RE: Mega engine, comes with free car | Six of the Best

RE: Mega engine, comes with free car | Six of the Best

Saturday 29th March

Mega engine, comes with free car | Six of the Best

Now more than ever, the idea of buying a car mostly for its oily bits makes all kinds of sense...


Ferrari 400i, 1985, 63k, £39,995 

Once upon a time, the concept of buying a car simply for the shock and awe of its engine was commonplace. Not everything was developed on a private circuit, nor driven to within an inch of its life on the Nurburgring. Delicate sports cars and white-knuckle fast supercars were built to handle; much else was of a make-do variety. Even Ferrari, God-like in its reputation to barely put a foot wrong in recent years, had its period where the occupant of the engine bay was very much the star. Frequently it turned out to be a derivative of the Colombo V12, pioneered in 1947 as 1.5-litre race engine, which, by the time it appeared in the 400i, had swelled to 4.8 litres and acquired fuel injection. This example has to make do with the three-speed auto (Maranello’s first) but it’s still a front-engined, V12 Ferrari for a fiver under £40k. Lovely. 

See the full ad

Mercedes ML 63 AMG, 2009, 52k, £14,950

Of course, any classic Ferrari looks cool these days - the Mercedes M-Class though (still 'ML' in our aged heads) is pretty much at the exact opposite end of the imaginary scale, being the sort of thing an impatient mum drives. But thanks to Mercedes’ efforts to wring every penny from AMG’s costly engine development programme, the '63 flagship achieves exactly the kind of engine-to-car ratio we’re talking about. Viewed from 2025, the presence of a 6.2-litre naturally aspirated V8 in family-sized SUV seems outlandish - yet it was almost par for the course two decades ago (lest we forget, the same unit also made it into the R-Class). For less than £15k in lovely-looking condition, the novelty value is amusingly high, although given predictably lusty running costs associated with 517hp, you’d probably need your entire family to buy into the gag. 

See the full ad

Alfa Romeo GTV, 2004, 63k, £13,995

One car that needs no additional justification is the Alfa Romeo GTV. It qualifies for this rundown on the basis of it being wrong-wheel drive and therefore never quite living up to its overall billing in the handling stakes. But for many if not most, that hardly matters, because many hours could be satisfyingly filled with a) strolling around the thing in admiration and b) listening to the rise and fall of the revs being coaxed from the melodic Busso V6. This one looks flipping lovely, and in point of fact is said to be the recipient of an Alfaholics chassis kit, which ought to make it helpfully pointier than standard. In raw output terms, it’s the entry-level option listed here - but, by some distance given its price and appearance, also the most desirable. 

See the full ad

Dodge Ram SRT-10, 2004, 58k, £49,950

What was the crazier idea: a gigantic V10 in a lightweight roadster, or in a pickup truck? The good folk at Dodge meant that it could be a real-life comparison rather than a bar debate. In those glory days prior to 2008, huge naturally aspirated engines were the order of the day pretty much everywhere (think of the Corvette’s 7.0-litre LS7) so of course the 8.3-litre V10 from the second-gen Viper went in the Ram pickup. The outrageousness is the appeal, but without the same rumble as a V8 - and with a punishing ride to contain the potency - the SRT-10 could never be much more than a fascinating curio. The suspicion that the Viper V10 should remain in the Viper was confirmed by the Ram, basically. Just 10,000 were ever made, a tiny number in truck-crazy America, and one has made it here. Complete with Viper-esque colour combo and spoiler. Oh yeah, and it’s manual - best bring your big boy pants for this one. 

See the full ad

BMW M760Li xDrive, 2016, 34k, £41,850

It’s easy to fall one of two ways on the M760Li. Because on the one hand, for a cut-price Rolls-Royce experience, it makes total sense for a 7 Series to use the 6.6-litre V12 - the Ghost of the time employing the same powertrain and chassis architecture. Building V12s and luxury saloon underpinnings aren’t cheap endeavours, after all. But BMW put an ‘M’ badge ahead of ‘760Li’, and that badge brings with it some additional expectations. Despite the best efforts of electro-mechanical anti-roll bars, air suspension and four-wheel steering, a 265kg weight penalty over the V8 750 was inescapable - the M760 was no Panamera rival, sadly. An M badge with the V8 would have been a much better fit; the V12 tried to be everything but even BMW’s best couldn’t quite manage the feat. Still, what a bargain - this is £40k after little more than 30,000 miles. 

See the full ad

Audi RS4 Cabriolet (B7), 2007, 72k, £17,995

A manual-only, 8,250rpm, V8 convertible sounds like a dream sports car - sadly the Audi RS4 wasn’t quite what dreams are made of. It’s impossible not to admire Audi’s crazy era of creating memorable engines and stuffing them just about anywhere, but some cars were inevitably better sorted than others. The B7 RS4s with roofs were revelations at the time and icons 20 years on, combining handsome design with a glorious powertrain and deft handling. The cabrio could replicate some of those attributes, but the weight gain exacerbated a relative lack of torque, and it wobbled too much to be properly enjoyable to drive. Nevertheless, Audi persisted, and this car was followed by a RS5 cabrio in much the same mould. Neither was the best location for an exceptional V8, nor Audi’s RS expertise. Still, what a sound - and what an engine bay to boast about.

See the full ad


Author
Discussion

chirurgus

Original Poster:

288 posts

228 months

Saturday
quotequote all
The Ferrari is absolutely magnificent - it's perfectly understated and yet ever so slightly menacing. The engine is the added bonus.
The engine in the RS4 (I think the code is BNS) is fantastic and revs like no engine with its bore and stroke should, but I'm not sure I would want the RS4 convertible under any circumstances!

McRors

362 posts

68 months

Saturday
quotequote all
Though my heart says Ferrari, my head is going with the Alpha as the safest bet. Didn’t think I’d ever say that.

wistec1

568 posts

53 months

Saturday
quotequote all
Admiration for the Ferrari and it's engine but I'm not smitten for its looks. The Audi gets a similar response which leaves the Big Beemer as my choice. It's not a car I would normally go looking for though. The RAM is the look at me I'm the idiot with the Xl bully and deserves a separate mention for being out of place in this line up.

immortallucifer

60 posts

151 months

Saturday
quotequote all
I think this sums up the ML63 experience rather well.



Edited by immortallucifer on Saturday 29th March 06:29

Fast and Spurious

1,713 posts

100 months

Saturday
quotequote all
McRors said:
Though my heart says Ferrari, my head is going with the Alpha as the safest bet. Didn’t think I’d ever say that.
You said it just 20 minutes earlier!

Konan

2,026 posts

158 months

Saturday
quotequote all
Dodge did actually go for the smallest Ram they could with the SRT, although they added in the bigger cabs later to broaden the appeal.

You could actually option the v10 on non SRT models too. Rarely done, but I do quite like the idea of a base spec with the 8.3 hidden in it.

ducnick

1,997 posts

255 months

Saturday
quotequote all
I always admired the 400i but these days it’s looking very dated. I can’t help thinking a 456 would make a better option and would be the same price.
The big bmw looks like a good buy with so few miles under its wheels… but, that interior (in the front) isn’t special enough. It looks like a 520d from the drivers seat which would annoy me. The back looks lovely, maybe it’s a car to be driven in.

Lo-Fi

886 posts

82 months

Saturday
quotequote all
Fast and Spurious said:
McRors said:
Though my heart says Ferrari, my head is going with the Alpha as the safest bet. Didn’t think I’d ever say that.
You said it just 20 minutes earlier!
And got the name wrong both times...

Its Just Adz

15,692 posts

221 months

Saturday
quotequote all
A whole lot of "no thanks" there.

I'd love to have a go in that Ram, just for giggles. If someone else was paying for fuel.

stuart100

812 posts

69 months

Saturday
quotequote all
ducnick said:
I always admired the 400i but these days it’s looking very dated. I can’t help thinking a 456 would make a better option and would be the same price.
The big bmw looks like a good buy with so few miles under its wheels… but, that interior (in the front) isn’t special enough. It looks like a 520d from the drivers seat which would annoy me. The back looks lovely, maybe it’s a car to be driven in.
The BMW is £40k. I wouldn’t worry about the interior now for that price. Not that it’s bad at all anyway.

Motormouth88

477 posts

72 months

Saturday
quotequote all
The Alfa (sorry alpha) seems about 6k overpriced if you ask me…and 60k odd miles isn’t low mileage ffs

CDP

7,699 posts

266 months

Saturday
quotequote all
Not so long ago these Alfas were Shed of the Week.

How long before the BMW is?

GreatScott2016

1,715 posts

100 months

Saturday
quotequote all
wistec1 said:
Admiration for the Ferrari and it's engine but I'm not smitten for its looks. The Audi gets a similar response which leaves the Big Beemer as my choice. It's not a car I would normally go looking for though. The RAM is the look at me I'm the idiot with the Xl bully and deserves a separate mention for being out of place in this line up.
100% this.

mooseracer

2,273 posts

182 months

Saturday
quotequote all
That truck is ridiculous, and not in a good way

hungry_hog

2,503 posts

200 months

Saturday
quotequote all
Ferrari 400 and BMW 760 are the only ones that appeal.

Ferrari more special, 760 more day to day obviously (apart from being the size of Texas)
Ferrari will have hilarious running costs, I can imagine some service stretching to 20k unless there is a very friendly specialist!

ML63 will be driven by a tattooed, goateed 60 inch chest chap with a girlfriend the same age as his daughter
Dodge is one of the ugliest cars I have ever seen
RS4 nice car but should be the Avant - convertible seems wrong for it (same applies to its rival C63 W205)

cerb4.5lee

35,498 posts

192 months

Saturday
quotequote all
I love the idea of the ML, but my old X5 4.8iS was bad enough on fuel with 12mpg from only a 4.8 V8 as it was. So I definitely wouldn't be able to cope with the fuel costs from a 6.2 V8 SUV I reckon in comparison...

The idea of running one in my head is very nice though for sure. cloud9

el romeral

1,392 posts

149 months

Saturday
quotequote all
The ML63 looks good value, despite the fuel consumption and me having no goatee, tattoos, 60” chest and much younger girlfriendnono

Edited by el romeral on Saturday 29th March 07:45

cerb4.5lee

35,498 posts

192 months

Saturday
quotequote all
immortallucifer said:
I think this sums up the ML63 experience rather well.



Edited by immortallucifer on Saturday 29th March 06:29
yes

I thought exactly the same when I saw that too! thumbup

Mouse Rat

1,928 posts

104 months

Saturday
quotequote all
The Ferrari & Dodge are horrible. Alfa and BMW ok but too expensive, the Merc seems good value.
I've always liked the A4 cab so the RS4 is the winner for me

Leins

9,783 posts

160 months

Saturday
quotequote all
cerb4.5lee said:
I love the idea of the ML, but my old X5 4.8iS was bad enough on fuel with 12mpg from only a 4.8 V8 as it was. So I definitely wouldn't be able to cope with the fuel costs from a 6.2 V8 SUV I reckon in comparison...

The idea of running one in my head is very nice though for sure. cloud9
My old ML55 was both terrible and hilarious in almost equal measure. I still have fond memories of doing a trip to the LeMans Classic in it, but not of the near-single digit MPG

Incidentally the only car I’ve owned with a VHS player in it