DAGREEKNYC

1. 930 SLANT NOSE TURBO 86 OR BETTER GUARDS RED WITH TAN INTERIOR A MUST!!!

2.CL65 2009

3. FLYING SPUR

MB_Forever

Oh man..... your $300k killed my 3 SLR 722 dream machines

Now, I will settle for this.....

1) Used SLR - $160k
2) Used SL65 BS - $140k

e55 baller

S65
Nissan GT-R
997 GT2

RobDoc

All right, I'll play...

Cars to actually be used/driven + using under $300k rule:
-360 CS
-S63/S55
-993 TT

Cars to look at/occas. drive. Cost-No-Object, my favorite 3 cars of all time:
-288 GTO
-Murcie LP640
-Enzo

chucknorris

1) Sauber Mercedes C9 (Daily Driver)

2) Porsche 917K

3) Ferrari F40 LM

absent

Bentley CGT Speed as daily (AWD to deal with snow here)
Scuderia as fun car
Range Rover SC (the 2010 to replace my 2008) for heavy duty
Yes,I'm biased....

To be honest,if I could, I would replace the Scud with a Zonda F Roadster but that car is not available in US.
Looked at the Koenigsegg in Vegas but for all the magnificence of that car it just did not get my blood running faster like the Zonda did(tried one last year near Paris).

CWW

Ya, doesn't human nature suck?

Your observation is true, because once you get it, it's not your dream car anymore. I bet everybody's car on this board, whatever it may be (some have 55's, SL's, M5's, M6's, etc.) was on their "list" before they got it. Mine was, for a decade. But once you get it, the mystique is gone, and now something new pops up on the list.

The whole car manufacturing and sales industry is based entirely on our complete inability to be happy with what we have. Most cars, including these german imports we all have, will last indefinitely given proper maintenance. Something like 80%+ of all MB's ever built are still on the road.

There is no logical reason to get a new car every 2-4 years, especially in this age of 10 year extended warranties. But everybody does anyway...cause' that's human nature.

absent

While it is true for majority,it is not always the case.

JamE55

1. Ruf 997 GT2
2. Underground Racing LP560-4
3. Brabus SL65 BS

acb

Im not including any supercars in my list (and at the outset such a list is so subjective it is almost like asking do you prefer **** or *** . Sure a fazza, lambo, or zonda is drool inducing beauty and performance. But taking a leaf out of Captain Slow's school of thought, supercars really are quite rubbish in doing what they are supposed to do. Sure, if I lived in the US of A, the status associated with having a Faz etc in the driveway and cruisin tha streets might be reason to include it in the list, but (whether good or bad - making no innuendo), here in Oz 95% of people that you drove past would think, well, you are a bit of a ******. Now, the only real reason to own a supercar is, seriously, to impress other people. Bit of a paradox right there. (This is why I love the E55 btw).

Edit : for some reason my top 3 didnt post

So, my top 3:

Renault Megane R-26R

"As a genuine driver’s car the Renault Megane R26R has few rivals, and not just in the world of hot hatchbacks but at any level, at any budget" : Autocar

2010 Range Rover Sport (510hp thank you very much)

2005 E55 AMG

RobDoc

-What the hel1 is a fazza or faz?

-What is a Supercar supposed to do that it doesn't?

-Why do you say an Enzo/McLaren F1/LP640/Carrera GT is rubbish?

-Are you really saying that 95% of Aussies despise exotic cars and their owners? That's really dismal if so. Oz must suck for car lovers.

-I think you're absolutely incorrect about the reason to own a supercar. Sure it's a status thing for some, but at least 50% are owned by true enthusiasts over here. Probably more like 75%.

BigApe

ok -here's mine

W221 S65
08 Range Rover
996 TT

now the garage is full I got one more space on the side of the house for an Arial Atom!

acb

Ok, couple of things. I wouldnt normally care to respond to such a response to what was such a clearly qualified post, but I'm at a loose end for the rest of the day and dont have anything better to do... The OP posed - what 3 cars would YOU want in your stable. This is entirely subjective and is only my opinion. I chose to be somewhat pragmatic about it instead of just saying I want an Enzo, Zonda, and the 2010 Ferrari F1 car.

In the world of the internets a bit of old school philosophy doesnt go astray:

"Not only is it extremely cruel to persecute in this brief life those who do not think the way we do, but I do not know if it might be too presumptuous to declare their eternal damnation."
So, chill. To respond:

"What the hel1 is a fazza or faz?" :

Slang for Ferrari. Didnt realise it doesnt have universal application. My bad

-What is a Supercar supposed to do that it doesn't?

Wall of text but I'll leave it to James May (Captain Slow in my first post) - one of the worlds greatest motoring journo's, to answer this question. He is talking about a Lambo but relevant for the point of my personal opinion :

I quite like a supercar every now and then. Even though my penchant is for big luxury barges and small, simple stuff, you can’t really love cars and not want to drive a Lambo. These days, other supercars – Zonda, Koenigsegg and what have you – may be considered more outrageous, but Lamborghini is the originator of the mid-engined supercar as a piece of community theatre. A Lamborghini is like a fart at a wedding; you know it isn’t funny, but you can’t help feeling that it is.

Ferrari want to be taken seriously, but Lamborghini will be, despite mincing about in a slightly unacceptable suit. As the LP640, the Murciélago dishes up 630bhp and acceleration enough to push your eyeballs round to the sides of your head. The ‘LP’ bit, by the way, stands for longitudinale posteriore, which is an Italian way of saying the engine is in the back and mounted lengthwise, as it was in the Diablo and Countach. This can make for issues when trying to arrange the transmission, but it doesn’t half look good, if you ever manage to find the lever that opens the engine cover.
It all made for an entertaining weekend’s motoring, but at the end of it, I couldn’t help wondering: ‘What’s it actually for?’

Now, I’m familiar with the argument that says a supercar needn’t really be useable day to day, because that sort of thing has to be sacrificed in return for the heightened driving experience and so on and so on. So I’m not going to get too worked up about luggage space, the trauma of climbing over its sills and the reversing problem.

I can accept, therefore, that no one really uses a Murciélago like a car, for going to places and discharging all those duties from which a car is inseparable. Lambos, like two-door Rolls-Royces and Caterhams, are usually part of a stable of cars that includes something like an S-Class for driving around in. A Lambo is an indulgence for special occasions; a sort of caviar for petrol hedonists who normally eat sardines on toast.
But even then, what’s it actually for?

The fact is that the Murciélago feels massive and unwieldy on a real road, even if you only drive it once in a blue moon. On a back-road, where it ought to be fun, it’s too wide. On a motorway, even if you can get away with driving it very fast, it is noisy, and you will hardly be pushing the outside of its envelope. You’d be better off in an Audi S8, which is quieter, has a bigger boot and a better radio. Mid-engined supercars seem to have evolved for dynamic reasons, but to have endured for stylistic ones, and that’s somehow unsatisfying. I’m all for extreme machinery for a purpose, but not for its own sake.

When the mid-engined supercar was invented – and Lambo had a lot to do with it through the Miura – there were sound engineering reasons for putting the engine between the axles. It centralised the mass, reduced the polar inertia (don’t ask) and helped the car corner with greater agility. It meant you couldn’t carry anything, couldn’t see out properly and couldn’t take more than one mate with you, but that was the way it had to be.

But back then, vehicle dynamics were still something of a black art. Saloons behaved in a certain way, small, low, front-engined cars behaved in another way, but if you were prepared to sacrifice everything, you could have a bit more with this thing that came to be known as a supercar.

But now, in an era when a Japanese saloon made by Subaru or Mitsubishi can be made to travel so fast, and corner so well, that it’s hard to see how a supercar is in any way necessary. Germany’s archetypal exec saloon, the BMW 5-Series can be turned into a giant-slayer. Vehicle dynamics are so minutely understood that the case for compromising the shape and lay-out of the car in their honour seems like a very old idea. The supercar is looking suspiciously like a dinosaur.

-Why do you say an Enzo/McLaren F1/LP640/Carrera GT is rubbish?

See above.

-Are you really saying that 95% of Aussies despise exotic cars and their owners? That's really dismal if so. Oz must suck for car lovers.

I didnt say despise I said they would think you were a bit of a ******. Again, my bad for using culturally specific slang, perhaps "knob" might be more universal. But to answer your question : yep. That is not to say that I (a genuine enthusiast), or other genuine enthusiasts think that, but we only make up a small amount of the population. The bottom line is, supercars in my opinion are almost exclusively about posing. Whether it be tall poppy syndrome or some other social phenomenon, the average bloke or chick on the street will think, yep, youre a poser. Perhaps it might have something to do with Australians not judging each others worth on material possessions as much? I dunno. I could go into an interesting discourse about such things, i.e. sub prime/GFC/greed for assets etc etc, but I dont like telling other countries that they "suck"...

-I think you're absolutely incorrect about the reason to own a supercar. Sure it's a status thing for some, but at least 50% are owned by true enthusiasts over here. Probably more like 75%.[/quote]

I cant say, I dont live there. But I would beg to differ on that one. If only 25% of Americans owned supercars for posing reasons (which I am not for one second suggesting is a bad thing, just not MY thing), 75% take them out to the track and use them for what they were engineered for? (btw this is a rhetorical quesiton no need to respond).

Sunir

acb, supercars will never be out of the picture because of the following:

1) they look stunning - and have incredible lines and design features

2) they have very good performance characteristics

3) they are rare to see on the roads, they have a certain level of exclusivity

4) they "feel" great to drive

5) they are "eyecatchers" and people by nature like attention, some a little, some a lot but most everyone at least some...

Now I'm not saying that you can' have a practical car that performs like a supercar; you can. Nor am I saying that you can't take a common car and modify it to perform better than a supercar...that's not the point. The point is that is a supercar is just that; a car that fits all of the 5 criteria above...notice I did not put price into the above; to me price does not define a supercar as much as the other 5 criteria.

baldmike73

i'll play

S65 - with VRP mods on 22's
2010 - RR Sport - SC'd motor (500hp) -
Lambo Miura (classic - as long as it doesn't catch on fire)

CoupeLeicht600

Maybach 62 S
Maybach Exelero
G 55 AMG

acb

Hey mate - I agree with everything you have said. I guess the only point I was making from a personal perspective is that I can never imagine actually owning one because of all their limitations and because other cars (such as the little Renault above) can probably go just as quick on my favourite bit of back country mountrain road. I had a little 308 GT4 Dino for a while and even though it was no supercar, I still wouldnt park it anywhere outside of eyesight for fear of it not being there when I go back.

Dont get me wrong, I love supercars. In fact I still have 'that' poster of the LP500S Countach in my room at my parents house from when I was 13.

transferred

But, by your appraisal, judging people by their possessions is exactly what your countrymen are doing. The only difference, to paraphrase Jeremy Clarkson, is that in America we see a guy in a Roller and say "I'd like to have that one day" while in Australia it's more of a "I'd like to have him out of that" attitude.

Sounds like a chip on the shoulder is common in Oz, watch where you park that E55. We have people like that here, but luckily in relatively small numbers.

motorkas

Original money no object list:

427 AC Shelby Cobra
Enzo
'97 911 TT

300,000 limit:

Factory Five Cobra
'97 911 TT
E 55 Wagon

With the leftovers - throw in a 1098 R, GS 1200, and a ZX-14 Connie

AMGTestDriverNJ

Original:

1.1998 CLK-GTR (Silver)

2.1955 300SLR (Silver)

3.2009 Landaulet (White)


Under 3:

1. 2005 CL65 AMG (Black)

2. 1988 300CE AMG Hammer (Black)

3. 2009 S600 (White)

RenntechE55

Ferrari want to be taken seriously, but Lamborghini will be, despite mincing about in a slightly unacceptable suit.[/QUOTE]


whats thats suppose to mean? that kind of sounds like some little kid that thinks a Lamborghini is the best car in the world. have you ever looked in a F430 and a gallardo? the G car u can find most of the interior in a S4 that you can buy for like 10k but the F430 on the other hand seems like a one off creation so to me I think ferraris are much more serious. just my .02 cents

m52e55

1) Ford GT
2) AM Vanquish S
3) Ascari KZ1

stevebez

This whole supercar thing is partly why I posed this whole question to start with.

My dilemma is just this supercars are IMHO not made for public roads. They are made to get from your garage to a track. On which public roads (german autobahns excluded for the sake of my argument - and lets face it they are so busy anyway you seldom get much above 120mph) can you really exploit a supercar? They are track cars sold to us in the guise of road cars, which ironically are used mostly on the roads and seldom on the track.

My supercar or what I call an "occasion" car - the one that excites you when you are just walking to it... is the one you want to blitz around a track, not drive down the boulevard at 30mph.

Honestly why on earth would you want to drive it on public roads as its main function? To pose perhaps ... fine, but thats not why I want the car.

I think there is some issue with the definition.

A supercar is, to me, one whch is at home on the track and is ok on the road. LP640, 430 Stradiale, Porsche GT3 / RS / RSR / GT2

A performance car is one which is ok on the track, but at home on the road. In this I see AMG's almost exclusively. The best of them are probably 50:50 road/track, CLK DTM is perhaps the "only" supercar and perhaps the SLR. Porsche 911TT comes in here for me as does the rest of their N/A range. The LP540 sits here for me, the new lighter 2wd is a supercar though.

The distinction is there no question and perhaps it is time we consider / reconsider just want we all long for?

LOVEMYBS

I'm happy with my current rides and would add S65 to round out my requirements. My needs are simple-

1. Convertible, my SL55 /030
2. Track, my CLK63 Black Series
3. Family and friends, a 2009 Iridium Silver S65

bobgodd

I see where you’re coming from but I don’t agree. There are cars that can achieve the feats of the cars that you have described without having the some of the limitations of a couple of the cars you listed; stripped down interior, harsh ride… And so on. How would you describe cars like that? I’m referring to cars that still afford the driver all the creature comforts of a daily-driver, yet all the performance of a supercar.

The way I see it, I don’t need to take my car to 120+mph on a daily basis to enjoy it. Furthermore, I would absolutely use a supercar as a daily driver. If I have to sit in a car, why wouldn’t I want to sit in the most amazing one possible??