Panda 100HP - Am I nuts?

[TW]Fox;21476373 said:
Ok, now this sort of sentiment is just annoying. You'll buy a deliberately inferior car, because the better car 'reminds you' of a car thats even better but isn't on the shortlist. Thats just stupid logic.


The MX5 is a brilliant, brilliant car and if you dont need the practicality of a small hatchback, buying a small hatch instead because the MX5 is similar to a Honda S2000 is just plain ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I didn't read it as that and it's similar logic to what I'd have. The Panda isn't too disimilar to the Clio. It's slower, but still fun. It offers the same practicality as the Clio.

An MX5 is a massive change and if you're going to commit to having a 2 seater sports car and all the impracticalities that come with it, why not wait and get the one you really want and do it properly? In this case the S2000 (which imo is several levels up from an MX5).
 
If you are going to buy a hatchback why not just wait and do it properly with a 400bhp modified Focus RS?

The MX5 is not an S2000 rival nor an S2000 alternative. It's cheaper to buy, its newer, its more modern, it's cheaper to run, it's slower, it's just... different. The presence of the S2000 shouldnt make you buy a town car instead of a roadster.
 
Don't know how this will go down but on the weekend I went round the lake district in a honda jazz 1.4 with a friend and that was pretty good fun, managed to take off on a bump going down a road called 'the struggle'.
 
I knew you'd come back with something along the lines of that.

The MX5 is very similar to the S2000. A 400bhp Focus RS isn't similar to the Panda/172 in both purchase price and running costs. Plus he doesn't want a 400bhp Focus RS. He wants an S2000 though.

If you can afford an MX5 but not an S2000 then the S2000 must be only just out of reach. I suppose the best thing to do in this situation would be to just keep the 172 and save for the S2000.
 
Malc said:
If you can afford an MX5 but not an S2000 then the S2000 must be only just out of reach. I suppose the best thing to do in this situation would be to just keep the 172 and save for the S2000.
Click to expand...

Right sort of ball park. I'm beginning to wonder if I'm kidding myself slightly with the S2000 whereas if I could wait and do it 'properly' next year or something.
 
Malc said:
The MX5 is very similar to the S2000. A 400bhp Focus RS isn't similar to the Panda/172 in both purchase price and running costs. Plus he doesn't want a 400bhp Focus RS. He wants an S2000 though.
Click to expand...

An MX5 is not similar to an S2000 in terms of purchase price or running costs. Hence my Focus example to demonstrate this.

The MX5 is a cheap and cheerful sports car. The S2000 is a league above.
 
The S2000 was about £8K more on average to buy when new and used much less of a difference. The fuel economy, road tax, tyre costs etc aren't too disimilar. The S2000 is more expensive to fix (if either car ever goes wrong!) but that's about it.

Most people who could afford to run a used MX5 could afford to run an S2000 of a similar age. Most people looking at a 172 wouldn't be able to afford a Focus RS. I get the point you're making but the scale is completely different. An S2000 is more targeted to car enthusiasts but at current prices the target audiance for both cars has merged somewhat.
 
Malc said:
The S2000 was about £8K more on average to buy when new and used much less of a difference. The fuel economy, road tax, tyre costs etc aren't too disimilar. The S2000 is more expensive to fix (if either car ever goes wrong!) but that's about it.

Most people who could afford to run a used MX5 could afford to run an S2000 of a similar age. Most people looking at a 172 wouldn't be able to afford a Focus RS. I get the point you're making but the scale is completely different. An S2000 is more targeted to car enthusiasts but at current prices the target audiance for both cars has merged somewhat.
Click to expand...

Your also forgetting the huge insurance difference. My MX-5 costsm e £850 to insure. The cheapest quote I can get on an s2000 is well over £2500. The S2000 is in a much higher league of running costs than the MX-5 theres no 2 ways about it.
 
My sister's other half had one of these, got it on a very good finance deal (almost 0% I think with a load of extras). He loved it, was great fun to drive and fairly practical.
Nice revvy little engine and can be chucked into roundabouts with little effort.
 
Malc said:
I'd wait. What are your reasons for ditching the 172?
Click to expand...

I've had it 4 years now, and I'm bored of it essentially. I originally wanted something a little bigger, but I can do without if it means having something I enjoy driving and I can have fun in.

BinnsY said:
Your also forgetting the huge insurance difference. My MX-5 costsm e £850 to insure. The cheapest quote I can get on an s2000 is well over £2500. The S2000 is in a much higher league of running costs than the MX-5 theres no 2 ways about it.
Click to expand...

Insurance for MX5 vs S2000 is about £300 difference, which isn't a huge amount. From what I've read, the fuel economy and running costs aren't hugely dissimilar either - the main cost with the S2000 is making sure the geo is setup right and possible replacing all the bushes at some cost (about £1000).
 
I miss having a smaller/lighter car for commuting. I think they're more fun around town.

I'm tempted to get a 2nd car along the lines of what you're thinking of just for my commute which is mostly inner-city driving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom