Bang for buck?

[vit4]

Not a direct 'what car', but curious as to what car people think offers the absolute most value for money? It could be a few hundred quid or a few hundred grand, new or used.


How can I see this resulting in a general consensus of a certain small Mazda?

[LuS1fer]

Corvettes generally but a used C5 particularly. 0-60 in under 5 seconds and 175mph. Now selling for as low as £12k. I include in this the running costs and insurance which are also very low.

[BLUETHUNDER]

Seconded on Vettes. Very low annual running costs and hold there value well.

[rhinochopig]

kit car

[Mansell90]

TVR Cerb 4.5 surely, embarrassed supercars 3 or 4 times its price in its hayday, and still does to many today.

[Atomic Gibbon]

In cost of ownership terms, a Caterham. They can put more smiles on your face than any other car I've driven, and they are virtually depreciation proof after a few years. Running costs aren't massive (for the low state of tune cars), and insurers don't think they're bad because "it's only a 1.8" etc.

[LuS1fer]

Motorbikes are damned good value. Something like a new Fireblade is practically too powerful for the road.

[magnus911]

Atomic Gibbon said:

and insurers don't think they're bad because "it's only a 1.8" etc.

Surely the insurance companies aren't that stupid? But i suppose, they'll do less damage to a third party than some bigger, slower cars...

[rfn]

Have to say I think the MX-5 IS great VFM/BFB.

You can get an excellent condition Mk1 for under 2 bags of sand and you get so many smiles per mile from them. Admittedly mine cost a fair bit more than that but over country A/B roads it is no noticeably slower than many "faster" performance cars due to its exceptional handling.

[ewenm]

magnus911 said:

Atomic Gibbon said:

and insurers don't think they're bad because "it's only a 1.8" etc.

Surely the insurance companies aren't that stupid? But i suppose, they'll do less damage to a third party than some bigger, slower cars...

Caterhams are relatively low risk because they rarely get stolen, are cheap to repair and tend to be owned by enthusiasts so are well-cared for. Compared to other cars with similar performance, they are a much smaller risk for the insurer.

[thesyn]

Impreza, you may hate the image, but they are huge value

[Digby]

You will have to go a long way to beat 6 or 7k on a VX engined westfield, or even something similar with less BHP to be honest.It's quite a raw experience though, so as predictable as it is and having owned both, I will have to say the MX5.Drop a grand to £1500 on one of those and like me, you can venture out on Pistonhead runs and sit quite happily on twisty back roads with the best of them.You will also have as much fun as you would in a seven style car, but with a dollop of practicality.

[ArtVandelay]

ewenm said:

magnus911 said:

Atomic Gibbon said:

and insurers don't think they're bad because "it's only a 1.8" etc.

Surely the insurance companies aren't that stupid? But i suppose, they'll do less damage to a third party than some bigger, slower cars...

Caterhams are relatively low risk because they rarely get stolen, are cheap to repair and tend to be owned by enthusiasts so are well-cared for. Compared to other cars with similar performance, they are a much smaller risk for the insurer.

Insurance on a 1.6 is more than that for a 2.5l twin turbo Noble M12

They just make it up as they go along insurance companies!

[ewenm]

ArtVandelay said:

ewenm said:

magnus911 said:

Atomic Gibbon said:

and insurers don't think they're bad because "it's only a 1.8" etc.

Surely the insurance companies aren't that stupid? But i suppose, they'll do less damage to a third party than some bigger, slower cars...

Caterhams are relatively low risk because they rarely get stolen, are cheap to repair and tend to be owned by enthusiasts so are well-cared for. Compared to other cars with similar performance, they are a much smaller risk for the insurer.

Insurance on a 1.6 is more than that for a 2.5l twin turbo Noble M12

They just make it up as they go along insurance companies!

Which is why it's important to shop around and use the specialists for unusual cars.

[busta]

Ariel Atom does it for me. £30k for supercar pace, supercar looks and a lot more fun.

[Steameh]

E39 M5 takes some beating.

Fast, Fun, Gorgeous, Practical, Badge and not horrendously expensive to run.

[The Dirty Bubble]

Steameh said:

E39 M5 takes some beating.

Fast, Fun, Gorgeous, Practical, Badge and not horrendously expensive to run.

Not sure about that last one, but other than that I have to agree.

[Garett]

Saab 9000 Turbo, 150mph for less than a grand.

[RobM77]

ewenm said:

magnus911 said:

Atomic Gibbon said:

and insurers don't think they're bad because "it's only a 1.8" etc.

Surely the insurance companies aren't that stupid? But i suppose, they'll do less damage to a third party than some bigger, slower cars...

Caterhams are relatively low risk because they rarely get stolen, are cheap to repair and tend to be owned by enthusiasts so are well-cared for. Compared to other cars with similar performance, they are a much smaller risk for the insurer.

I got a quote for my 1.8 VVC and then got a second quote for an R500 purely out of interest and they were identical for exactly the reason stated above "it's a 1.8". Insurance companies are pretty stupid to be honest (don't get me started on mis-use of statistics!!!), and with Caterhams it's one of the rare cases where it plays to our advantage as motorists.

[anonymous-user]

Garett said:

Saab 9000 Turbo, 150mph for less than a grand.

Ahh, but a Toyota Soarer will get to 150MPH, and then keep on trucking to around 170MPH for the same sort of money