Which fast convertible for 15k?
Discussion
I know it is annoying when people post-up over-budget options but 18.5k is the first I found:
Rs4 Convertible?
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Audi-RS4-Cabriolet-4-2-q...
Rs4 Convertible?
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Audi-RS4-Cabriolet-4-2-q...
900T-R said:
Sorry, but if the front and rear of a TVR with a chassis that is not significantly weakend by rust are moving independently, this was patently not a low speed crash. Simple as that. It takes one hell of an impact to seriously bend the backbone chassis, and probably none that would be surviveable no matter what the car is.
As said, I've got a good few safety concerns with TVRs, but chassis backbone strength is patently not one of them (and GRP is a highly impact absorbing material - until it breaks at least...).
Apart from the roll cage, virtually identical chassis have been used in Tuscan Challenge cars - I suggest you look at some crash footage from that series.
Conversely, look at some crash pics of 'modern' steel monocoque convertibles in a serious crash - at the very least they look like bananas afterwards, breaking in two pieces is not uncommon either.
You are aware of the fact that the Tuscan was one of less than a handful of vehicles to be driven away from the UK Vehicle Approval frontal crash test, with the very same car being used subsequently for the side impact test - right?
A lot of 'nibbling' tools fail to cut through the pillars of old Saabs too, but by 2012 standards they're probably not the safest vehicles, either...
Nibbling tools aren't used to cut people out of cars!As said, I've got a good few safety concerns with TVRs, but chassis backbone strength is patently not one of them (and GRP is a highly impact absorbing material - until it breaks at least...).
Apart from the roll cage, virtually identical chassis have been used in Tuscan Challenge cars - I suggest you look at some crash footage from that series.
Conversely, look at some crash pics of 'modern' steel monocoque convertibles in a serious crash - at the very least they look like bananas afterwards, breaking in two pieces is not uncommon either.
You are aware of the fact that the Tuscan was one of less than a handful of vehicles to be driven away from the UK Vehicle Approval frontal crash test, with the very same car being used subsequently for the side impact test - right?
A lot of 'nibbling' tools fail to cut through the pillars of old Saabs too, but by 2012 standards they're probably not the safest vehicles, either...
How does looking at random pictures of convertibles in crashes ascertain the strength of that car?
Why would looking at crash footages of cars with a roll cage, ascertain the strength of cars without a roll cage?
How many years ago was the UK test done?
How do you know what type of crash I am talking about and how the structure of the car would be compromised?
Why are you only talking about chassis strength, there are many components to vehicle safety?
It's boring isn't it, but you aren't selling the car or your train of thought to me, if you want I will erase all memories of that crash from my mind and not mention it again if that will please you.
Anyway back on track any more suggestions
Mark300zx said:
Nibbling tools aren't used to cut people out of cars!
Yeah sorry, wrong term.The heart of the matter is though, that you can't tell from the effort it takes you to cut through a single sill how strong it is in comparison to a 'double decker' construction with horizontal members set apart about 1 foot. To achieve the same strength/stiffness in a single member, it would have to be of some unfeasonably strong material.
Mark300zx said:
How does looking at random pictures of convertibles in crashes ascertain the strength of that car?
No more or less than the conclusions that you took from the aftermath of one accident - unless you know for a fact the speed at which that accident took place, the direction the vehicle(s) took, what exactly it hit and where etc. You simply do not know. And you really don't know how another vehicle would have held up under the same circumstances.It stands to reason though, that a steel monocoque-type that relies on a single sill that is at best 4" high on either side and a transmission tunnel in the floor pan, will face a tougher challenge in terms of front and rear ends keeping connected than one that is based on a spaceframe backbone construction.
Mark300zx said:
How many years ago was the UK test done?
Tuscan was launched 1999/2000, so probably '99 - which sounds relevant to me to the sort of car you're looking for (fast convertible for £15K) max - most of which will be conceived and crash tested around that time. Mark300zx said:
Why are you only talking about chassis strength, there are many components to vehicle safety?
Because you mentioned it specifically as a reson to discard a certain vehicle. Again, there are a few things to worry about in a TVR safety-wise; just not that.Mark300zx said:
It's boring isn't it, but you aren't selling the car or your train of thought to me, if you want I will erase all memories of that crash from my mind and not mention it again if that will please you.
TBH if the above really bothers you, I'd stick with a tintop or targa roof car. Or you could get a convertible, and be sensible with it.
900T-R said:
Mark300zx said:
Nibbling tools aren't used to cut people out of cars!
Yeah sorry, wrong term.The heart of the matter is though, that you can't tell from the effort it takes you to cut through a single sill how strong it is in comparison to a 'double decker' construction with horizontal members set apart about 1 foot. To achieve the same strength/stiffness in a single member, it would have to be of some unfeasonably strong material.
You can gauge the strength of the A pillar which can be a fairly crucial part in a convertible, I never mentioned chassis!
Mark300zx said:
How does looking at random pictures of convertibles in crashes ascertain the strength of that car?
No more or less than the conclusions that you took from the aftermath of one accident - unless you know for a fact the speed at which that accident took place, the direction the vehicle(s) took, what exactly it hit and where etc. You simply do not know. And you really don't know how another vehicle would have held up under the same circumstances.Yes I do know the speed it was travelling and have seen many similar crashes in similar vehicles, not exactly as they never can be, but enough for me to know what I would feel safer in!!!
It stands to reason though, that a steel monocoque-type that relies on a single sill that is at best 4" high on either side and a transmission tunnel in the floor pan, will face a tougher challenge in terms of front and rear ends keeping connected than one that is based on a spaceframe backbone construction.
You seem to be obsessed with the whole chassis thing, it is a part of passenger safety, at the end of the day it is about the occupants walking away not the chassis, I never mentioned Chassis!
Mark300zx said:
How many years ago was the UK test done?
Tuscan was launched 1999/2000, so probably '99 - which sounds relevant to me to the sort of car you're looking for (fast convertible for £15K) max - most of which will be conceived and crash tested around that time. I did mention Modernish and ok 99 would probably be stretching it, but Ncap has moved on a fair bit!
Mark300zx said:
Why are you only talking about chassis strength, there are many components to vehicle safety?
Because you mentioned it specifically as a reson to discard a certain vehicle. Again, there are a few things to worry about in a TVR safety-wise; just not that.So you have safety concerns about TVRs as well, we agree, once again I never mentioned the Chassis
Mark300zx said:
It's boring isn't it, but you aren't selling the car or your train of thought to me, if you want I will erase all memories of that crash from my mind and not mention it again if that will please you.
I don't think I am being irrational here, my experience be it somewhat anecdotal is based on nearly 20 years of cutting people out of cars along with another professional career with vehicle engineering. The one thing I have noticed is that modern cars make a MASSIVE difference to a persons ability to survive a crash and not survive but usually walk out unscathed.
TBH if the above really bothers you, I'd stick with a tintop or targa roof car. Or you could get a convertible, and be sensible with it.
If I was the only person on the road it wouldn't be an issue!
Edited by Mark300zx on Tuesday 17th April 17:22
TVRs are great at what they do, I had one for nearly 9 years, and there's not much like it for the money.
But for saftey you should consider them like a 1970s sports car imo. The strength of the vehicle, possibly their only plus, means there's little energy absorbtion, except you. And air bags would be good. I base this on my own experience of having a head on with someone in one and considering what made their injuries so minor compared to mine.
I considered a Boxster at the time I got the Z4 (not M, I know...) and what put me off was the attitude and cost of dealership servicing and higher initial outlay of the Porsche. That being said, the M is dearer to keep than the Z4 which, I read, is easier to live with everyday, though the M is good vaue used.
All IMHO. Have fun trying a few
But for saftey you should consider them like a 1970s sports car imo. The strength of the vehicle, possibly their only plus, means there's little energy absorbtion, except you. And air bags would be good. I base this on my own experience of having a head on with someone in one and considering what made their injuries so minor compared to mine.
I considered a Boxster at the time I got the Z4 (not M, I know...) and what put me off was the attitude and cost of dealership servicing and higher initial outlay of the Porsche. That being said, the M is dearer to keep than the Z4 which, I read, is easier to live with everyday, though the M is good vaue used.
All IMHO. Have fun trying a few
Good line up.... NSX would be very cool....You really think I'm going to waste my time going through your dodgy quoting and continuously moving the goalposts from your first quip? I'm not sure I like the passive-aggressive undertones in your posts, either.
You believe what you want re: safety, but be sure it's just that: a belief, based on half-truths and expectation bias.
You believe what you want re: safety, but be sure it's just that: a belief, based on half-truths and expectation bias.
massively annoying poster said:
Open minded then you put down silly pointless requirements....
Seriously though, rather than basing it on age (which lets face it, anything out of warranty is pretty equal risk), some stupid metric for a pointless performance stat, something so stupid "reliable'ish" come on WTF does that mean?? and then the material it's built from
Surely a better way to be open minded is to say about your driving style (are you a hooligan, or more about precision and clipping apexes?), where you'll be using it and when (track days, shows, motorways, city driving, country lanes, etc.) and what sort of thing appeals (loud shouty styling, sleek, aggressive, something that blends in and is unobtrusive).
Then some actual limitations such as:
-how many people will go in it how often
-if you need to fit anything big in it
-a monthly fuel budget
-a yearly maintenance budget
-and what sort of depreciation costs you'll endure
I guess the point that sticks out the most to me is:
"I am allergic to depreciation"
On that basis you need to be looking at niche cars, either new'ish or more than likely old'ish. But sadly that might impede the constraint on safety construction.
I guess a sensible question is, would you consider a rollcage and racing seat/harnesses?
There are some truly fantastic cars already mentioned in this thread, although spending £15k on some will likely lead to high depreciation. Do you know how long you are likely to own it for?
For example a 3.0Si BMW Z4 is a brilliant car, but spending £15k on one and keeping it for 5 years would likely hit you very heavily in the depreciation part. Even something like a Porsche Boxster is likely to lose a packet when you consider early examples can be had for around £5k.
Lotus Elise's and VX220's seem to be fairing quite well on the depreciation front. A nice VX220T probably wouldn't be a bad bet on all the points you've mentioned so far. The only things to consider are, it's not a hooligans car if you want to be wheel spinning or power sliding about, it's a precious tool and will reward smooth driving. The motor also lacks the sporty sound than many other cars might offer up and some would find a VX220 too compromised to get in/out of and a little too spartan.
Thinking depreciation wise, a Corvette C5 or a Mustang convertible might fit the bill. The Stang in vert form won't be the sharpest driving tool though although aftermarket mods could liven it up a great deal.
How about another left field option?
You might have to do a little hunting to find one, but they do turn up. Available as a full vert or as a coupe with a removable panel. Both available in GXP turbo guise and the vert as a lesser powerful n/a too.
Pontiac Solstice and Solstice GXP
Personally I think they look fantastic!!!
They run a 2.4 litre 4 pot, so sadly not the best sounding, but offering up good mpg.
The original was aimed at a MX-5 type market and all the reviews I've read loved the car, even a Japanese motoring magazine placed it above a MK3 MX-5.
The GXP's run a turbo 2.0 litre engine (I think the same as the VX220T) with 260hp, although there was a dealer fit 295hp upgrade available (and a lot more in the aftermarket).
One of these would certainly be rare in the UK and I suspect retain it's value rather well.
asking about his weekly fuel bill budget, what type of person he is...why dont you ask him about his favorite position in bed while you are at it. Missionairy? Suggesting a Z4 3.0 would depreciate badly but advocating a 4-pot LHD American hairdresser convertible that 99% of the UK doesnt even know exist as "depreciation proof" Seriously though, rather than basing it on age (which lets face it, anything out of warranty is pretty equal risk), some stupid metric for a pointless performance stat, something so stupid "reliable'ish" come on WTF does that mean?? and then the material it's built from
Surely a better way to be open minded is to say about your driving style (are you a hooligan, or more about precision and clipping apexes?), where you'll be using it and when (track days, shows, motorways, city driving, country lanes, etc.) and what sort of thing appeals (loud shouty styling, sleek, aggressive, something that blends in and is unobtrusive).
Then some actual limitations such as:
-how many people will go in it how often
-if you need to fit anything big in it
-a monthly fuel budget
-a yearly maintenance budget
-and what sort of depreciation costs you'll endure
I guess the point that sticks out the most to me is:
"I am allergic to depreciation"
On that basis you need to be looking at niche cars, either new'ish or more than likely old'ish. But sadly that might impede the constraint on safety construction.
I guess a sensible question is, would you consider a rollcage and racing seat/harnesses?
There are some truly fantastic cars already mentioned in this thread, although spending £15k on some will likely lead to high depreciation. Do you know how long you are likely to own it for?
For example a 3.0Si BMW Z4 is a brilliant car, but spending £15k on one and keeping it for 5 years would likely hit you very heavily in the depreciation part. Even something like a Porsche Boxster is likely to lose a packet when you consider early examples can be had for around £5k.
Lotus Elise's and VX220's seem to be fairing quite well on the depreciation front. A nice VX220T probably wouldn't be a bad bet on all the points you've mentioned so far. The only things to consider are, it's not a hooligans car if you want to be wheel spinning or power sliding about, it's a precious tool and will reward smooth driving. The motor also lacks the sporty sound than many other cars might offer up and some would find a VX220 too compromised to get in/out of and a little too spartan.
Thinking depreciation wise, a Corvette C5 or a Mustang convertible might fit the bill. The Stang in vert form won't be the sharpest driving tool though although aftermarket mods could liven it up a great deal.
How about another left field option?
You might have to do a little hunting to find one, but they do turn up. Available as a full vert or as a coupe with a removable panel. Both available in GXP turbo guise and the vert as a lesser powerful n/a too.
Pontiac Solstice and Solstice GXP
Personally I think they look fantastic!!!
They run a 2.4 litre 4 pot, so sadly not the best sounding, but offering up good mpg.
The original was aimed at a MX-5 type market and all the reviews I've read loved the car, even a Japanese motoring magazine placed it above a MK3 MX-5.
The GXP's run a turbo 2.0 litre engine (I think the same as the VX220T) with 260hp, although there was a dealer fit 295hp upgrade available (and a lot more in the aftermarket).
One of these would certainly be rare in the UK and I suspect retain it's value rather well.
. The solstice would sit for a year unless you gave it away. Horrible little thing.Worrying mixture of wierd and stalky questions mate...The bloke asked for something cool costing 15 grand, you dont have to hand him a brick containing 500 f
king questions! Just recommend him a car, thats it!OP: Do not follow the advice of 300bhp/ton, by the looks of it he needs a long and deserved brake from the keyboard - and possibly - a girlfriend.
kchika said:
Wish I hadn't had to sell my Z4M at Christmas. I gave it away looking at the prices now :-(Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff