Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No sir, it is you who exudes of ignorance. These cars are gas guzzling, polluting, parking spaces whores. Let them hit the junkyards, or as I said, DEMO DERBIES .
Toyotas, Hondas, Nissans...Till you get it right. People are making a big fuss of 30+ MPG nowadays. Toyotas, Hondas and Nissans have been doing this for a while now. 26MPG new (for these behemoths), is not impressive by any standards.
90s Corollas, Camrys, Accords, Sentras, Tercels, Civics etc, have proven to be better cars in these categories day in, day out. Prove the contrary.
You sound like a driver of a car and nothing more. A superior vehicle is one that has a durable design, long lasting, cheap to maintain and gets the job done. I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who adequately understands the construction of a vehicle and convince them that the little commuter cars you mention are more durable than the "behemoths".
The reason those behemoths "nowadays" are still surprisingly abundant is because they easily withstand decades of abuse. Unfortunately for you it is doubtful they will be gone in your lifetime. They were made TOO well.
You sound like a driver of a car and nothing more.
Nice point. If there's one thing that drives me nuts, it's how manufacturers are increasingly making cars for people who obviously want nothing to do with driving. They can't check their blind spots, they can't be bothered with applying the brakes while using cruise control, they can't even park the car themselves, but BOY OH BOY, iPod, bluetooth, DVD integration? Sign them up.
Take the bus, imo. At the same time...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lux Hauler
A superior vehicle is one that has a durable design, long lasting, cheap to maintain and gets the job done. I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who adequately understands the construction of a vehicle and convince them that the little commuter cars you mention are more durable than the "behemoths".
I'd offer that a superior vehicle is one which best suits the needs of the buyer. An 87 Monte Carlo or Grand Prix, treated kindly by the years, would be a great cruiser, but a 91 Mitsubishi Eclipse would walk it like a dog, drop it like a bad habit at the first corner, and enjoy better than 30mpg on the highway. Of course, it's smaller, lighter, really only seats two, and has the torque of a goldfish.
Then again, the Eclipse is, and has always been, an American-made car.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lux Hauler
The reason those behemoths "nowadays" are still surprisingly abundant is because they easily withstand decades of abuse. Unfortunately for you it is doubtful they will be gone in your lifetime. They were made TOO well.
Those behemoths were blunt instruments. They are durable, but only in that it takes a long time for them to completely rust away to nothing. They were heavy, clumsy, and oafish. Few produced performance on par with that of the modern econobox in stock trim.
Even so, modern cars are getting more and more complex. The demands of the increasingly indifferent car owner are resulting in small cars getting larger and larger, their weights escalating all the while. The 2010 VW Golf weighs something like 50% more than the original model? Probably because the 2010 Golf owner weighs 50% more than his predecessor six generations back.
I can see both sides. Neither point of view is ignorant, really. It's all about perspective. Older, domestic steel is like a hammer. Built like a brick ****house. Most of its systems will fail, but most of its parts are cheap. The modern econobox is smaller, lighter, and gets better gas mileage, but most of them are bereft of character or any kind of visceral thrill. They buzz, not rumble.
Would I ever buy an older American car? Maybe, but I'm having way to much fun enjoying my 18 year old Mitsubishi. Funny thing about older cars; the better you take care of them, the more reliable they are. Go figure.
You sound like a driver of a car and nothing more. A superior vehicle is one that has a durable design, long lasting, cheap to maintain and gets the job done. I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who adequately understands the construction of a vehicle and convince them that the little commuter cars you mention are more durable than the "behemoths".
The reason those behemoths "nowadays" are still surprisingly abundant is because they easily withstand decades of abuse. Unfortunately for you it is doubtful they will be gone in your lifetime. They were made TOO well.
Not to turn this into a competition or a pi-s-s match, but aren't you in contradiction with what you said?
You want to praise behemoths...cars that have nothing to do with driving. We're talking liquid steering, cushy interior, and gargantuan in size. Am I getting this right?
I'd love to see those old Crown Vics/Caddies or any of those huge boats on wheels you mention, on a track against a Mazda Miata, a B13 chassis Nissan Sentra SE-R, or A Honda Civic with minor mods, then go home giving excellent MPGs. We'll see who has a driver's car, versus the one that would be fish-tailing and spilling fluids all over the track .
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about Lux.
You can argue that these leviathans weren't made for that, neither were the Nissan and Civics, but they're much better cars, and much more versatile. Something you can't say about these 5000lbs leviathans.
As for driver, show me your NHRA license (must run 9.99 second or quicker pass in order to get one. At the time, the official told me I had to do it 3 times in order to get it.), or show me your SCCA membership. I don't have a problem with that. Got mine in 2001, piloting a half back Toyota Starlet turbo at Englishtown Raceway.
Yes a Starlet with a 2.0 3TC turbo motor. Again, what type of driving are you talking about?
What I call driving or what you call driving? (Sitting like a lazy 300+ pounder behind a V8 with airbag suspension or getting some real lap times at Lime Rock, VIR, or Road Atlanta?
I'd like to see what you built for that matter, since you know so much about car construction.
Don't come unprepared.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR1665
I'd offer that a superior vehicle is one which best suits the needs of the buyer. An 87 Monte Carlo or Grand Prix, treated kindly by the years, would be a great cruiser, but a 91 Mitsubishi Eclipse would walk it like a dog, drop it like a bad habit at the first corner, and enjoy better than 30mpg on the highway. Of course, it's smaller, lighter, really only seats two, and has the torque of a goldfish.
Those behemoths were blunt instruments. They are durable, but only in that it takes a long time for them to completely rust away to nothing. They were heavy, clumsy, and oafish. Few produced performance on par with that of the modern econobox in stock trim.
Even so, modern cars are getting more and more complex. The demands of the increasingly indifferent car owner are resulting in small cars getting larger and larger, their weights escalating all the while. The 2010 VW Golf weighs something like 50% more than the original model? Probably because the 2010 Golf owner weighs 50% more than his predecessor six generations back.
I can see both sides. Neither point of view is ignorant, really. It's all about perspective. Older, domestic steel is like a hammer. Built like a brick ****house. Most of its systems will fail, but most of its parts are cheap. The modern econobox is smaller, lighter, and gets better gas mileage, but most of them are bereft of character or any kind of visceral thrill. They buzz, not rumble.
Would I ever buy an older American car? Maybe, but I'm having way to much fun enjoying my 18 year old Mitsubishi. Funny thing about older cars; the better you take care of them, the more reliable they are. Go figure.
Great post. And I agree on the VW comparison (Mk2 vs Mk5 and Mk6 chassis). I had a 92 16V GTi and that car would give the VW Golfs VR6s (Mk3s) a run for their money. It wasn't stock either...
And for the record, you stated it well. A Monte Carlo is a cruiser..nothing more.
I think that's where Lux and I differ. I don't consider a Crown Vic or Buick Lesabre a driver's car. They're boring, cruisers. Maybe these types of drivers should take the bus. There's no big difference between the two . (No actual driving, just sitting and pushing a pedal ).
I have a friend who had a Buick Grand National, when I had my 92 Supra turbo. While the Buick was fast, that car was useless around any bends, curves or corners. It was annoying to say the least. The owner joined the club, since he couldn't beat us. He got a Nissan 300Zx twin turbo.
Down the straight line, that Buick was a different ball game.
Not to turn this into a competition or a pi-s-s match, but aren't you in contradiction with what you said?
You want to praise behemoths...cars that have nothing to do with driving. We're talking liquid steering, cushy interior, and gargantuan in size. Am I getting this right?
I'd love to see those old Crown Vics/Caddies or any of those huge boats on wheels you mention, on a track against a Mazda Miata, a B13 chassis Nissan Sentra SE-R, or A Honda Civic with minor mods, then go home giving excellent MPGs. We'll see who has a driver's car, versus the one that would be fish-tailing and spilling fluids all over the track .
