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
I wonder how many different axle ratios they offered on the Citation? I know they had the X-11, which was the sporty model, and was supposedly pretty quick for the time. It had a fuel-injected 2.8 that put out something like 135 hp. Very impressive for that time...as long as it ran, I guess! I think the carbureted version only put out something like 107 hp though, and was probably geared taller.
Also, it seems that back then torque converters made themselves much more noticeable when they locked up and unlocked. The owners manuals in cars even made mention of this, no doubt because the companies knew people would complain about it. Either that, or they did it in response to complaints. Anyway, when the torque converter locks up, it can often feel like the car's going into another gear. And with some of those tall axles they used back then, even in 3rd you'd be revving as low or lower than most overdrive cars today.
As for the age thing, the SE-R is 15 years old now and it is an infinitely better car than the Citation was, even with 3x the mileage (also infinitely better than a 15-year-old '92 Cavalier).
Didn't Nissan actually put some effort into that '90-94 or so era Sentra? I seem to remember that many people called it a "poor man's BMW", and they actually seemed to be over-built. I had a buddy in college who had an '83 Stanza, and that thing was a smoldering (literally) pile of excrement by late 1988, when he traded it for a new '89 Escort. I also had a friend who had an '87 Sentra, and it seemed pretty flimsy too. And a couple years ago, a buddy of mine had a fairly new ('03 or so?) Sentra rental when his Passat was in the shop. That sucker felt nasty, even being a brand-new car. In fact, I'd say it set the compact car back about 20 years! It was cramped, buzzy, uncomfortable and just imparted a cheap feel. Maybe it'll still be running 10-15 years down the road, but I'd feel sorry for anyone who'd be willing to put themselves through that much torture! :P
Now that I think about it, my friends with the 87 Sentra bought a '94 Civic, which I actually recommended to them. Now it felt like a well-built small car, and was nicely trimmed inside. Unfortunately it blew two head gaskets and needed a/c work before the 80-90,000 mile mark, and sent them practically crying back to GM, where they bought a '98 or so Saturn S-series. I dunno if that was a case of out of the frying pan, into the fire though, and I'm still partly convinced that the only reason that Civic acted so badly was because I recommended it! If they'd seeked it out on their own, heck, they might still be driving it! :P
I haven't seen them in a few years, but I do remember them getting a Windstar around the same time they got that S-series. I wonder if it'll blow a head gasket around the 80-90K mark, as they're supposedly prone to doing?
The strengthening yen really clobbered 240SX sales after 1991, but Nissan held out until 1997. There was a retro Silvia concept kicked around last year, which would have been a nice start for a 250SX with a 2.5L V6 (190hp) and a turbo option (260hp). GM could build a RWD compact coupe off the Solstice platform anytime it wanted; just design a new cabin and reuse the existing front and rear trays and drivetrains.
Your grammy gave you a 14 year-old car. It sounds like maintenance hadn't been kept up on it. The brake hose gave symptoms in that the brakes didn't work correctly. Proper maintenance would have been to have an expert diagnose and determine the hose was collapsing, holding the caliper on. Replace and you don't chew up two rotors. Same thing with your Honda or Toyo-did they have disk brakes then on their models?
The transmission didn't have overdrive. Those were 3-speeds. Had grandma modified the tranny?
>the tires dry-rotted and peeled off their tread one by one
Tires-those are maintenance that you replace. Don't think the car made them dry rot. But, oh well, let's blame GM for that too?
> the parking brake did nothing
See service re the rotor and brake hose-it's called maintenance
> the electric fan broke and the car overheated,
You get it replaced. You don't keep driving a car when it overheats, except since the fan's not working all you do is keep moving and the air flows through the radiator.
>It didn't idle right,
>braking and turning the wheel at the same time would stall the engine,
Might have been both related to carburator maintenance. You do have to have carburetors serviced when they go out of adjustment back in those days. They didn't have fuel injectors.
Most of these flaws are factors of the gas-and-go, no maintenance that many owners give their cars.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
How long did you have that Skylark? Did anything major ever go wrong with it? IIRC, the 4-cylinder versions of the X-body weren't quite as troubleprone as the V-6 models, and quality on all of them did go up a bit after 1980. In fact, by 1983, Consumer Reports was rating the 4-cyl models as average, which was about the best a domestic could hope for back then! Although some larger models, like big GM cars that had non-Chevy engines did tend to slip up into "above average" as they aged.
The carburetion was a little flakey for cold starts - 0-20 degrees, i.e. The choking was great but if the car didn't start quickly it was overchoked and you had to floor the pedal to take off the choke plate. The process meant the accelerator pump added fuel when you pushed it to the floor. This was usually after being driven and then sitting hours so it wasn't dead cold for inside parts but the peripherals like carburetor were cold and really choked heavily. The carb was partly computer controlled for mixture while running by varying the opening of an electrically moveable pintle. Great mileage. GM was on the forefront with computer control even then!
I believe the trans had a problem early under warranty. I don't recall exactly. Back then most trannies made it to 80K and we were happy in those days. Were there o-rings on rotation parts inside the trans that leaked pressure causing odd shifting? IIRC that's the type of problem it had. But most tranny flaws showed up early, as they do now, under warranty.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I wonder how much modding it would take to get a Caddy 4.9 under the hood...aren't those engines pretty big compared to a Chevy 305?
Pontiac made a sporty version of the Phoenix that I thought looked really good around 1983-84. Might make for a good sleeper.
-Loren
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
My mother bought a new 1981 Chevy Citation (I helped her with the buying process). It seemed like a real luxury car compared to my 1979 VW Rabbit I had at the time.
It had the 2.8 V6. She didn't drive much by that time, and ended up keeping it until late 1992, when she replaced it with a '93 Mercury Sable (her first non-GM car). The Citation had only about 50K miles when she sold it to my cousin.
Overall, it was a decently reliable car. It did develop the well-known "morning sickness" problem, where the power steering would not assist much after a cold start, and as I recall the engine did develop some oil leaks later in its life. Also, she kept a broomstick in the trunk to hold up the sagging hatch lid.
The car was always garaged and maintained as well, so I'm sure that contributed to its long life.
BTW, the Sable was replaced with...a 2004 Toyota Camry XLE, her first "furrin" car.
We need to recheck; we must have overlooked something to disagree about! :confuse:
The X-bodies weren't perfect but were a great move from RWD for economy and weight lose IIRC. They were above the foreign competition, at the time. And maintaining and fixing what starts to go wrong are big factors in any car-owing experience.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
-Loren
Now when the 1990-93 Accord came out, it seemed a definite step up and started to distance itself from the Cavalier. And while the '91-94 Cav wasn't much different from the '88-90, they seemed a bit cheaper somehow.
By '92, when the Civic was enlarged, it seemed to be more in the Cavalier's size class, and had some pretty nice trim levels.
A buddy of mine had an '89 Z-24 coupe back in college, and I thought it was a really sharp car. It was red with a silver lower accent, and had a nice interior. Z24's used a different, more expensive looking/sporty dash than the more basic models. It actually made me think of a '73-77 LeMans dash just a bit. His '89 made it to about 1997 and 100,000 miles, when a head gasket blew.
As far as 15 year old cars go, I don't think there is a lot you can hold against them. A 3 year old car falling apart is one thing, but 14 or 15 years out, you are on borrowed time or making car payments in the form of maintenance (thats where I'm at with one car). When the "maintenance" payment gets close to a car payment, I will move on.
Sometimes I wonder if trying to keep a car running indefinitely might still be cheaper than buying new and getting back into payments? For instance, I'd imagine that anything new that I'd want would run about $350-400 per month. Well, if my paid-off Intrepid dumped its tranny, that's about $2200 I think. Which would pay for itself in about 5-7 months, presuming nothing else major had to go into the car. Now the real sore spot would be the engine. I hear that a replacement 2.7 runs about $5K plus the labor to put it in. So there you're looking at well over a year's worth of car payments to break even.
Still, I guess as long as you can keep structural rust from setting in, it might be feasible to keep a car going on forever, as long as it doesn't get wrecked or beat-up to the point that something major in the structure gets fatigued enough that the car could snap in half or something.
And even with a repair that costs more than the car is worth, such as the engine repair I mentioned, if it keeps you from spending even more money on a newer car, it might make sense financially. And while you could also go buy a cheap used car, you'd still run the risk of running into problems and possibly getting another bum engine soon down the road.
That being said though, if the tranny or the engine in my Intrepid blows, it's outta here!
I'd imagine some old, relatively simple RWD car from the 70's or early 80's could be kept running almost forever though. You'd better really love that car though, because forever is a long time!
I had a 1992 Cavalier 2 door R/S with 6 cylinder.
I really liked it though it did start to fall apart after 72,000 miles. No problems until the end when it all went at once.
I kind of like the looks of it at the time.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Yes, it was the International Series. My aunt sold my brother her's (an 89, blue 4-door). Had the 3.8 in it. It was a pretty quick sedan, nice power, gobs of torque and ice-cold A/C. Didn't have any serioes problems with it, just normal maintenance issues like brakes, rubber connections on the trans lines started leaking (why GM didn't use hard line all the way to the radiator I will NEVER know) and water pump. But other than that, a decent vehicle.
The transmission shifts in the car as the mounts let it move with various torque forces; the radiator doesn't move. Solid line is likely to crack eventually with continual movement on it.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I guess those older metal transmission lines worked better with RWD cars, where the transmission was further away from the engine and any moving about that it did would have less of an effect than with a shorter cooling line.
However, my Intrepid, which has a longitudinally-mounted engine, and a tranny about where it would be on a RWD car, has rubber lines as well. I'm sure it's one of those things that, in the end, low cost was the deciding factor.
While it's true that you break even on repairs, more or less, the odler cars require less expensive consumables, replacement parts(structural/bodywork), cost almost nothing to re-register, have dirt-cheap insurance(plus no ned for comprehensive since there's no loan on it!)...
AND...
No depreciation to speak of. Maybe $300-$500 a year, if that. In some cases, like my car, it goes *up* in value $500 a year.
New cars are a total money-pit by comparison. The only reason anyone should be buying a newer car is if the NEED a bigger or better car or they can't live without safety features(driving a 1982 Honda Civic for instance, isn't terribly safe anymore).
My last car was a 1990 Volvo 240(three years ago). Mint condition. Spent $2400 on it, and another $1000 on getting it perfect, new tires, whatnot. Cost me a total of $200 to run for a year and a half, almost nothing in insurance, and $65 a year for registration. Airbags, all the safety goodies... Now, it got hit and died in an accident, but compared to monthly payments? Even taking the insurance and registartion and depreciation out of the equation, that's roughly $100 a month equivalent car payment.
Now, that's different than most people I bet, but consider a 5-6 year old Buick LeSabre that you own. It's infinately cheaper to keep it for another decade than to buy a new car once your lease is up. Yeah, it stinks styling-wise. But it does get you from point A to point B better than a new Aveo or Cobalt will(or even a Civic, for that matter).
$1600 to fix the transmission isn't even 5 months of payments on most new cars. And a new transmission usually lasts at least 5-6 years(10x the equivalent time in payments). That's usually the most expensive repair modern cars routinely have as well.
I'd imagine some old, relatively simple RWD car from the 70's or early 80's could be kept running almost forever though. You'd better really love that car though, because forever is a long time!
Oh oh, there is a nice 1979 Chevrolet Caprice Classic sedan that is catching my eye!
These are the express views of the writer and Edmunds and no one else is responsible.
Interesting point. Some people actually can come out slightly ahead I would say by driving their car indefinitely. They have to be able to do all their own repairs or forget it. Then, you get one expensive thing fixed and you have to keep it to get your money out of it, and then before it is paid for something else goes.
The other problem is the cost in time and money and aggravation when a car breaks down somewhere, or won't get you to work in the morning.
It might be difficult for some people, but I think it is worth $1,000 to $2,000 a year more to have a reliable car, with some of the latest safety equipment, for the possible savings you might achieve driving around in a beater.
Now, there were times in my life when I didn't have much choice, so I am not saying everyone should buy new or nearly new.
Now, the optimum time to trade in. That probably varies, but it seems to me a lot starts to need replacing at around 80,000 miles. So, if you do it before then that is probably a good time. Once you fix everything up you might get another 40,000 miles out of it before more goes wrong, if you don't mind the unreliability factor.
You do have to keep a car for 3 or 4 years or you really take a hit on depreciation. There is probably an optimum time when your trade in is still worth something too. It isn't just a case of what you are saving by driving a car into the ground, when you might have been better off to trade it in while it is still worth something.
Other ideas would be appreciated.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Yeah, a used car makes sense. Got a '96 Miata, used was $7,200 with just 36K miles on it. Drove it three years. Certainly made more dollar sense at a third the price. That said, owning a new car is a good thing too. Well unless it is an American luxury car. In that case it is just money down the drain. The depreciation is shock and awe!
I agree with you on cost of going used cars. But like the Motel6 rooms being like any other motel with the lights off, there is a difference. Sometime ya just want new style, or comfort, or security, and heck perhaps being the first to own the seat. Some like the warranty of say a Hyundai. You and I are total agreement on paying up front. The best deal is a solid used car, paid by cash.
-Loren
A new Japan make of car held for 7 to 11 years won't cost you too awfully much. Or how about a Hyundai, with the ten year warranty? IF, they prove to be as reliable as the last couple of years, the Sonata or other Hyundais are a buy. If resale sucks due to a setback, then all bets are off, and the car after the 5 year bumper to bumper, would be a sell. If the Sonata is both reliable short term, AND DURABLE for long term, like a Honda or Toy car, then people buying them today got quite the value
Speaking of value. GM Buicks and Cadillac love to depreciate, yet a good one a couple years or longer is still in great shape and should be a value play. Another big, and little too wide IMHO car, is the Crown Vic and the Grand Marque, which is a super buy in the one to three year old range.
-Loren
If you buy used, you could buy even more cars. Hey, never bored again!
-Loren
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The other car was a year old and again about half price (domestic). I put 125k on it and sold it to get a car for my wife. Cost of ownership was about 9k not counting gas/reg/ins)
My wife's car was new, but the deal basically built in the first 2 years of depreciation.
Just for arguements sake, I think a new car is not too bad a buy when done right. And I am making up these numbers but trying to be reasonable;
3 year old Caddie, pay $15,000 and after 5 years is worth $5,000 = $2,000 a year + repairs which I will estimate at $100 a month = $1,200 for a total of $3,200.
Another case: Buy a new Camry $25,000. Worth $8,000 in 5 years (probably more). That is $17,000 to own = $3,400 a year and a bit more for a few repairs. Not much more than a 3 year old Caddie which could be a money pit if you're not lucky. Many people prefer to drive the older Caddie than the Camry and that is their choice.
To me, it would be worth a few $100 a year to drive a new car. Unless you do very little driving and just need a car for short runs. My numbers could be wrong (are there any accountants out there), but the used car could have huge repair costs so it is a real gamble. My friend just got rid of a Ford Tempo, he'd get a $1,000 repair and then keep driving until he paid for the repair, but before that he'd have another $1,000 repair. He could have had a new car by now. Not to mention the inconvenience of a car that might not start, or could break down, or is embarassing to be seen in.
Now this isn't good for everyone. It might be a struggle to make the payments on the new car, but if you don't pay it on the new car, you'll pay it out slowly in repairs on the used car.
Usually a used car is half the price but the best half of the car's life has been used and enjoyed by the original owner, unless you get the car from your grandmother!
And, I must add, the used car is a better buy, if you don't need too many repairs, and you have the time to get it looked after and repaired.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
For those buying V6 GM cars, beware the engine manifold problems at say around 80K miles. My friends wife car just hit the 80K + and it blew. Coolant flows into the engine due to a warped gasket on the intake manifold. Cost him over $700. Changing the coolant more often may help. Not sure on this though. Seems like problems are occurring earlier than I thought. Here is one link click me And I think we all know about the Mustang 3.8 V6 which blew head gaskets. A few to watch out for.
Just remembered. If you have the problem with the gasket on the GM V6, with do have aftermarket non-GM parts to remedy the problem.
-Loren
I change my Dexcool every two years. I change my oil 2500-4000 miles depending on usage.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The X-11 got a 3.65 final gear, but the regular Citations had a 3.3.
Didn't Nissan actually put some effort into that '90-94 or so era Sentra? I seem to remember that many people called it a "poor man's BMW", and they actually seemed to be over-built.
The "poor man's BMW" label was thanks to the SE-R's tighter suspension and 50% horsepower boost over typical subcompact numbers. The B13 Sentra ('91-94) wasn't much different from the B12 ('87-90) under the sheet metal, which was a good thing as Nissan was in the crest of their salad days then and could afford to overengineer their cars (the 240SX certainly didn't *need* an 8-inch ring gear, but Nissan gave it one anyway). Most if not all of the first-gen SE-Rs were built in Tennessee, so the Japanese-US production thing doesn't enter into it.
I like to see Cavaliers next to Civics also, and show people the difference in sound coming from engine bays....
The Honda can barely be detected as running, and the Cavalier sounds like a John Deere Combine and Thrashing machine.....
I also don't care for the looks of the Cavalier. :lemon:
I didn't have money to go around paying "experts" to diagnose everything that went wrong with that car. I barely had money for gas most of the time.
I don't blame GM for the tires; I do blame them for designing complicated, nondurable systems that demanded excessive attention. If I want a European maintenance schedule, I'll buy a European car.
The fan motor broke when the car was idling in the driveway. I had started the car to charge up the battery since it was cold and had been sitting for a few weeks. I came back outside 10 minutes later to find the car steaming.
I wouldn't have such a bad opinion of the Citation if the 1988 Sentra that replaced it hadn't stood up to 7 years of abuse and impoverished neglect with far fewer problems and failures. The Sentra wore like iron; the Citation wore like butter.
Oil change on a BMW and Mercedes is 15,000 miles!!!!!
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
I can tell you're used to GM cars..... You can go twice that far in a Honda or Toyota before you have to do anything to it. :lemon:
Yeah, that's also probably why most of them go off-lease after a year, and also why they say stay away from used, higher-mileage BMWs! :shades:
Okay, let's all join together now and sing a chorus of "How Great Thou Art". And I promise not to mention my uncle's '03 Corolla with the bad catastrophic converter. Or my friends that had the '94 Civic that blew two head gaskets and needed a/c work before the 80-90K mark. A guy at work had a '92 Civic, and I think around 175,000 miles of mostly highway driving is when it finally went [non-permissible content removed] up! :P
My friend has great luck with used high-milage 3-series BMWs.
First one went to 140kmi before it was totaled in accident, the current one has over 90k. Most expensive repair was air-conditioner.
For several years MB claimed 'lifetime' transmission fluid...guess how that went over...
My Dad owns a 2000 Camry, so he is careful to keep to a 3K mile schedule. I owned a Corolla and would change it between 5K and 7,500K. But it was not on the sludge problem year list. They go much longer between changes in Europe. I believe Toyota said there have been something like 3,ooo some claims on the sludge problem.
Toyota extended the warranty on the engine, but I am not sure about the next buyer. If they are not covered, the car will be harder to sell. I this particular case, Dad plans on this being his last car. And so far nothing major has gone wrong - now in year six. I think the most perfect Camry was his first one - a really base-base 1991 stick. We are talking zero defects in 9 years of service.
Toyota is not off my list of cars to consider, but there are so many other choices like the Accord, Sonata, Azera, or maybe even a GM car, if I am feeling lucky. Kinda like the looks of the Fusion. Used, I am thinking maybe a CTS, or a Monte Carlo if you can find one with side air bags. The LaCrosse maybe make a good used car buy. Accord reliability and resale, and Sonata or Azera warranty and content are powerful draws for the customer. Fusion should have side air bag standard (2007 will) and a bit longer warranty. Maybe the final negotiation on price, it could be added as a free extended warranty. No one ever pays anything close to sticker on domestic cars anyway.
If I keep my current car and get another one for sport, I would consider the Camaro Z28 of say 2000. For a new play toy, maybe a Tiburon as a second car. But I don't know, money doesn't grow on trees.
-Loren
But 15K? A lot of these cars do a lot of city driving...if I found a car that had 15K mile changes, even synthetic, I would probably wonder what else was neglected, and keep away.
Just
Welcome to the world of hi-tech, don't worry GM will be there some day (these things usually show up in 5 to 10 years on American cars - such as stability control and side and curtain airbags).
MB's and BMW's have computers that will monitor the engine. In extreme conditions it will know you need oil earlier. When you start the engine the number of miles until the next oil change appears and gets adjusted according to the cars use....but it has to be pretty harsh to come down much between changes. It is synthetic oil and there is no advantage in changing your oil sooner. Since a lot of these cars are leased, BMW and MB do not want these cars coming back with engines that are worn out prematurely.
(This also answers why there can be more problems with MB's in JD Surveys. A lot more hi-tech devices and they are new technology, and tend to need time to get all the bugs out...but the 5 year bumper to bumper helps a lot there).
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250