What vehicle would *you* buy if you were given $28K?

In My Humble Opinion
101

Oh, goody. Car wars!
quote:

I have no idea what it is with the people (and I was one of them at one time) that makes a them spend $3K on an old car, sink triple what its worth into it in parts, and even more of your time or labor, just to make it “phat”, “go fast” and best of all, get the right “sound”.

When all is said an done, its still an old car worth 1/4 - 1/3 of what you put into it.

I so agree with Sam here, I’ve been driving since I was 14, have owned several different used cars since I was 17 and a half, and in all that time, with all the cars I’ve owned, computing their original price AND all their repairs, I’ve not come close to the cost of a new car.

And I never had to spend the 5 years struggling to pay 600 bucks a month for a new car either!! I got to spend that money on having fun, going on trips, etc. The cars I had (except my classic which is in the process of restoration) were decent looking and pretty darn reliable too.

102

i would buy a 3 year old Toyota camry with a warranty and pocket the rest. I view cars as utilitarian vehicles.

However, if i were forced to choose based solely on looks, then i would choose a late 80’s Ford F-150 Flareside with 36" tires & an 8" lift. I don’t like how the new F-150’s look, they are too aerodynamic. The late 80’s models were box shaped and much nicer to the eye.

103

A 1996 Toyota Camry and then I’d pocket the rest of the money.

104

Yeah it is an estimate, but I did not think you would believe me when I say that I have seen them at the track and they do not run 13’s - C&D’s estimate is just about right.

“Well under 13 seconds” - NOT!!! If they are then they are not stock.

105

Eh, four wheel drive cars don’t launch well. Unless you burn the clutch out so horribly you can’t imagine.

And the quarter mile isn’t everything, B&I… but let’s stop hijacking the thread. You don’t care about anything but driving a quarter mile at a time, and the rest of us don’t really care about that. For your purposes, the best car ever invented is the Buick Grand National, clearly.

If other people think it looks like a sloppy piece of junk, what does it matter to you?

106

I said Grand National engine because another poster to the thread mentioned Buick Regal you dumbass

AWD cars do launch well you dumbass - it they had any real power they would keep getting it you dumbass.

“…the rest of us”??? So now you speak for the rest of the board?

If you wish to limit the hijack stop the personal attacks you dumbass - I was replying to 1/4 mile talk that I did not start.

Why would you say “For your purposes, the best car ever invented is the Buick Grand National, clearly.” I sure have not glutted over it even though it does look way better than most of the stuff mentioned here

107

B&I, be cool, I’m just referring to the earlier thread where we had the discussion and you were talking about the glories of the Grand National. I know you love the car.

AWD cars don’t launch all that well… they bog at start because there’s no wheelspin at all. You really have to work the clutch from a standing start to get the optimum numbers. Anyone got last month’s Car and Driver, the STi vs Evo article, where they talk about this? You can do it, but it’ll mean you get a new clutch at racing intervals, not at 100,000 miles.

As for the “rest of us”, I was talking about the people mentioning the STi or Evo. Not the rest of the board, just the people who happen to like them. Or the people who like rice rockets, or anything besides Stangs, Camaros, and 80s Ford Iron.

For your purposes, according to your claims, in said previous thread, the Grand National is a really excellent car for the quarter mile. At least, you seem to like it.

I’m pretty sure it’d get its tail waxed in a rally course, mind you. But that’s because a rally course is the complete antithesis of what you’re doing with it.

Gimmie a sec… searching…

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=152957&perpage=50&highlight=grand%20national%20focus&pagenumber=2

Good thread.

Oooh, hey, car to add to list: Caterham Super 7. Mmmmm. Skateboardlicious.

Or, of course, my dad’s toy.

http://www.chuckbeckmotorsports.com/index.shtml

Not that expensive, and has 350 horse under the hood. Scary. 4.5 to sixty.

Hey, how about a bike? Wouldn’t mind, if I had the time, a ground-up rebuild of a '49 Indian. Shouldn’t be that expensive. Or how about that new Harley? The one that’s not a V-Twin?

108

B&I: Sorry, I meant “Well under 14 seconds”.

Go to www.roadandtrack.com and read for yourself. Their performance comparison of the Evo and STi is there (I can’t post a link because it’s too long).

Here are there results:

0-60

Evo: 4.8 Seconds
STi: 5 seconds

1/4 Mile

Evo: 13.4 seconds
STi: 13.3 seconds

So there you go. My numbers were dead on. These are fast cars. Faster than almost all the Detroit muscle cars of the 60’s. Why do they go so fast? Lack of wheelspin. Modern, sticky tires, coupled with AWD, means that all that power translates straight into forward motion. Having owned a 425 HP '67 Camaro, I can tell you that most of that power went into making noise and white smoke for the first 100 ft, in street trim. By the time the power really digs in, the Evo or STi would already be a long way down the road.

BTW, both of those cars can be made significantly faster just by re-chipping them to increase turbo boost. The Sti in particular is probably good for at least another 50-100 HP that way. So let’s not compare stock vehicles to others with “1K in mods”.

109

You know, there’s not that much of a difference, conceptually, between a 60s muscle car and a WRX or Evo.

You take a small sedan. Like a Lancer or Legacy. Then you stuff it full of the best racing goodness you have. Depends on the era, but what you get out of it is the best enthusiast’s car you can buy that’s not an exotic. Mmm.

So, for 28K, what can you buy? 60’s Charger? Wouldn’t mind one of those. Something about the rear quarterpanels really works for me.

110

Nobody ever said buying a new car was a wise investment.

However, the posts in questions were not about “cheap basic transportation, used Civic style” It was about muscle. Plain and simple. Strap a 350 on a lawnmower style. Milage? Fuel economy? What the hell is that? We’re talking 396 on 2 tons of American iron.

So, assume you have the money to buy a new car. It’s given to you. If you can afford either it really depends what you want to do and how much aggrivation you are willing to put up with. If you want to have “peace of mind” and comfort of a new vehicle, than yes, it might make all the sense in the world to spend the dough. Fuel economy, air bags, reliability, yadda.

So, you can:

Buy a $3000 car, sink $5000 in it nice. Continuely sink more money and time in it every 6 months (as most cars tend to nickle/dime as they age). Sell for $3000. Repeat.
[sub]NOTE If you are happy doing this, than all the power to you![/sub]

OR

Do your research and spend $28K (or $15K if thats what you can afford) on a car that holds its value well (such as many Japanese cars). Don’t sink a dime into it for 5+ years (other than regular maintenence). If you purchase wisely, you’ll easily save hundreds in fuel costs alone per year.

I will admit and not dispute in the slightest, if you play your cards right and buy a good, recent used car you can have the best of both worlds.

In hindsight, I should have been clearer with my OP as I was hoping to get opinions on new cars.

Either way, it is interesting to see how people vary with their choices. None are wrong.

111

Thanks for the link Sam. And BTW you did say under 14’s - now I’m the dumbass! I plead 0500 hour making me cranky and tired.

I usually check R&T second after C&D - another slack on my part.

The first road test I read at R&T cited the #'s that I had mentioned from C&D and my personal experience. I noticed the R&T test said these 13 second cars were just released a few months ago. I must have only seen last years models at the track.

That Evo is running 19 #'s of boost! I would say that engine is pretty much maxed out on pump gas.

E-Sabbath:
First, Sorry about the attitude.
I followed your link. Just like this thread somebody else mentioned the Buick Regal, not me. I said "To draw on another post about Buick Grand Nationals, I know people with GN’s (3,700 lbs, 15/16 years old) that have over 200,000 miles on them, run 11 second 1/4 mile’s and drive them on a daily basis.

112

So… what bout that new Stang? They finally getting rid of the last bits of the Fox. What is it, 30 years?

113

Okay, I’m going to have to dispute this one. A GNX had 276 horspower, weighed 3500 lbs, and had 80’s era suspension, tire, and chassis technology. I’d be surprised if that car could do better than 14 seconds in the 1/4 mile, unless the engine was grossly under-rated.

I owned a '67 Camaro with 425 HP, and the best time I ever got out of it was 12.2, and that was NOT in street trim. In street trim, I’d guess it could run low 13’s.

To get a car anywhere near 11 seconds requires massive amounts of power and great traction. For instance, a Hennessey twin turbo Viper, which makes over 800 horsepower and over 900 ft lbs of torque, runs the quarter in about 11 seconds.

114

They, actually he, is using sticky street tires, running about 20 #'s of boost, and good exhaust system. Valve covers never off the engine - just adjustable wastegate and fuel pressure regulator and some good tuning - Bam high 11’s.

The low 11 second GN’s just have an upgraded turbo, injectors, and intercooler - about $1,500 worth of upgrades.

The TSM class GN’s are running very low 10’s, and at WWIII (import vs domestic) a GN won running a mid 8 second 1/4. This was a single turbo V-6.

A stock Viper runs about 12.2@118. - I can send you a video of one at the track.

I remember Car Craft doing a build up on a Turbo Regal - the stock base line dyno test showed about 275 at the rear tires and 350 ft lb of torque - they put lots of parts on the car without even trying to max out the stock parts.

115

I said you liked them GNs, B&I. I said you did.

Well, what would you say to 0-60 in 3.4…
0-100 in… er, around 8.1? Tops out at 150 MPH…
Only 230 horse… and not a turbo in sight?

Rice rocket of the gods, right? Or just good british engineering?

http://www.caterham.co.uk/showroom/index.htm

116

B&I: Do you have a link confirming those times? Because that sounds outrageous. High 11 second times? A Saleen S7 does 11.9. It’s 550HP, and weighs 2800 lbs. And the engine is over the drive wheels in the back.

A Mustang Cobra has a 390HP blown V-8, and it runs the 1/4 in something like 13.4 seconds. A new Vette with over 400 HP does 13.2. And as a former muscle car builder, I can attest to how much difference there is between 13.2 seconds and low 11’s.

To get those kinds of times in a Regal, I would expect you to have to swap on ‘cheater’ slicks, and somehow crank the boost in the engine to the point where you’re putting out maybe 550HP. That’s not a street car.

Of course, if you’re talking about taking a Grand National and doing insane things to it for very short periods of time, well, that’s a different story. But then, I can show you guys in Honda Civics running 11 second quarters. Just pump enough nitrous into the engine, put a big honkin’ turbo on it, and run some ungodly high octane mix. Then hope your engine hangs together. I don’t consider that a measure of how good the car is, but how crazy the owner is.

The Grand National has a special place in the hearts of many, because it came along in the mid-80’s when most cars were gutless pigs. So a legend grew around it. But it wasn’t that special compared to today’s cars. 276 HP? A Nissan Maxima has 285. The new GTO has 340. The Viper has 500.

117

B&I already stated that the 11 GN has 20# of boost, exhaust, and sticky street tires. A GN will for sure do that with 20# of boost. There are about a million GN’s doing 11’s and faster with simple mods totaling $1500, do a search and be sure to clear out your cache before you do so ;). Of course it won’t do it in stock trim though. But stock it’s a 13 sec car, with a V6! Not flamin’, just sayin’.

118

A recumbent and folding bicycle (I already have a road and off road bike). I would then put the rest in my savings account

119

Yes I am talking about using street legal Drag radials, or just taller normal street tires, the $45 adjustable wastegate allows to turn the boost up to 20 - 23 #'s, and the adjustabled fuel pressure regulator($95) enables the tuner to add more fuel to meet the increased air.
The big difference is that this is being done in regals with 200K+ miles with no nitrous. It is done all day with no problems . NOT just crazy tune for short periods of time.
$700 turbo + $700 intercoller + $300 for 50#/hr injectiors, since the fuel system is 15 years old. add a $120 fuel pump = 450 to 550 HP at the rear wheels and 500 to 650 ft lb of torque - EASY and done all day on OLD engines. This is not an uncommon sight at tracks all over the country.

120

How long do the engines last after being tuned up to 550HP? I assume you’ve got to run some boosted octane mixture at those boost levels?

I don’t really see this as being that different than using nitrous. And it’s not really a fair way to compare the car. In stock form, the GNX isn’t all that special by today’s standards. In 1987 it was a monster.