or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Best impractical fun car 40-50K
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Best impractical fun car 40-50K - Page 6

post #76 of 102
The Viper gets extra impracticality points by giving you the opportunity to burn yourself on the exhausts every time you get out since they're under the door sills.
post #77 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern-Nupe View Post
I'm still lost as to how they made that car so outrageously heavy.
My brother was watching one of those car shows on the speed channel this morning....they got one with a 6 speed transmission to top out at 170mph.
post #78 of 102
How about a Z4M coup, you can get a one owner low mileage and full factory warranty for roughly 44K, vastly more impractical than a regular M3. It is missing some of the "brute" force appeal the Z3M coup had, but its a better drive.
post #79 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sprezzatura2010 View Post
Actually, I've driven two, though admittedly I have never driven a truck so perhaps they are worse than they look. One was a first model year (1993?) that was so poorly sorted and generally awful that it made a Corvette seem like a highly refined automobile. The exhaust note was also about as exciting as listening to one of those USPS vanlets go by.

The second was the current generation, maybe 2004 or 2005.

In both cases, I have higher standards than that.

Luckily, there are tons of cars available with cupholders, power seats, traction control, stability management, soft cushy suspension settings, and other great features to better meet your high standards. The Viper doesn't appeal to everyone. It clearly isn't the car for you.
post #80 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kai View Post
Luckily, there are tons of cars available with cupholders, power seats, traction control, stability management, soft cushy suspension settings, and other great features to better meet your high standards. The Viper doesn't appeal to everyone. It clearly isn't the car for you.
Haha. As it happens, my car does not have a single one of those features you mention. Well, it does have two cupholders technically, but they are useless. But I do require something more than a too-big truck motor recast in aluminum and too-wide tires. That kind of musclecar isn't going to cut it for someone who grew up on sports cars. For someone who grew up on musclecars, I could see how it looks like a great sports car, though. Kind of like someone like me sees a Merc 500E as a great musclecar.
post #81 of 102
1945 GMC DUKW. $50K.




- B
post #82 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sprezzatura2010 View Post
Haha. As it happens, my car does not have a single one of those features you mention. Well, it does have two cupholders technically, but they are useless.

But I do require something more than a too-big truck motor recast in aluminum and too-wide tires. That kind of musclecar isn't going to cut it for someone who grew up on sports cars. For someone who grew up on musclecars, I could see how it looks like a great sports car, though. Kind of like someone like me sees a Merc 500E as a great musclecar.
Large rear tires are almost a necessity when making large amounts of power....ask Porsche or AMG. Under the textbook definition of a sportscar, the Viper does qualify......but regardless of what you categorize it as, it's still fast, crazy, and not for the faint of hearts.
post #83 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern-Nupe View Post
Large rear tires are almost a necessity when making large amounts of power....ask Porsche or AMG.

I race a modded E46 M3 from time to time, and I wouldn't say that there's a relationship between horsepower and the need for "large" rear tires. If you fix sprung weight and tire pressure, a wider tire only gives a small amount of extra contact patch.

A wide tire will, however, change the contact patch from long and skinny to short and wide. This is relevant for cornering and general handling, because as you increase lateral forces on the car during a turn, your contact patch actually shrinks on one side. So the advantage of the wide, low aspect ratio tire is that it creates a more advantageous contact patch for cornering (you lose a lower percent of your contact patch per fraction of lateral G) and because the lower sidewalls can more easily resist shear, helping to keep more of the tread in the contact patch.

Any car doing hard turns will benefit from this handling geometry relative to skinnier tires. Straight line, not so much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern-Nupe View Post
Under the textbook definition of a sportscar, the Viper does qualify.

Yep.

I remember a hilarious statistic...which might be an urban myth...that in the Viper's first year, one out of four new owners got into an insurable accident within the first ten miles of driving it out the dealer's lot.


- B
post #84 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sprezzatura2010 View Post
Haha. As it happens, my car does not have a single one of those features you mention. Well, it does have two cupholders technically, but they are useless.

But I do require something more than a too-big truck motor recast in aluminum and too-wide tires. That kind of musclecar isn't going to cut it for someone who grew up on sports cars. For someone who grew up on musclecars, I could see how it looks like a great sports car, though. Kind of like someone like me sees a Merc 500E as a great musclecar.

I hear this same stuff from drivers in the paddock all the time. Some variation on "The Viper may be a lot faster than [insert whatever they happen to be driving] but my car is a lot [prettier, more comfortable, easier to drive, gets better gas mileage, more rare etc. etc.] I've made more than $1000 off of drivers who were sure that their sports car would be a lot faster than a Viper around a twisty road course.

Please tell us the identity of this great sports car you drive. I have no doubt that in spite of its supposed superiority to the Viper that it is a car that is nowhere near as fast around a road course as a Viper. I can say this because there are very few cars today (at any price) that can go head to head with the torque and hp of a big naturally aspirated V-10, lots of grip, and razor sharp handling.

And by the way, I grew up on muscle cars AND sports cars. I've owned sports cars by Triumph, Fiat, and Porsche. They were all fun, but didn't approach the performance of the Viper on the street or the track.
post #85 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by voxsartoria View Post
A wide tire will, however, change the contact patch from long and skinny to short and wide. This is relevant for cornering and general handling, because as you increase lateral forces on the car during a turn, your contact patch actually shrinks on one side. So the advantage of the wide, low aspect ratio tire is that it creates a more advantageous contact patch for cornering (you lose a lower percent of your contact patch per fraction of lateral G) and because the lower sidewalls can more easily resist shear, helping to keep more of the tread in the contact patch.

Any car doing hard turns will benefit from this handling geometry relative to skinnier tires. Straight line, not so much.
Point taken.
post #86 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern-Nupe View Post
Large rear tires are almost a necessity when making large amounts of power....ask Porsche or AMG.

But large amounts of power is something a sportscar almost never has!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kai View Post
Please tell us the identity of this great sports car you drive. I have no doubt that in spite of its supposed superiority to the Viper that it is a car that is nowhere near as fast around a road course as a Viper. I can say this because there are very few cars today (at any price) that can go head to head with the torque and hp of a big naturally aspirated V-10, lots of grip, and razor sharp handling.

I drive a Miata. And yes, it is much slower than a Viper. But it is the far superior sports car nonetheless. Raw speed is useful in a racing car, but not necessarily in a street-driven sports car. Its replacement will either be the next generation Elise (if they add bumpers and made it easier to enter/exit), Tesla Roadster, or maybe that new sub-Boxster Porsche that I've been hearing rumors about.
post #87 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sprezzatura2010 View Post
I drive a Miata. And yes, it is much slower than a Viper. But it is the far superior sports car nonetheless. Raw speed is useful in a racing car, but not necessarily in a street-driven sports car. Its replacement will either be the next generation Elise (if they add bumpers and made it easier to enter/exit),

I hate to say it, but I may actually have to agree with you. Miatas are terrific cars, much like my old Triumph or Fiat, but a lot more reliable. They are actually a lot of fun to race too. I've driven one on the street and on the track and I think they are indeed one of the best sports cars around at any price.

Whether they are superior to a Viper I suppose depends on personal preferences. I've been corrupted by the Viper's raw power, and would have a hard time giving that up, particularly because I love to spend time at the track. For a second car, however, I'd be hard put to find something better than a Miata. It would be great for canyon cruising here in Colorado on a sunny fall day.
post #88 of 102
Okay, older than 2001, but probably the most impractible car (yet cool car) there is:



No roof, no windscreen wipers, non-functioning doors and no luggare compartment.

Found on ebay.
post #89 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kai View Post
Whether they are superior to a Viper I suppose depends on personal preferences. I've been corrupted by the Viper's raw power, and would have a hard time giving that up, particularly because I love to spend time at the track. For a second car, however, I'd be hard put to find something better than a Miata. It would be great for canyon cruising here in Colorado on a sunny fall day.

Fair enough. The most powerful car I've ever owned was my first one, a Callaway Twin Turbo Alfa GTV-6. Two thirty or so quoted hp doesn't sound like much today, but it did 0-60 in under 7 and certainly felt fast. It felt faster than a friend's objectively faster Nissan 300ZX TT. And the balance was leagues better, with the great chassis and rear transaxle.

I don't remember how much power its replacement, a BMW 318ti had, but it wasn't much. Still a nice little car to throw around, with the E30's suspension in back.

My other car, a 1968.5 Citroën DS-21 Pallas, has maybe 100 bhp and weighs a ton-and-a-half.

So I'm hardly accustomed to big power. I've also never spent time on a "track" that wasn't improvised with orange cones in a parking lot or airfield. My fun driving is usually a weekend trip to the Dragon or something like that.
post #90 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schnurretiger View Post
Okay, older than 2001, but probably the most impractible car (yet cool car) there is:



No roof, no windscreen wipers, non-functioning doors and no luggare compartment.

Found on ebay.

Can't find a picture, but when I was a kid I was in love with the Evans Series-1. Met the designer at an auto show as a sixth grader. The car was basically a Kudzu IMSA racer with a fiberglass body and a small block V8 behind the driver. And he actually got the thing EPA and DOT certified somehow! Don't know if any were sold, but I'd still take one.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Best impractical fun car 40-50K