Volvo XC90 vs MB M Class vs Acura MDX vs Lexus RX 350 vs BMW X5 vs Cadillac SRX

hopeitsfriday · April 2003

Since I have 15 minutes to kill, I will do the calculation for dynamic distance difference for a half of second time from 0-60 MPH.

Lets assume MDX does 0-60 in 8 sec. and X5 0-60 in 8.5 sec.

Accelaration = delta velocity / delta time

Accelaration (A) = (V2-V1) / (T2-T1)
Distance = (V1 * T2) + 0.5(A * (T2 square))

MDX: Accelaration = (60mph-0mph) / (8 Sec.-0 Sec.)
Accelaration = (60mph-0mph) / (8 Sec.-0 Sec.)= 8.638 miles / ( hour * sec )

Accelaration = (8.638 * 5280 feet/mile)/(3600 sec. / hour) = 12.67 ft per sec. square

Distance = (V1 * T2) + 0.5(A * (T2 square)) = 0 + 0.5(12.67)(8)square = 405.44 ft

X5: Accelaration = (60mph-0mph) / (8.5 Sec.-0 Sec.)= 7.059 miles / ( hour * sec )

Accelaration = (7.059 * 5280 feet/mile)/3600 sec. / hour = 10.35 ft per sec square

Distance = (V1 * T2) + 0.5(A * (T2 square)) = 0 + 0.5(10.35)(8.5)square = 373.89 ft

A difference of 31.5 Feet, about three car length.

wwest · April 2003

I have always wondered why the AWD RX had/has differing final drive ratios front vs rear. Recently a Lexus factory rep told me that the purpose of this is to establish differing torque distribution ratios F/R.

Shortly after moving up to the 01, I took it to a shop with a 4 wheel drive dynamometer to find the truth.

If the two dynamometer "driven" rollers were uncoupled, then the torque distribution initially measured 90/10 F/R. After a few moments (uncoupled) then the VC would stiffen enough that we could measure about 75/25 F/R.

In the testing it appeared that the torque distribution "might" be 50/50 with the two, front and rear, dynamometer driven wheels coupled (locked together) but in truth there seemed to be no way to actually determine the "high traction" ratio.

Not that it actually matters.

Most of us buy AWD for circumstances wherein the traction coefficient is adverse.

tidester · April 2003

Thanks for numbers.

Incidentally, what you are doing is calculating the average acceleration and using it to determine the speeds and distances. We know acceleration is not constant (different torque curves, driver reflexes, etc.) but it's a good place to start.

Whether it's good enough to draw conclusions within plus or minus 7.5% (30 feet compared with 400 feet) remains to be seen.

tidester, host

JBaumgart · April 2003

wwest, very interesting. If you decide to do the same kind of a test with your '03 RX330, please be sure to report back and share the results.

Last night I took a test drive in the FX45, and to start out with the salesman said he would drive first. I thought this was kind of weird, but I soon found out why. He told me to hold on, then the first thing he did out of the parking lot, while taking a sharp 90 degree right turn onto the street from a dead stop, was to mash the accelerator to the floor. This was very impressive, and clearly you could tell immediately that this vehicle is not only very powerful, and handles extremely well, but is also very much rear wheel drive torque biased. When I took the wheel shortly thereafter, my initial impressions were confirmed, as was my contention that you should never buy a demo vehicle. <g>

Anyway as I think you know I've placed an order for an RX 330 which will be my wife's primary vehicle, and will replace her '98 A4 which has given us six years of really great service. With the RX, because we wanted the NAV system in combination with the Performance Pkg, we had to place a special order and it will be 90-120 days before it arrives.

Meanwhile, I unfortunately was involved in a multi-car accident with my '01 Audi allroad, and even more unfortunately I was told a couple of days ago that it will be totaled after it became apparent that there more damage to the engine than it first appeared, requiring replacement. The insurance company has been more than fair, and will give me $38,443 on Monday - not bad for a 2 1/2 year old car with 34,000 miles that cost about $45,500 new. So this led to my car shopping, and today I agreed to some very favorable terms on an '03 FX 45, which I hope to pick up Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. Never thought we would own two SUV's (cross-overs ?) at the same time, but that's the way it's going to work out. I will really miss the Audi, but the power of the V8 in the FX, plus that good-old RWD torque bias, should help me get over it pretty fast. ;-)

wwest · April 2003

Reminds me of a BMW salesman demoing an 850Si back a few years ago. The difference is that he lost it, spun the car completely around on a curving freeway entrance ramp. He was kind enough to let me exit the car a few yards down the road so I could walk safely back to my own car at the dealership.

Purchased my first Lexus, a 92 LS, within a few days.

wmquan · April 2003

MDX: Accelaration = (60mph-0mph) / (8 Sec.-0 Sec.)
Accelaration = (60mph-0mph) / (8 Sec.-0 Sec.)= 8.638 miles / ( hour * sec )

Wait, 60/8 = 7.5, not 8.638? That would make the distance difference 21.89 feet, which is less than a car length and a half, not three car lengths.

And, as discussed here, acceleration is not constant. After all, both the MDX and X5 took the same amount of time to get to 30mph. To review Car & Driver's times:

MDX / X5 acceleration in seconds
0-30: 2.7 / 2.7
0-60: 7.8 / 8.1

Even though their 0-30 times were the same, there is a chance that one vehicle was ahead because of the difference in shift points. However, it probably wouldn't be large. Let's assume they're pretty neck-and-neck. That would means that the main distance difference is in the 30-60 portion of the 0-60 tests. That was 5.1 seconds in the MDX, and 5.4 seconds in the BMW.

If we compute the distance difference using friday's formula, and (somewhat incorrectly) assume that acceleration from 30-60 is linear (just to get some numbers to play with).

Acceleration (A) = (V2-V1) / (T2-T1)
Distance = (V1 * T2) + 0.5(A * (T2 square))

MDX:
Acceleration (A) = (V2-V1) / (T2-T1)
Acceleration = (60mph-30mph) / (5.1 Sec.-0 Sec.)
Acceleration = 30 / 5.1
Acceleration = 5.8824 miles = 8.6275 feet/second square
Distance = (V1 * T2) + 0.5(A * (T2 square))
Distance = (30mph * 5.1) + 0.5(8.6275 * (5.1 square))
Distance = 153 + 112 = 265 feet? (not sure about this part; is it really 30 * 5.1 or does that number get adjusted?)

X5:
Acceleration (A) = (V2-V1) / (T2-T1)
Acceleration = (60mph-30mph) / (5.4 Sec.-0 Sec.)
Acceleration = 30 / 5.4
Acceleration = 5.5556 miles = 8.1482 feet/second square
Distance = (V1 * T2) + 0.5(A * (T2 square))
Distance = (30mph * 5.4) + 0.5(8.1482 * (5.4 square))
Distance = 162 + 118 = 280 feet? (not sure about this part; is it really 30 * 5.4)

Difference = 280 - 265 = 15 feet = 180 inches
Difference = 0.954907161803713527851458885941645 of an MDX car length or
Difference = 0.979858464888405008165487207403375 of an X5 car length

It's even less than a car length if you add a bicycle rack to the back and a bull bar to the front.

It's quite possible that the MDX acceleration pattern gives it a slight edge beyond the linear acceleration rate used in the formula above. So perhaps it is a full car length and even a few extra inches! Whoohoo!

bodble2 · April 2003

somebody please call the authorities about that man!

hopeitsfriday · April 2003

You are welcome Tidester, by using the average acceleration formula, I was taking the average torque from 0 to 60 as well. Most torque band will flat out after 3000 RPM anyways. There are so many variable when testing 0-60 that it is impossible to account for all of them, changes in torque band, transmission shift pattern, horse power band, type of tires, amount of air in tires, road conditions or weather condition and so on and so on. Unless you are a MIT grad and would like to spend days on this project, the average acceleration formula is close enough for me. BTW, I recalculate the numbers, after 8 sec. with the average accelerations calculated, MDX @ 8 Sec.= 352 ft and the X5 @ 8 sec.= 331.2 ft. A difference of about 19 ft. One to two car length as I originally predicted.

My point is that half of a second in 0 - 60 is alot more significant than most people thinks. 0-60 is a very important test because those are typical highway merging speed. From a dead stop and going on to a highway, I would say gaining 19 ft on to the on ramp and highway is a big advantage for any car.

stever · April 2003

Because I disagree - I think the "30 to 60" number is more important, especially for the freeway merge test.

Of course around here, you can still merge onto the freeway without having to come to a dead stop for 5 minutes.

Steve, Host

wmquan · April 2003

Steve,

They've put metered on-ramps on a number of roads around Seattle, so you get onto the highway from a stop. Of course, one reason for those lights is because traffic is dense. That makes a full 0-60 sprint quite dangerous and foolhardy. A more controlled acceleration to 60 is really more typical of stop-to-merge. Thus, claims of superiority with close 0-60 times are rather dubious in these cases, and not real-world. So 30-60, 40-60, 50-70 are probably more valuable for those situations.

hopeitsfriday · April 2003

I guess it really depends on where you are or how you drive to determine what is the band of speed where acceleration is most important. Where I live, the most valuable numbers for me is 0-60 and maybe 30-70 after that, but I would say that 0-60 is best overall measurement of typical everyday driving in general. I am sure there will be people that disagrees.
Anyways, the point was to prove that a fraction of a second in 0-60 does matter unlike some people think. I believe we have proven that to most of the readers on this board.

greenlatern · April 2003

First you assume that acceleration is constant -- even a 1st year physics student knows that's not a fact. Then you pull numbers which may or may not be accurate and run calculations where you can't even get 60/8 right. The only real proof offered up was the one poster who listed C&D's 1/4 mile times.

Edmunds numbers look pretty shaky -- they show a 0-60 for an X5 4.4 at 7.5; C&D shows 6.6! I'm beginning to think Miss Daisy rides along on the Edmunds test run -- or maybe Edmunds just needs to find people who can DRIVE.

Another poster questioned why someone would choose an X5 over a 330xi sport wagon -- there is no 330xi sport wagon. And the 325xi sport wagon is seriously tight in the cockpit vs. an X5; might be okay if you're a dwarf but otherwise unacceptable. Really it comes down to a 5 series or an X5 and then road conditions become the deciding factor.

Seriously, if you want to "prove" something you'll have to quit making up facts and assuming things that aren't true anywhere but Planet Honda. Serious proof would involve either actually getting out and driving the vehicles or a simulation like the cartest2000 simulator which takes gearing, horsepower, tire diameter and even drag into account. But I seriously suggest forgetting about -- if it makes you happy drive it.

learn2fly · April 2003

Now turn the discussion board to adults!!

hopeitsfriday · April 2003

Like I said earlier, some people like your self will disagree with those numbers. Let me guess, you are an X5 owner right. The X5 is a fine SUV, I almost bought one myself. I am not suggesting that the X5 is slow either, but I think the 03 MDX is a tiny bit faster, but the X5 goes fast alot more gracefully than the MDX lol.
If you have read the formulas carefully, you would have seen that I did not assume that acceleration is constant, what I did was took the average acceleration from 0-60 mph, and I also fixed that miscalculation pointed out by wmquan on my second post.
BTW, Edmunds' numbers are always a little conservative, but it is consistent across the board. C&D's numbers are always faster than Edmunds, C&D listed the 02 MDX with 20 less HP than the 03 at 0-60 in 7.9 sec.

fedlawman · April 2003

greenlantern - Actually, I said that I'd rather have a 330xi SEDAN than an X5. Of course, I'd rather have a 330i than a 330Xi...and an M3 instead of a 330i.

learn2fly - Relax dude. This discussion will run its course in due time...and I rather enjoyed the go-carts and physics lesson. This is critical information that everyone should take into consideration when shopping for a new vehicle!

wmquan · April 2003

Please don't forget that many publications perform their acceleration tests in different ways. E.g. when and how much do they rev the engine, work the gears, etc. I'd imagine there are some 0-60 times you could pull if you didn't care about the durability of the transmission.

The folks at Motor Week usually pull pretty fast times. A 2001 MDX (somewhat lighter than the 2003, but with 20 less HP) was clocked 0-60 in 7.6 seconds, and the quarter-mile in 15.9 seconds @ 87 mph. In a separate test (possibly under somewhat different conditions), they clocked a 2001 X5 3.0i 0-60 in 7.8 seconds, and the quarter-mile in 15.8 seconds @ 89 mph.

What I like about comparos like the one Car & Driver did is that the vehicles were clocked under much more similar conditions.

A better comparison to the X5 may be drawn with the Infiniti FX45. The FX45 is certainly more than a tenth of a second faster than the X5 3.0i, at a similar price (MotorWeek listed 0-60 as 6.3 seconds). Actually has somewhat more cargo space (such as it is, still not comparable to true mid-sized SUV's). Probably better reliability than an X5 too.

hopeitsfriday · April 2003

Damn, we finally agree on something, I guess pigs do fly LMAO.

greenlatern · April 2003

Average is no better than constant -- it takes either iron on the street or a REAL good simulation to find the difference in car lengths at a given point in time. I stand by my claim, you proved nothing. The MDX accelerates faster to 60 and is 1/10 sec faster to 1320 ft; but C&D proved that.

fedlawman -- the 330xi is a nice sedan but just as tight for the driver as the 325xi wagon. Trust me, if you live with nice weather the 5 series is the answer as a people hauler.

quan -- you are correct. For the most part I find the numbers to be junk; you don't drive numbers. Since there is so much variation (including temp, humidity and altitude) its wise to at least use a single source doing a comparo.

fedlawman · April 2003

I'm with ya. The 5 series may be the most perfect sedan on the planet.

Of course, if you buy a 3 series or even the X5, people hauling is not one of your top priorities. That's where the MDX steps in...

hopeitsfriday · April 2003

Wow, FX45 0-60 in 6.3 Sec., those are numbers that the X5 cannot touch no matter what varible you throw in there. If one is looking for a SUV that performs well, the FX45 may be the X5 killer.

bodble2 · April 2003

greenlatern · April 2003

When I speak of "people hauler" I'm thinking about taking 4 people in comfort, not "how many can I cram in here?" There the 5 series wins out as its quieter, smoother and almost as roomy as an X5. X5 passenger and cargo volume are larger than any other BMW SEDAN aside from the 7 series.

The FX has great numbers but I have yet to see one in person as Infiniti dealers are rare around here. Had it been around a couple years ago I might have considered it although I'm not a fan of its styling.

hopeitsfriday · April 2003

4 people in comfort is nice, but alot of people haulers out there can fit 5-6 people in comfort. Trust me when I say that no one is being cram in there. They are every bit as comfortable as they would be in a X5. In some cases, even more comfortable because the ride is not as harsh as the X5's. The numbers may say that the X5 is roomier than the 5 series but I did not notice much difference between the two as far as space in the driver seat is concerned, both are a little limited in my opinion. One good thing about space for alot of people is that those space can turn into cargo space when not hauling people. Fold down the third row seats or play around with the second roll seat's configurations, and you will have one heck of a cargo space.

mrbluetooth · April 2003

As I've just posted on the X5 board, when I made my X5 purchase just over two years ago, a key consideration for me was roominess and acceptable cargo space. For a family of four, both conditions were easily met. The X5 felt roomier in front and much more so for the rear passengers compared to the 5 series wagon, my second choice. Makes a big difference when you have a car seat or two in back.

Yes, cargo space is lacking when compared to other SUVs, but with the seats folded down it's been good enough for my occasional trips to Home Depot.

I'm sure the FX45 is a stellar performer, but as you know, it's not always about 0-60 for many of us. The X5 sold me on its styling, performance, handling, passive and active safety, added ride height, AWD, and overall feeling of solidity and control. Plus a few nifty features such as PDC and rear sunshades. It's been reliable thus far, and the maintenance program doesn't hurt either.

I think Infiniti's design philosophy is to try to "wow" you with their radical designs at first, but unfortunately, after a couple of years (if not sooner), they fall out of fashion. I mean, name a single Infiniti model that had been memorable in a good way. I can't. IMHO of course.

bodble2 · April 2003

Time may prove the G35 coupe to be the one. We'll have to wait & see.

wwest · April 2003

SC430

No, wait, sorry, it just looks like the FX.

hopeitsfriday · April 2003

I think Nissan's claim to fame is the Z car, everything else is pale in comparaision.

maxhonda99 · April 2003

hopeitsfriday,

You know, I remember back when I used to take my car to the racetrack. At the 1/4 mile point, a 1/2 second difference used to translate to about 2 car lengths. So how a 5-car length difference appears at 60mph for a 1/2 second difference defies logic.

fedlawman · April 2003

What about the 510, Maxima, and Pathfinder?

510 - the Japanese BMW 2002...still a winner at SCCA events.

Maxima - historically, V-6 performance at a 4 cyl Accord price since the 80's.

Pathfinder - since the 80's, one of the best SUV's on the market.

hopeitsfriday · April 2003

I think there was like three post by me on those numbers. I believe the finally post ( post #524 ) had calculations of 19 feet for half of a second difference in 0-60. Those numbers are pretty consistent to what you have seen on the drag race tracks. See, there is something to all this math mumble jumble.

hopeitsfriday · April 2003

Those are nice cars by Nissan, but hardly classics. Nissan has been making some really nice cars the last 5 to 6 years, but for one reason or another, they do not sell well. The Nissan Corp. almost went bankrupt 2 years ago because sales fail to improve after heavy investments. I believe there is some in-tangible factor here that no one can explain. Nissan's car always looks good on paper. So why doesn't Nissan's car lead in sales number and what is keeping people from being repeated buyer of Nissan.

maxhonda99 · April 2003

hopeitsfriday,

Sorry about that. There were too many posts posted over the weekend, therefore didn't bother reading alot of them.

shadowbox · April 2003

I am looking to lease an SUV. I have narrowed it down to the MDX and the X5 3.0. I have test driven both of them. I prefer the way the X5 feels. The MDX definitely felt a little more powerful, but it was a negligable difference. It was a close call. The MDX also felt very nice. But, I currently drive a 325xi wagon, and I love it and the X5 really felt similar. (Although obviously bigger.)
I like the way the BMW looks inside and out much better than the MDX. It really comes down to 2 things-Cargo space and price. The MDX is bigger and less expensive.

But here is the real problem. If you price out an Acura with navigation its 41,000. There are no discounts. The current lease on this for 39m/12000miles, zero down, tax in payment is about $670/month.

I can get a BMW with auto,prem,cold,clim, nav, heated steering, park distance, for $47,550. This is with a discount. The lease on this for 36m/12000miles, zero down, tax in payment is $712. Also, I get an additional $1000 rebate from BMW car club of america since I currently own a BMW and would be buying another. If I factor that in the lease becomes $680 per month. Also the MDX was a 39 month lease not 36 which is another plus in the BMW column.

So there you have it. I can get an X5 slightly better equipped for about the same price as the MDX touring with Nav.(The X5 has a 61% value after 3 years as opposed to the MDX which is 57%. This makes the BMW lease better. Money factor is about the same.)

Is the cargo space in the MDX so much better that I should go with that if I can get the X5 for the same money? (Actually a little less.)
Looking for honest opinions. Thanks...

hopeitsfriday · April 2003

Honest opinion, If you can lease a X5 for the same price as the MDX, I would pick the X5 if you dont need the space. Then again, I would never lease a car to start with, just doesnt make sense financially. BTW, I am pretty sure you can get a better lease than the $670 a month for the MDX.
When I was looking for a SUV, it came down to those two as well, the XC90 being in 3rd place. When pricing it for purchase, and where I am, there is very little room for negotiation for the X5, the X5 was about 7 to 8 thousands dollars more than the MDX.

shadowbox · April 2003

Thanks Hope. For various reasons, a lease is better for me. As far as getting the MDX lease less than $670, I don't know. I priced it out with a dealer and he gave me the print out. The money factor isn't going to change much. If it does Acura adjusts the residual rate so it balances out. You can pay the bank fee or taxes up front and that gets your price down. But in a lease its best to put as little as possible up front. Both leases in my example are configured exactly the same: no money down, no security deposit, tax in payment. Amount due at start= first month payment+bank fee+inspection+registration. Only difference was MDX was 39 month lease. Either way you are looking at $660-680 for MDX with touring navigation.

I think I am going to go with the BMW. But I am a little worried about the cargo space.

wwest · April 2003

The last time I did a "build your own" for an X5 there was a pop-up declaring a really special lease rate..

wmquan · April 2003

If leasing is for you, good lease deals tend to change from the purchasing perspective. The X5's included scheduled maintenance (36 months, subject to their definition of scheduled maintenance) will certainly help your out-of-pocket cost.

Is the cargo space in the MDX so much better that I should go with that if I can get the X5 for the same money?

It isn't that it's "so much better," it's whether or not it matters to you. It comes down to how you use your vehicles to carry items. The MDX has nearly 50 cubic feet behind the second row, while the X5 has only 16, IIRC. The X5's may be enough if that's your routine load (similar to a decent-sized trunk), and you can fold down the seats for some more room. Whereas the MDX will swallow a Costco shopping cart full of items along with kids in the second row.

wwest · April 2003

the X5 makes for lack of hauling space by providing decent legroom front and rear simultaneously.

wmquan · April 2003

The X5 may have lots of passenger room compared to a compact 3-series vehicle. But the MDX has 2.4" more front legroom and 2.8" more rear legroom. The MDX is longer in length albeit shorter in wheelbase, and of course wider.

Still, the X5 is quite acceptable for a lot of buyers, especially if they're okay with the cargo room.

tomtomtom · April 2003

ARe you going to fill up the cargo space all the time or you might need the space one or twice a month? Since the money is almost the same, just pick the one you feel most comfortable driving or the one in your favorite color.

hopeitsfriday · April 2003

I see a problem with your logic. If he does lease the X5, how many times will he use the cargo space in the back, once a month the most. Therefore he should stay with his 318XI or maybe trade the 318 in for a mini cooper, no wasted cargo space in that car because there is no cargo space.

wwest · April 2003

Is legroom quoted as simultaneous or rear legroom max only if front seats are all the way forward?

tomtomtom · April 2003

If you decided to look at it from that angle, that's fine. The answer would be yes. But if Shadowbox wants a SUV because he/she wants to have a higher seating position than the minicooper won't do. However, by the way you wrote, it looks like you wanted to start an argument with me.

hopeitsfriday · April 2003

I am not trying to start an argument with you, sorry if it sounded that way. I am trying to say people dont just buy SUV for higher sitting position, if that was the case, then you can get the same from a pick up truck, cargo van, matrix, PT cruiser or a minivan. Most people buy SUV for cargo space and traction. I just didnt agree with you when you say space dont matter. Although there is this strange trend of making SUV perform like roasters, still dont understand that one yet.

tomtomtom · April 2003

Shadowbox asked the question and I gave my opion. If that extra cargo space is absolutely neccesary I guess Shadowbox wouldn't have asked the question. So I am guessing Shadowbox would like to have the X5 for his/her day to day drivng but want the MDX's extra cargo space for the "just in case" situation...so how many times in a year that "just in case" situation happens should determine what to buy. Agree?

mrbluetooth · April 2003

Since you like the 3 series, you'll like the X5 but for the cargo space. I Agree with tomtomtom's logic. Shadowbox - what exactly are you planning to do with the cargo space? If you're planning to move large volumes of items on a regular basis, I think you're actually better off with something with more cargo space than either the X or the MDX. If you were thinking of transporting a washer or dryer or big screen TV, you probably would want to pay the $50 to have them deliver it to you.

You may want to visit both dealerships again just to check out the cargo spaces of both vehicles and visualize how you're going to use the space.

shadowbox · April 2003

Thanks for all the advice. I really appreciate it. It's a tough decision. I probably wouldn't need the cargo space more than once or twice a month. If that. it's just nice to know you ahve it when you need it. My Brother in-law has the 5-series wagon, and has said he wished on more than one occasion that he had more cargo room. And the X5 doesn't even have as much as the 525. My latest thinking is that I don't really care for the acura styling that much. At least its not a factor in choosing it. So maybe I should look at the Honda Pilot. Basically the same car. This I could probably lease for mid 500s. About 100 less than BMW. That may be worth it. Maybe I will check out the Toyota Highlander also. My preference for the X5 is not its luxury status but the way it drives. I liked the way the Acura drove as well. So if the pilot feels the same, that may be the way to go. Thanks.

fedlawman · April 2003

The Datsun 510 isn't a classic?

Now I know why you consider the MDX "sporty."

JBaumgart · April 2003

Hey, that was very first new car ever - a 1972 Gold beauty that cost me all of $2,400 brand new. I'll never forget driving it home from the dealer that first evening, proud as can be, when the lights started to fade and the blinkers would no longer function, and my pride quickly turned into major embarrassment and then anger, as my wife said, "I knew we should have bought the Pinto." Turns out the battery was draining because they didn't tighten the alternator pulley at the factory, which was quickly fixed the next day in the driveway when we could see what we were doing. Not too long after that it developed this recurring problem of not wanting to start on rainy/foggy/misty days, and more than once I needed a push in order to "pop the clutch." Despite many tries to fix the carberator, nobody could ever get it to work reliably, so I always used to pray that it wouldn't rain so I knew I wouldn't get stranded.

Anyway when it did start on sunny days, it was a pretty good driving car, for its day and for the money it cost anyway, but it must be said that the bodies on those things were just terrible. Mine got very rusty, with major holes in the fenders and at the bottom of the doors, before it hit its fifth birthday. After completely wasting $500 on some body work (the holes reappeared in about 6 months) we finally sold it and bought the Pinto (just kidding).

P.S. My first car ever (used) was a '67 BMW 1600 which I bought at 72,000 miles - paid $900 for it and drove it until the odometer hit 120,000. Somewhere in there the entire exhaust system went out, and it cost more to replace it all then I had paid for the car. Let's just say that both BMW and Datsun (Nissan) have come a LONG ways since those days!

fedlawman · April 2003

Great story! They sure don't build cars like that anymore.

Back in 1989, I competed at Solo II events with my '86 CR-X Si (modified D, thanks to Jackson Racing cam, headers, and exhaust). There was a guy who ran a moderately tuned 510 with racing slicks who consistently ran the fastest, or second fastest times of the course. He was a heck of a driver and his Datsun was sweet!

Volvo XC90 vs MB M Class vs Acura MDX vs Lexus RX 350 vs BMW X5 vs Cadillac SRX

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles