Mustang's car search thread - IT'S OVER!

  • Thread starter Thread starter mustangGT90210
  • 696 comments
  • 33,873 views
Messages
3,008
Messages
You're crazy if you think
Messages
I can afford either of these.
Alright, here's the deal. I have 1500 dollars and need a car.

I want:
  • Best case scenario - 5.0 5 speed Foxbody Mustang
    Manual trans (but will take auto is some situations)
    Fun to drive
    Relatively low insurance (AKA nothing higher than the Mustang, which I'm allowed to get)
    Decent gas mileage (~17mpg combined)
    Working AC

Won't buy:
  • Anything 4cyl auto
    Toyota Camry
    Ford Escort
    Toyota Corrola

My ZIP code is 34212 for anybody that wants to look on Autotrader
 
Last edited:
I would stay away from the Mustang. I love the car, but the V6 model is completely pointless. Insurance would probably be killer on the F bodies, too. If you want something RWD, you will probably need a truck if you want something cheap. If you are okay with trucks, a Ford Ranger or a Chevy S10 would probably be the way to go. Also possible for the cheap are the Ford Crown Victoria and/or the Chevrolet Caprice, which are well over your fuel mileage cap are a pretty much bullet proof. Also, if you can find one, a Volvo 240 would fit the bill better than anything else.

Personally, though, I think it would be easier to simply find a cheap FF car to rattle around in while you become a better driver. Something like an older Corolla, a Sentra, a Dodge Shadow, a Chevrolet Beretta, etc.
 
The P71 Crown Victoria or 9C1 Caprice would likely be the best way to get a reliable, otherwise bullet-proof V8 car with RWD. Problem is, fuel mileage does suck, as I recall I've rarely seen P71s (and other panthers) average over 20 MPG. The good news is that you can shove a T56 into the Caprice and increase the fuel mileage easily, but of course, thats an extra $1500 to stick on a car that otherwise has held its value.

...Do some research on a B4C Camaro. Given that it isn't officially listed as a "Z/28" or a "SS," I wonder if the insurance would be cheaper. Problem is, the B4Cs only came with 4L80E automatics, but I'll be damned if they weren't just about unbreakable with those police-spec add-ons...
 
The problem is, though, that dedicated pursuit vehicles go through a lot more wear and tear than standard patrol cars, and generally don't hold up to the same reliability standard post-use as normal police cars do.
 
I would stay away from the Mustang. I love the car, but the V6 model is completely pointless. Insurance would probably be killer on the F bodies, too. If you want something RWD, you will probably need a truck if you want something cheap. If you are okay with trucks, a Ford Ranger or a Chevy S10 would probably be the way to go. Also possible for the cheap are the Ford Crown Victoria and/or the Chevrolet Caprice, which are well over your fuel mileage cap are a pretty much bullet proof. Also, if you can find one, a Volvo 240 would fit the bill better than anything else.

Personally, though, I think it would be easier to simply find a cheap FF car to rattle around in while you become a better driver. Something like an older Corolla, a Sentra, a Dodge Shadow, a Chevrolet Beretta, etc.

I can't say the V6 Stang is pointless, but that's my opinion. I'm not real big on the Ranger, the V6 in it is geared to the point that it gets the same MPG as the F-150, so that's why that's on the list, not the Ranger.

I've always had a soft spot for the S-10, but I've never looked into it. Do you know what kind of mileage it gets?

My dad mentioned the Crown Vic because of the nonexistant insurance, personally I don't really like them, but if I can find one of the Interceptors with the 350, then I'll be tempted.

Call me stubborn but I can't stand the idea of a cheap japaneese FF. There's just something about those things that ooze cheap to me. I've riden in a fair amount of early to mid nineties civics, and nothing there impresses me or makes me want to own one. Yes, I'm using that as basis on the other japaneese cars in there.

I'm sorry I've shot down so many suggestions in this one post, I guess I'm just being stubborn.

There wouldn't happen to be any Skyline GTS's stateside, would there?
 
I've always had a soft spot for the S-10, but I've never looked into it. Do you know what kind of mileage it gets?
My 4WD Blazer averages high (18-19) teens, with the 4.3L V6 in it and larger-than-stock tires on it. A 2WD S10 would probably get around 22 MPG with the same engine, give or take. With the smaller V6, maybe 23-25.


There wouldn't happen to be any Skyline GTS's stateside, would there?
For 3 grand and reasonable insurance? Nada.
 
My 4WD Blazer averages high (18-19) teens, with the 4.3L V6 in it and larger-than-stock tires on it. A 2WD S10 would probably get around 22 MPG with the same engine, give or take. With the smaller V6, maybe 23-25.



For 3 grand and reasonable insurance? Nada.

Well well well. That sure makes the S10 a very nice looking thing. I'd go up and edit my first post, but I'm doing everything by the TAB key tonight, so it's a bit much work. Stupid mouse :(

Really wasn't expecting a Skyline to be in that range, but I bet american insurance companies don't know squat about the things.

Another question: Cost to insure a car goes down as the car gets older, IIRC, so would that place a 1993 Mustang GT 5.0L/ 1993 Mustang LX 5.0L in an affordable insurance bracket?
 
Call me stubborn but I can't stand the idea of a cheap japaneese FF. There's just something about those things that ooze cheap to me. I've riden in a fair amount of early to mid nineties civics, and nothing there impresses me or makes me want to own one. Yes, I'm using that as basis on the other japaneese cars in there.
Did you know my 99 civic is worth slightly less than a Mustang GT of around the same mileage and year?

Not so "cheap ff" is it?


Woot.


P.S. You really shouldn't base your opinion of all Japanese cars on a new mid-nineties civics. That's really ignorant if I may say so myself.



EDIT: For 4k though, you won't get a decent "cheap ff" anyways, so they're out of the question I guess.
 
Another question: Cost to insure a car goes down as the car gets older, IIRC, so would that place a 1993 Mustang GT 5.0L/ 1993 Mustang LX 5.0L in an affordable insurance bracket?

I think as my dad's car got older, the insurance actually increased. :sick: Well, it most likely stayed at the same cost.
 
Another question: Cost to insure a car goes down as the car gets older, IIRC, so would that place a 1993 Mustang GT 5.0L/ 1993 Mustang LX 5.0L in an affordable insurance bracket?
While what you say is generally true, there are exceptions. Mustangs and Camaros are always the main exceptions.
If you want good power and RWD, a better alternative would actually be a 7th generation Ford Thunderbird (Superbirds):
800px19891995fordthundezk1.jpg


They are faster, handle better and are nicer put together than Mustangs. You could either get them with 4.6L V8s, 5.0L V8s or the infamous Supercharged 3.8L V6. Insurance would be much cheaper than a Mustang, you could get the supercharged ones with 5 speeds and they get identical mileage to Mustangs of the same vintage (18-20 MPG combined). They would probably even be cheaper than a Mustang of the same vintage, and they are far more stealthy.
And look at them all!
 
Really wasn't expecting a Skyline to be in that range, but I bet american insurance companies don't know squat about the things.

Actually he was saying that trying to import a Skyline for only 3 grand and have reasonable insurance on it would be pretty unpossible.
 
Find an older Volvo.

Easily had in manual, reliable, 20+MPG, and Rear drive.

But DEFINITELY not fast.
 
Haha don't tell me you haven't ever watched the Simpsons! :lol:

Me fail English? That's unpossible ;)

I'd like to think you could afford the Mustang you always wanted GT90210, but that Superbird with supercharged 3.8L V6 sounds pretty good. I'd check them out, plus you could keep brand loyalty with Ford.
 
No, he wants to know if there is any in the states. And if you can find one for under 20k I would be surprised. Or if you can find one.
Well either way it would still be much more expensive than what he is looking for.
 
The Superbird nomination is a good one. All of these years later, I still say its one of the best cars of the '90s. Ford did a good job with it, and you'd likely be able to find some pretty excellent examples in good shape with a bit of digging. However, I personally like the Turbo "Aero Bird" Thunderbirds from the late '80s...

88tbird_turbocoupe.jpg


Absolutely awesome. My uncle had one, what a fast car at the time...

Or, if you really want to get nostalgic and make some Ford fans jealous, try to find the ol' SVO Mustang:

1984%20FORD%20MUSTANG%20SVO-1.JPG


Now, I'm not saying that I like it better than the GT with the V8. But come on... A turbocharged I4 in a Mustang that was actually quite fast and ahead of its time? Priceless!

=====

And if you can stomach the idea of a FWD car, I think you've missed one great car. Possibly one of the best cars America ever built:

800px-Ford_Taurus_SHO_(second-gen).jpg


Big power, a real manual transmission in an otherwise "full size" car, a wonderfully smooth V6... The only problem is that the power is through the front. Hell, Conan O'Brien had one, and he loved it! Just a wonderful car it is!
 
+1 on the Taurus SHO. GREAT first car. If you must have RWD, I'd say a Miata or 240 would be a more economical choice as far as gas mileage and reliability. Otherwise, I'm gonna recommend the first car I think everyone should have: Corolla. Camry if you want a little more car all-around.
 
He never said it was, in fact he was interested in the (out of reach) Skyline. No need for him to sell himself short when the lunch box cars are the reliable ones, and can be enjoyed plenty with a manual tranny.
 
Call me stubborn but I can't stand the idea of a cheap japaneese FF. There's just something about those things that ooze cheap to me. I've riden in a fair amount of early to mid nineties civics, and nothing there impresses me or makes me want to own one. Yes, I'm using that as basis on the other japaneese cars in there.

I think this excludes Camrys and Corollas, and I praise GT90210's line of thinking.
 
I'm doing to disect this a bit:

What's gotta be there:
1) Manual trans <-- can be a GREAT thing--just not for a new driver, the less things for you to do the better
2) No less than 16 MPG city <-- a realistic goal
3) Not so tough on insurance <-- would be hard to find any good RWD car for that one
4) Typically reliable <-- realistic goal
5) Less than 4,000 <-- going to be hard to find a reliable car for $4,000 that isn't either a beater or something that your insurance will rape you

At the moment, my considerations list looks like this:
1) V6 96-04 Ford Mustang <-- Avoid the 1994-1998 V6's like the plague--they suck all the way around. The '99-2004 models are ok--and in 5spd trim quite fun to chuck around corners.
2) V6 94-02 Chevy Camaro <-- lower your years to starting @ 1987 and you'll be able to find one quite nicely in good shape. A V6 Camaro can be turbo'd to be just as fast as the 305 models...and depending on your wallet faster than the higher V8 models.
3) V6 94-02 Pontiac Firebird <-- *see above
4) Ford F-150 (Auto is ok here) <-- insurance will be more than a Camaro
5) Ford Bronco/Bronco II (Auto ok here) <-- *see above

Your choices are somewhat limited, but a Mustang (non-4cyl and 1999+) and Fbody (Camaro/Firebird) will be reliable as a wood burning stove. You should open up to some FWD cars...there are quite good ones that are quick or semi-quick and handle great. 1990-1998 Nissan 200SX SE-R is one, 1992-1995 Ford Taurus SHO, 1998-2000 Ford Contour SVT, 4th and 5th gen Honda Prelude, 2000-2001 Ford Focus hatch, an old VW Golf/Jetta, 1994-1998 Toyota Celica, 1993-1997 Ford Probe, 1993-1997 Mazda MX6, Mazda MX3, and a 1992-1993 Geo Storm GSi--which is an Isuzu Impulse/Piazza. Don't laugh because the Geo Storm in 1992-1993 had 140bhp and it only weighed 2,200 lbs, 0-60mph was 7 seconds flat. Not bad.

Pics of my choices:
1990-1994 Nissan 200SX SE-R:
00489255.jpg


1995-1998 Nissan 200SX SE-R (1998 pictured):
98_nissan_200sx_se_r.jpg


1992-1995 Ford Taurus SHO:
800px-Ford_Taurus_SHO_(second-gen).jpg


1998-2000 Ford Contour SVT:
driver%20front.jpg


1992-1996 Honda Prelude (4th gen):
96prelude.jpg


1997-2001 Honda Prelude (5th gen and my favorite):
prelude_p.jpg


2000-2004 Ford Focus ZX3:
2003ZX3.jpg


I can't find any unmolested pics of a VW Golf MKII or MKIII that was shipped to the US.

1994-1998 Toyota Celica (GT preferred):
whitecelica.jpg


1993-1997 Ford Probe GT:
1997.ford.probe.22243-396x249.jpg


1993-1997 Mazda MX6
mazda-mx-6.jpg


1991-1998 Mazda MX3:
mx3.jpg


1992-1993 Geo Storm GSi:
1993.geo.storm.4721-396x249.jpg


While what you say is generally true, there are exceptions. Mustangs and Camaros are always the main exceptions.
If you want good power and RWD, a better alternative would actually be a 7th generation Ford Thunderbird (Superbirds):
800px19891995fordthundezk1.jpg


They are faster, handle better and are nicer put together than Mustangs. You could either get them with 4.6L V8s, 5.0L V8s or the infamous Supercharged 3.8L V6. Insurance would be much cheaper than a Mustang, you could get the supercharged ones with 5 speeds and they get identical mileage to Mustangs of the same vintage (18-20 MPG combined). They would probably even be cheaper than a Mustang of the same vintage, and they are far more stealthy.
And look at them all!

Errr, avoid that generation (1989-1997) like the plague. They are hugely unreliable in 3.8L V6 form and the V8 models (302 5.0L 1991-1993, 281 4.6L Modular 1994-1997) are much slower than the Mutang GT because the Tbird weighs as much as an Oil Tanker. AND since I have owned one I can tell you they are NOT reliable what-so-ever in ANY V6 trim. The V8 models were reliable. The CORRECT Thunderbird to get is the "Aero Bird" 1983-1988, there was a Turbo Coupe and a model with a Mustang 5.0 V8 as well. The curb weight of this generation was only 200lbs heavier than a Mustang of equal engine choice. They did have slightly less power, but still the Turbo Coupe was fast. And, the Turbo Coupe had the Mustang SVO drivetrain (2.3L turbo) producing 190bhp while the 5.0 model was only 140bhp--but had an assload of torque. The Turbo Coupe was faster than the Supercoupe from the "Super Bird" Thunderbird generation. Plus the "Aero Bird" generation will be a collector's item in about 5-10 years...the "Super Bird" generation is rubbish and will never be a classic. They look good don't get me wrong and make all the right noises...they are just slow and heavy. The interiors are decent too, especially for a 1990's American car. :D

Still to this day this is my favorite looking Thunderbird ever:
2618-1987-Ford-Thunderbird.jpg


The Superbird nomination is a good one. All of these years later, I still say its one of the best cars of the '90s. Ford did a good job with it, and you'd likely be able to find some pretty excellent examples in good shape with a bit of digging. However, I personally like the Turbo "Aero Bird" Thunderbirds from the late '80s...

88tbird_turbocoupe.jpg


Absolutely awesome. My uncle had one, what a fast car at the time...

Or, if you really want to get nostalgic and make some Ford fans jealous, try to find the ol' SVO Mustang:

1984%20FORD%20MUSTANG%20SVO-1.JPG


Now, I'm not saying that I like it better than the GT with the V8. But come on... A turbocharged I4 in a Mustang that was actually quite fast and ahead of its time? Priceless!

=====

And if you can stomach the idea of a FWD car, I think you've missed one great car. Possibly one of the best cars America ever built:

800px-Ford_Taurus_SHO_(second-gen).jpg


Big power, a real manual transmission in an otherwise "full size" car, a wonderfully smooth V6... The only problem is that the power is through the front. Hell, Conan O'Brien had one, and he loved it! Just a wonderful car it is!

SVO Mustang FTMFW!

+1 on the Taurus SHO. GREAT first car. If you must have RWD, I'd say a Miata or 240 would be a more economical choice as far as gas mileage and reliability. Otherwise, I'm gonna recommend the first car I think everyone should have: Corolla. Camry if you want a little more car all-around.

+1 The Taurus SHO from 1992-1995 is just the business. I want one.

*edit*
Do I get points for having one long ass post? :D
 
I'm going for the Volvo 240 camp, we very nearly bought one recently for my girlfriend and there was a 240 coupe 4speed OD in good shape for 1k on craigslist.
Economical
Bullet Proof
Fun without speed
Safe

if you want something with a little more flare you could try looking for an older mid size Mercedes, but there is more chance you are going to have an automatic unless you go pre 1985 or so

EDIT: you get no points for the long post JCE but you do get some for stealing QFMFT from me :D
 
And not to mention the Volvo 240 in modified form gets you street cred...at least from respectable human beings. If I saw a fast 240 with tasteful mods I'd be like --> :eek:
 
JCE
Errr, avoid that generation (1989-1997) like the plague.
To avoid dragging this thread off topic, I will just say that you are insane and leave it at that (don't take it personal). My dad had one, put 150,000 miles on it and only sold it because he blew up the transmission.

JCE
The Turbo Coupe was faster than the Supercoupe from the "Super Bird" Thunderbird generation.
I will also say that you could throw a Turbo Coupe off of a cliff and it wouldn't be faster than a Supercoupe is (the non-supercharged V6 model was nearly faster), and that the Supercoupe with the 3.8 was barely any slower than the Mustang GT of the same time was (which the same can't be said for the Turbo Coupe).
 
To avoid dragging this thread off topic, I will just say that you are insane and leave it at that. My dad had one, put 150,000 miles on it and only sold it because he blew up the transmission.

Rubbish, those 3.8L V6's are dust held together with Wilmer's paste glue. the transmissions as your dad found out are paper with wooden sticks for gears. But I digress.

I will also say that you could throw a Turbo Coupe off of a cliff and it wouldn't be faster than a Supercoupe is (the non-supercharged V6 model was nearly faster), and that the Supercoupe with the 3.8 was barely any slower than the Mustang GT of the same time was (which the same can't be said for the Turbo Coupe).

I can't seem to find any credible numbers, but I watched a drag race between these two stock in person and the Turbo Coupe won. So if the Super Coupe is faster, I've never seen it. I'm not saying I don't believe you, I based my comment on what I saw.

I STILL think the Aero Bird is the better car all around.
 
JCE
I can't seem to find any credible numbers, but I watched a drag race between these two stock in person and the Turbo Coupe won. So if the Super Coupe is faster, I've never seen it.
Code:
1987 Turbo Coupe:          8.5 seconds to 60. Quarter in 16.3.
1989 Supercoupe SC:        6.9 seconds to 60. Quarter in 14.9.
1994 Supercoupe LX V6:     8.8 seconds to 60. Quarter in 16.4.
1987 Mustang GT:           6.4 seconds to 60. Quarter in 14.4.
1994 Mustang GT:           6.1 seconds to 60. Quarter in 14.9.
Source.
You might have seen an slushbox Supercoupe, or a badge job Supercoupe. Or maybe just an idiot behind the wheel. Who knows.
 
To conclude this OT, I heard the supercharger on the Super Bird. But oh well, its now a moot point.

However, I STILL maintain that the Aero Bird is more reliable.
 
Back