Why would anybody buy a sports car?

Slig

I drive a 4x4-Karma:D
But seriously, I've been toying with the idea of buying a porsche 944 or early 911, even a merc SL and at the end of the day it all comes down to economy, tax and practically. I know there is the acceleration and the handling and the fun of just driving mountain roads with sweeping bends.
However does it make up for the daily rainy commute and pumping petrol into them, hgh insurance and tax?

Wikipedia defination:
sports car (plural sports cars)

An automobile designed for high speed and power, tight handling, and flashy looks.

B00MSTICK

A 911 would be a top sports car, there are many more cheaper alternatives like the MX5 for example. Maybe not the quickest or highest acceleration, but looks the part and handles great. Tax/Insurance on anything under 2000cc is cheap and should return decent MPG. Not practical really but It's something you drive for the fun of it.

If you want economy in a 4x4 I assume you went diesel? Big 3 litre engine yes? Now thats high tax!

Keep your 4x4 and buy a old (now almost classic, cheaper insurance again) MX 5 for when you want a bit of fun. Much cheaper than a 911. Maybe not the best definition of a "sports car" but few have a bad word to say against them.

cabrwab

Dam you boomstick got in there first.
The MX5 is a great handling car and great fun to drive. The SL merc would be more of a grand tourer for fat business men, only great if its the amg i think!

Go for the 911. won't be much more tax wise then most big 4x4's

TomMc

If you can appreciate the finer things in life - YES. But as most result in a compromise (at least as a practical daily driver for the family man), quite often a sports saloon is the way to go. All the essentials and focused too.

The trouble is many 4x4's MPV's SUV's are glorified panel vans with agricultural dynamics. And if someone hasn't driven anything special (as a reference point), they can delude themselves into thinking they are a good steer.

If you ever end up lying in a hospital bed/retirement home (incontinent), it would be nice to remember that you lived life to the fullest, and have driven something special. Best not to follow the sheep and the world of bland transportation (& mediocrity). The equivalent of wearing cords and a cardigan. NOW is the time to treat yourself - Just mind those hedges.

Alternatively buy a sorted sportscar and do some track days.

colly10

Id go for the old 911 for the weekends from your options above (get a very tidy one) then buy a heap of scrap for the daily commute

Biro

4x4's aren't exactly the pinnicle of fuel economy either! Buy a 911 and be done with it, otherwise you'll always be wondering.
When you drive a supercar you realise exactly why they're special. If you've never driven one, then you only wonder why they're special!

Anan1

I've been driving a 1986 Porsche 911 3.2 cabriolet as my everyday car since last October. Even in the depths of a rainy Irish winter it never failed to make me smile. Buy one that's basically solid and it should be reliable and hold its value too. This is a good time to buy too, as my unsuccessful attempts at selling (need the money!) seem to prove.

Vertakill

I'm driving a 350z at the moment and I love it. Nothing like a decent sports car. Looks, sounds and feels great. Every drive is an experience and not just a commute. If nobody is depending on you for too much, why care about the practicality/expense? As long as it's not going to hinder you too much, go for it. Economy/Tax will not be that much different from your current 4x4, only the practicality. My cars a 2 seater and guzzles petrol, but hey - you only live once, enjoy it!

- Btw I can't believe people are mentioning the MX5 in the same sentence as a Porsche 911... I'm the biggest Jap fan ever, but c'mon..

Unless you plan on becoming a freelance hairdresser in the near future, don't get an MX5. Grand car but serious chick car. I really can't stress that enough. And before the 'Who cares about the image or what other people think?' bandwagon comes along, don't bother. He's (he/she correct me if I'm wrong!) looking at sports cars here so he's obviously conscious of how it/he will look.

- - Go out and test drive a decent sports car this weekend and you'll know whether it's for you or not.

- - - Couldn't agree more with you, TomMc.

S.I.R

Slig wrote: »

I drive a 4x4-Karma:D
But seriously, I've been toying with the idea of buying a porsche 944 or early 911, even a merc SL and at the end of the day it all comes down to economy, tax and practically. I know there is the acceleration and the handling and the fun of just driving mountain roads with sweeping bends.
However does it make up for the daily rainy commute and pumping petrol into them, hgh insurance and tax?

Wikipedia defination:
sports car (plural sports cars)

An automobile designed for high speed and power, tight handling, and flashy looks.

lmfao... a practical sports car is a hyundi coupe or mazda mx-5...

anything fun isnt practical ( i.e merc sl , 911 etc )

colly10

S.I.R wrote: »

a hyundi coupe or mazda mx-5...

Not sports cars imo

roughan

I have a Porsche Boxster and i use it as my daily Drive
its fairly Practial ( 2 boots) and does 25mpg in town and 32 -35 on long roads
Tax is 899 per year and insurance is under 1k
why buy a 4 seater when 90% of the time you wil be in it by yourself
Practical and GREAT FUN

B00MSTICK

On second thoughts I agree with the 911 for fun, POS for practicality.

How would you describe an MX 5?

pburns

I've always prefered the idea of a sports saloon TBH - less flashy, more practical etc. I just think a lot of 'sports car' drivers are more interested in the 'flash' than the 'dash', so to speak, and i guess I look down my nose a little at that attitude...

A 944/968 or Corrado is the perfect sports car though - slightly unfashionable but dynamically brilliant - appeals to the idyosncratic side to my nature

There's no reason why a saloon can't have great driving dynamics however - M5, RS4 and various EVOs/Scoobies have proved that...

JHMEG

pburns wrote: »

There's no reason why a saloon can't have great driving dynamics however - M5, RS4 and various EVOs/Scoobies have proved that...

A sports saloon that's based off a generic family saloon will be compromised, perfect example being a hot Opel Vectra. Otoh, one that started life as a sports saloon won't be.

Victor_M

The M3 is about as good an all rounder there is, not much of a compromise on any front, plenty of space for 5, big boot, very fast, good looking and reasonably* frugal if you go easy (26mpg possible if you take it handy)

*reasonable for a sports car.

Homer

roughan wrote: »

I have a Porsche Boxster and i use it as my daily Drive
its fairly Practial ( 2 boots) and does 25mpg in town and 32 -35 on long roads
Tax is 899 per year and insurance is under 1k
why buy a 4 seater when 90% of the time you wil be in it by yourself
Practical and GREAT FUN

You obviously haven't taxed yours for a while?!

Is it the 2.7? I have the 2.7 and just taxed a few weeks ago for the year for 1109?

Agree with your point on practicallity, two boots gives plenty of space..

vectra

JHMEG wrote: »

A sports saloon that's based off a generic family saloon will be compromised, perfect example being a hot Opel Vectra. Otoh, one that started life as a sports saloon won't be.

Rubbish. :rolleyes:
Compromised in what way exactly ??

Slig

big engine in front, lots of weight, lots of understeer?

vectra

Slig wrote: »

big engine in front, lots of weight, lots of understeer?

I would settle for that if it had a BIG lump under the bonnet.

Like this one here ( My all time favourite Family Saloon )

Lotus Carlton :cool:




Performance and Comparisons

Specifications[1]

* Top speed - 175+ mph (281+ km/h)
* Peak power - 382 hp (281 kW) @ 5200 rpm
* Acceleration - 0-60 mph: 4.9 sec., 0-100 mph: 11.5 sec./0-100 km/h: 5,2 sec., 0-160 km/h: 11,5 sec.
* Peak torque - 419 ft·lbf / 568 N·m @ 4200
* Engine displacement - 3615 cc
* Engine type - Twin turbocharged straight six-cylinder
* Configuration - Front-engined, rear-wheel drive
* Transmission - Six-speed ZF manual
* Weight - 3666 lbs (1663 kg)
* Production - 950 units
* Price - £48,000

Performance Comparisons

* 1989-1994 Alpina B10 BiTurbo - 360 hp 0-60 mph - 5.6 s. Top speed: 182 mph (291 km/h)
* 1989-1995 BMW M5 E34 - 315/340 hp 0-60 mph - 6.3 / 5.9 s. Top speed (electronically limited): 155 mph (250 km/h)
* 1991-1995 Mercedes-Benz 500 E W124 - 326 hp 0-60 mph - 6.2 sec. Top speed (electronically limited): 155 mph (250 km/h)

Max Power Max Torque 0-60mph 0-100mph

Ferrari F40 478bhp 426lb/ft 3.5s 7.8s
Lamborghini Diablo VT 492bhp 428lb/ft 4.0s 8.8s
Lotus Carlton 377bhp 419lb/ft 4.8s 10.6s

Anan1

B00MSTICK wrote: »

On second thoughts I agree with the 911 for fun, POS for practicality.

You'd be surprised at how practical a 911 is, considering. It can take four people on short runs, which is two more than an MX5 or a Boxster!

cancan

colly10 wrote: »

Not sports cars imo

The Mx5 is not a sports car?
Do you know anything about cars?

It's probably the purest sports car one can buy, and will easily keep up with an elise on a tight track.

Steve

S.I.R wrote: »

a practical sports car is a hyundi coupe

>giggles

B00MSTICK

Anan1 wrote:

You'd be surprised at how practical a 911 is, considering. It can take four people on short runs, which is two more than an MX5 or a Boxster!

True that, but he said he had a 4x4 so I assume (and hope!) he needs the extra space for something or towing.

Heh could be like the old Lotto Ad I suppose, the Ferrari towing the horsebox.

galwaytt

Anan1 wrote: »

You'd be surprised at how practical a 911 is, considering. It can take four people on short runs, which is two more than an MX5 or a Boxster!

+1 on that. I should know, our '5 hasn't moved at all this year, yet. But the SO has put 3k on the 968 since.........March? This, despite me buying her Saab 9-3TiD estate...........:rolleyes: wimmin'! They're so vain !!

I had a 911, but this subject has good thread already - HERE, so do have a gander.

With our first born, we had a TT, c/w baby seat in rear. With second, another TT, then to a 911 (bigger rear seats than TT, btw.....), and yes, the buggy does fold and fit in front boot - I think i've pics somewhere......but do read my comment about premature wear in the above post.


My current steed(s) - 2 - are 968's. One Tiptronic, one manual. Both eminently usable everday. Insurance is cheap - 1k for full comp, for BOTH - tax is not. Eur1291 p.a. Each. And yes, both taxed............:mad: :mad: Manual does - approx - 25mpg, the Tiptronic a bit less.

Both are a hoot to drive in the right conditions, look great, and are very, very well built. My manual has 115k on it, and it's as sweet as a nut. The Tip one has 140k and it's actually even better..............go figure

So yes, Sports cars are practical, they're not that expensive to run, they can be cheap to buy - and don't have banana depreciation, which helps, and in the likes of a 944/968, are incredibly well built. Sure some guy will wipe the floor with you with his Focus ST (nice, btw.......), but hey - you're still in a Focus - call me in 15 years..........:p

It's a pity there isn't a 2+2 MX-5, though............now that would be killer........our 1990 is just brilliant. Marginally useless to people with kids, but brilliantly so !! :pac: :pac:

galwaytt

Slig wrote: »

big engine in front, lots of weight, lots of understeer?

Is that a 911, backwards......???

Biro

vectra wrote: »

I would settle for that if it had a BIG lump under the bonnet.

Like this one here ( My all time favourite Family Saloon )

Lotus Carlton :cool:




Performance and Comparisons

Specifications[1]

* Top speed - 175+ mph (281+ km/h)
* Peak power - 382 hp (281 kW) @ 5200 rpm
* Acceleration - 0-60 mph: 4.9 sec., 0-100 mph: 11.5 sec./0-100 km/h: 5,2 sec., 0-160 km/h: 11,5 sec.
* Peak torque - 419 ft·lbf / 568 N·m @ 4200
* Engine displacement - 3615 cc
* Engine type - Twin turbocharged straight six-cylinder
* Configuration - Front-engined, rear-wheel drive
* Transmission - Six-speed ZF manual
* Weight - 3666 lbs (1663 kg)
* Production - 950 units
* Price - £48,000

Performance Comparisons

* 1989-1994 Alpina B10 BiTurbo - 360 hp 0-60 mph - 5.6 s. Top speed: 182 mph (291 km/h)
* 1989-1995 BMW M5 E34 - 315/340 hp 0-60 mph - 6.3 / 5.9 s. Top speed (electronically limited): 155 mph (250 km/h)
* 1991-1995 Mercedes-Benz 500 E W124 - 326 hp 0-60 mph - 6.2 sec. Top speed (electronically limited): 155 mph (250 km/h)

Max Power Max Torque 0-60mph 0-100mph

Ferrari F40 478bhp 426lb/ft 3.5s 7.8s
Lamborghini Diablo VT 492bhp 428lb/ft 4.0s 8.8s
Lotus Carlton 377bhp 419lb/ft 4.8s 10.6s

They're a savage car alright, last good saloon from Opel, and Lotus did most of the work!
Not really comparable to the Daiblo or F40, but none the less they're savage. Still big money and hard to get an unabused example.

roughan

industria wrote: »

You obviously haven't taxed yours for a while?!

