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

[YSSMAN]

1) The Tundra sales are falling steeply as gas prices rise, Toyota has had to cut production on all of their BOF trucks across the board.
2) They're already throwing incentives at it, and its a Toyota, and that NEVER happens
3) In order to get a Tundra to outdo a Chevy, you've gotta option a lot of extra crap. Standard v Standard, the Chevy will outdo it handily.

====

Per the question of a Miata:

Give it a shot, I think you'll like it. It will be much cheaper than the RX-7 or the Prelude I assume, and I know both parts and insurance costs are shockingly low compared to other "sports" cars out there. Get a nearly indestructible NA (that would be the first generation) model and I think you'll be fine...

 

[High-Test]

The NA Miata should be far cheaper partswise than the 190E. Go for it. It would be a fun car.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

What world are you living in?

Top two manufacturers in the UK (with around 10 vehicles per 100 spending a day being repaired per year) are Honda and Mazda. They switch places periodically, but they're the top two. Next in the list? Toyota, Subaru, MINI, Nissan and Lexus. Yep, all of the Japanese manufacturers are in the top 7 for reliability - with only MINI getting in on the party. And, before we get any deeper in, this covers the entire catalogue of cars available since the manufacturer started selling cars in the UK.

So cheap they fall apart?


Now for "torqueless gutless things"... Subaru scarcely makes a car without a turbocharger on it. Fast Nissans are all turbocharged. Lexus - V8s out the wazoo. Toyota don't make anything interesting any more, but when they did - turbocharged ST205 GT4, turbocharged Supra. This leaves us with Honda and Mazda. Well... Mazda made the turbocharged RX-7 and currently include the Mazdaspeed 3 and 6 (264hp/280lbft each in EU spec). Honda are quite famed for the VTEC/iVTEC engines which aren't the torqueist of mills, but...

A gearbox is a torque multiplication device, and it's torque at the wheels that counts. It's wholly possible for your "torqueless gutless" Honda engine to pull wheel torques higher than a large, lazy V8 in the same gear.


So we've now established that Japanese cars aren't largely torqueless (even if that matters) and aren't cheap, flimsy and unreliable.

Which leaves:



If you're willing to buy rubbish because it has your flag on it, don't be surprised if everything with your flag on it turns out to be rubbish.

I'm living in the Southern part of the world, and the Japanese engines might be OK for reliability, I bet your survey thing doesn't include body repairs, especially as most people don't bother with them. I see so many Japanese cars where the body is falling apart and the panels rusting away it isn't funny. (And I see goodness knows how many cars a day, working in a car park..by 2 heavily used roads.)

Torqueless gutless yes they are. Turbo doesn't mean torque, sure it helps a LOT, but the simple fact Japanese engines normally need a turbo to make any is enough said. Plus I doubt our friend mustangGT90210 can afford to get a turbo, or maintain it. I don't count the Lexus V8s as Japanese this time, because only a few Soarers ever got the V8, otherwise they're mainly sold in America.

PS- My V6 car makes 300Nm stock, and naturally aspirated. Never seen a Japanese engine do that until now, new cars. And then compared to American engines of our day they still suffer. (Aurion V6 vs Falcon/Commodore anyone?) And yes, the new Falcon FG has an L6 that makes 400Nm stock and aspirated. For a cheap price too.

 

[Famine]

I'm living in the Southern part of the world, and the Japanese engines might be OK for reliability, I bet your survey thing doesn't include body repairs, especially as most people don't bother with them.

It won't include anything people don't bother with. The survey covers how many days in a year a company's cars spend off the road for repairs. Honda's cars spend 9.6 days off the road per 100 cars per year.

This would seem to indicate that, far from being built cheaply and flimsily, they are actually well screwed together.

I see so many Japanese cars where the body is falling apart and the panels rusting away it isn't funny. (And I see goodness knows how many cars a day, working in a car park..by 2 heavily used roads.)

I see. You ought to have said "Japanese cars are built with non-galvanised panels". Though my aluminium bodywork might laugh at that sentence.

Torqueless gutless yes they are.

Thank you for offering facts to support your position, as I did.

Turbo doesn't mean torque

Yes, it does.

sure it helps a LOT, but the simple fact Japanese engines normally need a turbo to make any is enough said.

If you understood anything about engines and Japanese market regulations, you'd know that it wasn't "enough said".

Plus I doubt our friend mustangGT90210 can afford to get a turbo, or maintain it.

I thought he was after a car, personally, not a piece of engine.

I don't count the Lexus V8s as Japanese this time, because only a few Soarers ever got the V8, otherwise they're mainly sold in America.

The whole world just facepalmed at you.

PS- My V6 car makes 300Nm stock, and naturally aspirated. Never seen a Japanese engine do that until now, new cars. And then compared to American engines of our day they still suffer. (Aurion V6 vs Falcon/Commodore anyone?) And yes, the new Falcon FG has an L6 that makes 400Nm stock and aspirated. For a cheap price too.

300Nm is about 211lbft. The same as the Nissan RB30DE straight six from way back. Stock and naturally aspirated.

That aside, even after my post you still don't understand that engine torque takes you absolutely nowhere, do you?

 

[mustangGT90210]

I thought he was after a car, personally, not a piece of engine.

So true. Japanese engines as of late have made good power and torque and supposedly are reliable (give it 10 years and we will know for sure). N4HS is biased towards the older Japanese cars that took a turbo to move.

What's the 0-60 on a NA Miata? The 25/30 mpg sounds great, but I don't want it getting run over at stop lights!

Toss a spoiler on her and it'll look pretty damn good.

 

[Famine]

So true. Japanese engines as of late have made good power and torque and supposedly are reliable (give it 10 years and we will know for sure). N4HS is biased towards the older Japanese cars that took a turbo to move.

What's the 0-60 on a NA Miata? The 25/30 mpg sounds great, but I don't want it getting run over at stop lights!

Toss a spoiler on her and it'll look pretty damn good.

There's an NA sitting in my garage right now...

0-60mph times are about 10s for the 1.6, and a little over 8s for the 1.8. The times remain pretty static throughout the generations, as the cars get heavier as they get more powerful - the current NC has 1.8 and 2.0 engines, but still 10 and 8.buttons for 0-60mph.


You certainly won't be disappointed with an NA - you can do all the work you might need by yourself and there's a colossal aftermarket for you when you, inevitably, decide to start tinkering.

 

[YSSMAN]

I seen Miatas rated down into the mid 7s if you're driving them correctly, although I think that was on a NB model. They're quick little buggers, and you're going to outrun most of the Civics/Corollas/Sentras/240SX/etc without much of a problem. However, even though it doesn't blow you away in the straight line, it will hold pace in the corners, and thats why they're so damn quick.

Learn how to drive stick properly and you'll do fine...

 

[land sea air]

agreed, if you can deal with the lack of space and if insurance isn't too bad I would say go for a good later NA. 👍

 

[Famine]

agreed, if you can deal with the lack of space and if insurance isn't too bad I would say go for a good later NA. 👍

The space isn't that bad - we can fit a whole weekend's camping gear (tent included) into the "trunk".

You can also fit 4 15" alloys, with tyres, into it with the roof up. Don't ask how.

 

[land sea air]

The space isn't that bad - we can fit a whole weekend's camping gear (tent included) into the "trunk".

You can also fit 4 15" alloys, with tyres, into it with the roof up. Don't ask how.

I was thinking more along the longs of only having 2 seats, after locking my friend into the trunk of an R230 SL 350 with the top down I understand that roadsters can have a decent trunk too, "Don't ask how."

 

[Leonidae]

what about lower end E36 BMW's? out of price range?

 

[YSSMAN]

Waaaaay out of price range. Parts and insurance would be absolutely outrageous here in the US...

You can find an early Miata for $4000 without too many miles on it and insure it for less than $100 a month if you need to. Parts are a dime a dozen, that is, if it even breaks at all.

 

[land sea air]

Waaaaay out of price range. Parts and insurance would be absolutely outrageous here in the US...

You can find an early Miata for $4000 without too many miles on it and insure it for less than $100 a month if you need to. Parts are a dime a dozen, that is, if it even breaks at all.

The e36 isn't too bad, parts are marginally more expensive than my car and they aren't too much harder to work on either (roommate has a 94 325i). Wouldn't be as reliable as an NA but it would be more practical and arguably just as fun. Insurance shouldn't be too bad either I would think.

 

[JCE]

BMW + young driver = high insurance

 

[land sea air]

BMW + young driver = high insurance

same for a miata though right?

 

[YSSMAN]

Surprisingly wrong... I've had Miatas quoted with full coverage for a little more than $100 a month. I'd be willing to bet that for a 17 or 18 year old kid it wouldn't be much more than $140 a month with the same coverage. Even less if they do PLPD...

 

[Joey D]

Neon Coupe with a 5 speed. Other then the head gasket problem you should be fine, you might even be able to find an ACR. A buddy of mine has an ACR and he auto crosses it all summer long and doesn't have to many issues with it. Plus if he drives it decently he can get about 25mpg in the city and 30 on the highway. He only paid $3700 for it.

This is what his looks like:

 

[JCE]

A Neon? Seriously? I mean come on...don't make the kid commit suicide!

 

[mustangGT90210]

Surprisingly wrong... I've had Miatas quoted with full coverage for a little more than $100 a month. I'd be willing to bet that for a 17 or 18 year old kid it wouldn't be much more than $140 a month with the same coverage. Even less if they do PLPD...

For the record I'm very good at stickshift!

I'll be 16 with the car though, not 17 or 18. That's what I planned on for insurance though

 

[Tornado]

A Neon? Seriously? I mean come on...don't make the kid commit suicide!

Assuming you get one that is new enough that the engine doesn't feel the urge to detonate, a Neon will be an awesome car, ACR or no.

 

[Perfect Balance]

I seen Miatas rated down into the mid 7s if you're driving them correctly, although I think that was on a NB model. They're quick little buggers, and you're going to outrun most of the Civics/Corollas/Sentras/240SX/etc without much of a problem. However, even though it doesn't blow you away in the straight line, it will hold pace in the corners, and thats why they're so damn quick.

Learn how to drive stick properly and you'll do fine...

On the straights my friends 1.6 and my civic is exactly the same with acceleration.

And my 0-60 isn't 10 seconds, so I'm not sure where famine got those numbers.

In the corners though, the difference is huge. In the rain, with the same tires, my maximum speed through a corner is my friends drifting speed. If we are both going full out, in a matter of 3 turns I can't even see him anymore.

 

[Famine]

On the straights my friends 1.6 and my civic is exactly the same with acceleration.

And my 0-60 isn't 10 seconds, so I'm not sure where famine got those numbers.

From reality.

Unless it's the 96-98 EU spec 1.6, in which case it's slower than that, as it's detuned from 110hp to 88hp.

 

[Perfect Balance]

From reality.

Unless it's the 96-98 EU spec 1.6, in which case it's slower than that, as it's detuned from 110hp to 88hp.

I know my 0-60 is 8.5 seconds. The miata's is 9.5, but for some reason my friend was right beside me the whole way to 60 when we tried it out.

I got my info from this site:

http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/0-60times.html

 

[YSSMAN]

Car and Driver makes it sound as though the old 5-speed models would run to 60 in about eight seconds flat, which in my opinion makes it no slouch at all.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

I see. You ought to have said "Japanese cars are built with non-galvanised panels". Though my aluminium bodywork might laugh at that sentence.



Thank you for offering facts to support your position, as I did.



Yes, it does.



If you understood anything about engines and Japanese market regulations, you'd know that it wasn't "enough said".



I thought he was after a car, personally, not a piece of engine.



The whole world just facepalmed at you.



300Nm is about 211lbft. The same as the Nissan RB30DE straight six from way back. Stock and naturally aspirated.

That aside, even after my post you still don't understand that engine torque takes you absolutely nowhere, do you?

Oh I see, and that's why so many turbos run around with 250Nm torque The RB30 I thought was designed in co-operation with GM for the VL Commodore. Tell me how many Supras and Skylines he can afford with $4k then...... I understand enough about engines to say that Japanese engines make all their power in revs, we do it with torque and torque=acceleration. Japanese cars are gutless because they lack torque with the aid of a turbo, and only the new ones are starting to fix that problem. I was originally talking about older ones because this thread is about a first car, not about someone who has $30k to spend or more. And why would you say engine torque takes you nowhere? With the right gearbox it means everything, power is for top speed junkies only.

Edit: RB30DE, only ever used on a Tommy Kaira, extemely rare, almost irrevalent. RB30, the normal production engine, used in Skylines and VL Commodore, 254Nm torque, not as much as my car
Turbo GNX '88 model- 206kw, 487Nm
As opposed to a Japanese engine of the same era makes over 100Nm less.

 

[Famine]

Oh I see, and that's why so many turbos run around with 250Nm torque The RB30 I thought was designed in co-operation with GM for the VL Commodore. Tell me how many Supras and Skylines he can afford with $4k then...

Who said anything about him buying a Supra or Skyline?

I understand enough about engines to say that Japanese engines make all their power in revs, we do it with torque and torque=acceleration.

You still don't understand that crank torque is utterly meaningless, do you?

Japanese cars are gutless because they lack torque with the aid of a turbo, and only the new ones are starting to fix that problem.

And I've shown you that the statement, backed up with actual data, is incorrect.

And why would you say engine torque takes you nowhere? With the right gearbox it means everything, power is for top speed junkies only.

Because engine torque is utterly meaningless. You're getting closer to the truth when you mention gearboxes though.

Let's expand - why would an NB Mazda MX-5 1.8i accelerate from 0-60mph quicker than a VE Holden Commodore 3.6 V6, despite having less than half the torque (119lbft to 240lbft) and less torque-to-weight ratio (121.1lbft/ton to 144.3lbft/ton)?

Edit: RB30DE, only ever used on a Tommy Kaira, extemely rare, almost irrevalent.

It would be irrelevant, since it's an example I pulled off the top of my head which soundly counters your out-and-out statement that you've never heard of a Japanese 6-cylinder, naturally-aspirated engine producing 300Nm of torque.

Seeing as it's not good enough for you, how about the 2JZ-GE - another 3 litre, straight six, producing 298Nm of torque. Oh wait, that's found in a Lexus so doesn't count for yet another spurious reason.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

Who said anything about him buying a Supra or Skyline?

You still don't understand that crank torque is utterly meaningless, do you?

Because engine torque is utterly meaningless. You're getting closer to the truth when you mention gearboxes though.

Let's expand - why would an NB Mazda MX-5 1.8i accelerate from 0-60mph quicker than a VE Holden Commodore 3.6 V6, despite having less than half the torque (119lbft to 240lbft) and less torque-to-weight ratio (121.1lbft/ton to 144.3lbft/ton)?



It would be irrelevant, since it's an example I pulled off the top of my head which soundly counters your out-and-out statement that you've never heard of a Japanese 6-cylinder, naturally-aspirated engine producing 300Nm of torque.

Seeing as it's not good enough for you, how about the 2JZ-GE - another 3 litre, straight six, producing 298Nm of torque. Oh wait, that's found in a Lexus so doesn't count for yet another spurious reason.

You did, (the buying Supra or Skyline thing) when you brought them up in this thread in a way. I originally meant that the Japanese cars in his price range were all gutless, but I'm fine with this extending. Crank torque will still play a role in a car's acceleration. Like it or lump it. Are you getting at drivetrain losses here? Unless the MX-5 has a serious traction advantage I don't see how it's all possible for the MX-5 to accelerate faster without aid of gearboxes and better traction. Just tell me the answer. I just researched, and you were wrong about the MX-5 accelerating quicker, the MX-5 NB 1.8i does it in 7.9sec, and the VE (and almost all Commodore V6s since early '90s thanks to added weight) can do it in the low 7sec range. Seems about proportional to the torque/weight ratio.(Yes the auto sucks on VE SV6, but the MX-5 time I will bet was a manual time, no unfair advantages here)

I researched the Lexus SC400- it has less torque than all GM small block V8 performance engines. "Only" 400Nm.
The Lexus IS-F has 311kw with 503Nm as opposed to LS2 or LS3 which make between 550Nm and 580Nm with 300kw to 330kw. GM is still pusing out more power and torque but Lexus have done quite well with the IS-F IMO. And I agree that Supra engines are pretty good for torque. The RB26/20 engines in aspirated form weren't so lucky.

PS- I will step back a notch, some Japanese engines are OK, some/many are not. A 4cyl compared to any 6 or 8cyl will lack torque, without turbo of course (unless you want me to turbo the V8), and many Japanese sports cars have 4cyl, like Celica, MX-5, Eclipse, MR-2, Silvia.

 

[Famine]

You did, (the buying Supra or Skyline thing) when you brought them up in this thread in a way.

No, I didn't. I was using the cars as examples of how Japanese cars are not all "torquless gutless" ones.

I originally meant that the Japanese cars in his price range were all gutless, but I'm fine with this extending.

That isn't what you said and, in any case, I've already provided numerous examples of how that's incorrect.

Crank torque will still play a role in a car's acceleration. Like it or lump it.

No. It plays no role at all.

Are you getting at drivetrain losses here? Unless the MX-5 has a serious traction advantage I don't see how it's all possible for the MX-5 to accelerate faster without aid of gearboxes and better traction. Just tell me the answer.

No. Work it out - you're so sure of yourself. You're onto something with the gearboxes. Feed the hamster a little more and you might get there.

I just researched, and you were wrong about the MX-5 accelerating quicker, the MX-5 NB 1.8i does it in 7.9sec, and the VE (and almost all Commodore V6s since early '90s thanks to added weight) can do it in the low 7sec range. Seems about proportional to the torque/weight ratio.(Yes the auto sucks on VE SV6, but the MX-5 time I will bet was a manual time, no unfair advantages here)

One of your own review websites pegs the standard VE Commodore 3.6 V6 (not the High Output one) at 8.5s.

The gearbox is important, but not whether it's manual or automatic (especially given that modern automatics can actually make the shift quicker).

So, once again I'll ask - why does the MX-5 with a "torquless gutless" straight 4 outaccelerate a car with twice as much torque (119lbft to 240lbft) and superior torque to weight ratio (121.1lbft/ton to 144lbft/ton)? The very fact it does should give you a clue that your assertion that crank torque is for acceleration isn't correct.

 

[Leonidae]

Could it possibly be because of MX-5/Miata is a lighter car with a close ratio gearbox, lower CoG which helps the handling and putting the power down more efficiently?

 

[Famine]

Could it possibly be because of MX-5/Miata is a lighter car with a close ratio gearbox, lower CoG which helps the handling and putting the power down more efficiently?

In order, no, yesno, no and no.

I've already stated that the Commodore has superior crank torque to weight ratio (144lbft/ton to 121) and that gearboxes are important. Centre of gravity has little to do with 0-60mph times - same with handling.

I don't know how to make this any more obvious. I'm not holding back some massive universal engineering mystery. This is basics - crank torque has nothing to do with acceleration.