[blah]

well my dad decided he wanted somthing sportier in the 10g - 15g range

i know theres lotsa options there, including the g2 coupe, but hes afriad of a BHG so i have some ideas:

1997 BMW M3
1993 RX-7(rebuilt engine)
2001 Honda S2000
2001 Acura RSX
2001 Merc SLK
1997 SC300
then the 1994 Legend coupe(maybe)

Feel free to add to the list and tell me what you think would be the right car

 

[stick]

whats ur dad driving now?

out of that list i would recommend:
S2000
then second would be RSX Type S tho
third, legend (he can buy mine) haha
fourth, the lexus
lastly, might want to consider CL TYpe S.

 

[Gerald]

In that price range I'd go for these 3;

1. 1996-1999 M3
2. 1993-1996 RX-7
3. 2000 - 2003 S2000

 

[JTJohnny102]

i would have to vouch for the sc300 or m3

 

[RangerJoe]

sc300s are worthless unless you heavily mod them.

if hes going for midlife crisis sort of cars, this is probably how he should go

1. s2000
2. m3
3. mercedes

forget the rest of them. he wants a newer, but still wants one that is 10+ years old? these are the cars you thought of right? not the ones he has casually shown interest in. the non type s RSX is a piece, rx-7s are only good if you know a lot about them and can do your own work, and like I said, the sc300 is nothing special. not to mention boring as sin to drive.

 

[go92Legend]

^^ Agree.

But also... you might look at S4s. Here's one in your area...

http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.j...=&transmission=&max_price=&cardist=192#vdptop

 

[LegendRacer22]

mitsubishi 3000gt vr4
91 nsx
93- 98 supra

 

[RangerJoe]

mitsubishi 3000gt vr4
91 nsx
93- 98 supra

all worthless cars.

you heard me.

the VR4 is a piece of trash, only way they are quick is if you mod them. plus they are mitsu's (ugh)

buying a 91 NSX in 2005 is basically the same idea as buying a porsche boxter (non S). means you want a cool car/brand, but you dont have the cash. spent the same amount of money, get a newer, better equipped, and more reliable car.

And the supra. its an old dude buying the car. and a turbo supra for 15 is going to be raped. and do you think his DAD is going to spend thousands of dollars to modify it. Dont even say he should get an NA supra, people that buy those have the same complex as the boxter guys.

 

[Pito11213]

In the range of 10 - 15K I would rather get a 98 BMW 5 series or 1998 Infiniti Q45. I like the BM alot. My ideal car would be a 2000 540 with the sport package.

 

[blah]

Well, the big thing my dad wants is a car that will hold its value. so i was thinking the NSX just because it holds its value sooo well. and my dad does enjoy fast cars. so getting a supra wouldnt be so bad for him. another car i was thinking was a like 1993 911. i think were going to look at the sc300 and the m3 today

 

[stevieray]

You don't want a Porsche. Trust me on this one. Porsches & cocaine are God's way of saying "You have too much money. Get rid of it." I agree with Phil---S2000 and then an M3. Personally, I love the older body style M3s.

 

[Pito11213]

If you are going for holding value then the BMW is nice. M3 is too small for me personally. NSX is also too small. I once again would go with a 98 5 series. Nice car and holds it's value relatively well. The average car that "holds" it value depends on the popularity of the vehicle.

 

[stick]

if u can swing it. 2000 M5. those are nucking futs.

 

[blah]

funny, everyone keeps saying get the 5 series, well after my moms legend was wrecked, we got her a burgandy 99 528i.

i like the Idea of the S4(such a sexy car) but im not sure hes going to like that it has a v8 in it just cause he need fuel economy

 

[Rude-Boy!]

well my dad decided he wanted somthing sportier in the 10g - 15g range

Dude it took me about .001 seconds to figure this out...there is nothing in the list that could come close to compare to the M3. Tell him to drive the M3 where there are corners as well as all other variables...i don't want to sound arrogant but i'm sooo right...this one might be faster...that one might look more radical but once your pops drives the M3...all is over trust me
CONS - parts/repair/insurance is gonna be $uper-expensive
what does everybody think??? bullseye or no cookie

 

[Rude-Boy!]

all worthless cars.
the VR4 is a piece of trash, only way they are quick is if you mod them. (ugh)

Ranger - that's not the case. The 3000GT SL is slow as hell but the VR4 is all wheel drive and turbocharged and does 0-60 in WELL under 5 seconds - STOCK ! ! ! That's '93-'98 Supra TT/Vette C5/ bimmer e46 & e39 territory and can hardly be called slow !!! Now the "piece of trash" and the "its a mitsu" part are all subjective so its upto the owner .If his dad likes the look of the 3000GT and can live with a car that is made by a company that has a product of everything under the frkn. sun (jack-of-all-trade wannabes)

 

[logic]

I'll vouch for the VR4... I installed a theft deterrent in one many years ago and took it for a test drive afterwards.. it was in a big office complex parking lot and everytime I got out of a corner I floored it and I thought something was wrong with it because it didn't move any faster than my '82 accord... finally I got to a straight strech that was twice as long as the others and halfway down the turbo finally kicked in and threw me back in the seat!!!

If he can handle a car that's looking rather dated now, that's a great choice...(personally I'd take the NSX over all of them.....)

 

[RangerJoe]

Ranger - that's not the case. The 3000GT SL is slow as hell but the VR4 is all wheel drive and turbocharged and does 0-60 in WELL under 5 seconds - STOCK ! ! ! That's '93-'98 Supra TT/Vette C5/ bimmer e46 & e39 territory and can hardly be called slow !!! Now the "piece of trash" and the "its a mitsu" part are all subjective so its upto the owner .If his dad likes the look of the 3000GT and can live with a car that is made by a company that has a product of everything under the frkn. sun (jack-of-all-trade wannabes)

Performance
0-60 mph --- 5.5 s
0-100 mph --- 14.0 s
1/4 Mile --- 13.9 s @ 98 mph
Top Speed --- 160 mph

this is taken from engine-power.com, from a 1999 VR-4. 5.5 seconds is not WELL UNDER 5 seconds.

just because they make a ton of different products, doesnt mean they make good cars. mitsu's are notorious for having bad service records, VERY low quality interior, and a drivetrain that falls apart if it isnt rebuilt with stronger parts, or babied.

and did you mean to call me SON? I have a strange feeling your birthday and occupation are innacurate.

and that is 350z territory. C5 corvettes are much faster than that. (this is taken from supercars.net on a 1997 C5, the year the C5 was released)

0 - 60 mph 4.8 seconds
0 - 100 mph 11.5 seconds
0 - 1/4 mile 13.3 seconds

mind you they made it slightly faster for 2001, going down to 4.5 seconds for 0-60.

once again, something that is fast in a straight line doesnt mean its a good car. the GT handles for crap, is balanced terribly, does not have enough power to the rear wheels, and has a very large amount of understeer (even when you try to feed the power in to kick the back wheels around)

you should do some research before defending crappy cars and comparing them to much much more impressive ones.

anyone that takes a 3000GT over an S2000 should have their head examined

 

[stevieray]

Phil, I agree w/you on the 3000GT. Mitsu's are OK until about 70K miles and then they fall apart and become maintenance whores. It'll be interesting to see how many EVOs are falling apart in 3-4 years, ya think?

 

[blah]

NOOO dont say that about the EVO! i dont want the evo to die, never!!!!!!!!!

but on a serious note, my dad knows about the 3000gts poor maintainece records and wouldnt buy one