(First of all, I apologize but I skipped the middle 11 pages of this topic, so if someone's already said something like what I'm going to type...sorry.)
So when I was a kid, and a teenager, I hung on every word of every car magazine I could get my hands on, and I knew, KNEW, that if I ever hit the big time, I was going to bathe myself in super-kickass cars. I debated whether I'd get the Ferrari Testarossa, the Lamborghini Countach or the Lotus Esprit...or all 3. I know, I'm dating myself with the models there but replace with Italia, Gallardo or whatever's current.
My son, who just turned 13, is the same way.
So nobody's more surprised than myself that when I got older (like...now) I actually don't even *want* a super-expensive hypercar. Down here in Tampa, I see Lamborghinis on the road about a half-dozen times per year, and supercars combined (Lambo's, Aston's, Ferrari's, Audi R8's, etc) probably one per month -- and it's invariably beetling along at 14mph behind the Camry in front of it...just like I am...just like all the other cars in traffic. Doesn't matter how fast my car can go...I can't drive it any faster than the texting mom in front of me. So why would I pay $100k for the same experience I've got for $2,500 in my crappy Thunderbird? :roll:
To answer the original question -- what would I drive for $100,000? Answer 1: I
would like a Ferrari 308...from 1985...for about $35,000, and the rest to pay for some family needs. Answer 2, and probably the real answer: Whatever current new econobox I can get for about $15,000 that will provide me a decently zippy experience, and about 40mpg, with no repairs for several years -- tossup between a Ford Fiesta, Chevy Sonic Hyundai Accent or Kia Rio. And the rest to pay for those pesky family needs.
I'm pretty sure that 16-year-old me just kicked present-day me square in the jimmies. :shock: