Which car do you prefer?

[Ash]

Which car do you prefer?

CAR A
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v459/ninjafox20/Pontiac_Firebird_1980_30.jpg

CAR B

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v459/ninjafox20/porsche_boxster.jpg

[Vic]

the trans am, of course.

[Viva]

i picked A

[Twi]

I don't really like either, but A is better.

[Paragon]

Both are really nice, but i'm going to have to go with the Porsche so B.

[Vic]

the europeans will pick the porsche cuz they dont know what stainless steel is.

[LarryLunch]

Ew Boxster...

the europeans will pick the porsche cuz they dont know what stainless steel is.

LOL

[Paragon]

Nah, its because we have good taste. http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/2381/70028719wu2.jpg

[Vic]

uh no.

[Joji]

i prefer My soon to be 350z
http://images.cars.com/main/DMI/187154/63944.jpg?t=tr/w:310/h:232/m:FitPad/b:dddddd

[Hariberu]

A is ugly B is sleek and cute :3

[RannaBebop]

Trans Am ... i really hate porsche i think thier uuugggly

[Eris]

I say B, I've always liked exotic cars lol

[Korbenik]

Id have to pick A, not really into exotic cars that much

[Ash]

fucking vote in the poll or it doesn't count.

[Lune]

Both are really nice, but i'm going to have to go with the Porsche so B.

Ditto.

the europeans will pick the porsche cuz they dont know what stainless steel is.

Stainless Steel is that stuff kitchens have a lot in (especially cookers and pans) and it does stain. Stupid stuff.

[Gohan]

Picked B for a couple of reasons. Porsche has not only great design but they also have a very aerodynamic shape which helps improve performance. And the Boxster already preforms pretty well due to its 50-50 weight distribution. And the Boxster S is in the neighborhood of 300hp which makes it no pushover. Also it's my dads car :tongue:

[octocheese]

Well "A" is a classic but I prefer the lines of the porche.

[DK]

I went A, though mainly because Porsche's all look the same to me :/

[Vic]

o wow 300 HP watch out.

[lonelyfighterx]

Porsche is my choice although it's not my favourite. Well, we got no choice anyway...

[primer81]

trans am definately. american muscle is the only way to go

[mesmel]

B is cute. picked B.

[TW501]

I prefer option A.

[Gohan]

o wow 300 HP watch out.
It can 0-60mph in 4.9 seconds and climb all the way to a top speed of 170mph. You don't find that impressive? It can lap the Nurburgring in the 8 minute 20 second range making it faster then a Chevy Corvette, Audi S5, Mercedes Benz SLK55, BMW M3 and M5. Not to mention many other cars that have more horsepower.

[blunt_smoker_420]

The trans am, it is just soo sexy.

[lonelyfighterx]

It can 0-60mph in 4.9 seconds and climb all the way to a top speed of 170mph. You don't find that impressive? It can lap the Nurburgring in the 8 minute 20 second range making it faster then a Chevy Corvette, Audi S5, Mercedes Benz SLK55, BMW M3 and M5. Not to mention many other cars that have more horsepower.

Well, I think it's does not good explaining to them, whereby their definition of cars beauty is within good looks. Our definition of the cars beauty is what the car capable of, the power under the hood (I don't mean horsepower, really...).

[Aftershock]

when take Porsche, than pls take an 911er ... but not that boxster *shrug* ... voted for A!

[Drunkentso]

I chose B. While I love American muscle, it does not compare to my liking of sleek sporty looks.

Ok, I helped you, can you help me please? http://forums.bleachexile.com/showthread.php?t=38612

[Yexley]

A gets my vote, I see so many Porsche's they are slightly boring to me now. I never see American muscle cars and it looks sexy.

[Belial]

I voted A because firebirds are sexy. And much easier/cheaper to modify. Also much more you can do to it in general without sacrificing the body.

[Gohan]

A gets my vote, I see so many Porsche's they are slightly boring to me now. I never see American muscle cars and it looks sexy.
That's because you live in England and if you drive American muscle cars like the Mustang you get made fun of :tongue:

[fractal]

muscle cars are secks.

[Cursed]

A gets my vote. I just like it better.

[Gohan]

I voted A because firebirds are sexy. And much easier/cheaper to modify. Also much more you can do to it in general without sacrificing the body.
Just so you know for the future it's a Trans-Am not a Firebird.

[Maszrum]

the europeans will pick the porsche cuz they dont know what stainless steel is.
I will terribly disappoint you cause being from Europe I chose A. Don't like Porsche.

[frack]

A is win. Porsches are stupid.

[NAM1011]

I like the Porsche compared to the Trans Am in the other picture. If I had to choose between American muscle and a Porsche though, I am going to go with the muscle, however.

[Luna]

I'm a sucker for Porche's...

[TwelveGauge]

lol
so am I.
They can actually do anything.
It's kinda intense.
They're fast, they have great handling, they don't die often, the can be used as an everyday driver.
Fine, they aren't so great on gas as a civic may be, but they're still a great car.

[Aftershock]

the europeans will pick the porsche cuz they dont know what stainless steel is.
The hell, would all Europeans do ! ... Boxster sucks ;) ... Mustang, Ford, Dodge, Misubishi ;)

[Savage]

american muscle is seriously overrated.. and that one just looks bad.. so B..

[Feem]

Personally I'd choose B, but I'm a sucker for exotic-looking cars.

[MCAV]

A

[Hiwapi]

i will go with A..Trans am ftw..i personally prefer that kind of cars,Shelby Mustang GT-350 etc etc..

[Meta]

None ?

[Szarlej]

I picked A.

[Aidan]

I'm not huge into cars, but I like A better. I think my favorite car is the old, curvy Corvette. I also like really out-there concept cars.

[pyre-fly]

I know next to nothing about cars. Going purely by appearance, I'm going to say A.

[ms07gtr]

Being a mechanic, A is the easy choice. Easy to work on, avaliable parts, massive aftermarket support, and its a classic. +1 for hard top

Porsche is overated and over priced. -1 for drop top floppy stability -1 for all the wonderfull salt corrosion now eating away at the subframes from driving it in ice!

[igoo]

B

[primer81]

It can 0-60mph in 4.9 seconds and climb all the way to a top speed of 170mph. You don't find that impressive? It can lap the Nurburgring in the 8 minute 20 second range making it faster then a Chevy Corvette, Audi S5, Mercedes Benz SLK55, BMW M3 and M5. Not to mention many other cars that have more horsepower.

actually the corvette ZR1 holds the Nuremburg record

also i'm disappointed in you igoo

[igoo]

^ LOL Sorry primercat. Paragon told me to vote; I didn't like either of the cars, but he told me to vote for B.

[Exploits]

I'm not a Porsche fan, but the appearance of American Muscle Cars disgust me. Nothing like a big, powerful car to forcast just how small your dick is and secure your lack of self-esteem forever in a giant hunk of worthless steel shaped into a design that I cleverly (And with ingenuity!) achieved in my Kindergarten Art Hour.

Besides, luxury cars ftw. Fast cars are just fucking stupid unless you can legally use the full potential of it. Might as well drive in comfort.

[Gohan]

actually the corvette ZR1 holds the Nuremburg record

also i'm disappointed in you igoo
What are you talking about? Not only is the ZR1 only the 5th fastest car on the Nurburgring but nowhere in my post did I say that the Boxster holds the fastest time. The record of fastest production car actually belongs to the SRT10 Viper with ACR package. The Maserati MC12, Pagani Zonda F, Ferrari Enzo all hold faster times then the ZR1 aswell.

[1kaz16]

definately car B

[primer81]

i was just defending the corvette since it was in your list of cars that the porsche was faster than

[Gohan]

I didn't say Z06 or ZR1. I just said Corvette, as in base Corvette.

[RipVanRagnarok]

B

I could've sworn I had car A with the exact same template in a Need For Speed game.

[pumpkin13]

the europeans will pick the porsche cuz they dont know what stainless steel is.

I believe I classify as European and i fucking hate Porsche, nearly as much as I hate Ferrari. Is it some kind of cunning diversionary tactic that its made to look exactly the same at the back as at the front so you can't tell which way its going? They suck. Their designs suck (they all look the same). Their car model names suck. Their performance is good but if a cardboard box handled like an F1 car i still wouldn't want to drive it.

@Exploits: You might not like muscle car design but the Porsches look like a five year old was given a lump of putty and played around with it for a while. Then they turned it into a car, and whatsmore, made ALL of their cars around that base putty monstrosity.

As for speed vs. comfort. True. Isle of Man and Germany's autobahns ftw tho.

[Aidan]

fuck those cars. I want this one:
http://jalopnik.com/5151143/corvette-stingray-concept-sideswipe-in-disguise

[ms07gtr]

@Exploits

You have that Backwards, its the insecure guy who buys the overpriced luxury car. They are usualy driven by snobby girls as the boxter is all show no go. And having driven both in my line of work, an oldschool trans-am is far more comfortable than that tiny no leg room having porsche. And who cares if its legaly useable power? If that was the case we would all be driving four door four bangers with auto transmissions. How boring.

fuck those cars. I want this one:
http://jalopnik.com/5151143/corvette-stingray-concept-sideswipe-in-disguise

Yes, that is a beautiful car. The sad thing about concept cars is that the production model is almost never as artisticly formed.

[Gohan]

I find there to be ample leg room in my Boxster S...You must be quite tall. Also I find the Carrera, Boxster/Cayman, and GT class to all look noticeably different from each other.

@Aiden: I doubt that Centennial Corvette will get put into production. My guess is that after the Trasnformers movie they'll do some special event with it and then auction off the car for charity.
A better picture of the Boxster:
http://www.porsche.com/microsite/boxster/flash/images/1024x768_2.jpg

[Exploits]

@Exploits

You have that Backwards, its the insecure guy who buys the overpriced luxury car. They are usualy driven by snobby girls as the boxter is all show no go. And having driven both in my line of work, an oldschool trans-am is far more comfortable than that tiny no leg room having porsche. And who cares if its legaly useable power? If that was the case we would all be driving four door four bangers with auto transmissions. How boring.

Manual transmission ftw, man. I can't stand having a car change gears for me, and without stick-shifting, driving is just boring.

Both cars have a far amount of insecurity involved to them, no doubt about that. I've just always seen far, far, far, far more when it comes to Muscle Cars than European Sports Cars. Again; Big, clunky, "strong" design with a power-house engine. Begs the question of . . . "Why, damn it, why?".

I do care about the legality of the power. Sure, alright, your car can go 0-60MPH in 3 seconds, and has a max speed of 220MPH, or whatever. Cool for you. Too bad when you try to do it you get pulled over and your car is impounded for a month and your license is revoked until further notice. I bet you feel special now.

I lived in Germany for a year, and my dad (Who still lives there now) hugely considered buying a BMW, since prices of German-cars over there are around 20% less than in Canada. But he decided not to, because he knows that as fun as it is to drive at 120MPH on the Autobahn, you can only do it in Germany, and when his four years (Canadians are stationed in Germany a max of four years) are up, all you'll have is a gas-guzzling, semi-comfortable car in Canada that you'll be afraid to take outside due to it rusting, and be doing 100KMH on the highway just like everyone else.

So he got a fully-decked Mercedes S-Class instead. Granted, he won't take that one out in the winter either . . . due to rust. Damn salt.

[drunkskunk]

A...why would anyone want a Boxster, But i would rather take my powerstroke F250 4x4 over any car...even if it means i dish out $100 a week in gas.

[RipVanRagnarok]

KITT (Knight Rider):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/KITT_Universal_Studios.jpg



Mad Max's Ford Falcon XB GT:

http://www.lastinterceptor.com/ReplicaStats/images/black/Rep16.jpg

[Kade73647]

I had to pick *B* for 3 reasons

1: That TA is neutered
2: I can sell the Porche and get a 'Cuda
3: Sell B. Buy A and buy a real motor for it.

[Lnrd]

Trans Am

[KingAnime]

a but the car i prefer is the 67 Shelby Mustang "the car off Gone in Sixty Seconds"
'
'

[Marrow Rivengristel]

The Pontiac by far.

[LuvsRenji]

A - Easier and less costly to repair than an import. Most things, I'd be able to do myself or pay someone reasonable money to do... If parts aren't available at one store, check others, rather than everything being ordered and waiting for arrival on car "B".

[dyne]

allow me to disown you as my sister if you ever put a piece of shit trans am with a porsche again

[dyne]

A - Easier and less costly to repair than an import. Most things, I'd be able to do myself or pay someone reasonable money to do... If parts aren't available at one store, check others, rather than everything being ordered and waiting for arrival on car "B".



how is a 30 year old car easier to get parts for.....not to mention it will burn as much if not more gasoline than the porsche plus It will break down way more than the porsche. Plus if you've ever looked at old cars like those they usually require massive reconstruction which would cost a lot unless you do it yourself.

[LuvsRenji]

how is a 30 year old car easier to get parts for.....not to mention it will burn as much if not more gasoline than the porsche plus It will break down way more than the porsche. Plus if you've ever looked at old cars like those they usually require massive reconstruction which would cost a lot unless you do it yourself.

"Which car do you prefer?" I stated my PREFERENCE...That's all thats to it. If I cared about gas efficiency, which in this post...I do NOT, I would have considered it. You neglected to mention the cost of INSURING the porsche over the Pontiac. I've been around mechanics and people who restore cars. There's a huge networking system. Get the word out you need a part for your car. You'll either find it or find someone who can get it and a few other people to help you work on your car.

You must've missed this part:
Most things, I'd be able to do myself or pay someone reasonable money to do...

Beyond that, I like what I like and that includes classic cars AND crushed ice. :amused:

[dyne]

im not going to read that b.c in the first part of your sentence you said "which car do you prefer" and in your first post here you went on a rant about how you couldnt get parts for a porsche.

[LuvsRenji]

Wow! That's what you deduced from what I posted? If you didn't understand from the beginning, you're not likely to understand at all.

[Gohan]

Wow! That's what you deduced from what I posted? If you didn't understand from the beginning, you're not likely to understand at all.
Dyne's right. You pointed out that the TransAm would be easier to maintain but in reality it's harder to find parts for a car that's old. And then when he pointed out your mistake you decided to use a faggot defense saying that you picked the one you liked not the one that is the easiest to maintain.

[LuvsRenji]

A is my preference, for the reasons I stated above. Deal with it.

dyne, if there something about my posts that bothers you? Get over it, it's really not that serious.

[lonelyfighterx]

A is my preference, for the reasons I stated above. Deal with it.

dyne, if there something about my posts that bothers you? Get over it, it's really not that serious.

They trying to help you to look at the reality of old/classic cars. It's not they actually said that "You should prefer Porsche instead." You got the wrong idea about old cars, and they just trying to fix it. That's all.:amused:

[BTC]

I would pick the Trans Am if the interior wasn't "Burgundy".


But I'll take the Porsche, because it's black. Other than that, I wouldn't pick either.


Why are your choices boiled down to those two cars?

[dyne]

my sister couldnt afford a wagon let alone a car.

[LuvsRenji]

What you're saying is: I'm misunderstanding dyne's intent and purpose for giving me hard time about my post because he's trying to fix what I thought? Thanks for explaining that. :unsure:

There's nothing to be "fixed" with what I posted, thought or otherwise. What's done is done, it's just free pc about what I posted, my preference...about the TA being easier to repair than the porsche in an effort to stay "on topic."

Oh what fun... http://www.laymark.com/i/m/m200.gif

[dyne]

the way you make what your saying now is if someone was giving you either a porsche or a trans am you would take the trans am. when you first said you would take the trans am b.c you said it was more cost efficient.

[lonelyfighterx]

I don't know much about muscles and classic cars, but even I know the reason that LuvsRenji give is rather defying the law of logic.

Choose because of looks, acceptable.

Choose because the sounds it makes, acceptable.

Choose because it's cost efficient... Defy the law!

It's like saying that a submarine can fly!

[dyne]

id take a shelby mustang over a trans am.

[primer81]

same here. the big blocks were overrated anyways

[dyne]

http://www2.udec.cl/~miortiz/autos/images/Ford%20Shelby%20Mustang%20gt%20500_jpg.jpg

[Paragon]

http://www2.udec.cl/~miortiz/autos/images/Ford%20Shelby%20Mustang%20gt%20500_jpg.jpg

That car is awesome. I've always liked Mustangs.

[Meta]

Mustang is a dream car,damn right it is.

[dyne]

shelby mustang lol regular mustangs are garbage

[Meta]

I said that coz I don't get to see cars like these everyday here
http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp193/devil0682/1486283.jpg
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b22/TheDarkestSide/2005MustangCobra.jpg
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e353/HOLYFIELD619/31770910012_medium.jpg
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z85/SAULMAXMEDRANO/09mustang.jpg
http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg131/1956fordtruck/HPIM0501.jpg

[dyne]

mustangs arent really dream cars if they're not shelby's either every slock has one.

[chinaman1472]

I said that coz I don't get to see cars like these everyday here
http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp193/devil0682/1486283.jpg
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b22/TheDarkestSide/2005MustangCobra.jpg
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e353/HOLYFIELD619/31770910012_medium.jpg
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z85/SAULMAXMEDRANO/09mustang.jpg
http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg131/1956fordtruck/HPIM0501.jpg

I see at least 10 of these on my 30 minute commute to work.

[dyne]

well not that orange one but that looks like its just ripping off the 09 ashton martin

[Paragon]

The DB9 is awesome, one of my friend's has one and it really is a great car. I knew someone as well that had one but fucked up the gear box after only a few weeks, couldn't drive an automatic properly lol.

[Meta]

You got a point right there dyne,bout the Ashton Martin ripoff,coz it kinda stands out lol

The States have some good points as well,one of em is seeing 10 Mustangs on your 30 min commute to work

[primer81]

i know of 4 gt500's around where i live but the other ones are just run of the mill everyday cars and if i'm not mistakin that orange one is a concept

[Gohan]

Yea Mustang's are too common. Seeing a Shelby every now and then is nice though. My dad's first car was a 1972 Mustang.

[Ash]

my sister couldnt afford a wagon let alone a car.

I'll have you know Fisher Price wagons are very cheap this time of year! :bored:

[dyne]

go buy one then

[Ash]

I'm saving up for the Power Wheels wagon. It has turbo speeds.

[Vic]

I said that coz I don't get to see cars like these everyday here
http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp193/devil0682/1486283.jpg
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b22/TheDarkestSide/2005MustangCobra.jpg
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e353/HOLYFIELD619/31770910012_medium.jpg
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z85/SAULMAXMEDRANO/09mustang.jpg
http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg131/1956fordtruck/HPIM0501.jpg

all garbage except the last one

[Stinky Puss]

B .

[Lucky]

I must have missed the joke that goes with this thread...

Yeah, I'll go with the Porsche Boxter over the old-school Firebird because Porsche makes the most pure premium sports cars in the world today along with Ferrari, even though that was 'just' a Boxter. As much as I am a freak over BMW's and am an admitted Porschephile, there still is something cool about that old school F-Body. It would be nice to have one as a car to tinker around with, throw a big block 454 into it, build it up and slap a blower onto it, and ride like The Bandit!

[fifenfk]

The trans am,muscle cars over sports car IMO.

[Whyte Bler 000]

all garbage except the last one

agreed, classic muscle cars are 1000x better than their modern counterparts. Muscle cars are supposed to be fast, loud, V8, and cheap. Nothing today can fill all four of those requirements. 35,000+ for V8 muscle today is a ripoff.

As for the thread. I never liked Trans Ams (except the final generation), and I don't like boxters. The Cayman on the other hand is a budget 911.

Go back to a first gen Camaro SS, much sexier than Firebirds or Trans Ams.

[lonelyfighterx]

agreed, classic muscle cars are 1000x better than their modern counterparts. Muscle cars are supposed to be fast, loud, V8, and cheap. Nothing today can fill all four of those requirements. 35,000+ for V8 muscle today is a ripoff.

As for the thread. I never liked Trans Ams (except the final generation), and I don't like boxters. The Cayman on the other hand is a budget 911.

Go back to a first gen Camaro SS, much sexier than Firebirds or Trans Ams.

Wrong, the car manufacturers today are much better than the old ones.

Standard old muscle cars have have impressive top speed, but they accelerate just a bit faster than a speeding snail. The biggest problem however is not the acceleration only. They got understeer/oversteer problem when going to the corners, due to suspension system, weight distribution and others as well.

Just take an old muscle, any old and standard (no modification) muscle and go against a standard 1.8 Lotus Exige in a track race for example, I bet 99% the victory will goes to the Lotus Exige.

Even though they got big V8 engine under the hood, but some of the today's V6 are already perform better than the V8 in old muscle cars.

The safety? Well, you guess it, it is hopeless. You can easily died even if you hit a tree at 100 mph.

How can you say muscles are cheap? I heard some of them worth 200K even though it suppose to be in a junkyard in another few more days. If you want something cheap, get one of those compact cars, they are cheap and more practical too.

[chinaman1472]

Muscle cars have their niche - they're loud, they rumble, they got big engines, but their far from cheap.

My roommate has a '76 Pontiac of some sort, and he has minor problem after minor problem with it. Yea, $200 here, $400 there, and before you know it, you've dropped another $2000 fixing your $4000 car. I understand the aspect of the car being a toy and fixing it up, but it doesn't work when you can barely support it financially. Did I mention the sub-20 MPG? I understand not all muscle cars need repairs all the time, but when you consider the practicality of a a standard car today for the same price, I'd put my bet on the newer car having less problems.

You can easily spend $6000 on a used Civic and economically speaking, you'll have far less repairs and get far better gas mileage. You could spend your $35,000+ on a Lexus and have far less problems than any muscle car. Sure, it's not as a fun, but muscle cars are from "cheap."

Oh, and the Boxter is a terrible car. There are so many better options at $50k than a Boxter - like a base BMW M3 or a fully loaded Infiniti G37

[primer81]

The safety? Well, you guess it, it is hopeless. You can easily died even if you hit a tree at 100 mph.

this is not true. muscle cars were made from solid steel not fiberglass. i had a friend who wrecked his 71 firebird last year and it took out the tree and just put a hell of a dent in his fender.

[Exploits]

this is not true. muscle cars were made from solid steel not fiberglass. i had a friend who wrecked his 71 firebird last year and it took out the tree and just put a hell of a dent in his fender.

. . . Which results in stronger impact, therefore more bodily damage to the passengers.

[C1S Zangetsu]

^^^ I feel a big import vs muscle car fight about to go down hehe^^^

The old muscle car are some what should I say fast but their suspension was shit...they weigh as much as a tank...if it snows or rains you cant get traction...and you get 12-15mpg

Now for the porsche...why pay that kinda money for something thats not even that fast...wow it has leather seats made by a monk that knows god...who cares its a waste of money the only thing they are good for is picking up girls who just want you for your money.

In the end I pick Imports...not the porsche's and not cars like honda's! I pick cars like a Subaru (I have owned 3 WRX's and my current a STI) you can take them anywhere rain or snow...they have GREAT suspension plus AWD...0-60 in 5 sec's or less and even pushing high boost I have got around 30 mpg on the highway/interstate

[viva la mexican]

Car A, cant be the classics.

[wolffsAsquirrel]

chose a, prefer to have an RX-8 >.>

[Whyte Bler 000]

Wrong, the car manufacturers today are much better than the old ones.

Then tell me why they are slowly losing ground to overseas manufacturers. If it wasn't for government agencies and contractors buying up fleet vehicles and pickups, the domestic companies would have been in trouble a long time ago.

Standard old muscle cars have have impressive top speed, but they accelerate just a bit faster than a speeding snail. The biggest problem however is not the acceleration only. They got understeer/oversteer problem when going to the corners, due to suspension system, weight distribution and others as well.

Name me a car made during the 50s, 60s, or early 70s that doesn't have a problem like that compared to the new cars. Driving a classic car (that is original) today is more about style.

Just take an old muscle, any old and standard (no modification) muscle and go against a standard 1.8 Lotus Exige in a track race for example, I bet 99% the victory will goes to the Lotus Exige.

again, my previous statement reflects this. Driving rare cars is more often about style than who is the fastest in a straight line or around a track. It's a matter of personal opinion. Yeah, I would love to have a ferrari, but they are way out of most people's price range.

Even though they got big V8 engine under the hood, but some of the today's V6 are already perform better than the V8 in old muscle cars.

The safety? Well, you guess it, it is hopeless. You can easily died even if you hit a tree at 100 mph.

This goes for any car, modern or classic.

How can you say muscles are cheap? I heard some of them worth 200K even though it suppose to be in a junkyard in another few more days. If you want something cheap, get one of those compact cars, they are cheap and more practical too.

I believe you misunderstood my statement. When muscle cars first came out they were cheap and fast. When you compare them to today's counterparts, which are in the price range of luxury vehicles, they aren't cheap anymore.



Before anyone thinks I am an American car lover. I have 2 Japanese cars. You can't beat them in terms of reliability. I have a Nissan Maxima for my daily driver, and a Mitsubishi 3000GT for my weekend car.

After I finish all the work on my mitsu, I have a huge list of crap I want to do. I would love to go out and start a project on a classic muscle car, restore it back to original.

[Gohan]

What year is your Nissan Maxima? I own one aswell though I haven't driven it in almost a year.

[Whyte Bler 000]

What year is your Nissan Maxima? I own one aswell though I haven't driven it in almost a year.

2003 SE

[chinaman1472]

Now for the porsche...why pay that kinda money for something thats not even that fast...wow it has leather seats made by a monk that knows god...who cares its a waste of money the only thing they are good for is picking up girls who just want you for your money.

In the end I pick Imports...not the porsche's and not cars like honda's! I pick cars like a Subaru (I have owned 3 WRX's and my current a STI) you can take them anywhere rain or snow...they have GREAT suspension plus AWD...0-60 in 5 sec's or less and even pushing high boost I have got around 30 mpg on the highway/interstate

Boxsters are still rated do 0-60 in under 6 secs. Cayman's do 0-60 in 5 secs and 911s do them in 4. Far from "not even that fast."

A friend of mine has a 911 Turbo and still gets 30 mpg going 75mph on the highway. Actually, most places will tell you Porsche Caymans and 911s get better gas mileage than Subarus. Granted their more expensive, but they have their own niche and market, just like people who love muscle cars or imports.

[lonelyfighterx]

Then tell me why they are slowly losing ground to overseas manufacturers. If it wasn't for government agencies and contractors buying up fleet vehicles and pickups, the domestic companies would have been in trouble a long time ago.

I'm referring to global car manufacturers, not U.S car manufacturers...

Name me a car made during the 50s, 60s, or early 70s that doesn't have a problem like that compared to the new cars. Driving a classic car (that is original) today is more about style.

And 'style' is the only thing that you gonna get. Because all you get is 'style', it is not worth to have one.

again, my previous statement reflects this. Driving rare cars is more often about style than who is the fastest in a straight line or around a track. It's a matter of personal opinion. Yeah, I would love to have a ferrari, but they are way out of most people's price range.

Rare cars are not about the style, it's about the passion. The raw power, mashing towards the corners, that's a real car there...

This goes for any car, modern or classic.

The modern cars especially fast and super cars has been design to maximize the possibility for the driver and passenger's survival during a crash and avoiding the crash. Airbag, anti-lock braking system, and others makes that possible. Does muscle car offer something like that? I don't think so...

I believe you misunderstood my statement. When muscle cars first came out they were cheap and fast. When you compare them to today's counterparts, which are in the price range of luxury vehicles, they aren't cheap anymore.

The muscles are not cheap. Compare to the economical growth from the time the muscles are out, they are extremely expensive.

Before anyone thinks I am an American car lover. I have 2 Japanese cars. You can't beat them in terms of reliability. I have a Nissan Maxima for my daily driver, and a Mitsubishi 3000GT for my weekend car.

After I finish all the work on my mitsu, I have a huge list of crap I want to do. I would love to go out and start a project on a classic muscle car, restore it back to original.

Good luck with the project... You need it.

[primer81]

. . . Which results in stronger impact, therefore more bodily damage to the passengers.

so what suck it up and get some bruises but at least your not crushed with an engine in your lap

[Whyte Bler 000]

I'm referring to global car manufacturers, not U.S car manufacturers...

My mistake



And 'style' is the only thing that you gonna get. Because all you get is 'style', it is not worth to have one.

Rare cars are not about the style, it's about the passion. The raw power, mashing towards the corners, that's a real car there...

To some people that's what they want. If you go around telling people how to think, your just an idiot. Can you afford a $100,000 exotic? If not than just be quiet. If you can, then why are you arguing with me in the first place. You should be out speeding in it.



The modern cars especially fast and super cars has been design to maximize the possibility for the driver and passenger's survival during a crash and avoiding the crash. Airbag, anti-lock braking system, and others makes that possible. Does muscle car offer something like that? I don't think so...

Have you ever driven 100 mph or faster? Sure driving a sports car will give you a lot more control at 100+, but when you hit something or lose control going that fast, it's not going to matter what safety devices you have. You do realize that safety tests are performed at LEGAL speeds, right?



The muscles are not cheap. Compare to the economical growth from the time the muscles are out, they are extremely expensive.

I think you've completely lost the point I was trying to make. Yes, today they are very expensive. But jump in a time machine and travel back to the 60s, and your average Joe could have one of those super fast cars for a bargain. That was the whole point I was trying to make. Muscle Cars are supposed to be cheap and fast. Today the ones that are fast, are ridiculously expensive, and not true to their heritage. I don't want navigation, power leather seats, and all the other luxuries that I would want in a car I spend 2 hours a day commuting to work in. I simply want a car that will go fast, and for cheap.


Good luck with the project... You need it.

Thanks, half the fun in owning a classic is rebuilding it, and putting all your hard work into the car. It's a rewarding experience. Try working on an exotic, chances are you won't get very far. You just don't understand, and I won't force it on you.


Finally, I don't want you to take this as a personal shot. But were you born and raised in America. Because if not, there's a good chance you just don't understand the culture behind muscle cars.

You've misunderstood my post from the very beginning. So there's no point in arguing anymore.

[Gohan]

Boxsters are still rated do 0-60 in under 6 secs. Cayman's do 0-60 in 5 secs and 911s do them in 4. Far from "not even that fast."

The current Boxster 0-60 in 5.3 seconds. Getting a Sport version will bring that to 4.7 seconds. And the Cayman is .1 or .2 seconds faster.
As for being economical I'm aware that the current 911 Carrera S achieves 30mpg averaged between highway and city without too much difficulty. Subaru's have worse mileage due to their all wheel drive system.

[chinaman1472]

You can't really argue that people back then could "get a bargain for a super fast car." There's thing to look at such as inflation, cost of living, minimum wage, market, etc. It's not exactly a fair comparison to say that "back then, they were fast and cheap". Back then, you were limited to very few options compared to today's market.

Times have changed and the game has evolved.

[Whyte Bler 000]

You can't really argue that people back then could "get a bargain for a super fast car." There's thing to look at such as inflation, cost of living, minimum wage, market, etc. It's not exactly a fair comparison to say that "back then, they were fast and cheap". Back then, you were limited to very few options compared to today's market.

Times have changed and the game has evolved.

Average income in 1968 was about 8600 dollars a year. A muscle car could be purchased for around 2500 dollars.

2007 average income was around 50,000. A muscle car today averages around 35,000.

Simple math. 1968 your looking at less than 30% of a yearly salary. Today your looking at about 70% of a yearly salary. That's a huge difference.

Average salary numbers were taken from census data.


I will agree with you that times have changed. But why are these new "muscle cars" being fitted with top of the line leather interiors, nav systems, 20" wheels, etc. Are they trying to compete with the German luxury coupes.

I would imagine if you take out all those unnecessary features the companies could take off about $10k. That would put them back to reasonable, and offset the piss poor gas mileage you get with a big v8.

[chinaman1472]

Average income in 1968 was about 8600 dollars a year. A muscle car could be purchased for around 2500 dollars.

2007 average income was around 50,000. A muscle car today averages around 35,000.

Simple math. 1968 your looking at less than 30% of a yearly salary. Today your looking at about 70% of a yearly salary. That's a huge difference.

Average salary numbers were taken from census data.

That was my entire point, that you can't just do simple numbers of % of salary of just inflation, because of things like cost of living, minimum wage, taxes, competition in the market, and new technology have all changed tremendously over the past 40 years.

[C1S Zangetsu]

The current Boxster 0-60 in 5.3 seconds. Getting a Sport version will bring that to 4.7 seconds. And the Cayman is .1 or .2 seconds faster.
As for being economical I'm aware that the current 911 Carrera S achieves 30mpg averaged between highway and city without too much difficulty. Subaru's have worse mileage due to their all wheel drive system.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA THAT IS THE FUNNIRST THING I HAVE HEARD ALL DAY! You think it gets bad gas mileage due to AWD?! LMFAO Ok lets gets some things straight...yes when you put a car or truck in 4 wheel drive they lose MPG...But Subaru's are made for AWD and they stay in AWD trim all the time. But in no way does it hurt the gas mileage. I have owned 3 WRX's and my current STI (which is pushing 25psi and close to 500hp) and even thou Im pushing that much boost and power I still manage to get 25mpg (in stock trim) and if I put the ECU in economy mode Im back to over 30mpg.....Yes in full boost and race mode I get about 12mpg but thats with the fuel pressure turned up.

Not to be a ass but KNOW your cars before you type something like that

Oh and the ''not even that fast'' thing I said...let me explain...it is stupid for any dumdass to pay that kinda of money for a car and it still only have a 0-60 in the 5-6 sec range! I know plenty of cars you can get for under $38,000 that would KILL the Porsche! I can take a Porsche in stock trim easy!

[Whyte Bler 000]

That was my entire point, that you can't just do simple numbers of % of salary of just inflation, because of things like cost of living, minimum wage, taxes, competition in the market, and new technology have all changed tremendously over the past 40 years.

I was trying to keep it simple to prove a point. Muscle cars are no longer muscle cars of old. :push:

And yes, unfortunately everything has gotten more expensive in proportion to salaries. But I think cars more so than everything else.

On another note:

Like C1S Zangetsu said, awd systems have a minimal effect on mpg. The turbo charged wrx and evo lose more mpg because of the need to push more fuel through the system. That's why they typically lose about 4-5 mpg in city/highway numbers. But it still comes down to how you drive.

That's pretty impressive getting 25-30 mpg out of an STI. What is the typical boost in a stock STI, compared to economy mode?

[Gohan]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA THAT IS THE FUNNIRST THING I HAVE HEARD ALL DAY! You think it gets bad gas mileage due to AWD?! LMFAO Ok lets gets some things straight...yes when you put a car or truck in 4 wheel drive they lose MPG...But Subaru's are made for AWD and they stay in AWD trim all the time. But in no way does it hurt the gas mileage. I have owned 3 WRX's and my current STI (which is pushing 25psi and close to 500hp) and even thou Im pushing that much boost and power I still manage to get 25mpg (in stock trim) and if I put the ECU in economy mode Im back to over 30mpg.....Yes in full boost and race mode I get about 12mpg but thats with the fuel pressure turned up.

Not to be a ass but KNOW your cars before you type something like that


Even if I did make a mistake I don't think it deserves a response like that. Though I based my statement on the fact that cars in the same class as the Legacy have much better mileage.

Subaru Legacy(6 Cylinder Boxer Engine): 17/24
Honda Accord V6: 19/29
Nissan Altima V6: 19/26
Toyota Camry V6: 19/28

These cars are all in a similar class in terms of size, displacement, cylinders, and horsepower. Are you trying to tell me that the AWD has no impact on those numbers?


Oh and the ''not even that fast'' thing I said...let me explain...it is stupid for any dumdass to pay that kinda of money for a car and it still only have a 0-60 in the 5-6 sec range! I know plenty of cars you can get for under $38,000 that would KILL the Porsche! I can take a Porsche in stock trim easy!


You've obviously never driven a Porsche. But you don't need to even drive one to understand the feeling. If you just watch or read reviews you'll notice it is pointed out that Porsche's set the bar for sports cars, looking especially at the 911 here. The Boxster and Cayman are no pushover either. Though it may not have the fastest acceleration the 50-50 weight distribution contributes to the superb handling that not just the Cayman and Boxster have but all Porsche's have.

It isn't just about how much horsepower a car has it is what you do with that horsepower that matters. As displayed by the fact that a 911 Carrera with 345hp can beat a BMW M6 with 501hp around a track. Or that a Porsche GT2 with 530hp can keep up with the Corvette ZR1 with 640hp. And I still haven't mentioned how much fun it is to drive a Porsche in comparison to those $35,000 competitors you mentioned(I'm assuming you meant the Infiniti G37 and Nissan 370Z). Also the Boxster without the Sports option(which is the slowest two door Porsche makes) does 0-60 in 5.3 seconds. So I don't know why you're stating in the 5-6 seconds range. This is clearly the 5 second range closing in on 5 seconds flat. It's also important not to gauge a cars performance just by looking at it's 0-60 times.


Edit~Sorry for the wall of text, I didn't realize how much I wrote.

[Whyte Bler 000]

20,832 m (68,350 ft) 7:24.3 Maserati MC12
20,832 m (68,350 ft) 7:26.4 2009 Chevrolet Corvette C6 ZR1
20,832 m (68,350 ft) 7:27.82 Pagani Zonda F Clubsport
20,600 m (68,000 ft) 7:28 Porsche Carrera GT
20,832 m (68,350 ft) 7:29 2009 Nissan GT-R
20,832 m (68,350 ft) 7:32.02 2008 Porsche 911 GT2

Only car under 100k = Nissan GTR

There were two faster cars, but one is not street legal in the US, and the other was modified. Corvette has about 150hp more and weighs 500 lbs less than the GTR. It's quite amazing what Nissan did with so less.

The Maserati was only produced in very limited numbers to allow it to race. It shouldn't really be included in this, but I did.

[Gohan]

You forgot the Viper SRT10 ACR's time of 7:22.

Also you are aware the Nissan GT-R is under fire for it's lap time due to the fact that they weren't able to recreate it. Other companies are stating that they used non-stock racing tires which is what created the fast lap time. Driver's Republic took both the GT2 and GT-R out for a hot lap on the Nurburgring and they achieved the following times:

Porsche 997 GT2: 7:490
Nissan GT-R: 7:55.9

I find results like that more believable then Nurburgring times set by the car maker since these were set by the same driver.

However I find the best method to gauge a car is by its lap time on Top Gear's test track. Here are the top 15:
1:17.1 - Gumpert Apollo Se
1:17.3 - Ascari A10
1:17.6 - Koenigsegg CCX (with The Top Gear Wing)
1:17.8 - Pagani Zonda F Roadster
1:17.9 - Caterham Seven R500 (cold tyres)
1.18:3 - Bugatti Veyron 16.4
1:18.4 - Pagani Zonda F
1:18.9 - Maserati MC12
1:19.0 - Ferrari Enzo
1:19.5 - Lamborghini Gallardo LP560-4
1:19.5 - Porsche 911 GT2
1:19.5 - Ariel Atom 2 300
1:19.7 - Nissan GT-R
1:19.7 - Ferrari 430 Scuderia
1:19.8 - Lamborghini Murciélago LP640
1:19.8 - Porsche Carrera GT

I'm not saying that the GT-R is a bad car, it's a great car. It's in my top 3 favorites.

[Whyte Bler 000]

You forgot the Viper SRT10 ACR's time of 7:22.

Also you are aware the Nissan GT-R is under fire for it's lap time due to the fact that they weren't able to recreate it. Other companies are stating that they used non-stock racing tires which is what created the fast lap time. Driver's Republic took both the GT2 and GT-R out for a hot lap on the Nurburgring and they achieved the following times:

Porsche 997 GT2: 7:490
Nissan GT-R: 7:55.9

I find results like that more believable then Nurburgring times set by the car maker since these were set by the same driver.

However I find the best method to gauge a car is by its lap time on Top Gear's test track. Here are the top 15:
1:17.1 - Gumpert Apollo Se
1:17.3 - Ascari A10
1:17.6 - Koenigsegg CCX (with The Top Gear Wing)
1:17.8 - Pagani Zonda F Roadster
1:17.9 - Caterham Seven R500 (cold tyres)
1.18:3 - Bugatti Veyron 16.4
1:18.4 - Pagani Zonda F
1:18.9 - Maserati MC12
1:19.0 - Ferrari Enzo
1:19.5 - Lamborghini Gallardo LP560-4
1:19.5 - Porsche 911 GT2
1:19.5 - Ariel Atom 2 300
1:19.7 - Nissan GT-R
1:19.7 - Ferrari 430 Scuderia
1:19.8 - Lamborghini Murciélago LP640
1:19.8 - Porsche Carrera GT

I'm not saying that the GT-R is a bad car, it's a great car. It's in my top 3 favorites.

Viper was modified, and not in stock form. That's why I left it out. And yeah, the lap times are quite biased because the individuals who drove them were the most experienced with their respective cars, among other things probably.

I wouldn't be suprised if that were true about the GTR. But you still have a car that is performing WAY out of it's class, reflected in the neutral party lap times. It was designed to take on the 911 turbo, not the 911 GTs.

As much as I love the new one, I would prefer to find an R-34. They are just as sexy, and very few have been imported to the states. There's 3 Nissan dealers in my area that sell GTRs. I've already seen a couple of them on the streets. I've never seen an older model in person before.

