How fast can you go for $10K in a car.

I haven't had time to read all the replies so I appologize if this has already been said but,

Datsun 510 + Mods
or
Mazda Miata 1st Gen + Mods.

 

.

 

Wow, this thread got completely out of wack in a hurry.

Referring to the original question, I'd have to go with the F-body (camaro/firebird) myself. Maybe even a carbed 3rd gen done properly (buy for 2k, put 8k into it) could whip a '98-up LS1 car around a road course. LT1's are great, but require more $$ and patience to work right.

951's are also good candidates, but you can't buy parts for them out of the Jeg's catalog, handle 99% of the labor yourself and source parts at your local junkyard.

 

The Camaro fans are probably right...When you goto make a turn in the mountains, and the car won't turn and goes off a cliff.....Its gonna be going pretty fast!

 

Let me guess: You're french

 

No, calipers are completely different with the Mo30 option and post 88 cars. If porterfield claims that, they are in err... and that would explain our P/n discrepencies. Also, mintex p/ns are the same between mo30 951's and Vipers.

 

It's not the 60's anymore.

 

A 928 S4/GT is a nice car for $10k.
How about an E30 M3, is a nice example available for <$10k?
An early 95 E36 M3 is also a good choice

 

In the US it would be really hard to find a decent E30 M3 for less than $10k. The early E36 M3s are below E30 M3 prices.

 

It's almost like the old Mini and BMW MINI, older Ferraris and newer Ferraris, ur-quattro versus newer Quattros, etc.

I have an E30 325i, have spent considerable time in E30 M3's, and I have an E36 M3. With the exception of the power, I much prefer the overall driving experience of the older E30. It feels lighter, more tossable, more in contact with the road.

I know and understand that the E36 is measurably better in just about every way, but I still prefer the E30.

I also drive an old carbed 308 which I MUCH prefer over my buddy's clearly superior 328.

I don't even own a new MINI... ;-)

Bill

 

The E30 M3 is the most fun-to-drive car I've ever driven.
Although the E36 is faster and better NVH (noise, vibration, harshness) insulation, there is less "feel" of the car. It weighs more too. If you wanna go cross-country use the E36, but for shorter and more spirited drive IMHO the E30 M3 is the winner.
There are tons of mods available in the US for the E30 M3 such as from Turner, etc.
Too bad BMW had never officially imported the Sport Evo (2.5 liter) to the other side of the pond.

 

The only problem with the E30, is that in you will never find a drivable example for $10k in the states. You'd have better luck finding a 95 e36; and even that is borderline

 

Wow, a lot of vitriol, ignorance, and misinformation by many of the posters, who shall remain nameless. Some of the things said are outright WRONG, and some are overly stated personal opinion. I'll address a few of my favorites later.

I'm particularly annoyed by the ignorance displayed from both parties in the LS1 and 951 camps. Perhaps a few of you would like to hear from someone who actually OWNS both cars and has raced them both at Lime Rock and Pocono, and is looking for an unbiased opinion.

I own a 2000 Trans Am convertible, bought new. After tracking it a few times, I decided it was foolish to risk my daily driver on the track and started a search for a track car, setting the $10,000 range as my limit -- same as the original poster.

Finding a track car
I looked at several cars and in the end narrowed it down to 2nd gen DSMs (always liked the Eagle Talon), last-gen RX-7 turbos, 300ZX TT, C4 Vette, and the 944 Turbo.

All the DSMs were beaten to hell and high mileage as they tended to be owned by boy racers. And the DSMs had known problems with longevity and I always hated the rubber timing belts.

The RX-7 was appealing but the rotary engines, especially with a turbo, don't have long lives and tend to grenade at around 70-80k miles. This may be a factor of being driven hard more than design, but ask yourself why you don't see many of these still surviving.l

The 300ZX TT well surprisingly they are holding their value (or they have been ascending from their bottom point) and finding a good working example will cost you far more than $10k. On top of that they don't handle particularly well and are surprisingly heavy.

The C4 Vette, well I like Vettes but I always thought the C4 was somewhat clunky and the LT1 is comparatively underwhelming once you've been around LS1 Vettes and f-bodies.

The 944 Turbo, I knew that only old 911's get love and attention because people just have to have it, it's vanity and image-conscious pricks driving that for the most part (attending a few Porsche club events and observing the pecking order tought me that); the others such as the 928 (which was to replace the 911), the 944, the 968, the 914, get put down by the badge whores but are good cars. The same phenomenon happens today to the Boxster afficionados, imagine when the Boxster is 20 years old how it will be seen.

In the end I found an 86 951 owned by a friend of a friend in good enough shape to work with and I bought it for $5500, and put several thousands in repair and upgrades, replacing anything deteriorated or broken and upgrading brakes, shocks, all rubber, et al. The only blemishes are a cracked dash, ac doesn't work, a tear in the seat fabric, and the rear glass hatch rattles.

Since this post is getting long, I'm going to post a few separate notes to clear up misconceptions about the f-bodies and the 951.

 

On the LS1 F-body (Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac Firebird)

One misconception the Europhiles have is that no American car can handle. At all. Ask them to turn and they will simply fall over and die. This stereotype simply is not true. People who say that must have images of the 67 GTO stuck in their heads, Jeremy Clarkson included. Someone in this thread made a comment about the car running off a cliff when asked to turn. This is simply ignorant. The f-bodies can handle very well in stock form, thank you. I had a one day driver's ed event and my instructor was an SCCA national champion who won in his 02 Camaro SS. Stock, my car handled too softly and had too much body roll for my taste, so I did modify the supsension to set it up the way I like, lower ride height and stiffer suspension. But for $1-2k in mods, it handles amazingly well. So no, it isn't a Miata. But it is hardly an ox cart either. The f-bodies handle pretty well stock. Don't let the solid rear axle scare you off, it is mitigated in the handling as much as possible.

Another misconception expressed was that they are expensive to modify. This is utter nonsense. First of all, these are powerful motors bone stock. I had mine dyno'ed and registered 313 hp and 331 ft/lb at the wheels, which is roughly 380 bhp and 434 ft/lb at the flywheel. Some simple mods, such as a cam and headers, will get you closing in on the mid 400s in HP. This is all NA, add nitrous, turbo, supercharger, et al and the numbers get eye-popping.

Brakes -- misconceptions all around here. On the plus side -- they have 12.something inch vented rotors in the front with 2-piston calipers and small vented rotors with single-piston calipers in the back. The brakes are nowhere near the same front and back as one person said (are you a carless teenager who doesn't know anything about cars?). They are NOT the same as the brakes on the C5 Corvette. However, contrary to what someone else said, they are NOT shared with Chevy passenger cars either. Re the Corvette, swapping in C5 rotors (13") and calipers (better 2 piston forged) is a popular cheap big-brake upgrade for the f-bodies. On the minus side, the stock brakes aren't enough for these heavy cars and will fade, though you can help that with aggressive pads & rotors. You will want to at least do the C5 brake swap, as I did, and if you're making a dedicated track car, look for a good aftermarket kit.

Another misconception is gas mileage. The LS1/LS2 motors are surprisingly fuel efficient. In mixed driving I get 21 mpg while my 951 gets 22 mpg. When I was doing highway only driving I got 28 mpg. All these from a near 400 hp V8. BMW sixes don't get this kind of mileage.

Overall, the car is very powerful and has good looks -- curves in all the right places. Too much cheap plastic inside and body gaps that are too wide for my taste are among the complaints. The car has too much overhang, and for such a large car the use of space is inefficient. I'm 6'2" and my knee is always against the edge of the center console.

However, the car is very fast, very powerful, and it can handle pretty well. To be honest I'm not sure you will find one for $10k.

 

On the Porsche 944 Turbo (951)

Z06Kal said the 944 Turbo (and by extension any car not a 911, such as the 914, 924, 944, 968, 928) is driven by extremely poor people and are always in disrepair, spewing blue smoke at every light. This statement is largely nonsense (see Rennlist) but there is a small grain of truth in his overstatement. On this I will elaborate.

The used Porsche market is composed of a small number of genuine enthusiasts, who often consider the neglected models, but is largely composed of the badge whores. There are a few 911 fans (993 and older) who genuinely love these old cars, but most of them are badge whores who want a P-car.

The air-cooled cars are very tricky on the track (think pendulum) and not recommended for the faint of heart, so junior racers should beware. The 951, on the other hand, is one of the best handling cars ever and has perfect 50/50 balance. It is a transaxle design with the motor in front and the transmission with the rear axle which provides power.

Anyway, only the 911 sees a high value on the used market. The other model lines tend to fall, and what happens is this. As the values fall, the cars are cheaper, and people who don't do their homework end up buying them, and putting off preventive maintenance and general repairs because they didn't realize what they were getting into when they bring the car to the Porsche dealer. This happens often enough that the cars are driven into the ground over the decades. Things are let go.

I know a guy who has a 944 NA and he doesn't maintain it. It has the badly cracked dash, the drooping suspension, even rust which is very rare on these cars. However, he bought it NEW so he isn't poor. He just stopped maintaining it, or he was never as meticulous as I am with my cars.

While the price of ENTRY is low on these cars, the cost of MAINTENANCE is high. I pay my Porsche tuner the same hourly rate as the gent with the new 997. These cars are NOT cheap to keep running. That's why many fall into disrepair. However, find a loving owner who does the work and is willing to put in the money, and also realize that you're not going to get the resale out of it, and you'll find they are quite nice cars and quite competitive.

The next misconception, also voiced by Z06Kal, is that these cars are turds. Not true, you're letting the run-down neglected cars influence your opinion. Again, take a look at Rennlist and look for the 944fest coverage in particular. In it's day, the 951 was more than a match for its contemporary 911 Turbo, let alone the C4s and Z cars of the day. 20 years old, they are still a match for the 350Z's of today's market. When they were new, the 951 was an INSANE car. That's a lesson Porsche has learned. The 928 was supposed to replace the 911; the 951 stepped on the 911 Turbo's turf. The 911 nazis didn't like that, they insist that their p-car has to be a 911 or nothing. That's why the 928 went away instead of the 911. That's why the Cayman will be held back and never reach full potential. They Cayman has the engine in the right place (mid-engine) and could become a better car than the 911 if allowed to. But the 911 has to be kept on a pedestal, even if it's artificial.

If returned to stock performance levels, a 951 is a 14-second car. Not blindingly fast by today's standards, but hardly slow either. Yes, it's slower than my Trans Am. But it's not slow. On the track (as I've mentioned, I have tracked both at Pocono and Lime Rock) it gives as good as it gets. I had a good back and forth battle with an Evo at Lime Rock last time. Now, mine is lightly modded and hasn't been dyno'ed yet (chipped, headers, exhaust, boost enhancer), but now I have a G-tech meter so I'll see what the 1/4 and hp/tq estimates are when I get a place to play. (BTW the TA did a best of 13.2 in the quarter).

The car has 4-piston Brembo brakes front and rear. It doesn't have any of the nanny electronics such as stability control, et al. Versions before 87 also have no ABS or airbags, which also saves weight. Mine is supposed to weigh 2900 pounds, rare territory for modern sports cars. The C6 Z06 is a miracle of carbon fiber and balsa wood at 3200 pounds. Something like a 350Z is a porker at 3400-3600 pounds.

My overall impressions of the car: It is not the fastest thing on the planet but it is fast enough. The handling is magnificent (this is one of the best handling cars ever made), the brakes are superb, it's easy and fun to toss around in the corners. Not quite a go-kart but towards that end of the spectrum. I spun out in a hairpin at Pocono (a problem in my driving which I fight in both cars) and when I spun out, it felt like it was a five minute event, the car gave me so much time to correct. With the TA I get a lot of understeer (nose heavy) and snap oversteer (from the high horsepower); my task is to learn how to use one to negate the other. In the 951 there is no such problem, I don't have to fight this car at all.

 

Not quite, the TA handles pretty nicely and even better with a few $k in mods. The 944 handles yards better than the TA

I disagree. Maybe the ones you have seen are junk. You go on to talk about DSMs, which are junk from the factory and most have been beaten into the ground by their boy-racer owners.

They aren't that heavy (my vert with subframe and roll cage is 3600, IIRC the coupe is 3350). And they handle pretty well, as I said above. F-bodies had a presence at both Lime Rock and Pocono and did pretty well. I should tell you some stories of my friend with the Firebird Formula who, with a simple cam and headers and his driving skill, eats just about everybody alive in his class. They guys in the Porsche club aren't too happy when he beats the 911 turbos and Dinan M3s either.

See above re: badge whores and the snobbery pecking order.

They aren't fragile (bottom end is bulletproof), but yes they are expensive to repair. Find one that's been maintained and they're quite reliable.

That's like making fun of the 4th gen f-bodies because of the 77 6.0 liter TA. The 924 was supposed to be an Audi originally (the rings are stamped into the floorpan) and used an old VW van engine. The 924 was a shaky start to be honest. The 944 stepped up with a Porsche motor (1/2 of the 928 motor), wider body, better suspension, transaxle, et al, but was still manufactured at an Audi plant. By the end of the 944's life, Porsche was building it, as they did with the 968 that succeeded the 944.

Oh, and the 4th gen fbodies, which are built on the 3rd gen's floor pan built in 1982 (think on me the next time someone asks what that hump in the floor is) isn't? The catalytic hump, the large overhanging nose, the inefficient use of space, the now-passe "cab-forward" styling that means you have to be Patrick Ewing to reach the base of the windshield, the painfully slow power window motors? Don't get me wrong I think the Firebird has nice lines but the 944 has proven to be a somewhat timeless design that still looks good. It remains to be seen if the 4th gen f-bodies will get the same respect. Look at it this way, Porsche never did anything as dated and egregious as the screaming chicken hood decal. Well, OK, the whale-tail spoilers of the 70's were tasteless. A 951 looks modern to this day; an 85 Firebird doesn't.

The only Porsches with the engine in the right place are the Boxster/Cayman. The rear engine layout of the 911 is an absurd deformity they have learned to work around.

Uh, no, sorry, wrong on both counts.

For someone who sells cars you don't know the product very well, do you? Did you sell brazzieres before you got this job? The LS1 is a powerful, reliable, and fuel efficient motor, and it's one of the most popular crate motors ever. You would think if it were so troublesome all those people racing them would have changed their minds by now.

As to the "rebuild that you will never have to do to the 951", I've already done a top-end rebuild on mine courtesy of the RUBBER TIMING BELT in the INTERFERENCE ENGINE DESIGNED BY PORSCHE, thank you. My LS1 has never had the valve covers off in 70,000 miles.

It's clear you are one of the Europhiles with the blinders on.

You are wrong on your implication of poor handling, and you are wrong saying that it wouldn't be able to handle itself on a road course. Take a gander at SCCA events or the average club track day and you will see quite differently.

Sorry, wrong, they don't. Are you sure you own one or are you a pimply-faced teenager with a huffy? The f-bodies have 2-piston cast calipers with 12" rotors. The Vettes have 2-piston forged calipers with 13" rotors. The C5 brake swap is a popular upgrade for F-bodies, I have done it with my own two hands.

He is wrong about GM pussing out because the C6 Z06 has 6-piston calipers up front. However, talk about research, the rear rotors on the f-body are just as big as the front? More proof you don't know what you're talking about and obvious don't own one. Either that or your wheels are entirely enclosed and you can't see the brakes. The rear rotors are TINY.

Exhibit #2 of a europhile who can't get the image of a 67 Pontiac GTO out of his head. Reminder: these cars can actually handle pretty well. I have equal fun on the country back roads with my Trans Am and my 951. The 951 does handle better but by yards not miles.

 

Thanks for your input. Some people just live on stereotypes...

 

It comes down to prefrence. As far as the Fbody vs. 951; I've driven several of each. Two different worlds that would require two different driving styles. Both are very capable. Neither is crap. I would, and did, go for the 951; and I will never regret it.

 

Newbie, a word of advice. Don't come on here and act like a know it all. Bad way to get started....
Did I say C5? No, fact is the LS1 based calipers are based on C4 Corvette PBR calipers. Believe me, I know much more then you about late-model F-Bodies, on here you have to be less technical with members who might not have any experience with them. And the C5 to F-body brake caliper upgrade is a waste, it's been proven to be worthless. The only advantage is maybe a little lighter caliper whcih is in no way worth the cost. I went with a full Willwood kit.

 

Are you sure YOU own one? Technically the rears are BIGGER. Rotor diameters are 11.8-inch front and 11.9-inch rears....seems to me you don't know anything about the car you "drive".
Read about the brake upgrade that started in '98 here....research, research, it works you know.
http://carcraft.com/roadtests/975/

 

we have a winner.

 

Basque heritage.

 

Apparently some people don't get the message all that well. I warned them both with big freakin text. Then when he posted again I gave him the benefit of the doubt and deleted the post and fully explained things via PM.....................