"My dream car is.."

Monkeybone

thisisguitar;297777" said:

@goldtop - It's on my list of cars to try at some point. I've driven a few vtec cars, they are wonderful when the get up high in the revs :-)

That's one reason I love my S2000, 9000 rpm redline, 240bhp from a naturally aspirated 2 litre engine. Tis a cracking thing to drive.

goldtop

chillidoggy said:

The only problem with the NSX was that it didn't look like a supercar. That's it, really.

And yet that's what works for me. The Testarossa was too outlandish, the Porsche was well, just same-old-911ish, but the NSX was pure understated elegance, with design ideas chosen first for their function and then their form. (E.G. the 'bubble' canopy idea that the  designers borrowed from the F16 - for all-round vision.)



That it never worked for the typical moneyed-up supercar buyer made it a left-field choice. Another reason that I like it.

The new NSX design leaves me cold. But I accept that Honda isn't trying to sell them to people like me.

Deadman

holnrew said:

https://gaycarboys.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/bmw-i8-2014-2.jpg

I saw one of those the other day. Very special motor.

chillidoggy

chillidoggy said:

The only problem with the NSX was that it didn't look like a supercar. That's it, really.

And yet that's what works for me. The Testarossa was too outlandish, the Porsche was well, just same-old-911ish, but the NSX was pure understated elegance, with design ideas chosen first for their function and then their form. (E.G. the 'bubble' canopy idea that the  designers borrowed from the F16 - for all-round vision.)



That it never worked for the typical moneyed-up supercar buyer made it a left-field choice. Another reason that I like it.

The new NSX design leaves me cold. But I accept that Honda isn't trying to sell them to people like me.

I remember reading that when they did the testing for the NSX, the tester recommended three different types of tyre on the car, at the same time, because that combination produced the best handling. think there was a compromise, though!

FX_Munkee

Any excuse to post this is fair:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAwJsOECGBU

fastboy

Monkeybone said:

thisisguitar;297777" said:

@goldtop - It's on my list of cars to try at some point. I've driven a few vtec cars, they are wonderful when the get up high in the revs :-)

That's one reason I love my S2000, 9000 rpm redline, 240bhp from a naturally aspirated 2 litre engine. Tis a cracking thing to drive.

I had an S2000 back in the day around 2002 when they were fairly new. Cracking cars and I loved mine but it needed to be treated with a lot of respect in the wet as I remember all the threads on s2ki starting something like I was coming into a roundabout or puling off a slip road and it was a bit wet..... No need for me to fill in the gaps and I had a few pant filling moments myself in the wet as well. 

Always loved high revving naturally aspirated cars which is why I love my current car an E92 V8 BMW M3. If you love your Honda, give one of these a try, I promise you will absolutely love it!

"Only" 8300 rpm redline but imagine near double the amount of torque and power of an S2000 as it's a 4 litre with double the cylinders and available across most of the rev range. Also the BMW's VANOS (BM's equivalent of VTEC) picks up around 3500 rpm's on the M3 instead of the Honda's 6000 rpm so imagine a Honda VTEC with a near 5000 rpm power band and loads of torque !!!!

To say it's bonkers quick is a mild understatement. No better feeling then hammering it on the exit of a bend and literally being thrown forward. The handling is something else as well. A very good reason the M3 has been a performance icon for the last 30 odd years. 

Even if you hate BMW's I always think driving an M3 should be on the 100 things to do before you die list.  

As for dream car for me it would have to be a Ferrari 458. Again, high revving naturally aspirated engine. Had plenty of turbo's in the past but would rather have the higher revs / less torque then less revs and more torque. 

thisisguitar

@fastboy - M3 has always been the benchmark for a fast saloon. Still haven't managed to get one. I had an E46 328i which was a lot of fun for very little money. Always used to look at the M3 with jealous eyes (still do!)

Gassage

I have never had a hankering after an M3. Just too inefficient on fuel and not well built enough in the brakes department compared to 911's.

During 2007/8 I bought a 911 Turbo S. That thing was totally, totally ridiculously quick but also had the surety of 4WD and ceramic breaks to keep things in check.

I was driving home on M4 one eve at 80 ish when I decided to overtake something. As I pulled back into Lane 1, I realised I was doing 145mph.

I sold it and bought a C4S which does everything at a slightly more sedate pace.

Megii

Lamborghini Aventador - prettiest car ever? Well, I think so...

Monkeybone

fastboy;301518" said:

Monkeybone said:

thisisguitar;297777" said:@goldtop - It's on my list of cars to try at some point. I've driven a few vtec cars, they are wonderful when the get up high in the revs :-)

That's one reason I love my S2000, 9000 rpm redline, 240bhp from a naturally aspirated 2 litre engine. Tis a cracking thing to drive.





I had an S2000 back in the day around 2002 when they were fairly new. Cracking cars and I loved mine but it needed to be treated with a lot of respect in the wet as I remember all the threads on s2ki starting something like I was coming into a roundabout or puling off a slip road and it was a bit wet..... No need for me to fill in the gaps and I had a few pant filling moments myself in the wet as well. 
 

In the 5ish years I've had my S2000, I'm thankful to say I've never had any issues with it being tail-happy (except once coming out of a car park, diesel on the road, and I was doing about 5mph. Oh, and another time when I was trying to show off the engine noise to some boy racers in a car park and ended up drifting round them unintentionally).

(Please note, I'm not a boy racer and I don't do drifting.)

fastboy

Gassage said:

I have never had a hankering after an M3. Just too inefficient on fuel and not well built enough in the brakes department compared to 911's.

During 2007/8 I bought a 911 Turbo S. That thing was totally, totally ridiculously quick but also had the surety of 4WD and ceramic breaks to keep things in check.

I was driving home on M4 one eve at 80 ish when I decided to overtake something. As I pulled back into Lane 1, I realised I was doing 145mph.

I sold it and bought a C4S which does everything at a slightly more sedate pace.

911 Turbo S, yeh, certainly bonkers quick but for me a 911 has always been too much of a compromise in the space department which always made it a big no no for me and not even a car I'd consider as an ownership prospect. 

Miniscule back seats and non existent boot means I can't throw my band gear in there and go to rehearsal in it or throw two sets of golf clubs in the boot and some weekend bags and still have room in the back it just wouldn't happen which is why I'd take the M3 every time over a 911 as I can do both those things so it's the compromise over having some practical space. Yes, MPG is lousy, had mine since new, done about 8000 miles in 20 months (work from home or London so doesn't get used in the week) and I have averaged 18.5 MPG over that time but then I drive it hard pretty much all the time. I don't think anyone buys cars like M3's or 911's for fuel economy. 

As for the brakes, never had a problem with them as the E92 has tonnes of engine braking using DCT so no need to be hammering the brakes on it. 

Gassage

(not quoting due to space)

I agree re the luggage. Boxsters have far more usable space. If you get a 911 with a Bose subwoof then you also lose a load more space out of the back!

911- used to get 30-32 on motorway.

ironically my fave Porsche I ever owned was a 987 2.7 Boxster with every option on it (incl adaptive seats, racing box etc) but I pranged it. 38 to the gallon!

Axe_meister

I tried a boxter many years ago.

I couldn't fit i kept hitting the steering wheel when ever I tried to change gear.

I tried the smaller steering but it was the price as an optional extra that made me walk away.

M3s, S4/S5s, AMG Saloons just don't do it for me. A saloon car is for cruising up and down the motor way
with in comfort potentially with some passengers, and there is inherently flawed as a platform for super car like
performance.

Now give me a regular saloon for day to day driving and something small nimble and fast for the weekend

thisisguitar

I used to drive around in my previous partners 2.7 Cayman, great car but not enough torque. Would have been spot on with the bigger 3.2 engine though. Might get one myself in a couple of years or so. 

@Gassage - Slight price difference between a 911 and the M3 though!

I will say this about a Porsche… I got pulled for speeding the first night I borrowed it. Talked my way out of it though :-)

fastboy

Gassage said:

(not quoting due to space)

I agree re the luggage. Boxsters have far more usable space. If you get a 911 with a Bose subwoof then you also lose a load more space out of the back!

911- used to get 30-32 on motorway.

ironically my fave Porsche I ever owned was a 987 2.7 Boxster with every option on it (incl adaptive seats, racing box etc) but I pranged it. 38 to the gallon!

The boxster is a 2 seater though so again, wouldn't be much use to me even with a bigger boot than a 911. Those MPG's are pretty impressive but then based on the amount of miles that I do (near enough feck all over the best part of 2 years) fuel consumption isn't that much of a factor when I look at a car as I just don't spend that much time at the petrol station. 

I'm looking to change the M3 next April and was actually thinking of going bigger for space so will probably be looking at an M5, E63 or a C63 AMG. The new M4 and the fact they've gone back to 6 cylinders and turbo which is a long way from their heritage with the M3 doesn't really appeal to me so probably won't even bother looking at one. 

@Axe_meister - Appreciate fast saloons aren't for everyone but when you're older (and had a back op), need to carry things / people as well, needs must and all that. I wouldn't look at anything that you describe or try and compare them in a supercar category. They are what they, seriously fast saloons / coupes. 

Monkeybone

Balls, the new NSX just caught fire testing on the Nurburgring... (

Stevepage

I'm bumping this old thread.

Just came across the new Volvo V90 and S90. I usually find Volvo boring but it looks beautiful. The nicest interior of any car in its class

octatonic

Dream as in I'd never spend my own money on it: Ferrari 250GT (yes the Ferris one).



I'd be very happy with a 911 Turbo S:

Gassage

I've never wanted anything more than a 911 Turbo. (I've had one- an 02 plate 996 Turbo S)

It is the Fender Strat of cars- total perfection.

This is identical to my old one. Polar Silver.

octatonic

Unfortunately they suffer from not being able to fit in a drum kit so I probably won't be having one for a while.
Oh well.