What convertible? £5k or less
Discussion
Craikeybaby said:
Personally I wouldn't bother with the earlier MX-5s, the mk2/mk2.5 are even more prone to rust than the mk1s. The mk3/3.5 is also a much better car overall. I has the handling and character of the earlier cars, but with more refinement.
Oddly enough I've heard people say the opposite about Mk 3s - but I guess its all opinions. All are valid and welcome. Just have to weigh up what the majority view is, then check out for myself. 
I should probably have added the qualifier there that the mk3 needs to have the suspension set up well - a 4 wheel alignment by someone who knows MX-5s. MX-5s are pretty sensitive to wheel alignment, so it is the first thing I'd have done to a second hand MX-5 of any generation.
The first mk3 I drove was rubbish, but the mk3.5s I've driven felt just like my old mk1.
The first mk3 I drove was rubbish, but the mk3.5s I've driven felt just like my old mk1.
Craikeybaby said:
I should probably have added the qualifier there that the mk3 needs to have the suspension set up well - a 4 wheel alignment by someone who knows MX-5s. MX-5s are pretty sensitive to wheel alignment, so it is the first thing I'd have done to a second hand MX-5 of any generation.
The first mk3 I drove was rubbish, but the mk3.5s I've driven felt just like my old mk1.
http://www.wheels-inmotion.co.uk/ are the go-to shop for that, and I agree that for an MX5 of any vintage, a proper alignment setup can work wonders.The first mk3 I drove was rubbish, but the mk3.5s I've driven felt just like my old mk1.
I am having my head turned a bit by the Merc SLs. Not quite what I was thinking about (never really thought about affording a Merc, if I'm honest) and its an auto...but ultimately its a 50k or upwards car for silly money. No doubt there's a downside so more research... I think a 500 would be a bit overkill though. Perhaps servicing costs would be an issue - but then, its hardly a cheap every day car.
BMW Z4 is a nice car to look at and again, better than I expected to be able to afford.
Mazda MX-5 - less powerful I know but I've had a V8 Camaro for 7 years (and had a lot of fun driving it); do I still need that power fix? Its more about the feel good factor and fun, I think. Considering the Mk 3 now alongside a decent and sorted Mk 2.5.
Audi TT - seems like a better, more fun car than I thought. Hadn't really thought about them before but some fun to be had there I'm sure.
Honda S2000 - not so common, may be a problem fitting in it, but worth checking out.
Discounting the MR2s ultimately - the looks really don't appeal. Elans...dont know why, they just don't grab me.
BMW Z4 is a nice car to look at and again, better than I expected to be able to afford.
Mazda MX-5 - less powerful I know but I've had a V8 Camaro for 7 years (and had a lot of fun driving it); do I still need that power fix? Its more about the feel good factor and fun, I think. Considering the Mk 3 now alongside a decent and sorted Mk 2.5.
Audi TT - seems like a better, more fun car than I thought. Hadn't really thought about them before but some fun to be had there I'm sure.
Honda S2000 - not so common, may be a problem fitting in it, but worth checking out.
Discounting the MR2s ultimately - the looks really don't appeal. Elans...dont know why, they just don't grab me.
TTwiggy said:
Prof Prolapse said:
BMW Z4 3.0
Don't touch the Boxster unless you can afford potential bills. Most people can't afford a cheap one.
I think that's a little unfair. A good Boxster S is now a sub £6k car. That's pure market forces, and not down to those ones at that price point being dogs. Yes, they cost more to run than an MX5/MR2, but no more than, say, a large-engined Audi of similar vintage. Don't touch the Boxster unless you can afford potential bills. Most people can't afford a cheap one.
The only 'big' bill that might be looming on a Boxster is potential IMS failure. But at these prices I'd say you either budget for a rebuild by the likes of Hartech or accept that the car then becomes scrap.
Rather than compare with random cars, if we stay on tangent it is not only the most expensive car here to maintain by a substantial margin, it also is the least reliable, and has the biggest potential bills.
Just to use your analogy to illustrate my point, a large engineered Audi from the VAG group is a mass produced vehicle of time tested technology. It has neither specialised parts, few engineered precision components, and not only shares parts across the range but also has a plethora of pattern spares available if you feel like cutting corners. Having owned the BMW Z4 I can attest this is also the case, in fact many components are interchangeable with the E46. It is less special for it but much less costly.
Regardless of internet consensus, there's more to go wrong than IMS, just like any car. If you don't believe me, try costing up a warranty for one and then compare with the others. Especially if your'e comparing with Toyota, Honda, Mazda, and to lesser extent, BMW.
They're great cars, my favourite of this short list, that step up in performance doesn't come cheap and there's no sense buying a car just to never drive it because you're stressing about bills.
Prof Prolapse said:
They're great cars, my favourite of this short list, that step up in performance doesn't come cheap and there's no sense buying a car just to never drive it because you're stressing about bills.
Ultimately while I was getting quite excited about looking at Boxsters - I know that would be me. So its out of the equation.Flip Martian said:
I am having my head turned a bit by the Merc SLs. Not quite what I was thinking about (never really thought about affording a Merc, if I'm honest) and its an auto...but ultimately its a 50k or upwards car for silly money. No doubt there's a downside so more research... I think a 500 would be a bit overkill though. Perhaps servicing costs would be an issue - but then, its hardly a cheap every day car.
Better part of £90k new for the sl500. An autobox is a good thing when it works like the 5speed unit in the SL. Servicing £300 a time at an independent, fuel 20ish mpg, tyres £200 per corner, nothing should go wrong but if it does things can get pricey. V6 options may save you 25%-40% on fuel but it will still like a drink and you will think what if.IanMorewood said:
Better part of £90k new for the sl500. An autobox is a good thing when it works like the 5speed unit in the SL. Servicing £300 a time at an independent, fuel 20ish mpg, tyres £200 per corner, nothing should go wrong but if it does things can get pricey. V6 options may save you 25%-40% on fuel but it will still like a drink and you will think what if.
I've run a V8 for the last few years, so I've had the V8 experience if you like. I actually think my Camaro was less thirsty than a 500 would be. Everything else sounds a similar-ish price, although parts were relatively cheap for the Yank.Flip Martian said:
Discounting the MR2s ultimately - the looks really don't appeal.
Fair point. I think they need to be post-facelift and in the right colour with black interior. Mine was a deep metallic green (very rare) with black.Some of the silver/pre-facelift/red interior ones look poor in comparison.
I'd just say don't dismiss them entirely until you've see all of the colour options.
I have a silver facelift MR2 Mk3 with black leather interior and would be the first to admit that from most angles it looks weak. I bought it because I wanted feedback, handling and direct steering in my daily driver. For a few £k it delivers this in spades, but I also have a faster, noisier, better looking 'fun' car to play with alongside it. This counters the MR2 looking like an automotive Wendy House.
To the OP I'd consider a turbo'd or supercharged MX5. They're a hoot to drive, but relatively benign to oversteer, certainly compared to an MR2 or S2000. I really liked my S2000 though, and £5k would get you a useable-ish example. It's a fun car.
To the OP I'd consider a turbo'd or supercharged MX5. They're a hoot to drive, but relatively benign to oversteer, certainly compared to an MR2 or S2000. I really liked my S2000 though, and £5k would get you a useable-ish example. It's a fun car.
Prof Prolapse said:
I'm sorry but I totally disagree, the market forces are that it's the best car here, but it's only cheap because its running costs are off putting.
Rather than compare with random cars, if we stay on tangent it is not only the most expensive car here to maintain by a substantial margin, it also is the least reliable, and has the biggest potential bills.
Just to use your analogy to illustrate my point, a large engineered Audi from the VAG group is a mass produced vehicle of time tested technology. It has neither specialised parts, few engineered precision components, and not only shares parts across the range but also has a plethora of pattern spares available if you feel like cutting corners. Having owned the BMW Z4 I can attest this is also the case, in fact many components are interchangeable with the E46. It is less special for it but much less costly.
Regardless of internet consensus, there's more to go wrong than IMS, just like any car. If you don't believe me, try costing up a warranty for one and then compare with the others. Especially if your'e comparing with Toyota, Honda, Mazda, and to lesser extent, BMW.
They're great cars, my favourite of this short list, that step up in performance doesn't come cheap and there's no sense buying a car just to never drive it because you're stressing about bills.
Well, I've run an MY2000 Boxster S and an MY2003 Audi S4.Rather than compare with random cars, if we stay on tangent it is not only the most expensive car here to maintain by a substantial margin, it also is the least reliable, and has the biggest potential bills.
