RE: Six great supercars for BMW M3 money
Discussion
Blu3R said:
I'm pleased to see the Noble thrown in there but anyone who thinks they could use one daily is out of their mind. It's not comfy or forgiving in traffic and has huge blind spots. Bear in mind though that you could have two of them for the price of an M3/4.
The GTR while epic is uglier than the NSX in my mind, the NSX would have to be a weekender and the Lotus the same. 360 would be fantastic, R8 excellent but Porsche where I'd put my money.
Having looked at the used Porsche Turbos for sale, I have to agree. I love the 620BHP one! Proper super car fast and a happy daily driver. The GTR while epic is uglier than the NSX in my mind, the NSX would have to be a weekender and the Lotus the same. 360 would be fantastic, R8 excellent but Porsche where I'd put my money.
ArnieVXR said:
New car buying is as much about being able to pay for it, trusting it'll work tomorrow and feeling special in a car that doesn't carry the faint smell of some elses sweat/farts, as it is about sourcing the 'best' car.
An M4 costs £600+VAT contract hire. The deposit will be a couple of grand. Funnily enough an M5 is a touch cheaper, as is a C63AMG 2-door. And for the diesel fans a 640d (which is still bloody fast) is just over £400+VAT PCM...queue references to that YouTube clip.
Try finding an equivalent finance deal on the older cars or one that comes with a warranty that's actually worth the paper it's written on. And the new car smell is exclusive to new cars.
And as for repairs, be prepared to dig very, very deep if your exotica actually sh*ts itself on the way to work. Twenty grand for a gearbox anyone? More for the engine?
Anyway, given my budget I can afford a new Zafira B 1.6 Life for £10K. What supercars are in my price range?
How about one of these? Mine has been absolutely reliable over the last 60,000 since I bought it.http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds?Category=used-cars&M=272&MaxPrice=10000&MinPrice=8000&Page=1An M4 costs £600+VAT contract hire. The deposit will be a couple of grand. Funnily enough an M5 is a touch cheaper, as is a C63AMG 2-door. And for the diesel fans a 640d (which is still bloody fast) is just over £400+VAT PCM...queue references to that YouTube clip.
Try finding an equivalent finance deal on the older cars or one that comes with a warranty that's actually worth the paper it's written on. And the new car smell is exclusive to new cars.
And as for repairs, be prepared to dig very, very deep if your exotica actually sh*ts itself on the way to work. Twenty grand for a gearbox anyone? More for the engine?
Anyway, given my budget I can afford a new Zafira B 1.6 Life for £10K. What supercars are in my price range?
jamespink said:
How about one of these? Mine has been absolutely reliable over the last 60,000 since I bought it.http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds?Category=used-cars&M=272&MaxPrice=10000&MinPrice=8000&Page=1
Like the Lotus Carlton, I suspect this will be an itch I never get to scratch. Great cars, though.PZR said:
My interest in Nissan's history .... And lots of other stuff
But it isn't about how an individual who takes an interest in, and researches a company views it. Not sure it's about chips and fries but I think I understand your point.Most people who buy a Nissan couldn't care less about any heritage. No more than someone who buys a base B-max is bothered about why Ford made the RS200 or the GT40.... Maybe they're buying Fries in your analogy? The heritage which excites you about Nissan is unfortunately not evident and not relevant to the vast majority of their products.
It doesn't in any way make the GTR less of a car, it just makes the Brand not inherently interesting or exciting in the main. To be honest, I'd say if you chose a GTR over a Ferrari, you're likley to be making a point about being motivated by efficiency and performance over emotion and drama. As with most people on this thread, I like all the cars listed but they all do their thing slightly differently and the brands all suggest something different (ironically, it's the R8 I'd struggle with most from a Brand / image perspective). But I also totally accept that the R8 is a very well executed, involving and exciting car.
Hungrymc said:
PZR said:
My interest in Nissan's history .... And lots of other stuff
But it isn't about how an individual who takes an interest in, and researches a company views it. Not sure it's about chips and fries but I think I understand your point.Most people who buy a Nissan couldn't care less about any heritage. No more than someone who buys a base B-max is bothered about why Ford made the RS200 or the GT40.... Maybe they're buying Fries in your analogy? The heritage which excites you about Nissan is unfortunately not evident and not relevant to the vast majority of their products.