Is it the 2.7? I have the 2.7 and just taxed a few weeks ago for the year for 1109?

Agree with your point on practicallity, two boots gives plenty of space..

Haha no mines the smaller 2.5

Slidey

Still have it then?:pac::pac::pac:

Automan

There is another reason to buy a sports car, they are safer than your standard car due to better breaks, better traction due to better suspension setup and a stiffer chassis and bigger tyres.
You also have a bit more power to overtake quicker.

Anan1

Automan wrote: »

There is another reason to buy a sports car, they are safer than your standard car due to better breaks, better traction due to better suspension setup and a stiffer chassis and bigger tyres.
You also have a bit more power to overtake quicker.

All very true. You're still more likely to crash it, though.;)

yaeger

Gotta add my 2 cent, Huge fan of the Lotus elise and plan to bring one in from UK, and by far a PURE racing car. They are relatively cheap second hand in the UK, small engine 1.8 and cheap to run and looks fantastic. Why buy it? Just for the hell of it. RX8 is as common as anything now, so go for something a lil less common. Maybe even consider a TVR T350, Z350 and RX8's dont stand a chance against TVR's or the Elise SC.

Steve

Automan wrote: »

There is another reason to buy a sports car, they are safer than your standard car due to better breaks, better traction due to better suspension setup and a stiffer chassis and bigger tyres.
You also have a bit more power to overtake quicker.

Thats fine as long as you have respect for the extra power. The worst thing is to drive around thinking you are indestructable because you have 'better brakes' and 'better handling'.

When I was young and inexperienced, I had a 1L Starlet that I would drive everywhere on the hairy edge. Nowadays I have something with 200BHP and would rarely use it's full potential, except maybe when overtaking.

Automan

Anan1 wrote: »

All very true. You're still more likely to crash it, though.;)

Anan1 is this fact or just your opinion?

ambro25

B00MSTICK wrote: »

How would you describe an MX 5?

Going by the OP's definition, it's a sports car. Depends entirely on how you drive it - mundanely for commuting and just enjoying a quiet ride in the country, the b*ll*cks of it when "that muppet in an Elise doesn't know when to quit" If you consider it (unlikely, but...), be sure to get a 1.8 (Mk1 preferably, the best looking).

Alternatively, indeed go for a sports saloon (a 4x4 spoorts saloon ) and get an Impreza WRX (and push a vice a bit further with an STi). Easier to run than the must-drink-98-Ron Evo's, although neither like Tesco/el-cheapo fuel stations in the long run. Up to 2007 would be my preference (the new shape is downright fugly), preferably a WRX STi D-spec to avoid the big spoiler/sniggers/unnecessary attention. Madder than a bag of frogs, eminently more practical than a Porsche, and bomb-proof reliability.

I speak of both types with equal pleasure, I have owned both (MX5/Scoobs) for years and yes, I drive 'in keeping with' As rightly pointed out earlier in thread, you only live once, make it a good'un & get yourself some memories

Automotive program this Summer: getting the MX5 out of the mothballs and back on UK plates, then dropping it by this crowd for a "little attention". And changing the 2006 2.0 R Sports Scoob for a STi D-spec. F*ck the fuel shortage, says I

EDIT: have been contemplating a TVR for a looong time, but they're admittedly worse than Ferraris when it comes to the "on the road/off to be fixed" ratio :eek: I'm still not ready for the grief ... maybe when I can run a 3rd car

MarkN

Make sure you know what you're letting yourself in for!

I don't have a sports car but I have a damn powerful one and I have put €240 worth of petrol into it since last Wed - covered a very unusual (for me) 1,000kms in that time but it's still painful.

Think of a sports car/high powered one like a high maintainance girlfriend - you might <the SNIP also applies to double entendres > but it'll cost you!