Top 10 Worst Value Cars Ever

[Clivey]

Originally Posted by roosterjuicer

im thinking he's not just talking about resale value, but bang for your buck (thats how im taking it anyway) so i gotta do it... late 90's/early 2000's NSX- it was 90k and it offered the performance of cars that cost 30k

Yeah - if you're stupid enough to only consider numbers like 0-60 figures and horsepower ratings. As a driver's machine, it's easily as good as the competition available for the same price.

[roosterjuicer]

Originally Posted by Clivey

Yeah - if you're stupid enough to only consider numbers like 0-60 figures and horsepower ratings. As a driver's machine, it's easily as good as the competition available for the same price.

As a drivers machine the nsx was about even with an m3 and it costs a lot more. a 911 turbo cost almost the same as an nsx and its a much much much better drivers machine.

and i know youll be pissy but a z06 will smoke an nsx around a track and the 1/4 mile and its waaay cheaper.

[Clivey]

Originally Posted by roosterjuicer

As a drivers machine the nsx was about even with an m3

Not from what I've heard/read

and it costs a lot more. a 911 turbo cost almost the same as an nsx and its a much much much better drivers machine.

A 993 Turbo? An interesting comparison but it's worth noting that with the NSX you do get exclusivity, at least in the UK. I'm not going to try to prove that the NSX is better value for money than the 911 Turbo, but what I am saying is that it's not one of the "10 Worst value cars ever".

Originally Posted by roosterjuicer

and i know youll be pissy but a z06 will smoke an nsx around a track and the 1/4 mile and its waaay cheaper.

In this country, where neither car has the advantage of being in it's domestic market, a Z06 costs more than an NSX...but even if the Z06 were cheaper, it doesn't bother me. I like them.

They are simply two different kinds of sports car - happening to cost the same will inevitably lead to comparison but you have to think about what you're comparing and why...in other words: "What's relevant?"

Personally I've never driven from 0-60 as fast as possible on the road, so the figure means nothing to me in the real world. 30-100 through the gears though means MUCH more.

[Ferrer]

Originally Posted by roosterjuicer

im thinking he's not just talking about resale value, but bang for your buck (thats how im taking it anyway) so i gotta do it... late 90's/early 2000's NSX- it was 90k and it offered the performance of cars that cost 30k

Not again please.

I'm not saying that it was fantastic value, but its value certainly wasn't in the ourtight figures.

After all it turned Ferrari from a manufacturer of badly made cars that broke down every 100 metres into what it is now.

[NSXType-R]

Cadillacs are pretty bad values. The CTS (version one, I dunno about newer ones) drop value pretty quickly.

[Clivey]

Originally Posted by Ferrer

I'm not saying that it was fantastic value, but its value certainly wasn't in the ourtight figures.

After all it turned Ferrari from a manufacturer of badly made cars that broke down every 100 metres into what it is now.

Oh, you can't say that! No car is better than the C6 ZWTFBBQ Edition!!!111one

I think the Corvette is gaining the same sort of reputation as the Skyline in that they're both good cars but massively overrated. This can only be bad because we get stuck in the middle of a fanboy war.

The Corvette may be faster than the NSX but the definition of a great car is not as simple as that. A Lexus SC430 may be faster than a Mk1 MX-5 for example, but the 'Lex is still regarded as crap to drive.

Staying on-topic, my nomination is the Smart ForTwo: It costs as much as a real car and is only for amputees! I tried to get in one once but couldn't read any of the instrumentation as it was pointing at my waist. After that, getting into an Exige is a piece of cake - at least the major controls are reachable!