Chronic Car Buyers Anonymous (Archived)

stickguy

@tifighter said:
I smell COLLUSION!!

Jersey guys stick together. Didn’t you ever watch the Sopranos?

stickguy

@jmonroe1 said:
————————————————
Thanks. I know that turbos will jack up the power quite a bit but it seems strange that Subaru would bother making a 2.4 and a 2.5. There has to be a good reason but I’m not smart enough to see it. I guess you have the 2.4 turbo in your 2024 Legacy Sport.

Not that I would care about the dollar difference but do you remember what it is.

jmonroe

They make the block thicker to handle the boost. Smaller bores.

Price IIRC is in the $3k range. Might get more equipment. So probably about like the old 6 cylinder premium.

stickguy

I don’t think I’ve ever seen an Etron in person, and he owned 2?

They all count if you buy them for personal use. Regardless of how long you keep them.

jmonroe1

stickguy said:

@jmonroe1 said:

————————————————

Thanks. I know that turbos will jack up the power quite a bit but it seems strange that Subaru would bother making a 2.4 and a 2.5. There has to be a good reason but I’m not smart enough to see it. I guess you have the 2.4 turbo in your 2024 Legacy Sport.

Not that I would care about the dollar difference but do you remember what it is.

jmonroe

They make the block thicker to handle the boost. Smaller bores.

Price IIRC is in the $3k range. Might get more equipment. So probably about like the old 6 cylinder premium.

————————————————
Thanks, a thicker block makes sense but are there any other differences?

jmonroe

qbrozen

@jmonroe1 said:
————————————————
Thanks, a thicker block makes sense but are there any other differences?

jmonroe

According to wiki, the FA engine (2.4) is a descendent of the FB (2.5): same platform but they share very little in terms of parts.

Can’t say I understand why bother continuing to build 2 engines, either, unless they are just trying to use up whatever is stocked up for the 2.5. You’d think they would just make a turbo and non-turbo 2.4 for ease of manufacturing and assembly. Maybe that will come to pass.

benjaminh

@venture said:
Subaru's regular engine is the 2.5 which is not very fast. The fast one now is the 2.4 turbo. So not the biggest, but the most powerful.



I see you own an Ascent. Since I might consider this vehicle someday, would you be willing to say a bit about how much you like it so far? Thanks in advance.

venture

jmonroe1 said:

venture said:

jmonroe1 said:

au1994 said:

Subarus are great cars. Huge value for the money in my opinion, fuel efficient, great AWD, great resale, reliable (ghosts of head gaskets past aside) and some pretty good looking C/SUV’s.

However, they are bog slow unless you opt for the top engine available for the model.

————————————————
Mrs. j had a 2012 Legacy Limited and now has a 2018 Legacy Limited both with the 3.6R 6 cylinder non-turbo engine. I wouldn’t call them fuel efficient by todays standards, getting at best 20 MPG around town but that engine is pretty peppy for a grocery getter. Proof that you can’t get both but I prefer it this way.

Subaru no longer produces a 6 cylinder engine so if we get another Subie I guess I’ll be relegated to the biggest 4 cylinder they make but I don’t know what size engine that will be. All I know is, I’ll want the biggest engine they make.

jmonroe

Subaru's regular engine is the 2.5 which is not very fast. The fast one now is the 2.4 turbo. So not the biggest, but the most powerful.

————————————————
Thanks. I know that turbos will jack up the power quite a bit but it seems strange that Subaru would bother making a 2.4 and a 2.5. There has to be a good reason but I’m not smart enough to see it. I guess you have the 2.4 turbo in your 2024 Legacy Sport.

Not that I would care about the dollar difference but do you remember what it is.

jmonroe

The 2.4 turbo is in the Sport, as it is in the Touring XT also. I got the Sport because I didn't want all the baggage that came with the XT. (Navigation, ventilated seats, CD player, etc.).

It's about $2,500 more than the Limited, but the difference is more than just the engine (there are no packages available with the Sport).

explorerx4

Info, including construction and design details, on Subaru 2.4 turbo.
https://www.torquenews.com/1084/subaru-outback-and-ascents-new-24l-turbo-engine-reliable-why-its-best-yet

benjaminh

Below is an 18-minute video of Mazda engine and vehicle production in Japan. Below that is a 12-minute video of an interview with the Mazda plant manager in Japan. The plant manager at one point mentions how they try to exceed even the quality levels of Toyota.

My extended family has really liked all of the Mazda vehicles that we've owned over the decades, which have included a 1986 B2000 LX longbed truck, a 1988 323 sedan, and a 2008 Mazda 5. They've all been reliable and fun-to-drive. Just a few days ago, when I wondered if we should move on from our CR-V, I checked out the Mazda CX-5. From my pov it's probably the best looking compact suv, but several reviews talk about the cramped back seat room, as well as the significantly smaller cargo room when compared to the CR-V. The CX-5 also gets about 3 less mpg than the CR-V, and has a challenging to use dial to go with its display, rather than a touchscreen.

I was disappointed a few years ago when Mazda removed the independent rear suspension from the Mazda 3 in favor of a cost-cutting and space-saving torsion bar. Mazda also has a somewhat confusing line-up at the moment, with some models overlapping. After the closure of Mazda's US factory a few years ago, it seems like they've become even more of a niche brand. I hope they can grow in the US, but at the moment that seems challenging. Their latest large SUV is called the CX-90. The Toyota-focused Car Care Nut did a detailed review of the engineering on it, and said that it was good, but complex in its engineering, and wondered about the long-term reliability.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkAhRPngxYA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeCcvFJZzqI

oldfarmer50

stickguy said:

@jmonroe1 said:

————————————————

Thanks. I know that turbos will jack up the power quite a bit but it seems strange that Subaru would bother making a 2.4 and a 2.5. There has to be a good reason but I’m not smart enough to see it. I guess you have the 2.4 turbo in your 2024 Legacy Sport.

Not that I would care about the dollar difference but do you remember what it is.

jmonroe

They make the block thicker to handle the boost. Smaller bores.

Price IIRC is in the $3k range. Might get more equipment. So probably about like the old 6 cylinder premium.

Like many manufacturers they probably use turbos to get better EPA numbers from a 4 but performance like a 6. But in the real world there’s not much gain because as he whose name must not be mentioned says: “they drive those things like maniacs”.😙

stickguy

My turbo 4 RDX gets about the same mileage as our previous V6 model

breld

Michaell said:

explorerx4 said:

How about bought and registered?

If we were to exclude any purchases by @breld that were traded in before plates go on, that would decrease the number of punches. By a fair bit, I suspect.

I mean, he went to the dealership, he signed the paperwork. That counts as a punch.

FWIW, I did have plates on the first Q8 e-tron before trading it for the nicer trim Q8.

Some dealerships are okay with the car being “registerable” at trade, meaning you’ve received the notice that title work is complete, though others would prefer you actually complete the registration. If memory serves, we’ve traded two cars without actually registering…the wife’s first Model Y and our Rivian.

jmonroe1

>

explorerx4 said:

Info, including construction and design details, on Subaru 2.4 turbo.
https://www.torquenews.com/1084/subaru-outback-and-ascents-new-24l-turbo-engine-reliable-why-its-best-yet

————————————————
Thanks, that was a good article.

jmonroe

ab348

benjaminh said:

I checked out the Mazda CX-5. From my pov it's probably the best looking compact suv, but several reviews talk about the cramped back seat room, as well as the significantly smaller cargo room when compared to the CR-V. The CX-5 also gets about 3 less mpg than the CR-V, and has a challenging to use dial to go with its display, rather than a touchscreen.

I was disappointed a few years ago when Mazda removed the independent rear suspension from the Mazda 3 in favor of a cost-cutting and space-saving torsion bar. Mazda also has a somewhat confusing line-up at the moment, with some models overlapping. After the closure of Mazda's US factory a few years ago, it seems like they've become even more of a niche brand. I hope they can grow in the US, but at the moment that seems challenging. Their latest large SUV is called the CX-90. The Toyota-focused Car Care Nut did a detailed review of the engineering on it, and said that it was good, but complex in its engineering, and wondered about the long-term reliability.

Mazda confuses me. They sell both the CX-5 and the CX-50 which look almost identical although the 50 is a bit longer, lower and wider, but has the same powertrains including the ancient 6-speed transmission. The CX-5 has looks that are the same since 2016 or so. Reliability and quality may be things they like to talk about, but up here in Canada where Mazdas seem more popular than in the USA they seem to be not particularly reliable or robust. I just don't understand their strategy.

mlevine

I had a Mazda Millenia back in the day. Great car but underpowered. They were pushing the miller cycled engine? for more power. Wonder if this will ever make a comeback.

kyfdx

Mazda just can't seem to let go of their old tooling. They sold the CX-3 and it's replacement, the CX-30, at the same time. And now, do the same with the CX-5 and the CX-50.

But, I think part of it is the popularity of CUVs, and they figure they can make money on both of them. Otherwise, their product line is sort of sparse.

stickguy

And other than the new 90 they all use the same drivetrain.

qbrozen

@mjfloyd1 said:
Looks good. That seems like a lot of work and I’d guess quite a learning curve

Yes on both counts. And, while not perfect, it is a massive improvement over the condition it was in and I would think will help immensely with the sale. I do plan to drive it a bit, though. Who knows? Maybe I’ll hang onto it.

pensfan83

ab348 said:

benjaminh said:

I checked out the Mazda CX-5. From my pov it's probably the best looking compact suv, but several reviews talk about the cramped back seat room, as well as the significantly smaller cargo room when compared to the CR-V. The CX-5 also gets about 3 less mpg than the CR-V, and has a challenging to use dial to go with its display, rather than a touchscreen.

I was disappointed a few years ago when Mazda removed the independent rear suspension from the Mazda 3 in favor of a cost-cutting and space-saving torsion bar. Mazda also has a somewhat confusing line-up at the moment, with some models overlapping. After the closure of Mazda's US factory a few years ago, it seems like they've become even more of a niche brand. I hope they can grow in the US, but at the moment that seems challenging. Their latest large SUV is called the CX-90. The Toyota-focused Car Care Nut did a detailed review of the engineering on it, and said that it was good, but complex in its engineering, and wondered about the long-term reliability.

Mazda confuses me. They sell both the CX-5 and the CX-50 which look almost identical although the 50 is a bit longer, lower and wider, but has the same powertrains including the ancient 6-speed transmission. The CX-5 has looks that are the same since 2016 or so. Reliability and quality may be things they like to talk about, but up here in Canada where Mazdas seem more popular than in the USA they seem to be not particularly reliable or robust. I just don't understand their strategy.

I think the forthcoming CX-70 (basically a 2 row CX-90) is supposed to replace at least the CX-5 and will utilize the same powertrains as the CX-90. I'm guessing the CX-50 will stick around though.

kyfdx

stickguy said:

And other than the new 90 they all use the same drivetrain.

They still have turbo and non-turbo models

But, yes.. CX-5 and CX-50 have the same drivetrain

ab348

pensfan83 said:

I think the forthcoming CX-70 (basically a 2 row CX-90) is supposed to replace at least the CX-5 and will utilize the same powertrains as the CX-90. I'm guessing the CX-50 will stick around though.

The 50 is a fairly recent introduction so I think it will be around for a while. Not so sure about the CX-5 although around here it seems to be their best seller by far. I would expect that their lineup will be CX-30, CX-50, CX-70 and CX-90.

The CX-30 looks appealing but the driving experience is apparently not so great. This from Consumer Reports:

The Mazda3-based CX-30 comes with a 2.5-liter four-cylinder matched to a six-speed automatic and AWD. In everyday driving, acceleration feels tepid, as wringing out more power requires a heavy foot on the accelerator pedal. Fuel economy of 27 mpg overall is respectable. An optional 2.5-liter turbo engine transforms the driving experience with much-needed additional oomph. The CX-30 benefits from responsive handling, but its ride is rather firm and a bit jumpy, and the engine sounds raspy. The frustrating infotainment system requires multiple steps to complete simple tasks. The interior is well-trimmed but snug, especially the rear seat. Small side windows hurt outward visibility.

Motor Trend was a bit more forgiving, but not much:

From its elegant, flowing exterior to its upscale cabin, design is one of the CX-30's strengths. Comfortable seat padding and substantial-feeling switchgear further contribute to interior refinement. Plus, the small SUV handles well on smooth roads and provides good driver engagement through its well calibrated brakes and tactile steering.

Although the CX-30 is reactive and agile, we would not characterize it as athletic. The added power of the turbo model isn't very noticeable, switching into Sport mode doesn't seem to make the crossover any sportier, and in our testing, its firm suspension was only good on the flattest of road surfaces. Outward visibility is compromised, and space in the second row and cargo area leaves much to be desired. We're also not fans of the of the non-touchscreen infotainment interface, but thankfully a larger touchscreen is available for 2024. More spacious and capable mainstream subcompact SUVs are out there, but few are as premium as the Mazda CX-30.

roadburner

benjaminh said:

Below is an 18-minute video of Mazda engine and vehicle production in Japan. Below that is a 12-minute video of an interview with the Mazda plant manager in Japan. The plant manager at one point mentions how they try to exceed even the quality levels of Toyota.

My extended family has really liked all of the Mazda vehicles that we've owned over the decades, which have included a 1986 B2000 LX longbed truck, a 1988 323 sedan, and a 2008 Mazda 5. They've all been reliable and fun-to-drive. Just a few days ago, when I wondered if we should move on from our CR-V, I checked out the Mazda CX-5. From my pov it's probably the best looking compact suv, but several reviews talk about the cramped back seat room, as well as the significantly smaller cargo room when compared to the CR-V. The CX-5 also gets about 3 less mpg than the CR-V, and has a challenging to use dial to go with its display, rather than a touchscreen.

I was disappointed a few years ago when Mazda removed the independent rear suspension from the Mazda 3 in favor of a cost-cutting and space-saving torsion bar. Mazda also has a somewhat confusing line-up at the moment, with some models overlapping. After the closure of Mazda's US factory a few years ago, it seems like they've become even more of a niche brand. I hope they can grow in the US, but at the moment that seems challenging. Their latest large SUV is called the CX-90. The Toyota-focused Car Care Nut did a detailed review of the engineering on it, and said that it was good, but complex in its engineering, and wondered about the long-term reliability.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkAhRPngxYA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeCcvFJZzqI

I kept my MS3 about a year longer than intended because I heard that there would be a 3rd generation Mazdaspeed 3 with AWD, 300+ hp, and three pedals. I still like Mazdas, but I have no interest in owning one since they killed the Mazdaspeed models.

oldfarmer50

benjaminh said:

Below is an 18-minute video of Mazda engine and vehicle production in Japan. Below that is a 12-minute video of an interview with the Mazda plant manager in Japan. The plant manager at one point mentions how they try to exceed even the quality levels of Toyota.

My extended family has really liked all of the Mazda vehicles that we've owned over the decades, which have included a 1986 B2000 LX longbed truck, a 1988 323 sedan, and a 2008 Mazda 5. They've all been reliable and fun-to-drive. Just a few days ago, when I wondered if we should move on from our CR-V, I checked out the Mazda CX-5. From my pov it's probably the best looking compact suv, but several reviews talk about the cramped back seat room, as well as the significantly smaller cargo room when compared to the CR-V. The CX-5 also gets about 3 less mpg than the CR-V, and has a challenging to use dial to go with its display, rather than a touchscreen.

I was disappointed a few years ago when Mazda removed the independent rear suspension from the Mazda 3 in favor of a cost-cutting and space-saving torsion bar. Mazda also has a somewhat confusing line-up at the moment, with some models overlapping. After the closure of Mazda's US factory a few years ago, it seems like they've become even more of a niche brand. I hope they can grow in the US, but at the moment that seems challenging. Their latest large SUV is called the CX-90. The Toyota-focused Car Care Nut did a detailed review of the engineering on it, and said that it was good, but complex in its engineering, and wondered about the long-term reliability.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkAhRPngxYA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeCcvFJZzqI

I agree with your assessment of the Mazda’s dial control system. Just for changing radio stations you have to press various symbol buttons and do a counterintuitive push downs on a large dial. I’ve managed to figure it out to the point where I can get to manual tuning so I can locate a station but beyond that I don’t want to mess with it.

Touch screens can be a problem too requiring a series of screens and selections. What was wrong with simple tuning and volume dials?

jmonroe1

oldfarmer50 said:

benjaminh said:

Below is an 18-minute video of Mazda engine and vehicle production in Japan. Below that is a 12-minute video of an interview with the Mazda plant manager in Japan. The plant manager at one point mentions how they try to exceed even the quality levels of Toyota.

My extended family has really liked all of the Mazda vehicles that we've owned over the decades, which have included a 1986 B2000 LX longbed truck, a 1988 323 sedan, and a 2008 Mazda 5. They've all been reliable and fun-to-drive. Just a few days ago, when I wondered if we should move on from our CR-V, I checked out the Mazda CX-5. From my pov it's probably the best looking compact suv, but several reviews talk about the cramped back seat room, as well as the significantly smaller cargo room when compared to the CR-V. The CX-5 also gets about 3 less mpg than the CR-V, and has a challenging to use dial to go with its display, rather than a touchscreen.

I was disappointed a few years ago when Mazda removed the independent rear suspension from the Mazda 3 in favor of a cost-cutting and space-saving torsion bar. Mazda also has a somewhat confusing line-up at the moment, with some models overlapping. After the closure of Mazda's US factory a few years ago, it seems like they've become even more of a niche brand. I hope they can grow in the US, but at the moment that seems challenging. Their latest large SUV is called the CX-90. The Toyota-focused Car Care Nut did a detailed review of the engineering on it, and said that it was good, but complex in its engineering, and wondered about the long-term reliability.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkAhRPngxYA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeCcvFJZzqI

I agree with your assessment of the Mazda’s dial control system. Just for changing radio stations you have to press various symbol buttons and do a counterintuitive push downs on a large dial. I’ve managed to figure it out to the point where I can get to manual tuning so I can locate a station but beyond that I don’t want to mess with it.

Touch screens can be a problem too requiring a series of screens and selections. What was wrong with simple tuning and volume dials?

————————————————
You’re showing your age. Buyers today want toys. The more button pushing the more they feel that they’re tech savvy.

I my opinion, car manufacturers are contributing to inattentive driving because even the most simple tasks like changing radio stations force a driver to take their eyes off the road longer. And steering wheel controls don’t really help that much, either.

jmonroe

explorerx4

I've gotten great fuel mileage out of my ecoboost engines.
They are just like any tool, you have to know how to use them.

sda

mlevine said:

I had a Mazda Millenia back in the day. Great car but underpowered. They were pushing the miller cycled engine? for more power. Wonder if this will ever make a comeback.

I leased a 96 Millenia L and when the lease expired I bought a 98 Millenia L. The price was heavily discounted. They both had the Bose upgrade and 2.5 standard V6. Fine cars, but, yes, a bit underpowered. At least the V6 sounded good when pushed.

kyfdx

Didn't the Millenia have a special Miller-cycle engine?

Michaell

kyfdx said:

Didn't the Millenia have a special Miller-cycle engine?

As an option, yes. Supercharged, I believe.

sda

Michaell said:

kyfdx said:

Didn't the Millenia have a special Miller-cycle engine?

As an option, yes. Supercharged, I believe.

That was the 'S' model. It was considerably more expensive and not tremendously quicker than the standard 2.5 V6. IIRC the S did 0-60 in 8-8.5 sec and the 2.5 V6 closer to 10 sec.

Michaell

Anyone want a Grand Wagoneer? A dealer on Staten Island has a 2022 model for a whopping $38K off MSRP!

$110K MSRP for only $72K!

Michaell

sda said:

Michaell said:

kyfdx said:

Didn't the Millenia have a special Miller-cycle engine?

As an option, yes. Supercharged, I believe.

That was the 'S' model. It was considerably more expensive and not tremendously quicker than the standard 2.5 V6. IIRC the S did 0-60 in 8-8.5 sec and the 2.5 V6 closer to 10 sec.

I remember my sister wanting a Millenia when they were available.

mlevine

I think the Millenia replaced the 929. Thought the 929 was a great car. Was a passenger in this vehicle but never drove one.

oldfarmer50

explorerx4 said:

I've gotten great fuel mileage out of my ecoboost engines.
They are just like any tool, you have to know how to use them.

Obviously, you’re not a maniac.😂

oldfarmer50

Michaell said:

Anyone want a Grand Wagoneer? A dealer on Staten Island has a 2022 model for a whopping $38K off MSRP!

$110K MSRP for only $72K!

So it’s 2 years old now and probably has depreciated 35-40% just sitting on the lot so that would be fair. I’d want a new battery and an oil change after 2 years (and maybe new tires too).

stickguy

iirc the Millenia was supposed to be the first model in Mazdas stillborn premium brand network (Amati). Oops.

stickguy

Farmer, simple answer to your buttons and knobs rant at the clouds. There are too many features now to do that with.

stickguy

I’m bored. Really want to go car looking but not in the cards. Dumb new house.

au1994

stickguy said:

iirc the Millenia was supposed to be the first model in Mazdas stillborn premium brand network (Amati). Oops.

Correct. Never got it off the ground.

My parents of my best friend in HS got a 1st gen 929. We thought we were pretty cool when we got to take that out for the night. Way nice than anything we were driving and seemed downright exotic compared to the string of Cadillacs and Oldsmobiles that my parents drove.

explorerx4

@stickguy,
Make some more changes to your house build.

tjc78

@explorerx4 said:
@stickguy,
Make some more changes to your house build.

When we moved in 2020 we really wanted to build, but this house was only two years old and had 95% of what we wanted.

I just wish I had the opportunity to do all the tech things I want to do. It would have cost peanuts to do while the walls were open. Now it would be tens of thousand to fish wires, home runs to a panel downstairs etc.

They did about 50% of what I would have done.

kyfdx

tjc78 said:

@explorerx4 said:
@stickguy,

Make some more changes to your house build.

When we moved in 2020 we really wanted to build, but this house was only two years old and had 95% of what we wanted.

I just wish I had the opportunity to do all the tech things I want to do. It would have cost peanuts to do while the walls were open. Now it would be tens of thousand to fish wires, home runs to a panel downstairs etc.

They did about 50% of what I would have done.

I wish I knew what I know now, in 1998, when we built our house... lol

stickguy

I’m still not doing all that! Not really that useful to us plus still adds cost. And it would mean knowing what to do. But I will see what the electrician recommends as an option. I do want to run Ethernet links to a few places.

explorerx4

We built our current house mostly long distance, not ideal.
Several things we would have done differently.

stickguy

it is enough trying to keep up with it all locally. A big reason we did not try to do it the last time, being 4+ hours away.

jmonroe1

stickguy said:

I’m still not doing all that! Not really that useful to us plus still adds cost. And it would mean knowing what to do. But I will see what the electrician recommends as an option. I do want to run Ethernet links to a few places.

————————————————
Why not ask your builder if you can run the wires yourself once everything else has been run (HVAC, plumbing and electrical)? That way you won’t be interfering with anyone else’s real estate. Shouldn’t take you more than a weekend and if you only want a couple locations you’ll be home before lunch the first day.

The money you save can be applied to the wishful garage you want.

jmonroe

nyccarguy

I would need a significant sum of money to build new here in my neck of the woods. Until then I’m stuck with my 1955 flood plain special.

stickguy

jmonroe1 said:

stickguy said:

I’m still not doing all that! Not really that useful to us plus still adds cost. And it would mean knowing what to do. But I will see what the electrician recommends as an option. I do want to run Ethernet links to a few places.

————————————————
Why not ask your builder if you can run the wires yourself once everything else has been run (HVAC, plumbing and electrical)? That way you won’t be interfering with anyone else’s real estate. Shouldn’t take you more than a weekend and if you only want a couple locations you’ll be home before lunch the first day.

The money you save can be applied to the wishful garage you want.

jmonroe

yeah, not happening.

corvette

Got the estimate on the Maverick. They can repair the bumper. They're ordering the black plastic trim piece at the bottom, which is a whopping $432.07. $1,330.78 is the grand total. They're supposed to call and schedule me once the part is in.

oldfarmer50

nyccarguy said:

I would need a significant sum of money to build new here in my neck of the woods. Until then I’m stuck with my 1955 flood plain special.

Yikes! How have you managed in this wet year? Decades ago my wife’s rich relatives lived in the Stamford area. They had a beautiful house on a pond. The only trouble was that when it rained their septic system nearest the pond would cease to function and overflow the yard.

stickguy

saw this while looking at the cars coming up at the Mecum Kissimee auction starting today. I think Walt had one of these? Or some version with this drivetrain. I actually love this. But am blown away at the estimate. I know it looks like new and has like 12k miles on it, but 45-60k? Ouch. I could get a 718 Boxster instead.

https://www.mecum.com/lots/1098370/1976-ford-mustang-cobra-ii/?aa_id=515414-0