![]() 11/03/2016 at 15:50 • Filed to: Car Buying | ![]() | ![]() |
All three can easily be had for under $160k now (even under $130k in some cases). Which of the three would you go for? These were the top of the performance heirarchy and constantly on dream car lists just 60-72 months ago.
Bonus: Figure out which you like most then give me a 2016/2017 vehicle that matches the performance on paper.
![]() 11/03/2016 at 16:06 |
|
Lambo for me. Looks insane. Available gated-manual (though prob not for $160K b/c “I know what I have, no lowballers”). 12-cylinder soundtrack. 0-60 in 3.4 seconds.
Roll the clocks forward to 2017, and R&T Magazine is recording a 3.4 0-60 in the Audi S8 Plus. I imagine the Laws of Physics aren’t OK with that.
![]() 11/03/2016 at 16:08 |
|
12C.
Bonus: 570S.
![]() 11/03/2016 at 16:10 |
|
575M and keep the money for sweaters.
But yeah, Lambo of these three.
![]() 11/03/2016 at 16:11 |
|
160K for the automatics.
If you want a good Ferrari (meaning with a stick), be prepared to pay:
http://www.autotrader.ca/a/Ferrari/599/Etobicoke/Ontario/5_29545735_ON20080116103120953/?showcpo=ShowCPO&orup=1_15_5
However, a Murci is more affordable:
I’d still have the Ferrari. Resale value, classy look and GT cruising before all-out performance for me.
BONUS: 3.3 sec for a 0-60 in the Ferrari. Today, the Corvette Z06 CONVERTIBLE can do that. The coupe is faster.
![]() 11/03/2016 at 16:34 |
|
599 is love
![]() 11/03/2016 at 16:55 |
|
2004 Lamborghini Murcielago Coupe $154,888
![]() 11/03/2016 at 19:24 |
|
I can testify that the Mclaren rides like nothing else, very easy to use and well laid out, especially compared to the Murcielago that feels a little tight and low inside, but I’ll take the sound of the V12 over the Mclaren any day.