Luxury car vs economy car
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /o/ - Auto
You are currently reading a thread in /o/ - Auto
So, I'm left with the decision to either get a car similar to a 1991 cadillac seville which I love the aesthetics of or a car like the toyota camry which I don't but saves me money. I'll have to commute 100 miles total each day and am not sure which car I should get. A car I like the look of but has worse fuel economy or an ugly car with a better fuel economy.
Which decision would you make and do you think the difference in fuel economy is that big of a deal?
If you're driving 100 miles each day, the camry is your best bet. As much as I like Cadillacs, that Seville won't be able to take that much punishment for as long as the Camry will, and the camry is much more reliable.
>>14002274
The Seville is a terrible car, and I would advise against it. Not sure what the market you're in is like, but check out if e30s are reasonable. They would be a very nice middle ground for you with more luxury and aesthetics than a camry and better gas mileage than a Seville (from the experiences of my friends). They can usually be found for around $2000 where I am, but some markets have seen them jump in price recently. They are very durable cars and easy to work on, but they will bleed you dry if you pay a shop to fix/maintain it for you.
If you like the K body series, consider the Buick and Pontiac's with the 2.5 liter, which did a modest high 20's on the highway.
The truth though is that those body style cars have COMPLETELY devalued and are all worth less than $2K. There are newer more efficient cars in that price range.
I grew up in a Delta 88 that looked just like your picture. It was a roomy car, but nothing special. You can do a lot better. Look into the late 90's STS or Eldorado if you're going to buy a 4.9 equipped K.
Damn. Well, do you think there is some kind of alternative that would meet a compromise? I like boxy type cars and have some opportunities in the area to get a 1992 Lincoln town car, a 1990 chrysler imperial or a 1985 Ford LTD. I just want a car that is good at commuting but isn't boring looking or ugly.
Are there nice commuters that fit what I am looking for or should I just stop being a bitch and get a car that makes sense?
https://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/cto/5348798312.html
Would that be a decent buy if it ran well?
>>14002343
>https://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/cto/5348798312.html
If it runs well and you're able to wrench on it yourself it would probably be pretty good. I'd be worried about the lowering job done on it though. Also, check the condition of the drive shaft, it's the one weak point in the car's drive train. There is also a wealth of information about those cars for any diy repairs you have to make. There's a reason my friend's dad has 7 of them.
Yes, there are alternatives. One thing first, let me strongly suggest you look for a car that has the engine facing front to back. Sideways or (transversely) mounted engines have much weaker drivetrains and cost more to repair because of their tight packaging. Every GM K series and W body are transverse. Sideways engine's get higher MPG because there's fewer rotating parts, but the downside is that they break far more often, and in a 20-30 year old car you can't afford it.
Secondly, the only reliable drivetrain to look for by GM in that era is the 3800 which was in Buicks, Pontiacs, and Oldsmobiles. Cadillac uses the 4.5, 4.9, and Northstar. The first two are reliable but are gas hogs. The Northstar is a mechanical nightmare. If I were you I'd look for a Buick or Pontiac with the 3800 that came with all the options including leather. An example of this would be an 87-90 Oldsmobile Ninty-Eight.
The Chrysler Imperial is a labor of love. It can be made to work, but I'd advise avoiding it, given your transportation needs. The Town Car and LTD are better ideas. Both are rear wheel drive with the correct engine orientation. I'd suggest the Town Car over the LTD. Very very very reliable cars. People sell them because they look old, not because there's anything wrong with them. Avoid models with air suspension though.
I don't know if it fits your tastes, but Mercedes 300e's are boxy from that period and was one of the best built cars in automotive history. Fuel economy is in the low 20's, but the car will never break down, and be a lot sportier than a Camry. Picture related. It's a ~$2000 car, with a $1000 set of wheels.
I think its good to be practical, but its also import to enjoy yourself. I went through a phase where I stopped owning high power sports cars and had a fleet of boring Japanese luxury boxes. Nothing ever broke, and I was bored. BMW was a good middle ground for me. Practical and for the most part reliable and well engineered.
>>14002343
>Would that be a decent buy if it ran well.
Only if you know how to wrench. German cars are for people who know what they're doing. Otherwise, it can be a costly mistake.
I'd suggest the benz over the 3 series, its bulletproof. Not to say the 325 isn't a good car, it is, its just not the kind of car you find in the Saharan desert.
I forgot about Volvo! The King of boxes! Everything they made from the 80 and 90's were good. Again, having the engine go to the back wheels was more reliable.
>>14002366
I'm not a mechanic and have never worked on a car before but I fancy myself a quick learner and I love learning new things. Would it be a hassle as a first car to maintain myself? Would it break down or have random bullshit happen all the time? I was considering raising it if I got it since I don't like lowered vehicles.I'd check for any damage underneath since I had a 94 integra a while back that was lowered and damaged to shit.
>>14002372
Mercedes 300e's look nice. Do you recommend any type of year?
>>14002390
Yeah, the volvo is nice and I've heard it can even get passed a million miles and still keep trucking. All of the ones I can find in my area look like they are in shit condition, though.
>>14002392
Honestly yes, I'd say an e30 is one of the easiest cars to maintain yourself. It's all very simple if you're mechanically inclined. Do your readings before jumping in on anything though. If you feel confidant that you could say change the timing belt and you know what the maintenance items are then I would say it would be fine.
>>14002392
I would only recommend that three series if you're really feeling adventurous. A car that's been modified like that means someone had complete liberty to do a lot of things to the car. You might be starting with a real rats nest, you never know. But hey, that's how my first car was, and I learned a lot. Just be aware you're walking into something that could potentially take MONTHS of your time away. If you want to get into wrenching on the weekends though, not a problem.
Anyway, the 300E was a good car from beginning to finish. They're all completely devaluated, so they all roughly cost the same, so you should look into the early 90's models. Go to Autotrader and search 300e within 200 miles for under $3k. Look for a clean one in a color you like. Done. The 300E is one of the Mercedes that was known to do a million miles. It is better engineered than the Volvo is. If that's a quality that impresses you, I highly recommend the Benz. People tend to take better care of them than the Volvo's, which are literally driven into the ground.
Here's an example of one I found on Craigslist a few states from me. Less than $2k for a car that will reliably go to 500K miles without much more than tires, oil, and brakes. If you like the color white.
http://southernautodeals.net/1990-MercedesBenz-300/Used-Car/Marietta-GA/6505810/Details.aspx
Thanks for all the advice, guys. I really appreciate it and you have no idea how much this helps.
