Right car with wrong engine or wrong car with right engine?

[white_goodman]

Might seem like a strange question but would you rather have the right car with the wrong engine or the wrong car with the right engine?

To give an example, back in the day, I really wanted a mk4 Golf GT TDI but had to settle for a 2.0 petrol GTi. Thought it would be a worthy cheap alternative but it was rubbish.

Traded this in for a new Polo TDI. Still wanted a Golf TDI (doing 100 miles per day at the time) but couldn't afford the payments, so settled for a Polo, which I never wanted but with the 1.4 TDI, which I think was the best affordable engine option at the time. I guess I might have been able to stretch to a 1.4 petrol Golf but would this have been a better choice?

So, say for instance you want a BMW M3 but can't afford one. Do you buy the 320d that you can afford or perhaps or a better version of a cheaper car. A Golf GTI for instance?

[exceed]

Completely opposite end of the spectrum, me and the wife were discussing our recent departure of a Nissan 370Z.

Saying how it's the right car, with the wrong engine.

Strangely we seemed to agree on it need a 3.0 turbo/twin turbo V6 rather than the big 3.7 V6 lump it currently sports. Would also go some way to explaining why the engine sounds so puny as standard as well, and make the car more appealing (better MPG, lighter, more torque, potentially faster... List goes on.).

Back to original topic/subject, my belief is definitely the wrong car with the right engine on this one!

[Vladimir]

The Focus ST170 was a pretty good car with a slightly asthmatic engine.
The CTR has a pretty good engine but a fairly average chassis.

I'd have the Focus.

[Spoof]

wrong car, right engine. W211 E63 AMG - about. the cheapest way of getting your hands on a 500+ HP M156 but with IMO a not so great car attached. Every time the V8 fires up, you completely forget about the bad stuff.

[Vitorio]

I drove a Seat leon (second model) Sportstyle for half a year, it had very good sport-seats, lowered suspension, and cornered absolutely on rails.

The engine though, was an old 1.6 8v on LPG, and needed an absolute caning to get going. It was a lot of fun to trash the living daylights out of, but everytime i found myself wanting at least a 2.0 16v lump, or perhaps a 1.8 Turbo. I almost ordered a Leon 1.8T Sport as the replacement car, but Alfa had a celebratory promotion going on, so i fell for a little black Mito with red leather, and a nice turbocharged engine

[elementad]

exceed said:

Completely opposite end of the spectrum, me and the wife were discussing our recent departure of a Nissan 370Z.

Saying how it's the right car, with the wrong engine.

Strangely we seemed to agree on it need a 3.0 turbo/twin turbo V6 rather than the big 3.7 V6 lump it currently sports. Would also go some way to explaining why the engine sounds so puny as standard as well, and make the car more appealing (better MPG, lighter, more torque, potentially faster... List goes on.).

Back to original topic/subject, my belief is definitely the wrong car with the right engine on this one!

How would a turbo make it sound better?
Sound great standard as is (if not a bit too quiet in the cabin).
http://youtu.be/nAaZ-4Uq570

Plenty of torque and enough to get it to 100 in an M135i rivaling 11.8 to 100mph.
Only criticism I have of the engine is that with its set up I would prefer a lighter flywheel. The thing pulls tremendously all the way up to red line and is probably one of the last NA 6 cylinder engines for under £30k you will ever be able to buy with 328 bhp.

[Motorrad]

white_goodman said:

So, say for instance you want a BMW M3 but can't afford one. Do you buy the 320d that you can afford or perhaps or a better version of a cheaper car. A Golf GTI for instance?

No. I buy an E36 M3 instead of an E46 M3 or an E39 M5 rather than an E60.

What I don't do is buy a diesel rep mobile in place of a high revving, relatively powerful sports saloon and wonder why I've ended up sorely disappointed.

In my own case I saved nearly $15K US by buying the relatively unloved 2010 V8 Mustang rather than the 5.0 that had just come out. I then spent $7K supercharging it and used the money saved to take it touring the USA.

[r11co]

Alfa GT 1.9 JTD.

Right car, wrong engine.

[300bhp/ton]

white_goodman said:

Might seem like a strange question but would you rather have the right car with the wrong engine or the wrong car with the right engine?

To give an example, back in the day, I really wanted a mk4 Golf GT TDI but had to settle for a 2.0 petrol GTi. Thought it would be a worthy cheap alternative but it was rubbish.

lol, I'm not sure I follow your example. You wanted a crap car with a crap engine, but settled for the same crap car but with a slightly less crap engine?

white_goodman said:

Traded this in for a new Polo TDI. Still wanted a Golf TDI (doing 100 miles per day at the time) but couldn't afford the payments, so settled for a Polo, which I never wanted but with the 1.4 TDI, which I think was the best affordable engine option at the time. I guess I might have been able to stretch to a 1.4 petrol Golf but would this have been a better choice?

This rather sounds more fool you. If you couldn't afford the "payments", then you should have bought used and spent less.

white_goodman said:

So, say for instance you want a BMW M3 but can't afford one. Do you buy the 320d that you can afford or perhaps or a better version of a cheaper car. A Golf GTI for instance?

