Discussion
Am I the only person that thinks this car is now hideously overpriced for what you actually get? I had one (53 plate) for a year in 2006-2007 and sold it for £32,000 in mid-07. I made around £500 on it.
I hear they are fetching £65,000 now and for me that is just absurd. One is on sale for £80,000.
I realise there are many fans of this car who will disagree, but I did not rate mine anywhere near as highly as some do.
The gearbox was crap, the brakes very poor for the sort of car it is, it had nothing in the way of any real shove below 6,000 rpm and one of the main selling points, it's light weight, isn't that light when you consider than almost all of them had the no-cost options ticked. So the 1385 kgs claimed weight was usually more like 1450.
£65,000? Jeezuz, give me a 2012 997 turbo; or perhaps a 2012 Cayman S and a 200 bhp Caterham for the track any day instead!
I hear they are fetching £65,000 now and for me that is just absurd. One is on sale for £80,000.
I realise there are many fans of this car who will disagree, but I did not rate mine anywhere near as highly as some do.
The gearbox was crap, the brakes very poor for the sort of car it is, it had nothing in the way of any real shove below 6,000 rpm and one of the main selling points, it's light weight, isn't that light when you consider than almost all of them had the no-cost options ticked. So the 1385 kgs claimed weight was usually more like 1450.
£65,000? Jeezuz, give me a 2012 997 turbo; or perhaps a 2012 Cayman S and a 200 bhp Caterham for the track any day instead!
Tuvra said:
I like them but I could never buy one at that kind of money. The list of cars I would have before it at that price level would probably be 40+ cars long.
Bloody right! It's only an E46 fgs. Had the car had a great gearbox, superb brakes, a less gutless engine and actually weighed 1385 kgs with air con and a basic sounds system, I would have rated it far higher.But one fetched £59,500 on PH recently and I can only assume it was bought hoping for further value rise. My £30,000 2013 M3 V8 is a far better car.
cerb4.5lee said:
CorvetteConvert said:
My £30,000 2013 M3 V8 is a far better car.
I would be interested to hear the thoughts you have on it as I remember the thread you did on the M4 and you agreed with me that the M4 would make a better daily than the V8 M3 would and that the V8 M3 is relatively torque light. He said more of the performance, more of the time was available, more of the sound, more of the time was available. Yes he mentioned the V8 is torque light.
But on another thread I have already admitted that what ORD had said was right. That this E92 N/A engine is actually a peach. I mentioned that, after driving the car slowly as well as quickly, I had warmed to the engine and the character and noise a lot.
I was not quite fair to this car. Having only ever ragged a few owned by other people it had seemed quite cammy and weak low down but really, this car has plenty of mid-range and is a jewel of a motor. It seems incredibly weak if I go to it from the 'vette, but I like the E92 Coupe more and more every day.
So hands up, it is better than I thought, but the CSL is in my all time top 2 over-rated cars I have driven. I wouldn't pay £40K for one never mind £65K.
Edited by CorvetteConvert on Monday 9th November 14:19
279 said:
yonex said:
Nickbrapp said:
65k can buy a hell of a lot of other cars that aren't tarted up rep mobiles. Wasn't the csl flawed from the start?
Have you driven one?I've not driven a CSL, but I don't have to know it would be one of the last places I'd put £65k (market speculation aside).
V8A*ndy said:
CorvetteConvert said:
V8A*ndy said:
I'd also take a punt on one of the limited run out edition E92s.
I just bought one of them! I hope it soars in value then!!!I was sniffing around for one of those run outs 500 in Electric red...
7 speed dsg.
Engaging? My Fiat 126 was engaging.
The 911 turbo is rightly acknowledged world wide as one of the finest sports cars ever made and it still beats contenders all the time even now in tests.
I had a 993 turbo (nice) which the purists say was the best 911 turbo.
But the fact remains that the 997 and 991 turbo are far better cars. But overall, despite the engine being in the wrong place, as they say, no sane person would say the 911 turbo is not an incredible car.
The 911 turbo is rightly acknowledged world wide as one of the finest sports cars ever made and it still beats contenders all the time even now in tests.
I had a 993 turbo (nice) which the purists say was the best 911 turbo.
But the fact remains that the 997 and 991 turbo are far better cars. But overall, despite the engine being in the wrong place, as they say, no sane person would say the 911 turbo is not an incredible car.
Zod said:
yonex said:
Nickbrapp said:
65k can buy a hell of a lot of other cars that aren't tarted up rep mobiles. Wasn't the csl flawed from the start?
Have you driven one?'Highly desirable', through rarity, but fatally flawed in real life, to actually use, as a sports car and slow as fk by modern standards.
Just as the E Type V12 I bought was slow and ponderous and over rated.
In fact there are diesel repmobiles faster to 60 and Golfs faster to 100 than that stupidly priced Ferrari 250.
To me they are bloody ugly too. The rose-tinted glasses do some crazy things.
Just as the E Type V12 I bought was slow and ponderous and over rated.
In fact there are diesel repmobiles faster to 60 and Golfs faster to 100 than that stupidly priced Ferrari 250.
To me they are bloody ugly too. The rose-tinted glasses do some crazy things.
Theophany said:
CorvetteConvert said:
'Highly desirable', through rarity, but fatally flawed in real life, to actually use, as a sports car and slow as fk by modern standards.
Just as the E Type V12 I bought was slow and ponderous and over rated.
Fair point, that doesn't change their desirability though. Bear in mind the people paying those prices for these cars aren't going to track them or thrash them round their local B roads on a Sunday morning, they're bought because most people perceive them as things of beauty of a bygone era.Just as the E Type V12 I bought was slow and ponderous and over rated.
CorvetteConvert said:
In fact there are diesel repmobiles faster to 60 and Golfs faster to 100 than that stupidly priced Ferrari 250.
Granted, but your point is what exactly?As a car they are crap, but they are investments pure and simple.
Just like a painting someone spends 10 million on and then locks it in a vault 100 feet below ground in case it gets nicked.
Essentially you have a collectable item but as a car the 250 is rubbish.
My mate has an Auburn Boat-tailed Speedster which is insured for 3.5 million dollars. But it's crap to drive, it just looks different to anything else on earth. Which is why it is trailered to shows and that is about it.
Edited by CorvetteConvert on Tuesday 10th November 08:45
Gruber said:
The second most over-rated car I have driven.
Poor brakes. Poor gearbox. Shout-out loud (intake noise) 'look at me' if you wanted even the most mild acceleration. Gutless unless thrashed.
The supposed 1385 kgs weight was irrelevant as they all pretty much had no-cost options fitted, so think 1450 kgs, or heavier than my Evo 9 360 was.
I have had both and I can assure you the V8 is a much better car.
sjb, thanks for that, I did not know about some of those differences. But the nett result was not enough over a standard car to be anything like worth the financial difference now. My original point is that NOW they are vastly overpriced and they are. A CSL at £65,000 or a base model M3 in the same condition for £15,000? That's my point, they are stupidly over-valued now. You could get something VERY special for £65,000 now. Yes they were quite good cars, I did own one, but I was underwhelmed by it then, so a doubling of the price has made me rate it even lower now, vfm.
Also I have owned or driven every single significant road legal sports car and I do have a fair idea of it all.
Like I said right at the start I KNOW the car has a small but keen following, but it was far too close to the original in actual performance for me and there is zero doubt in my mind that my current M3 is way better, other than maybe on a tight race track. Hands up everyone here who spends more than 0.001% of their driving on tight race tracks? Hands up everyone who spends 99.9 % of their driving on public roads?
Also I have owned or driven every single significant road legal sports car and I do have a fair idea of it all.
Like I said right at the start I KNOW the car has a small but keen following, but it was far too close to the original in actual performance for me and there is zero doubt in my mind that my current M3 is way better, other than maybe on a tight race track. Hands up everyone here who spends more than 0.001% of their driving on tight race tracks? Hands up everyone who spends 99.9 % of their driving on public roads?
sjb1970 said:
CorvetteConvert said:
I put 8,000 miles on my CSL and got to know the thing inside out.
The second most over-rated car I have driven.
Poor brakes. Poor gearbox. Shout-out loud (intake noise) 'look at me' if you wanted even the most mild acceleration. Gutless unless thrashed.
The supposed 1385 kgs weight was irrelevant as they all pretty much had no-cost options fitted, so think 1450 kgs, or heavier than my Evo 9 360 was.
I have had both and I can assure you the V8 is a much better car.
Maybe you should have sold it well before you racked up 8000 miles??? it seems to have affected you in the long term. If you found the brakes poor maybe you were too heavy on them??? And as for your comment on the intake noise, did you not hear one or read about the noise before you bought it ?? Jesus.The second most over-rated car I have driven.
Poor brakes. Poor gearbox. Shout-out loud (intake noise) 'look at me' if you wanted even the most mild acceleration. Gutless unless thrashed.
The supposed 1385 kgs weight was irrelevant as they all pretty much had no-cost options fitted, so think 1450 kgs, or heavier than my Evo 9 360 was.
I have had both and I can assure you the V8 is a much better car.
Comparing your 'limited edition' M3 to a CSL Ha ha ha ha etc...
HAHAHA etc.
Edited by CorvetteConvert on Tuesday 10th November 09:06
Oh and Thorney Motorsport who supplied the sports exhaust for my CSL acknowledged that the brakes were poor as standard and that the gearbox was a weak point of the car when I was there, but what would they know? Why would me as an owner and they as a BMW tuner know as much as CSL wannabes on here?
OMG! I owned the thing and £30,000 would be plenty to pay for one of them now. If 20,000 had been made, the hero worship you hear would never be happening, fact.
OMG! I owned the thing and £30,000 would be plenty to pay for one of them now. If 20,000 had been made, the hero worship you hear would never be happening, fact.
Gruber said:
CorvetteConvert said:
I put 8,000 miles on my CSL and got to know the thing inside out.
The second most over-rated car I have driven.
Poor brakes. Poor gearbox. Shout-out loud (intake noise) 'look at me' if you wanted even the most mild acceleration. Gutless unless thrashed.
The supposed 1385 kgs weight was irrelevant as they all pretty much had no-cost options fitted, so think 1450 kgs, or heavier than my Evo 9 360 was.
I have had both and I can assure you the V8 is a much better car.
Right ho. The second most over-rated car I have driven.
Poor brakes. Poor gearbox. Shout-out loud (intake noise) 'look at me' if you wanted even the most mild acceleration. Gutless unless thrashed.
The supposed 1385 kgs weight was irrelevant as they all pretty much had no-cost options fitted, so think 1450 kgs, or heavier than my Evo 9 360 was.
I have had both and I can assure you the V8 is a much better car.
It sounds like you bought the wrong tool for the job and now blame the tool for that.
I have no doubt the M3 might be better suited to your particular needs and preferences. It would be better suited to mine too at this stage in life. But to slag off the CSL on the grounds above really just goes to show you missed the point of that particular car.
The 2nd most over rated car I have driven and WAY too much money now. People wouldn't be so starry-eyed about them had they made shed loads of them, they would just be another good sports coupe. Rarity does things to peoples' opinions, I have seen it all before with rare American cars. Some total sheds are rated as great cars because there are only 17 left in the world. It happens.
cerb4.5lee said:
CorvetteConvert said:
Hands up everyone here who spends more than 0.001% of their driving on tight race tracks? Hands up everyone who spends 99.9 % of their driving on public roads?
This is my gripe with how many cars are developed on the Nurburgring like the CSL/V8 M3 and the obsession the manufacturers have with the place, and I am sure they are both epic on the Nurburgring as are many performance cars tested there but being great there doesn't necessarily transmit well into being a good road car for me. The majority use that type of car on public roads so I have never really understood the obsession with the place and testing/developing a car on how it drives on normal roads would make more sense to me.
Take the M4 for example its rapid around the Nurburgring where it was developed yet on uneven surfaces in the UK it struggles to get its power down on the road...not much use for those that use them on normal roads...great for when they spend 0.001% of driving at the ring though!
The Honda Civic Type R did 7-52 or whatever it was, (I think their one was fettled, tbh to go that fast) so it could be rated quicker than the Megane RS which had just beat the Leon Cupra R, which had just beat the .....
These cars are sports hatches yet the selling point is the time at the Nurburgring???
As a road car the CSL was barely better than the stocker. I often went out with the BMW and Evo guys and there was precious little in it, between a stock M3, the CSL, an Evo 340 or a decent Scooby, even. It's the price now I am saying is mad, that's all.
Guvernator said:
GregorFuk said:
So you drive an S1 Elise? If not, you should!
I love the handling of the Elise but the engines are just not special enough and a huge part of the appeal of cars for me are the engines. However the new V6 Exige on the other hand is another matter and as a drivers tool, I'd certainly pick it over a £60k+ CSL. With the change I could even by another decent car like a E9x M3 if I wanted some practicality and to get my BMW M kicks.This is the thing, at £30k the CSL makes some sense, at twice that it puts it into competition with lots of other single or multi car combo's which are just better.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff