Frugal auto transportation: theories?

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Jonathan Grobe wrote:

> My traditional view of frugal auto transportation has been to have two
> beaters: (a small car I use most of the time and a larger vehicle for
> hauling larger cargoes and for backup). I've given up on my small car (a
> 1984 Chrysler Laser with 265,000 miles and am considering what I should
> buy next (I got the Laser about 6 years ago when it had 145,000 miles on
> it). So taken everything into consideration (initial cost, repair costs,
> insurance/license costs, gas costs...) what do you recommend as the type
> (age, mileage, foreign vs domestic...) of vehicle to purchase?

A Dodge Spirit or Plymouth Acclaim with non-turbo 4-cylinder engine and
either automatic or (preferably but harder to find) manual transmission.
They are much sturdier, more reliable and more durable than your '84 Laser
was (and look how long you managed to make your Laser last!), with
identically inexpensive parts/service/insurance costs. Gas mileage is high
20s to high 30s depending on equipment and driving conditions.You and/or
your mechanic will already be familiar with Chrysler FWD cars, so there'll
be no new learning curve. Thieves don't see them any more. Cops look right
through them. They have good heaters, defoggers and air conditioners, and
most of them came with cruise control. There are still plenty of low-miles
examples around, especially if you're willing to travel for the right one.
The '91-'93 models are the best. '94-'95 models have a less-safe
(automatic motorized) right front seat belt, but are otherwise identically
reliable and the motorized belt can easily be removed and replaced with
the safer manual belt from a '91-'93 car. There's nothing really wrong
with the '89-'90 cars, but the '91-up suspension is somewhat better.

DS

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Jonathan Grobe wrote:
>
>
>>My traditional view of frugal auto transportation has been to have two
>>beaters: (a small car I use most of the time and a larger vehicle for
>>hauling larger cargoes and for backup). I've given up on my small car (a
>>1984 Chrysler Laser with 265,000 miles and am considering what I should
>>buy next (I got the Laser about 6 years ago when it had 145,000 miles on
>>it). So taken everything into consideration (initial cost, repair costs,
>>insurance/license costs, gas costs...) what do you recommend as the type
>>(age, mileage, foreign vs domestic...) of vehicle to purchase?
>
>
> A Dodge Spirit or Plymouth Acclaim with non-turbo 4-cylinder engine and
> either automatic or (preferably but harder to find) manual transmission.
> They are much sturdier, more reliable and more durable than your '84 Laser
> was (and look how long you managed to make your Laser last!), with
> identically inexpensive parts/service/insurance costs. Gas mileage is high
> 20s to high 30s depending on equipment and driving conditions.You and/or
> your mechanic will already be familiar with Chrysler FWD cars, so there'll
> be no new learning curve. Thieves don't see them any more. Cops look right
> through them. They have good heaters, defoggers and air conditioners, and
> most of them came with cruise control. There are still plenty of low-miles
> examples around, especially if you're willing to travel for the right one.
> The '91-'93 models are the best. '94-'95 models have a less-safe
> (automatic motorized) right front seat belt, but are otherwise identically
> reliable and the motorized belt can easily be removed and replaced with
> the safer manual belt from a '91-'93 car. There's nothing really wrong
> with the '89-'90 cars, but the '91-up suspension is somewhat better.

I had an 89 Acclaim for nearly 10 years. It was definitely robust,
reliable and durable, however, fuel mileage was mediocre. I never saw
high 30s, and, as best I recall, never saw 30.0 even. It averaged 26 on
mostly highway driving (80% rural highway or four-lane, at most 20% in
town). On the several long trips I took with it, the best I remember
seeing was about 29, but that was only if you stayed below 60. At 70 it
seldom got above 27 even in steady highway driving.

I had the 2.5L/3 speed auto combination.


Matt

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Jonathan Grobe wrote:
>
>
>>My traditional view of frugal auto transportation has been to have two
>>beaters: (a small car I use most of the time and a larger vehicle for
>>hauling larger cargoes and for backup). I've given up on my small car (a
>>1984 Chrysler Laser with 265,000 miles and am considering what I should
>>buy next (I got the Laser about 6 years ago when it had 145,000 miles on
>>it). So taken everything into consideration (initial cost, repair costs,
>>insurance/license costs, gas costs...) what do you recommend as the type
>>(age, mileage, foreign vs domestic...) of vehicle to purchase?
>
>
> A Dodge Spirit or Plymouth Acclaim with non-turbo 4-cylinder engine and
> either automatic or (preferably but harder to find) manual transmission.
> They are much sturdier, more reliable and more durable than your '84 Laser
> was (and look how long you managed to make your Laser last!), with
> identically inexpensive parts/service/insurance costs. Gas mileage is high
> 20s to high 30s depending on equipment and driving conditions.You and/or
> your mechanic will already be familiar with Chrysler FWD cars, so there'll
> be no new learning curve. Thieves don't see them any more. Cops look right
> through them. They have good heaters, defoggers and air conditioners, and
> most of them came with cruise control. There are still plenty of low-miles
> examples around, especially if you're willing to travel for the right one.
> The '91-'93 models are the best. '94-'95 models have a less-safe
> (automatic motorized) right front seat belt, but are otherwise identically
> reliable and the motorized belt can easily be removed and replaced with
> the safer manual belt from a '91-'93 car. There's nothing really wrong
> with the '89-'90 cars, but the '91-up suspension is somewhat better.

I had an 89 Acclaim for nearly 10 years. It was definitely robust,
reliable and durable, however, fuel mileage was mediocre. I never saw
high 30s, and, as best I recall, never saw 30.0 even. It averaged 26 on
mostly highway driving (80% rural highway or four-lane, at most 20% in
town). On the several long trips I took with it, the best I remember
seeing was about 29, but that was only if you stayed below 60. At 70 it
seldom got above 27 even in steady highway driving.

I had the 2.5L/3 speed auto combination.


Matt

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Jonathan Grobe wrote:
>
>
>>My traditional view of frugal auto transportation has been to have two
>>beaters: (a small car I use most of the time and a larger vehicle for
>>hauling larger cargoes and for backup). I've given up on my small car (a
>>1984 Chrysler Laser with 265,000 miles and am considering what I should
>>buy next (I got the Laser about 6 years ago when it had 145,000 miles on
>>it). So taken everything into consideration (initial cost, repair costs,
>>insurance/license costs, gas costs...) what do you recommend as the type
>>(age, mileage, foreign vs domestic...) of vehicle to purchase?
>
>
> A Dodge Spirit or Plymouth Acclaim with non-turbo 4-cylinder engine and
> either automatic or (preferably but harder to find) manual transmission.
> They are much sturdier, more reliable and more durable than your '84 Laser
> was (and look how long you managed to make your Laser last!), with
> identically inexpensive parts/service/insurance costs. Gas mileage is high
> 20s to high 30s depending on equipment and driving conditions.You and/or
> your mechanic will already be familiar with Chrysler FWD cars, so there'll
> be no new learning curve. Thieves don't see them any more. Cops look right
> through them. They have good heaters, defoggers and air conditioners, and
> most of them came with cruise control. There are still plenty of low-miles
> examples around, especially if you're willing to travel for the right one.
> The '91-'93 models are the best. '94-'95 models have a less-safe
> (automatic motorized) right front seat belt, but are otherwise identically
> reliable and the motorized belt can easily be removed and replaced with
> the safer manual belt from a '91-'93 car. There's nothing really wrong
> with the '89-'90 cars, but the '91-up suspension is somewhat better.
>
> DS

I vote for an A2 chassis VW Golf or Jetta, base model, no power options.
The froofy stuff is crap on VWs but the basic mechanicals are solid
and easy to work on. I know DS will disagree with me vehemently, but I
have had excellent luck with them. Do try to find one in good condition
though, a "beater" can be more trouble than it's worth if the PO has let
everything go to hell. Beware of blown heater cores, there was a recall
on them but VWoA is a pain in the keister about it.

Alternately, I like the old A-body MoPars, you know, Dart, Valiant,
Duster, Demon, etc.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Jonathan Grobe wrote:
>
>
>>My traditional view of frugal auto transportation has been to have two
>>beaters: (a small car I use most of the time and a larger vehicle for
>>hauling larger cargoes and for backup). I've given up on my small car (a
>>1984 Chrysler Laser with 265,000 miles and am considering what I should
>>buy next (I got the Laser about 6 years ago when it had 145,000 miles on
>>it). So taken everything into consideration (initial cost, repair costs,
>>insurance/license costs, gas costs...) what do you recommend as the type
>>(age, mileage, foreign vs domestic...) of vehicle to purchase?
>
>
> A Dodge Spirit or Plymouth Acclaim with non-turbo 4-cylinder engine and
> either automatic or (preferably but harder to find) manual transmission.
> They are much sturdier, more reliable and more durable than your '84 Laser
> was (and look how long you managed to make your Laser last!), with
> identically inexpensive parts/service/insurance costs. Gas mileage is high
> 20s to high 30s depending on equipment and driving conditions.You and/or
> your mechanic will already be familiar with Chrysler FWD cars, so there'll
> be no new learning curve. Thieves don't see them any more. Cops look right
> through them. They have good heaters, defoggers and air conditioners, and
> most of them came with cruise control. There are still plenty of low-miles
> examples around, especially if you're willing to travel for the right one.
> The '91-'93 models are the best. '94-'95 models have a less-safe
> (automatic motorized) right front seat belt, but are otherwise identically
> reliable and the motorized belt can easily be removed and replaced with
> the safer manual belt from a '91-'93 car. There's nothing really wrong
> with the '89-'90 cars, but the '91-up suspension is somewhat better.
>
> DS

I vote for an A2 chassis VW Golf or Jetta, base model, no power options.
The froofy stuff is crap on VWs but the basic mechanicals are solid
and easy to work on. I know DS will disagree with me vehemently, but I
have had excellent luck with them. Do try to find one in good condition
though, a "beater" can be more trouble than it's worth if the PO has let
everything go to hell. Beware of blown heater cores, there was a recall
on them but VWoA is a pain in the keister about it.

Alternately, I like the old A-body MoPars, you know, Dart, Valiant,
Duster, Demon, etc.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...

>
> I vote for an A2 chassis VW Golf or Jetta, base model, no power options.
> The froofy stuff is crap on VWs but the basic mechanicals are solid and
> easy to work on. I know DS will disagree with me vehemently, but I have
> had excellent luck with them. Do try to find one in good condition
> though, a "beater" can be more trouble than it's worth if the PO has let
> everything go to hell. Beware of blown heater cores, there was a recall
> on them but VWoA is a pain in the keister about it.
>

> http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

I second that one and if you aren't concerned with acceleration a VW diesel
from that era will go forever and ever and ever and ever......

"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...

>
> I vote for an A2 chassis VW Golf or Jetta, base model, no power options.
> The froofy stuff is crap on VWs but the basic mechanicals are solid and
> easy to work on. I know DS will disagree with me vehemently, but I have
> had excellent luck with them. Do try to find one in good condition
> though, a "beater" can be more trouble than it's worth if the PO has let
> everything go to hell. Beware of blown heater cores, there was a recall
> on them but VWoA is a pain in the keister about it.
>

> http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

I second that one and if you aren't concerned with acceleration a VW diesel
from that era will go forever and ever and ever and ever......

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Nate Nagel wrote:

> I vote for an A2 chassis VW Golf or Jetta, base model, no power options.
> The froofy stuff is crap on VWs but the basic mechanicals are solid I
> have had excellent luck with them.

That's the problem: These cars are a literal crapshoot. If you're lucky,
you get a good one. If you're not lucky, you get a moneypit.

> Beware of blown heater cores, there was a recall
> on them but VWoA is a pain in the keister about it.

VWoA is a pain in the keister. Period.

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Nate Nagel wrote:

> I vote for an A2 chassis VW Golf or Jetta, base model, no power options.
> The froofy stuff is crap on VWs but the basic mechanicals are solid I
> have had excellent luck with them.

That's the problem: These cars are a literal crapshoot. If you're lucky,
you get a good one. If you're not lucky, you get a moneypit.

> Beware of blown heater cores, there was a recall
> on them but VWoA is a pain in the keister about it.

VWoA is a pain in the keister. Period.

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, D. Dub wrote:

> a VW diesel from that era will go forever and ever and ever and
> ever......

.....because at any given time, some 70 percent of the parts have just been
replaced at great expense.