Ok kids, just me daydreaming a bit here, but having finally chosen my major I'm allowed.
Ok I'm looking at cars that right now I cannot afford, but in a few years (and lots of pain trying to get work published to nab the PhD) I will be able to sign for.
Basically we want these things out of it.
1. Track Weapon. Not so much on the HP, but the whole Nürburgring on the skinny side of 8 minutes, or the fat side of 7. (Obviously with someone who embarasses me at the wheel...) (Like 8:30 tops)
2. Liveable. I'm not looking for comfort, but I'd like a little practicality. Like in the same way a Camaro or a WRX is practical. Enough groceries in the trunk for one man for a week or so, and get the eggs home intact or at least 9 out of 12. No bleeding ears please.
3. Respectable. Basically rice rockets need not apply(I.e. WRX et all.) , nor do Corvettes and other American beef rockets.
4. No pudgy cars. Light weight. I don't want a car that does Nürburgring in 8:30 by virtue of sheer overwhelming horsepower. (No 500hp sedan that outweighs some warships. I.e. M5 or similar.)
5. New, and must have a warranty that isn't voided by track usage. (Don't know if some cars have that condition, but it's nice to know...)
Anyways, hit me with you best shot!
I've only pegged the Porsche Cayman with the 3.4 as being suitable. (8:11)
And now the M3. (8:22)
Any thoughts?
I checked out the Cayman on the Porsche Site the other day.Wish I could trade my old junked out 83 944 even for one. :cry:
Although I am going to rebuild the 944 I tripped the Carpet a few days Ago since the Battery tray had been Leaking for a while.I'm thinking about stripping out all of the Weight Adding Stuff and Just leaving the Stereo and the front seats.. :cookoo: :cookoo: the Back seats are no good to me.The last tie I cleaned my 924 out I got stuck and had to pop the Sunroof out to get out.My 944 don't have a sunroof so I guess I would have to climb out of the rear Hatch on it. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Oh yeah I'd go with the Cayman.If you want to start out Cheaper go with Newer 928 Turbo. :thumb:
This is just sweet.440 Rear Wheel Horsepower. :icon_mrgreen: :icon_mrgreen:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/93-Porsche-928-GTS-Supercharged_W0QQitemZ110041881362QQihZ001QQcategoryZ6432QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Dinan
M3 coupe.
(http://www.z3roadster.com/i/mc/fr_07.jpg)
lotus exige. (its got loads of practicality, like the Cayman!).
(http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2004/2004-Lotus-Exige-Engine-FA-1280x960.jpg)
a boxster perhaps? :dunno_white:
I would suggest a 240Z with a nice little RB26 and all the suspension reworked..but I suppose that isn't new, is it?
I say the t-rex.
rx3(old skool)(http://ratemyride.co.nz/images/ride/3611.jpg)
but you don't want a jappa so thats out.
so i say the audi a8 w12 quatro
(http://www.carworks.com/images/newdesign/cars/05-a8-hero.jpg)
only 440hp but that should be enough :D
Corvette Z06 is off the table? Too bad, it's by far the best value in supersport cars. The LS7 is a fantastic engine.
Quote from: hmmmnz on October 10, 2006, 06:53:50 AM
so i say the audi a8 w12 quatro
only 440hp but that should be enough :D
Wouldn't that be out of the 40-70k dollar range?
(http://www.arielatom.com/images/StaticContent/front_s.jpg)
http://www.arielatom.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=127&Itemid=7
-Turd.
Can you get a Caterham superlight or CSR into the US?
http://www.caterham.co.uk/onlinestores/index.htm
I'm a sucker for sport sedans, so here's my list, in order:
1. e46 bmw m3, competition package (closest thing to a CSL in the states) :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
2. audi rs4
3. infiniti g35 sport (coupe for fun, sedan for practicality)
4. nissan skyline gtr (yeah I know, it screams "rice rocket" but it's a f---in skyline!)
I don't know what the nurburgring track times are for these cars is though :dunno_white:
EVO.
That's it.
Respectible is what you make it.
Quote from: porsche4786 on October 09, 2006, 11:33:34 PM
porsche 993 (95-98) turbo
Dinan's E36 will walk all over the Porsche.
Quote from: pantablo on October 09, 2006, 11:57:52 PM
M3 coupe.
(http://www.z3roadster.com/i/mc/fr_07.jpg)
Pablo, that's an M Coupe.
This is an M3 Coupe (E46):
(http://www.bmw.fi/kuvat/ajoneuvot/m3_coupe.jpg)
I'd go for the base Cayman.......and keep it forever :thumb:
haha I went to porsche's website and built a cayman to my liking and it cost more than the S...lol. Porsche has the most badass car-builder thingy, though...you can even "hear" your car.
Quote from: ostwayne on October 10, 2006, 09:18:33 AM
2. audi rs4
friend is looking at buying one of these-WAY out of the price range. only 300 of them in the states apparently.
I guess the term starting at 66K is a little under market value :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
what was your friend quoted, out of curiosity?
Another Option would be a Panoz.It's made in the States but is far from anything Resembling what Comes out of one of the Big 3 Factories.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/2001-Panoz-Esperante-Classic_W0QQitemZ280036307916QQihZ018QQcategoryZ6472QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
How about Aston Martin of Course those go for $100,000+ unless you buy a Used one.
The BMW 335i Coupe... :icon_lol: starting at $42k on th bottom of your price range.
1. Nürburgring in 8:26...
2. Practical, got a boot, carrys 5... etc.
3. Respectable - yep... even the diesel bit...
:icon_twisted:
(http://images.consumerguide.com/autoreview/400x266/2000-05-Toyota-Echo-00812071990001.JPG)
How about the Lotus Europa? I've also always been a big fan of the euro sport sedans.
I'm also looking at getting a new car in the next year or so. Short list is mazdaspeed3, vw gti, audi a3.
(http://www.autoclub.com.au/uploaded_images/lotus-europa-2007-765993.jpg)
Quote from: ostwayne on October 10, 2006, 02:14:55 PM
I guess the term starting at 66K is a little under market value :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
what was your friend quoted, out of curiosity?
I thought it was mid 80's...was wrong though-$68k...
Quote from: pantablo on October 10, 2006, 01:25:22 PM
Quote from: ostwayne on October 10, 2006, 09:18:33 AM
2. audi rs4
friend is looking at buying one of these-WAY out of the price range. only 300 of them in the states apparently.
I find that hard to believe, but it would be a great all around car!
Sanjay, I saw that you're in palo alto.
Do you also get sick of all the 3-series bimmers flying around with people that don't really know how to drive them? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
I would pass on the a3, I think for the amount of money that'll set you back, go for a mazdaspeed6... sleeper and it'll KILL those bimmers I'm talking about above. :icon_twisted:
gti is nice, but I'd say wait for the R32 (4-wheel drive) if they're still bringing it to the states. :icon_twisted:
the evo X looks sweet too, imho.
Pablo, $68K for the rs4??? damn! I wish I were older and had more money...
Yeah there are a lot of bimmers here and their drivers are usually on cell phones. It's even more depressing when you see the undergraduate parking lot at Stanford lined with them. Such is life.
I test drove the mazdaspeed6, but it really didn't do it for me. It looks really good on paper, but when you drive it the 3700 lbs just can't be ignored. Even when you compare the A3 3.2 (V6 and AWD) vs. the A3 2.0T with front wheel drive, the latter is more fun b/c of the lower weight. The R32 will basically be the A3 3.2, thought they might bump the new model up to an R36. Too pricey for me, too. The mazdaspeed3, though, should be a different story. Still waiting to hear from dealers about test-driving, but the magazines really like it. Only downside is crappy mileage compared to the 2.0T from the A3/GTI. Though not as crappy as the RS4 I saw at the local dealership. They didn't even let the salesguy I was talking to test it out, since he was relatively new there.
I REALLY wish the Evo and WRX weren't so ugly (though the Evo X looks better than earlier ones). I love rally racing (way before Gran Turismo put it on the map in the US) and really like the old rally cars. But I'm not into the wings and scoops - definitely more of a Q car guy. Incidentally, I'm going to the SCCA RallyX competition (http://www.sfrscca.com/RallyX/) up at Thunderhill with my old Audi and one of my buddies is taking his mini cooper s. Should be fun.
speaking of...how about a John Cooper Works special edition Mini Cooper?
(http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2006/2006-MINI-Cooper-S-GP-Rear-Right-Still-1280x960.jpg)
The build quality of the Audi and even the GTI cannot be ignored. The Mazda is total shaZam! compared to the Audi in build quality. Yeah, thats a harsh statement, but I mean it.
After how amazing my A6 has been, I'll likely never own anything but Audi's. Granted...its...slower than most 18 wheelers, but that's why I own motorcycles!
-Turd.
Quote from: OctaneMotorsports on October 10, 2006, 04:54:06 PM
(http://images.consumerguide.com/autoreview/400x266/2000-05-Toyota-Echo-00812071990001.JPG)
8 minutes 30 seconds top, not 8 days and some hours...
http://www.porsche.com/
Quote from: Turd Ferguson on October 10, 2006, 08:59:17 PM
...but that's why I own motorcycles!
That's slower than most harleys! lol
Quote from: Turd Ferguson on October 10, 2006, 08:59:17 PM
The build quality of the Audi and even the GTI cannot be ignored. The Mazda is total shaZam! compared to the Audi in build quality. Yeah, thats a harsh statement, but I mean it.
After how amazing my A6 has been, I'll likely never own anything but Audi's. Granted...its...slower than most 18 wheelers, but that's why I own motorcycles!
-Turd.
Are you talking about fit and finish or reliability? I am very happy with Audi's interiors and general finish, but I'd say the japanese cars are generally more reliable. And what engine is in your A6 that makes it slow?
Quote from: CirclesCenter on October 10, 2006, 09:01:34 PM
Quote from: OctaneMotorsports on October 10, 2006, 04:54:06 PM
(http://images.consumerguide.com/autoreview/400x266/2000-05-Toyota-Echo-00812071990001.JPG)
8 minutes 30 seconds top, not 8 days and some hours...
Hahaha, pretty obvious joke. :laugh:
...although I hear Toyota Echos are friggin' mosters! :laugh:
Nurburgring in a minute flat.
Geo Metro hatchback...but make sure you get the lsi.....it has the 1.3 liter engine as to the .9......its like a five speed go kart!
Whomever said RS4... :thumb:
Quote from: seaheifer on October 11, 2006, 04:41:48 PM
Geo Metro hatchback...but make sure you get the lsi.....it has the 1.3 liter engine as to the .9......its like a five speed go kart!
A Turtle!! I've always wanted one to strip and gut, pull the rear subframe out, slap in an FC RX-7 IRS in and run with a GSX1300R engine...or a built B12 engine.
...for those that care that'd make a 1300lb car putting down 165rwhp/98lb/tq with the 1300, or 155ish whp/125ish lb/tq with the 12...
I believe that sports cars should be light and have a balance between power and handling. It's bad if you have a big hulking engine throwing off the weight balance.
Best full out sports cars:
Ariel Atom
Lotus Elise/Exige
Best "practical" sports cars:
BMW M3
Audi TT
Best sports sedans:
BMW 328xi
Lexus IS250 AWD
Quote from: AlphaFire X5 on October 11, 2006, 08:55:53 PM
I believe that sports cars should be light and have a balance between power and handling. It's bad if you have a big hulking engine throwing off the weight balance.
Not exactly. Sports cars are attention intensive in handling, not so much perfect weight distribution...a factor that doesn't always enhance handling. The Porsche 911, prior to becoming an all out GT car, is a perfect example. The 911SC has a tendency to be tail happy because it's an ass heavy rear drive car. All of that weight made for amazing handling in most situations because the rear tended to gain inertia and "throw" the car through curves...at the expense of a very thin line between optimal traction and no traction.
No, spors cars are all suspension, structural integrity, minimalism, and power delivery. You'll fiind that the majoraty of sports cars have almost no developement into the egine, while engineers spend unfathomable amounts of cash tinkering with the drivetrain, sspension, and body.
GT cars are completely different.
Minimalism.
There we go, my ideal sports coupe in a word.
No fancy this and that
No extraneous power to be a "Super Car"
No fancy wheels
No Italian leather accented with carbon fiber and brushed alum.
Sticky tires
Firm suspension
Spot on power
Spot on response
In a word, seemless translation between my actions and the car's.
Quote from: CirclesCenter on October 11, 2006, 10:15:52 PM
In a word, seemless translation between my actions and the car's.
That's more than a word.
But yeah.
Ariel Atom is probably what you want. It's probably the closest thing to a race car you'll get on the street.
Quote from: CirclesCenter on October 11, 2006, 10:15:52 PM
Minimalism.
There we go, my ideal sports coupe in a word.
I was reiterating the original, with deliberate elaboration.
Minimalism and elaboration go together like chocolate cake and mustard.
You know if I didn't know better I'd say you missed the point.
get one of these race cars, to run in Improved Tourning B class (ITB):
(http://www.red4est.com/lrc/racer_html/rabbit1a.jpg)
then blow the rest of the $65k on a bimmer 6 series.
Quote from: CirclesCenter on October 11, 2006, 10:30:06 PM
You know if I didn't know better I'd say you missed the point.
Previous similie only with "knowing better" and "talking anyway".
Get an 89 Mustang 5.0 liter couple, thow a supercharger on it, a 10 point roll cage, some sticky tires and a race harness.
Enjoy.
a 3rd gen rx-7 would be sweet...or a 914-6...
FD's suck...it's a perfect example of a sports car, though. No developement in the engine what so ever. That's why there's more SA's and FB's running around than FC's or FD's.
On a more serious note...
(http://www.kartcrg.com/crg/galleria/oggi/halle1b.jpg)
125cc, 6-speed, 50 horsepower...and just under 250 pounds. The power to weight ratio will put just about everything short of a formula one car to shame.
Quote from: makenzie71 on October 12, 2006, 01:18:41 PM
FD's suck...it's a perfect example of a sports car, though. No developement in the engine what so ever. That's why there's more SA's and FB's running around than FC's or FD's.
How do FD's suck? Please explain....they are a wonderful sports car, look good, rare, hold their value, are fast and handle great. What do you mean no developement in the engine? I'd much rather have a rare car than something everybody else has.
(http://homepage.mac.com/whitehill/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/2005-08-28%2016.29.15%20-0700/Image-DA38C048181A11DA.jpg)
(http://homepage.mac.com/whitehill/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/2005-08-28%2016.29.15%20-0700/Image-DA389AE5181A11DA.jpg)
my favorite rx7. the rx8 sucks ass.
Quote from: porsche4786 on October 12, 2006, 09:13:10 PM
How do FD's suck? Please explain....they are a wonderful sports car, look good, rare, hold their value, are fast and handle great. What do you mean no developement in the engine? I'd much rather have a rare car than something everybody else has.
Sure they look good...that's why the C5 Corvette is strongly styled in it's favour. But looks aren't everything. Whena car can't last 75,000 miles without needing a new engine, it's a turn off. Mazda put ZERO developement into the engine. They took the same tech used in the FC3S and applied it to the FD3S...the only difference was mild tweaking to management systems to compensate for a slightly different intake manifold, twin turbos, and modified fueling. When you take into consideration the difference other manufacturers put into their new generation engines, that's rather sad...and it's why the car doesn't last. You can't take old tech, boost the hell out of it, and expect it to last long.
Also a car that cost $45k new, and had a standard market value of <$20k five years later...that's not what I would call holding it's value well. They do ok now at around $12k for a near mint, solid car, but that's pushing it. The FD was a flop...one of my favorite flops, but a flop none the less. I'd rather have an SA.
Throw a 20B in the mix, though, and it's a different story. That's my idea of a quality sports car...chassis, body, and delivery, with the mechanical reliabillity of a developed GT...and that's why when it's my turn, it'll be a Z06.
The RX-8 was the best thing to happen to the 13B. Mazda actually put some thought into it this time.
Quote from: makenzie71 on October 12, 2006, 10:01:33 PM
Quote from: porsche4786 on October 12, 2006, 09:13:10 PM
How do FD's suck? Please explain....they are a wonderful sports car, look good, rare, hold their value, are fast and handle great. What do you mean no developement in the engine? I'd much rather have a rare car than something everybody else has.
Sure they look good...that's why the C5 Corvette is strongly styled in it's favour. But looks aren't everything. Whena car can't last 75,000 miles without needing a new engine, it's a turn off. Mazda put ZERO developement into the engine. They took the same tech used in the FC3S and applied it to the FD3S...the only difference was mild tweaking to management systems to compensate for a slightly different intake manifold, twin turbos, and modified fueling. When you take into consideration the difference other manufacturers put into their new generation engines, that's rather sad...and it's why the car doesn't last. You can't take old tech, boost the hell out of it, and expect it to last long.
Also a car that cost $45k new, and had a standard market value of <$20k five years later...that's not what I would call holding it's value well. They do ok now at around $12k for a near mint, solid car, but that's pushing it. The FD was a flop...one of my favorite flops, but a flop none the less. I'd rather have an SA.
Throw a 20B in the mix, though, and it's a different story. That's my idea of a quality sports car...chassis, body, and delivery, with the mechanical reliabillity of a developed GT...and that's why when it's my turn, it'll be a Z06.
The RX-8 was the best thing to happen to the 13B. Mazda actually put some thought into it this time.
I don't think cause you can only get 50-75k out of a rebuilt TT rotary makes it a bad car, hell, it would take me a lot of time to put 50k on a car..but that's just me, it wouldn't be any everyday car for me, I would look into an audi for that. I mean if you buy a used one (around here i see them for $15-20k) you can get your money back. I don't mean go out and buy a new one...because you can't. Where are you finding them for 12k near mint? I had to pay $5600 for my 89 with 45k miles on it...and it's still only an FC.
Umm, anyone get the part where i was talking about a "NEW" car?
BTW rotary engine is like a platinum blonde:
High maintenance.
FC's are a more valuable package. Nice FB's are more so. And heaven forbid you find a mint SA in teh ahnds of someone who knows what it is.
$15~20 needs to be for a MINT car, prefereable with a papered, near new engine. More than that is stupid...I can hook you up with a MINT Spirit R for $22k. Considering that, ANY USDM FD should be under $15k with standard use. If you can't find one for that, you're not shopping very thoroughly. I've bought and moved a 22,000 mile twin turbo, with good compression, for $8100...done the same thing with a 154k Z32. Shop and you shall find.
Sorry circles...at this point no one cares what you WERE talking about. :laugh:
Plus, rotary bikes are much cooler than rotary cars.
f%$k yeah! I'd love to have an old Zooki RE5!
Now I know there were turbo'd bikes, and there were rotary bikes.... but....
Was there ever a turbo rotary bike?
If not, Mak, get to work, that would be the slickest ride since a greased pig.
Quote from: CirclesCenter on October 12, 2006, 10:42:34 PM
Umm, anyone get the part where i was talking about a "NEW" car?
BTW rotary engine is like a platinum blonde:
High maintenance.
Not the RX-8, it's actually a very practical car, as long as you don't need a ton of space.
There was never a production turbo rotary motocycle, but there were several people who did it for kicks...one of my favorite was a 13B-RE powered sportster.
Quote from: porsche4786 on October 12, 2006, 10:50:34 PM
Quote from: CirclesCenter on October 12, 2006, 10:42:34 PM
Umm, anyone get the part where i was talking about a "NEW" car?
BTW rotary engine is like a platinum blonde:
High maintenance.
Not the RX-8, it's actually a very practical car, as long as you don't need a ton of space.
Hold on, let's see if I can remember the quote from the owner's manual:
Check the oil at every fill up
To check the oil you must remove the engine cover (Held in by allen bolts....)
Oh yeah, what about Car and Driver frequently having to bump start their RX8 on cold days?
BTW it's the nature of the beast, and I like rotaries. They need special care because they are special engines.
Quote from: CirclesCenter on October 12, 2006, 11:01:51 PM
Quote from: porsche4786 on October 12, 2006, 10:50:34 PM
Quote from: CirclesCenter on October 12, 2006, 10:42:34 PM
Umm, anyone get the part where i was talking about a "NEW" car?
BTW rotary engine is like a platinum blonde:
High maintenance.
Not the RX-8, it's actually a very practical car, as long as you don't need a ton of space.
Hold on, let's see if I can remember the quote from the owner's manual:
Check the oil at every fill up
To check the oil you must remove the engine cover (Held in by allen bolts....)
Oh yeah, what about Car and Driver frequently having to bump start their RX8 on cold days?
BTW it's the nature of the beast, and I like rotaries. They need special care because they are special engines.
no sports car is low maintenance, but this is pretty low i'd say. you don't need to check the oil that often, I don't even check mine very often in my 89 and it is never low. Car and driver are idiots....Road and Track is doing a long term test on one and they say it is currently at 46 cents per mile and the average is 44 cents...I'd say that's pretty damn good. $2570 routine maintenance after 50k miles. What car can you buy now that doesn't have that plastic crap covering the engine? Everything comes with that. And for the battery, maybe they should get a better one....I have an optima and it starts mine up no problem and my car sits outside everyday everynight, and sometimes I don't drive it for a week. The only problem is that sometimes it gets flooded easily, but I can get it to start in 5 minutes without having to remove the spark plugs to get rid of the excess fuel.
It's hard to compare a Turbo II, or any RX-7, to an 8, though. The engines have almost nothing in common asside being rotary. It's like comparing an LT1 to and LS2...same number of cylinders but that's where the similarities start getting vague.
Quote from: makenzie71 on October 13, 2006, 09:04:44 AM
It's hard to compare a Turbo II, or any RX-7, to an 8, though. The engines have almost nothing in common asside being rotary. It's like comparing an LT1 to and LS2...same number of cylinders but that's where the similarities start getting vague.
Yes, but I'm saying that the wankel is not as efficient as the renesis. I have had to do little work to mine so the 8 would be even less maintenance.
Umm, brand new car + bump start?
I think that was unacceptable anytime past oh 1955, or 1960?
Quote from: porsche4786 on October 13, 2006, 10:07:48 AM
Yes, but I'm saying that the wankel is not as efficient as the renesis. I have had to do little work to mine so the 8 would be even less maintenance.
They're all Wankels, :p.
Efficiency is hard to compare as well...the rotary engine's power production and fuel usage varies so wildly from driver to driver that it's hard to make a solid determination. On paper the 13B-REW is the most efficient.