'You should have bought a better car'

For me, half the fun is building the car. And I mean building it myself, not throwing $20-30k at some shop to build it for me. Since I can't afford to both buy AND build a car that is expensive to start with, I'd rather just buy a cheap car and build it. Just more fun that way.

That said, I'm referring to my fun cars. For a Daily driver - though my WRX is fairly well built - my next one I'd prefer something that is "pretty good stock" and not play with it much.

I can argue both sides of this coin. I just bought a nice performance-status car waaaay below market but ended up near market costs after sorting it OT. Mind you it now is pimpy, wildly modded, and 150 wheel hp more than stock but still.

I had to get my laptop out to write this because Mr. Farah is becoming rapidly becoming gas-lighted by his experiences. This is something, with few exceptions, that happens to automotive journalists over time and causes them to lose touch with their audience.

Cars occupy an interesting niche in our society. Outside of major cities they become a necessity which essentially divides people that buy cars into two groups.

A) Those who buy a cars based upon their needs and get whatever most closely suits those needs. (CR reliability ratings, feature sets, size, color, moonroof, price)

B) Those who buy cars because for nonsensical reasons.

Enthusiasts fall into group B because, by and large, there isn't a cohesive set of criteria that can be used to define what we want. By comparison group A can be largely defined through the use of some basic market research.

That's the root of the issue with how he answered that FRS problem. If the guy wanted an absurd two door sports car what options does he have? Okay a Cayman... but will the Cayman be the what he wants? For group A absolutely. It is a nice place to be, has badge recognition, is mostly reliable, has power, and rides nicely.

However it fails almost every aspect of group B's tests. Does he want something wide body? Cayman fails the test.
Does he want something that'll do a quarter mile in 10ish seconds? Cayman fails at that price point.
Does he want something that'll outrun 911s on a track day? Cayman fails at that price point.
Does he want something that he can wrench on? Caymans can be owner maintained but the price of parts is quite a bit higher than Toyota/Subaru. Cayman mostly fails.

Meanwhile a modified FRS would likely come pretty close to meeting every single one of those tests because it is what the owner wants it to be. Which at it's core is what car culture really is.

Matt Farah seems to have fallen into the auto journalist trap where they become used to seeing specific things in high-end cars so therefore lower priced cars with those features are somehow better than those without. That appeals to group A but to group B those things often make no difference. You can see this with is LC500 review where he talks about how it makes great noises and drives great, but his ultimate conclusion ended up being "It's great but mainly berkeley it because no one is going to spend 100k on a Japanese car simply because it isn't German or Italian."

"Better" for enthusiasts is an nebulous thing and that's a fact that Mr. Farah should already know after driving so many modified cars.

You can't buy what I build for double what I spend. Not in terms of speed, not in terms of exclusivity, not in terms of having something that's specifically tailored to my needs. He's not wrong about a lot of people but that doesn't mean it's right for me. I like to have a tool for a specific job, manufacturers can't build a narrowly focused vehicle like that and expect to sell it.

I think you are all trying to find logic in this.

There is no logic.

Cars to us is like an alcoholic trying to turn down a drink. We KNOW it's bad for us, we KNOW it makes no sense financially, we KNOW we will regret it the whole time, but we do it anyway. And we actively look for more cars to do it all over again. Why, I saw this one on Craigslist just the other day.....

Does age have any bearing on this topic?

I can't afford a better car.

I see two things here that make the basic question dubious:

1) "Better"? Every car is a compromise; what are your priorities?

2) The results are very different in what you can get by buying for $2K and building to $6k than buying at $20k and building to $60k... I could have gotten a nicer example of an E30 than what I had for $6k up front, but it wouldn't have been half the autocrosser, been as fast, or been nearly as much what I wanted. For contrast, to spend $40k on mods, you're going to do a lot of gilding the lily, chasing big numbers... stuff that could get you more genuinely interesting upgrades in a car that started out further up some chain.

My two cents, not redeemable for cash value.

The time i spend screwing around in the garage is what keeps me sane and my mind awake and alert.. no brand new car can buy that, even if it is faster and better in every measurable way.

The way I look at this is simply Matt and co are looking at it from a resale standpoint and the amount of money dumped into a modified car will never, ever come back unless you're already a famous tuning company like Shelby, Saleen, etc.

Also if you just throw parts at a car without rhyme or reason, then don't expect it to be as good as one that someone has carefully selected parts and pieces and installed them carefully.

I guess if you're looking to impress someone with your Fast & Furious tuned car, then you'll easily fall into the category of people they were talking about. If you're modifying the car because you truly enjoy it and just want to make it better or to fix some of the factory foibles, but you don't care if people like your car or understand it, then people like Matt won't get it and they don't matter to you anyway.

Robbie wrote: The moment you think a showroom car is cooler than a car you built yourself for the same money.

I 100% agree with this, this is the answer. I've spent more on my car than most people would have, but I genuinely don't think I'd rather have anything else for the money spent. Another $5k-$10k in, I might feel differently.

The old build or buy argument. The built approach will certainly be more unique and potentially more tailored to it's owner. They often sacrifice in one area in order to excel in another.

The bought vehicle will probably have an advantage in engineering hours coming from an OEM, so it may feel higher quality, and will likely be more well rounded. It may also come with some badge prestige, or catch the eye of non-car people more easily. The appeal of a warranty and dealer backed service appeals to a lot of people as well.

Ultimately, it depends on everybody's situation and priorities. Life is short. Not everything is about numbers. Drive what you like.

I think the main point here is that Mr. Farah has got you folks talking-------about him and his opinions. That means he's doing his job well.

For the record--- Matt is a good guy. I attended a BFG tire launch with him (and 40 other journalists) at the Auto Club Speedway. Part of the day was a group autocross, and I was lucky enough to have Matt on my team. We won, and Matt posted the top time of the day.

Cool guy, and I like his work. I don't agree completely with this mindset, but it's an interesting conversation.

Unless we're talking about making a successful race car, it should be up to the buyer. If throwing $250k at a Civic gives you a car that makes you happier than anything you can buy new for $250k, go for it.

http://www.thedrive.com/muscle-cars/5250/can-the-fox-body-ford-mustang-be-a-legit-track-car

This article does a pretty good job of explaining why Matt is saying "you should have bought a better car."

Matt's got a good point. He's speaking from experience - not only from driving other people's modified cars, but from his own experience. He has a Mustang that he's modified and spent stupid money on, and it just didn't work out.

Granted, he doesn't do his own wrenching. As someone who does tech support for Miata parts that are on the easy-to-install end of the spectrum, I can report that a lot of people don't. So paying someone else to do the work for you is part of the cost. Even if you do your own wrenching, you're going to be in for time and that has a cost.

Modifying an existing car can make sense when you're going to end up with a car that you wouldn't be able to buy otherwise. As noted, Matt's a big fan of our V8 ND for exactly that reason. But also because the car doesn't demand any sacrifices of you. It's not like a Cayman where you can't close the rear hatch anymore because the new engine doesn't QUITE fit, or an M3 with suspension so stiff you can't drive for 30 minutes.

Enthusiasts tend to discount what manufacturers can do when given a real budget. Let me tell you, it's pretty impressive. I watched a bone stock Z06 wipe the floor with the best of the four cylinder aftermarket in 2003 at a Car and Driver test, and it changed the way I looked at what the OEMs could do. They don't have the same stupid compromises (see the Cayman that won't close as an example) that some modified cars do because they have resources even the biggest aftermarket shops can only dream of. You have to work REALLY hard to come up with something that's on the same plane.

However, you can also build things that the OEs have forgotten about. Overdamped suspensions are popular these days, and if you come up with a car that has fluidity and composure it's like a revelation. You can give a more honest, more tactile driving experience but you have to be careful to keep it refined. Matt's had the chance to drive a wide cross-section of modified vehicles, and he knows that most modified cars miss these points.

Note that I'm not discussing absolute numbers here, because they don't matter. The discussion is equally relevant for a $1k car with $10k worth of parts in it as it is for a $50k car with $100k worth of work.

pushrod36 wrote: http://www.thedrive.com/muscle-cars/5250/can-the-fox-body-ford-mustang-be-a-legit-track-car This article does a pretty good job of explaining why Matt is saying "you should have bought a better car."

That story is one of those that makes me feel better. This guy's doing everything as correctly and perhaps as expensively as possible, and still faces the exact same kind of challenges I do on a tiny budget, cheapassing everything I can get away with and even some things I can't.

In fairness, we do this at times as well. Why build a fox mustang's rear suspension when a 3rd gen f body is better out of the box? Why mod a $1500 NA6 Miata when an NB1 can be bought for about the same price as the modded specimen? It's the same argument. Matt's just talking at a higher price point.

Tipping point for me? When the dollar amount exceeds my interest in the car.

dean1484 wrote: Does age have any bearing on this topic?

Yes, I think so. When young we do dumb stuff.

My perspective. First let's talk racing, autocross or dedicated track car. They are all very different from street, canyon or occasional track autocross/track toys. With something you are building for a purpose you need in 99% of cases to add specialist equipment. Serious springs/shocks, bushings, safety gear and systems up to abuse well beyond anything you could do on the road. You will eventually have to do that to a Miata or C7 Z06 so I exclude any serious competition car from the discussion.

Next the car you've had for 5-10-15 years and done a bit at a time. so your diff was noisy at 100K and you rebuilt it with an LSD. Engine wear? Re-build to higher spec. Shocks worn out? put on new upgraded shocks, springs etc. Again this no longer counts as it a)covers maintenance in the upgrades and b) it's your long term dream toy.

Where I do agree is the moment you start paying someone to work on your car to upgrade or replace anything that's not got miles on it. While it's the fodder of the magazine, the 330 they did a few years ago to match a new M3 was pointless to me. By any rational standard you should have bought the M3 first.

Also the older I get the more and more I believe that most modified cars are ruined cars. I went down that path 20 years ago. I modified my then new SN95 more and more over about 4 years, then spent the next 3 years de-modifying it and liking it more and more. Rock hard bushings, stiff springs and shocks, upgraded engine and trans mounts might be great on the track, but they universally suck on the street. This is exacerbated for me by living in Michigan with some of the E36 M3tiest roads in the nation. The roads were better in poor parts of Mexico when I lived there.

I'm not talking about minor upgrade, wheels, tires, sway bars, end links, a flash or tune etc. But when people start dropping $2-3-4-5K on just coil over kits for a car less than 5 years old for 90% street use I just don't see the point. Also in many cases that Matt and the everyday car guys are talking about, most of these people are paying to have the work done. So suddenly your $2,000 PSS9 coil over kit for your car is now a $3K kit after paying $100-120 an hour for someone to install it. Also most suspension upgrades degrade the ride and NVH to make it unacceptable to me. Caveat. I’m still talking Michigan roads and the fact that to me a brand new EVO has a non-acceptable daily driver ride quality. A friend had an S197 Mustang with some high end shocks sold by a popular company that boasts how great they are and back it up with great on track results. They also talk about how great the ride is. It may be great for Texas, but I can tell you, for Michigan they sucked, they were simply awful and I think part of the reason he sold the car in less than a year.

I can tell you that a $2k coilover kit can improve both ride and handling over a brand new stock setup in some cases Suspension is the place where you can make the biggest difference to a car for the least amount of money, as every suspension is a compromise of some sort, even if it's just compromised on cost (which goes back to my point of OEs and budget constraints). Of course, this is a double-edged sword, because you can ruin a car for less money via suspension than you can by any other means...

I mod my cheap old Miata because of poverty. If I won the PowerBall tonight I'd be at the local speed shop tomorrow hiring out the work to mod the ever-loving berkeley out of a couple of the cars I have now (1999 Suburban with 1,200 hp and a full Nascar treatment just for giggles). But I'd buy nicer cars to actually drive every day.

So can my answer to all this be "both"?

In reply to Keith Tanner:

Absolutely 100% agree in principle, but personally I've never ever experienced it. Every modified car I've ever been in has a worse ride than stock. But I've never driven a Flyin Miata product so I'm 100% ready to be convinced if you want to send me a test car for a month or too

I hate projects. I wrench on cars simply to keep them going and save some money - it's out of necessity, not out of desire. I'm a driver and a racer and aside from silly stuff like exhausts and intakes (which, nowadays, are more for sound than performance) I almost never modify a car until I can't POSSIBLY drive it any faster, I'm pushing it so hard it stops being fun, or I'm pushing it so hard that stock pieces aren't going to work.

Tires, brake fluid, and brake pads are almost always an upgrade because even on a light car, I'll shred a set of street tires in a few track hours. I can burn up a set of front brake pads in one afternoon. These things need attention in order to keep driving it fast.

Suspension, on the other hand... I'll use my E46 M3 as an example. I tracked this car a lot. For two or three years, spring to fall, I did at least a track day a week. I did something over 100 track days with this car (I thought I had my logbook saved on dropbox but I can't find it for exact numbers). It could have benefitted from a nice big brake upgrade and camber plates, not to make it go faster, but to preserve brakes and tires. Aside from alignments, I never touched the suspension on the car. It was as-delivered from the factory for every day at the track I ever went to, and I never got passed by another M3, stock, modified, stripped for club racing, nada. Never.

When I sold this car to a friend of mine, a couple months later he did his second track day in the car and had very exciting news to tell me. "My instructor," he said, "told me I'm really close to outdriving the car and I should really put coilovers on it!"

"Really?" I asked. "Outdriving the car? What kind of lap times are you running?"

"At Blackhawk, I did a 1:28 last time!"

"I run low 1:19s in that car."

He was stunned.

I can't stand all of the useless modifications so many people do. Why in the world would to put coilovers on a street car? And why would you put coilovers on an autocross/track car unless your stock suspension can't possibly do any more for you? High performance OEM suspensions are better than most people give them credit for. Granted, some of them are crap, but the amount of M3s I saw on Ground Control coilovers with Stoptech big brake kits, stripped out interiors, vents all over the place, forced induction, even... None of them ever managed to be faster than me in my stock car.

When I get bored with a car, it's time to swap cars, not apply a patch and hope for the best. I love cars. I want to drive them and look at them and push them and feel them. If I have to get dirty to make that happen, so be it, but I want to avoid that as much as possible. For me, personally, the thrill comes from taking whatever I have and learning how to drive it right up to the edge, as much as it can possibly give me.

I would absolutely rather have the Cayman than the modified... Well, anything, really.

Lugnut wrote: Why in the world would to put coilovers on a street car? And why would you put coilovers on an autocross/track car unless your stock suspension can't *possibly* do any more for you? High performance OEM suspensions are better than most people give them credit for.

I’m with you. And this brings up another pet peeve and part of the reason why I gave up on autocross. Back when I was autocrossing seriously you could win Nationals in a B stock 1.8NA Miata (yes, B stock, really) with a set of Koni yellows and some BFG Comp TA R1’s. Fancy people got a front bar too. When people started spending $2-3k on custom valved shocks for stock class I lost all interest immediately. First 99% of people (including myself) including most people who dropped that sort of coin on the shocks, could never drive to the level of needing them. But the fact the podium positions had them and they were a differentiator at that level made it pointless to me. Yes, you have to pay to play, but the price to play became pointless. I was never and will never be a great driver. With lots of practice I can be a competent driver. Back then I could win B stock locally in a 1.6L Miata with second hand KYB’s and normally beat most 1.8L CSP cars at the same time, but costs went nuts and I made the mistake of thinking that road racing wasn’t that big a step up in time or commitment. Boy was I wrong on that one!

Lugnut wrote: I would absolutely rather have the Cayman than the modified... Well, anything, really.

We need a thumbs up emoji.

I've gone both ways.

Had an E30 318is that was doing triple duty as a track car, daily driver, and winter car (I was living in Canada at the time...so DD and Winter Beater were two distinct classes). In 2003, I bought a brand-new Lancer Evo VIII for $28.5k and it was better in each of the 3 roles for me: safer and more comfortable on the street, faster around the track, and a monster in the snow and ice.

In that case, it definitely made more sense to buy the new car rather than mod the old one.

For the last 5-6 years I've been building a Mercedes 190E as a racecar. Makes no sense. Cost me much more than buying something like an E46 M3 or 996 Carrera ... both of which would have been faster out of the box. With equivalent mods, they'd leave me for dead. But I love the damned thing and don't want to drive anything else.