View Poll Results: best car under $37k
Voters: 58. You may not vote on this poll
best car under $37k
06-11-2002, 03:51 PM
#11
Registered User
The C5 is very close to a Z06. With a change in rubber (those stupid run flats suck) the difference between a C5 and a Z06 on a track or drag strip is not very much. Cam and head packages can be had for the LS1 that will put you over the HP in a Z06 very easily...and they don't cost that much. Overall, if you wanna go fast this is the car to pick up. I just can't see buying an old car (supra) for that kind of money.
06-11-2002, 09:06 PM
#13
Thread Starter
Oh yeah, this is gonna be my daily driver but I don't really need practicality. If I could live with the S2000 as my daily driver, there probably isn't a car on this list that wuldn't suffice.
I want the speed and wow factor I guess.
I want the speed and wow factor I guess.
06-12-2002, 12:21 PM
#15
Err I have to disagree with the NSX comment. At any price point the comparative NSX is always out performed by competitors. As far as I am concerned 90k for a new car that dates back to and performs on par with the cars from the late 80
06-12-2002, 01:31 PM
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dana Point, CA
Posts: 4,101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE]Originally posted by steve c
[B]Err I have to disagree with the NSX comment. At any price point the comparative NSX is always out performed by competitors. As far as I am concerned 90k for a new car that dates back to and performs on par with the cars from the late 80
[B]Err I have to disagree with the NSX comment. At any price point the comparative NSX is always out performed by competitors. As far as I am concerned 90k for a new car that dates back to and performs on par with the cars from the late 80
06-12-2002, 03:37 PM
#18
With all due respect, I strongly disagree with you.
There's no doubt that $90K for any car is a lot of $. I'm sure you can pull stat's out of magazines that say that there are cars which are quicker to 60mph or brake better or post higher lateral acceleration figures. So the hell what?
[/quote] Well that
06-12-2002, 04:53 PM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dana Point, CA
Posts: 4,101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cool.
I've driven quite a few pre 1994 NSX's (I was seriously considering buying one instead of my second S2K and am lucky enough to know a few cool owners and be located near a very active NSXCA chapter). I haven't driven a 355 or 360 but have driven a few 308's and one 328.
So, you are right that my comments about performance are mostly based on what others have stated and or typed. However, I stand by that as most major car mag's all seemed to agree that the original NSX was light years ahead of Ferrari and that it took the 355 or 360 (depending on what camp you reside in) to surpass the car.
I also disagree with you about the NSX's performance not being staggering. 0-60 in less than 5.5 seconds, 1/4 mile times of mid to high 13's, top speed in excess of 160mph are all pretty damn good stat's. Even today. Couple that with a very comfy, very user friendly cockpit that is hushed, has superior ergonomics and great visibility and I think you have a winner.
I appreciate your viewpoint but scratch my head at your logic.
The team that engineered the original NSX (and by the way were integral in the development of the S2000) managed to create a car that was light years ahead of Ferrari in terms of usability and comfort at a cheaper price tag and with equal or better performance #'s. I don't think that the engineers at Honda are necessarily better than those at Porsche or at BMW's M group, but let's give credit where credit is due. Some automotive writers back in the mid 90's (Road and Track or Sports Car International) said that the NSX was the greatest sports car ever. That's a pretty bold statement from guys that drive a lot more than me and a lot better than me.
The NSX is exotic because of production #'s. True. It's also exotic because of the use of materials (essentially al aluminum), the fact that it's hand built, and mid engined. I don't know anyone that wouldn't call the NSX a Japanese super car. I won't argue with you about how that stacks up relative to a German supercar or Italian supercar but I think that's worthy praise.
I agree with you somewhat that Ferrari doesn't necessarily build cars to compete with Honda. For that matter, I doubt that Ferrari really views the NSX as competition given the difference in price tags and the difference in number of cars sold in the US. However, a co-worker of mine that helped start Porsche Credit Corp here in the early 90's has told me that the NSX raised the bar in many ways (at least from Porsche's standpoint) and caused Porsche to get serious about peformance, value and reliability. Porsche never really saw Honda as a threat, per se, but the Germans did recognize the fact that they needed to take the car seriously and wouldnt' be able to rest on their laurels. This happened to BMW and Mercedes with Lexus and I have to believe that to a small degree the NSX had this effect in Maranello as well.
I still think the NSX had bench setting performance when you look at the picture as a whole. You mention the ZR-1 and that's a fantastic starting point. Yes, some ZR-1's put down amazing #'s. The operative word there is some. Many within the Corvette community believe that there were wide disparities in the output of those bad boys. In other words quality control sucked. I have driven a ZR1 (an early car) and most recently a Z06 (the 385bhp car not the 405). To be sure those cars are amazingly fast. Gobs and gobs of power that may not be all that much faster on paper than the NSX (although they are comparing a 1991 NSX to a 2002 Z06) but they feel way faster. But they also feel like ca ca. Especially the ZR1. Talk about shakes, rattles, and rolls. Chevy (to it's great credit) made great strides with the C5 but even the Z06 isn't as comfy., easy to drive, or ergonomically sound as the now 13 year old NSX.
Maybe our difference in viewpoints comes down to this. I'm thinking about the entire package of the car. You might be (and I don't want to put words in your mouth) more thinking about the pure quantifiable performance aspects of the cars.