I have no idea how to answer this, it just seems like complete logic fail...

[phil1979]

r11co said:

Alfa GT 1.9 JTD.

Right car, wrong engine.

I liked mine! I didn't like the 2.0 petrol. 3.2 wasn't an option at the time, mind.

[rohrl]

300bhp/ton said:

white_goodman said:

Might seem like a strange question but would you rather have the right car with the wrong engine or the wrong car with the right engine?

To give an example, back in the day, I really wanted a mk4 Golf GT TDI but had to settle for a 2.0 petrol GTi. Thought it would be a worthy cheap alternative but it was rubbish.

lol, I'm not sure I follow your example. You wanted a crap car with a crap engine, but settled for the same crap car but with a slightly less crap engine?

white_goodman said:

Traded this in for a new Polo TDI. Still wanted a Golf TDI (doing 100 miles per day at the time) but couldn't afford the payments, so settled for a Polo, which I never wanted but with the 1.4 TDI, which I think was the best affordable engine option at the time. I guess I might have been able to stretch to a 1.4 petrol Golf but would this have been a better choice?

This rather sounds more fool you. If you couldn't afford the "payments", then you should have bought used and spent less.

white_goodman said:

So, say for instance you want a BMW M3 but can't afford one. Do you buy the 320d that you can afford or perhaps or a better version of a cheaper car. A Golf GTI for instance?

I have no idea how to answer this, it just seems like complete logic fail...

If you're just going to insult the OP maybe you could keep your thoughts to yourself.

[300bhp/ton]

rohrl said:

If you're just going to insult the OP maybe you could keep your thoughts to yourself.

No it's not that. I honestly don't believe their question is really what the thread title suggests.

It seems they wanted a diesel Golf and by the sounds of it, new or nearly new. But couldn't afford to do so. So had to go for something else and instead of accepting this, they are now using a blame game of it being the wrong car or the wrong engine, instead of accepting that they could probably have done something differently.

Re: their last comments about an M3. Why on Earth would a 320d be a logical alternative to an M3?? well frankly it isn't. The op hasn't said what M3, but I assume they mean new. But price wise and model placement a 320d and an M3 are almost unrelated.

If you want an M3, then you buy used or the older model. At the very least if you can afford a 320i, then chances are you can afford a 330i, even if used. This would at least get you closer to an M3.

And to then consider a Golf instead. I honestly don't understand the thought trail...

"I want an M3, I'll buy a 320d instead, wait actually a Golf GTI is the answer!"

As to the base question of the thread "Right car with wrong engine or wrong car with right engine?".

Well I was going to put an answer to this, but after thinking about it, I'm not sure, given the OP's context of diesel Golf, petrol Golf and diesel Polo that I really understand it.

I can say there are certainly cars I'd own purely because of the engine it has. Such as an RX-8 or a Cerbera V8. And there are cars I'd own because of the car and regardless of the engine such as a Corvette C4.

[zebra]

300bhp/ton said:

No it's not that. I honestly don't believe their question is really what the thread title suggests.

It seems they wanted a diesel Golf and by the sounds of it, new or nearly new. But couldn't afford to do so. So had to go for something else and instead of accepting this, they are now using a blame game of it being the wrong car or the wrong engine, instead of accepting that they could probably have done something differently.

Re: their last comments about an M3. Why on Earth would a 320d be a logical alternative to an M3?? well frankly it isn't. The op hasn't said what M3, but I assume they mean new. But price wise and model placement a 320d and an M3 are almost unrelated.

If you want an M3, then you buy used or the older model. At the very least if you can afford a 320i, then chances are you can afford a 330i, even if used. This would at least get you closer to an M3.

And to then consider a Golf instead. I honestly don't understand the thought trail...

"I want an M3, I'll buy a 320d instead, wait actually a Golf GTI is the answer!"

As to the base question of the thread "Right car with wrong engine or wrong car with right engine?".

Well I was going to put an answer to this, but after thinking about it, I'm not sure, given the OP's context of diesel Golf, petrol Golf and diesel Polo that I really understand it.

I can say there are certainly cars I'd own purely because of the engine it has. Such as an RX-8 or a Cerbera V8. And there are cars I'd own because of the car and regardless of the engine such as a Corvette C4.

I understand the thread. If you chose not to then perhaps you could avoid doing your usual trolling and place your efforts elsewhere. Surely there is a what car thread requiring one of your suggestions somewhere on the internet.

OP

As this is a money issue, would rather have the right engine in the wrong car; nothing worse than all show and no go.

[whp1983]

I totally get this, 4 years ago I bought an e92 325i as I couldn't afford e92 m3 .....whilst a lovely car I was always a little disappointed it wasn't what I truly wanted. I should have got e46 m3 a little older but offering the performance I was after.

I have e92 m3 now and I will try and avoid owning cars in future unless it is the model I truly desire.

Once the novelty of a new car has worn off you start to notice the bits you don't like and for me performance is the main factor.

I would rather have an old version of the model I want rather than a new version that's missing something.

[Ray Luxury-Yacht]

I did right car, wrong engine - and to compound it all - wrong gearbox too. But we're all human, and it's how we learn, right?

Back in the mid-1990's, I was in my early 20's, and I had a bit of a fixation about Honda NSX's. To my blurry-eyes, a 2nd Generation Prelude looked a BIT like an NSX....well, if you were drunk, and squinting at it from about a mile away in the dark maybe...

Anyway, the one to go for was obviously a fuel-injected 2.2 litre 16 valve v-Tec model, with a manual box - and if you were feeling brave, a 4-wheel-steering model.


I searched for ages for one, and in the end went to view a non-4WS, 2.0 litre normally-aspirated 8 valve (with twin carbs, natch) minus v-Tec, and to cap it all - an auto box.

It was red though, with a spoiler - so the NSX resemblance was uppermost in the buying decision.




My God - what a mistaka to maka! I have never owned such a useless, gutless, horrid car. It's only redeeming features were it's relatively good looks, it's fabulously quiet and refined ride, it's nice interior and....well that's it.

It was gone within months.

[white_goodman]

300bhp/ton said:

No it's not that. I honestly don't believe their question is really what the thread title suggests.

It seems they wanted a diesel Golf and by the sounds of it, new or nearly new. But couldn't afford to do so. So had to go for something else and instead of accepting this, they are now using a blame game of it being the wrong car or the wrong engine, instead of accepting that they could probably have done something differently.

Re: their last comments about an M3. Why on Earth would a 320d be a logical alternative to an M3?? well frankly it isn't. The op hasn't said what M3, but I assume they mean new. But price wise and model placement a 320d and an M3 are almost unrelated.

If you want an M3, then you buy used or the older model. At the very least if you can afford a 320i, then chances are you can afford a 330i, even if used. This would at least get you closer to an M3.

And to then consider a Golf instead. I honestly don't understand the thought trail...

"I want an M3, I'll buy a 320d instead, wait actually a Golf GTI is the answer!"

As to the base question of the thread "Right car with wrong engine or wrong car with right engine?".

Well I was going to put an answer to this, but after thinking about it, I'm not sure, given the OP's context of diesel Golf, petrol Golf and diesel Polo that I really understand it.

I can say there are certainly cars I'd own purely because of the engine it has. Such as an RX-8 or a Cerbera V8. And there are cars I'd own because of the car and regardless of the engine such as a Corvette C4.

Not sure what you're on about 300. Was just trying to give an example from experience. What is there to not understand?

Now, I know you're not a VW fan but even the most ardent diesel hater would have to admit that a mk4 Golf GT TDI 130/150 is a better car than a mk4 2.0 GTi. Better fuel economy, 6-speed box and as a bonus, quicker. Unfortunately, a GT TDI was about 2 grand above my budget, so I "settled" for a 2.0 petrol. Yes, I did make a mistake but did that affect you? I liked the car just fine but the "wrong" engine ruined it for me. If I had bought the TDI, I may have kept it longer. Sorry I didn't buy a 20 year old V8 Camaro but I didn't think that was the ideal car for a student teacher living in Manchester and commuting 60 miles per day to placements.

Why did I subsequently buy the Polo? Well after blowing 4 grand on the wrong car the previous year and having been a student for a year (i.e. having living expenses but not being paid), I didn't have any cash left to buy the car that I wanted. I had however secured a job and knew that I could afford 120 pounds per month in finance payments. This was enough for a Polo TDI but not a Golf TDI, so I compromised. The previous car had been so problematic, so the piece of mind of a 3 year warranty and 3 years free servicing swayed me. That car was 100% reliable during the 2.5 years that I owned it as well. Yes, I could have bought an older Golf TDI but I would have paid more interest and a similar payment on an older, higher mileage car without warranty. Is it so hard to understand why I chose the new car?

As for the cheap alternative to an M3, you would have to be earning about 100k per year to afford to buy and run a new M3. What other options do you have if you only earn 30k? You could buy a cheaper model of the same car. It's still a BMW 3-Series. Surely with a 320d, you're getting some of the engineering and RWD handling that you would get with the M3 and if you're doing 25,000 miles per year it's certainly a more practical option. You could even get one with an MSport bodykit if that floats your boat! Why do you think BMW and Audi sell so many MSports/S-lines (because they imitate the styling of the genuine M/RS cars). Alternatively, you could buy the halo model of a cheaper car, such as a Golf GTI. My friend was thinking about buying an E46 M3 but decided to go for a year old Focus ST because he wanted something nearly new. That's how most people think, so it's a perfectly valid argument. He might have been able to afford the M3 but could he afford to fix it if it went wrong? Possibly not.

Most people have to compromise to a certain degree when they buy a car according to availability, budget and how urgently they need the car, whether it be on colour, age, miles, spec etc. I would like a Ferrari 458 Italia but that doesn't mean that it is a practical car for me or that I can afford one. Does that mean I should buy a Mondial? (I could probably just about afford one). Of course it doesn't but I may reasonably consider a 911 or an M3 instead. They don't have much in common with a Ferrari but they are still focussed driver's cars.

If you don't have anything sensible to add, I suggest that you don't bother contributing.