Last post on Mar 16, 2013 at 9:24 AM
You are in the Smart Shopper
What is this discussion about?
#1363 of 1392 Re: What to buy? [colin_l]
Dec 11, 2011 (2:21 pm)
You absolutely want the S2000. The resale value on BMWs is poor because they are pretty sad things used, especially the original Z3s. The Boxster also has similar engine and repair cost issues. Both drive great, but they aren't simple or basic cars. ie - they are a 2-seater convertibles and not really a light and agile roadster.
Plus, the reason S2000s don't depreciate is because they really were instant classics.
#1364 of 1392 Re: What to buy? [plekto]
Dec 11, 2011 (6:15 pm)
Well, if we are comparing old ones, it doesn't amount to a whole hell of a lot. And s2ks certainly do depreciate.
2000 z3 2.5. Original msrp 31,300. Current trade-in value with 100k miles is $4900. 15.66%
2000 s2000. Original msrp 32,000. Current trade-in value with 100k miles is $5800. 18.13%
That seems to hold pretty steady through the years. An '04 s2k, for instance, is worth a grand more than an '04 z4 2.5. Both were right around $33k new.
#1365 of 1392 Re: What to buy? [qbrozen]
Dec 11, 2011 (11:03 pm)
But you'll note that almost all of the lower-priced Z3s are automatics. The repair costs will also crush your wallet. And to add insult to injury, I've seen old Buicks with better interiors than a typical 10 year old BMW. They seriously don't age well. Mind you, Mercedes are also similar, so it's not specific to BMW. The S2000 is so simple that there's nothing to really break. And the engine is pretty close to bulletproof.
#1366 of 1392 Re: What to buy? [plekto]
Dec 12, 2011 (6:34 am)
I don't know why you think the repair costs are any more than a Honda. I've had both and find no difference. Of course, I don't go to the dealer. Anybody who does go to the dealer has no right to complain about the cost.
As far as "typical interior," well, I guess the one I have is completely atypical. The 30-year-old bimmer we had had bad seats, but that is typical of any convertible with black leather. They were actually still in better shape than my 30-year-old Italian leather (Alfa). I have no interest in any buick of the past 30 years, so I have no idea what those tend to look like.
Don't know if I would call the S2k simple. Anything with a redline that high is actually fairly complex. Oil burning issues aren't terribly uncommon with the early cars. They are both fine cars. I would say their reliability is virtually even. You also stand a better chance finding a z3 that wasn't raced. The s2k is better looking, though.
#1367 of 1392 Re: What to buy? [qbrozen]
Dec 12, 2011 (1:35 pm)
I agree with the majority of your posts, but good grief. BMW maintenance and repair costs suck compared to a Honda. I've had a few of both. For starters, my BMWs seem to trash their brake pads and rotors every 30K miles. On my Hondas and Acuras, I tend to average about 100K on a set of pads. I've never driven one long enough to wear out the rotors. BMWs are horrible on consumables, from brake light bulbs to tires to just about anything as compared to a Honda. Plus, BMWs require more frequent and usually annoying repairs.
Plus, I can reset the darn maintenance light on a Honda without a special tool.
#1368 of 1392 Re: What to buy? [qbrozen]
Dec 12, 2011 (1:38 pm)
As for the interiors, specifically in a 3 series, the E30s are really durable, the E46s are somewhat durable, and the E36s have crap interiors.
I base this on my personal experience, looking at tons of used cars, reading Bimmer, reading BMW specific forums, etc.
#1369 of 1392 Re: What to buy? [lemmer]
Dec 17, 2011 (11:08 am)
And the E36 is the platform that the Z3s were based upon, especially when it came to electrical and interior construction. They really do tend to be worn-out and full of problems as they age. And what a miserable piece of Tupperware the interior is. The Z4, that's a whole other animal, though. But even then, it's really expensive to own one. I would have suggested a Mercedes SLK as well, but they are incredibly expensive to fix. $2000+ clutch jobs and so on.
A 30 year old BMW or Mercedes? They were still making them with a lot of quality, especially for the upper-level models. So they really can't be compared to the newer models.
A S2000 is as simple and straight forward as a Miata. But it drives and looks a whole lot better. Nobody cares about a Z3 but you will get some looks with a S2000.
#1372 of 1392 Which used car is right for me?
Jan 17, 2012 (10:03 pm)
I need to get a car to get me back and forth from school for this year only. I will only need it for this semester (I am staying home for this semester and then going to finish my undergrad on the other side of the country, but I'll be back for breaks). My parents are buying the car for me, but I have to buy gas.
I'm currently looking at 2 cars: a 2009 Toyota Corolla 4dr Sedan LE and a Suzuki SX4 Sport Touring FWD Sedan.
The Corolla was nice, but it had many MANY scratches on all sides, even on the front and the rims. One side looked like it was sideswiped, because there were more scratches on that one side, on top of the clip of the front right bumper sticking out and condensation in the right side headlight. I am using the past tense because the dealer was getting someone to buffer out the scratches, fix the clip, and do a touch up with some paint, but we haven't seen it yet so I'm not sure what to think yet .I popped open the front hood and didn't see any parts crumbled, so I know if it was involved in any sort of accident or whatever to cause those scratches, it didn't effect how the vehicle runs. I test drove the Corolla. The ride was smooth, the tires didn't veer to one side if I let go of the steering wheel, and it had a nice pick-up for a four cylinder engine. The Corolla also has much better MPG and mileage compared to the Suzuki. The Corolla has about 30,000 miles and gets an estimated 27 City/35 Highway, while the Suzuki has 42,962 miles and gets an estimated 22 City/30 Highway.
After tax and additional fee's, I'm looking around $11500 for the Corolla and $9500 for the Suzuki.
I have yet to see the Suzuki (am going to take a look tomorrow), but assuming everything with the Suzuki is perfect (no scratches, I like how the car drives and looks) what do you guys think would be the better car?
I'm not sure if I trust Suzuki cars, because they are less known, and to my knowledge are considered the economic-bargain cars. Also, since safety should be the highest priority, I would think Toyota is leaps and bounds ahead of Suzuki in that fashion. I'm not sure about this, but I think Suzuki doesn't have great safety ratings.
Which car would you pick? Would you still pick the Corolla over the Suzuki, despite it still having noticeable blemishes/potential safety issues?
If anyone is interested, the link to the Suzuki from the dealer is here:
The Toyota was never listed on the dealer's website, but I listed the trim.