BMW M3 CSL or Mitsubishi Evo MR FQ 340

BMW M3 CSL or Mitsubishi Evo MR FQ 340

Author
Discussion

Beemer-5

Original Poster:

7,897 posts

221 months

Thursday 22nd June 2006
quotequote all
Two cars for sale at a North London dealer and i was wondering something.
If you wanted a very fast, good handling, but fairly roomy car, which would you choose?
A mate went to look at the CSL, but spotted the newer and cheaper Mitsubishi and is now stumped as to what to buy.

The CSL is a 2003 (53) i believe for £36K and the EVO is a 2005 (55) for £29K.

m3john

5,974 posts

226 months

Thursday 22nd June 2006
quotequote all


CSL for me mate. No questions about it.

taffyracer

2,093 posts

250 months

Thursday 22nd June 2006
quotequote all
CSL every time, it has everything the Mitsubishi doesn't, class, glorious induction, great image and cracking residuals and it's a far better place to be sat behind the wheel, the mitsubishi is a hoot to drive but awfully manic and just feels like a plastic parts bin, so to sum up, go for the CSL

Beemer-5

Original Poster:

7,897 posts

221 months

Thursday 22nd June 2006
quotequote all
The performance of the Evo 340 seems astonishing for the money, but i agree it looks tatty in some ways.
The new Evo X may well address that problem.

Galileo

3,147 posts

225 months

Thursday 22nd June 2006
quotequote all
taffyracer said:
CSL every time, it has everything the Mitsubishi doesn't, class, glorious induction, great image and cracking residuals and it's a far better place to be sat behind the wheel, the mitsubishi is a hoot to drive but awfully manic and just feels like a plastic parts bin, so to sum up, go for the CSL


especially the residuals bit.

maserati3200gt

1,576 posts

241 months

Thursday 22nd June 2006
quotequote all
m3john said:


CSL for me mate. No questions about it.



Yep No two ways about it. CSL is an amazing car and looks better IMO.

Beemer-5

Original Poster:

7,897 posts

221 months

Thursday 22nd June 2006
quotequote all
Unless i have misunderstood, the residuals are awful on the CSL to start with and then steady down.
Weren't they something crazy like £60K new?

2skiddy

293 posts

223 months

Thursday 22nd June 2006
quotequote all
Two good cars, but one is a lot better than the other for my want of getting the back end right out. It depends on whether you want 4WD. I have had many and now want to stick with 2WD as it gives more fun for me. The CSL is great on the road and track. I try not driving it for a few days and then when you do, that certain smile returns.

NeVeTaS

508 posts

238 months

Thursday 22nd June 2006
quotequote all
Never had an EVO, but my impreza STi was easier to drive fast on the road than my CSL.

Saying that the CSL sounded amazing, and looks amazing.

Just a shame mine ended up in a ditch!!

MrFlibbles

7,711 posts

290 months

Thursday 22nd June 2006
quotequote all
Of course, if you asked the same question in Jap Chat, I'm sure you'd get an equally biased opinion the other way

trackdemon

12,318 posts

268 months

Thursday 22nd June 2006
quotequote all
CSL is:

Classier
Cooler
More fun to drive
Better sounding
(much) Nicer inside
Rarer
Residually stronger
(potentially) Cheaper to run
BETTER.

But then it ought to be considering its new list price was twice that of the EVO, which kinda makes it a bargain now...

MrFlibbles

7,711 posts

290 months

Thursday 22nd June 2006
quotequote all
MrFlibbles said:
Of course, if you asked the same question in Jap Chat, I'm sure you'd get an equally biased opinion the other way



and then Japmeister trackdemon ruined it

trackdemon said:
CSL is:

Classier
Cooler
More fun to drive
Better sounding
(much) Nicer inside
Rarer
Residually stronger
(potentially) Cheaper to run
BETTER.

But then it ought to be considering its new list price was twice that of the EVO, which kinda makes it a bargain now...


I stand corrected!

trackdemon

12,318 posts

268 months

Thursday 22nd June 2006
quotequote all
oops

rallycross

13,274 posts

244 months

Thursday 22nd June 2006
quotequote all
interesting dilema to have!

never driven a CSL but have had M3's, have also had lots of EVO's including 2 x MR FQ 340's.

Both cars suffered terible early depreciation but that seems to have flatened out now making both terrific value.

CSL faster and better built but more expensive; likely to hold its current value better.

EVO is a hoot to drive and offers a different sensation to a quick BMW but probably will suffer from more depreciation and silly running costs.

Buy the CSL now, sell it in < 1 yr recouping most of the money then buy an MR in a years time when it ill be even cheaper!

Beemer-5

Original Poster:

7,897 posts

221 months

Friday 23rd June 2006
quotequote all
rallycross, you say the CSL is faster. Interesting.

Why would it be faster with similar bhp, (CSL 360-Evo 345) but less torque in lbs-ft (CSL 275-Evo 321), bearing also in mind that the Evo is also lighter and has the 4wd traction advantage?

Just wondering.

As for depreciation, is that right, that the CSL was almost £60K new? If so, the owner has lost a frightening amount over 3 years.

Beemer-5

Original Poster:

7,897 posts

221 months

Friday 23rd June 2006
quotequote all
I meant to add, he has bought the CSL, for £35,500.

BiggusLaddus

821 posts

238 months

Friday 23rd June 2006
quotequote all
4WD is not an advantage in straight line speed, its a disadvantage.

Compare the 0-100mph times of the two cars if you want to know which one is really quicker.

m3john

5,974 posts

226 months

Friday 23rd June 2006
quotequote all
Beemer-5 said:
Unless i have misunderstood, the residuals are awful on the CSL to start with and then steady down.
Weren't they something crazy like £60K new?


Yes they were mate....without any options.....like a stereo !!

In my honest opinion, if any of us were that worried about the resale values of any car we'd all be very hesitant in purchasing them in the first place and just wait till the vehicles were 5+ years old ish.

Ok so the CSL may have lost best part of 50% of its original value, but doesn't every marquee of motor car (obviously excluding the EXTREMELY rare machines).
But in a few years time if you fancy another change, i think the interest would be a lot grater in a well kept CSL than an EVO because of the rarity value. Where as the EVO is another mk v/v1/v11/v111/1x/x....for me, over kill in what is in its own right a very very good car but also very differant to the CSL.

panthro

695 posts

225 months

Friday 23rd June 2006
quotequote all
The CSL is a better car in nearly very single way possible. Plus, the Evo would probably cost just as much to run and maintain.

richycsl

3,741 posts

224 months

Friday 23rd June 2006
quotequote all
Beemer-5 said:
rallycross, you say the CSL is faster. Interesting.

Why would it be faster with similar bhp, (CSL 360-Evo 345) but less torque in lbs-ft (CSL 275-Evo 321), bearing also in mind that the Evo is also lighter and has the 4wd traction advantage?

Just wondering.

As for depreciation, is that right, that the CSL was almost £60K new? If so, the owner has lost a frightening amount over 3 years.


Standard CSL makes 373bhp here-

www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?t=272130&f=72&h=0

With a full after market exhaust system which an FQ evo already has the CSL might go past 380bhp.

Edited by richycsl on Friday 23 June 12:47