It doesn't in any way make the GTR less of a car, it just makes the Brand not inherently interesting or exciting in the main. To be honest, I'd say if you chose a GTR over a Ferrari, you're likley to be making a point about being motivated by efficiency and performance over emotion and drama. As with most people on this thread, I like all the cars listed but they all do their thing slightly differently and the brands all suggest something different (ironically, it's the R8 I'd struggle with most from a Brand / image perspective). But I also totally accept that the R8 is a very well executed, involving and exciting car.
Q: What is the most recognised BRAND of the cars offered?
A: Ferrari.
big_rob_sydney said:
Hungrymc said:
PZR said:
My interest in Nissan's history .... And lots of other stuff
But it isn't about how an individual who takes an interest in, and researches a company views it. Not sure it's about chips and fries but I think I understand your point.Most people who buy a Nissan couldn't care less about any heritage. No more than someone who buys a base B-max is bothered about why Ford made the RS200 or the GT40.... Maybe they're buying Fries in your analogy? The heritage which excites you about Nissan is unfortunately not evident and not relevant to the vast majority of their products.
It doesn't in any way make the GTR less of a car, it just makes the Brand not inherently interesting or exciting in the main. To be honest, I'd say if you chose a GTR over a Ferrari, you're likley to be making a point about being motivated by efficiency and performance over emotion and drama. As with most people on this thread, I like all the cars listed but they all do their thing slightly differently and the brands all suggest something different (ironically, it's the R8 I'd struggle with most from a Brand / image perspective). But I also totally accept that the R8 is a very well executed, involving and exciting car.
Q: What is the most recognised BRAND of the cars offered?
A: Ferrari.
http://store.ferrari.com/gb_en/?gclid=CMeR5ZSlnsIC...
PZR said:
But, sadly, that might be because of stuff like this:
http://store.ferrari.com/gb_en/?gclid=CMeR5ZSlnsIC...
Yes, it must be that.....http://store.ferrari.com/gb_en/?gclid=CMeR5ZSlnsIC...
Nothing at all to do with F40s and Dinos and Daytonas and 250 GTOs etc
Whatever you do, don't go to www.nissancollections.com
Hungrymc said:
PZR said:
But, sadly, that might be because of stuff like this:
http://store.ferrari.com/gb_en/?gclid=CMeR5ZSlnsIC...
Yes, it must be that.....http://store.ferrari.com/gb_en/?gclid=CMeR5ZSlnsIC...
Nothing at all to do with F40s and Dinos and Daytonas and 250 GTOs etc
Whatever you do, don't go to www.nissancollections.com
I guess the (possibly rhetorical) question I'm asking is, at what point does the merchandising become almost Disney-like?
PZR said:
All the companies we are discussing have their 'merch', but would you agree that Ferrari take it to another level altogether? That's my impression anyway. It would be interesting to know just how much Ferrari earn from it.
I guess the (possibly rhetorical) question I'm asking is, at what point does the merchandising become almost Disney-like?
It's only going to get worse now shareholders are involved sadlyI guess the (possibly rhetorical) question I'm asking is, at what point does the merchandising become almost Disney-like?
big_rob_sydney said:
Supercars? Hmm, the NSX has about the same amount of power as a decent hot hatch these days. I may be wrong, but around 276bhp seems to ring a bell somewhere. Sure it handles. But in terms of thrust, it just doesn't cut the mustard.
It seems like reading this comment you haven't driven one.I drove one recently up to the NEC from London to have it on the classic car show run by Mike & Ed from WD's. Mike Brewster gave it loads of praise as did others. It is still a good looking car considering it's age and a fantastic car by all standards. It certainly goes and handles fantastically, infact it is scary how harsh you can be with it being RWD and mid engined it seems perfect, not surprised seeing as it was helped developed by none other than Ayrton Senna.
These "slow cars" made it into the 12's on the drag strip and have done a sub 8 min lap around Nordschleife.
You know any hot hatches that 25 years later that can achieve that?
PZR said:
Pistonheads said:
Ignore the fact that the GT-R is a big, heavy coupe, has four seats (notionally - it's a 2+2 really), a large boot and has a badge as exotic as a pint of milk because the Nissan is one of the greatest and fastest supercars in modern history.
In some ways, the Nissan badge is arguably more "exotic" than the others mentioned.A company that's older than most of the other companies mentioned in the article, a company which has been making cars for longer than all of the companies mentioned, and a company that was involved in racing (and building racing cars) before all of the other companies mentioned in the article.
