[aldonb1]

im actually looking to buy my "college car" just looking to buy something fun and sporty to last another 3 years w/ college driving aka not a whole lot.

here is what im looking at:
http://baltimore.cra.../298324011.html

"only issues are sunroof does not work, a/c needs to be recharged"

that right there will run you close to $1,000. While those cars are fun as hell, they are not the best maintenance wise nor cost wise. A couple friends have them, one ended up selling it, the other 2 still have them. 1 has no working interior electronics, he has no money to fix it, the cost is to high. The third works for Porsche in maintenance so when something breaks he just brings it in and works on it during his breaks.


Little break down for everyone maintenance and quality wise. Toyota/Lexus,Honda/Acura,Mazda are far cheaper maintenance wise than any Euro or Domestic you can come up with. Euros are great cars, but their maintenance cost is huge compared to everything else. They are also known for their shitty wiring. Audi's stand out the most at this.

And Domestics well, its nice to know that they use the same parts on all there cars. Mostly when that 1 part is recalled because it starts fires and every car on their line up has to come back for a fix.

As far as it comes to Luxury cars. Lexus dominates that with quality, maintenance costs and the like. BMW and Mercedes are pretty highly priced because of the fact that they are Euros.

Sad about the Mini, they could have been much better cars. To bad BMW took that over, now they are just overpriced on parts and maintenance. Too bad you had to find that out the hard way.

Alright, well first of all someone said they saw a civic "tuned" beat a viper? If it beat a viper it was not tuned, it probably had an engine swap, turbo or supercharger, and a shitload of work on it, which means it would not be "40k less than a viper" .

if that isn't tuned, then what is it? If anything I would call it race tuned. Because the car is still tuned. Otherwise it would run lean or rich.

hehe well i dont plan on fixing the sunroof. also, recharging the a/c shouldn't be too bad. My g/f's father is a masters certified mechanic or something and he said he would help me with any repairs i've needed. Yeah i was a little concerned w/ the repair costs, (so are my parents). Sigh... i just dont want to have the same old accord/camry/civic as every other undergrad student

[james]

Look for a non-turbo FC or FB. Super cheap, still cool, nice handling, big aftermarket (FC for sure). If the motor ever dumps on you, V8 swap ftw.

[MrBubbler]

damn, I'm the odd one out here... yes turboed rsx's are sad.

My dream car which I'm almost ready to buy (again) 1995 Euro BMW M5. It'll blow the doors off of an evo or an sti.

i dont know what you have been smoking. you get the m5 and i will personally pay for a track day and or drag strip day against for you and i will drive a stock evo. to each his own but look at the capabilities of both cars before spouting of sentences.

and as far as reliability is concerned ive been pushing over 400whp and right around 387 foot pounds of torque on 91 piss gas for almost 4 years (55k miles)

hell to each his own both imports and muscle cars and euros can be awsome cars with the right mods and care, i had a 04 cobra for a long time and loved it. I just prefer the evo over any car for the performance it has in a straight line and on a road course. and for the money the only thing thats close to it would be the sti or a used super car of sorts(cars being stock).

I'll agree with that. I am still holding out to my purchase this summer of my FD.

]


FD's are sexy beast! local guy here with a built motor and turbo upgrade has around 500 whp and over 80k miles on the built motor! everything in California is so expensive as far as used good cars, i wish i was in middle america some times -= (

[james]

The only good FD is one with eight god-like cylinders of LS1 under the hood.

[Scheetz]

Sigh... i just dont want to have the same old accord/camry/civic as every other undergrad student

Well, dont look at honda then. If you are looking for something with low repair costs I would not touch any RX7s. They are great cars, if you do want one and willing to possibly rebuild the Rotary then an NA FC would be your best option. Unless you want the Turbo II. But then you will risk having to rebuild and deal with all the bad (good/fun) things about a rotary.


What is your budget right now? That will help.

Heres a little help:

Old School Beetles (buddy has one, thing is badass) WRX (had for 10,000 or less), 240sx, 300zx, Old VW GTIs (fun to drive), celicas (All-Trac if you like those bodies)

[Scheetz]

The only good FD is one with eight god-like cylinders of LS1 under the hood.

False


































LS7 (my goal )

[Zerodynamic]

damn, I'm the odd one out here... yes turboed rsx's are sad.

My dream car which I'm almost ready to buy (again) 1995 Euro BMW M5. It'll blow the doors off of an evo or an sti.

i dont know what you have been smoking. you get the m5 and i will personally pay for a track day and or drag strip day against for you and i will drive a stock evo. to each his own but look at the capabilities of both cars before spouting of sentences.

and as far as reliability is concerned ive been pushing over 400whp and right around 387 foot pounds of torque on 91 piss gas for almost 4 years (55k miles)

hell to each his own both imports and muscle cars and euros can be awsome cars with the right mods and care, i had a 04 cobra for a long time and loved it. I just prefer the evo over any car for the performance it has in a straight line and on a road course. and for the money the only thing thats close to it would be the sti or a used super car of sorts(cars being stock).

Haha, dude, stock for stock the euro m5 will pwn you... Evos are nice but since they get all of their power from that boost, after 100 mph, they start to lag out. The M5 I'm talking about (which is over 10 years old mind you) will easily do 170 mph +.

As far a reliablity is concerned, you got me there, the m5 requires lots of cash to keep that motor running. A N/A 3.8 liter in-line 6 making 340hp is a def high maintainace.

As for the track, I would take the m5 anyway... this thing was designed for road courses and DTM after all.

Now, if we wanna talk 2007 M5, and 2007 Evo stock for stock... we can leave it at that. I'm not saying Evo's are bad cars, hell if I owned one I would be rockin it too! They just aren't my thing, thats all.

[james]

Old School Beetles (buddy has one, thing is badass)

I agree completely. This is your best option if you don't need an AC. And if you actually spend a little money on it you'll get to see the shocked faces of people as you murder their <insert car here> from a stop. Wheelies are nice, too.

240sx

Still overpriced from the dorifto craze. Cool car if you can find the one out of a million that hasn't been beat to death. And keep the KA. By the time you get all the bugs worked out from a SR swap, you could have completely reworked the KA two times over.

I still bet you could pick up a clean non-turbo FC for under $2k. The only thing you should have to worry about is the rotary. Even at that, the non-turbos can last forever (lol @ apex seals). Now you've got a nice handling car with some character that has a healthy enthusiast following. Save up $2k more and swap out the rotary for a random V8 and you'll have a stupid fast car.

Oh, and LS is a mathmatical equation. LS1=hotness. LS7 is just hotness to the 7th power.

[MrBubbler]

damn, I'm the odd one out here... yes turboed rsx's are sad.

My dream car which I'm almost ready to buy (again) 1995 Euro BMW M5. It'll blow the doors off of an evo or an sti.

i dont know what you have been smoking. you get the m5 and i will personally pay for a track day and or drag strip day against for you and i will drive a stock evo. to each his own but look at the capabilities of both cars before spouting of sentences.

and as far as reliability is concerned ive been pushing over 400whp and right around 387 foot pounds of torque on 91 piss gas for almost 4 years (55k miles)

hell to each his own both imports and muscle cars and euros can be awsome cars with the right mods and care, i had a 04 cobra for a long time and loved it. I just prefer the evo over any car for the performance it has in a straight line and on a road course. and for the money the only thing thats close to it would be the sti or a used super car of sorts(cars being stock).

Haha, dude, stock for stock the euro m5 will pwn you... Evos are nice but since they get all of their power from that boost, after 100 mph, they start to lag out. The M5 I'm talking about (which is over 10 years old mind you) will easily do 170 mph +.

As far a reliablity is concerned, you got me there, the m5 requires lots of cash to keep that motor running. A N/A 3.8 liter in-line 6 making 340hp is a def high maintainace.

As for the track, I would take the m5 anyway... this thing was designed for road courses and DTM after all.

Now, if we wanna talk 2007 M5, and 2007 Evo stock for stock... we can leave it at that. I'm not saying Evo's are bad cars, hell if I owned one I would be rockin it too! They just aren't my thing, thats all.

Who here races to 170mph? no one. the evo will whoop the m5's butt in the quarter mile, on the race track and anywhere else you put the two cars. The m5 is a nice car and is quick for its large size and very comfortable interior. the evo lags out because of regulation of the car for the united states, the boost tapers from 17 to 14-15 psi after 5500-6000 rpm, add a 50$ boost controller and fix the problem and the evo pulls quite nice top end and would most def. be in head of the m5 well above 120mph the best recorded 1/4 mile time for the evo that ive found was 12.98 sec (stock evo) and an average of 13.3 sec(stock) ,please send me some information that would prove your statements as such as i have proven mine.
Year 1995
Make BMW
Model M5 E34
Engine Location Front
Drive Type Rear Wheel
Weight 3788 lbs | 1718.2 kg

Performance
0-60 mph 5.9 seconds.
Top Speed 156 mph | 251 km/h Similar top speeds

Engine
Engine Configuration I
Cylinders 6
Aspiration/Induction Normal
Displacement 3795.00 cc | 231.6 cu in. | 3.8 L.
Valves 32 valves.
5 valves per cylinder.
Valvetrain DOHC
Horsepower 340.00 BHP (250.2 KW) @ 6900.00 RPM
Torque 295.00 Ft-Lbs (400 NM) @ 4750.00 RPM
HP to Weight Ratio 11.1 LB / HP

VS


Engine Type dual overhead cam 16-valve turbocharged
and intercooled inline 4-cylinder Engine Size 2.0 liters / 122 cu. in.
Horsepower 271 @ 6500 rpm
Torque (lb-ft) 273 @ 3500 rpm
Transmission 5-speed manual
Wheelbase / Length 103.3 in. / x in.
Curb Weight 3298 lbs.
Pounds Per Horsepower 12.2

[maramos]

Haha, dude, stock for stock the euro m5 will pwn you... Evos are nice but since they get all of their power from that boost, after 100 mph, they start to lag out. The M5 I'm talking about (which is over 10 years old mind you) will easily do 170 mph +.

As far a reliablity is concerned, you got me there, the m5 requires lots of cash to keep that motor running. A N/A 3.8 liter in-line 6 making 340hp is a def high maintainace.

As for the track, I would take the m5 anyway... this thing was designed for road courses and DTM after all.

Now, if we wanna talk 2007 M5, and 2007 Evo stock for stock... we can leave it at that. I'm not saying Evo's are bad cars, hell if I owned one I would be rockin it too! They just aren't my thing, thats all.

Stock for stock any evo I-IX would beat a euro spec E34 M5 on a strip, if you want to talk Evo XIII or IX it’s not even a competition. Also the car would be lucky to do anything over 170, especially now that the car is over 10 years old and could barely do it stock. Maybe from a 150mph roll you might stand a chance because of the extra 80 hp, but when would you ever see those speeds. Also if you want to talk 07 to 07, the M5 costs over twice as much as a base Evo so compare it something more comparable like a Euro Ralliart Evo. Seeing as a Euro Ralliart Evo XIII was faster then the E60 M5 around top gears track I think an IX which is even faster would destroy it and still cost significantly less, and in case you don't know Ralliart is Mitsubishi's motor sports division.

The cars are designed for 2 completely different things. The M5 is a luxury sports sedan large enough to haul around the family but also fun. The Evo is a homologated rally car which I personally don't see the appeal other then if you rally/track it or want an extremely fast car for less than comparative cars.

[Scheetz]

You all are forgetting another KEY POINT here.

M5 = $100,000
EVO= $35,000


EVO wins

[james]

^lol

[ASUSEAN1]

damn, I'm the odd one out here... yes turboed rsx's are sad.

My dream car which I'm almost ready to buy (again) 1995 Euro BMW M5. It'll blow the doors off of an evo or an sti.

i dont know what you have been smoking. you get the m5 and i will personally pay for a track day and or drag strip day against for you and i will drive a stock evo. to each his own but look at the capabilities of both cars before spouting of sentences.

and as far as reliability is concerned ive been pushing over 400whp and right around 387 foot pounds of torque on 91 piss gas for almost 4 years (55k miles)

hell to each his own both imports and muscle cars and euros can be awsome cars with the right mods and care, i had a 04 cobra for a long time and loved it. I just prefer the evo over any car for the performance it has in a straight line and on a road course. and for the money the only thing thats close to it would be the sti or a used super car of sorts(cars being stock).

Haha, dude, stock for stock the euro m5 will pwn you... Evos are nice but since they get all of their power from that boost, after 100 mph, they start to lag out. The M5 I'm talking about (which is over 10 years old mind you) will easily do 170 mph +.

As far a reliablity is concerned, you got me there, the m5 requires lots of cash to keep that motor running. A N/A 3.8 liter in-line 6 making 340hp is a def high maintainace.

As for the track, I would take the m5 anyway... this thing was designed for road courses and DTM after all.

Now, if we wanna talk 2007 M5, and 2007 Evo stock for stock... we can leave it at that. I'm not saying Evo's are bad cars, hell if I owned one I would be rockin it too! They just aren't my thing, thats all.

man screw both those cars.. jus drop 400K on a SLR lol. im sure you wont be disappointed

[ASUSEAN1]

here is how a nissan 350 Z TT beats an evo

click here

[ASUSEAN1]

also the only good ford out there

ford gt 40 "TT"

its a long video but one def. worth watching if you havn't seen it

click here


the only thing it has lost to is a modded hayabusa motorcycle

This post has been edited by ASUSEAN1: 30 March 2007 - 09:12 AM

[MrBubbler]

also the only good ford out there

ford gt 40 "TT"

its a long video but one def. worth watching if you havn't seen it

click here


the only thing it has lost to is a hayabusa motorcycle

i put down 493 whp yesterday with 461 torque on alcohol injection(50% meth 50% water) new intake manifold and 28 psi -= )

[nicayotte]

i just got a Kawasaki zx14 baby super fast

[Allia22]

Dude, the first airbags were in an Olds Toronado. I forget what year, but meh.

I like Subarus, the ones we have are used as workhorses, are ancient and are pushing 260k miles, and are still going. I'll stand by those cars for sure. When I want fun, I go for GMs. (screw Ford)

I demand proof that GM made the first airbag. Actually, I have a Mercedes brochure that states they pioneered the airbag, but like you said, meh.

And, Liltank... yes, ///M5's are very yummy.. which is why I'm buying another one. I don't need a little 4 banger with a turbo, nor do I need a gas guzzling v8 to make big power. 3.8 liter in-line 6 for the win!

HAHA!!! Here ya go


Airbags Introduced
In 1971, the Ford car company built an experimental airbag fleet. General Motors tested airbags on the 1973 model Chevrolet automobile that were only sold for government use. The 1973, Oldsmobile Toronado was the first car with a passenger air bag intended for sale to the public. General Motors later offered an option to the general public of driver side airbags in full-sized Oldsmobile's and Buick's in 1975 and 1976 respectively. Cadillacs were available with driver and passenger airbags options during those same years. Early airbags system had design issues resulting in fatalities caused solely by the airbags. Airbags were offered once again as an option on the 1984 Ford Tempo automobile. By 1988, Chrysler became the first company to offer air bag restraint systems as standard equipment. In 1994, TRW began production of the first gas-inflated airbag. They are now mandatory in all cars since 1998.

Here's the link: http://inventors.abo.../a/air_bags.htm

[camelflage]

evo and sti are fun, but for my constant city driving i have no desire to burn through clutches sitting in traffic. i drove about 20 different cars before i chose my lexus, and honestly i have to say that as far as being a great balance of sport and luxury i pretty much knew i was gonna chose a lexus after i drove them.

dont get me wrong, i used to live about 3 miles from the local dragstrip and ive put in countless hours behind the helm of some ridiculously fast cars, but i couldnt justify putting my money on a fully-optioned evo that i was gonna not fully utilize on a regular basis. i got the STI airborn at 100mph and nearly drifted the evo IX into someones yard on the test drives (i only got banned from the mitsubishi dealership though, but oh well they wouldnt let me test the MR anyway..) i loved every minute of it, but in my current position i really enjoy a car with plush leather, 6cd and nav system that also goes 0-60 in about 5 seconds.

[The Cameron]

also the only good ford out there

ford gt 40 "TT"

its a long video but one def. worth watching if you havn't seen it

click here


the only thing it has lost to is a modded hayabusa motorcycle

ya, thats joe's car. hes a cool guy. he showed up at a photoshoot once in a smiley face shirt. we were all wondering wtf was wrong with him before this, and after, we knew he was crazy, but he was an awesome guy. and i got a ride. just for the record, i pee'd a little.