So we had the 'best' car for a certain price...

[5lab]

oops, forgot the lexus. u.g.l.y...

[Rave]

its a vtech thou (hence why its NA) but its still not great. 7.5 seconds is appauling - a clio 182 can do it faster than that and you could buy 4 of them for the price!

Yeah, but that's all irrelevant anyway. If you're enough of a tw*t to buy a £60k supercar and then spec it with an auto box, then you deserve to be embarrassed by Clio 182s.

It doesn't make the NSX a bad car. I suppose it make Honda a bad company for even giving people the choice......

Rich :¬)

[5lab]

the top end mercs (the really silly fast 600+ bhp ones) are all auto, and they manage to cope with the power...

[Stoo]

Well, that's the difference, 500bhp vs 256bhp, as I mentioned, the 3.2 manual does it in 5.7secs and that's only 280bhp, besides those mercs are all well over £90k.

[5lab]

ok then, an evo 8 will kick its arse. everywhere. and its a HELL of a lot cheaper. my point with the mercs is that they were only available as an auto

[Stoo]

what the hell has that got to do with anything?

The mercs are quick because they've got a bloody great 5.5 litre V8 or V12 in them, hardly a fair comparison non?

In fact, if you look at a merc auto with a similar spec (SL 350) it's not that much quicker (7.2 secs) and that's got quite a bit bigger engine in it (3.7 litre compared to 3.0 litre).

[5lab]

..but merc arent selling it under the pretence that it is a supercar. all the litereature for the nsx says supercar, when the auto is quite clearly not, and even the manual is a lot slower than a souped up saloon which costs under half as much. hence the auto is definatly a cr*p car, and the worst supercar for £60k.

[dkmech]

Do keep in mind its age. And i'd suggest you get some figures for it on the track, its not all about drag racing you know.

[Stoo]

Yup, reading some reviews, just about everything says while it might not be the fastest in a straight line, it's extremely reliable, great fun to drive and handles really well, 0-60 isn't the be all and end all..

[5lab]

i know its an old design, but that doesnt make it more worth the money - i wouldnt buy a ashtray today simply cos they've been around for 5 years.. imo theres better cars for the job - depending on what you want one for. the entire of the uk seems to agree, hense why they only sold 18 last year. i recon a 220 turbo could keep up on a track, an evo8 could probably push it considerably and there are plenty of cars (911 turbo?) that for the money would simply kick its arse. hense why i believe that in this day and age it is a baaad car.

anyways, in other cars, brabus twinturbo v6 smart?

[Tumble]

40-50k iirc

thing is, they are actually good cars, if thats what you want. let me explain..

if your after a poncy 4x4 (as many people are), in the ~£40k pricerange you have a few choices.. with disadvantages

range rover - drinks like no tomorrow, makes you look like you're from the country
volvo xc90 - very good but cba to wait 18 months
vw thingy - same as the porshe but who spends £40k on a vdub?
beemer x5 - common as muck, and these sorta people want uniqueness
porshe - good brand (imo), reliable (probably), and pretty rare.

im not saying i'd buy one, i think those big 4x4s are hateful things, but its actually a pretty good choice for the money/style..

However... the Range Rover imo is worth the price (not just cos I'm a Landy nut) It actually does what it say on the tin... it goes off road, it has a lo-ratio gearbox, it has a diff lock. put some proper tyres on it and it'll give a Defender a run for it's money on the rough stuff - and more - it's got more ground clearance due to independant suspension (that works v.well too thankeeverymuch) and oodles more power, with either the 4.6 V8 or the new TD6 Diesel... an all round Top Car...

[5lab]

ah tumble, that may be, but those things arent needed. ya see the average person who spends £50k on a 4x4 like that doesnt want to go off road, doesnt need ground clearance, or good suspension - in fact the lower and stiffer and more like a car.. the better...

it does what it says on the tin, but the x5/porshe will do what the poncy execs want better. imo. (i've not driven either, and probably never will, my point is simply that the best offroad 4x4 probably isnt the best car in that class).

[Tumble]

oh.. but... the range Rover looks finished at least.... you cannot say that about the Cayenne... and it's not low, and it certainly aint stiff.. it's as soft as brown stuff tbh, the Rangie will give you a far better ride on the road as well as off itdue to it's active AIR SPRUNG suspension, comes with better engine options and makes use of it's space effectively inside - the Cayenne is little more than a boxster with a back seat, has pogo stick suspension and comes in one engine flavour.... hmm wonder which one wins..

[Fox]

Lexus SC430.

Urhghghghghgh

Plus they only ever get bought because the owner can't afford a 911, and no matter how much they try and justify the purchase it always goes back to the cost

Thats a bit silly really. 99% of car purchases are like that. What next, having a go at 911 C4S owners becuase they 'bought one because the owner can't afford a Turbo'?

Or hows about just slating all 911 owners full stop, they only bought it becuase they cant afford a Carrera GT?

[gobbo]

But a 911 is a real porsche, a Boxster is a wanna be porsche, simple really

[spazman]

Only decent toff roader is a Range Rover all the other a just fat bloated barges. Worst car for over £25k has to be without a doubt the Crysler Crossfire, HIDEOUS and it has got slated in ever reviw i have seen of it. The americans sure know how to make a totally hideous car and awfull car.