Well, this goes back my '69 Camaro but, it may be similar to what you're experiencing on your New Yorker.
The starter on that car had the solenoid on top of the starter. When the solenoid pulled in it would pull together a set of contacts (big copper slugs, if I remember correctly) that would apply the high amperage +12V to the starter motor itself. Well, those copper plates would develop pits and corrosion over time so that, sometimes, the connection to the starter motor would not be made. Clicking the key a couple of more times would cause the copper plates to move slightly, making a better contact and the car would start.
I took the starter and solenoid apart and just sandpapered the copper plates and I think that fixed the problem.
First 2002 has big bumpers and is pretty weathered. Probably only useful as a parts car - only redeeming thing I can see are 3 odd period wheels. Not worth a trip.
Is it easy to move grey market cars into TX? Second to the last guy has some freakshows.
The fake Alfa is nice, I like the diamond plate dash and that steering wheel.
The boring drifter looks horrible with the top down. It looks like a messy pile of blankets.
I'm not so sure that 442 is a complete rip. He's not really clear why the car is not drivable but the car looks presentable in the pics. A good one can get up to 25 or 30 grand.
No "V8" emblem on the front fender so most likely yes. My mother had a 96 Thunderbird with the 3.8... couldn't get out of its own way. At least Ford had the head gasket issues worked out by then. I wish I could have said that about my 93 Taurus with the 3.8 :sick: what a turd of an engine!
Vintage BMW -- I'd pass on that one. Body damage, bad tires. These aren't worth that much all cleaned up. Parts car.
Datsun 510 -- too rusty
76 BMW -- worse that the bumpers ---these cars are slugs. Priced too high for that model.
BMW 2002Ti -- Just an "i" not a Tii. The automatic isn't bad actually. It's about even up in acceleration with the stick shift.
73 240Z -- walk away
MGBGT -- might be worth fixing up but not at that price. The last "good" year. I'd say $1200 is plenty and even then you'll never come out alive. Just go buy a clean one for $6500.
73 Triumph Stag -- well at least they got rid of the crappy engine.
TR4/Mustang 5.0 --- point and shoot and hang on.
Fiat 124 -- a bit "over--tired" I'd say.
Alfa Romero -- it's a VW. I like the dash from Bed Bath and Beyond. I hope it's a sporto-matic and that fuzzy dice come with it.
isn't that 'Alfa' the one we saw a while ago, that had the air cooled vw engine? edit: shifty beat me to it.
bmw did a good job bringing back the Mini, maybe they could come up with a retro 2002 based on the current mini. it probably isn't much smaller than a 2002.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
Too bad neither running BMW 2002 is a '72 or older. Yes, that 'Ti' is just a 2002. As far as I can tell, the 'ti' was a Europe-only dual carb model. All we got was the '2002' and the '2002tii'.
I remember ages ago looking at used cars in the small town where my mother lives...they had a Cougar of that era, but it clearly had a Thunderbird steering wheel. I was never sure if it was sloppy production or a botched repair.
A coworker with a 94 Taurus 3.8 had it lose the head gasket in 2002 or so, at something like 60K miles. Nice. :sick: The tranny was also acting up, so the car was ditched. Kind of a shame, as it was the somewhat odd top of the line model - it had deluxe wheels, leather, glass roof, etc.
Looks like maybe there's a Weber carb on that 2002 Ti. That's not good for a 4 cylinder automatic car with barely over 100HP. It'll bog all day long. Too rich, no cam or intake to help ram it down.
A Tii in silver w/sunroof and 4 speed would be sweet.
My understanding is that Ford never really worked the bugs out of that 3.8, totally. I know a couple people at work who had late 1990's Windstalls. They'd tend to lose the head gasket around the 90,000 mile mark. I think the 3.8 was worked into a 3.9, and then dropped. Where does the 4.0 Ford uses in the Ranger, Explorer, and Mustang originate from? I've never heard anything bad about them, so maybe they were a different block?
My Granddad had a 1994 Taurus GL, but it had the 3.0 V-6. He gave up driving when he turned 90, back in 2004. He offered to give me the car, but I didn't need it, so one of my cousins got it. I think it only had around 30-35,000 miles. It has around 77,000 miles on it now. I saw it at a family get-together during Easter. It's actually holding up well in spite of my cousin. The passenger side mirror is hanging loose, and there's some minor scrapes on that side from when my cousin's wife sideswiped something. My cousin mentioned that he smells antifreeze, and I mentioned that I ALWAYS smelled antifreeze in that car...so if it was something really major, I guess it would've surfaced by now!
Before the '94, they had an '89 Taurus LX with the 3.8, but traded it before it had enough miles on it for any real issues to surface. That '89 was a really nice car. Nice interior, laid out well, and seemed like a decent performer for the time. In contrast the '94 seemed like a very competent rental car.
I think that you are correct about the Ti being an ordinary 2002. I had a friend that long ago owned a real 2002Ti in Oregon. Not sure how it got into the country, but then I once bought a 1967 European BMW 2000 4-door in the states, so they do slip in.
I believe the slim-bumper, round-tail light 2002s ran through 1973. I recall reading an article at that time that said the 73s had a new cylinder head design which made them more desireable than earlier years. That is if you can live with the add-on side bump-strips and government mandated side and rear reflectors. :sick:
the 3.8 was a 6 cyl version of the 5.0 v8. kind of like the 4.3 gm was a v6 version of the 5.7 gm v8. the 4.0 litre v6 is known as the 'cologne'. i think it started out as the 2.8 v6 in the imported mercury capri way back when. it is still in production today. :surprise:
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
I was always under the impression that it was a totally different engine. While two cylinders lopped off a 302 would give you roughly 3.8 liters, the bore and stroke were different. The 302 uses a 4" bore, 3" stroke. So does the Pontiac 301, and I believe the Camaro 302 V-8 from 1969 or so used the same bore/stroke. I think technically, the engine is a 4.942, but Chevy and Ford chose to round up, while Pontiac rounded down. The Ford "Essex" 3.8 uses a 3.8 bore and a 3.4" stroke.
Anyway, Wikipedia confirms that it's a different block (although I know Wikipedia isn't the gospel :P ) One theory is that Ford reverse-engineered a Buick 231 V-6. It does kinda make me wonder though...why DIDN'T they just take a 302 and lop two cylinders off? Chevy's 200/229/262 V-6es were just lopped off 267/305/350 V-8's. Olds had a 262 Diesel V-6 that was a lopped version of their 350 Diesel. I'm sure they could have evolved that into some pretty good gasoline V-6 engines if they put their minds to it. Chrysler lopped the 318 and got a 3.9 V-6. And I believe the 3.7 OHC V-6 is a lopped 4.7, just with changes to the bore/stroke.
I wonder if Ford would've been better off just working from that 2.8 and 4.0 V-6, rather than mess with the Essex engines?
i just assumed due to the displacement that was the case. i think 3.9 did get upsized to 4.2 near the end. how about posting over on a ford fusion forum about your impressions of driving the '10 model?
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
as it was the somewhat odd top of the line model - it had deluxe wheels, leather, glass roof, etc.
That was my model too. The 3.8 was in the "LX" model in retrospect if I had a base model with the 3.0 I would have been better off. That car saw the mechanic at least twice a month.. tie rods, tranny, head gasket, misc sensors I'm getting sick just thinking about it.
From what I've heard, the same 3.8 with head gasket problems in the Taurus/Sable/FWD Continental didn't have this problem in the Thunderbird and Cougar. Unlike the 3.0 Vulcan V6 in Tauruses and Sables, with a 60 degree V angle, the 3.8 was a 90 degree
The problem was that the FWD Fords didn't have enough room under the hood for the heat to dissipate properly, so the heat caused the head gaskets to fail prematurely. Not only the head gaskets, but the heat also ruined the rubber parts under the hood, and caused premature transmission failures. The Vulcan engine didn't have these issues, or at least not nearly to the same degree. Nor did the RWD Fords, since there was sufficient room under the hood for the heat to dissipate.
The German Ford sourced 2.8 V6, which, in addition to the Capri, was also avialable in the downsized '74-'78 Mustangs, was rather problematic, from what I've heard. It was the best choice for those Mustangs, from the standpoint of balacing power and handling, since the 2.3 four was a real dog and the V8 made that car too front end heavy. Unfortunately, it wasn't a very durable engine. Not terrible, but just not too good.
We've all heard the story of Grandfather's axe: The handle has been replaced four times and the head has been replaced twice, but it's still Grandfather's axe.
Well here's Grandfather's 1967 Corvette race car, for only $80,000.
Finally took a good outside pic since getting the paint buffed. The new tires accentuate the wheel gap even more. The car is just begging to be lowered, but I don't wanna screw up my autoX "stock" status.
After:
And here is the before for reference:
Took a good bit of elbow grease to get that leftover pinstripe off, but well worth the effort.
'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
Sounds like you're buying a 1967 roll bar and brake and clutch pedals. Also, unless I'm missing something, this car doesn't appear to have actually won anything except the Crash Trophy. And you can't run it as a '67 which restricts the vintage events you could possible enter. AND it's ugly as sin.
That color reminds me of the non-metallic red on my '85 Silverado. As it oxidizes, it gets sort of a pinkish tinge to it. It'll buff right out, but it comes back eventually.
Your car must look wicked-good now since our company's web-nanny blocks the pictures :sick:
Have to wait till evening to see your baby.
Lowering cars falls into my "That'll start a chain of events" rule. It's like putting pipes on a car with a carb; then you have to rejet the carb, and then the clutch fries from the extra load, and then the guibo.... and
Join Consumer Advice Editor, Phil Reed, and other Edmunds staff for an auto industry chat TONIGHT, Wednesday, 9:00 -10:00 pm/et (6:00 -7:00 pm/pt). To enter the chat, click on the banner at the top of the page.
I guess it IS the nicest one out there, but.....who cares especially with the dreaded automatic? And that starting price....one Saab, extra crack, please.
I converted one of those to a manual transmission---it's pretty easy (if you know HOW). That automatic is a PIG of a transmission and rather short-lived, so the sooner you get that extra pedal in there, the better. Also you have to change the differential ratios but that's easy because it's chain drive!!
His price is....well...it's not even qualified as ridiculous. Let's see....best Saab 900 turbo convertible in the world?....hmm....I'm thinkin' ....okay, lets DOUBLE high book value and add 20%....how much fairer could you get?
That's $9500 bucks
These are nice cars to drive and pretty quick. They rattle like golf balls in a clothes dryer, however, and they break constantly.
Mine was only 48,000 miles when I bought it, and it never stopped being bad.
Yeah, the 240 Z and the '84-'89 300 ZX, especially the 2+2, are essentially different cars. The first is a surprisingly good sports car, especially for the price when new, while the second is more in the spirit of a Japanese Thunderbird.
The 2+2, which is the model I own, is really a luxury coupe, that happens to be a hatchback instead of a traditional three box design. It's not intended to be a sports car, and I was under no illusion that it was when I purchased it from the first owner. I'm also aware that it's less desirable than the two seater. However, I bought it because it's well appointed (mine has leather and all the options), it rides surprisingly well, and it cruises beautifully. It's also reliable and fairly low maintenance, and I happen to like the styling (personal taste). It clearly isn't a canyon carver, nor does it have blistering acceleration. However, it corners, handles and steers well enough for my needs, and its acceleration, while certainly not blistering, is very adequate.
The fact that you can go days now before seeing this first generation 300 ZXs is a plus, in my book. I'm not in love with this car, but I enjoy driving and owning it. In the end, that's what matters.
I also enjoy my E30, which serves a similar purpose as the 300 ZX, but the BMW has been higher maintenance.
My wife would have traded both of my older cars for a new something or other long ago, but, fortunately, she's tolerant of my automotive eccentricities. One of the reasons I tend to like older cars more than new ones is that, strange as it this may sound, the new ones are too perfect. They may be fast, even very fast, but they tend to have little character. Many new cars are just too generic for my tastes, but it looks like we ain't seen nothin' yet.
My problem is that I like many cars, but I guess I'm hardly unique on this among Edmunds forum participants.
The bottom ends of those Saab engines are indestructible. I bet you though that any high mileage Saab 900 turbo has had one or more head gaskets, repairs to the cracked upper control arms, and a long, long string of repairs. Think of all the people who go through the constant agony of keeping Jaguar XJ6s alive, or the murderous costs of a Mercedes 6.3.
for some reason, I didn't realize you had a 300z and an e30. How weird. Which year E30? Ours is an '87.
You don't by any chance have a G35 and XC90 as your daily drivers, do you? ;b
By the way, thanks everyone for the compliments on the Z! I should probably start reconsidering fixing the AC to make it more of a 3-seasons car so I can enjoy it even more.
'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
My E30 is indeed an '87. I have a set of mounted winter tires, so I can drive it on all but the worst winter days in the DC area. Since I don't put on a lot of miles I alternate between the Z and the E30 most of the time. When necessary I can always use our Acura, which my wife usually drives.
The fintail doesn't push as easily as it looks, especially at that point where a sloped driveway meets the street. But I was able to get it out and down to the shop. I wonder what this setback will cost...
Miled-up '99 BMW 328i -- price is fair enough. Check to see if radiator, thermostat, water pump, front end bushings, rear subframe recall (for cracks) have been done recently. If not, count on it all being necessary.
91 Porsche 944 S2 -- fun car, great handler---if the car is truly *beautiful* he might get his price or close. I'd offer $12.5K in this market.
I got my dear old project car fintail back from the shop today...as thought, the problem was in a dead shift linkage bushing. Price of part - $8. Price of labor - about 15 times that. But, now it has all gears...a small price to pay. :shades:
Comments
but NO TITLE, NO KEYS - as is
Worse, I can't see the pictures at work. Worth a flyer?
http://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/cto/1184860322.html
The real-poor man's BMW 2002?
http://dallas.craigslist.org/ftw/cto/1211221361.html
A real BMW 2002 - but 1976? Can you sawzall those bumpers off?
http://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/cto/1211838901.html
A real BMW 2002 TI showing 25xxx miles but an automatic???
Can you change out the transmission for a 5 speed, or is it a lost cause?
http://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/cto/1202722933.html
Possible project? 73 240Z $1700
All the floor pans rusted out on these
http://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/cto/1206983674.html
For a few dollars more 74 MGB GT
Need paint.... and....and?
http://dallas.craigslist.org/ftw/cto/1211386837.html
Why tis a unicorn! I didn't think any of these existed anymore.
http://dallas.craigslist.org/mdf/cto/1209774902.html
I guess I should be complaining about this too but I like IT
http://dallas.craigslist.org/mdf/cto/1191484347.html
Oooooh! Shiny RED paint!
http://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/cto/1189128021.html
Apparently this guy is finally getting the psychiatric help he's obviously needed for years. http://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/cto/1166625891.html
How could he NOT identify the car's engine in this ad? Well, I guess if he can't spell the name of the @$!~!%^ car, I shouldn't be surprised.
http://dallas.craigslist.org/ftw/cto/1203639695.html
The wheels on the TR4 are a sin.
The guy with the goofy collection tops it off with goofy prices.
'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
Skip the 1,000 words and just scroll straight to the picture at the bottom
http://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/cto/1206476341.html
The starter on that car had the solenoid on top of the starter. When the solenoid pulled in it would pull together a set of contacts (big copper slugs, if I remember correctly) that would apply the high amperage +12V to the starter motor itself. Well, those copper plates would develop pits and corrosion over time so that, sometimes, the connection to the starter motor would not be made. Clicking the key a couple of more times would cause the copper plates to move slightly, making a better contact and the car would start.
I took the starter and solenoid apart and just sandpapered the copper plates and I think that fixed the problem.
Is it easy to move grey market cars into TX? Second to the last guy has some freakshows.
The fake Alfa is nice, I like the diamond plate dash and that steering wheel.
The hairball is hilarious...late malaise. I wonder if it has a 3.8.
I'm not so sure that 442 is a complete rip. He's not really clear why the car is not drivable but the car looks presentable in the pics. A good one can get up to 25 or 30 grand.
No "V8" emblem on the front fender so most likely yes. My mother had a 96 Thunderbird with the 3.8... couldn't get out of its own way. At least Ford had the head gasket issues worked out by then. I wish I could have said that about my 93 Taurus with the 3.8 :sick: what a turd of an engine!
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
Datsun 510 -- too rusty
76 BMW -- worse that the bumpers ---these cars are slugs. Priced too high for that model.
BMW 2002Ti -- Just an "i" not a Tii. The automatic isn't bad actually. It's about even up in acceleration with the stick shift.
73 240Z -- walk away
MGBGT -- might be worth fixing up but not at that price. The last "good" year. I'd say $1200 is plenty and even then you'll never come out alive. Just go buy a clean one for $6500.
