2003 vs 2006 G35 Coupe - What would you choose
That's not true.
Base, auto 06 with sun damage and 180k miles would not be better than a fully loaded 04 with 60k miles. They're all the same car at this point: 10 -/+ years old and 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand. At this point it's which features you find the most desirable since all years had one or two things that were specific to 1-2 years.
Base, auto 06 with sun damage and 180k miles would not be better than a fully loaded 04 with 60k miles. They're all the same car at this point: 10 -/+ years old and 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand. At this point it's which features you find the most desirable since all years had one or two things that were specific to 1-2 years.
^I hope you realize the 06's had more / better options than the original model, hence why they are more expensive. Especially with the two being compared in this thread. The ONLY reason I would even consider going with the 03 is the fact that it looks un-modded.
Base for base model the 06 automatically came with better headlights and interior, but a fully loaded 04 is much more desirable to me than a fully loaded 06. I can buy almost all the desirable 06 parts combined (except full interior) for less than a set of nice brembos.
Again, thats subjective at this point. It's all old now. It's really a sense of do you want the better lights and interior, or the better spoiler and brembo options.
Base for base model the 06 automatically came with better headlights and interior, but a fully loaded 04 is much more desirable to me than a fully loaded 06. I can buy almost all the desirable 06 parts combined (except full interior) for less than a set of nice brembos.
Base for base model the 06 automatically came with better headlights and interior, but a fully loaded 04 is much more desirable to me than a fully loaded 06. I can buy almost all the desirable 06 parts combined (except full interior) for less than a set of nice brembos.
Only a fool would pick a 03-04 over and 06. There is nothing better about the 04, except price. If someone really wants pretty calipers, far smarter to find a used set of Akebonos. At least then you actually more than just looks. Also used Akebonos actually cost less than used Brembos. (because fanbois hear the word brembo and bust a nut in their skinny jeans)
Finally NO, you cannot get the desirable 06 parts for less than cost of crappy brembos. Fronts usually sell for around 400-450, whole setups usually right around 1000-1200 (for 12 year old brakes). Which is stupid to ever buy in the first place, because you can buy brand new Akebono upgrades for 1500. To get 06 headlights, wheels, spoiler alone will go for ~1500. Plus you cant just say (minus the interior) because that is one of the most desirable parts.
Basically there is no good reason to ever buy a 04 over an 06 (as long as cars are similar in condition and you dont make up stupid comparison like you did before).
Last edited by WhosUrBuddiee; Jun 18, 2015 at 08:00 AM.
Whos give a f*ck about brembos? I dont see why some people here praise them, they really are not very good. Many braking tests were done back in 05/06 and clearly showed the 05 brakes performed just as good as brembos (near identical stopping distances). No they dont have the same heat disapation, but no one here is tracking their car anyways. Also you could just buy some quality Motul brake fluid, and never have to worry. You really are not getting any better performance, all you are getting is pretty orange calipers.
Only a fool would pick a 03-04 over and 06. There is nothing better about the 04, except price. If someone really wants pretty calipers, far smarter to find a used set of Akebonos. At least then you actually more than just looks. Also used Akebonos actually cost less than used Brembos. (because fanbois hear the word brembo and bust a nut in their skinny jeans)
Finally NO, you cannot get the desirable 06 parts for less than cost of crappy brembos. Fronts usually sell for around 400-450, whole setups usually right around 1000-1200 (for 12 year old brakes). Which is stupid to ever buy in the first place, because you can buy brand new Akebono upgrades for 1500. To get 06 headlights, wheels, spoiler alone will go for ~1500. Plus you cant just say (minus the interior) because that is one of the most desirable parts.
Basically there is no good reason to ever buy a 04 over an 06 (as long as cars are similar in condition and you dont make up stupid comparison like you did before).
Only a fool would pick a 03-04 over and 06. There is nothing better about the 04, except price. If someone really wants pretty calipers, far smarter to find a used set of Akebonos. At least then you actually more than just looks. Also used Akebonos actually cost less than used Brembos. (because fanbois hear the word brembo and bust a nut in their skinny jeans)
Finally NO, you cannot get the desirable 06 parts for less than cost of crappy brembos. Fronts usually sell for around 400-450, whole setups usually right around 1000-1200 (for 12 year old brakes). Which is stupid to ever buy in the first place, because you can buy brand new Akebono upgrades for 1500. To get 06 headlights, wheels, spoiler alone will go for ~1500. Plus you cant just say (minus the interior) because that is one of the most desirable parts.
Basically there is no good reason to ever buy a 04 over an 06 (as long as cars are similar in condition and you dont make up stupid comparison like you did before).
Besides the fact that the argument he's making is that "the newer the better" regardless of miles and condition. So, go back, pay a little closer attention, and I'm sure you'll retort with another asinine comment that doesn't concern you regardless of the fact that you just made the same argument as me.
"So long as the cars are in similar condition".
As I said before, it's completely subjective at this point. Having a car this old, 2 yrs difference is a non-issue. It's like saying I'd rather have a 1971 corvette rather than a 69. It's the same car. Whichever one is in better condition is the better choice.
Last edited by ScraggleRock; Jun 18, 2015 at 03:38 PM.
Actually, I got the sport bumper with fresh paint and the headlights for $700. So, damn, Yer wrong. The 06 spoiler is ugly as **** (back to subjectivity here), and I don't have to worry about cheap Chinese rings in a revup. So, yeah, there are plenty of fine reasons to get an 04.
Besides the fact that the argument he's making is that "the newer the better" regardless of miles and condition. So, go back, pay a little closer attention, and I'm sure you'll retort with another asinine comment that doesn't concern you regardless of the fact that you just made the same argument as me.
"So long as the cars are in similar condition".
As I said before, it's completely subjective at this point. Having a car this old, 2 yrs difference is a non-issue. It's like saying I'd rather have a 1971 corvette rather than a 69. It's the same car. Whichever one is in better condition is the better choice.
Besides the fact that the argument he's making is that "the newer the better" regardless of miles and condition. So, go back, pay a little closer attention, and I'm sure you'll retort with another asinine comment that doesn't concern you regardless of the fact that you just made the same argument as me.
"So long as the cars are in similar condition".
As I said before, it's completely subjective at this point. Having a car this old, 2 yrs difference is a non-issue. It's like saying I'd rather have a 1971 corvette rather than a 69. It's the same car. Whichever one is in better condition is the better choice.
He never once said "regardless of miles or condition" you said that. You cannot add qualifications to someone else's statement to prove them wrong. In the context of this topic (04 vs 06) where he used the statement, it is 100% correct. The newer 06 is much better than the 04. Plus, he even said "Given the two choices in the original post", not make up whatever stupid scenario you want.
Yes I was forced to add the "as long as cars in the same condition" clause because of dumbf*cks like you that make up stupid rationals in an effort to prove a flawed statement and we are referencing two cars in similar condition. Someone could flip your moronic statement the other way too and say "Fully loaded sport, auto 06 with perfect paint and 20k miles is better than a base wrecked 04 with 460k miles". See twit. That is why a normal person would compare two similar cars, yet for some reason it has to be explained to you.
Yes having a car two years older IS THE issue, that is exactly why he made the thread in the first place. Especially when those 2 years means a vastly upgraded interior, wheels, and headlights. Now I think there are some more lead paint chips with your name on them somewhere.
BETWEEN THE TWO CARS POSTED....
I'd probably go for the '03. My reasons? Lower miles, lower price, looks clean and unmodded. I would need to see how well it was maintain. 4 owners wouldn't scare me depending on who they are and how they maintained it. The '06 is modded in a way that suggests a young owner. Intake and grill tend to be lower end mods, so i'd question the quality of maintainance on a 100K vehicle. All of these are judgemental, but this is what is going through my mind based on the info presented.
However, I tend to suggest buying the newest and least miles car you can afford, with some exceptions. If the OP were to come back and say both cars were gone, then would recommend seeking out an 2006-2007 model with low miles. You'll pay more, but hopefully that translates to a car with less problems due to miles and years.
Things like interiors, headlights, spoilers, etc are purely subjective. I'm all about buying a better quality car that will cost me less in the long run in terms of maintainance and operating costs. What i'm willing to give up for creature comforts (better interior, headlights, etc) is my decision to make...and mine alone. For example, when I was G35 shopping and considering a 2005-2006 AWD sedan, I excluded the 2005 model ONLY because of the difference in brakes and the addition to Bluetooth on the 2006 model. Stupid reasons now in hindsight, but that's what I wanted. Bluetooth is crappy, and I probably would have swapped the brakes to the 06 style eventually anyway. But with that logic, why pass over a clean 2005 when you can always mod?
I'd probably go for the '03. My reasons? Lower miles, lower price, looks clean and unmodded. I would need to see how well it was maintain. 4 owners wouldn't scare me depending on who they are and how they maintained it. The '06 is modded in a way that suggests a young owner. Intake and grill tend to be lower end mods, so i'd question the quality of maintainance on a 100K vehicle. All of these are judgemental, but this is what is going through my mind based on the info presented.
However, I tend to suggest buying the newest and least miles car you can afford, with some exceptions. If the OP were to come back and say both cars were gone, then would recommend seeking out an 2006-2007 model with low miles. You'll pay more, but hopefully that translates to a car with less problems due to miles and years.
Things like interiors, headlights, spoilers, etc are purely subjective. I'm all about buying a better quality car that will cost me less in the long run in terms of maintainance and operating costs. What i'm willing to give up for creature comforts (better interior, headlights, etc) is my decision to make...and mine alone. For example, when I was G35 shopping and considering a 2005-2006 AWD sedan, I excluded the 2005 model ONLY because of the difference in brakes and the addition to Bluetooth on the 2006 model. Stupid reasons now in hindsight, but that's what I wanted. Bluetooth is crappy, and I probably would have swapped the brakes to the 06 style eventually anyway. But with that logic, why pass over a clean 2005 when you can always mod?
Last edited by Mustang5L5; Jun 18, 2015 at 04:05 PM.
Just because YOU personally dont desire the spoiler/wheels, dont mean they are not desirable. Also, as has been clearly discussed, this 06 is an auto and non revup. Try to keep up with the convo. Again, ZERO reasons to ever pick the 04 over the 06.
He never once said "regardless of miles or condition" you said that. You cannot add qualifications to someone else's statement to prove them wrong. In the context of this topic (04 vs 06) where he used the statement, it is 100% correct. The newer 06 is much better than the 04. Plus, he even said "Given the two choices in the original post", not make up whatever stupid scenario you want.
Yes I was forced to add the "as long as cars in the same condition" clause because of dumbf*cks like you that make up stupid rationals in an effort to prove a flawed statement and we are referencing two cars in similar condition. Someone could flip your moronic statement the other way too and say "Fully loaded sport, auto 06 with perfect paint and 20k miles is better than a base wrecked 04 with 460k miles". See twit. That is why a normal person would compare two similar cars, yet for some reason it has to be explained to you.
Yes having a car two years older IS THE issue, that is exactly why he made the thread in the first place. Especially when those 2 years means a vastly upgraded interior, wheels, and headlights. Now I think there are some more lead paint chips with your name on them somewhere.
He never once said "regardless of miles or condition" you said that. You cannot add qualifications to someone else's statement to prove them wrong. In the context of this topic (04 vs 06) where he used the statement, it is 100% correct. The newer 06 is much better than the 04. Plus, he even said "Given the two choices in the original post", not make up whatever stupid scenario you want.
Yes I was forced to add the "as long as cars in the same condition" clause because of dumbf*cks like you that make up stupid rationals in an effort to prove a flawed statement and we are referencing two cars in similar condition. Someone could flip your moronic statement the other way too and say "Fully loaded sport, auto 06 with perfect paint and 20k miles is better than a base wrecked 04 with 460k miles". See twit. That is why a normal person would compare two similar cars, yet for some reason it has to be explained to you.
Yes having a car two years older IS THE issue, that is exactly why he made the thread in the first place. Especially when those 2 years means a vastly upgraded interior, wheels, and headlights. Now I think there are some more lead paint chips with your name on them somewhere.
In post number 15 herr made a generalized statement (it was generalized, not pertaining specifically to the OP's situation. This is where common sense comes in), that " the newer the better". It was a generalized statement, because had it been specific, the statement would have read, "the newer car is better" or something to that effect.
I said, (now this is just the cliff notes version to keep yer brain from burning up), "that's not necessarily true". It was not until post number 20 where he said, "in the given situation, the newer, the better".
See, so, you don't even know how to follow a fairly unsophisticated conversation. How on earth do you expect me to give a damn about your opinion?
You really just like to make **** up to call people names, huh? Haha, OK, since I know you have a hard time with reading comprehension (as well as common sense), I'll lay out what happened here in a single post so you don't have to do too much reading:
In post number 15 herr made a generalized statement (it was generalized, not pertaining specifically to the OP's situation. This is where common sense comes in), that " the newer the better". It was a generalized statement, because had it been specific, the statement would have read, "the newer car is better" or something to that effect.
I said, (now this is just the cliff notes version to keep yer brain from burning up), "that's not necessarily true". It was not until post number 20 where he said, "in the given situation, the newer, the better".
See, so, you don't even know how to follow a fairly unsophisticated conversation. How on earth do you expect me to give a damn about your opinion?
In post number 15 herr made a generalized statement (it was generalized, not pertaining specifically to the OP's situation. This is where common sense comes in), that " the newer the better". It was a generalized statement, because had it been specific, the statement would have read, "the newer car is better" or something to that effect.
I said, (now this is just the cliff notes version to keep yer brain from burning up), "that's not necessarily true". It was not until post number 20 where he said, "in the given situation, the newer, the better".
See, so, you don't even know how to follow a fairly unsophisticated conversation. How on earth do you expect me to give a damn about your opinion?
Originally Posted by herrschaft
Given the two choices in the original post,
the newer the better!!!
the newer the better!!!
What is generalized about his post exactly?
Sad it that it took 2 separate people to explain to you that comments in a thread, just so happen to be about the discussion in the thread. I know common sense (and really any intelligence at all) is foreign to you, so I will help out. Strap your If someone replies to a question posed in a thread, it is safe to assume the response is about the OP. SHOCKER!
Sad it that it took 2 separate people to explain to you that comments in a thread, just so happen to be about the discussion in the thread. I know common sense (and really any intelligence at all) is foreign to you, so I will help out. Strap your If someone replies to a question posed in a thread, it is safe to assume the response is about the OP. SHOCKER!
I see that you're leaving out the banter in-between the generalized post (#15) and post #20 to support your agenda. You act as if no thread has ever gone off topic, or that someone may be making a statement that is relevant to a thread, but not specific to it. Yeah, that **** never happens..man..no one has ever gone off on a separate argument or tangent..
Oh wait..Jesus Christ you've been doing that very thing this whole time..its like the twilite zone in here.