Project Cars--You Get to Vote on "Hold 'em or Fold 'em"

fintail

I don't think 2007 is "old" - Audi seems to have been coming out of their malaise age by then. It's the turn of the century and just before and after things that can be iffy - survival rates for cars of that era seem low. I am seeing less and less early A4s, and 98-04 A6s already, and first gen A8s are getting really rare - where I can still throw a baseball and randomly bounce it off a W210 or E39 here.

I wouldn't worry unless it actually starts acting up.

hpmctorque said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

I've resurrected a few cheap BMWs with ok results but I know enough to stay away from old and needy Audis. At least with a Benz you can find just about any new or used part you need, often at reasonable prices if you shop diligently.

At what model year do define Audis as "old"? We've got an '07 A4 2.0 T Quattro automatic with 81K in our fleet. It's been well maintained and sensibly driven, and drives perfectly. We put about 5K/year on it, and love the way it drives. It hasn't been "needy" since the end of the warranty, but I have concerns due to the brand's reputation. Is it time to dump it?

Mr_Shiftright

I think part of "needy" implies not having been well-maintained. And the 2.0, while not a perfect engine, was better than the V6 2.7 turbo

texases

The 2000-era VW/Audi 1.8l turbo 4 had lots of problems, IIRC. That went away in 2006. I was surprised both the 1.8 and 2.0 are listed in 2005 and 2006.

omarman

Good news that your A4 has not been needy since end of warranty. How was it before then? Were there any recurring issues with same part/repair failing? I once bought a new car with a windshield wiper motor failure at 3 months old. Replaced under warranty, it failed again in another 3 months. And dealer replaced again under warranty 6 months after that! Since a cheap$ wiper motor was the only recurring issue I ever had with the car I didn't worry about keeping it long past the warranty. If that's a similar experience with your A4 (No major repair issues warranty or otherwise) along with the "love the way it drives" thing, then I don't think your Audi has gotten "old" yet.

hpmctorque said:

At what model year do define Audis as "old"? We've got an '07 A4 2.0 T Quattro automatic with 81K in our fleet. It's been well maintained and sensibly driven, and drives perfectly. We put about 5K/year on it, and love the way it drives. It hasn't been "needy" since the end of the warranty, but I have concerns due to the brand's reputation. Is it time to dump it?

Mr_Shiftright

The problem with out of warranty Audis is that they are very expensive to repair and not that many indie shops service them expertly.

lemko

fintail said:

It all depends on the car and where it is repaired, and how it was treated by prior owners.

I'd rather have an aged MB than an aged BMW or Audi, that's for sure.

isellhondas said:

Mercedes owners remind me of people who own Pit Bulls.
Like Mercedes buyers, people know the reputations yet still buy them!

Here's your average aged BMW or Audi owner:

hpmctorque

texases said:

The 2000-era VW/Audi 1.8l turbo 4 had lots of problems, IIRC. That went away in 2006. I was surprised both the 1.8 and 2.0 are listed in 2005 and 2006.

I think Audi made a mid-year change to the 2.0 jn the '05 model year.

hpmctorque

omarman said:

Good news that your A4 has not been needy since end of warranty. How was it before then? Were there any recurring issues with same part/repair failing? I once bought a new car with a windshield wiper motor failure at 3 months old. Replaced under warranty, it failed again in another 3 months. And dealer replaced again under warranty 6 months after that! Since a cheap$ wiper motor was the only recurring issue I ever had with the car I didn't worry about keeping it long past the warranty. If that's a similar experience with your A4 (No major repair issues warranty or otherwise) along with the "love the way it drives" thing, then I don't think your Audi has gotten "old" yet.

hpmctorque said:

At what model year do define Audis as "old"? We've got an '07 A4 2.0 T Quattro automatic with 81K in our fleet. It's been well maintained and sensibly driven, and drives perfectly. We put about 5K/year on it, and love the way it drives. It hasn't been "needy" since the end of the warranty, but I have concerns due to the brand's reputation. Is it time to dump it?

I bought the car from the original owner in 2010, with ~34,000 on the odometer. It had two problems before the 5 year/50k warranty ran out, the first one being an ignition switch that was very hard to turn. The dealer tried to fiddle with it, but finally acknowledged that it was defective and replaced it at no cost to me. We took a 6,000 mile road trip with the car later in 2010, and it ran fine. No problems. I checked the oil level a few times during our trip, and it used no more than a quart during the entire trip. About three months after that road trip it began using a lot of oil (like a quart every 1,000-1,100 miles). I reported it to the dealer from which the original owner had purchased the car, which was the same one that he and I took it for scheduled maintenance, and I got a predictable answer, "Oh, that's normal for a direct injection turbo engine." Well, why didn't it burn excessive oil before? We went back and forth for weeks. My position was that Audi should repair the problem under warranty. Since the dealer refused, I called Audi Customer Service, and they referred me back to the dealer. I acted businesslike, never raising my voice, but I stood my ground when it became clear that I had to be my own advocate. Finally, the dealer requested to test the car for excessive consumption. That required topping off the oil, after which I drove it until the "add oil" light came on. We did this three times, after which the dealer reluctantly agreed to repair it under warranty. By that time the car blew out a big cloud of smoke under heavy acceleration. Fortunately, the service advisor assigned an excellent central European mechanic, who knew VWs and Audis like the palm if his hand, to tear the engine down and rebuild it. Problem solved! By that time the car had over 54K on it, and it was also well past the warranty time limit, but since I had originally reported the problem well before the warranty expired the expiration limits didn't matter.

I was so relieved I immediately bought the mechanic and the service advisor $25 Starbucks cards. I had planned to dump the car if it couldn't be repaired. Hoever, I haven't had a problem of any kind since then.

I should add that the engine never overheated, so that didn't cause the problem. It's that a certain percentage of Audis with that 4-cylinder engine burn excessive oil. I have no idea what percentage, but it's big enough for Consumers Reports to have cited it as a problem several months ago. Incidentally, CR also cited BMW and Subaru for excessive oil consumption.

hpmctorque

Mr_Shiftright said:

The problem with out of warranty Audis is that they are very expensive to repair and not that many indie shops service them expertly.

Yeah, I'm aware of that, and I've got the names of two indies that have a reputation for being competent and honest. We'll see.

Mr_Shiftright

I know a really good shop in the SF Bay Area, but they aren't cheap. If the Audi part isn't available aftermarket, then there's not much even the best shop can do about controlling expense. Well, there's always used parts of course.

texases

Hmmm...with those problems I might not want to hold onto it for the long term.

hpmctorque

Thanks, But I'm in the Washington, DC area.

No shop has low hourly rates in this area either, or in any large metro area, but the indies tend to have somewhat lower rates than the dealers. Besides, I don't trust the dealers because of conflicts of interest. In addition, there's not much money in selling new cars these days, so the dealers have to make it up on parts, service and financing.

I don't imagine Audi parts are more expensive these days than those of other luxury car brands, but I could be wrong.

By the way, Consumers Reports rates the all new Audi models very high in terms of reliability, whereas some BMW models are rated high while others less so. Apparently Audi has improved a lot in the last few years. Some Mercedes, such as the E-Class, get a high rating, but I don't remember whether all of the others do too.

I've driven some 2000-2007 3ers, and owned an '88 E30. They drive nicely, of course, but I never quite felt the driving dynamics were quite as outstanding as the magazine testers claimed. Recently, according to the testers, Cadillacs (ATS and CTS) have surpassed BMWs (3 and 5-Series) in terms of driving dynamics. Who would have ever thought? Unfortunately for Cadillac, though, if sales are any indication perception lags reality.

Question: Will Cadillac ever become the standard of the world again?

uplanderguy

I was smitten with the CT6 I saw at the Cleveland Auto Show last Saturday--a big Cadillac, size of a 7-series; weight of a 5-series. Built in Michigan. I hope it does well.

fintail

CT6 is an interesting thing. It'd need to be in a top trim level (Caddy is being very much like the Germans, maybe even out-doing them, with stripped down base models) to compete with the larger Germans, and still isn't up there with an S yet. Baby steps, which could be a good thing if it means they are taking their time and actually putting care into it. I don't know about that 4cyl base engine in something that size, though - many GM 4s don't have refinement on their side, and that's a lot of mass for such displacement.

uplanderguy said:

I was smitten with the CT6 I saw at the Cleveland Auto Show last Saturday--a big Cadillac, size of a 7-series; weight of a 5-series. Built in Michigan. I hope it does well.

fintail

That's kind of a joke I have paraphrased and use sometimes - 20 years ago, whoda thunk BMW would be emulating MB, Toyolex products would have the wackiest mass market (over) styling, and Caddys would be good to drive?

hpmctorque said:

Recently, according to the testers, Cadillacs (ATS and CTS) have surpassed BMWs (3 and 5-Series) in terms of driving dynamics. Who would have ever thought? Unfortunately for Cadillac, though, if sales are any indication perception lags reality.

Question: Will Cadillac ever become the standard of the world again?

Mr_Shiftright

A great deal depends on the availability of aftermarket parts when dealing with luxury cars out of warranty. If it's a limited model, chances are you won't find an aftermarket alternative, and that's when buying parts at the dealer can be brutal on your wallet. Also these cars are becoming more and more complex, and my friends in the biz tell me it's not uncommon to plug a scanner into a German car and see 20-25 fault codes. Sure, not all are in need of being addressed, but it shows you how many little computers are in there spitting out data.

stickguy

At least on an a4 a lot of the mechanical parts could swap over to some VW. That should help availability and cost, right?

And $1,100 lights? One reason I am not a big xenon fan.

Mr_Shiftright

Can you imagine, some clown backing into your S4 and breaking both headlights---that's $2200 bucks!

hpmctorque

fintail said:

CT6 is an interesting thing. It'd need to be in a top trim level (Caddy is being very much like the Germans, maybe even out-doing them, with stripped down base models) to compete with the larger Germans, and still isn't up there with an S yet. Baby steps, which could be a good thing if it means they are taking their time and actually putting care into it. I don't know about that 4cyl base engine in something that size, though - many GM 4s don't have refinement on their side, and that's a lot of mass for such displacement.

uplanderguy said:

I was smitten with the CT6 I saw at the Cleveland Auto Show last Saturday--a big Cadillac, size of a 7-series; weight of a 5-series. Built in Michigan. I hope it does well.

I also have some doubts about whether a 4-cylinder is appropriate for a top-of-the-line luxury sedan, but the reality is that turbo 4s are being offered in more and more luxury vehicles. The 5er is one example, even though it's arguably half a notch below the CT6. Maybe the turbo 4 is the new naturally aspirated V6 in these times of increasingly stringent fuel economy regs. Also, while the CT6 may be almost as large as a S-class or 7er, it's relatively light.

ab348

The turbo 4 sounds inadequate, but it is providing 270hp and 290 lb-ft of torque to a car weighing well under 4000lbs and having an 8-speed transmission, so it should operate just fine. The refinement thing is a cheap shot taken by certain car reviewers who are biased against GM - the engine is not at all unrefined. But I would argue that a car in that class and price range should have something else as a standard engine, just for image.

Mr_Shiftright

I wonder if "cylinder status" is as big a deal to younger buyers these days.

fintail

That's kind of a Caddy thing, I guess. The CT6 still isn't fully a competitor to the big boats, it kind of slots in between the mediums and barges, like the CTS was between the small and medium competition when new. Maybe they plan to evolve it upwards as the CTS has evolved in the past decade.

You can find a single model 4 cyl 5er and A6 in the US, and the diesel E is a 4cyl, but the rest are 6 cyl and above, and there's no normal powertrain 4 cyl 7er/A8/S anywhere (A8 and S exists with 4cyl as a hybrid, but not here, and I don't know if private buyers ever choose it). The 4cyl engine on this thing is an odd choice, and I bet it doesn't sell past fleet/livery models.

hpmctorque

Mr_Shiftright said:

I wonder if "cylinder status" is as big a deal to younger buyers these days.

A survey a while back revealed that more than half of new 3-Series owners didn't know that their car was rear wheel drive, or all wheel drive derived from RWD architecture. Therefore, my guess is that cylinder count doesn't mean as much to young buyers as in previous generations. It's probably not even a consideration for some, as long as performance is adequate. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if some owners don't even know how many cylinders are under the hood.

Just think of the vast untapped market of potential Edmunds forum fans out there just waiting to be educated...or converted into neurotic car nuts. Ah heck, they're probably happy in their ignorance, so maybe we should just let them remain in their inferior state. Don't worry, be happy, right?

Mr_Shiftright

For some a car is a transportation module; for others, an isolation chamber to escape the world and have some privacy; for others a shiny object you jangle in front of squirrels; for the few, the brave, it is the intimate connection between man (or woman) and machine...an actual "right here, right now" experience.

In reality, for most of us here, we probably combine at least two of those.

stever

How many USB ports does it have?

andre1969

hpmctorque said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

I wonder if "cylinder status" is as big a deal to younger buyers these days.

A survey a while back revealed that more than half of new 3-Series owners didn't know that their car was rear wheel drive, or all wheel drive derived from RWD architecture. Therefore, my guess is that cylinder count doesn't mean as much to young buyers as in previous generations. It's probably not even a consideration for some, as long as performance is adequate. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if some owners don't even know how many cylinders are under the hood.

I remember years ago, when I lived in my condo, one of the neighbor's kids got stuck on an ice patch in the parking lot. The car was a 1992-99 LeSabre, and this was around 2002 I guess. The neighbor was some kind of federal cop, in his late 40's I guess, and drove a '91 BMW 5-series. I'll never forget the cop pushing against the back of the LeSabre, telling the kid to give it some gas, and when the front wheels spun out on the ice and the car went nowhere, I hear him holler out "Oh, you got FRONT WHEEL DRIVE!" like it was some kind of revelation.

Alas, the demise of the American love affair with the automobile has been on a downward spiral for some time now...

berri

I think many buyers are now more interested in the tech and electronics than the car itself

sda

hpmctorque said:

texases said:

The 2000-era VW/Audi 1.8l turbo 4 had lots of problems, IIRC. That went away in 2006. I was surprised both the 1.8 and 2.0 are listed in 2005 and 2006.

I think Audi made a mid-year change to the 2.0 jn the '05 model year.

And then you had the 2.0T. Though refined, powerful and economical it was troublesome. My 06 Passat used a quart of oil every 800-900 miles and had multiple repairs, check engine light warnings, etc in the 3 years that I had it. I traded it at 59k, just before the powertrain warranty expired as I was afraid of what was next $$. I understand the newer 2.0 engines are much improved.

stickguy

The new 1.8 is a sweet motor. Assuming the crankshaft tip doesn't snap off! Great power, smooth, fantastic MPG. and runs on RUG. so far, no oil consumption issues noted on my sample size of 2.

hpmctorque

sda said:

hpmctorque said:

texases said:

The 2000-era VW/Audi 1.8l turbo 4 had lots of problems, IIRC. That went away in 2006. I was surprised both the 1.8 and 2.0 are listed in 2005 and 2006.

I think Audi made a mid-year change to the 2.0 jn the '05 model year.

And then you had the 2.0T. Though refined, powerful and economical it was troublesome. My 06 Passat used a quart of oil every 800-900 miles and had multiple repairs, check engine light warnings, etc in the 3 years that I had it. I traded it at 59k, just before the powertrain warranty expired as I was afraid of what was next $$. I understand the newer 2.0 engines are much improved.

Since the engine rebuild I go between oil changes (5,000 mile intervals using 0-40 fully synthetic) without needing to top it off. That begs the question of why the factory can't build them like that. I'm very pleased with the engine's performance and the 6-speed automatic.

Since Consumers Reports cited Audis with that engine for excessive oil consumption I don't trust that the problem has been solved.

How is the newer 2.0T much improved, other than more power in certain models?

If I bought a new A4 2.0T it would only be with the written stipulation that consumption exceeding one quart every 3,000 miles would be deemed excessive, and would require a rebuild. I know Audi would never agree to such a guaranty, so I won't consider an Audi with that engine until I'm confident that the problem has really been solved in production.

hpmctorque

stickguy said:

The new 1.8 is a sweet motor. Assuming the crankshaft tip doesn't snap off! Great power, smooth, fantastic MPG. and runs on RUG. so far, no oil consumption issues noted on my sample size of 2.

Can you give more details regarding the crankshaft tip snapping off. For example, is this a common, occasional or rare problem with the 1,8T?

stickguy

Rare I think. I got a notice about it but no recall yet. I believe it is pretty isolated.

fintail

As lease end is on the distant horizon, I am slowly starting to browse used cars. Do I want an old rig for a daily driver? I don't know. Cheap Loonie makes these appealing.

This is quite pretty, reminds me of my 126

As I expected, Vancouver is starting to get more and more nice low mileage 140s - likely bought new by recently arrived HK zillionaires who have finally replaced the cars or stopped driving. Tempting.

I really want to find this exact conversion, in pristine condition 30 year old DD may be pushing it, but it would be worth treating gently.

Mr_Shiftright

Nothing wrong at all with an older Benz if you can do some of the DIY yourself. Lotsa bang for the buck. But if you have to run to the dealer to fix glitchy headlamps or replace brake pads or struts, then maybe an older Benz isn't such a good idea.

fintail

That's what I have heard is an Achilles heel for some 140s - struts. I have a good relatively cheap indy - I can't do a suspension replacement in the garage of the building where I live. I kind of want a V12 W140, but I know it won't be an easy road. They are apparently a lot easier to live with than later models anyway. Way back when I ran a W126 as a DD, it wasn't bad - a few quirks, but easy, and I even fixed one myself. The cars were a lot younger then, though.

There just aren't many ~2000-2010 cars that I really want.

Mr_Shiftright

But replacing struts on the W140 isn't particularly difficult. Any indie shop can do that.

fintail

I think it has to do with a link to the hydro-pneumatic rear suspension. I've been told to be careful.

ab348

That 300SE is pretty. The name in the ad, Andrew Timmis, rang a bell:

http://timmismotor.com/timmis-ford/index.html

fintail

Interesting, might bode well as the seller will know something about mechanical condition. Price before any negotiation is $6750 USD, not the cheapest, but it's hard to find them so nice, and I bet you could get it for 6K cash.

fintail

I'd also love to find one of these conversions - but I don't know if any were ever even imported to this continent. I like the wheels a lot.

hpmctorque

fintail said:

As lease end is on the distant horizon, I am slowly starting to browse used cars. Do I want an old rig for a daily driver? I don't know. Cheap Loonie makes these appealing.

This is quite pretty, reminds me of my 126

As I expected, Vancouver is starting to get more and more nice low mileage 140s - likely bought new by recently arrived HK zillionaires who have finally replaced the cars or stopped driving. Tempting.

I really want to find this exact conversion, in pristine condition 30 year old DD may be pushing it, but it would be worth treating gently.

I like the styling of the 126 more than the 140, but I imagine that by now the difference in price for cars in similar condition and mileage - two big ifs, given the age difference - is not too significant. I think the 126 was more special in its day due to its elegance and engineering, whereas the 140 was more of a large, rather bulky looking luxury sedan. In my eyes the 140 was less elegant than the 126.

Due to the cost of ownership I'd only consider such a car if I drove it a maximum of 5,000-6,000 miles/year.

sda

hpmctorque said:

sda said:

hpmctorque said:

texases said:

The 2000-era VW/Audi 1.8l turbo 4 had lots of problems, IIRC. That went away in 2006. I was surprised both the 1.8 and 2.0 are listed in 2005 and 2006.

I think Audi made a mid-year change to the 2.0 jn the '05 model year.

And then you had the 2.0T. Though refined, powerful and economical it was troublesome. My 06 Passat used a quart of oil every 800-900 miles and had multiple repairs, check engine light warnings, etc in the 3 years that I had it. I traded it at 59k, just before the powertrain warranty expired as I was afraid of what was next $$. I understand the newer 2.0 engines are much improved.

Since the engine rebuild I go between oil changes (5,000 mile intervals using 0-40 fully synthetic) without needing to top it off. That begs the question of why the factory can't build them like that. I'm very pleased with the engine's performance and the 6-speed automatic.

Since Consumers Reports cited Audis with that engine for excessive oil consumption I don't trust that the problem has been solved.

How is the newer 2.0T much improved, other than more power in certain models?

If I bought a new A4 2.0T it would only be with the written stipulation that consumption exceeding one quart every 3,000 miles would be deemed excessive, and would require a rebuild. I know Audi would never agree to such a guaranty, so I won't consider an Audi with that engine until I'm confident that the problem has really been solved in production.

I found this description of the changes made to the 2.0t engine. My 06 Passat had the FSI engine, I believe in 2008 they began installing the TSI. I thought these changes would also address the oil burning issue, but I guess it didn't in some.

What changed from the FSI to the TSI?
•Chain timing versus belt timing in the FSI
•Compression Ratio: 9.6:1 down from 10.5:1
•Engine Management: Bosch MED 17 from Bosch MED 9
•Oxygen Sensors: Addition of one for a total of 3, from 2
•Main bearing caps are now cross bolted to the block for additional strength.
•Oil spray jets to piston undersides for improved cooling and lubrication.
•More balanced cam shafts in the center of the block
•Improved fueling system running the HPFP (high pressure fuel pump) off of a dedicated lobe on the exhaust cam.
•Improved flowing cylinder head
•Updated internals with less internal parasitic loss
•Improved PCV system

fintail

A mint 126 will bring more than a mint 140 - nice 126s are becoming modern classics now (the average one will be 30 years old), where 140s are still being used up and discarded. Due to that, and some of the quirks of the car, I would wager already that nice 126s are easier to find.

The 140 is a product of its day - it is in some ways the end of the old days for MB, and the dawn of this era where even MBs are made with a life expectancy instead of the possibility of an endless service life. Disposable luxury, which is a thing now for all mass market makes. The 126 is definitely more subtle, the 140 is imposing and large even in SWB form. But in some ways it is also so clean and modern in a way, not trying to be something it isn't, an antithesis to most new cars of any make.

Before I leased, I would do about 5-6K per year - even with the lease, I have been well under the 10K limit, as I don't have a middle American long commute and don't want to submit to living an hour from work to afford home "ownership". However, commuting wear and tear would still be a concern, it's not like traffic here flows freely.

hpmctorque said:

I like the styling of the 126 more than the 140, but I imagine that by now the difference in price for cars in similar condition and mileage - two big ifs, given the age difference - is not too significant. I think the 126 was more special in its day due to its elegance and engineering, whereas the 140 was more of a large, rather bulky looking luxury sedan. In my eyes the 140 was less elegant than the 126.

Due to the cost of ownership I'd only consider such a car if I drove it a maximum of 5,000-6,000 miles/year.

hpmctorque

fintail said:

A mint 126 will bring more than a mint 140 - nice 126s are becoming modern classics now (the average one will be 30 years old), where 140s are still being used up and discarded. Due to that, and some of the quirks of the car, I would wager already that nice 126s are easier to find.

The 140 is a product of its day - it is in some ways the end of the old days for MB, and the dawn of this era where even MBs are made with a life expectancy instead of the possibility of an endless service life. Disposable luxury, which is a thing now for all mass market makes. The 126 is definitely more subtle, the 140 is imposing and large even in SWB form. But in some ways it is also so clean and modern in a way, not trying to be something it isn't, an antithesis to most new cars of any make.

Before I leased, I would do about 5-6K per year - even with the lease, I have been well under the 10K limit, as I don't have a middle American long commute and don't want to submit to living an hour from work to afford home "ownership". However, commuting wear and tear would still be a concern, it's not like traffic here flows freely.

hpmctorque said:

I like the styling of the 126 more than the 140, but I imagine that by now the difference in price for cars in similar condition and mileage - two big ifs, given the age difference - is not too significant. I think the 126 was more special in its day due to its elegance and engineering, whereas the 140 was more of a large, rather bulky looking luxury sedan. In my eyes the 140 was less elegant than the 126.

Due to the cost of ownership I'd only consider such a car if I drove it a maximum of 5,000-6,000 miles/year.

If you like your car, and your lease terms allow it, wouldn't buying it at end of lease make sense? Since there's less demand for diesel cars now, not just VWs, you'd probably get a good buy on it. You could drive it until you figure out what to do next.

berri

That's certainly something to look into as long as you've a decent repair shop around. Going to the dealer for maintenance and repairs as a European car ages can start to add up in a hurry sometimes. Also got to look realistically at how good the residual value is in the lease today compared to market.

fintail

I like the car, but if I am going to buy and commit long term, I want to be the exact right car - specific colors and options, This car isn't that. This one is a gas, the prior car was a diesel. There could be good deals on Bluetecs when the time comes anyway. That's another thing, the lease is good, which means residual is inflated. Someone will get a nice CPO car thanks to me.

hpmctorque said:

<

If you like your car, and your lease terms allow it, wouldn't buying it at end of lease make sense? Since there's less demand for diesel cars now, not just VWs, you'd probably get a good buy on it. You could drive it until you figure out what to do next.

fintail

There are several decent indy shops around here, which helps a lot. This area is probably better for most for keeping an odd car on the road.

Lease residual is inflated, keeps payments low, and keeps people on the wagon I guess.

berri said:

That's certainly something to look into as long as you've a decent repair shop around. Going to the dealer for maintenance and repairs as a European car ages can start to add up in a hurry sometimes. Also got to look realistically at how good the residual value is in the lease today compared to market.

andre1969

I really like the looks of that green '89. Beautiful color.

berri

The Europeans do seem to put out some very attractive shades of green or blue, and with interiors that aren't always black or grey. Why can't Detroit and Asia do that too?

fintail

Look who came out today after several weeks of hibernation:



Started on the first turn of the key as usual, ran fine. Dash rattle somehow connected to the radio is driving me nuts, didn't get a chance to look at it, too lazy.