rebelgtp wrote: Kids kill themselves in 80hp E36 M3 boxes and some can drive 300 hp beasts and never so much as get a scratch on them (or anyone else).
Yes, stupidity knows no bounds. Or socioeconomic status.
No wonder insurance is so high on young males. Something like 80% -90% ( can't recall for sure but it's high) of fatal car crashes are caused by males under the age of 24.
Tommy Suddard wrote: +1 I asked my friend when he last waxed his car the other day. His response? "Only cheap, old cars need wax. My car's paint has what's called a clearcoat."
Follow up question: When are you going to tighten the loose nut behind the wheel?
NYG95GA wrote: In retrospect, I realize that if I *had* got the 390 'Stang I had my eye on at the time, I would not be typing this right now.
Because you would have sold it at Barrett-Jackson for stupid money and had a young Norwegian boy to type this for you?
There but for the grace of god...
Never had quite those wheels, but I could tell you at 16 how fast Mom's 240Z would go on that long country road.
The speed of ignorance can never outrun the laws of physics.
^^^^^There's a quote for the magazine, if ever I heard one.
Young guys in first cars have an inherent tendency to misbehave. So doesn't it make sense to start with something underpowered, a "momentum" car? Or at least to provide proper driver training.
My first car was a 1977 Corvette L-82 with a 4 speed. It needed paint and the carpet was disinigrating, but it ran and drove great. I bought it when I was 17 years old with money I had saved working summer jobs, etc. I never wrecked it or any car (knock on wood). Sure, the G35 is faster and more poweful, but even a 1970s vette can get into trouble, without any airbags either. I don't see age as a real factor here so much as the individual person behind the wheel. If I had a son with the same mindset as I had at that age, I would have no problem letting him drive a sporty car. In my highschool, it was the guy with the six cylinder pickup trucks that totaled three of them before he graduated. Luckily, nobody was seriously injured.
NYG95GA wrote: Turns out I *could* afford a 1.6 Pinto, which served me well for several years. In retrospect, I realize that if I *had* got the 390 'Stang I had my eye on at the time, I would not be typing this right now.
You're lucky you survived the Pinto! 
My first car only had about 60HP going through a 3-speed slushbox, but holy hell that thing was a deathtrap. Numerous PO accidents left the chassis tweaked and soft(er), it would go from being in control to buckin' wild understeer with no warning and without being pushed that hard. It felt like it would break up at 140kph (top speed, no easy task to reach). It had very little braking power and no ABS/EBD, that thing was just terrifying. My sister would have gotten herself killed for sure if it was handed down to her. My mom thought it would be safe because it was slow. |: |
jwdmotorsports said: I think kids that buy their own cars take better care of them. I know I took better care of the cars I bought in HS than my friends that had been given cars by their parents.
I KNOW kids that buy their own cars take better care of them. I was given my 91 Grand Prix for a first car, and within a year, I had taken that car DOWN. I bought my next car, and I cared for it even more.
I was allowed to drive the '79 Vette at 16. I can count the number of somewhat stupid things I did with it on one hand. However, when I bought my '90 Sentra Coupe all hell broke loose. It was mine and I didn't have to apologize for it. I slid down dirt roads at highway speeds and got it airborne a couple of times. I've found I'm a more dangerous driver with small-displacement NA cars because I just have to push them for all they're worth. Of course I've matured since then, but just to be safe I now drive a turbo 2.4L 
You'll need to log in to post.
