Which car has the best performance-to-cost ratio?


Recommended Posts

pwnd  <-- God how I hate that "word".  Way overused by people that think it is "cool"...cool to use such a stupid "word".

Anyway...I would have to go with the Corvette (higher end) and the Mustang (lower end).  Screw those little 4 cylinders with turbo.  A grin comes over my face every time I see one of those cars with smoke coming out of its exhaust.

585344390[/snapback]

What's with American's fancination with how many cylinders a car has?? I noticed this when I was in the states this summer, a friend had just bought a new Honda and I asked him what size the engine was, all he said was that "oh I don't know, it isn't a V6 as that was quite a lot more". It's almost as if you've accepted the marketing crap as truth, that more cylinders must mean a better car. Pfft.

What's with American's fancination with how many cylinders a car has?? I noticed this when I was in the states this summer, a friend had just bought a new Honda and I asked him what size the engine was, all he said was that "oh I don't know, it isn't a V6 as that was quite a lot more". It's almost as if you've accepted the marketing crap as truth, that more cylinders must mean a better car. Pfft.

585345078[/snapback]

More cylinders always mean more power when you're in reference to a sports car there chap. While the Accord V6 isn't really a sports car, it is much faster than any stock I-4 that Honda offers [other than the S2000].

What's with American's fancination with how many cylinders a car has?? I noticed this when I was in the states this summer, a friend had just bought a new Honda and I asked him what size the engine was, all he said was that "oh I don't know, it isn't a V6 as that was quite a lot more". It's almost as if you've accepted the marketing crap as truth, that more cylinders must mean a better car. Pfft.

585345078[/snapback]

Seriously

Anyways, the Ariel Atom is street legal in the UK. It's also damn fast. We were talking about performance cars, and this is exactly what he was asking for. I personally think Clarkson is funny. He's biased, but I still find him funny.

And why are we comparing a $45000 car to a $30000 car? I'd rather have the STI either way

I'm just wondering what cars you think have the best cost-to-performance ratio.

I'm thinking the Acura TL A-Spec myself; quality car, great handling and performance, sub $35,000 (if I'm not mistaken) price.

585336869[/snapback]

the most bang for the buck and power car that is available right now, is mitsubishi lancer evolution, it has extremely good value ,performance & handeling.

or you can go for Nissan 240sx(i think you know what this car can do) , i heard that nissan is going to start producing it, next year. so im saving my money for 240sx.

the most bang for the buck and power car that is available right now, is mitsubishi lancer evolution, it has extremely good value ,performance & handeling.

or you can go for Nissan 240sx(i think you know what this car can do) , i heard that nissan is going to start producing it, next year. so im saving my money for 240sx.

585351258[/snapback]

Woah, they are going to make it again? Interesting. This should be a peppy turbo 4 cylinder rwd or a nice NA V6 3.5 L similar to a 350Z.

I'd see this as being sub 30K (maybe sub 25K.) with one of the above engines. Most likely a 3.5L in the top end. That should keep it from competing against the Z.

Those were cool cars with the turbo I4. Or did the Silvia have a 6 cylinder? Pretty sure not.

the most bang for the buck and power car that is available right now, is mitsubishi lancer evolution, it has extremely good value ,performance & handeling.

or you can go for Nissan 240sx(i think you know what this car can do) , i heard that nissan is going to start producing it, next year. so im saving my money for 240sx.

585351258[/snapback]

you can't be serious right? They discontinued after the S15.

Woah, they are going to make it again?  Interesting.  This should be a peppy turbo 4 cylinder rwd or a nice NA V6 3.5 L similar to a 350Z.

I'd see this as being sub 30K (maybe sub 25K.) with one of the above engines.  Most likely a 3.5L in the top end. That should keep it from competing against the Z.

Those were cool cars with the turbo I4. Or did the Silvia have a 6 cylinder? Pretty sure not.

585351348[/snapback]

The SR20DE(T) for S13/4/5's are I believe are 4 Bangers.

Edited by Razorwing
and WRX STi will also not hold its own against a corevette...

585338301[/snapback]

Yes it will. Not in a drag race, but with good drivers it would be pretty close on a windy track.

The WRX STi may be fast for a while, until you smashing the pedal at every stop sign blows your turbo. Then you're just like every other I-4 out there.

585342001[/snapback]

Hey, smartguy, the STi doesn't have an I4 :laugh:

More cylinders always mean more power when you're in reference to a sports car there chap. While the Accord V6 isn't really a sports car, it is much faster than any stock I-4 that Honda offers [other than the S2000].

585345902[/snapback]

Uh ... no. May I point out the old 4 cylinder F1 cars that produced what ... 700-800 hp?

The best bang for the buck cars are the Neon SRT-4, the WRX, and the Miata. There's a good reason so many club racers use those cars. Used ... there's tons of stuff out there. My vote would be for a Focus with a 5.0 :shifty:

  • 1 year later...

Uh ... no. May I point out the old 4 cylinder F1 cars that produced what ... 700-800 hp?

You are kidding me right? We can't even measure the power of a top fuel engine. They break the 5000 hp limit that the best dynos go up too. They can get your 700hp wimp ass 4 bangers power out of one cylinder!

We are all more stupid for having read your post.

You are kidding me right? We can't even measure the power of a top fuel engine. They break the 5000 hp limit that the best dynos go up too. They can get your 700hp wimp ass 4 bangers power out of one cylinder!

We are all more stupid for having read your post.

Uh.. yeah. Lets calm down. Since your new here it will probably be a good idea to read our ruleset: https://www.neowin.net/forum/rules.htm

Next time its a warn.

For the American's a Pontiac GTO. For the Brits, a Vauxhall Monaro.

The car differs slightly between it's various editions (Pontiac GTO in the U.S.A., Vauxhall Monaro in the UK, Chevrolet Lumina Coupe in the Middle East, and Holden Monaro in Australia) but for the most part it's the same. One of the fastest stock cars available, it's an American muscle car that can actually turn corners.

Not necessarily the best performance for it's price, but probably one of the best all round sports cars.

well all i can say.. is that i love cars from all countries... Ferrari's are amazing(been in many), subaru's WRX STI is just a little beast on the road, Camaro's beat mustangs hands down(sorry to all you ford fans).. i own an acura EL and love it.. hoping to replace it with an A-Spec TL..

but in my opinion.. the car is only as good as the driver.. you can have an enzo.. but if you drive like sh!t.. the car is useless...

one thing i think is hilarious by acura/honda.. is the new CSX/Civic with the paddle shift's.. the car has around 150hp.. now if they beefed up the RSX and put a v6 in it(say around 270+hp) with a 6spd paddle shift.. that car would sell like crazy.. just my idea..

03 cobra is probalby your best bang for your buck.

That's one hell of a mean machine. But in today's world with rocketing gas prices, American cars are (N). I used to be a die-hard muscle car fan, but with gas prices I like imports. :p

And I dont know what this rant about American cars comes from. Admittely some American cars aren't top whack, but there is a classic saying which holds true for American cars - there is no replacement for displacement. You can take all the turbo's, nitrous and all that other crap you want and stick it on a 2.0 4 cylinder motor, but you just can't beat the kind of muscle (and quite frankly soundtrack) that a big V8 or V10 will give you. If the sound of something like an American V8 just doesn't just make you smile, then I seriously doubt you have a real interest in motoring.

You forgot gas consumption too. :laugh:

Mustang = Ugly as sin.

WRX/Lancer = Not as hot as everyone says.

Acura TL = Hot car for a 4door

But Ferrari trumps almost all in terms of consistant quality damn good looking design.

See the F430 and tell me im wrong.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
    • Age of Empires Mobile comes to PC, here's how to carry over progress from your phone by Ivan Jenic Image: YouTube/Microsoft Microsoft just released Age of Empires Mobile for PC. The game, officially called Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, is available for free on Steam and Microsoft Store, almost two years after its initial release for handheld devices. Age of Empires is one of those franchises that entire generations grew up with. The original came out in 1997, and immediately got people hooked to building civilizations and crushing their enemies on the battlefield. However, the franchise today is a far cry from its roots, as Age of Empires Mobile is, well, a game optimized for handheld devices, and not a classic RTS title we’ve all loved for years. And, of course, it includes in-game purchases. The PC version is still a mobile game at its core, but it’s been optimized for desktop play. There’s mouse control, full keyboard compatibility, and a refined UI. Microsoft also refreshed the visuals with some 4k textures, so the game should look better on larger screens. The game supports Crossplay, so you can switch between your phone, tablet, and PC without losing anything. But linked progress doesn’t come out of the box, as you have to enable it first. Here’s how to link your progress: On your mobile device, open Age of Empires Mobile. Go to Settings (Gear icon) > Account. Select Bind Account and choose a sign-in option. Once you enable account binding, sign in on PC using the same method, and your progress will be accessible across all your devices. Xbox Game Pass subscribers also get a bonus reward pack on PC, which includes: 1 Monthly Pass Token 1 Custom Resource Chest 10 Universal 60-Minute Speed-Ups 1,000 Empire Coins Exclusive Player Portrait Frame You can find more info about Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, as well as download links, on the Age of Empires official website.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      458
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!