I think I'm going to buy a Corvette

[tongqi2]

I say do it on the condition that you'll have a garage... I was in a similar situation and decided that a garage is a must have, as well as comprehensive insurance!

 

[RearAdmiral]

I would agree that up until the late 90s they've been less than spectacular. Starting with the redesign and the new motors in 1997 though GM has turned them around. Have you driven any of the newer ones?

Been driven in the newer ones. I make no argument against them being good cars, they just don't interest me for a couple reasons. I don't "feel" it in/around them. I only feel it around the older ones. I did grow up around a Stingray though, was just so epic. If I'm going to dump thousands of dollars into something, I want my heart to sing. It is maybe stupid of me but I can't stand that there are automatics. It just shreds the spirit for me.

Again I know the modern cars are technically sound and great cars...but...zzz

Then again I've yet to be in a ZR1.

I'll stick with Vipers

 

[madoka]

You can put lipstick on a pig I guess.

Randy Pobst helped come up with these rankings for Motor Trend's Best Driver's Car:

Porsche Cayman #1
Corvette ZR1 #6

http://www.motortrend.com/features/performance/112_0910_2009_best_drivers_car/viewall.html

I'm sure his opinion weighs a lot more than yours.

 

[thedarkwolf]

AutoX is really best with a 4-banger and small light car. Vette is kinda unwieldy for that kind of thing. I think a Lotus 7 is the ideal AutoX car, but AutoX doesn't really float my boat. Just seems like a lot of tire wear for not much fun. I'd much rather do a lap at a circuit than squeal tires around a bunch of cones. Miata Spec racing, now that's fun shit! I haven't raced at one, but I've been to one here in Texas, and it was freaking awesome to see.

The vettes do pretty well at out local autox events and we have a fairly tight lot compared to most bigger regions. Only time I ever beat one with a miata is if they are a noob or just really bad . A lot of the vette guys do track days as well but that is 3+ hours away for most of us and cost a bit more than the $20 autox costs.

 

[Throckmorton]

Why wouldn't you daily drive a Corvette?

 

[madoka]

What if the cars name had a letter before N with a number after 2? just saying..

Wise words from another poster regarding M3 owners:

Anyway it's clear that the model (M3) is now owned by mostly knuckleheads. The stereotype is becoming more and more correct each day.

 

[Zivic]

I don't really follow. Can you go into the specifics of the sterotype?

middle aged men going through a midlife.

"the Bob" trying to mack on the chics with is vette.

 

[Arkaign]

After driving on Star Specs, I'd never put all seasons / etc on my MR2. I have no traction problems under power, incredible brakes, and it grips so nicely in curves. Plus, I can go autox without bringing another set of wheels.

If good tires help me avoid just one accident during my lifetime, it's worth the price premium all along.

Well yeah, not talking about that really though. Hankook Ventus is a summer tire with great marks on grip and longevity (for a soft tire). I wouldn't put all seasons on a sports car either

I don't think the price premium for the Pilot sports is worth it unless you're really pushing a Vette hard (and some do indeed).

 

[Arkaign]

The Pilot Super Sport's are VERY quiet and you don't have to do crazy launches to appreciate them. My wife's car came with Pirelli P Zero's which were about $400 per tire when I bought the car and had issues with wheel hop and the rear end sliding out from under me when taking tight turns at relatively slow speeds (ex. making a right turn on a street in front on my place in 2nd gear at about <20 MPH). Admittedly this particular street is pretty slippery, but with the PSS's, my rear end no longer slides out from under me and I have much better traction in 1st and 2nd. Simply put, the PSS's allow the car to perform the way it was designed to perform. Anything less would be a compromise in perform. Even better, the PSS's cost me less than the P Zero's and have better tread life (~30K miles vs 10-15K miles with the P Zero's).

Yeah there are some shockingly bad tires out there!

 

[Viper GTS]

I struggled hard with the choice of corvette vs viper - the corvette was the logical choice, a performance bargain with low cost of ownership and phenomenal daily driver potential. On the other hand the corvette doesn't have the same emotional appeal that the viper does - I've literally been obsessed with vipers since I started caring about cars.

In the end I chose the viper and haven't regretted it. As much as I hate to admit it it is highly entertaining watching/hearing people react to it. Kids are the best, they don't have the restraint of adults and it's completely obvious that the bright yellow viper is the highlight of their day. That is fun, and unexpected. I don't see a Corvette generating that.

Viper GTS

 

[SnipeMasterJ13]

If you have the money I definitely say go for it. This is coming from a car guy, though. My first car was an 89 Iroc-Z, sold that and moved to 00 WS6, then traded that in for an 02 Corvette Z06. I got the Z06 when I was 21, so don't worry about "people thinking you're too young." One thing I never understood was caring what other people think of your car so much that it actually plays into what you buy. People like what they like. Some will love it, some will hate it. Buy the car for YOU. Simple as that.

As far as insurance, mine was cheap at $53/month full 100/300/100 coverage when I was 21 (which was up $10 from the WS6). There was no change at age 25 (currently 26) to those rates. Apparently credit score plays a huge part in rates because mine cut in half when I got off my parents' policy and went on my own. Factors to that - credit score, multi-vehicle discount, clean record discount, and multi-policy discount (auto and homeowners). This is in central MN. I'm assuming that's on the cheap side of things since cost of living around here in general is pretty low.

 

[helpme]

I have an 01 Z06, it has been great so far. I use it primarily for track days and autocross. The only major problems I have had are cracking the front brake rotors every few track days and a bearing in the torque tube that went bad.

Repair wise, the cost of parts is reasonable, at least on the C5. Replacing the torque tube bearing would have been expensive (8-10 hours of labor) but since I did the work myself it was not a big deal. However, this car has had more minor problems than my SRT-4 (that I beat the crap out of) which had 130K miles on it.

As other people have said, if you want one (and will use it), it's easier to get before kids than after. I'd daily drive mine, but my commute is about 15 minutes, all city with speed limits of 35-40 mph. The city+short trip gas mileage isn't great so I usually only drive it to work 1 or 2 weeks a month.

There are tons of corvettes out there, many of which are owned by older guys who take great care of them. Just hold out for a private party selling the right one...

 

[AMCRambler]

Been driven in the newer ones. I make no argument against them being good cars, they just don't interest me for a couple reasons. I don't "feel" it in/around them. I only feel it around the older ones. I did grow up around a Stingray though, was just so epic. If I'm going to dump thousands of dollars into something, I want my heart to sing. It is maybe stupid of me but I can't stand that there are automatics. It just shreds the spirit for me.

Again I know the modern cars are technically sound and great cars...but...zzz

Then again I've yet to be in a ZR1.

I'll stick with Vipers

Well if you're going to compare a Vette to a Viper, then yeah, I can see it being a poor second choice. For some of us a Viper, Nissan GTR or a 911 just aren't in the affordability price bracket. Maybe a used Viper, but then man if something goes wrong on that motor, parts are going to make Corvette parts look inexpensive. If I wanted a bad ass roadster I'd have to go for a Factory Five AC Cobra replica. Wouldn't have the spit an polish of a production car, but damn it would be light and fast with side pipes screaming.

 

[AMCRambler]

the vette is a good car. would I own one? .... maybe. it would be fairly far down the list of cars I would rather own...

NSX
S2000
RX7
GT3 porsche
Evo X
STI
factory five kit car
heck, I would buy a miata before a vette (like the example in this discussion)

It isn't all about the numbers. Driving feel, aesthetics, interior, sound, sadly even the perceived image of the car plays into it.

That said, I would own a vette over a camaro and possible a V6 mustang. To me a vette is just a plasticy, fischer-price-esq, crappy interior car with a big motor that numerous neighbors of mine own, and that I see at least a handful of everyday.

Lets go through your list:

NSX = Pros - Mid engine, rare Cons - Old tech, little low on hp, parts =$$$$$
S2000 = Pros - Its honda so reliable Cons - 4 banger, under powered, rev the shit out of it to move
RX7 = Pros - Sexy looking, rare Cons - rotary engine so mileage sucks, not enough power unless V8 swap or twin turbo = $$
GT3 porsche - Pros - Love it Cons - Can't afford it
Evo X - Pros - Cheap fast and powerful Cons - DSM crap will fall apart
STI - Pros - Great Car, plenty of power and potential for more Cons - Four door AWD rally car pedigree, not really a sports car a compromise
factory five kit car - Pros YES Cons gotta build one or buy one built and have the ability to do your own work

You've got some good cars on there, but you'd have to be rich to own them. The others are bit meh.

Here's mine, based in reality:

1. FFR AC Cobra Replica - Would love a 427 but realistically a 289, 302 or 351 would be the options.
2. '05 or newer Corvette
3. '05 or newer GTO with a maggy (some day maybe)
4. '05 or newer BMW M3

These cars would all be within my means to purchase and maintain myself and I would not be spending more than $35,000 on any of them. But if kids enter the picture in the next 2-3 years, then that list turns into minivans or SUV's. No questions asked.

 

[AMCRambler]

Randy Pobst helped come up with these rankings for Motor Trend's Best Driver's Car:

Porsche Cayman #1
Corvette ZR1 #6

http://www.motortrend.com/features/performance/112_0910_2009_best_drivers_car/viewall.html

I'm sure his opinion weighs a lot more than yours.

Cayman S, not a Cayman. The base Cayman was too banal for them apparently.

And then consider the other cars in that line up. You're matching up a Miata and a 135i with a top of the line Cayman, Corvette and an Audi R8? There are a bunch of cars missing from that list too. Where's the M3? Where's the GTR?
That comparo is typical car magazine drivel. You read the last paragraph and it becomes very apparent they spent thousands of dollars and wasted so much time on doing technical analyses of the cars handling characteristics and in the end just threw all that out the window and picked the car they "subjectively" liked the best. Why bother with all the other nonsense then? Also why test the ZR1? If their criteria is driveability take the Z06. The price point for the ZR1 is well outside of any other car on the list. To me, it looks like they set it up to fail and were not very objective in their selections for cars to test.

"What's most striking about the Porsche Cayman S Vehicle Dynamics Score is that it doesn't appear to be remarkable at all. It took turning off our elaborate test equipment and simply wrapping our hands on its steering wheel to finally get the picture. After driving all 10 of our contenders on an impromptu road course, we scored them in six, driver's-car-illuminating categories. And when the results were compiled, our affection for the Cayman S became starkly apparent.

While the Audi R8 and MX-5 Miata -- cars at virtually either end of the group's performance spectrum -- impressed us too, subjectively, the Porsche scored even better."

A laughable article at best. Sorry but Motor Trend is terribly biased in all of their reviews. You may think Mr. Pobst is the epitomy of car reviewers, but I don't see it.

 

[Arkaign]

Cayman S, not a Cayman. The base Cayman was too banal for them apparently.

And then consider the other cars in that line up. You're matching up a Miata and a 135i with a top of the line Cayman, Corvette and an Audi R8? There are a bunch of cars missing from that list too. Where's the M3? Where's the GTR?
That comparo is typical car magazine drivel. You read the last paragraph and it becomes very apparent they spent thousands of dollars and wasted so much time on doing technical analyses of the cars handling characteristics and in the end just threw all that out the window and picked the car they "subjectively" liked the best. Why bother with all the other nonsense then? Also why test the ZR1? If their criteria is driveability take the Z06. The price point for the ZR1 is well outside of any other car on the list. To me, it looks like they set it up to fail and were not very objective in their selections for cars to test.

"What's most striking about the Porsche Cayman S Vehicle Dynamics Score is that it doesn't appear to be remarkable at all. It took turning off our elaborate test equipment and simply wrapping our hands on its steering wheel to finally get the picture. After driving all 10 of our contenders on an impromptu road course, we scored them in six, driver's-car-illuminating categories. And when the results were compiled, our affection for the Cayman S became starkly apparent.

While the Audi R8 and MX-5 Miata -- cars at virtually either end of the group's performance spectrum -- impressed us too, subjectively, the Porsche scored even better."

A laughable article at best. Sorry but Motor Trend is terribly biased in all of their reviews. You may think Mr. Pobst is the epitomy of car reviewers, but I don't see it.

Agreed. It's pure subjective editiorial bullshit at best. Motor Trend is a bit better than the utter useless trash that is Car & Driver, but not by a whole lot. Really performance testing is the only thing of any value whatsoever from the mags.

 

[Zivic]

Lets go through your list:

NSX = Pros - Mid engine, rare Cons - Old tech, little low on hp, parts =$$$$$
- it's a honda... so it won't cost that much to fix. I wouldn't consider it old tech. car is an actual exotic and still looks the part even 20 yrs later


S2000 = Pros - Its honda so reliable Cons - 4 banger, under powered, rev the shit out of it to move
not underpowered. just not HP biased. a good car, with decent power and revving it out is kind of the point.


RX7 = Pros - Sexy looking, rare Cons - rotary engine so mileage sucks, not enough power unless V8 swap or twin turbo = $$
I would only consider an FD twin turbo. stock form they have good power. doesn't take much to make more if need be. I have seen a local kid make over 800 on a shoe string budget. IMHO they are finicky and can be troublesome to get dialed in. but as a toy car, that is part of the fun


GT3 porsche - Pros - Love it Cons - Can't afford it
true

Evo X - Pros - Cheap fast and powerful Cons - DSM crap will fall apart
... not all that cheap. not all that powerful, unless modded. is not a DSM. IMHO not any more likely to fall apart than a chevy.... HUGE pro is that they handle phenomenal, very tech driven car, very capable

- and it just might be the greatest car in the world

STI - Pros - Great Car, plenty of power and potential for more Cons - Four door AWD rally car pedigree, not really a sports car a compromise
very comparable to the evo, just with a more solid build... subie would be the better car to keep stock. sure they have potential, but evos just make power easier. I would hardly call it a "compromise"


factory five kit car - Pros YES Cons gotta build one or buy one built and have the ability to do your own work
which is part of the fun of a toy car

You've got some good cars on there, but you'd have to be rich to own them. The others are bit meh.

Here's mine, based in reality:

1. FFR AC Cobra Replica - Would love a 427 but realistically a 289, 302 or 351 would be the options.
2. '05 or newer Corvette
3. '05 or newer GTO with a maggy (some day maybe)
4. '05 or newer BMW M3

These cars would all be within my means to purchase and maintain myself and I would not be spending more than $35,000 on any of them. But if kids enter the picture in the next 2-3 years, then that list turns into minivans or SUV's. No questions asked.

if you had 35 grand...
I would get an evo X used with 20k miles on it. for around 20 grand. slightly bigger turbo, e85 conversion, and a few other goodies. 400 awhp and smoke that vette you and the OP are craving.

or just get the NSX and have a great driving car that is a joy to look at. with a vette, you get a big motor, and an overall driving experience that isn't what it could be

 

[Arkaign]

NSX is a slug compared to modern cars. Even a V6 Mustang will run circles around it.

Evo is a pile of crap, sorry Mitsubishi just sucks. A modded Evo is just asking for additional pain in addition to the usual DSM nightmares. And just 400hp will hardly "smoke" a C6, you might get slightly better 0-60s with really hard launches (enjoy that until you break something), but the performance ceiling on a DD will be considerably lower than a Vette. Put a turbo or SC on a Vette, and you're waaaay out of 4-banger territory. Overall driving experience? What are you on about? You do realize that the Vette is a purpose-built sports car, and the Evo is something of a hack job built on an econobox platform.

At least the WRX and STI are made by a company who knows a bit about reliable and well-engineered cars, if you're going the AWD route.

Ever wonder why you rarely see older Mitsubishi's on the road, when millions upon millions were sold? Oh yeah, they suck ass, that's why.

 

[Zivic]

Ever wonder why you rarely see older Mitsubishi's on the road, when millions upon millions were sold? Oh yeah, they suck ass, that's why.

I don't know about that... I have a few ladies that work for me that drive mitsu's in the 350k+ range. One lady had a montero that almost hit 400k till her daughter crashed it.

people talk a lot of smack about mitsu and their reliability... my experience is that they are no less reliable than any other car I have personally owned -> and I have owned many of the major brands. In all honesty, the most unreliable vehicle I have experience with was a chevy. a 3/4 ton pickup that ate up trans and motors like potatoes chips.

Evo's just take to mods really well. Great car to drive, tons of potential. and still practical enough with 4 doors and a decent trunk.

Subies are good cars, but as a local shop owner that knows both cars says:
"I always tell people that if you start with a $15000 Evo and a $3500 Subaru, you would be at the same amount total dollar wise, for both cars to run 10s."

 

[Zivic]

NSX is a slug compared to modern cars. Even a V6 Mustang will run circles around it.

I never said it was a power house. a slug is being a bit dramatic.... but when a car looks this good.... come on:

 

[jlee]

I never said it was a power house. a slug is being a bit dramatic.... but when a car looks this good.... come on:

I've always been partial to the MR2 over the NSX, but that's me.

 

[Zivic]

I've always been partial to the MR2 over the NSX, but that's me.

mr2's are nice, but the nsx is on another level. I would like to own both someday

 

[Arkaign]

I never said it was a power house. a slug is being a bit dramatic.... but when a car looks this good.... come on:

Oh yeah, the NSX is a beautiful car even today imho. It's slower than a V6 Camry though, and getting hammered by a base Mustang is rather disheartening. I'm sure some mods could take care of that, but heavy mods on a classic isn't something I'm sure is a great idea. I have a feeling that the remaining NSX fleet will just gain in value.

 

[Arkaign]

Subies are good cars, but as a local shop owner that knows both cars says:
"I always tell people that if you start with a $15000 Evo and a $3500 Subaru, you would be at the same amount total dollar wise, for both cars to run 10s."

That guy must have some brand loyalty to DSM (understandable for a shop owner, lol, they have to smile when they see one drive in $$$) .. there's not anything magic about an EVO. Btw, the EVO is the analog to the STI, although you can take a WRX to EVO levels if you spend the money. The problem is the tranny on the older WRX models isn't made for big power, and 2nd gear is prone to breaking. But comparing the WRX and EVO is the wrong way to look at it. Compare the STI to the EVO. Both hit 10s with similar amounts of work, but neither is the smartest thing to drag race constantly. Sticky tires + big power + AWD = huge shock stress to the transmission, differential, and half shafts. All of which I think are a bit more durable on STIs. You can head up to about 450hp level on the 2.5 STI although sticking to around 400 is recommended before really doing it right and getting improved forged pistons, rods, better bearings and cams, better valves and valve springs, etc, which will greenlight you for things like the GT40 turbos, and that's insane power. The EVO story is very similar, smart limits seem to be 400-420hp for any longevity at all on stock internals.

It's funny, because you can easily push a stock WRX to high levels pretty quick, but the transmission just can't take it.

I think it's also a lot easier (at least in my area) to get parts/service on the WRX and WRX STI than the Evos. The closest thing from Mitsu to the actual WRX is the Lancer Ralliart. Incidentally the Ralliart has pretty much the same motor as the EVO AFAIK, but with a really weak turbo.

 

[Zivic]

He owns both makes

Subie is a better car to keep stock. Evo is just more raw mainly the 8/9. Evos just make power easier. Things are a little different with the x. I think the subies are great cars as well