73 Triumph Stag -- well at least they got rid of the crappy engine.
TR4/Mustang 5.0 --- point and shoot and hang on.
Fiat 124 -- a bit "over--tired" I'd say.
Alfa Romero -- it's a VW. I like the dash from Bed Bath and Beyond. I hope it's a sporto-matic and that fuzzy dice come with it.
edit: shifty beat me to it.
bmw did a good job bringing back the Mini, maybe they could come up with a retro 2002 based on the current mini. it probably isn't much smaller than a 2002.
A coworker with a 94 Taurus 3.8 had it lose the head gasket in 2002 or so, at something like 60K miles. Nice. :sick: The tranny was also acting up, so the car was ditched. Kind of a shame, as it was the somewhat odd top of the line model - it had deluxe wheels, leather, glass roof, etc.
A Tii in silver w/sunroof and 4 speed would be sweet.
My Granddad had a 1994 Taurus GL, but it had the 3.0 V-6. He gave up driving when he turned 90, back in 2004. He offered to give me the car, but I didn't need it, so one of my cousins got it. I think it only had around 30-35,000 miles. It has around 77,000 miles on it now. I saw it at a family get-together during Easter. It's actually holding up well in spite of my cousin. The passenger side mirror is hanging loose, and there's some minor scrapes on that side from when my cousin's wife sideswiped something. My cousin mentioned that he smells antifreeze, and I mentioned that I ALWAYS smelled antifreeze in that car...so if it was something really major, I guess it would've surfaced by now!
Before the '94, they had an '89 Taurus LX with the 3.8, but traded it before it had enough miles on it for any real issues to surface. That '89 was a really nice car. Nice interior, laid out well, and seemed like a decent performer for the time. In contrast the '94 seemed like a very competent rental car.
I believe the slim-bumper, round-tail light 2002s ran through 1973. I recall reading an article at that time that said the 73s had a new cylinder head design which made them more desireable than earlier years. That is if you can live with the add-on side bump-strips and government mandated side and rear reflectors. :sick:
kind of like the 4.3 gm was a v6 version of the 5.7 gm v8.
the 4.0 litre v6 is known as the 'cologne'.
i think it started out as the 2.8 v6 in the imported mercury capri way back when.
it is still in production today. :surprise:
If that 442 is all original, it is worth the money. The '70 455 was the killer motor, especially with the W30 performance options.
I was always under the impression that it was a totally different engine. While two cylinders lopped off a 302 would give you roughly 3.8 liters, the bore and stroke were different. The 302 uses a 4" bore, 3" stroke. So does the Pontiac 301, and I believe the Camaro 302 V-8 from 1969 or so used the same bore/stroke. I think technically, the engine is a 4.942, but Chevy and Ford chose to round up, while Pontiac rounded down. The Ford "Essex" 3.8 uses a 3.8 bore and a 3.4" stroke.
Anyway, Wikipedia confirms that it's a different block (although I know Wikipedia isn't the gospel :P ) One theory is that Ford reverse-engineered a Buick 231 V-6. It does kinda make me wonder though...why DIDN'T they just take a 302 and lop two cylinders off? Chevy's 200/229/262 V-6es were just lopped off 267/305/350 V-8's. Olds had a 262 Diesel V-6 that was a lopped version of their 350 Diesel. I'm sure they could have evolved that into some pretty good gasoline V-6 engines if they put their minds to it. Chrysler lopped the 318 and got a 3.9 V-6. And I believe the 3.7 OHC V-6 is a lopped 4.7, just with changes to the bore/stroke.
I wonder if Ford would've been better off just working from that 2.8 and 4.0 V-6, rather than mess with the Essex engines?
how about posting over on a ford fusion forum about your impressions of driving the '10 model?
That was my model too. The 3.8 was in the "LX" model in retrospect if I had a base model with the 3.0 I would have been better off. That car saw the mechanic at least twice a month.. tie rods, tranny, head gasket, misc sensors I'm getting sick just thinking about it.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
The problem was that the FWD Fords didn't have enough room under the hood for the heat to dissipate properly, so the heat caused the head gaskets to fail prematurely. Not only the head gaskets, but the heat also ruined the rubber parts under the hood, and caused premature transmission failures. The Vulcan engine didn't have these issues, or at least not nearly to the same degree. Nor did the RWD Fords, since there was sufficient room under the hood for the heat to dissipate.
Well here's Grandfather's 1967 Corvette race car, for only $80,000.
http://dallas.craigslist.org/ndf/ctd/1193643884.html
After:
And here is the before for reference:
Took a good bit of elbow grease to get that leftover pinstripe off, but well worth the effort.
'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
Lotta sizzle, not much steak.
I bet that color oxidizes pretty quickly...so you'll get to buff it out again sometime.
Have to wait till evening to see your baby.
Lowering cars falls into my "That'll start a chain of events" rule. It's like putting pipes on a car with a carb; then you have to rejet the carb, and then the clutch fries from the extra load, and then the guibo.... and
Your Host WILL be checking attendance!
Vigilantly Yours,
Shifty
I'm hoping it helps that it is only in the sun when driving, for the most part. I have a garage at home and at work.
'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
From my experience with my '88 300 ZX, these cars are underappreciated. Others would disagree, and say they're underdepreciated.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Saab-Turbo-900-Convertible_W0QQitemZ170341103351Q- QcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_Cars_Trucks?hash=item27a91ef6f7&_trksid=p4506.c0.m245&_trkp- arms=65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C72%3A317%7C240%3A1318
I guess it IS the nicest one out there, but.....who cares especially with the dreaded automatic? And that starting price....one Saab, extra crack, please.
at least advertise it on a Saab centric site.
Terrible investment in the past 22 years, too.
His price is....well...it's not even qualified as ridiculous. Let's see....best Saab 900 turbo convertible in the world?....hmm....I'm thinkin' ....okay, lets DOUBLE high book value and add 20%....how much fairer could you get?
That's $9500 bucks
These are nice cars to drive and pretty quick. They rattle like golf balls in a clothes dryer, however, and they break constantly.
Mine was only 48,000 miles when I bought it, and it never stopped being bad.
it's still a friggin' 22 year old Saab.
The 2+2, which is the model I own, is really a luxury coupe, that happens to be a hatchback instead of a traditional three box design. It's not intended to be a sports car, and I was under no illusion that it was when I purchased it from the first owner. I'm also aware that it's less desirable than the two seater. However, I bought it because it's well appointed (mine has leather and all the options), it rides surprisingly well, and it cruises beautifully. It's also reliable and fairly low maintenance, and I happen to like the styling (personal taste). It clearly isn't a canyon carver, nor does it have blistering acceleration. However, it corners, handles and steers well enough for my needs, and its acceleration, while certainly not blistering, is very adequate.
The fact that you can go days now before seeing this first generation 300 ZXs is a plus, in my book. I'm not in love with this car, but I enjoy driving and owning it. In the end, that's what matters.
I also enjoy my E30, which serves a similar purpose as the 300 ZX, but the BMW has been higher maintenance.
My wife would have traded both of my older cars for a new something or other long ago, but, fortunately, she's tolerant of my automotive eccentricities. One of the reasons I tend to like older cars more than new ones is that, strange as it this may sound, the new ones are too perfect. They may be fast, even very fast, but they tend to have little character. Many new cars are just too generic for my tastes, but it looks like we ain't seen nothin' yet.
My problem is that I like many cars, but I guess I'm hardly unique on this among Edmunds forum participants.
I'm thinking you could do a lot of repairs and still come out more than $11K ahead before you threw it away.
Surprisingly though I saw several VERY high mileage examples on eBay... one had 250k miles on it.
Some people really are into
S&MSAABs, I guessBuy an old Volvo, ,you betta off.
You don't by any chance have a G35 and XC90 as your daily drivers, do you? ;b
By the way, thanks everyone for the compliments on the Z!
I should probably start reconsidering fixing the AC to make it more of a 3-seasons car so I can enjoy it even more.
'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
High mileage and a little less respectable
It actually looks alot better than the pics
New tranny + new breaks (sic) + new frame = Very reliable
Looks decent but I know very little about these Are these decent?
91 Porsche 944 S2 -- fun car, great handler---if the car is truly *beautiful* he might get his price or close. I'd offer $12.5K in this market.
Yup, I think we could have guessed Ronkonkoma without the seller even stating it. ;b
'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