Help decide new car

[actionFigure]

I know that there seem to be a lot of these threads lately, but I've been looking to get a new, more performance-oriented car (as opposed to my Camry) lately.

Originally I was going to be purchasing a 1996 BMW M3, but honestly I didn't trust the dealer selling it and when buying a car that old of that type, I figured bad vibes from the dealer meant a no-go. So, seeing as how there aren't any more M3s around here that I can afford, I've decided to forego it for the time being an purchase something sporty that is around the same price.

Basically, what I'm looking for is sub-$11,000; preferably RWD or AWD; manual transmission; sporty; sub-70,000 miles; reliable (relatively, at least, as I drive at least 30 miles a day for school); and any ounce of practicality that can be had is always a plus; not a Mustang.

So far my list includes, but is not limited to (and all suggestions are very much wanted):

- 1994 Nissan 300ZX Twin-Turbo
- 1999 Honda Prelude SH
- 2000 Toyota Celica GT-S
- 1998 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX Turbo

A short list, I know, which is why I am asking for your help. Thanks in advance.

 

[JCE]

I know that there seem to be a lot of these threads lately, but I've been looking to get a new, more performance-oriented car (as opposed to my Camry) lately.

Originally I was going to be purchasing a 1996 BMW M3, but honestly I didn't trust the dealer selling it and when buying a car that old of that type, I figured bad vibes from the dealer meant a no-go. So, seeing as how there aren't any more M3s around here that I can afford, I've decided to forego it for the time being an purchase something sporty that is around the same price.

Basically, what I'm looking for is sub-$11,000; preferably RWD or AWD; manual transmission; sporty; sub-70,000 miles; reliable (relatively, at least, as I drive at least 30 miles a day for school); and any ounce of practicality that can be had is always a plus; not a Mustang.

So far my list includes, but is not limited to (and all suggestions are very much wanted):

- 1994 Nissan 300ZX Twin-Turbo
- 1999 Honda Prelude SH
- 2000 Toyota Celica GT-S
- 1998 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX Turbo

A short list, I know, which is why I am asking for your help. Thanks in advance.

I love the 300ZX but it is going to be hard to find a really good condition Twin Turbo that isn't expensive. Don't buy one that you think has been sitting in someone's garage and not driven. As for what might be good to look for, see if there's a 1996-1998 Audi A4 available in your area. Those are good, reliable (if taken care of), and fun cars to drive that can be bought cheap.

 

[1X83Z]

I recommend a 98-01 A4, but it's not particularly sporty - handling's great, but acceleration isn't. You'll laugh at its performance compared to the other cars on that list. And speaking of laughing at performance, the Toyota Celica in any trim incluing GT-S is a fast-looking car that goes slowly.

My suggestions:

- 1995-1997 Mercedes C36 AMG (automatic transmission - sorry - but it's the best car you can afford, bar none)
- 1998-2000 Ford Contour SVT (FWD)
- 1991-1999 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4
- 1992-1994 Audi S4 or 1995 Audi S6 (despite the name they're the same car)
- 1998-2001 Audi A4
- 1993-2002 Chevrolet Camaro Z28
- 1984-1996 Chevrolet Corvette
- 1998-2000 Volvo S70 T5 (FWD)

 

[actionFigure]

I recommend a 98-01 A4, but it's not particularly sporty - handling's great, but acceleration isn't. You'll laugh at its performance compared to the other cars on that list. And speaking of laughing at performance, the Toyota Celica in any trim incluing GT-S is a fast-looking car that goes slowly.

My suggestions:

- 1995-1997 Mercedes C36 AMG (automatic transmission - sorry - but it's the best car you can afford, bar none)
- 1998-2000 Ford Contour SVT (FWD)
- 1991-1999 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4
- 1992-1994 Audi S4 or 1995 Audi S6 (despite the name they're the same car)
- 1998-2001 Audi A4
- 1993-2002 Chevrolet Camaro Z28
- 1984-1996 Chevrolet Corvette
- 1998-2000 Volvo S70 T5 (FWD)

From everything I've read, the C36 AMG seems incredible. I didn't even bother to look through Mercede's offerings prior to your suggestion due to my understanding that their reliable was below-average. How is it with this particular model. The only one available in my area has 100,000 miles on it, and is selling for $11k. The automatic transmission doesn't bother me too much on a car this nice, either.

The Ford Contour is a car I've always liked as well, and the price is good, much less than my budget in some cases.

I think that the Corvette would bump my insurance to unacceptable levels, and with the Camaro, it's just not a car whose styling I particularly like, although the performance is unmatched for the price.

I know the Celica isn't the fastest roadgoing machine around straight from the factory, but I would be willing to put a little money into aftermarket parts to help with that, if necessary.

What is your opinion on the Prelude? Is going for the SH model worth the extra money over the standard?

Oh, with the 300ZX, the particular car I've been looking at has recently had new OEM turbos and a fresh clutch installed. It has 100,000 miles on it as well, and was selling for about $7,000 at a dealer.

 

[1X83Z]

From everything I've read, the C36 AMG seems incredible. I didn't even bother to look through Mercede's offerings prior to your suggestion due to my understanding that their reliable was below-average. How is it with this particular model. The only one available in my area has 100,000 miles on it, and is selling for $11k. The automatic transmission doesn't bother me too much on a car this nice, either.

This goes for the 92-94 S4 and 95 S6, too: the cars themselves aren't particularly reliable unless they've been well-maintained for their entire life. I personally wouldn't touch an S4, S6, or C36 that didn't have service records, but on the opposite end, I wouldn't even test drive one whose service records were impeccable because I'd buy it straight away. One-owner is huge benefit too. If you can't get service records and one owner, fine, but if you can't get service records, don't bother. $10500 is treeline for early C36s - if you'd wait just six months, maybe a year you might find good ones creeping into that range, not just the bottom of the barrel. Then again, I strongly advise people not to wait to buy cars, and this is no different.

The Ford Contour is a car I've always liked as well, and the price is good, much less than my budget in some cases.

Indeed - and they handle. Not too much power out of the box though - 200 is quite a bit in comparison to class rivals, but if you want a real performance car, you're going to have to do some work to it to get that. Fortunately a lot of people agree, so parts are common.

I think that the Corvette would bump my insurance to unacceptable levels, and with the Camaro, it's just not a car whose styling I particularly like, although the performance is unmatched for the price.

Agreed on both points - and I think if you look into a 3000GT VR4 or a Stealth RT (91-96) you'll find unacceptably high insurance rates as well.

What is your opinion on the Prelude? Is going for the SH model worth the extra money over the standard?

Definitely - and it's not that much more expensive. If you're into performance (and you are), I'd get it, no question.

Oh, with the 300ZX, the particular car I've been looking at has recently had new OEM turbos and a fresh clutch installed. It has 100,000 miles on it as well, and was selling for about $7,000 at a dealer.

Who installed the parts? If it was a previous-owner job, I'd be leery.

 

[E55Power]

What about a 1991-1996 3000GT VR4? Granted, reliability won't be as impressive as others, but, it's still an excelent car.
Also, 1990-1995 Toyota MR2 Turbo
1992-1994(Years?) Acura Legend LS V6 6-Speed Coupe/Sedan
1994-2001 Acura Integra GSR?

 

[1X83Z]

1992-1994(Years?) Acura Legend LS V6 6-Speed Coupe/Sedan

1993-1995. Acura pulled out all the stops for that one: 6-speed manual, 20 more horsepower, cool alloys. Still was dynamically unappealing and not all that quick. Oh well, at least they scored big with the 1996-2004 RL.

What about a 1991-1996 3000GT VR4?

1991-1999. Remember, it was Dodge who bailed in 1996 - they didn't engineer the car, so they really had nothing to lose. Mitsubishi stuck it out the whole way, selling the car new until 1999. Oh, and I already mentioned it.

 

[E55Power]

Also,
01-03 Acura CL-S
'99-00 Accord (HUGE aftermarket)
'00-01 Subaru Impreza

 

[E55Power]

I know it was 91-99, but I figured '97-99's would be WAY out of his range -- they tend to go for ALOT [more than they are worth]

 

[1X83Z]

Also,
01-03 Acura CL-S

For $11k?! Maybe if you're a dealer! Blue Book says $15600 for an '01 Type-S and I think that's right-on. Not to mention he wants a rear- or all-wheel drive manual, and the CL-S was a front-drive automatic until 2003 (and '03s go for high-teens or low-20s).

 

[actionFigure]

Who installed the parts? If it was a previous-owner job, I'd be leery.

The dealer who has the car currently says that they were installed by a local Nissan dealer. He also said that they have the service records from the installation, but since I just stopped to look and didn't have more than 5 minutes, I didn't ask to see them.

And with the mentioned Subaru Impreza's, I thought the given years (00-01) weren't as "performance-oriented" with only 165bhp.

From my understanding the Acura CL is more of a "all show, no go" car, being that it is nice, comfortable, and everything a semi-luxery car should be, but at the same time the gas pedal feels underpowered.

With the Accord, unless I were to purchase the V6, it wouldn't be much different than the Camry I have now.

On a different note, how much do you suppose I could reasonably ask for my car: 2000 Camry LE 2.2L I4 auto, recently had 90k service (belt, water pump, seals, trans flush) and new rubber, mechanical condition impeccable?

 

[actionFigure]

This is the M3 that I was looking at, still for sale.

 

[1X83Z]

And with the mentioned Subaru Impreza's, I thought the given years (00-01) weren't as "performance-oriented" with only 165bhp.

The Subaru Impreza 2.5RS (which was actually sold from 1997 to 2001 as a coupe and 2000 to 2001 as a sedan) was actually more performance-oriented than the current model using the same engine - given the weight difference between the two, I'd guess a 97-01 2.5RS could do 0-60 in the low seven-second range. Not bad.

From my understanding the Acura CL is more of a "all show, no go" car, being that it is nice, comfortable, and everything a semi-luxery car should be, but at the same time the gas pedal feels underpowered.

The 1997-2000 model is little more than a glorified Accord coupe; the 2001 model helped things turn around a little but only due to the powerful Type-S version that included a horsepower bump and sportier styling.

On a different note, how much do you suppose I could reasonably ask for my car: 2000 Camry LE 2.2L I4 auto, recently had 90k service (belt, water pump, seals, trans flush) and new rubber, mechanical condition impeccable?

I'd ask $8500, which is $100 north of Blue Book value for a 60k mile car. For a 6-year-old car, mileage (at 90k) is high, but with new tires and a recent service, I'd say $8500 is a good starting point. I'd accept any offer $8100 and above.

 

[actionFigure]

The Subaru Impreza 2.5RS (which was actually sold from 1997 to 2001 as a coupe and 2000 to 2001 as a sedan) was actually more performance-oriented than the current model using the same engine - given the weight difference between the two, I'd guess a 97-01 2.5RS could do 0-60 in the low seven-second range. Not bad.

Good point, I didn't take the weight difference into consideration. Also, from what I understand, the aftermarket is decent on these cars, is it not? For the most part this car seems to fit the bill, and I would be sold on it if there was any way to increase the performance. 200bhp or above would be ideal, and I understand that it is not inexpensive to make that kind of power, but for myself it would be worth it.

 

[Joey D]

First off how old are you? Because if you are under the age of 21 the insurence will own you on pretty much anything turboed, hell anything that is remotely fast.

 

[actionFigure]

First off how old are you? Because if you are under the age of 21 the insurence will own you on pretty much anything turboed, hell anything that is remotely fast.

Yes, I'm under the age of 21, so I am quite familiar with insurance companies liking to bend teenagers over. Insurance companies pretty much have a hernia when a car as a turbo on it, which is why the majority (but not all) of the cars I'm considering are N/A.

 

[Joey D]

Stay away from the Eclipse GSX, I had an Eclipse a few years back and the insurence and speeding tickets pretty much owned my wallet.

 

[1X83Z]

Also, from what I understand, the aftermarket is decent on these cars, is it not?

As far as I know, yes - the US didn't get a turbo Impreza until 2002, so most people who had to make do with the 165-horsepower version tried to compensate in other ways; lots of times they succeeded. I'm sure there are Subaru or Impreza forums where they'll help you out significantly.

Also - have you considered the 1992-2000 Lexus SC400?

 

[actionFigure]

Also - have you considered the 1992-2000 Lexus SC400?

Yes, I considered it, but didn't look into it fully and counted it out because of price. However, looking at it now a 1997 would fit my budget pretty well. Not only that, but it's a Toyota (reliable) a V8 (powerful) and RWD (uh, likable?).

 

[JCE]

I recommend a 98-01 A4, but it's not particularly sporty - handling's great, but acceleration isn't. You'll laugh at its performance compared to the other cars on that list. And speaking of laughing at performance, the Toyota Celica in any trim incluing GT-S is a fast-looking car that goes slowly.

My suggestions:

- 1995-1997 Mercedes C36 AMG (automatic transmission - sorry - but it's the best car you can afford, bar none)
- 1998-2000 Ford Contour SVT (FWD)
- 1991-1999 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4
- 1992-1994 Audi S4 or 1995 Audi S6 (despite the name they're the same car)
- 1998-2001 Audi A4
- 1993-2002 Chevrolet Camaro Z28
- 1984-1996 Chevrolet Corvette
- 1998-2000 Volvo S70 T5 (FWD)

I owned a 1993 VR4 and they are a freaking BLAST to drive but they have a symbol rating of 25 which is 1 below a Viper and 2 below a Ferrari when I checked insurance rates on them last year...they are huge insurance money pits because of the repair costs and of course AWD+Twin Turbo. A good friend of mine had a 1999 SVT Contour and they are very good cars and also a blast to drive. And correctly if I'm wrong but the American spec Audi S4 has a Bi-turbo V6 in most cases where the A4 was either a 4cyl. Turbo or NA V6 if memory serves me correctly. Either way, if well maintained the Audi's are great cars.

 

[actionFigure]

I owned a 1993 VR4 and they are a freaking BLAST to drive but they have a symbol rating of 25 which is 1 below a Viper and 2 below a Ferrari when I checked insurance rates on them last year...they are huge insurance money pits because of the repair costs and of course AWD+Twin Turbo. A good friend of mine had a 1999 SVT Contour and they are very good cars and also a blast to drive. And correctly if I'm wrong but the American spec Audi S4 has a Bi-turbo V6 in most cases where the A4 was either a 4cyl. Turbo or NA V6 if memory serves me correctly. Either way, if well maintained the Audi's are great cars.

Yeah, that amount of insurance doesn't sit too well with what I would consider reasonable at my age/income level. It's good though to hear some praise on the SVT Contour. My dad was an executive with Ford, and he said the regular Contours shouldn't be bothered with, but that the SVT (well, pretty much ANY SVT car) is pretty nice.

On the other hand, you are correct that the newer S4s have the Bi-Turbo engines, but unfortunately the ones in my price range have a single-turbo I5.

 

[Joey D]

What about an A4 with a 1.8T? The 1.8T is a great little motor with a huge aftermarket.

 

[actionFigure]

What about an A4 with a 1.8T? The 1.8T is a great little motor with a huge aftermarket.

Yeah, that is true. It is the same as what is used in the Volkswagons, correct? I know the companies are affiliated.

Speaking of the Audi A4 1.8T, some kid at my school has a 1997, swapped out the stock turbo for a larger one, chipped the car, and stuck an exhaust on it and tries telling people the car runs 4.9sec 0-60 and 12.9sec 1/4s. I don't buy it for a second, the kid won't show me timeslips (doesn't have them) and has half the kids who like cars thinking I'm an idiot because I don't believe him. These are the same people that think a CAI is worth 15bhp on a Civic, so their opinion on much of anything is worthless. Ah, sorry, my little rant for the day...

 

[1X83Z]

On the other hand, you are correct that the newer S4s have the Bi-Turbo engines, but unfortunately the ones in my price range have a single-turbo I5.

Which is a very trendy car and has been since it debuted in 1992 - I highly recommend these if you can find them with any sort of decent mileage.

 

[actionFigure]

Which is a very trendy car and has been since it debuted in 1992 - I highly recommend these if you can find them with any sort of decent mileage.

There don't seem to many for sale, in uh.. the whole country, actually. I think the closest one to my location is about 400 miles away, which really is a shame because I was starting to like the idea of this.

 

[E55Power]

A SC300/400 will kill you on insurance.

+Infinit G20?
+3G Eclipse V6?

 

[actionFigure]

A SC300/400 will kill you on insurance.

+Infinit G20?
+3G Eclipse V6?

I like the 3G Eclipse, particularly the GSX (although the V6 isn't paltry) but the G20, despite its incredible reliability, doesn't have the power to back up its looks. In regards to the Eclipse, I just am wary of having a car that was abused by dumb teenagers, if you know what I mean. I know, I'm a teenager too, but I don't consider myself the normal stupid-driving type.

 

[E55Power]

I think you're getting confused, the 2G Eclipse is 95-99, 3G is '00-'04. [And wasn't available with a GSX model]. I think that the average age of a 3G eclipse was alot older than that of a 2G eclipse.

But, the 3G doesn't offer RWD/AWD.

 

[Joey D]

The fastest 3 gen Eclipse is the GT which is the V6, but you can get a way better car for the money. You would be better off with the 2 gen in GSX trim, that's if you can afford the insurence mind you.

Yeah, that is true. It is the same as what is used in the Volkswagons, correct? I know the companies are affiliated.

Speaking of the Audi A4 1.8T, some kid at my school has a 1997, swapped out the stock turbo for a larger one, chipped the car, and stuck an exhaust on it and tries telling people the car runs 4.9sec 0-60 and 12.9sec 1/4s. I don't buy it for a second, the kid won't show me timeslips (doesn't have them) and has half the kids who like cars thinking I'm an idiot because I don't believe him. These are the same people that think a CAI is worth 15bhp on a Civic, so their opinion on much of anything is worthless. Ah, sorry, my little rant for the day...

Yup it's used in VDubs, which has proven to be a great motor. As for the one at your school I would say he would be doing 0-60 in the high 5's low 6's. And pulling a low 14 at the strip, which isn't bad. But it depends on the turbo really.

 

[actionFigure]

I think you're getting confused, the 2G Eclipse is 95-99, 3G is '00-'04. [And wasn't available with a GSX model]. I think that the average age of a 3G eclipse was alot older than that of a 2G eclipse.

But, the 3G doesn't offer RWD/AWD.

Wow, yeah, I feel like an idiot. Then again, it was at like 1 in the morning, so we can just forget I said that...

My friend has a 3G Eclipse, granted it's an I4, but I'm not a particularly big fan of it. It seems to have held up really well though, with 80,000 miles and not a single thing wrong.