RE: Convertibles for under £10k | Six of the Best

[Dog Star]

For that budget you could get a facelifted SL350 - more powerful than the SL500 shown, no risky suspension, no build quality/rust woes, better electronics etc

[biggbn]

Mx5 from that list, essentially a new/old car. Get it properly rust proofed and use it every day.

[JakeS77]

The Alfa spider is a stunning looking car. I'd be very tempted but there's a real issue with the roof mechanism breaking. And Alfa don't make the parts to fix it now. And there isn't an aftermarket roof motor either. So you wlll be stuck with a roof up or down!

Alfa sadly are really bad at supporting older models - they don't continue to make parts for them. Unlike the Germans. Such a shame.

[donkmeister]

I'd go for the V8 Merc, but then I have massive balls of steel when it comes to potential borkage costs.

The MX5, if you can, hold out for an S-VT. You get the slightly more powerful engine, but more importantly you get a 6-speed and LSD... And heated seats. I couldn't see one in the PH listings though.

[Hoofy]

I have a soft spot for that SL of that era. Some say it's boring/bland but I love the slippery shape and the "merged" double headlights. I'd drive it with the roof up because it looks good with the roof up! (It also looks good with the roof down but it works so well with the roof up.) Yeah, there's no sense in what I'm saying, I just like the look!

[Unreal]

McRors said:

I'm surprised by the lack of a TT in the list. Reliable, well within budget if you go for a MK2 and fast. I've a MK3 and love it. Yes, it's not a Boxster but who wants Porsche bills and a car that looks like a pushmi-pullyu?

Presumably someone who has enough money not to care, wants a car that's far better to drive and doesn't want to look like a nail technician?

[donkmeister]

Dog Star said:

For that budget you could get a facelifted SL350 - more powerful than the SL500 shown, no risky suspension, no build quality/rust woes, better electronics etc

The facelift 350 has about 35bhp less than the pre facelift SL500... 306 Vs 272.

It also lacks a V8 and the ability to choose waft mode or hustle mode. Quite amusing that the things turning you off it are things that make me think it's a better car Wouldn't the world be a boring place if we all liked the same things?

[biggbn]

Unreal said:

McRors said:

I'm surprised by the lack of a TT in the list. Reliable, well within budget if you go for a MK2 and fast. I've a MK3 and love it. Yes, it's not a Boxster but who wants Porsche bills and a car that looks like a pushmi-pullyu?

Presumably someone who has enough money not to care, wants a car that's far better to drive and doesn't want to look like a nail technician?

Ah, back to that old chestnut. In one sentence 'someone who has enough money not to care' , in another 'doesn't want to look like a nail technician'. One statement kinda contradicts the other doesn't it? Drive what you like regardless of how much money you have. I couldn't give a shiny st what others think, as my car history doubtless reflects

[JakeS77]

Unreal said:

Presumably someone who has enough money not to care, wants a car that's far better to drive and doesn't want to look like a nail technician?

Wow. That was original

[Dog Star]

donkmeister said:

The facelift 350 has about 35bhp less than the pre facelift SL500... 306 Vs 272.

It also lacks a V8 and the ability to choose waft mode or hustle mode. Quite amusing that the things turning you off it are things that make me think it's a better car Wouldn't the world be a boring place if we all liked the same things?

The facelift (09ish on) 350 has 315bhp. I know. I’ve got one.

The older 350 has the 272bhp 3.5 - same as in Mrs DSs SLK.

I had an SL500 previously and the later 350 is better in every single way (IMO of course).

[popegregory]

Are the days of a Chimaera and Elise being the first thing you think of for a list like this now gone?

[cerb4.5lee]

spikyone said:

Article said:

the Nissan 350 Z convertible was considered the cut-price Boxster when it was new.

I'd like to see evidence of that wild claim! The Z is much heavier (300kg or so) and reviews when it was new generally said the handling was nowhere near as good. Sure, it appeared in group tests with the Boxster. But so did the S2000, TT, SLK, etc., all chosen simply because they were sporty-ish convertibles to varying degrees. The two really aren't comparable other than that.

I think it was more about the 350Z offering similar or better performance than the Boxster, and that is where the comparisons come from.

[donkmeister]

Dog Star said:

donkmeister said:

The facelift 350 has about 35bhp less than the pre facelift SL500... 306 Vs 272.

It also lacks a V8 and the ability to choose waft mode or hustle mode. Quite amusing that the things turning you off it are things that make me think it's a better car Wouldn't the world be a boring place if we all liked the same things?

The facelift (09ish on) 350 has 315bhp. I know. I’ve got one.

The older 350 has the 272bhp 3.5 - same as in Mrs DSs SLK.

I had an SL500 previously and the later 350 is better in every single way (IMO of course).

Ah, you must have the facelifted facelift.

The facelift SL350 has the 272PS V6. The facelifted facelift (which was a couple of years after the first facelift) SL350 has the 316PS V6.

They're both M272s, but the latter ones resolved the issue with the balancers so if you want to eschew V8s then the later ones are indeed better.

However... The M113 is a venerable old hairy chested beast and I'd never choose an M272 over one. But let us stroke our beards in admiration of the SL regardless

[phil1979]

I chose this instead. Can't wait for the warm weather.

[Unreal]

biggbn said:

Unreal said:

McRors said:

I'm surprised by the lack of a TT in the list. Reliable, well within budget if you go for a MK2 and fast. I've a MK3 and love it. Yes, it's not a Boxster but who wants Porsche bills and a car that looks like a pushmi-pullyu?

Presumably someone who has enough money not to care, wants a car that's far better to drive and doesn't want to look like a nail technician?

Ah, back to that old chestnut. In one sentence 'someone who has enough money not to care' , in another 'doesn't want to look like a nail technician'. One statement kinda contradicts the other doesn't it? Drive what you like regardless of how much money you have. I couldn't give a shiny st what others think, as my car history doubtless reflects

Good for you. I was simply providing an answer to the question posed by the TT owner.

[Unreal]

cerb4.5lee said:

spikyone said:

Article said:

the Nissan 350 Z convertible was considered the cut-price Boxster when it was new.

I'd like to see evidence of that wild claim! The Z is much heavier (300kg or so) and reviews when it was new generally said the handling was nowhere near as good. Sure, it appeared in group tests with the Boxster. But so did the S2000, TT, SLK, etc., all chosen simply because they were sporty-ish convertibles to varying degrees. The two really aren't comparable other than that.

I think it was more about the 350Z offering similar or better performance than the Boxster, and that is where the comparisons come from.

Some of the numbers might be similar but they are very different to drive.

[WonkeyDonkey]

Wow.......£10k for an NB mx5?

Have to be clinically insane to pay that.

[muppet42]

Out of the list, I'd probably go with the Boxster or the 350Z, the latter purely because of the late model's more revvy VQ iteration, the Boxster for the nicer handling - though I'd prefer an S myself. I do hear of issues with the Zed's roof failing and basically no one wanting to work on them, as a result, I'd probably go for a Coupe and try and find a GT4 to get the mid-spec engine but dodge the higher tax

Of those not on the list, I've always hankered after an S2000 and some will fall in this budget. Sure, it's just an inline-4 but the handling and overall look of them has always interested me and it's a Honda, so it'll never break even if you try, just rust of course.

I was going to get a project MX5, as many people do, but the budget for this got wiped out by an impending wedding to pay for and everything that's associated with it(!) A mate had an NB Sport, with LSD and it was a hoot. £10k for one that's almost never been driven seems like a good idea if maintained as it's barely run in but mis-matched tyres on the rear are odd. Obviously does say Bridgestones all round and that one on the NS could be a different tread pattern Bridgestone but still...

[pycraft]

Unreal said:

(...) doesn't want to look like a nail technician?

Is that what they're calling carpenters nowadays?

[anonymous-user]

defonsecca said:

Alfa Spider doesn't belong here. Having owned a Brera 2.2S for about 16 months the novelty of stunning looks soon wears off. You then realise what a slow, heavy, dead-feeling, un-sporty car it really is. And I'm a serial Alfa owner. So the Spider version will be the same mix even with a (non-Alfa Busso) V6 under its snout.

You're better-off to get the 916 version Spider with the 3.0 Busso V6 - GTV version is far superior than the Brera ie) a proper soulful Alfa, and you won't lose any money in it unlike this.

I don't rate the looks either. The detailing is lovely but the overall shape and silhouette is a typical gimpy looking FWD pudding with that ridiculous cab forward stance and a seating position like you're on the bog.

Alfa Romeo have been the grand masters of perfuming a pig with their FWD cars, but it doesn't take long to realise it's got a snout and curly tail.

£10k for an NB is comedy, but with those miles how on earth do you value it? If it was an NA it'd be £30k+ I'm sure, so it does reflect how unwanted that version is.

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 18th March 13:17