How do you feel about tiburons?

[BarneyFife]

The gay guy down my street has a Tiburon. Not sure if that means it a chick's car or not.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
The gay guy down my street has a Tiburon. Not sure if that means it a chick's car or not.

what's the back seat like?

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Thump553
Speaking as a parent, Tiburons are known as invulnearble kid killers. They seem to attract stupid inexperienced drivers. There has been at least two multiple fatality single car accidents involving Tiburons in my area in the past year.

Soon the insurance companies will catch on and the insurance rates will make these cars unaffordable to their target market.

That makes absofuckinglutely no sense.

Tiburons appeal is to young, male drivers. Its power to dollar ratio means that they frequently drive beyond their abilities and/or experience, with diasterous results. Now do you understand?

I think you are rather clueless if you think going after tiburon's is the answer due to seeing two accidents. I am sure these rank near the bottom of total accidents of teen drivers.

I doubt you will understand.

 

[imported_K3N]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: K3N
bmw's arent reliable. unless you have cashstashed some where or warranty, i wouldnt consider it as a first car. some descent RWD cars would be a nissan 240sx/300zx, if you want something thats not just good in straignt line, practical, and reliable.

Troll much?

Read this, or search on google for yourself
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17385761/

 

[T2urtle]

my 98 nissan maxima has been the most solid car i've ever owned, another wonderfully made Vq30 i've had it from 52k- 103k now. nothing went wrong other then general maintience. VQ dont have timing belts that need to be changed, its kinda like saving your 1k every 50k miles.

tibby look nice. i would take a TC over it. but its not under 10k. I dont have any friends that own a tibby. they look nice. slow cars even with a v6. 10k can get you a lot of cars in diffrent caterogies.

as mentioned. corolla XRS, SE-R. and a whole bunch of other cars. all cars are similiar but dont have the same type of sleekness as a tibby. You might like a 2 door. But i do like the tibby but i also do like the way 2003 SER v specs look. not so much the corolla.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: K3N

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: K3N
bmw's arent reliable. unless you have cashstashed some where or warranty, i wouldnt consider it as a first car. some descent RWD cars would be a nissan 240sx/300zx, if you want something thats not just good in straignt line, practical, and reliable.

Troll much?

Read this, or search on google for yourself
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17385761/

I love my 240sx, but my 1998 was the last year of their production...the 300zx even earlier. A 10 year+ old sports car (don't need a definition of what defines this....yes the ZX is more GT) that has probably changed hands 2-3 times is not going to be very reliable.

Neither of them are what I'd call practical. Forget the back seats, storage is not great, and mileage is hardly great.

I didn't buy mine for this though...however it only had one 1 year owner and then another until I bought it at around 70k miles, 3 years ago. Link

 

[Heller]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: K3N

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: K3N
bmw's arent reliable. unless you have cashstashed some where or warranty, i wouldnt consider it as a first car. some descent RWD cars would be a nissan 240sx/300zx, if you want something thats not just good in straignt line, practical, and reliable.

Troll much?

Read this, or search on google for yourself
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17385761/

I love my 240sx, but my 1998 was the last year of their production...the 300zx even earlier. A 10 year+ old sports car (don't need a definition of what defines this....yes the ZX is more GT) that has probably changed hands 2-3 times is not going to be very reliable.

Neither of them are what I'd call practical. Forget the back seats, storage is not great, and mileage is hardly great.

I didn't buy mine for this though...however it only had one 1 year owner and then another until I bought it at around 70k miles, 3 years ago. Link

thats a gorgeous car...mmmm my mind is changing soo much..

 

[alkemyst]

There is a lot to be said of a car 5+ years newer. I knew going in that my car would never be a 'luxury ride'...I have rattles and some buzzing at times due to the solid mounts and suspension. For long trips, my wife's saturn is great

When I was debating my 240SX I was also looking for a 88/89 944 Turbo. Again that would add 10 years of age. I found quite a few with low miles, but with interiors that needed refurbishing...Porsche interior trim pieces are extremely expensive. I put several hundred into the interior of my 240SX just in clips and plastic tidbits...I'd be at a couple grand in the 944 to be at the same level (like new).

The 944's I was looking at were $15k-25k....the 240SX's were $10k-15k...I found mine 4 hours away for $8800...this was after 4 months of looking at cars and driving all over the place...maybe a bit longer.

The biggest plus and one of the reasons I picked this car is I have not seen another like mine. Closest was one in Arizona (2000 miles away) and was an automatic and not an SE. They made less than 5000 of this style.

 

[thomsbrain]

both are definitely chick cars.

the upcoming RWD 300 HP Tiburon should be a different story entirely.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: K3N

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: K3N
bmw's arent reliable. unless you have cashstashed some where or warranty, i wouldnt consider it as a first car. some descent RWD cars would be a nissan 240sx/300zx, if you want something thats not just good in straignt line, practical, and reliable.

Troll much?

Read this, or search on google for yourself
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17385761/

No mention of BMW in article, except for the box-out. FAIL.

 

[imported_K3N]

But it said european cars in general had the worst reliabily. Maybe if you actually checked out google for yourself, you see i was right? :'(.

Sheesh, and look at how expensive the parts are too. 415 for a time belt? no thanks.
http://consumerguideauto.howst...005-bmw-3-series-2.htm

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: K3N
But it said european cars in general had the worst reliabily. Maybe if you actually checked out google for yourself, you see i was right? Mwah mwah mwah :'(.

Sheesh, and look at how expensive the parts are too. 415 for a time belt? no thanks.
http://consumerguideauto.howst...005-bmw-3-series-2.htm

We are right you are an idiot. You do know the differences between timing belts and chains right? I mean really, right? Take the Honda 60-80k belt replacement interval which could just break on you vs a timing chains 150k-200k+ interval which is usually audible prior to it's failure.

Saying european cars have the worst reliability and then saying because BMW is a european car, it must also have the worst reliability is a flawed argument. That link you posted shows most issues were with the 1999 models and later resolved.

 

[imported_K3N]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: K3N
But it said european cars in general had the worst reliabily. Maybe if you actually checked out google for yourself, you see i was right? Mwah mwah mwah :'(.

Sheesh, and look at how expensive the parts are too. 415 for a time belt? no thanks.
http://consumerguideauto.howst...005-bmw-3-series-2.htm

We are right you are an idiot. You do know the differences between timing belts and chains right? I mean really, right? Take the Honda 60-80k belt replacement interval which could just break on you vs a timing chains 150k-200k+ interval which is usually audible prior to it's failure.

Saying european cars have the worst reliability and then saying because BMW is a european car, it must also have the worst reliability is a flawed argument. That link you posted shows most issues were with the 1999 models and later resolved.

i saw it some where , i dont remember the site exactly, but this was the ranking of german cars with the better one first, mercedes, BMW, Volkswagen. All 3 of these had a ranking way below their japanese counterparts, even ford had a better reliability rating. Again go to google and look it up yourself you lazy asshole. And i thought we were talking about an older used BMW for 10k? dumbass.

As i said earlier , i wouldnt touch a used bmw, unless i had alot of cash stashed somewhere to deal with the costly mainteanance.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Real Men don't care if it's a "Chick Car". The only men who do are the Wusses who are "Real Men" wannabes.

It is: Rugged Individualism, not Pussified Conforming to Social Conventions. To be a "Man" is to be who you are, not what others expect of you.

The short answer: No, it's not a "Chick" car. In fact a "Chick" car doesn't exist. The true Man will take Any Car and make it his bitch!

QFT!!

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: K3N

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: K3N
But it said european cars in general had the worst reliabily. Maybe if you actually checked out google for yourself, you see i was right? Mwah mwah mwah :'(.

Sheesh, and look at how expensive the parts are too. 415 for a time belt? no thanks.
http://consumerguideauto.howst...005-bmw-3-series-2.htm

We are right you are an idiot. You do know the differences between timing belts and chains right? I mean really, right? Take the Honda 60-80k belt replacement interval which could just break on you vs a timing chains 150k-200k+ interval which is usually audible prior to it's failure.

Saying european cars have the worst reliability and then saying because BMW is a european car, it must also have the worst reliability is a flawed argument. That link you posted shows most issues were with the 1999 models and later resolved.

i saw it some where , i dont remember the site exactly, but this was the ranking of german cars with the better one first, mercedes, BMW, Volkswagen. All 3 of these had a ranking way below their japanese counterparts, even ford had a better reliability rating. Again go to google and look it up yourself you lazy asshole. And i thought we were talking about an older used BMW for 10k? dumbass.

As i said earlier , i wouldnt touch a used bmw, unless i had alot of cash stashed somewhere to deal with the costly mainteanance.

go cry about it then emo kid. Many are running 10 year old BMW's fine. You are obviously some kind of deluded japanese fanboi. Are you sure the reason you wouldn't touch a used BMW is lack of funds?

As one that didn't know why a timing chain was a little more than a timing belt, you should exclude yourself from car topics.

 

[Arkaign]

Ditto. I've put several thousand hard miles on my E39 M5 that I bought used and it's still golden. I do have some savings put aside just in case though

 

[RFtesla]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: K3N

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: K3N
But it said european cars in general had the worst reliabily. Maybe if you actually checked out google for yourself, you see i was right? Mwah mwah mwah :'(.

Sheesh, and look at how expensive the parts are too. 415 for a time belt? no thanks.
http://consumerguideauto.howst...005-bmw-3-series-2.htm

We are right you are an idiot. You do know the differences between timing belts and chains right? I mean really, right? Take the Honda 60-80k belt replacement interval which could just break on you vs a timing chains 150k-200k+ interval which is usually audible prior to it's failure.

Saying european cars have the worst reliability and then saying because BMW is a european car, it must also have the worst reliability is a flawed argument. That link you posted shows most issues were with the 1999 models and later resolved.

i saw it some where , i dont remember the site exactly, but this was the ranking of german cars with the better one first, mercedes, BMW, Volkswagen. All 3 of these had a ranking way below their japanese counterparts, even ford had a better reliability rating. Again go to google and look it up yourself you lazy asshole. And i thought we were talking about an older used BMW for 10k? dumbass.

As i said earlier , i wouldnt touch a used bmw, unless i had alot of cash stashed somewhere to deal with the costly mainteanance.

go cry about it then emo kid. Many are running 10 year old BMW's fine. You are obviously some kind of deluded japanese fanboi. Are you sure the reason you wouldn't touch a used BMW is lack of funds?

As one that didn't know why a timing chain was a little more than a timing belt, you should exclude yourself from car topics.

Haha, great call on that one. I read that he said the timing belt was 400 bucks and just laughed to myself. I have a 1998 328is and it has treated me fantastically. Sure I had to put a little money into it because the previous owner had no concept of proper maintenance besides changing the oil. But after checking the car out from him I figured I would have to spend about 500 bucks and that has done the job.

BMW parts aren't really that expensive as everyone thinks. Just don't be stupid and buy parts from the dealership/have them install things. BMW's become much more economical if you have any talent with working on cars.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: RFtesla

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: K3N

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: K3N
But it said european cars in general had the worst reliabily. Maybe if you actually checked out google for yourself, you see i was right? Mwah mwah mwah :'(.

Sheesh, and look at how expensive the parts are too. 415 for a time belt? no thanks.
http://consumerguideauto.howst...005-bmw-3-series-2.htm

We are right you are an idiot. You do know the differences between timing belts and chains right? I mean really, right? Take the Honda 60-80k belt replacement interval which could just break on you vs a timing chains 150k-200k+ interval which is usually audible prior to it's failure.

Saying european cars have the worst reliability and then saying because BMW is a european car, it must also have the worst reliability is a flawed argument. That link you posted shows most issues were with the 1999 models and later resolved.

i saw it some where , i dont remember the site exactly, but this was the ranking of german cars with the better one first, mercedes, BMW, Volkswagen. All 3 of these had a ranking way below their japanese counterparts, even ford had a better reliability rating. Again go to google and look it up yourself you lazy asshole. And i thought we were talking about an older used BMW for 10k? dumbass.

As i said earlier , i wouldnt touch a used bmw, unless i had alot of cash stashed somewhere to deal with the costly mainteanance.

go cry about it then emo kid. Many are running 10 year old BMW's fine. You are obviously some kind of deluded japanese fanboi. Are you sure the reason you wouldn't touch a used BMW is lack of funds?

As one that didn't know why a timing chain was a little more than a timing belt, you should exclude yourself from car topics.

Haha, great call on that one. I read that he said the timing belt was 400 bucks and just laughed to myself. I have a 1998 328is and it has treated me fantastically. Sure I had to put a little money into it because the previous owner had no concept of proper maintenance besides changing the oil. But after checking the car out from him I figured I would have to spend about 500 bucks and that has done the job.

BMW parts aren't really that expensive as everyone thinks. Just don't be stupid and buy parts from the dealership/have them install things. BMW's become much more economical if you have any talent with working on cars.

Exactly. My 2001 M3 is a peach, but then I have the BMW warranty on mine should it drop a bollock.

OP is just regurgitating 'some stuff' he saw on 'some website'. I'd be shocked if he even has a licence. :roll: