Sports Car Enthusiasts
I've been looking at sports car for months now trying to figure out what I'm going to buy. I've looked at the Charger Hellcat, Camaro Zl1, Corvette Z06, and finally the car I'm leaning toward, the Mercedes AMG E63 S. The least refined is the Hellcat, but it's fast from 0-60, and it can be used as a daily driver believe it or not. The Camaro Zl1 is an amazing sports car, and the 10 speed automatic is an amazing transmission. Unfortunately it only seats two, it has blind spots, and it uses up the tires with normal use in about 8000 miles. The Z06 is an amazing car unless you take the early versions (2015 and 2016) to the track, in which case they overheat, but I won't be going to the track so it doesn't concern me. I like the look, but I don't like how low it sits (getting in and out - I'm getting old), and I like to be able to have more than one person besides myself in the car. The car is crazy fast though. That brings me to the Mercedes, a beautiful car, very quick, very refined, and you can seat five in luxury - I like it!
Any thoughts?
Any thoughts?
Comments (97)
I like the looks of the Camaro especially the convertable, I think it has same motor as the Corvette but weights 500 or 600 lbs more.
The Hellcat is competes with the Camaro, mean looking, but not so sure about handling, and oh yea it's a Dodge, it lost to the Ford Mustang Bullitt
Here's an idea, how about just sticking to the one car instead of fucking up the planet for the rest of us?
There's not much that's better in terms of bang for the buck.
Ya, Bentley's are great cars, but not my taste. It's a hobby, albeit an expensive one.
Well yes, I'm not sure how you think using patronising epiphets absolves you of moral responsibility.
This is a philosophy forum you know. If you just want to talk about cars without any philosophical implication then you might want to consider a sports car forum. I hear they're pretty light on ethics.
I wasn't talking about the appropriateness of the subsection, I was referring to your evident surprise that when posting anything on a philosophy forum you might actually encounter someone with some ethics.
I wonder what was compared. It is hard to find equally equipped models, I saw a couple of youtube videos that suggest they are pretty close, the Mercedes beating the Camaro in 1/4 mile, losing to it in the 1/2 mile. There is also probably a difference based on manual vs automatic shifting, with automatic beating manual in many cases. I like a manual shift, but it sucks in heavy traffic.
Both cars get large price cuts as soon as you drive them off the lot. I like the design of the Camaro, especially the convertible. I've got a Lincoln Town Car L, and a Ford Ranger with a long throw shift, and a shade tree mechanic who knows both vehicles intimately.
Ya, the Camaro convertible is a nice looking car. Another nice car is the Cadillac cts-v. I did have a 2014 BMW m5, and that was a nice car too.
You seem like an intelligent, old man, why do you want a sports car? To feel young again? While I think that useful, material objects can represent the type of character and personality one has - a person who dresses like a clown is likely deranged despite calling it "fashion" - there needs to be some sense and utility in what you are purchasing, what is most cost-effective, economical, better for the environment.
Above all, after the wreckage that was my car following the road accident, I think you should be thinking mostly about safety and this can be achieved without having to resort to sluggish speeds. Like the Chevrolet Volt that is enabled with an electric engine but if necessary also has petrol, it incidentally is very attractive and sportish, it has a great safety rating and holds good speeds.
But, I would drive a Ford Focus or a Mazda 3 because it has the highest safety rating, economical, and I am not a rally driver to need anything fancy. Plus they are much cheaper, though still too expensive for me.
edit : meh, nevermind.
He wasn't seeking advice on finding a car that could make him yawn the fastest.
Why would having two cars fuck up the planet faster? You can only drive one at a time.
If I had the money, I would love to have one of those cars. Just so you know, a man can still be a man despite driving a canary yellow Holden Barina. It is the utility of the car, whether you will save money in the long run, whether it can hold its value should you decide to sell later, insurance, safety etc.
Meanie.
I'm not into fancy clothes, not into having expensive watches, I just like sports cars. Can't I have one vice, please? I'm not rich, nor am I married, I just have a little extra money to spend. Why not have a little fun. Beside I'm 67, who knows how much time I have left.
I don't even drive that fast, at most I'll drive 150 in a 30 mph school zone, but that's it; and I do it on Sundays while texting.
Ya, if you've ever been in an accident that will cure you of sports cars. I've seen some bad accidents, but was never involved in one. My best friend, who loved sports cars, always said he would die before he was 21, but that if he died he wanted to die in his car. Well, he wasn't in it, but under it, it fell on him. He was 20 when he died. I was in Marines at the time, just left Vietnam, when I got the news. It's a crazy world, I go to Vietnam and survive, he dies under his car in his driveway.
Yet from that we noticed how cheap Porsches are if you divide their price by three. The cheapest possible worn out Porsche would be chump change and a more expensive one wouldn't be that expensive.
One smart way to own a sports car is if you have the plan of owning it just for a while and sell it when it's still reasonably new. And doing it when your still young. Then you'll have that cool picture from your youth like "Yeah, I had one for a while".
Because two cars take more resources to make than one. I don't know how well you know maths, but two is more than one.
Also, having cars for pleasure rather than purpose would certainly tend towards an increase in unnecessary driving and a tendency towards an unnecessarily low fuel economy. But in these two last respects, if I have stumbled across the world's first ecologically minded sports car enthusiast who is actually thinking of converting his entire fleet to run off waste chip fat and only use them to drive old ladies to the shops on Sunday, then he has my sincere apologies for the misrepresentation.
All that you say is true, and I personally look to those practical issues when buying cars, but it's all a matter of priority and taste, and it just seems our beleagured poster is being asked to defend himself for simply having the extra money to spend as he wishes.
Just because I buy used shoes, for example, doesn't mean you should. And you could wear used combat boots, and you'd still be just as lovely, but maybe you need [insert designer brand here] for some feminine reason that seems as silly to men as it feels to you when you see a man in a sports car. It's just boyz being boyz and girlz being girlz.
Quoting TimeLine
Oh the poor man, fancy having to deal with the dual burdens of having enough spare money to spend on a sports car and being asked to justify one's actions morally. Gosh life can be hard sometimes.
Cars have a lot of tax in the Netherlands so it's difficult for me to accurately gauge what would be affordable. If you're looking for something you can move the family in, I'd love the Porsche Panamera. I'd suspect a second hand could fit in your budget in the US.
Meanwhile, I drive a black Skoda Combi...
Are you seriously suggesting there's no moral component to purchasing decisions? Have you even read any modern ethicists? Peter Singer, John McMurty, Iris Young all have written extensively about the ethics of purchasing.
I can't believe on a forum supposedly about philosophy (even a tangential sub-forum) I'm having to defend myself for bringing ethics into a discussion about sports cars.
Or maybe you've read all those eminent ethicists and have concluded in your wisdom that they're all wrong and there's no ethical dimension to purchasing, in which case 'move along and feel superior'.
I don't know if you're being deliberately polemic, but I don't understand your argument at all. You seem to be saying that because all our purchasing choices involve some degree of unnecessary resource use we should abandon all attempts to limit their impact. All wars kill people so should be we abandon any attempt to minimise wars? All our actions have impacts, no matter how small. Moral consideration is about minimising those impacts, we don't abandon the project just because we can't eliminate them altogether.
As to me, the computer is second hand, it's powered by electricity from renewable sources and purchased from my earnings which I maintain at or below the global average. I'm not an idiot, I'm not going to pronounce on other people's morality without first having attended to my own.
I'm saying that the purchase and use of a sports car is within the acceptable limits of resource use as is your use of your computer. If Sam didn't buy that sports car and if no one bought sports cars we'd be no better off. In fact, it's not even clear that electric cars are any better for the environment than gas powered ones. And what we have here is a sidetracking of a conversation where Sam wanted advice on the best car to get and you decided a good lecture was in order.
Quoting Pseudonym
I doubt the average person globally owns a computer. While you might feel your resources are limited compared to those closest to you, the truth is that you're fabulously wealthy, with your carbon footprint greatly exceeding the Congolese. It's disgusting really how you flaunt your wealth and burn the resources that the bushmen would never think to destroy.
By what standards? Many well respected ethicists and even quite a few economists would disagree with you. You can't have a concept of 'acceptable resource use' without 'unacceptable resource use' so what would be unacceptable and why?
Quoting Hanover
If Sam wanted advice on the best car he'd have asked on a sports car forum. Unless he's a complete idiot he'd have known he was asking a community of philosophers. Presumably the idea that at least one of them might be an ethicist had crossed his mind, also presumably (unless he's been living in a box for the last 30years and the entire environmental movement has gone unnoticed) the idea that at least one of these ethicists might have responded to his query as to which car to buy with the answer "none of them". If he honestly expected an uncritical conversation about the merits of different sports cars from a community of philosophers I can only imagine he's never met a philosopher.
Quoting Hanover
As I said, I'm not an idiot I'm hardly going to start critiquing other people's morality without ensuring I've met those standards myself. You may not agree with my ethics and I'd be glad to have a discussion with you about them, but I am a strict egalitarian. As Parfait points out, we cannot just keep giving all the while there exists someone less well off than ourselves otherwise we will end up in a perpetual cycle of giving. We would eventually end up the one who was worst off, someone would have to give to use, who would then be the worst off, and so on.
Parfit, and dozens of ethicists after him, recognised that the only logical way out of this is to focus not on relative poverty, but on equality. That's why I ensure my income (and therefore expenditure) is no greater than the average (in price equivalent dollars, according to the World Bank figures). That way I'm not using more than my fair share of the world's resources as measured by their economic value. To go any further would enter Parfit's cycle of giving.
Its not perfect, and there are many other considerations, but its a damn sight more arguable a position than just throwing your hands in the air and saying we might as well do what we like.
Apparently the average person is a 28 year old Han Chinese man, is right-handed, makes less than $12,000 per year, and has a mobile phone but no bank account. It doesn't say, but I suspect he owns a computer.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1362709/Typical-human-face-28-year-old-Chinese-man.html
Edit: Although it looks like it uses the mode rather than the mean.
Cradle-to-grave, electric cars are better for the environment in most places in the world depending on the power plant generating the electricity and further improving due to development in battery efficiency.
Any standard is going to be arbitrary. What I'll say is that Sam's car purchase will have no measurable impact on anyone.Quoting Pseudonym
I do think the conversation is off point, and whether one should expect an off point conversation with a philosopher I guess depends on the philosopher. It's like the annoying guy at the Thanksgiving table who insists he can't give thanks while others suffer. Quoting Pseudonym
If you didn't adhere to the standards you set, you'd be a hypocrite, not an idiot, and just because you might be hypocritical wouldn't make you wrong.Quoting Pseudonym
That solution is illogical if the goal is the eradication of poverty. The cure for poverty is wealth, which would mean that if you made more money, you could give more money, which is precisely why the US provides so much charity to the rest of the world. I guess if you want to give until you've reduced your wealth to the average wealth of the community, you could, but that'd be an arbitrary point to stop giving. Some might give until they're completely impoverished, which would be fine if that's what they wanted to do. At any rate, if I'm looking for securing financial help for the poor, I'd be likely to turn to those who've not artificially limited their income to that of the mean, but I'd look for those with more expendable wealth. I also find it hard to follow how you limit your income. Do you refuse raises or take jobs that don't fully take advantage of your talents so that you can keep yourself making less?
But what I really think, in terms of the OP, is that Sam ought to buy the fastest, coolest car he can reasonably afford and he can let his gray hair fly around as he accelerates from 0-60 in 4 seconds.
To be in the upper 1% of income globally, you'd need to make $34,000 per year.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082385/We-1--You-need-34k-income-global-elite--half-worlds-richest-live-U-S.html
38% of the households in the world own a computer. http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/03/19/internet-seen-as-positive-influence-on-education-but-negative-influence-on-morality-in-emerging-and-developing-nations/technology-report-15/
It does seem to depend on a number of factors, including the power plant, but also on the manufacturing process and battery disposal issues. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph240/lambilliotte2/
That's the median, not the mean. Also, it only counts 32 countries, explicitly excluding the U.S. Notably it doesn't include Western Europe.
Quoting Hanover
Not sure what the 1% has to do with it. You don't need to be in the 1% to afford a computer.
Brilliant, I didn't think philosophy was that easy... All those wasted years. All right here goes.
I do think Sam's car purchase would have a measurable impact.
I think if you were hypocritical that would make you wrong.
I think egalitarianism as a solution to poverty is logical.
I don't think the cure for poverty is for the wealthy to get more wealthy.
I think an egalitarian stopping point isn't arbitrary.
I don't think it would be fine if people gave until they were completely impoverished I think it would be silly.
(I don't refuse work, I give my excess to charity, usually Survival International, to help those Congolese bushman you're so fond of)
And I think Sam shouldn't buy another car.
You're right it's so much easier without having to bother presenting any logical arguments.
You act as if your assertions have some firmer basis than mine. But let's go through these.
1. What is the measurement of Sam's vehicle purchase. How much more carbon emissions do you expect and what impact do you think it will have?
2. It is a logical fallacy to attack the speaker's hypocrisy as a basis that their position is incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
3. Granting everyone equal rights (egalitarianism) will not eliminate poverty. Not everyone owes their poverty to not having equal rights.
4. This is a strawman. I didn't say allowing the wealthy the ability to get wealthier would cure poverty. I presented the tautology that poverty is cured with wealth.
5. An egalitarian stopping point is how you intend to define when you should stop giving, suggesting that when you've reached the arbitrary mean, you've given enough. I'm not judging your generosity, but I see that as no more or less arbitrary than tithing 10%.
6. Some people do give to the point of poverty, with some taking a vow of poverty. That you think it's silly isn't based upon any philosophical basis. It's just you disagree. I have no problem with people giving whatever they want.
7. I don't care how you give, but it's good you do.
I don't care if Sam buys another car, but I do think he should do what he wants.
Which is basically what I said. Y u replyin' as if u disagreein'? Eh?
The actual quantity is irrelevant, its going to be more than zero which is what it would be if he didn't buy the car, plus £50,000 at least could certainly be better spent. Clean water for 5,000 children for a start. I don't know what moral system you're using which makes that 'little impact'.
Quoting Hanover
I didn't attack your moral position on the basis of hypocrisy, I attacked hypocrisy. In consistency is shown to be one of the most consistent trait people associate with negative behaviour trust values.
Quoting Hanover
Egalitarianism, by definition, means that everyone is equal (by whatever metric). Poverty is a relative term so by simple logic, if everyone had equal wealth no-one would be poor.
Quoting Hanover
How? Poverty is cured by redistributing wealth in some way. I cannot see any logic whereby simple wealth alone can reduce poverty, it has to somehow make it into the hands of the poor. As we have plenty of wealth to go round already, how is making more going to help?
Quoting Hanover
Its not arbitrary because its the point at which you no longer become both the benefactor and the entitled. A dichotomy that makes no logical sense.
Quoting Hanover
See above
Quoting Hanover
This is fashionable equivocation. If it's good that I give, then it's bad that others do not. How can it possibly be 'good' that I give my excess wealth to charity, but also 'good' that others spend theirs on personal luxuries. What definition of 'good' covers both those actions?
Damnation. Wittgenstein on your chest? I say, but I hope you don't have "get it here" on your lower abdomen... in Latin.
Nevertheless, I approve of your vice, I love the idea of tinkering away restoring classic cars. I brought my first car the day I turned 18 and it was a beaten-up, rusty 1983 model Toyota Cressida in brown for $800 that I saved working at KFC while studying in high school - mind you, I was earning $4.50 hr and I was paying rent at the same time - and it was pure freedom for me or at least it represented that; it really allowed me to understand why the freedom of movement is paramount to self-determination. It was an old car, but it was the only car I could afford and it remains the best thing I ever had. And anyway, the engine was powerful enough for me to escape the late-night attention from guys in their cars compelled by my girlfriends who would flirtatiously taunt them, those days straight out of high school where we embraced the entropy of existence. :D
Quoting Sam26
To be perfectly honest, there is no point getting a sportscar if you are not going to drive it fast and that is why it is really silly to buy one if you live in the suburbs. I would recommend getting something sophisticated, slightly luxurious but nevertheless economical that you can enjoy and maybe just hire a sports car in Germany and speed in designated areas around Europe.
Quoting Sam26
I am very conscious of how I drive and I prefer to drive manual so I can be more in control and I never had an accident until this really terrible driver caused the collision (it was not my fault). It really shocked me more then I thought an experience like that would and shaped how I understand cars, which is why safety is a big priority for me now. I did drive fast, but I was sensible and knew where and how to drive at the right time. Despite that, I am still fond of sportscars but not for everyday use because the utility of it seems absurd; more for the respect to the mechanics and horsepower and aesthetics, but not for actual driving. If I had any money, I would prefer to purchase with safety my top priority, before value and economy and then luxury, but alas.
Was he a mechanic?
If you are into raw speed then (can you handle the Truth? :D)
The 2018 Dodge SRT Demon is 418 hp (312 kW; 424 PS) per ton on 91 octane gasoline and 435 hp (324 kW; 441 PS) per ton on 100 octane or higher. Priced around $100,000.
The Epic Showdown Dodge Demon,The Viper, And The Ferrari
Well, this is a philosophy forum...
Here's a discussion of "philosophy" that would fit you Sam now:
Perhaps not the best philosophy, but something for you...
The side blinker assembly popped out of my car. Maybe I ran up against something. I don't know. A few weeks later a kid ran into the side of my car where the blinker was popped out. So now his insurance will cover the entire repair.
When you're as good as me, you look forward to karmic paybacks.
You must be doing something right. :D
The hallmark of a true sports car enthusiast is buying something they can't afford. :-$
Another car story:
I was planning to sell my Alfa Romeo 159 and buy a new BMW.
The car dealership noticed that the old Alfa had many things to repair, but as I was selling it, it wouldn't be rational for me to do them (and pay a lot when the price of the car wasn't that high anymore). Well, driving back from the BMW dealer the Alfa finally quit working and I barely got it out of the motorway. As I was planning to call a tow truck, another Alfa 159 stopped next to my car and out came two guys asking if I needed help. I explained the situation that I was planning to sell the old car and then this happened. The driver thought a bit and then asked to buy the car. The guy turned out to be an Alfa collector. We agreed on the price (that was better for me than from the dealership when the car was running), went immediately to my home and did the paperwork and the payment on the computer and finally went with him to pick up the winter tires from the storage. All in less than 2 hours when the Alfa had quit working.
The Alfa community is definately very social. From the two Alfas that I have had, both have been sold to individuals that have taken the cars as a hobby.
Here is my favorite looking Alfa Romeo, the Montreal. It has its own owners club.
K, see it now. Is it the Z06? very fast.
On a side note and if I had money, I would get a sporty small SUV like the Toyota C-HR for both the speed, comfort and price. What do you think? Meh, a girl can dream can't she?
It's a used 2017 Corvette. I bought it because I got, I believe, a good deal. The color was the color of my 2014 Corvette, which I liked, so that was a bonus. The color is called 'long beach red metallic tintcoat.'
I just bought this:
:cry:
Excellent choice!
In the event that you want to start collecting Corvettes or know someone who does, my father in law has been restoring Corvettes for 50 years for the Top Flight competitions. His Duntov award winning cars are painstakingly cared for and are providing nicely for his retirement. But the 'extra' parts that have been acquired along the way that were not needed for this or that car or you had to take the whole box of parts to get the one that you want, have left us with an inventory that could build another fleet of Corvettes. So if you ever find yourself in need of a Bezel or a switch, just drop me a note. :wink:
Is it an automatic? I would guess it's an automatic, but not four-wheel drive.
(Of course I don't know much about Benkei, but guessing in fun sometimes)
Quoting Sam26
Cool car, Sam26.
I hate it when people buy a sportscar with awful colours, but that one looks good.
Yes, there are pictures but for whatever privacy reason he doesn't want his cars posted on a forum.
Who knew? Not me, not before asking, glad I did.
You know, recently I became aware that many people on this forum don't understand this privacy issue with regards to business. Some seem to be entirely convinced that if you have a business, then you ought to just put your stuff everywhere, as that is advertisement :s
I know intellectual property was private but I had no idea a picture would be. Actually now that I read what I just wrote I am kinda surprised with myself not 'getting' that sooner.
Thank you for your understanding. :up:
My prejudice to colour and Corvettes lies with Prince. Little Long Beach Red Corvette doesn't have the same ring to it.
It's not an automatic Btw but eminently reasonable both in price and maintenance which is another word for boring. :lol: