By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
It's also a good thing the vehicle was made a-okay before you took ownership of it.
No, thank heavens, it's not the Subaru Cheese Wedge.
Mine is a '97 Outback AWD with the 2.5 motor and 5-speed manual trans. Odometer says 130K, but all the work was done at 124K.
It isn't as light and agile as the xA but much more sure-footed and quieter on the highway. Also no squeaks or rattles, which I hate. For now I have to have just one vehicle, so the Subaru seems like a good all-around compromise.
it's not sexy and not particulary fast, but to be honest, giving me a 400 HP car is like handing a revolver to a baby. I'm better off this way, especially as night vision and reflexes decline with age (sigh). But I do hope to add a sportier car to the stable before long, probably a two-seater. Or I might save up for a slightly used EVO if I can find one in the right color and without the silly wing. 4 doors + fun!
Eeeek! He still owes $16K on an 8 year-old car? Where did he get it, one of those BHPH lots that sell off-warranty luxury cars in marginal neighborhoods? Good God, those places are only there to trap the poor into living beyond their means! "Sorry, honey! You're going to have to try to hold off the landlord for another week 'cause I gotta get the Airmatic fixed on my ride!"
Those cars have depreciated a lot in the past few years, so he could have just been in a long term plan and hasn't knocked it down enough. He probably paid 35K for it 3 or so years ago on an 84 month contract with nothing down, and is now stuck. Seeing as one with no needs at all shouldn't really be more than 20K, the neglected car is a horrible idea.
If the car is nice, you could probably take it to a place where those are in high demand (like Seattle) and get most of your money back when you tire of it.
I just get a little bit crazy in a fast car. It's addictive and I can't be trusted, even though I'm a trained driver--I just take too many chances (not with other lives, but with my own). Never had an accident but I've scared myself plenty.
You know how it is: "Hey, I can pass that guy, I have plenty of power" or ....."just listen to that engine when I wind 'er up"......
What I REALLY need is a car that seems to go fast when it isn't, like an Austin Healey Sprite----but geez, how primitive can you get?
Subaru's fine---it was really great today on Highway 17 in a furious rainstorm. An old Porsche targa with their lousy ventilation, drippy top, and wiggly tail would have been hell. On the other hand, a brand new Carrera AWD would be been okay :shades:
1st-gen Acura Legend coupe? Nice suspension, respectable yet lawful 2.7L V6, and little in the way of go-fast aftermarket parts.
There you go, spoiling my daydream :sick: I've never looked over one of these for rust, sounds like it can happen everywhere. I was thinking the seat fix wouldn't be too tough, but yes, rusty body = waste of time. You previousely mentioned a collapsed seat on a 5er - is that expensive to fix, or is it the horsehair stuffing (IIRC) falling apart?
MUSTANGS -- good bang for the buck but they weld in subframe connectors for a reason---a frame that is a flexi-flyer. And if you stiffen everything up in that pretty primitive chassis, you end up with a bone-crusher. So I'd suggest extensive test riding to make sure you can live with the shortcomings of this car after you have been seduced by the V-8 rumble. These are real low budget cars when new, so rattles, squeaks, parts falling off and ornery handling are things to watch for.
Often people put too much motor in these cars, and there's nothing worse than "too much motor", which often equals too much stress, too much heat, a clutch fit for a Kodiak bear, and axle tramp like you wouldn't believe.
So I'd go for modest modifications and keep it as a pleasant cruiser, not a sports cars, which it ain't.
link title
link title
link title
link title
link title
link title
I like this one with the Welds
link title
The following two are obviously piles of crap
Looks like it's held together by rubber bands
LOL
A little bit better
If there was a hardtop with subframe connectors that hasn't been beat to heck, what should I expect?
Oh I still think it's a pleasant enough little car, but I just don't think the styling is anything to get excited about anymore.
That's exactly what the article says.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
A 914 could be a fun toy for not too much money, but you need to buy the 2.0 model and you need to watch for rust. Some people have switched out the Bosch injection for Weber carbs but that's yet another "Weber conversion" that makes matters worse, not better. I wish people would stop doing that to MGBs and 914s and Volvo P1800s, It simply doesn't work out very well and it's an $$$ way to fail.
Which is why any imported car with Webers is DEAD MEAT for a California emissions test---don't even BOTHER to try to pass.
It appeals to me for some reason, but the price seems pretty high.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
That being said, I have neighbors with 911s and Boxsters that couldn't possibly rack up more than 2,000 miles a year.
The other excuse I hear is that the doctors usually work in the hospitals downtown on a regular basis and are afraid to leave their Porsches parked there.
Andre, you are certainly not joking when you say "fleet." Whoa.
I could not even begin to cover all the miles on my vehicles; I drive more than I care to admit. I was thinking about it a few weeks ago and I estimate that I put 160,000 miles on my Subaru Outbacks since August of 2000 - 145,000 on my '96 (it had 220,000 last December... 2006) and about 7500 each on the 07 and 08 Outbacks. Also since then (8/2000), the miles on my other vehicles went down dramatically. I probably put 10,000 on my '69 Chevy since then and 30,000 on it during the three years prior.
I have not been driving all that long; what, 15 years probably. Tossing a WAG out there, I have likely logged 250,000 miles total, so obviously most of my miles logged have come during the last 7.5 years.
Were they not mostly old gas guzzlers, I would definitely drive my antique "fleet" more often. As it is, the combo of activating insurance and paying for the 10-11 mpg make it severely cost-prohibitive. I limit the use of my trucks to required trips only (i.e., hauling loads, plowing, etc). I stretch my old van's legs (at about 25 mph... hehe) a couple times a year on my local road sans insurance just to lube the parts a little bit.
1967 Catalina convertible. Bought it in April 1994. Probably put about 10-11,000 miles on it since then.
1957 DeSoto Firedome: Bought in September 1990. Maybe 3000 miles?
1979 NYer 5th Ave. Bought in October 2001. Roughly 7200 miles.
1985 Chevy Silverado. Bought in September 2002. Maybe 17,000 miles. However this one gets used fairly regularly. My roommate who doesn't have a car and I switch off between this one and my Intrepid.
1976 LeMans: Bought in April 2005. Maybe 2000 miles, which included the 500 mile trip home from Ohio, where I bought it.
1979 NYer base model. Bought in May 2007. Perhaps 400 miles.
My roommate used to drive 40 miles round trip to work, 5 days per week, and I was letting him use my Intrepid for that, since it got much better fuel economy than my truck. Plus, I really didn't trust him with that truck, having to go that far. Nowadays though, he only has to go about 10 miles round trip, 4-5 days per week, so I've been making him use the truck more.
The Intrepid really hasn't really had to go that far in recent years, either. I think it hit 120,000 miles back around Feb/March 2004. I remember that because that's when it went in for its tranny service, which I have done every 30,000 miles. It now has about 139,000 miles on it. So even my most-used car is now down under 5,000 miles per year. Drastic change from when it was new and I delivered pizzas, and racked up 30,000 miles in 11 months!
I guess if I ever bought another brand-new car, as little as I drive these days, it would last almost forever. That is, if it doesn't dry-rot first!
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
I don't want youse guys to think I'm some rich old patsy sugar daddy or something like that! :P
Isn't it lovely!
james
james
There's actually a couple of those things running around here, I see them out now and then.
They are rugged cars but very primitive devices, with a clunky column shifter and an engine that sounds like ball bearings in a clothes dryer. And with lots of parts made out of unobtainium, a potential future value of zilch, and looks that only another armadillo could love, one does have to wonder where the fun is exactly.
You want a noisy rugged station wagon, buy a Subaru. You'll have just as much "fun" (as in none) and not break down every week.
Quite an ambitious use of the "antique/classic" classification
Yet another classic case of "I put the $$ into it, therefore it MUST be worth it!"
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
It makes me want to ralph. :P
Step-side pickups never made sense to me.
Er, um.... what? Never made sense?! As the owner of a stepside pickup, I can tell you that they are, aside from the bed itself, the most practical and useful feature ever put on a pickup truck. Their demise was only a result of a truck's appearance outweighing practicality. The moment manufacturers tried to turn a stepside pickup into a cutesy truck, the steps themselves were doomed. They lost their practicality and cannot possibly be as pleasing to the eye as a fleetside.
My '69 Chevy pickup, with its perfectly dimensioned 4'2" x 8'2" bed, complete with a walkable bed rail and large steps, is incredibly practical. Sense is all it made. I laugh every time I am loading up the bed with some ridiculous, cumbersome load, scaling the bed every which way with ease while I manipulate and secure it because, right next to me, there is invariably an owner of a modern pickup struggling to secure a load as simple as a few sticks or sheets of lumber.
No, pickups have gained a lot over the years, but one thing they lost was the wonderfully practical stepside.
Maybe the step-sides are good for really short people. I've recently borrowed a new GMC, a Dodge Ram and an F150 and had no trouble securing stuff in the bed. The only concern I had was scratching the side with my belt buckle.
I guess they haven't made a stepside pickup with an 8 foot bed in decades now.
Also, I'm guessing a slide-in truck camper can still fit on a stepside truck, right? I mean, it has to fit between the wheelhousings anyway.
The "extra space" gained in a fleetside pickup is typically underutilized, as the only large-scale usable space is between the wheel wells anyway. Step sides had no incursion of the wheel wells into the bed, so the only lost space is that bit along either side, which is useful for cramming small items when the main bed is full.
As far as securing loads, I suppose one would have to experience the access difference between an old long bed stepside and the typical fleetside short (6') boxes of today. Anyone who works a truck like I do would cringe at the thought of a fleetside if they had experience with a stepside.
For little sport trucks like that '76 Chevy, yes, the stepside is nearly pointless. It still offers better access to the bed, but for what use? Bed access remains an issue; Ford just came out with a fancy hideaway step to assist access.
It is ironic that something created for practicality eventually became a vestigial bump on the sides of short-bed sport trucks. Anyone remember the Ranger Splash? Sport. No wonder the stepside was doomed.
I just about spit a gut when I first saw an ad for the hide-away, access step for the rear of a new pickup. :P
As for securing a load, I've yet to see anything to beat the row of nasty-looking hooks around the perimeter of the bed of my 1974 Mazda pickup (R.I.P.).
james
And in many cases, that extra bulk hasn't translated into any extra useable interior room. For instance, I've sat in the new Chevy and GMC pickups, to compare them to my old '85. Just going by feel, there's no additional legroom, shoulder room, or headroom. No additional room behind the seat for storage, either. The dash and steering wheel are further away though, as pickup trucks these days go a little "cab forward", pushing the base of the windshield to where it actually overlaps the back of the engine.
Somehow, the new Silverado ends up being a foot longer than my '85. 224.5" long, compared to 212" for mine. Wheelbase is only a bit longer though, 133" versus 131.5". I'll be danged if I can see where the extra foot went, though. I think the front bumper might jut out a bit more. The hood doesn't appear any longer, but with the more sharply sloping windshield, that might be where some of the extra length went.
One thing I'm impressed about though, is that it looks like GM tried hard to give these trucks a decent payload capacity. The regular cab/8-foot bed style has a GVWR of 6400 lb, and base weight of 4594 lb, which I guess is with the 4.3 V-6. That's about an 1800 lb spread there. My '85 has a GVWR of 5600 lb, and weighs about 4200 lb, according to the scale at the local landfill. So it only has a spread of about 1400 lb.
I dunno how the F150 or Dodge ram stack up, though...whether they've actually improved over the years or not? I do remember my stepdad saying that my '85 Silverado can haul more than their 2002 F-150.