Which Car would you recommend I buy?

[Famine]

That's a pity. Only the 200SX here would be quicker than that. I'm no Corrado fan, but from what I hear from owners, they're good cars. It may leave you tilted towards the Golf, as you've probably got experience with VWs and VW dealers - or violently away from them, judging by many VW dealers I come across.

I'll try and come up with a few thoughts. £4,500 can buy you a lot of very strange and wondrous cars (including mine. Get your own though - you can't have mine).

 

[TheCracker]

If you are looking for a fun, sporty car then the Golf is neither. A GTi by badge only - 0-60 in around 10 seconds is hardly hot. They're well put together and feel solid - but thats because they're carved out of a solid block of iron.

With any of these cars you seriously run the risk of buying something thats been thrashed within an inch of its life. Avoid anything thats been modified in anyway, even exhausts and wheels and spend upto your limit - you'll only pay for it later with a cheaper car.

The Puma is the only car (along with the Golf) which may not have been owned by some baseball cap wearing 'yoof' - and may only have had one or two careful lady owners, as long as you check that they've serviced the car correctly then all you'll have to do is WD-40 the seat rails to get the seat far enough away from the stearing wheel so you can actually control the car properly, and adjust the rear view mirror to actually see out of the rear window - unless you plan on using it to check your make-up.

 

[1X83Z]

That's not a bad car, but I always forget that car existed.

Me too - it sucks because I could've recommended it to a lot of people; the 200SX SE-R was a pretty decent performer. But, I never remember their existence. I saw on on a dealer lot this weekend, but a base model.

Also, M5Power(the user) was raving about the durability of Primera/G20.

Always - but I have a feeling the engine changes a little when applied to the 200SX. Famine said it was quicker than a Corrado V6 - the G20's engine had 140 horsepower, and I don't think 140 horsepower would make anything quicker than a Corrado. I assume it's turbocharged.

 

[Dave A]

If you like the VW's and had a good time with the Corrado, don't buy a VW. sounds funy I know, but by a SEAT instead, they're the same cars mechanically, the Ibiza is a VW polo, the Leon is a golf (I actually prefer the Leon) you can pick up a SEAT usually for less than the equivilent VW. Parts are everywhere as well becasue you can use VW parts if you can't find SEAT ones, not that it makes much difference. The Leon is a capable car, and well built and can be had for 3-4k. for a 2001 model.

 

[Bossman]

M5Power

but I have a feeling the engine changes a little when applied to the 200SX. Famine said it was quicker than a Corrado V6 - the G20's engine had 140 horsepower, and I don't think 140 horsepower would make anything quicker than a Corrado. I assume it's turbocharged.

The Nissan 200SX's engine is indeed turbocharged giving it 50 BHP more then the Nissan Primera GT's standard 147 BHP.


Here is some following technical data from www.parkers.co.uk

Nissan 200 SX (94−01)

Nissan Primera Hatchback (96-99) 2.0 16V GT 5d

Volkswagen Corrado (89-96) 2.9 VR6 3d



live4speed

If you like the VW's and had a good time with the Corrado, don't buy a VW. sounds funy I know, but by a SEAT instead, they're the same cars mechanically, the Ibiza is a VW polo, the Leon is a golf (I actually prefer the Leon) you can pick up a SEAT usually for less than the equivilent VW. Parts are everywhere as well becasue you can use VW parts if you can't find SEAT ones, not that it makes much difference. The Leon is a capable car, and well built and can be had for 3-4k. for a 2001 model.

With the Seat Ibiza, I have not yet been able to buy a non-modded Cupra 16V in my price range.

As for the Seat Leon, their Cupra models not in my price range (though that could change soon when the new Seat Altea styled Leon arrives).

 

[Bossman]

TheCracker

If you are looking for a fun, sporty car then the Golf is neither. A GTi by badge only - 0-60 in around 10 seconds is hardly hot.

Your refering to the 2.0 8v version with 115 BHP, the one on the Poll is the 2.0 16v version with 150 BHP and 0-60 in 7.9-8 seconds.

 

[TheCracker]

Your refering to the 2.0 8v version with 115 BHP, the one on the Poll is the 2.0 16v version with 150 BHP and 0-60 in 7.9-8 seconds.

I see. Its still hardly 'hot' with all that weight though is it? Having said that, you are getting a good solid car with a useful turn of speed.

Is it the Mk 4 Golf you are thinking about? - if so i'd recommend the 'comfort' version over the 'sport' version - the ride from the low-profiled tired sport can be a little harsh. Since its not an out-and-out sports hatch you might as well go for the version with the better ride, you'll have less chance of the previous owner thrashing it if they've spec'd it for comfort too.

 

[Bossman]

TheCracker

Is it the Mk 4 Golf you are thinking about?

No, it is the Mk 3 version.

 

[1X83Z]

You think a 150hp 4-cylinder Mk3 Golf did 0-60 in 7.9? I think our VR6 Golf GTI Mk3 - which was a 2.8-liter V6 with 172hp - did 0-60 in 7.9. Regardless, both were gutless.

 

[Famine]

Considered a Mitsubishi FTO at all?

Unusual round the UK, pretty, usable rear seats, usable boot, bit of a manic-grin factor...

 

[1X83Z]

I forgot that the UK even got official FTOs. I remember Mitsubishi was giving generous warranties on FTOs in the late-90s to try and stop people from buying grey, but I also recall authorized Mitsubishi dealers offering to repair grey ones just so they could recoup some of the loss.

You know, while the UK was getting the FTO, the US was getting screwed.

What was the biggest engine in the FTO?

 

[Famine]

We only got 2.0 V6s officially, though the 1.8 did float across as a grey.

There's two(ish) power levels - 175hp and 210hp. The 175hp one is quick enough, though the 210hp MIVEC is tempting just because it's the higher model

We only officially got the GPX, but there's grey GRs (no wing, usually) and GP Version Rs (big wing, usually) out there.

£4,500 is ballpark for a good, P-reg 175hp tiptronic.

 

[1X83Z]

Hmm - I guess we didn't get that screwed considering the Eclipse's power rating was similar and available with AWD. And better-looking. And available as a convertible.

 

[Famine]

And heavier. And a turbo, I believe?

 

[Bossman]

M5Power

You think a 150hp 4-cylinder Mk3 Golf did 0-60 in 7.9? I think our VR6 Golf GTI Mk3 - which was a 2.8-liter V6 with 172hp - did 0-60 in 7.9.

It is based on EVO magazine's info (as well as from www.Parkers.co.uk)


Famine

Considered a Mitsubishi FTO at all?

I'm not sure on 175hp tiptronic (not a big fan of Auto's & Semi-Auto's) though the 200 BHP MIVEC Manual version is pretty tempting, the only minor problem I have is that I cannot seem to find how many MPG it doe's.

 

[1X83Z]

And heavier. And a turbo, I believe?

Indeeders. But better-looking. Oh, so better-looking.

 

[Famine]

M5Power



It is based on EVO magazine's info (as well as from www.Parkers.co.uk)


Famine



I'm not sure on 175hp tiptronic (not a big fan of Auto's & Semi-Auto's) though the 200 BHP MIVEC Manual version is pretty tempting, the only minor problem I have is that I cannot seem to find how many MPG it doe's.

27.

More if you stay under the MIVEC threshhold - which you WON'T be doing.

M5Power - Are you NUTS? The Eclipse looks like a spin-dried GTO - which itself is a great car but u-u-u-u-u-u-ugly! FTO is gorgeous - though to my mind it needs to be wider. The thought of the FTO LM gives me a "private moment".

 

[1X83Z]

27.

More if you stay under the MIVEC threshhold - which you WON'T be doing.

M5Power - Are you NUTS? The Eclipse looks like a spin-dried GTO - which itself is a great car but u-u-u-u-u-u-ugly! FTO is gorgeous - though to my mind it needs to be wider. The thought of the FTO LM gives me a "private moment".

Whenever car style comes up, I open a separate IE window so I can go to Images.google and show a picture of the vehicle in question. This time, I accidentally opened up MS Paint - as if I was going to draw you an Eclipse.

Anyway - unless you're on powerful drugs, you know this is one of the best-looking Japanese cars ever:

And 200hp + AWD!

 

[a6m5]

I've liked all Eclipses, except the new one, I'm still not sure. FTOs are beautiful as well. My favorite car in the first Gran Turismo was a black FTO LM. 👍

 

[Famine]

Whenever car style comes up, I open a separate IE window so I can go to Images.google and show a picture of the vehicle in question. This time, I accidentally opened up MS Paint - as if I was going to draw you an Eclipse.

Anyway - unless you're on powerful drugs, you know this is one of the best-looking Japanese cars ever:

(pics)

And 200hp + AWD!

So that's ~130 wheel horses, compared to the FTO's ~149 for the basic 2.0 V6 model? And 1300kg compared to 1100kg - or 100 wheel hp/tonne compared to 135 wheel hp/tonne?

Pah!

Pah! I say! Pah!

It just isn't that attractive. The frameless windows on the doors are nice - but it has one of the fattest, ugliest asses on any production car ever (not including the Megane - yeesh!).

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

Yeah, I've gotta agree that the FTO is much better looking than the "wide load" Eclipse. FTO's got it where it matters, too, much lighter, and vastly superior suspension and chassis dynamics.

 

[Bossman]

Out of interest, in terms of Performance, Praticality and running costs, how doe's the Misubishi FTO 2.0 MIVEC compare to the following four Coupes?:

Fiat Coupé (95−00) 2.0 20V Turbo 2d

Honda Prelude (1992-1996) 2.2 VTEC 4WS 2d

Honda Prelude (1997-2001) 2.2 VTi 2d

Toyota Celica Hatchback (94-99) 2.0 GT-Four 3d

 

[Famine]

FTO > Celica GT-Four > Prelude '01 > Prelude '96 > FIAT

The Celica is plainly the quickest and, being a Celica, is practical enough, but requires an awful lot of TLC. It's reliable, but needs regular servicing to keep it that way. Nevertheless, I like.

I don't really care for the Preludes. Meh.

The FIAT is something special. Get a good one and you won't be disappointed. However, good ones are as rare as finding hen's teeth inside a peacock's egg in a pile of rocking horse crap. Most of them break down for fun and FIAT dealers are, in general, arses.

 

[1X83Z]

So that's ~130 wheel horses, compared to the FTO's ~149 for the basic 2.0 V6 model?

What!?! Eclipse has 200bhp, FTO has 175bhp, and suddenly it's 130whp vs. 149whp!? You sound like some FTO fanboy!

Let's just admit that Eclipse looked better, was more practical, was quicker, and that M5Power rules, and move on.

 

[Famine]

4WD eats up those horsies...

We all know that crank hp figures are only used for smack-talking. Wheel hp is where it counts.

I've got your "Eclipse looked better" right here:

Fatty fatty fat fat!

 

[a6m5]

If that's fat, I think I can learn to love fat........

 

[Famine]

I think I can spot two families of illegal immigrants in those wheel arches...

 

[a6m5]

I think I can spot two families of illegal immigrants in those wheel arches...

Damn. For British fella, your American humor is pretty impressive.

Here's an better representation of Eclipse:

 

[Famine]

That reminds me...

*gets Scalextric out*

 

[TheCracker]

Ignore Famine with his FTO obsession - i've never seen a favourable review of the FTO in any magazine except Plastics Monthly