ITT: Cars you dislike but you want one anyway

File: ugly shitbox.png (690KB, 1200x635px) Image search: [Google]

690KB, 1200x635px

I want to trash it until it doesnt run anymore

its so ugly I could never like it

File: d0b03841-5bd4-4589-abf2-cf5862fd9a34..jpg (56KB, 896x891px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 896x891px

>>14233962
>wanting something you dislike
cuck

>>14233962
I can't say I hate them but it has 3 glaring flaws

1. It's a reasonably fast sports car that's convertible only; we're past the roadster thing with the S2K.
2. lmaonotorqueunder7k
3. The god awful fanbase

>>14233994
Just buy an oem or aftermarket hardtop

File: Lotus_elise_green.jpg (240KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 800x533px

>keep seeing some non-salvage go for $20k with less than 70k miles
stop tempting me

>>14234013
>hardtop fixes the inherent problems of a convertible
no..

>>14234013
Not really the point.

File: BAopHne.png (54KB, 315x320px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 315x320px

>>14234021
Dat green... So nasty

>>14233994

The s2K was designed from the ground up as a vert, it even has some serious chassis bracing underneath.

>>14234026
In his defense the S2K like most roadsters are built to be a convertible so chassis rigidity isn't compromised. That said I still want a factory hardtop/fastback

>>14234071
I'm aware, still don't like it.

File: 12122482844_6abf93f908_o.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

i dislike pre-1990 c4's but would still ironically own the fuck out of one

>>14234110
im trying to convince myself not to get one

File: 89-Black-6.jpg (120KB, 800x535px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 800x535px

>>14234221
oh i already have myself convinced not to get one, because there's plenty of superior post 1990 c4's available. but i still wouldn't mind owning an 80's c4, it's mainly the styling though that i'm drawn to

>>14233962
i dislike convertibles too, but ive never once regretted buying my s2000 at all.

>>14233962
I know what you're talking about OP. I hate the fact that the S2K is a convert and not practical at all, but then when I'm actually driving one I just don't give a shit. It's too fun

>>14234601
>I hate that a purpose built sportscar isn't practical enough
u wot m8

>>14234643
>convertible
>purpose built sports car
gaylord detected

>>14234308
Personally I prefer the earlier ones simply because of the 80's interior. That and I never liked the rounded-out backside of the 90's C4s. 90's are superior in pretty much every other way though.

File: 318371_462516780436287_652929465_n.jpg (78KB, 960x638px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 960x638px

this

>>14234690
Are you retarded or just unreasonably insecure

>>14234643
There are sports cars that are more practical

>>14234690
Is this bait or are you retarded

>>14235092
Sports cars aren't designed to be practical and ones that are happen to be the exception, not the rule.

Maybe a cheap C5 or newer Corvette; Inexpensive modern or near-modern meme car

IN b4 some elitist posting GTR

>>14233962
I used to dislike the S2000. I bought one and currently average 2000 miles a month. I fucking love my car.

>>14233994
I hate Honda owners as much as the next guy (I drive a pigfat ohv monstrosity with actual torque) but c'mon man
>liveable roadster
>no automatic
>5 something second 0-60
>revs to 9000 rpm
>handles well
>available at a very reasonable used market price
>easy to find in good shape
Sure the fan base might be bad but unlike S13s or civics or what have you at least it's a very solid package out of the box.

>>14235727
>liveable roadster
Not really any more or less "liveable" than others
>no automatic
Doesn't affect me
>5 something second 0-60
Fair point
>revs to 9000 rpm
And has zero torque below 7,000 which gets old fairly quickly
>handles well
Other roadsters handle better
>available at a very reasonable used market price
Which is still 4-5x the cost of aforementioned roadsters in similar condition
>easy to find in good shape
No.

>>14235733
>no torque below 7000rpm
have you seen an S2000 torque curve? it is fucking flat with only a small bump when vtec engages. it is extremely linear and the reason people give it shit is that they are used to cars with very regressive torque curves.

File: 11765-2003-Honda-S2000-Dyno[1].jpg (94KB, 800x591px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 800x591px

>>14235750
This does not look linear

>>14235733
>Other roadsters handle better
>Which is still 4-5x the cost of aforementioned roadsters in similar condition
Yeah right bud. Care to tell us which roadster you can get for $4k that handles better than an s2k?

File: 4528b224-456e-4b7b-a811-a14d5d9169bb..png (11KB, 680x450px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 680x450px

>>14235780
ikr

>>14234021
these are alot wider than the photos make out.

File: 2012-honda-nc700x-8_1280x0w.jpg (231KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1280x853px

>super boring
>but comfy and frugal af
I have the weirdest boner for it

>>14233994
I'm not sure what a fan base would really do for you with an S2000. You dont need any real help. The engine is already built as high as it will go naturally aspirated, and the suspension and chassis engineering is spot on. There's really nothing to make better on the car for the average person except maybe adding a turbo if your a horsepower freak. I mean seriously, people swap F20C's into other cars so there's no real reason to do a swap of any kind or to touch the internals.

The S2000 is a god machine, albeit short lived, just like most of Hondas god machines. It's a very good demonstration of what Honda can do, but sadly, they are interested in making money so they couldn't be fucked to make another one.

Cars like the miata have a huge fan base because while the car has great potential, it's no S2000 from the factory, and so you need some help from others to test, design parts and swaps, and point out flaws in the car.

Why don't you buy an S2000 and be one of the non cancerous people of the fanbase if you really care what they think?

File: g.png (856KB, 597x598px) Image search: [Google]

856KB, 597x598px

>>14234812
I've got one, you don't want one lol. The most infuriating project out there. Insta - sideways_social or satans_86. More pics on there

>>14236609
Well said. As shitty as the fan base can be for any car, it's a fallacy to let it affect your idea of the car too much. It's not like getting a s2000/wrx/bmw will instantly turn you into a douche. That decision is in your hands

>>14234046
are you colorblind? thats fucking yellow.

>>14236979
It's like neon yellow so it's got a pretty green color too it. Either way it's a horrible color

>>14235780
are you looking at the hp or the torque? cause the torque stays pretty flat exept for the vtec changeover

also little known fact but the point of gears multiply torque if you didnt know so i dont understand this "doesnt have enough torque argument" when torque at then wheels is dependent on the gearing. which is stupidly short on the s2000 hence why im running at > 3500 rpm on the highway at 60 mph in 6th.

File: Prior-Design-BMW-E60-M5-5.jpg (224KB, 1024x640px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1024x640px

>>14233962

File: allcolours_annotated.jpg (262KB, 700x489px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 700x489px

>>14234021
Orly

>>14233962
Do you mean cars you "dislike" because others dislike it but you really actually like it and want one?

>>14238062
He probably means "cars you wouldn't think of buying new but if you get a good deal on a used one you'll probably buy it".

I'll never buy a brand new Subaru, but...if I get a good deal on a used one that's in good condition I'll probably buy it.

File: 2015-Mercedes-Benz-GL63-AMG-1[1].jpg (149KB, 1920x960px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1920x960px

>>14233962
I dislike SUVs in general, I have a weird prejudice against kraut cars and I can't stand conspicuous consumption.

Yet I simply cannot think of a better car to load six mates and their stuff into and drive around Europe.

I want it because it would be a great tool for the job, but as an a thing in itself I hate it and everything it stands for.

>>14238257
There are loads of better looking options.

>>14238295
You reckon? All I can think of are:

>Q7
Subject to exactly the same criticisms

>escalade/navigator
Not available in Europe

>Land Cruiser/Shogun
Major step down in terms of comfort and performance

>LR Discovery
As above, but also significantly less spacious

All of this is completely academic anyway, since I can't afford any of those cars and won't be able to for a long, long time

>>14238317
>Major step down in terms of comfort
I don't know about you but the 200 Land Cruiser is one of the most comfortable 4WDs i've ever driven. Toyota 4WDs (sans 70 series) are uber comfortable, even the Hilux

>>14238062
I just took it very generally and assumed it was any car with either major faults and/or an obnoxious meme fanbase, hence my Corvette comment >>14235198

>>14238332
I'm sure it is. Thing is, though, you can be very comfortable and still be a major step down from the GL. That thing's meant to be the S-Class in 7 seat SUV form.

Which disgusts me, but would make for a very effective roadtrip car.

Or that's the impression that I get, at least. Like I say, both cars are well out of reach, so I might be completely wrong and the GL is just spectacularly overpriced, idk.

>>14238062
OP here, kind of what this guy said
>>14238339

>>14235733
which roadsters that cost 25% or less than a S2k (lets give you a reasonable 3500) handle better than it?

File: advans.jpg (97KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 640x640px

>>14236873

Afuckingmen, me too, it's a serious money pit, replacing everything.

>>14236979
>are you colorblind?
Sir you may want to see an eye doctor.

Or adjust your monitors you pathetic fucking pleb.