BTW, I think you're confusing the Boxster with the NSX. The engine and tranny in the NSX are not too difficult to access, whereas the Porshce requires the mechanic to put the car up and drop down the motor.
Most servicing (short of 10 year or 100K mile servicing) can be easily and readily done on an NSX. Labor rates are relatively cheap (compare Acura's per hour charges to Ferrari's) and while parts for the NSX certainly aren't Integra cheap, they aren't Porsche 996 or Ferrari expensive either.
Most owners I talk to (even those that daily drive their NSX's and put as much as 10-15K miles a year on the car) report them to be very easy on the wallet but for an insatiable appetite for tires (rear ones espcially). This appetite can be curbed by not tracking the car or adjusting the alignment but both of these options miss the point of the car.
I'm off to put the top down on the S and take the wife to be to dinner but welcome your thoughts.
I've driven quite a few pre 1994 NSX's (I was seriously considering buying one instead of my second S2K and am lucky enough to know a few cool owners and be located near a very active NSXCA chapter). I haven't driven a 355 or 360 but have driven a few 308's and one 328.
So, you are right that my comments about performance are mostly based on what others have stated and or typed. However, I stand by that as most major car mag's all seemed to agree that the original NSX was light years ahead of Ferrari and that it took the 355 or 360 (depending on what camp you reside in) to surpass the car.
I also disagree with you about the NSX's performance not being staggering. 0-60 in less than 5.5 seconds, 1/4 mile times of mid to high 13's, top speed in excess of 160mph are all pretty damn good stat's. Even today. Couple that with a very comfy, very user friendly cockpit that is hushed, has superior ergonomics and great visibility and I think you have a winner.
I appreciate your viewpoint but scratch my head at your logic.
The team that engineered the original NSX (and by the way were integral in the development of the S2000) managed to create a car that was light years ahead of Ferrari in terms of usability and comfort at a cheaper price tag and with equal or better performance #'s. I don't think that the engineers at Honda are necessarily better than those at Porsche or at BMW's M group, but let's give credit where credit is due. Some automotive writers back in the mid 90's (Road and Track or Sports Car International) said that the NSX was the greatest sports car ever. That's a pretty bold statement from guys that drive a lot more than me and a lot better than me.
The NSX is exotic because of production #'s. True. It's also exotic because of the use of materials (essentially al aluminum), the fact that it's hand built, and mid engined. I don't know anyone that wouldn't call the NSX a Japanese super car. I won't argue with you about how that stacks up relative to a German supercar or Italian supercar but I think that's worthy praise.
I agree with you somewhat that Ferrari doesn't necessarily build cars to compete with Honda. For that matter, I doubt that Ferrari really views the NSX as competition given the difference in price tags and the difference in number of cars sold in the US. However, a co-worker of mine that helped start Porsche Credit Corp here in the early 90's has told me that the NSX raised the bar in many ways (at least from Porsche's standpoint) and caused Porsche to get serious about peformance, value and reliability. Porsche never really saw Honda as a threat, per se, but the Germans did recognize the fact that they needed to take the car seriously and wouldnt' be able to rest on their laurels. This happened to BMW and Mercedes with Lexus and I have to believe that to a small degree the NSX had this effect in Maranello as well.
I still think the NSX had bench setting performance when you look at the picture as a whole. You mention the ZR-1 and that's a fantastic starting point. Yes, some ZR-1's put down amazing #'s. The operative word there is some. Many within the Corvette community believe that there were wide disparities in the output of those bad boys. In other words quality control sucked. I have driven a ZR1 (an early car) and most recently a Z06 (the 385bhp car not the 405). To be sure those cars are amazingly fast. Gobs and gobs of power that may not be all that much faster on paper than the NSX (although they are comparing a 1991 NSX to a 2002 Z06) but they feel way faster. But they also feel like ca ca. Especially the ZR1. Talk about shakes, rattles, and rolls. Chevy (to it's great credit) made great strides with the C5 but even the Z06 isn't as comfy., easy to drive, or ergonomically sound as the now 13 year old NSX.
Maybe our difference in viewpoints comes down to this. I'm thinking about the entire package of the car. You might be (and I don't want to put words in your mouth) more thinking about the pure quantifiable performance aspects of the cars.
BTW, I think you're confusing the Boxster with the NSX. The engine and tranny in the NSX are not too difficult to access, whereas the Porshce requires the mechanic to put the car up and drop down the motor.
Most servicing (short of 10 year or 100K mile servicing) can be easily and readily done on an NSX. Labor rates are relatively cheap (compare Acura's per hour charges to Ferrari's) and while parts for the NSX certainly aren't Integra cheap, they aren't Porsche 996 or Ferrari expensive either.
Most owners I talk to (even those that daily drive their NSX's and put as much as 10-15K miles a year on the car) report them to be very easy on the wallet but for an insatiable appetite for tires (rear ones espcially). This appetite can be curbed by not tracking the car or adjusting the alignment but both of these options miss the point of the car.
I'm off to put the top down on the S and take the wife to be to dinner but welcome your thoughts.
06-12-2002, 05:05 PM
#20
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Dallas
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought it odd that the S2K wasn't listed on the poll~ but given the choices there, I'd have to go with the Z06. I know the 02's are spectacular, & noticeably quicker than a standard C5, though even the used ones are in the low 40s. I'd probably still go with the '01 Z06 if you can find one for 37k and can't pull together a few more g's for an '02. Seems like a natural progression, if you can live with a much larger car that has a fixed roof!