>these now are 40-50k convince me to get one /o/ i think

A faster one.

Snek - seriously they are fucking monsters
Caddy xlr - caddy vette
Cayman - holy fuck they are fun
Other option - save another 20k and get an r8

get one at auction for <20 and fix it up

>>14255883
>>14255883
I could see spending 15-25k, but I just don't see the performance there to spend 40k+ on a car thats at least a decade old.

At 3150 pounds, they are just as heavy as a corvette, and the aftermarket that does exist (assuming you want more than 290hp in your "supercar") is small and expensive.

There are lots of other options. You could get a c6 z06 with under 60k miles for 30-35k.

File: 1381543652000-corvette07.jpg (49KB, 680x510px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 680x510px

A Corvette stingray

Most cehvy dealerships that specialize in corvettes like Kerbeck or Macmulkin Chevrolet have discounts on corvettes so you could get a 2016 1lt for 51,350

>>14255904
None of these have the NSX's investment potential, besides the Viper GTS.

>>14255952
>buying a car based purely on its resale value

>>14255955

Which also means
>Buying a car not to drive it

>>14255955
i had this thought the other day, if i wanted a dodge challenger would i buy a brand new one or a mind old '71? both probably around the same price, but when i get sick of it in 5 years and want something new ill probably be able to sell the '71 for close to what i paid for it, whereas id be lucky to get half my money back if i bought a new one.

thats going to make a huge difference in how awesome my next car is going to be. if i continually make bad financial decisions when purchasing cars then im going to be driving shitboxes for the rest of my life compared to what i could have been driving.

File: IMG_20160112_083811.jpg (2MB, 4160x3120px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4160x3120px

I saw one the other day
They are goddman tiny!!

Or mauve im just used to all the fat shitboxes i see every day

>>14255883
You in na? I haven't checked in awhile but all the decent ones I've seen are around 70k to 100k(not that I have the money for one anyway just glad they went down)

>>14256001
Do you want to enjoy reasonable handling and lack of body roll, as well as creature comforts to make for an overall better driving experience?

Or do you prefer to forgo those for nostalgia and resale value?

>>14255941
>the performance
Not everything is about MAHH RACECAR

>>14256079

Actually, yes it is. Especially when the car is marketed as a car worthy of racing.

>>14256001

Or you could just buy a shitbox and save your money.

>>14256079
Right, I somtimes forget the selling points of the nsx are passenger capacity, gentle suspension, and a quiet cabin with lots of cargo space

>>14256068
your biased oversimplification aside, im just trying to make the point that if you dont take these financial aspects into consideration then youll be handicapping yourself when it comes to the kind of cars youll be able to afford in the future. making a slight compromise now in order to set yourself up to be in a much better financial situation down the road could very easily pay dividends in the kind of car youll be able to purchase next time around. the old 'you can have one cookie now or two cookies later' adage.

File: 1386702686931.jpg (641KB, 1000x652px) Image search: [Google]

641KB, 1000x652px

Twin Turbo Z

With only $15k you can easily get a pristine model. It has as much potential as a Supra but is often overlooked.

>>14256169
But it's so ugly

>>14256169
Heavy, unreliable, bad handling

It looks good and is powerful but thats about it.

Not at all in the same league as a MK4 Twin Turbo Supra. That was the Skyline GT-R.

>>14256046
It's because the NSX is from a time when the average person's BMI wasn't 45.

>>14255955
>>14255961
> all these projections

The difference between a $50k NSX and a $50k Cayman is that 10 years and 50k miles later, one will be worth $100k and one will be worth $15k. You can still enjoy a car while it appreciates in value.

>>14256135
its a factor for sure, but you have to consider the trade off you are making. Its not 1:1. Do I really want to continually put off the qualities I want in a car so that the next car or the next car after that are slightly better?

Fun to drive. Adequate power with a large aftermarket. Easy to maintain. Will only continue to appreciate in value. If you want to get one, get one asap.

>>14256512
>nsx will be worth twice current value after 10 years of you enjoying it on the road

I don't have an appropriate reaction face for this

>>14256304
i would pay to watch you die.

>>14256518
here let me give you an example. lets say my budget is $30k.

im torn between two cars, both cost $30k, and one has maybe 70% of what i want in a car, the other 90%. the 70% one though will retain its value much better than the other, to the point that i will get $25k when i sell it, as opposed to $15k for the other one. now, 5 years later i have an extra $10k to spend on a car. adding the trade-in value of these cars to my new $30k budget, ill have $55k instead of the $45k id have if i bought the other car.

do this a couple times and im now driving around in an m3 instead of a 328i.

>2nd Gen CTS-V
>C6 ZR1
>50 Miatas
>996 Turbo (997 Turbos/996 GT3s start at 60k)

>>14256702
People like you always suck at driving. You are all too worried about muh value and not hurting your precious investment. That doesn't leave anywhere for track days or piling on miles getting good.

Protip: Cars with more than 10k miles on them are not investments, they are liabilities.

File: yR0000819.jpg (229KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1000x750px

>>14256765
>People like you
lol. i mod and track my car, rack up miles and drive like a maniac. dont act like you know me.

>>14256169

the one you found looks anything but pristine.

>>14256083
No one said you had to be the fastest. Some people prefer the enjoyment. It's still a good track car or amazing for taking out on the mountain roads. It's not always about POWAHHHH. And if it was you'd be stupid to not buy a Corvette every time since it's the best compromise of power, handling, cost, and aftermarket.

>>14255883

you could get a brand new BMW M2 for mid 50k

>>14256314
>Heavy

Just like the MkIV

>unreliable

Not really. They are just pains to work on because cramped engine bay, so people neglect it.

>bad handling

Handles as good if not better than the Supra.

Seems like you forget the Supra was a GT car just like the 300ZX and 3000GT. The GT-R was less of a GT car. The FD RX-7 and NSX were true sportscars.

>tfw I passed up on buying a supercharged '94 in British racing green for $25k 3 years ago

I'm a fucking idiot

>>14255883
That car looks ass..

>red bucket seats
rice
>doesn't even have harness
double rice
>chrome wheels
boomer rice

this car couldn't look more shit unless you started cutting panels off it

>>14258283
Maybe you would have crashed it into a tree and became paralyzed for life.

Doesn't seem like such a stupid decision now, does it?

>>14255883
>but that's about it

Dude what

Name 3 bad things about the NSX

>>14258341
That's true for any car though

>>14255883
Lotus evora

>>14258344
>low power
>pop up HID
>Honda

>>14258344
It's naturally aspirated, it doesn't have a turbo, and it's slow because it's naturally aspirated and doesn't have a turbo.

>>14258367
Yes, it's just a nice way of looking at things so you don't beat yourself up over missed opportunities in life.

File: Motor_Trend_article01.10.jpg (312KB, 860x1206px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 860x1206px

>>14258142
>300zx
>Handles as good if not better than the Supra.

This is objectively wrong.

Also, they were unreliable as fuck and the VG motors are made of glass.

GTFO Nissan shill.

File: besthandlingsportscars.jpg (325KB, 761x1030px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 761x1030px

>>14258455
>300zx
>Handles worse/slower around a track than the C4 Corvette and the superpigfat 3000GT

>>14258344
Slow as fuck for the money
Has an engine out of an accord/legend
Styling straight out of the future of 1985

>>14258455
They are piggu fattu and are probably the worst handling out of the big name Jap cars from then, but the VG is a solid motor.

>>14258494
>Slow as fuck for the money
Welcome to classic cars?

912s are going for $50k in Canada

>>14258494
>Slow as fuck for the money
no argument
>Has an engine out of an accord/legend
And the 300ZX has one out of the Maxima. They're both good engines for the time though, so moot.
>Styling straight out of the future of 1985
This is not a negative.

>>14258494
>>14258545
lel the engine isn't even from an Accord or Legend, unless you're telling me Accords in the early 90s had 3 litre V6s that revved past 8k rpm using titanium con rods and made like 270bhp naturally aspirated

>>14258571
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_C_engine

Now gtfo Honda shill.

>>14258576
>The same engine series means it's the same engine

Are you 14?

>>14258571
Meh you're right, but the C series V6 started off in Legends in the 80's, and then was put into accords mid 90's.

>>14258582
Yes, it's the same engine architecture.

Just like Chebby uses detuned and/or reduced output/displacement performance car motors in their trucks.

Just because you're in denial shill doesn't mean everyone else is.

>>14258604
Same architecture =/= same engine

The Accord and Legend engines barely made 200bhp while the NSX variant made close to 300 with a flat torque curve

This is only going to raise in value. I remember looking at these a couple years ago for 30k

>>14258611
Doesn't matter that the NSX has an accord motor that made 270hp. It still had an accord/legend motor.