Some pint of milk, that.
Nissan didn't come into its own name untill sometime in 1930's ... I know before that they were part of dat and then Datsun ..but still think that's was 1910 ... Some time later then porsche ...and think porsche also had early race history by quite a long way
motor mad said:
Early NSX's do look dated but then they are 25 years old. I'd take one of these over all of the above mentioned cars. Ten years old and still stunning.
That color is stunning ..wow .
Edited by motor mad on Wednesday 26th November 14:02
I think the red does not look best on the Nissan , too flat
If Nissan stopped selling superminis and sensible family wagons, instead focusing on high end powerful luxury/sports cars it wouldn't be long before they became exotic. Likewise if porsche and ferrari wanted a slice of the lucrative supermini or delivery van market, it might take the shine of their brand. Until that happens, Nissan will remain milk, albeit, and quite rightly so, a profitable and lucrative pint with cream on top.
PZR said:
swerni said:
I love Datsun's, but I certainly wouldn't call them exotic.
Datsun's what?There was never an auto manufacturer called 'Datsun'. All the cars you saw wearing a 'Datsun' emblem were Nissans, and if you think that all that Nissan was about was the cars that you saw wearing a 'Datsun' emblem then you know next to nothing about the company.
But I still claim porsche (dr) was involved in cars before 1900 thus earlier then nissan. ... But instead of saying everyone knows nothing , especially if you can't read Japanese ...when was the first nissan car and the first race cars ? Honestly I'd like to know .. As I believe it's after 1910 and not really recorded as Nissan untill possibly early 1930 ?
PZR said:
big_rob_sydney said:
Hungrymc said:
PZR said:
My interest in Nissan's history .... And lots of other stuff
But it isn't about how an individual who takes an interest in, and researches a company views it. Not sure it's about chips and fries but I think I understand your point.Most people who buy a Nissan couldn't care less about any heritage. No more than someone who buys a base B-max is bothered about why Ford made the RS200 or the GT40.... Maybe they're buying Fries in your analogy? The heritage which excites you about Nissan is unfortunately not evident and not relevant to the vast majority of their products.
It doesn't in any way make the GTR less of a car, it just makes the Brand not inherently interesting or exciting in the main. To be honest, I'd say if you chose a GTR over a Ferrari, you're likley to be making a point about being motivated by efficiency and performance over emotion and drama. As with most people on this thread, I like all the cars listed but they all do their thing slightly differently and the brands all suggest something different (ironically, it's the R8 I'd struggle with most from a Brand / image perspective). But I also totally accept that the R8 is a very well executed, involving and exciting car.
Q: What is the most recognised BRAND of the cars offered?
A: Ferrari.
http://store.ferrari.com/gb_en/?gclid=CMeR5ZSlnsIC...
I would rather be associated with a brand such as Nissan who are renowned for true reliable engineering excellence for little money (talking micras etc) than over priced fleet cars that are mostly rented by middle management employees who know little or nothing about cars and care only for what the badge (rightly or wrongly) says about themselves.
angelicupstarts said:
PZR said:
Pistonheads said:
Ignore the fact that the GT-R is a big, heavy coupe, has four seats (notionally - it's a 2+2 really), a large boot and has a badge as exotic as a pint of milk because the Nissan is one of the greatest and fastest supercars in modern history.
In some ways, the Nissan badge is arguably more "exotic" than the others mentioned.A company that's older than most of the other companies mentioned in the article, a company which has been making cars for longer than all of the companies mentioned, and a company that was involved in racing (and building racing cars) before all of the other companies mentioned in the article.
Some pint of milk, that.
Nissan didn't come into its own name untill sometime in 1930's ... I know before that they were part of dat and then Datsun ..but still think that's was 1910 ... Some time later then porsche ...and think porsche also had early race history by quite a long way
I'm talking about the companies, their histories and reputations, and the General Public's perceptions of them. Dr Porsche was indeed active before 1931, but so were the people - and companies - that went on to form Nissan. In Nissan's case it is a tangled web of small companies being merged, taken over and re-named in the early days of Japanese industrialisation. It's complicated. You could arguably pin the main origin of Nissan at 1910/11, 1926, 1933 or - as Nissan themselves do today, fairly modestly I think - at 1934.
But you get my point, right? I'm pointing out that Nissan's history dates back a little further than most people seem to realise, and certainly a lot further than that Datsun Sunny they first noticed driving down the local high street in 1973...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff