Is it just me or is the choice in the OP really obvious? Repair cost might be the only thing to make you lean towards the 3000gt. But it seems the BMW is an easy choice.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
but 3000gt is like turbos and vroom kmar, it makes the bitches wet gettit?
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Love it, Macbeth. I like old M3s. Have fun!
This is so true.Skorpy-chan wrote:
He asked what I thought about his car. So, I looked at it, and that's what I thought. Another german prickmobile.Red Forman wrote:
well most stuff from germany is trash but thats his choices so...Skorpy-chan wrote:
Meh, german trash.
Because german cars have no SOUL. They're often very good cars, but they're just cars. No spirit. Not like an absolutely crazy italian supercar, or an old british car that keeps breaking down, or an american muscle car that goes VROOOOAR when you put your foot down.
You press the gas, it goes forwards. No terrible understeer or oversteer, brakes that stop the car, and a LOT of excess weight.
I had a brand new Merc (09 reg C220 Sport) for the past week while my car has been getting repaired (except one day last week when I borrowed a colleagues 360 - which cheered me up a bit). It was super easy to drive, required no real effort to make long journeys through central London traffic, it did everything really nicely - and I hated the fucking thing. So functional, but nothing endearing about it whatsoever.
I'm so glad I've got my Alfa back now. Although now I need to take it down to my usual garage and get Mario and Pasquale to sort it out.....
I'd go for the GTO. Much prettier and much more character.
Not a fan of BMW´s. I´m prejudiced though, cause in Germany, all the retarded turks and chavs and hobos and whatever drive a 3er BMW. Not the M3 though, cause they can´t afford it with their small time dope dealing, but the one with the smallest engine. What´s it called, 120 I think? Something like 70-90 HP.
But with an attitude like sitting in a Murcielago.
Anyways, for that price a really good deal. I absolutely love the egotastic cockpit though. Everything is aimed and centered towards the driver. Who needs fucking passengers anyway
But with an attitude like sitting in a Murcielago.
Anyways, for that price a really good deal. I absolutely love the egotastic cockpit though. Everything is aimed and centered towards the driver. Who needs fucking passengers anyway
Last edited by Sisco10 (2009-11-15 03:02:34)
Nice car, lets hope no douchebag keys it eh?
Protip: Rear wheel drive, excess power, wet road, noob driver -> Trouble.
Protip: Rear wheel drive, excess power, wet road, noob driver -> Trouble.
Fuck Israel
Lol, the bottom of the line 3 series used to be the 316, now it's the 318 I think.Sisco10 wrote:
Not a fan of BMW´s. I´m prejudiced though, cause in Germany, all the retarded turks and chavs and hobos and whatever drive a 3er BMW. Not the M3 though, cause they can´t afford it with their small time dope dealing, but the one with the smallest engine. What´s it called, 120 I think? Something like 70-90 HP.
But with an attitude like sitting in a Murcielago.
Anyways, for that price a really good deal. I absolutely love the egotastic cockpit though. Everything is aimed and centered towards the driver. Who needs fucking passengers anyway
Come to think of it, your right.CammRobb wrote:
Lol, the bottom of the line 3 series used to be the 316, now it's the 318 I think.Sisco10 wrote:
Not a fan of BMW´s. I´m prejudiced though, cause in Germany, all the retarded turks and chavs and hobos and whatever drive a 3er BMW. Not the M3 though, cause they can´t afford it with their small time dope dealing, but the one with the smallest engine. What´s it called, 120 I think? Something like 70-90 HP.
But with an attitude like sitting in a Murcielago.
Anyways, for that price a really good deal. I absolutely love the egotastic cockpit though. Everything is aimed and centered towards the driver. Who needs fucking passengers anyway
3 being the model, 1.6l describing the engine displacement. How could I forget.lol
Cause they all look the same?Sisco10 wrote:
Come to think of it, your right.CammRobb wrote:
Lol, the bottom of the line 3 series used to be the 316, now it's the 318 I think.Sisco10 wrote:
Not a fan of BMW´s. I´m prejudiced though, cause in Germany, all the retarded turks and chavs and hobos and whatever drive a 3er BMW. Not the M3 though, cause they can´t afford it with their small time dope dealing, but the one with the smallest engine. What´s it called, 120 I think? Something like 70-90 HP.
But with an attitude like sitting in a Murcielago.
Anyways, for that price a really good deal. I absolutely love the egotastic cockpit though. Everything is aimed and centered towards the driver. Who needs fucking passengers anyway
3 being the model, 1.6l describing the engine displacement. How could I forget.lol
Lol yeah. You pillock.Sisco10 wrote:
Come to think of it, your right.CammRobb wrote:
Lol, the bottom of the line 3 series used to be the 316, now it's the 318 I think.Sisco10 wrote:
Not a fan of BMW´s. I´m prejudiced though, cause in Germany, all the retarded turks and chavs and hobos and whatever drive a 3er BMW. Not the M3 though, cause they can´t afford it with their small time dope dealing, but the one with the smallest engine. What´s it called, 120 I think? Something like 70-90 HP.
But with an attitude like sitting in a Murcielago.
Anyways, for that price a really good deal. I absolutely love the egotastic cockpit though. Everything is aimed and centered towards the driver. Who needs fucking passengers anyway
3 being the model, 1.6l describing the engine displacement. How could I forget.lol
and @Jord, the 316 only came in 2 door coupé form, whereas the 318 came in 2 door and 4 door models.
Thus why you go to your local raceing track, and test the car and learn. So when you're in trouble on the actual road, you have a faint idea of what to do.How to recover.Dilbert_X wrote:
Nice car, lets hope no douchebag keys it eh?
Protip: Rear wheel drive, excess power, wet road, noob driver -> Trouble.
everything i write is a ramble and should not be taken seriously.... seriously. ♥
That being said, his insurance in his first year was under £1500.Mikey wrote:
Drops quite a bitBRiiNDED wrote:
Finding this quite wierd. Everyone is talking about insurance of over £2000 when in the age group of 17-20.
My mate has a 1.4 Peugeot 206, is 18, and has been driving just over a year, his insurance is under £1000. He's on his own insurance and fully compt.
Probably dependant on the place you live.
:S.
Confused
And by 'local racing track' you mean the roads at 3am?tazz. wrote:
Thus why you go to your local raceing track, and test the car and learn. So when you're in trouble on the actual road, you have a faint idea of what to do.How to recover.Dilbert_X wrote:
Nice car, lets hope no douchebag keys it eh?
Protip: Rear wheel drive, excess power, wet road, noob driver -> Trouble.
Dilbert_X wrote:
Nice car, lets hope no douchebag keys it eh?
Protip: Rear wheel drive, excess power, wet road, noob driver -> Trouble.
Might be. loljord wrote:
Cause they all look the same?Sisco10 wrote:
Come to think of it, your right.CammRobb wrote:
Lol, the bottom of the line 3 series used to be the 316, now it's the 318 I think.
3 being the model, 1.6l describing the engine displacement. How could I forget.lol
As opposed to front wheel drive + flooded road + lateral flow = trouble.Dilbert_X wrote:
Nice car, lets hope no douchebag keys it eh?
Protip: Rear wheel drive, excess power, wet road, noob driver -> Trouble.
Or front wheel drive + excess power + wet white line + acceleration = going nowhere fast.
Rear wheel drive can catch you out in a hurry, but it's far better than front wheel drive. No torque steer (which happens even in a damn Fiesta if you get impatient and floor it hard enough), the front wheels don't end up sat on slippery bits as often, and there's enough weight back there to get some decent grip going uphill.
But, on the other hand, rear wheel drive cars are bigger and heavier and not very nippy.
Read this thread: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 1#p2764991Skorpy-chan wrote:
As opposed to front wheel drive + flooded road + lateral flow = trouble.Dilbert_X wrote:
Nice car, lets hope no douchebag keys it eh?
Protip: Rear wheel drive, excess power, wet road, noob driver -> Trouble.
Or front wheel drive + excess power + wet white line + acceleration = going nowhere fast.
Rear wheel drive can catch you out in a hurry, but it's far better than front wheel drive. No torque steer (which happens even in a damn Fiesta if you get impatient and floor it hard enough), the front wheels don't end up sat on slippery bits as often, and there's enough weight back there to get some decent grip going uphill.
But, on the other hand, rear wheel drive cars are bigger and heavier and not very nippy.
Then read this one: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 8#p2869228
FWD is designed for the average person. Why do you think all econo cars are all FWD? FWD has understeer and has less of a tendency to oversteer. This is good for people who are not experienced in any kind of special driving. It's more safe in bad weather 9/10. Again, why were most rally cars back in the day all (iirc) FWD (before Audi and their Quattro system)? But assuming that point is wrong, FWD is still safer.
RWD can be snappy. Skorpy, you ever heard of the Mazda MX-5? There are a number of RWD cars out there that are quite quick. There used to be A LOT more in the 80s, but times and markets have changed. Now if you want RWD, you have to get a sports car or a luxury car (in most cases).
RWD can be snappy. Skorpy, you ever heard of the Mazda MX-5? There are a number of RWD cars out there that are quite quick. There used to be A LOT more in the 80s, but times and markets have changed. Now if you want RWD, you have to get a sports car or a luxury car (in most cases).
Yeah, it is designed for the average incompetent driver. In fact, most RWD cars out there are designed to understeer for the same reason. It's a good thing, because in the winters I would die laughing pretty much every day if they were RWD.CapnNismo wrote:
FWD is designed for the average person. Why do you think all econo cars are all FWD? FWD has understeer and has less of a tendency to oversteer. This is good for people who are not experienced in any kind of special driving. It's more safe in bad weather 9/10. Again, why were most rally cars back in the day all (iirc) FWD (before Audi and their Quattro system)? But assuming that point is wrong, FWD is still safer.
RWD can be snappy. Skorpy, you ever heard of the Mazda MX-5? There are a number of RWD cars out there that are quite quick. There used to be A LOT more in the 80s, but times and markets have changed. Now if you want RWD, you have to get a sports car or a luxury car (in most cases).
However, racing cars (including rally) were predominantly RWD, not FWD Stratos, Escort, Alpine Renault, Abarth, etc... Audi revolutionised driving on bad roads/in bad weather. Hell, my 1993 Audi can hit up anything with hardly a blink.
But in relation to Macbeth's car: IT HAD BLOODY BETTER BE A STANDARD. People who willingly drive automatics cannot earn my respect.
I like pie.
u will love it bro, i got a 95 m3 and i cant stop driving it..u will have a blast congrats
I seem to remember many of the old rally cars (Ford springs to mind) having FWD chassis ...TSI wrote:
Yeah, it is designed for the average incompetent driver. In fact, most RWD cars out there are designed to understeer for the same reason. It's a good thing, because in the winters I would die laughing pretty much every day if they were RWD.
However, racing cars (including rally) were predominantly RWD, not FWD Stratos, Escort, Alpine Renault, Abarth, etc... Audi revolutionised driving on bad roads/in bad weather. Hell, my 1993 Audi can hit up anything with hardly a blink.
But in relation to Macbeth's car: IT HAD BLOODY BETTER BE A STANDARD. People who willingly drive automatics cannot earn my respect.
As far as automatic: If you are buying a new high performance car, the new double clutch trannies are worlds beyond a standard. You can get them in a friggin VW Golf. That's the future.
Yeah, but most RWD cars are heavy 'luxury' cars, like BMW and Mercedes. Thus, if you get a FWD car, if it's any GOOD, it's likely to be small and nippy. Fast to accelerate, good handling, sharp turns.CapnNismo wrote:
FWD is designed for the average person. Why do you think all econo cars are all FWD? FWD has understeer and has less of a tendency to oversteer. This is good for people who are not experienced in any kind of special driving. It's more safe in bad weather 9/10. Again, why were most rally cars back in the day all (iirc) FWD (before Audi and their Quattro system)? But assuming that point is wrong, FWD is still safer.
RWD can be snappy. Skorpy, you ever heard of the Mazda MX-5? There are a number of RWD cars out there that are quite quick. There used to be A LOT more in the 80s, but times and markets have changed. Now if you want RWD, you have to get a sports car or a luxury car (in most cases).
Sports cars aren't generally 'nippy', they're powerful and very good cars, made to go fast out on the open road, not nip in to cut off larger, heavier cars in traffic.
And yes, RWD can catch you out, but it's so damn infuriating when I put my foot down and the steering wheel tries to move, or I hear the front wheels scrabbling for grip.
(But, then again, perhaps I just have a heavy foot for driving a small car. I HAVE only recently passed my test, after all.)
What about AWD isn't that supposed to be the best of both worlds or something?
Well, yeah, but it's hideously complex compared to only driving one axle. There's a reason it's only used for off-roading and supercars; unless you REALLY need the grip, you don't need it.
I'd get an M3 any day over the 3000 GT. Especially that 3000GT. The Rims just look wrong on that car.