Just to use your analogy to illustrate my point, a large engineered Audi from the VAG group is a mass produced vehicle of time tested technology. It has neither specialised parts, few engineered precision components, and not only shares parts across the range but also has a plethora of pattern spares available if you feel like cutting corners. Having owned the BMW Z4 I can attest this is also the case, in fact many components are interchangeable with the E46. It is less special for it but much less costly.
Regardless of internet consensus, there's more to go wrong than IMS, just like any car. If you don't believe me, try costing up a warranty for one and then compare with the others. Especially if your'e comparing with Toyota, Honda, Mazda, and to lesser extent, BMW.
They're great cars, my favourite of this short list, that step up in performance doesn't come cheap and there's no sense buying a car just to never drive it because you're stressing about bills.
Over a similar ownership period, and baring servicing and consumables, the Porker was cheaper and less trouble. The Audi threw two very big bills, the Boxster was faultless.
I realise this is a sample of one, but I really don't believe that a Boxster is any more expensive to run than many of the alternatives offered here.
Also, a comparable Z4 is actually cheaper than a Boxster, year for year, so that puts a bit of a lie to the idea that Boxsters are cheap because they are unreliable.
It's a moot point though, as the OP clearly believes the horror stories.
TTwiggy said:
Well, I've run an MY2000 Boxster S and an MY2003 Audi S4.
Over a similar ownership period, and baring servicing and consumables, the Porker was cheaper and less trouble. The Audi threw two very big bills, the Boxster was faultless.
I realise this is a sample of one, but I really don't believe that a Boxster is any more expensive to run than many of the alternatives offered here.
Also, a comparable Z4 is actually cheaper than a Boxster, year for year, so that puts a bit of a lie to the idea that Boxsters are cheap because they are unreliable.
It's a moot point though, as the OP clearly believes the horror stories.
Right. Because your Audi S4 was more unreliable than your Boxster... Boxsters are not more expensive to run than the cars mentioned here (MX5, MR2, Z3, Z4, S2000). That makes perfect sense.Over a similar ownership period, and baring servicing and consumables, the Porker was cheaper and less trouble. The Audi threw two very big bills, the Boxster was faultless.
I realise this is a sample of one, but I really don't believe that a Boxster is any more expensive to run than many of the alternatives offered here.
Also, a comparable Z4 is actually cheaper than a Boxster, year for year, so that puts a bit of a lie to the idea that Boxsters are cheap because they are unreliable.
It's a moot point though, as the OP clearly believes the horror stories.
Aside from the "n=1", the rest of what you say is equally intelligible.
Prof Prolapse said:
Right. Because your Audi S4 was more unreliable than your Boxster... Boxsters are not more expensive to run than the cars mentioned here (MX5, MR2, Z3, Z4, S2000). That makes perfect sense.
Aside from the "n=1", the rest of what you say is equally intelligible.
Given the rather confrontational nature of your post, I'm guessing you mean unintelligible?Aside from the "n=1", the rest of what you say is equally intelligible.
I did say that I was a sample of one. But I stand by my assertion that the cost of running a Boxster is no better or worse than running any other car with comparable performance or original purchase price. But maybe you've got hard evidence that shows I'm wrong?
Boxsters ARE more expensive to run than the others listed though, even without potential big bills - RMS / IMS failures etc.
For a start, compare brakes, suspension etc components to some of the others, they will be way over priced, servicing costs at an Indy etc, and then the dated interior of the Boxster...
I almost bought one but weighing up the Boxster vs Z4 3.0 vs S2000 running costs the S2000 came out on top, Honda don't win most of the reliability surveys every year for no reason after all...
For a start, compare brakes, suspension etc components to some of the others, they will be way over priced, servicing costs at an Indy etc, and then the dated interior of the Boxster...
I almost bought one but weighing up the Boxster vs Z4 3.0 vs S2000 running costs the S2000 came out on top, Honda don't win most of the reliability surveys every year for no reason after all...
TTwiggy said:
It's a moot point though, as the OP clearly believes the horror stories.
Not a question of believing horror stories - more of taking into account possible running costs going forward. If I was more comfortable financially, I'd include it in my shortlist - as a driver's car, everyone raves about them. Ultimately though I don't want anything that might well cost more than the Camaro to keep on the road.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff