Show off your latest purchase!

  • Thread starter McLaren
  • 36,936 comments
  • 2,660,190 views


4728043399_ee37efd277.jpg
4728043387_6ab7ba5f6c.jpg


Autosport, grabbed the last copy before they replaced it with the latest issue. F1 taking up most of the cover and pages as usual:rolleyes:
&
VW Scirocco GT24 Hot wheels car, i've already got a blue one but didn't realise there was a red one too, of course I had to have it.:P
 
I just bought 4 stock disk brakes and all new stock pads for my 2005 Subaru Impreza.
Also did an oil change with Mobile 1.
Total cost about $220.00 for everything.
0832385-1.jpg

41ieCzTjSKL._SL500_AA280_.jpg
 
This is more of a to-buy list. I'm having a conflict deciding, so I thought I'd take it to you guys.

I'm currently stuck deciding between a new videocard, a new camera lens, or a new netbook.

The choices are:

  • The Nikon 18-200mm DX VRII lens:

  • Netbooks:

  • Videocards:

  • Too many variations to include, but mostly looking at a GTX480


Ideas, gents? I'm leaning to the netbook as it'll allow me to finish writing (and browse GTP ;) ) wherever I please.
 
^Without knowing what lens(es) you already have it's kind of difficult to start suggesting one way or the other.

Edit: And since one of your lens links is to adorama, you know they have used lenses too, right? Bottom of the page starts the 18-200s.
 
Last edited:
Ewwwww 18-200 lens :yuck: It's fine if you don't want to change lenses, but I'd much rather have something else. It's too many compromises in one little package...but that was when it came out, maybe they've re-tooled it lately. I'd honestly buy an 18-105 VR and a 70-300 VR over the 18-200, but it's about $200 more for the 2 lenses.

You could almost get the netbook and a new video card for what you would drop on the lens. Unless you take a lot of pictures and think your current lenses hold you back, I'd go for the netbook. It seems the more practical of the 3 and would probably get the most use, but that's just me.
 
Ewwwww 18-200 lens :yuck: It's fine if you don't want to change lenses, but I'd much rather have something else. It's too many compromises in one little package...but that was when it came out, maybe they've re-tooled it lately. I'd honestly buy an 18-105 VR and a 70-300 VR over the 18-200, but it's about $200 more for the 2 lenses.

I have the 18-105 VR, and have had the 70-300 VR. The 18-105 VR is very fragile and slower than the 18-200. The 70-300 is similarly fragile, and I've since sold it because the auto-focus was very laggy.

The 18-200, on the other hand, is extremely durable and very tight. What do you dislike so much about it? I would much rather have one lens I can actually use, than 2 which I debate using and miss shots.

TB
^Without knowing what lens(es) you already have it's kind of difficult to start suggesting one way or the other.

Edit: And since one of your lens links is to adorama, you know they have used lenses too, right? Bottom of the page starts the 18-200s.

As I've mentioned, I currently have the 18-105mm VR. I also have/had:

RED INDICATES LENSES I NO LONGER OWN
  • 18-55mm VR
  • 70-300mm VR
  • 50mm 1.4 prime
    [*]f2.8 28mm Tokina prime

You could almost get the netbook and a new video card for what you would drop on the lens. Unless you take a lot of pictures and think your current lenses hold you back, I'd go for the netbook. It seems the more practical of the 3 and would probably get the most use, but that's just me.

And this is what I'm thinking, as well. The laptop would certainly be the most useful, especially when I'm in other cities and impromptu communication is necessary, but prohibitive via phone. It also gives me something to back up photos on the fly. . .
 
What do you dislike so much about it? I would much rather have one lens I can actually use, than 2 which I debate using and miss shots..

I just don't like all-in-ones. I've never had a problem with my 70-300, and I use it in all kinds of conditions. I'd rather spend for the better optics. Sure, an all-in-one is convenient and great for some people but it's just not my thing. My ideal setup would be an ultra-wide, a 16-85, my 70-300, and various primes. Would I take an 18-200 if I was restricted to only 1 lens, sure...but I've got no problems taking my 18-55, 50 f/1.8, and 70-300 everywhere. There are times I wish I had the 55-70 range covered though.
 
I just don't like all-in-ones. I've never had a problem with my 70-300, and I use it in all kinds of conditions. I'd rather spend for the better optics. Sure, an all-in-one is convenient and great for some people but it's just not my thing. My ideal setup would be an ultra-wide, a 16-85, my 70-300, and various primes. Would I take an 18-200 if I was restricted to only 1 lens, sure...but I've got no problems taking my 18-55, 50 f/1.8, and 70-300 everywhere. There are times I wish I had the 55-70 range covered though.

In all fairness I guess our useability preferences are totally different. I found actually using the 70-300 a pain in the ass as the manual focus ring was very sticky. Made it impossible to make fine adjustments. What I love about the 200 is how smooth and tight everything feels. I also got fed up with the 300 winding back and forth and looking for the focus plain. It was a very dumb autofocus mechanism.
 
Those tires suck.
As long as they the suck the road, that's all it matters to me...


No really?! I got them for $560 out the door price (tax included + service warrantee protection)

it's my first time with GoodYear...

For the past two days, they dont make a noise at all rolling... i like them so far... I have not been pushing my car very hard.

i went triple digits for 2 second, and they were ok then...

California weather is not that wet anyways, so i dont have to worry much about rainy weather until February.

But with my driving, i wont have to worry about that either since i will be changing tires again before then.

How many miles you guys drove with the GOODYEAR GT?
 
As long as they the suck the road, that's all it matters to me...


No really?! I got them for $560 out the door price (tax included + service warrantee protection)

it's my first time with GoodYear...

For the past two days, they dont make a noise at all rolling... i like them so far... I have not been pushing my car very hard.

i went triple digits for 2 second, and they were ok then...

California weather is not that wet anyways, so i dont have to worry much about rainy weather until February.

But with my driving, i wont have to worry about that either since i will be changing tires again before then.

How many miles you guys drove with the GOODYEAR GT?

I didn't get much use out of my GT's at all, the car ate through the tires. I probably got 17,000 miles out of them, they lasted a summer and spring. Here is the review I wrote on em.

I thought an update was in order:

Brand & Name: Goodyear Eagle GT's

gy_eagle_gt_ci2_l.jpg


Tire Type: Ultra High Performance All-Season

Speed Rating/Service Desciption and UTQG: 87V 440 A A

Size 205/50/16

Price: $87.00 per Tirerack.com, $100 for Discount Tire

Vehicle Installed: 2007 MINI Cooper, 1.6L

Miles Driven: 12,000

Conditions: Mixed city and highway, long road trips, wet/dry, no snow/ice

Review: At first I really enjoyed these tires, they offered decent grip and were quite-ish. I fell out of love with them though. He's a slight revised version of what I wrote on TireRack.com about them:

These tires are mediocre at best. In the dry they provide decent grip, but not to the level many reviews claimed. If you read that these tires are superior to summer-only tires in the dry, take it with a grain of salt. The GT's wet traction is pretty appalling too, especially with standing water. Looking at the treads I would think it'd hydroplaning resistance would be pretty good, but one again I made an incorrect assumption.

Probably the worse thing about this tire though is its tread life. I'll admit, I do a mix of spirited and normal driving, but with a big lean towards average commuting. I don't understand how occasional spirited driving can eat the tread like that and offer such poor grip. At 12,000 miles I'm already lower than 50% tread life, that was worse then the OEM runflats.

The quality of the tires isn't very good either in my opinion. They constantly loose air pressure and I've had them checked for punctures as well as had my rims checked to make sure they weren't bent. I don't know why these tire constantly looses pressure, and no one seems to have a good answer. I used to be a huge fan of Goodyear tires, however the GT's have gave me a negative perception of the company unfortunately.

One thing I am impressed with is the ride comfort and noise over the OEM runflats. On long motorway journeys they are smooth and quite. This does help with the long road trips I do from time to time. It allows me to be less fatigued, which is always a good thing.

In short, if you do any spirited driving or drive even a remotely sporty car at all I would avoid these tires like the plague. They might be good for average around town driving but with a MINI Cooper, they just don't seem to fit right.
 
There are times I wish I had the 55-70 range covered though.

I still don't get why people are so obsessed about filling in gaps like that. Simply take a step or two forward. Then again I use primes most of the time, and whenever I do use my zoom it's usually stuck at one or two focal lengths.
 
I still don't get why people are so obsessed about filling in gaps like that. Simply take a step or two forward. Then again I use primes most of the time, and whenever I do use my zoom it's usually stuck at one or two focal lengths.

95% of the time it's not an issue, it's that ~5% of the time when I can't move that I wish I had it covered.
 
My dad had a set of those a few years ago on his Neon, and he hated them enough that he had them replaced within 5,000 miles.

:crazy: How much power was in that neon?

I didn't get much use out of my GT's at all, the car ate through the tires. I probably got 17,000 miles out of them, they lasted a summer and spring. Here is the review I wrote on em.

Thanks Joey 👍 for the advise... it's too late for me now, since i purchased them... (well actually i have the 30 days guarantee or money back)

I am putting them on my 3-series (e36), i will see how bad they are...
...but visually, they are good...



Michelin are great tires but they are overrated, and too expensive for what it is... I used to buy them, but they wear out just as fast as the cheaper brands...

I like the Bridgestone brand, but i dont really know how their tires are....
 
:crazy: How much power was in that neon?
Standard 1996 Neon ACR, plus some aftermarket stuff that probably added 10HP at best.

Though I think you might have misunderstood: I don't mean he had worn them out by 5000 miles. I mean that he had them replaced with a different set of tires when they still had the majority of the tread left on them.
 
RedGreen_IsSpecial.jpg


We got a PBS catalog in the mail with DVD's of all their shows. Couldn't pass this one up. One of the funniest shows ever.

4 DVD set only $39.99. 👍
 
I don't know about other Michelins, but my Civic came with these and they suck. They wear great though. I took them off at about 19k miles and they look brand new, with mostly highway driving but spirited driving as well. Bad traction in general, including in the wet and snow. And replacements were $212 at one point on TireRack.
 
I don't know but Michelin is better to me, it always has, I hate Bridge Stone.....

Unless you're driving around Indianapolis...

I'm interested in how often you guys change tires. I usually always start looking for new ones around the 12,000mile mark. If not before.
 
All of my sets have lasted at least 15k miles, usually I'll let them go til at least 20k unless the balding of the tires coincides with winter, then I'll break down and get some a bit earlier.
 
Unless you're driving around Indianapolis...

I'm interested in how often you guys change tires. I usually always start looking for new ones around the 12,000mile mark. If not before.

Why, how come? Is there a rule like F1 where everybody has to drive with Bridge Stone? :guilty:
 
The box of my latest purchase, as my latest purchase was being utilized at the time ;)

wigma.jpg

Nice lens! Heard good things about it. The Tokina 12-24 is on my list for the constant f/4, or the 11-16 f/2.8 if I want to go real wide.
 
Back