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about Lux.
You can argue that these leviathans weren't made for that, neither were the Nissan and Civics, but they're much better cars, and much more versatile. Something you can't say about these 5000lbs leviathans.
As for driver, show me your NHRA license (must run 9.99 second or quicker pass in order to get one. At the time, the official told me I had to do it 3 times in order to get it.), or show me your SCCA membership. I don't have a problem with that. Got mine in 2001, piloting a half back Toyota Starlet turbo at Englishtown Raceway.
Yes a Starlet with a 2.0 3TC turbo motor. Again, what type of driving are you talking about?
What I call driving or what you call driving? (Sitting like a lazy 300+ pounder behind a V8 with airbag suspension or getting some real lap times at Lime Rock, VIR, or Road Atlanta?
I'd like to see what you built for that matter, since you know so much about car construction.
Don't come unprepared.
It's not my fault you cannot read what I have written. How did this turn into a discussion about driving, racing and track times? I don't need to hear nor do I care about any of your credentials or achievements. They are irrelevant and unproven.
Again, you sound like a driver and nothing more meaning you seem to know very little about the construction of a vehicle on their most basic levels. This topic is about the most reliable vehicle for a low price. Looking at it from an engineering POV I would choose something that could last as long as I live with proper maintenance. If the OP doesn't want an old RWD sedan that is his choice, but to completely discredit those vehicles is nothing but a display of ignorance.
Also, why all the bold writing? We all can read just fine, no need for all caps or all bold.
Next to mindless commuters diluting the market with numb, pointless alternatives to mass transit, my biggest pet peeve about the automotive community is the lack of unity among gearheads.
MisterNY prefers boosted four-bangers that carve corners with precision.
Lux Hauler favors the compliance of an affordable land yacht.
I prefer something with AWD that I can throttle steer around gravel corners.
Yet here we are, debating what might be "superior." I guess it's the topic of the thread spinning our bearings. I have a rally buddy who would love nothing less than to throw a cage into a P71/P72 and take passengers for the ride of their lives, three at a time on dirt.
The way I see it, a real gearhead can make *any* car awesome. A Crown Vic could be made to handle very well. Not as easily as a Miata or an Elise, but close enough that you'd have a hard time getting people out of the driver's seat. You could even make the most hideous failure of a vehicle ever designed - the Pontiac Aztec - into something really cool if you were a dyed in the wool sadist.
Who's to say what is superior? The only way you can do that is if you've presented a well detailed problem to solve. A mere price point for a commuter isn't sufficient, IMHO, to nail down a single, superior solution. If someone said, "I'd like a used car for under $5000 that's not too big, gets 30mpg or more, has 4 doors, and isn't likely to require a lot of repairs over the next five years that I plan on owning it," more specific options could be provided, but give the man some credit, here.
The OP asked for suggestions on the "best (most reliable) used $3000-$5000 vehicle." I can see there being more than a handful of possible Detroit gorillas that could fit that bill. $3000 goes a long way on a $2000 POS.
Who's to say what is superior? The only way you can do that is if you've presented a well detailed problem to solve. A mere price point for a commuter isn't sufficient, IMHO, to nail down a single, superior solution.
IMO the superior machine is whatever can get you to at least 300k with the least amount of money in maintenance and repair.
It's not my fault you cannot read what I have written. How did this turn into a discussion about driving, racing and track times? I don't need to hear nor do I care about any of your credentials or achievements. They are irrelevant and unproven.
Again, you sound like a driver and nothing more meaning you seem to know very little about the construction of a vehicle on their most basic levels. This topic is about the most reliable vehicle for a low price. Looking at it from an engineering POV I would choose something that could last as long as I live with proper maintenance. If the OP doesn't want an old RWD sedan that is his choice, but to completely discredit those vehicles is nothing but a display of ignorance.
Also, why all the bold writing? We all can read just fine, no need for all caps or all bold.
All the bold writing, cause some people just don't understand, or can't see what was originally written.
Why do you think I suggested the late 80s-90s Toyotas, Nissans and Hondas? Because they last longer, cost less to operate, and have a proven track record of reliability. What else? For $3k-$5k, the sky's the limit for someone looking for a low-budget, reliable, well built Japanese car.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lux Hauler
IMO the superior machine is whatever can get you to at least 300k with the least amount of money in maintenance and repair.
Again...Why I suggested, the cars above. Comprehension seems to be your downfall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR1665
Next to mindless commuters diluting the market with numb, pointless alternatives to mass transit, my biggest pet peeve about the automotive community is the lack of unity among gearheads.
MisterNY prefers boosted four-bangers that carve corners with precision.
Lux Hauler favors the compliance of an affordable land yacht.
I prefer something with AWD that I can throttle steer around gravel corners.
Yet here we are, debating what might be "superior." I guess it's the topic of the thread spinning our bearings. I have a rally buddy who would love nothing less than to throw a cage into a P71/P72 and take passengers for the ride of their lives, three at a time on dirt.
The way I see it, a real gearhead can make *any* car awesome. A Crown Vic could be made to handle very well. Not as easily as a Miata or an Elise, but close enough that you'd have a hard time getting people out of the driver's seat. You could even make the most hideous failure of a vehicle ever designed - the Pontiac Aztec - into something really cool if you were a dyed in the wool sadist.
Who's to say what is superior? The only way you can do that is if you've presented a well detailed problem to solve. A mere price point for a commuter isn't sufficient, IMHO, to nail down a single, superior solution. If someone said, "I'd like a used car for under $5000 that's not too big, gets 30mpg or more, has 4 doors, and isn't likely to require a lot of repairs over the next five years that I plan on owning it," more specific options could be provided, but give the man some credit, here.
The OP asked for suggestions on the "best (most reliable) used $3000-$5000 vehicle." I can see there being more than a handful of possible Detroit gorillas that could fit that bill. $3000 goes a long way on a $2000 POS.
Not sayin', just sayin'.
You are so right. I agree with you. I'm one to show appreciation for imports, domestic muscle cars, old and new European cars.
My small fleet says it all. ( I have an IS300 with a 2JZGTE motor, going single turbo very soon), a 1987 Corolla Gt-S (Rwd, 1.6 lite 4AGZE motor, lightweight machine), a Porsche 944 turbo, and my daily car, my 05 Avalon Touring.
I'm in agreement with you. I am also very open minded to other real cars, not leviathans that get credit for nothing. I get a laugh when people want to call a Buick LeSabre, or Oldmobile Cutlass a real car. They're not. They're living rooms on wheels (in the mind of a real driver and real car lover).
Well, to gearheads, they're not. (though some gearheads turned some Cutlasses into drag racers...there are exceptions, of course. Again agreeing with one of your points).
They weren't made to be enjoyed like a true driver would. A 68 Camaro, An 87 Buick GNX/T-Type, Mustang GT/LX 5.0, Corvette, Neon SRT-4 etc. Those are cars, there you get my respect. (From one car lover to the next).
Lux and I fundamentally disagree on what a car is to begin with (what the purpose of some cars are). To him putting gas and cruising to go play Bingo is what he calls a car, I don't.
I acknowledge that. I doubt he does, hence his tail chasing.
I have friends from all walks of life, and we drive different types of cars. We talk smack amongst each other at the track, car meets, or in our own garages, but at the end, we're all car lovers.
CAR LOVERS...not just pedal pushers...(pun intended for someone special, in bold too..). Peace to all.
Yes, we are. You're so right. Those are bullet proof. A great buy indeed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. 
People are making a big fuss of 30+ MPG nowadays. Toyotas, Hondas and Nissans have been doing this for a while now. 26MPG new (for these behemoths), is not impressive by any standards. 
. 
). 