Your denial is strong. Tell me more about how awesome your favorite car is with a motor right out of a fwd shitbox so I can laugh at you more.

>>14258631
So you are just a teenager, thanks for clearing that up

>>14258631
>>14258642
you too are perfect for each other

equally stupid

>>14258642
No, I'm not a Honda shill that can recognizes that the NSX had a FWD shitbox motor. You're just so in love with this terrible car that you choose to ignore this plain and simple fact because it doesn't jive with your rosey glasses view of the NSX.

GTFO Honda shill.

>>14258652
>says one of the stupidest tripfags on the board

>>14258652
you two*

fucking,
auto correct

>>14258655
Tell us on the doll where the NSX touched you

Don't worry, it won't be able to get at you again when you're inside that bus

File: NSX+Type+R+Cutaway.jpg (196KB, 1280x753px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1280x753px

Reminder, the NSX was not mid engine any more than a Corvette of Miata is "mid engine"

>>14258663
On the part where it's a slow piece of shit with an accord engine, shill.

>>14258664
What? The engine is behind the seats and in front of the rear axle, that's the very definition of mid engine

>>14258664
>I don't even what I'm talking about

>>14258668
Faster than a bus, that's for sure

File: cut5.jpg (321KB, 1300x850px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 1300x850px

>>14258671
>>14258676

The engine is over the rear axle and partly behind it.

A corvette has a larger portion of it's motor between the axles than an NSX.

If the NSX is mid engine, then so is the Corvette and Miata.

>>14258687
No one was arguing that those aren't mid engine either, well at least the ND is

You people are arguing about the stupidest shit. Who cares if it's mid engine or an Accord motor. Either way it's still a horrible buy this day in age. You can get a car much nicer and faster for less than half the price.

File: mk4.jpg (44KB, 560x222px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 560x222px

This just in, If NSX is mid engine so is the MkIV supra.

>>14256702

>Getting mad because someone pointed out a Z32 looks like a Saturn
>2016

kek

>>14255883
>>these now are 40-50k
On what planet? I sold a Burnt Orange '01 for 30k 5 years ago.

>>14258717
But some people want a car because they like it

>>14258727
Dude a huge chunk of that engine is over the front axle

>>14258740
Earth. NSX prices have been on a steady climb

File: Perterbilt truck.jpg (599KB, 1181x787px) Image search: [Google]

599KB, 1181x787px

Mid engine semi coming through.

>>14258668
>shilling for a model that isn't in production anymore

/o/ is full of stupid, Jesus Christ

I sincerely wonder if you people would actually act like this if another enthusiast pulled up in an NSX

>>14258740
>>14258761
Jalopnik posted some shit a few years back about NSX's because they are Honda shills and dumbfucks that don't know anything abotu cars all voer the world started buying them thinking they are good cars.

Jalopnik staff just happened to have bought NSX's up in bulk before the story was published and are now laughing all the way to the bank as retards buy old slow hondas for super-inflated prices.

Give it a few years and the prices will stabilize again.

>>14258782
Did Jalopnik do the same thing with air-cooled Porsches?

>>14258768
>what is "muh used car value"

People shill for out of production vehicles all the time. the sooner you can popularly affix the term "classic" to your shitbox, the more money you get for it when you sell to some idiot.

File: 964.jpg (458KB, 1761x969px) Image search: [Google]

458KB, 1761x969px

>>14255883
A good 964.

>>14258779
Personally I would respect the nsx, and then proceed to destroy it with my car that cost 1/3 as much while I'm nice and toasty in my heated seats and then drive through a snowstorm with my AWD while not getting lost because of my GPS, all while getting 25mpg.

>>14258794
>A classic car is an older automobile; the exact definition varies around the world. The common theme is of an older car with enough historical interest to be collectible and worth preserving or restoring rather than scrapping.

>>14258813
>implying people don't shill cars like the NSX by claiming just that about them.

>>14258810
You seem to be under the impression that the car is the sole factor in speed and that driver skill has nothing to do with it

>>14258789
No, the boomers who couldn't afford them per-retirement did that.

>>14258822
No amount of skill will propel that nsx to a mid 12 second quarter mile which I have personally run with my car.

>>14258831
That's because drag racing takes no skills

>>14258841
Spoken like someone who never drag raced.

>>14258831
Except some people have managed to run mid 12s with a naturally aspirated NSX

Comptech supercharger bolted on is another thing altogether

>>14258848
muh straight line speed

>>14258848
You kiddies all drive auto and only know how to mach the accelerator

>>14258853
I did it with $3k worth of bolt ons on a car I paid $14k for. Sometime this winter I'll get around to tossing on my meth kit.

>>14258886
Good for you, no one cares

>>14258886

>Needs $17,000 to run 12s

What the fuck am I reading? What do you drive, a Cobalt s/c or something? kek

>>14258894
Just pointing out that you can get much more for your money with the ridiculous price these things are going for.

>>14258902
The people who are interested in these cars aren't looking at the numbers they can put down

How hard is this to understand?

>>14258899
Lol, no.

>>14258913
Performance is one small aspect of what I'm talking about.

>>14258915

I noticed you didn't say what your car is and I have to assume it's because you know that it's an ugly shitbox when compared to an NSX. Am I right?

>>14258928
Right, gotta have those heated seats and GPS

>>14258929
No it's because it's not important to my point, it will only lead to more shitposting.

>>14258943
Says the guy who started all the shitposting

>>14258943

>Guys why would you buy the NSX when you could get a better and faster car for the money?
>Proceeds to post about how he spent $17k on running 12s and refuses to say what car he bought since it sucks

kek

>>14258943
So that means it's shit

>>14258935
And AWD, and lower maintenance costs, and better reliability, and better gas mileage, and a million other creature comforts. All for 1/3 the price.

>>14258953
At least it's on topic.

>>14258964
No.

File: honda stronk.jpg (32KB, 600x288px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 600x288px

>>14258968
So post what shitbox you drive you cuck

>more reliable than an NSX
That'll be a treat

>>14258968
>>14258968
>your mystery car is more on topic than an NSX in an NSX thread

>>14258973
I actually already posted a picture of it in this thread.

>>14258968

Why not just buy a base model Impreza hatch?

Comparison of Nissan GT-R VS Impreza hatch:

>Impreza 1/8 of price new
>has more interior room
>has more storage room
>has lower maintenance costs
>is more reliable
>gets better gas mileage
>more comfortable suspension
>AWD designed for snow and shit

Conclusion: Proper enthusiast car is the Impreza

>>14258977
>convince me to get one /o/
>or what other car can i get with that money?

>>14258985
>what other car can I get for the money
>doesn't actually tell us what the car is

>>14256786

What shitbox is this? Since it's the NSX-hating guy's, someone identify it.

>>14258982
Is the impreza faster?

>>14258991
There are tons of cars. A 335 or S4 for two.

>>14259007
>entry level german luxury cars that depreciate like used crack whores

>>14258992

Q5 S-Line I think

So we're dealing with a VAG fanboy. Everybody go home, he's retarded. No point arguing.

>>14258993

Yes, if you put $10000 into it it is probably faster in a straight
In fact in order for it to get up to being 1/3 of the price of the GT-R you'd have to spend over $20,000 on it. It'd certainly be faster than the GT-R in a straight line

>>14258993
Than something like an R32? Probably in WRX trim

>>14259021
>Q5
Fucking dropped

>>14256765
>Protip: Cars with more than 10k miles on them are not investments, they are liabilities.

base model german car leaser detected

Who the fuck drag races a Q5?

>>14259031
>>14259052

Actually I looked at the photo again and it's too low to be a Q5. Must be an Audi car instead, probably an S4 if he's running 12s now.

Still pretty shitty though

>>14259127
Either way just put it in drive and stomp on the gas while the car does everything for you

The ultimate yuppie-mobile

>>14256001
Old cars come with old car problems. Something will fuck up all the time unless it's modern custom works in it. Also a new car comes with a warranty sodepending on dealer free oil changes till 60k or for five years.

File: 3349070065_06716fe1b6_b.jpg (246KB, 1024x495px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 1024x495px

>>14256786
That's a late 2000's A4 S-tronic

The S4 of that vintage had the S4 logo on the tach and different tach scaling.

>>14259286
So he's a poorfag that wants to look rich

sorry i ruined your thread op, i just wanted to answer your question ;︵;

>>14259294
Well, A4's aren't really cheap. They just have shit resale like all german cars. And they have a nice interior.

And I would take an A4 over an NSX any day for a fun daily. You can put out 320+hp pretty easily with the 2.0T

>>14256702
>15% depcreciation vs 50%
What time frame are you talking about for this?

Are you forgoing 10 years of driving cars with the qualities you want so that in a decade you can drive an m3? How long do you expect THAT car to be fun and not depreciate?

>>14259345
I don't think anyone is considering an NSX as a daily, completely different cars

and late 2000's A4s are probably dirt cheap now, no way the current owner bought it new

>>14255883
These are overhyped and not good track cars. They are out of balance. You should get a WRX or GTR, or Porsche or BMW instead of this car. Almost literally anything is better.

>>14259422
>911 or WRX
>more balanced than an NSX
lol wut?

>>14259358
>What time frame are you talking about for this?
i was going off my challenger example. so basically buying a new challenger for $30k and then selling it for $15k 5 years later, and then buying an old '71 challenger and selling it in 5 years for $25k.

but more realistically it could be applied to something like buying either a brand new base model car or a slightly used (~5 year old) higher-trim model. like a new 328i vs a used M3. both probably around the same price, but the 328i will depreciate much faster than the M3, which has already gone through a large chunk of it's depreciation. plus youre probably going to be getting more of what you want out of the older M3 at the expense of reliability.

>Are you forgoing 10 years of driving cars with the qualities you want so that in a decade you can drive an m3? How long do you expect THAT car to be fun and not depreciate?
well, yes and no. id continue this forever, driving better and better cars as my finances allowed. sure i could break the bank and get 100% of what i want at any point, and then spend the rest of my life either in the hole way over my budget, or i could forever get mostly what i want, getting better and better cars as time goes on.

if i go all in on my first car (or any car), im always going to be in a hole compared to where i could have been, and the cars in my price range will be of a lower quality. by exercising control and making good financial decisions, a car that would have normally been out of my price range could be easily affordable in time, and could well exceed my original expectations for what id want to get out of a car.

like i could always just buy and forever drive a current model 335i thinking theyre the pinnacle of automotive engineering, or by buying either a 328i or getting a used 335i first, a little further down the road i might be able to afford an m3 or m4, which id never have been able to do by taking the 'no compromise, get everything i want now' approach.

File: image.jpg (99KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 800x600px

Get a stingray. People only drive NSX because they haven't driven anything else

The NSX wishes it were half as good as the stingray.

>>14259517
>People only drive NSX because they haven't driven anything else
That excuse only works on cheap cars senpai

>>14259014

Are you making an investment or buying car? If you're making an investment, then invest in something worthwhile and not a car that you shouldn't be driving.

If you're buying a car, get something better/cheaper and enjoy it.

>>14259561
What if someone wants to enjoy an expensive car?

Mr. Bean enjoyed his F1 quite a lot, taking it on road trips and crashing it an shit, and he still sold it for a pretty penny

File: 1451455197363.jpg (4KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 125x125px

>>14256559
>>14256512
>I got you

>>14256314
>getting cucked by memes

>>14258687

>FR engine over or in front of front axle, rear wheel drive
>MR engine between the axles, rear wheel drive
>RR engine is BEHIND or on top of the rear axle, rear wheel drive

>>14258727
Engine is over the front axle, moron.

>>14259763
The idiot probably thinks Subaru WRX's and Audi A4 are mid engine

>>14259807
is there anything in front of 'front'? because if there is then the a4 has that kind of engine.

they really need to move that thing back a few inches.

>>14259834
in front and/or on top of the axle.

>>14259834
The entire thing is hanging in front of the front axle

File: quattro.jpg (231KB, 1800x1154px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1800x1154px

>>14259899
i know thats my point. i mean, i get that its sort of necessary due to how the quattro system works, but its still annoying.

pic is for an a6 but its the same thing on all their cars. the understeer is controlled fairly well with some suspension work but its still not ideal.

>>14255883
You could buy 10 good condition fox bodys

File: 1443653230792.jpg (79KB, 570x587px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 570x587px

>>14258604

This is this shittiest bait I have ever read.

>>14259517

You could have said 90's ZR-1.

>>14259422

I laughed.

File: 1449642610690.gif (295KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 500x500px

>>14259834

HOW IN THE FUCK WOULD YOU MOVE ANYTHING BACK ON SOMETHING AWD?????

FFS, /o/!!!!!

>>14260670
i think i addressed that in this post here >>14259956

i hope your aneurysm isnt too debilitating.

>>14256314
Someone s been playin Gran Turismo 2 again...

NostalgiaNiggers I swear.......