chatters on and on about the ubiquitous nature of the idiocy of the hoi polloi.
Do forgive the rodomontade.
Quote from: omicron on March 19, 2008, 10:46:02 PM
That argument could just as easily be applied to any brand name or product-type - I bought cola; I had my computer fixed; I own a car; as opposed to buying Coke, fixing Dells and owning Fords - we don't need these specific terms or descriptions, but such language is markedly generic and doesn't enhance communication. Our goal shouldn't be to oversimplify language.
I just do not see the difference between using the term 'Sedan' to describe 'two or four door, fixed-top, seating four or more' and using the term 'Sports car' to describe 'two door, open-top, RWD, manual', especially when the alternate definitions of 'sports car' being put forward aren't consistent, objective or even comparable from one car to the next.
Considering the fact that a sedan can be two or four doors, I don't see why a sports car can't be fixed top or soft top. In fact, saying "2 door sedan" is more ambiguous than "fixed top sports car".
Quote from: thecarnut on March 20, 2008, 10:30:58 AM
Considering the fact that a sedan can be two or four doors, I don't see why a sports car can't be fixed top or soft top. In fact, saying "2 door sedan" is more ambiguous than "fixed top sports car".
A sports car can't have a fixed-top because then it becomes a GT.
:lol:
Quote from: omicron on March 20, 2008, 10:41:22 AM
A sports car can't have a fixed-top because then it becomes a GT.
:lol:
A sedan can have 2 doors because then it becomes a coupe.
:nono:
Quote from: thecarnut on March 20, 2008, 10:43:10 AM
A sedan can have 2 doors because then it becomes a coupe.
:nono:
The difference between a two door sedan and a coupe comes down to interior volume or rear seat space. Some people consider the 3 series a two door sedan (Car and Driver classified the E46 as such), but not the 911.
Quote from: Raza on March 20, 2008, 10:45:11 AM
The difference between a two door sedan and a coupe comes down to interior volume or rear seat space. Some people consider the 3 series a two door sedan (Car and Driver classified the E46 as such), but not the 911.
That's much more ambiguous than calling a fixed hardtop car a sports car.
Quote from: Raza on March 20, 2008, 10:45:11 AM
The difference between a two door sedan and a coupe comes down to interior volume or rear seat space. Some people consider the 3 series a two door sedan (Car and Driver classified the E46 as such), but not the 911.
I always thought a coupe was where the B pillar can be removed.
"The Society of Automotive Engineers defines such a vehicle as any two-door model with rear accommodation greater than or equal to 33 cubic feet (0.93 m?) in volume (a calculation made by adding the legroom, shoulder room, and headroom)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedan_%28car%29
Quote from: Raza on March 20, 2008, 10:45:11 AM
The difference between a two door sedan and a coupe comes down to interior volume or rear seat space. Some people consider the 3 series a two door sedan (Car and Driver classified the E46 as such), but not the 911.
Quote from: thecarnut on March 20, 2008, 10:46:21 AM
That's much more ambiguous than calling a fixed hardtop car a sports car.
Yeah, it's based on SAE measurements and classifications. For many years, however, you could get 2 door coupes and 2 door sedans in the same model range, just like you could get convertibles and roadsters in the same model range. We don't have the proliferation of bodystyles in a single model range anymore. But those bodystyle definitions are there waiting for someone to build new versions.
Quote from: thecarnut on March 20, 2008, 10:43:10 AM
A sedan can have 2 doors because then it becomes a coupe.
:nono:
Here's a couple of examples with older cars. First up, the 1963 falcon:
4 door sedan:
(http://www.pritchardpower.com/Pritchard%20Power%20Falcon.jpg)
2 door sedan:
(http://www.quickercad.com/falcon/frontpage.jpg)
2 door coupe:
(http://www.hillbillyrodandcustom.com/images/Mvc-004s.jpg)
Now, one of the kinds of cars originally under this definition, the 1930 ford:
4 door sedan:
(http://oldcarandtruckpictures.com/ModelAFord/1930_Ford_Model_A_Fordor-July14a.jpg)
2 door sedan:
(http://www.gwcmodela.com/Antique%20Ford%20Side%20View.JPG)
2 door coupe:
(http://www.classicautomotiverestoration.com/images/Restoration/Completed%20Projects/100_0070.jpg)
Quote from: Raza on March 20, 2008, 10:45:11 AM
The difference between a two door sedan and a coupe comes down to interior volume or rear seat space. Some people consider the 3 series a two door sedan (Car and Driver classified the E46 as such), but not the 911.
The SAE's definition is, to put it bluntly, rubbish. Interior volume as the determinant of body-style? What nonsense. From what I can recall, a two-door sedan always has framed windows, and the roofline is of full-height to the rear window - essentially, a four-door sedan without the rear doors. Often, a full-size boot exists, too. The Volvo 242GT is a good example, and you could probably make an argument for a 1-Series Coupe as a two-door sedan:
(http://ostroff.org/volvo/vcoa/242GT_US.jpg)
Coupes have two doors and generally sloping roofs towards the rear, and sometimes have frameless windows (but this isn't required). The just-superseded GTO is a coupe:
(http://images.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0606_strike_force_15z+2005_MTI_pontiac_GTO+side_view.jpg)
Coupes are distinct from hardtops, which have roofs that are intended to replicate the look of a convertible roof and always omit the B-pillar. They can also have either 2 or 4 doors.
(http://www.jameng.com/classifieds/images/64impala.jpg)
Coupes can be hardtops, which simply means they don't have B pillars. The falcon I posted is a good example, as the roof doesn't emulate a convertible. My '71 Torino GT was also a coupe and a hardtop (it was also a fastback to differentiate it from the 2 door notchback coupe also in the same model range):
Fastback coupe:
(http://www.dragtimes.com/images/6993-1971-Ford-Torino.jpg)
Notchback coupe:
(http://www.calgarystreetrides.ca/images/muscle%20cars/dave's71/!cid_8FB01A84-2EFA-47D7-89BA-3BAAB3C07F9F.jpg)
And sports cars have RWD, manual transmission, 2 doors and an open-top!
Quote from: omicron on March 20, 2008, 12:12:46 PM
And sports cars have RWD, manual transmission, 2 doors and an open-top!
And two or fewer seats.
Quote from: ChrisV on March 20, 2008, 12:07:46 PM
Coupes can be hardtops, which simply means they don't have B pillars. The falcon I posted is a good example, as the roof doesn't emulate a convertible. My '71 Torino GT was also a coupe and a hardtop (it was also a fastback to differentiate it from the 2 door notchback coupe also in the same model range)
Yes, my wording was probably a bit lacking - a two-door hardtop is, in its full form, a two-door hardtop coupe, just as a four-door hardtop is a four-door hardtop sedan.
Quote from: omicron on March 20, 2008, 12:12:46 PM
And sports cars have RWD, manual transmission, 2 doors and an open-top!
And roadsters are 2 door convertibles without rollup side windows. Examples are the 427 Cobra, first Viper, the Porsche speedster, and the Arial Atom. And again, you could get roadsters and cabriolets in the same model range.
roadster:
(http://www.patrickbentley.dk/blog/wp-content/cust-ride-porsche-blk.jpg)
cabriolet:
(http://www.alliedmotorsports.us/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/convertD.jpg)
Note the difference in windshield surrounds. the first uses side curtains, and the second uses roll up glass.
Same here:
roadster:
(http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-1950-1959/1957-Jaguar-XK-140-re-4.jpg)
Cabriolet:
(http://www.car-nection.com/jagbase/images/XK140/xk140dhc57side.jpg)
(and of course, the Brits, needing to be different, call a convertible like this a "drop head coupe")
I love the term drophead coupe.