The definition of "slow"

[1X83Z]

Why are they a bad investment, I still don't understand? Sure, a NEW truck from the other brands might be as good, but why spend all that cash? And how is buying a reliable vehicle, which clearly has great resale, a bad investment?

Because you're buying it USED. Duh? People don't seem to understand that saying "bad resale" is simply another way of saying "good used deal" and "good resale" is another way of saying "bad used deal." If you're buying a car used, you want to look at one who has depreciated MORE. Toyota trucks DO NOT DEPRECIATE along with the rest of the market and are therefore a terrible investment, since you can get a '96 Explorer for about half the price of a '96 4Runner, or an old Ranger for the same price as an old Toyota pickup.

As I said: "if all you need is a reliable engine, you could get a truck that does that job for half - or better - what a used Toyota truck costs."

 

[neanderthal]

he's saying that toyotas don't depreciate as much as other brands.

of course theres a reason for that. they just go and go and go. my moms uncle who is still in zimbabwe, has a 1958 (i think) stout on its original engine. been freshedned up since new of course, but still uses it. we had tons of old toyotas there that were still servicable and took abuse you wouldnt imagine. they are great trucks. tough. but overpriced in the second hand market.

as for the quip about pre 91 BMWs; how about a competitor for the E30 M3.

 

[1X83Z]

he's saying that toyotas don't depreciate as much as other brands.

I know - which makes them awful used buys:

they are great trucks. tough. but overpriced in the second hand market.

Agree fully.

as for the quip about pre 91 BMWs; how about a competitor for the E30 M3.

For $15000, which seems to be the going rate? You could get any number of things - Chevrolet Camaro Z28, old Chevrolet Corvette, Ford Mustang Cobra, Lexus SC400, old Mercedes SL, Pontiac Firebird Trans Am, Plymouth Prowler, old Porsche 911 (though they're expensive used too), Volvo C70, or any of those Japanese muscle cars that everyone seems to love so much - Mazda RX-7, Mitsubishi 3000GT, Nissan 300ZX, Subaru SVX, Toyota Supra. The E30 M3 is an experience, but so's maintaining and insuring it.

 

[neanderthal]

more than i would have thought of. they all have the power, but only the 911, corvette, cobra and RX7 would approximate the handling. and i add the cobra reluctantly.

but theres nothing "special" about them. however, the M3, or should i say that M3, has an aura about it, a "dont fark with me. i'm a champion and i will school you" mystique that it just carries. you look at it and you immediately know its no ordinary E30. its not just the wheel arches, its not just the spoilers, its not just the stance or wheels. its the whole package; the swollen fenders, the purposeful wing and spoiler, the wheels, the increased track etc.

of course im biased though. i believe it is head and shoulders above any vehicle of that approximate time period, and i think, rightly so.

 

[1X83Z]

of course im biased though. i believe it is head and shoulders above any vehicle of that approximate time period, and i think, rightly so.

I agree - not only of that time period, but of some years to come. Though I actually prefer the M3 sedan to any other M3.

I'd say the E30 M3 is a great car and worth every penny, but I'm weary of its mechanical reliability. Pre-92 BMWs don't exactly have a great reputation, particularly high mileage ones, and when something breaks, it's not cheap to fix - that's the only reason I single them out. Why, for instance, should I pay $4700 for a 16-year-old 325iX with 130k on it when I could have for $3000 an eleven-year-old Talon TSi AWD with 90k and better handling and acceleration, not to mention better reliability? (or at least cheaper maintenance costs)

 

[JNasty4G63]

.....when I could have for $3000 an eleven-year-old Talon TSi AWD with 90k and better handling and acceleration, not to mention better reliability? (or at least cheaper maintenance costs)

HA HA HA HA!!!!! You just used the words "Talon AWD" and "reliability" in the same sentance. Thats funny. As the owner of a '97 TSi AWD, and previously owning 3 other turbo DSMs, I can tell you first hand, they are NOT reliable. Yes, they are fast and handle fairly well stock. But reliable, I think not. They can sneak up on you and break faster than any other kind of car I've ever owned. But, for speed to dollars, they are hard to beat. That why I love them. I've owned enough of them, I know whats going to break, so its no big deal when it does. And, I know what to replace the broken part with, so it doesn't happen again. My current Talon runs low 11s, and has better mileage and reliability than when it was new.

Hilg

 

[Blackbird.]

Dodge Stealths don't look reliable either. Their spoilers are kind wonky too.

 

[1X83Z]

Yes, they are fast and handle fairly well stock. But reliable, I think not. They can sneak up on you and break faster than any other kind of car I've ever owned. But, for speed to dollars, they are hard to beat. That why I love them.

Me too.

And for the price of an '89 325iX, one could have a well-maintained low-mileage '94 TSi AWD. If it wasn't modded to hell, it should be if not reliable certainly MORE reliable than the high-mileage significantly older BMW.

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

Wait a second....

In your list of "Japanese supercars everyone loves" you included....

Subaru SVX? Hell, I can count on one hand th enumber of times I've ever heard anyone even talk about them, and on one finger the times I've seen one.

 

[puricele7e]

Going back to slow cars, my dad drives the best supercar ever, it's called :
The Ford Galaxy: 1.9 litres diesel 90HP, 0-60 in about 19 seconds and tops downhill at like 180 kmh (on the Autobahn that is)

Oh, it's 1996 model and weighs empty like 1.8tonnes, with the whole family over 2 .

Sometimes it's worrying not being able to overtake a 1.1L econo-box and blocking 2 ways of traffic in the process........And especially the third lane is a....supersonic lane here, so my dad is really nervous when 2 trucks are on the first 2 lanes and he has to get on the 3rd to overtake, he's afraid to be bumped by some fast-moving trafic from behind....

Duh......old diesels have very good fuel consumptions (6L/100km) because europeans DO care about that, but performance-wise.....well......go figure

 

[1X83Z]

Wait a second....

In your list of "Japanese supercars everyone loves" you included....

Subaru SVX? Hell, I can count on one hand th enumber of times I've ever heard anyone even talk about them, and on one finger the times I've seen one.

From an economic standpoint, it's pretty much the same deal as the rest of them - Japanese, two-door, front-engine, RWD/AWD, sporty looks and character, huge development cost, image-boosting goals, and eventual late-90s flop blamed on the economy. Performance was off, but when I discuss those cars I usually toss that one in there.

I don't know why you guys never see mildly rare cars. Though SVXs are making the transition from 'mildly rare' to 'super-rare.' Oddly I saw an SVX today - good idea for up here because of its AWD. While those other Japanese supercars slide around on the ice (with the exception of the 3000GT VR-4) you can get decent performance and handling with the bonus of all-weather traction. Iowa plates though

 

[skip0110]

From an economic standpoint, it's pretty much the same deal as the rest of them - Japanese, two-door, front-engine, RWD/AWD, sporty looks and character, huge development cost, image-boosting goals, and eventual late-90s flop blamed on the economy. Performance was off, but when I discuss those cars I usually toss that one in there.

Except this was Subaru's first really heavy car, and some parts were not really up to par with the weight. The brake rotors, for example--they are notorious for warping.

Not really that fast either, but a good, reasonbly fast luxurious sled. With windows like a Countach.

 

[1X83Z]

Except this was Subaru's first really heavy car, and some parts were not really up to par with the weight. The brake rotors, for example--they are notorious for warping.

Still - economic standpoint, same deal.

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

I was more going at the "everyone loves" part, as there seem to be very few people who even know what they are, much less likes them.

 

[boombexus]

Only Doug will bring up 0-60 times of a SUV. (Refer to his Hemi thread.)

I do, positively, absolutely agree that the Toyota 4Runner is insanely overpriced, used.
But I do strongly disagree why Doug holds 0-60 times as the premier and utmost deciding characteristic of performance of a SUV vehicles. I think Doug fails to realize that people actually buy these vehicles based on their other performance charcteristics. Whether these vehicles can haul insane amounts of people (refer to Famine's post) or traverse difficult terrain as the 4Runner could do.

Doug has chastized me before for buying a 1990 Subaru Legacy station wagon. With close to 200K on the dial.
But I tell you, that piece of garbage car does 0-60 in an eternity on a dry road, but on an icy and snowpacked road which I regularly drive for 8 months of the year, it acclerates faster than my Lexus IS 300, which, with my mods, boasts about 245 HP at the crank, while my Subaru has 130 (brand new) at the crank.

But according to Doug, the Lexus IS 300 is the better car cus it's faster to 60, even though the Subaru smokes, wait, annaialates, the Lexus to 60 on snowpacked roads.

But what the hell do 0-60 times mean in the real world? Not a gawd damn thing when you factor in weather and terrain conditions. Which is what the 4Runner was designed for. (Adverse terrain and weather conditions. And maybe towing. [You know it's true Doug])

My piece of garbage 1990 Subaru with a good set of snow tires and its AWD is damn near unstopable in the snow and ice, and in the summer, it can conqure offroad terrain with relative ease that my IS3 could NEVER, EVER, consider going. My IS3 is a dog when it is not on dry, paved roads. But, according to Doug, the Lexus IS 300 should be the best buy based solely on 0-60 times. Fast 0-60 times means that the vehicle in question can go ANYWHERE through ANY type of road/weather conditions.

Doug, you're still insane.
You should adopt sn0000pie as your first child, and you can't judge a SUV solely based on it's 0-60 times.
Like I've said before, 0-60 times of a SUV are irrelevant, and they are especially irrelevant on a '90-'95 4Runner. These vehicles were on the market WAY before you or your soccer mom friends had gotten their hands on them.

Don't get me wrong Doug, I still love you and I completely respect your knowledge of vehicles, but I think you are dead wrong in your judging of SUV's. (Omitting the price point of a used 4Runner.)

 

[1X83Z]

For some reason people actually think when I quote 0-60 times that I care about what the number is. The only reason I care about 0-60 times is because they are the most-understood measure of acceleration. When I say a vehicle does 0-60 in 20 seconds, I don't honestly care - but when I say it people understand very easily that it's relatively slow.

Plus - I'm not judging the 4Runner at all based on the 0-60 time. I never even said it was a bad car. In fact, I like all 4Runners but the first generation (the models in question are second-generation). I'm just saying it's slow - note the thread title.

the Lexus IS 300 should be the best buy based solely on 0-60 times.

Not at all. Price and power are the most solid determinate of best buys to me. Anyway, read above - people who obsess over 0-60 times are stupid. People who quote 0-60 times as a means of describing a vehicle's acceleration are considerably more reasonable.

I was more going at the "everyone loves" part, as there seem to be very few people who even know what they are, much less likes them.

They'd love 'em if they knew what they were.

 

[PublicSecrecy]

It depends, really. The Accord Hybrid is a rocketship; it's the most powerful, quickest, and fastest Accord sedan ever. But it's not doing much better than 30mpg. For major fuel savings, you need to get a quiet, relatively gutless car like the Prius, which gets, says the EPA, 57.5mpg.

59mpg according to an observation mae by C&D.

For some reason people actually think when I quote 0-60 times that I care about what the number is. The only reason I care about 0-60 times is because they are the most-understood measure of acceleration. When I say a vehicle does 0-60 in 20 seconds, I don't honestly care - but when I say it people understand very easily that it's relatively slow.

Well put! Why do people care about how fast a car's 0-60 time is anyway? It's only usefull if you're going to drive around everywhere flooring it, which will, to say the least, get major cop attention and set you back 50$ every time you see a green light. Just cruising around the city or comming on to the highway we do 0-60 in about 11-13 seconds and its my mom behind the wheel, who is totally paranoid, suggesting that our lowly TOYOTA Tercel has much more potential.