Quote:
Originally Posted by FC
That's pretty much where I find myself. I have a mental block about simply getting what I used to own a decade ago (likely not as well optioned). But that really is where the value is.
It is pretty tough to justify 100k for an occasional sports car. Which, to your third point, opens up the obvious question: If 100K is a "good" cost of ownership calculation for a 4.0 GTS, are there other, better options for spending 50-100k in a car that could be as or more interesting? Finally, there's the "shut up and keep driving the Miata" option because it is fun, costs next to nothing to own, and you don't have to obsess over it.
I'm tempted by this car: https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-...ckType=listing
Get a 987.2S yet not have to worry too much about it since it's pretty beat up? It's better than the Miata. |
Yes, that's what I'm thinking--a 20-30K car that you only use a few times a year is a lot easier to justify than a 100K car.
That 2009 has promise, but jeez they did not spare the Armor-all, did they? Why do people think that makes a car look better?
It has the sports seats, which are awesome and sort of hard to find, and I love those wheels.
Downsides are high miles, unknown history, and some minor things like the top elastic needing to be fixed and the fact that it has Hankooks (which, to me, suggests an owner or dealer that was looking to cut corners).
But yeah, a car like that would give you 75 percent of the satisfaction of a new one at like 1/3 the price.