[primer81]

Corvette has about 150hp more and weighs 500 lbs less than the GTR. It's quite amazing what Nissan did with so less.


this is true but thats only in the curves. when it comes down to a straight out drag the GTR doesn't stand a chance against the ZR1

[chinaman1472]

Oh and the ''not even that fast'' thing I said...let me explain...it is stupid for any dumdass to pay that kinda of money for a car and it still only have a 0-60 in the 5-6 sec range! I know plenty of cars you can get for under $38,000 that would KILL the Porsche! I can take a Porsche in stock trim easy!

Yea, and you also realize thatthe majority of people who buy Porsche cars don't care whether it costs $30,000 or $70,000 right? And you may not want to make such a bold statement. I highly doubt you can name "plenty of cars for under $38,000" that would "KILL" a 911 GT2 or Carrera GT.

As well, J.D. Powers and Associates has Suzuki at one of the worst in terms of reliability, with only Land Rover having more problems, for at least the past 2 years.

[C1S Zangetsu]

Thanks for the comment on my STI, in stock trim factory boost is 17.5 psi and in economy mode boost is turned down to 12 psi...I use a Turbo XS Piggyback ECU which with a simply push of a button I can change the ECU map up to 5 times. Heck I even have a mode called Valet mode (If the motor revs more then 2000 rpm or goes faster then 20mph the car shuts down for 20 min...its kinda like a anti-theft system)

Yea, and you also realize thatthe majority of people who buy Porsche cars don't care whether it costs $30,000 or $70,000 right? And you may not want to make such a bold statement. I highly doubt you can name "plenty of cars for under $38,000" that would "KILL" a 911 GT2 or Carrera GT.

As well, J.D. Powers and Associates has Suzuki at one of the worst in terms of reliability, with only Land Rover having more problems, for at least the past 2 years.

1- R-34,R-33,R-32 Nissan Skyline GT-R
2- Toyota Supra (Drove and won against a Porsche)
3- Subaru STI (Owned and have a won against a Porsche)
4- Mitsubishi EVO
5- Nissan 350Z (Owned and have won against a Porsche)
6-Nissan 300ZX Twin Turbo
7-Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4


Which when I made the statement I thought was you where talking about the Porsche 911 turbo not the GT2..but thats ok the Nissan Skyline has been spanking the Porsche GT2 for some time now! Oh and yes I have drove a Porsche...it was a 911 turbo...and I would still rather stick with my STI...parts are cheaper, better gas mileage, more aftermarket parts, plus you can have FUN with it and drive it in the mud or snow!

Oh and before you make a 0-60 claim...Drive the car and not read that from the Brochure...just because Porsche...heck any car company says a car will go 0-60 in a certain time doesnt mean it will, the 0-60 all depends on the driver.

[Whyte Bler 000]

Corvette has about 150hp more and weighs 500 lbs less than the GTR. It's quite amazing what Nissan did with so less.


this is true but thats only in the curves. when it comes down to a straight out drag the GTR doesn't stand a chance against the ZR1

1/4 mile times

Corvette ZR-1 - 11.2
GTR - 11.5

That's not exactly a huge difference again for a car that has a huge power to weight ratio advantage. It would be nice if the V-Spec actually added more power and shaved more weight, then it would dominate all those 6 figure exotics and sports cars.

I like that valet mode, all cars should have that.

[C1S Zangetsu]

Yeah its great when your friends know you have a fast car and they ask you if they can drive it around the parking lot and before the pull out they rev it up and everything shuts off then I tell them they messed up my car then they freak out...priceless moment lol!

[Meta]

Can someone buy me this car
http://www.topspeed.com/cars/alfa-romeo/2009-alfa-romeo-mito-gta-concept-ar70926.html

[C1S Zangetsu]

FTW!? Wow thats a change of pace for them? It reminds me of a VW Golf...on steriods thou lol

[chinaman1472]

I didn't get my numbers from Porsche. I get them from sources like Car and Driver, Road and Track, etc who test the cars out themselves.

Plus, you're sitting claiming that Porsche is like a snail compared to every other car out there. It's not. 0-60 difference of .1 or .2 seconds isn't "KILLING" it. And you're claiming how you've driven and beaten people then go back and say how I shouldn't look at numbers and it varies from driver to driver. :suspicious:

But in the end, different cars for different people.

[Gohan]

Good job ignoring the post I made in response you C1S Zangetsu on the previous page.

A 350Z beating a Porsche Turbo!? That has to be a joke because there was a recent test done by Road & Track putting the 370Z equal to the Cayman S which is much slower then a Turbo.

And when I point out 0-60 numbers I either do them both from Autoblog or both from the manufacturer to ensure that I've created a fair comparison. But in general Porsche is very conservative with it's 0-60 times. The car being .1-.2 seconds faster then what Porsche claims.

You do seem to know alot of your STI but I don't think you're very informed about Porsche's. Or you just hate them because you're obviously underestimating them.

[Whyte Bler 000]

In all honesty, a Porsche should never be compared to a Subaru. They both represent something completely different.

Compare Subarus and Mitsubishis. Compare Porsches and Ferraris.

[Gohan]

In all honesty, a Porsche should never be compared to a Subaru. They both represent something completely different.

Compare Subarus and Mitsubishis. Compare Porsches and Ferraris.
I never made a comparison between a Porsche and a Subaru...I only made a comparison between a Cayman S and a 370Z because that was the road test that Road& Track published.

[chinaman1472]

Yea, that would be Zangetsu comparing his own personal Subaru to Porsche. I even made the claim that Boxters aren't that great for the money, and I mainly say that due to it's aesthetics.

[Whyte Bler 000]

I never made a comparison between a Porsche and a Subaru...I only made a comparison between a Cayman S and a 370Z because that was the road test that Road& Track published.

And Car and Driver compared a 911 turbo, GTR, and M3. M3 is a completely different car than the other two. Instead of using a Z06, they used an M3 because it has back seats. Probably the stupidest reason I've ever heard. And the m3 won because it was the best compromise between race car and everyday use car. If I had enough money to purchase a 911 Turbo, or a GTR. I think I could afford another 30 grand to buy a regular 3 series or C class to drive around in everyday.

My point being, just because a magazine does it, doesn't make it right. Magazines do a lot of good comparisons and sometimes they stretch it a little too far.

If I had a choice between a Cayman and a 370z, I would take the Porsche. I wouldn't care if the z was a few tenths faster to 60, or whatever the case was (I never read the comparison).

edit: I realize I sound somewhat contradicting at this point. Supporting the nissan in one case, and then supporting the porsche in another. I would take a GTR over a 911 turbo as my weekend race car. I would take a cayman over a 370z as my weekend cruise car. All this assuming I had 200k sitting around
: P

[Gohan]

And Car and Driver compared a 911 turbo, GTR, and M3. M3 is a completely different car than the other two. Instead of using a Z06, they used an M3 because it has back seats. Probably the stupidest reason I've ever heard. And the m3 won because it was the best compromise between race car and everyday use car. If I had enough money to purchase a 911 Turbo, or a GTR. I think I could afford another 30 grand to buy a regular 3 series or C class to drive around in everyday.

My point being, just because a magazine does it, doesn't make it right. Magazines do a lot of good comparisons and sometimes they stretch it a little too far.

If I had a choice between a Cayman and a 370z, I would take the Porsche. I wouldn't care if the z was a few tenths faster to 60, or whatever the case was (I never read the comparison).
Didn't mean to justify their choice in cars. I was just saying it was a comparison to disprove his statement about a 350Z beating a Turbo. And I thought that was the best proof to use since both cars were driven on the same track by the same driver.

[Whyte Bler 000]

Didn't mean to justify their choice in cars. I was just saying it was a comparison to disprove his statement about a 350Z beating a Turbo. And I thought that was the best proof to use since both cars were driven on the same track by the same driver.

oops, misinterpreted your post. Was just going along with my own point of view. and line of thought.

edit:
we need japan to start making more supercars so we have something to compare the GTR to in a somewhat fair manner.

Mitsubishi 3600GT VR4/ GTO TT MR
Mazda RX 7 TT
Toyota Supra TT MKV or MKVI (whichever follows those overpriced cars)
Nissan 370Z TT

But on another note, Nissan really has the best cars selection on the road today. They just need something to fill the gap between the 370z and the GTR. I would love to see that 370 with some twin turbos on it.

[Gohan]

They should create a 370Z-R with a couple of GT-R goodies added on to a normal Z and upping the horsepower output to around 350-375.

[Whyte Bler 000]

They should create a 370Z-R with a couple of GT-R goodies added on to a normal Z and upping the horsepower output to around 350-375.

Adding an intake, and full exhaust would boost the car over 350, and could be done for less than the factory would charge. I wouldn't be happy until the twin turbos are added, putting the car around 450. Might give the other companies more incentive to start producing the cars of the mid 90s again.

They were running 5 sec 0-60s, and mid 13 sec quarters back then (pretty much what the current z is doing. Today they have to aim for the mid 4s, and mid 12s in the quarter to be serious.

Funny thing is the cars actually cost about the same. I have the original sticker on my 3000GT base. It was 30k back in 94. The twin turbos were around 45. If they could hit those prices, and those performance numbers, it would be gold.

Hell, even take the new eclipse and rx-8. Throw some turbos on them, make the eclipse awd, and you have atleast something a lot better than you do now. But I would still like to see full reincarnations of the Jap super cars.

[UlquiorraKuchiki]

I voted for the Firebird, never have been much of a fan of the Boxter.

[primer81]

1/4 mile times

Corvette ZR-1 - 11.2
GTR - 11.5

That's not exactly a huge difference again for a car that has a huge power to weight ratio advantage. It would be nice if the V-Spec actually added more power and shaved more weight, then it would dominate all those 6 figure exotics and sports cars.

I like that valet mode, all cars should have that.

talkin about the exotics check how the ZR1 stacked up

http://www.caranddriver.com/buying_guide/chevrolet/corvette/2009_chevrolet_corvette_zr1/2009_chevrolet_corvette_zr1_comparison_test

[chinaman1472]

But on another note, Nissan really has the best cars selection on the road today. They just need something to fill the gap between the 370z and the GTR. I would love to see that 370 with some twin turbos on it.

Depends on what you're looking for. I'd still put Honda/Acura or Toyota/Lexus over Nissan/Infiniti in terms of luxury/reliability. Though Nissan has the edge in terms of aesthetics and the "sporty" feel. The Altima Couple is hot, not to mention the G37 in terms of style.

[lonelyfighterx]

Finally, I don't want you to take this as a personal shot. But were you born and raised in America. Because if not, there's a good chance you just don't understand the culture behind muscle cars.

You've misunderstood my post from the very beginning. So there's no point in arguing anymore.

Whatever you like... You want people to listen to your opinion about cars, but you're not willing to listen to others opinion about cars. Let's end that muscle things right there.

How many of you are aware that Nissan will launch the V-Spec version of the GT-R in 2010?

Some article that I've read claims that it is lighter and 2 seated coupe. But they didn't intend to rise the horsepower. Another thing is, it said the sales wouldn't go beyond the Japan...

As for the Porsche...

People underestimated Porsche due the rising power from the Japan, but if we compare to most European and American super car, Porsche is much better. I don't care for the might of the legendary Ferrari, or the furious power by the Lamborghini, or even the explosive raw muscles from the Corvette. Porsche stays at the top when it comes in choosing European or American super cars.

[C1S Zangetsu]

Ok sorry gohan I work from 7pm-7am so Im running on red bulls when i get on here...so i wasnt ignoring your post...ok yeah there is a 2 mpg difference from your ''source'' but when I got my subie the paper on the window said I would get 19mpg city/ 24 mpg highway and I proved the paper wrong and got more then it said! And no I didnt change the ECU map I kept it in stock trim. What im trying to get across to everyone is dont always believe what a paper tells you ...or Car and Driver or other Magazines, it all depends on how You drive the car...not someone else

Yes I was able to beat a 911 turbo in my 350Z, But my 350Z was far from stock. It had DC 3-1 Headers, Kinetixs Intake Manifold, Injen cold air intake, Apex Bronze Titanium Cat Back Exhaust, COBB AccessPORT ECU Programer, Stage 3 clutch kit, Nismo short throw shifter, Lighten Flywheel, 19'' Konig Ultra light race wheels (weighed less then 9 pounds) Here are some pics

[Gohan]

Well if we're going by driving experience then I've only driven the following: Mercedes Benz C300(2008), Porsche Boxster S, Ford Mustang, Lexus LS430, Nissan Maxima, and Acura MDX.
I've never driven a Subaru so I can't comment on it without using other sources.

Also there is a greater difference between the AWD Subaru and the FWD competition if you look at the highway mpg.

Nice Lambo doors...

[chinaman1472]

Ok sorry gohan I work from 7pm-7am so Im running on red bulls when i get on here...so i wasnt ignoring your post...ok yeah there is a 2 mpg difference from your ''source'' but when I got my subie the paper on the window said I would get 19mpg city/ 24 mpg highway and I proved the paper wrong and got more then it said! And no I didnt change the ECU map I kept it in stock trim. What im trying to get across to everyone is dont always believe what a paper tells you ...or Car and Driver or other Magazines, it all depends on how You drive the car...not someone else


Very true. But if you drive to be gas conservative, it's very likely that a car with better ratings will yield better results. So if you were to get a car that had something like a 29 mpg highway rating, you'd probably get 35 mpg. See the point?

The paper estimates you see are done by car manufacturers, but also confirmed by the federal government in which standardized tests are done to every vehicle. ESTIMATE, not the word of god. As well, most estimates are lowered to compensate for certain factors that vary from driver to driver.

[C1S Zangetsu]

Yeah I like my lambo doors too...and so do the chicks lol

[lady rara]

I prefer car B

[Dean]

I would take car B :) Don't really like car A.

[Yadomaru]

Don't much like either one, but of the two I prefer Car A.

[CinCin]

Car A!!!!!!!! Hell yeah! Muscle cars are hot!

[dyne]

http://www.teslamotors.com/design/gallery-body.php

not bad for electric

[Gohan]

I like the Lotus Elise styling that inspired the Tesla Roadster but apparently it isn't that great of a car in terms of reliability.

[Houzukimaru]

The Trans Am hands down