Best performance car for $10k ?

braxton357 said:
I realize we are talking budget racecars here, but the e36 m3 is an absolute turd. I'm sure it was said already, but as lame as they are... You aren't going to beat something like a c6 Corvette. You will look equally as silly driving a bimmer, Vette or Miata, might as well own one that's actually fast.
Click to expand...

You are 100% right, I look silly driving any car. Or just walking around....

I have to ask, have you driven an e36 m3?
Or any bmw for that matter?
 
braxton357 said:
I realize we are talking budget racecars here, but the e36 m3 is an absolute turd. I'm sure it was said already, but as lame as they are... You aren't going to beat something like a c6 Corvette. You will look equally as silly driving a bimmer, Vette or Miata, might as well own one that's actually fast.
Click to expand...

I would have to assume when you say the bmw wont beat a C6, you are talking 0-60 times?
For the record, what does a stock C6 run 0-60?
 
junkxj said:
You are 100% right, I look silly driving any car. Or just walking around....

I have to ask, have you driven an e36 m3?
Or any bmw for that matter?
Click to expand...

I've put several thousand miles on an m3 all over the country. It would not touch a Corvette on a straight track or a road course. Then there is the aftermarket parts availability, they both have an aftermarket, just one is 10x larger and parts half the price.
 
braxton357 said:
I've put several thousand miles on an m3 all over the country. It would not touch a Corvette on a straight track or a road course. Then there is the aftermarket parts availability, they both have an aftermarket, just one is 10x larger and parts half the price.
Click to expand...

What ever you say homeslice.....
 
Turns out I was looking at the 0-60 time for the non-US E36 M3. The US-spec is almost 2 seconds slower than the base C6, because the US-spec is only 240HP.

Also, by my rough math, power to weight for the C6 is about 7.5 lb/HP, and for the E36 M3 it's about 13.something lb/HP (the decimal point doesn't really matter).

Both cars are right around 3200 lb, but the base C6 has 400 or 430HP depending on model year, compared to the E36 M3 with 240HP.
 
Last edited:
Fabrik8 said:
Turns out I was looking at the 0-60 time for the non-US E36 M3. The US-spec is almost 2 seconds slower than the base C6, because the US-spec is only 240HP.

Also, by my rough math, power to weight for the C6 is about 7.5 lb/HP, and for the E36 M3 it's about 13.something lb/HP (the decimal point doesn't really matter).
Click to expand...

You are 100% correct!

But you are also comparing a car first produced in 1994 to a car built in 2005.

Please compare a 94 m3 to a C3 in terms of power, handling and the such to see how such a comparison is not really relevant.
 
braxton357 said:
I realize we are talking budget racecars here, but the e36 m3 is an absolute turd. I'm sure it was said already, but as lame as they are... You aren't going to beat something like a c6 Corvette. You will look equally as silly driving a bimmer, Vette or Miata, might as well own one that's actually fast.
Click to expand...

A waste of time pointing this out....

But, the next time you find a c6 for 10k let me know!

I am sure there are lots of cars that will out proform a 10k car for more money.....
 
junkxj said:
You are 100% correct!

But you are also comparing a car first produced in 1994 to a car built in 2005.

Please compare a 94 m3 to a C3 in terms of power, handling and the such to see how such a comparison is not really relevant.
Click to expand...

The context was comparing a C6 vs a E36 M3. I'm not sure why including a C3 would be relevant, or why a difference in model years is relevant. o_O


It doesn't matter which car you like better, I'm just giving some specs for the two cars.
 
Last edited:
Fabrik8 said:
The context was comparing a C6 vs a E36 M3. I'm not sure why including a C3 would be relevant, or why a difference in model years is relevant. o_O


It doesn't matter which car you like better, I'm just giving some specs for the two cars.
Click to expand...

You are right, and I didnt mean to sound like what you said is wrong. Your 100% right
I was just trying to make the point that it isnt fair to compare cars that are built 11 years apart, so comparing a 1994 m3 to a c6 is similar to comparing the m3 to a Corvette 11 years older than the m3.

And for some reason I couldn't find performance numbers for a 1983 vette.....
 
Fabrik8 said:
The context was comparing a C6 vs a E36 M3
Click to expand...
junkxj said:
the next time you find a c6 for 10k let me know!
Click to expand...

I was checking the value of the wifes E92 335Xi...apparently the trade in value is right at $10k o_O:shaking:

Not sure how a C6 even entered the discussion of a $10k budget, but having driven a couple, I wouldn't want one for anything other than a track car. On the open road they beat my kidneys into submission to every rest area along the way. GREAT for autoX but horrible for driving to and from.
 
Since we're making pointless comparisons...
If we are gonna compare BMWs top of the line offering in 1994, shouldn't it be compared to the 405hp Corvette ZR1?
 
Fabrik8 said:
Surely that's not true. I thought old guys were supposed to love Corvettes? :D
Click to expand...

Maybe jean shorts, knee high white socks and new balance cancel out the bone jarring ride. Could also be the colostomy bag
 
I’m with Troy on the Corvette being one of the worst riding cars on the road along with the most impractical one out there other than a Miata
 
Last edited:
junkxj said:
You are right, and I didnt mean to sound like what you said is wrong. Your 100% right
I was just trying to make the point that it isnt fair to compare cars that are built 11 years apart, so comparing a 1994 m3 to a c6 is similar to comparing the m3 to a Corvette 11 years older than the m3.

And for some reason I couldn't find performance numbers for a 1983 vette.....
Click to expand...
Why not? The target comparison here is "most fun car for the money". Nobody said anything about age. Some cars will have to be older to fit the financial range. And nobody said "what company had the best engineering for the time when produced?"

I find it interesting the RX-8 hasn't cropped up. Probably same practicality category as the Miata or Cx. But it's unusual enough catch some eyes and fun as hell around corners.
 
RatLabGuy said:
I find it interesting the RX-8 hasn't cropped up. Probably same practicality category as the Miata or Cx. But it's unusual enough catch some eyes and fun as hell around corners.
Click to expand...
Because slow.
 
jeepinmatt said:
Because slow.
Click to expand...

And you have to rev the shit out of that rotary motor to stay in the powerband. Not many people are comfortable with that, unless you're use to riding 600cc sportbikes on the track...and then it's like second nature
 
Back
Top