Car Review Thread.

[California Tanker]

We don't seem to have one, but why not write a review of whatever you drive? I'm out and about and renting, and like the opportunity to drive different cars.

So here I am, in Reno. There's strange white stuff all over the ground here. Bizarre. Oh well.

Renting from Alamo. Booked a mid-size, the example given was a Pontiac G6. I pay no attention to the key I'm given, but am told the car is parked in stall "K2"

Over I go. The car in the stall seems kindof small, so I check the sign. K2. I get closer.

"You've got to be kidding"

It's a Prius. Sure enough, the key fob says 'Toyota'. Oh well. Throw the bags in the back seat, and in I get.

For a smallish car, it's relatively efficient with space. Even with the driver's seat all the way back, there's plenty of room for back-seat passengers. Unfortunately, this comes at the cost of there being no room for the driver. Last car I drove which was this cramped was a Fiesta. Nothing for it, but to lean the seat-back back a bit, to provide arm length. I had a try at raising the steering wheel, but it turned out to have been in the highest position. I can only assume it is designed to be easily driven by particularly short women, and tall men were not expected to drive this vehicle. Boot space looked promising initially, until closer investigation revealed the floor to be some 5" higher than it needed to be, as near as I can tell. There's a gap under the floor, between it and the tools for the spare tyre, and I think the spare tyre is under the tools. And I believe it's not a full-size either. My convertible has more boot space than this thing. I'm sure you could theoretically slide stuff under the false floor, but I've not found a practical way of doing it yet (Particularly if it slides around when in motion). Seems to be an ample amount of storage compartments, and four cupholders.

For the first time in a car, I was befuddled. The key was absolutely tiny, and I couldn't find the socket to put it into. There was, however, a large rectangular slot which I figured out the key fob itself fits into. I guess the small conventional key is an emergency backup, but there's no manual in the car. So, put it in, and realise that it can't be turned.

OK. I've seen cars like the S2000 with an 'Ignition' or 'Start' button. It's not on the centre console, nowhere near the key slot... Hmm. There's one here labelled 'Power'. I push that once. A few lights come on, but there's no obvious effect otherwise. Light blinks. I push it again, and the 'Power' light stops blinking, more lights come on, and I think the car's started. Absolutely quiet. Engine may not even be on. The dashboard is a bizarre LED thing about two feet behind the steering wheel. In order to make it readable, it appears to have a magnifying lens placed in front of it, which isn't perfectly focused and frankly, looks weird.

Next thing to do is to plug in my GPS. Try to find the cigarette lighter. It doesn't appear to be in any of the normal places. Then it hits me: The Prius doesn't have a cigarette lighter. Obviously anyone who buys a Prius is not going to be someone who would pollute themselves or the environment with cigarette smoke. Who'd need a cigarette lighter? I did, eventually, find a single socket (sans lighter) mounted forward under the dais on the passenger side, but really, you need more than one.

I note that the driver's mirror is folded in the 'parked' position. Being unable to find the 'unfold' button, I figured it was probably automatic, and would unfold once I got going. So, put it in gear.

That's the gearstick? That little knob with about an inch of movement way up on the dash? Push it into "R" and it immediately popped back out. Try again, with the same result. Eventually I notice that about a meter in front of me, the "R" light has lit up and stayed lit up. Apply accelerator, and... hooray! We're moving. Wing mirror's staying folded in though, maybe it unfolds when going forwards? Look in rear view mirror.... OK. What genius decided that putting a horizontal bar/spoiler right in the middle of your field of vision was a good idea? The rear window is huge, but because of the angle and this spoiler, you can see squat out of it. I turn on the display screen to see the power transfer between battery, motor, engine, and wheels.

Move that pathetic little knob into "D", and it pops out again. I'm starting to figure it out now, though, so forwards I go with more confidence that the car will do what I want it to. Wing mirror is still folded in, though. Then it hits me. It's not an automatic wing mirror. I roll down the window in the sub-freezing temperature, and push the mirror into position.

This should have been a warning to me that not all is high-speed and modern in this car. Four miles later, a guy flashing his lights at me at an intersection informs me that there's no automatic light sensor to turn on the headlights. My two-year-old Audi has one. Heck, my six-year-old Chevrolet has one. Any car I've rented in the last few years has had one. What's with Toyota? Granted, I had thought it seemed rather dark out there, but I had written that off to being blinded by the insanely bright (Even a min brightness) screen showing the power transfers. I eventually turned it off.

As I was going, I had a brief sample of the road-going abilities. Do not buy a Prius if you like acceleration. I know the Hybrid Civic does 0-60 faster than the regular Civic, but Prius' acceleration is... well, frankly, it seems lethargic. (I've just googled the times, and it seems lethargic because, well, it is lethargic). Do not overtake trucks on two-lane-roads without plenty of breathing space, trust me. I also find the lack of a rev counter to be annoying. Granted, it's of slightly less utility with a hybrid, but in any circumstances that I'm particularly interested in the revs, I'll have the hammer down and the engine running anyway.

Engine noise at low/slow speed is astonishingly low, but sadly, I wish I could say the same about the road noise. Even cruising at 30mph seems to be about as loud inside the car as a conventional car. At freeway speeds, the engine roars along, so there's obviously no benefit there.

I'm driving 90 minutes each way tomorrow, I should get a good feel for the car's abilities on a cruise. I'll let you know, but so far, I hate this car, and have seen nothing to recommend it. (Yes, I know about the fuel consumption, but other Hybrids and diesels aren't far off it)

NTM

[wildernesse]

My car does everything I want--it is a 97 Ford Mustang that is now fully customized to my driving style because the power seat is broken. Tall people don't like it, but I'm not tall. Its flaws include the inability to fit most laundry baskets in the trunk because the trunk's mouth is small (including the opening into the back seat when you fold down the seats), it came with a tape deck, and the seat belt attachment on the wall post isn't adjustable. It's been a great car, though, and when it finally dies one day I will be sad (I hope in some strange telepathic way because we have sold it and not in a I'm stuck on a forest service road with no cell service kind of way). Lucky for me, it does not appear to be giving up the ghost before 150k. It is much more fun to drive than our Civic, though, especially on curving mountain roads.

Our Civic is a nice box of a car that is better designed for carrying people and cargo than the Mustang. But not as fun or cute--it is a no frills model that doesn't even have a trunk light.

[ceptimus]

My car is an '04 Vauxhall Signum - a sort of large hatchback. It's diesel powered - I average over 50 mpg (but those are imperial gallons which are 20% bigger than a US gallon). Diesel here now costs (US dollars) $8.31 per US gallon ($9.98 per imperial gallon), so as I drive about 50,000 miles per year economy is important.

http://www.drivevauxhall.co.uk/images/models/large/signum3.jpg

My car is not very exciting to drive but it carries a lot of stuff and is fine for cruising up and down motorways at 70 mph which is how it spends most of its life. The Signum is an upmarket variant of the Vauxhall Vectra - so it comes with plenty of toys - cruise control, CD autochanger, sat nav, electric everything. One thing I don't like is the 'space saver' spare wheel - when it's in use the car is not supposed to exceed 50mph.

[California Tanker]

Well, after another four hours behind the wheel, mainly cruising at 60mph or better, I can say that the Prius has not grown on me at all.

I will give it credit for being apparently well built. I heard nary a rattle nor a squeak out of the furnishings. We're not talking Audi luxury here, but what they have provided appears to be put together properly, everything seems to fit, no mis-aligned or loose panels or any such thing.

That, however, is all the credit I'm going to give it.
Allow me to list some items which are wrong with this car:
The bumpers are wrong, the headlights are wrong, the engine is wrong, the dash is wrong, the ignition system is wrong, the steering wheel is wrong, the seats are wrong, the cupholders a wrong, the electrics are wrong, the electronics are wrong, the roadwheels are wrong, the transmission is wrong, the roof is wrong, the boot is wrong, and I'm not too keen on the tail-lights.

I don't like it. And I doubt it would make a jump over an open drawbridge to make me like it.

Road noise remained higher than I would have expected, but those small little wheels and the odd suspension system which somehow combines roll with non-pliance magnifies every bump on the road. The cupholders, whatever they're designed to hold, are not designed to hold the average McDonald's cup or soft drink can. The way there's a small jolt when the transmission goes from petrol to electric to regenerative drive, which it does often, is also annoying. Also susprising was the lack of a 3.5mm jack in the radio, I was pretty sure that sort of thing was standard these days, particularly amongst small Japanese cars. I mean, hell, the Toyota Aygo has one.

As much of my journey was on two-lane road, travelled by HGVs, there was opportunity to truly analyse the mind-blowing power of this vehicle. Fortunately, the roads in Nevada tend to be long and straight, so I could see oncoming traffic a long way off. There's much wailing and screaming from the engine, it revs to a good high rate, I guess, but ultimately, it's a 4-banger trying to move a ton vehicle. Even with the boost from the electric motor helping it out, acceleration is poor, whilst that 18-wheeler is long.

The seat didn't get any more comfortable either. If I'm in a particularly small car, I like to be able to move my legs around a little bit for circulation. Except my knee bashes against the gear selector if I try to lift it up. I also was not amused when, in the parking lot, the ignition system decided to go on strike. The vehicle simply refused to release the parking brake or go into gear, while the LED on the power button glowed a warning red. It is entirely possible there's a simple reason for this, and that it's in the manual, but it certainly isn't intuitive, with no indicators to say if even the engine has decided to turn over, or that there is any other problem. All you know is that the car won't move. I ended up resorting to randomly pushing buttons and moving levers before the thing decided to comply. It did it again to me when I filled up on gas before turning it in. On the intuitive note, this is also the only car so far in which I have been unable to get the cruise control or rear window wipers to work. It's probably simple and in the manual, but it's not obvious.

Overall:
If you're, oh, six foot tall or shorter, and you're looking for a good short-range runabout, you can probably do a lot worse. You could probably do better as well, but anyway. Even at that, you would not want it to be your exclusive car, unless you have no idea what a proper car is like and don't know any better for long-distance rides.

NTM

[Dingfod]

When considering the Prius (or probably any other hybrid) you should be aware the transmission/electric drive costs $9000 to replace when it goes out a few hundred miles after the warranty expires.

[Clutch Munny]

Last year I rented a Dodge Magnum station wagon for the weekend and drove it about 800 km.

It was rip-roaring, snarling, nasty fast, though at highway speed it took a second to think it over after you stomped on it. But it drove and felt a bit truck-like. The biggest problem was that the visibility was really dreadful. Like, how did this get safety approved? sort of dreadful. Maybe CT would have felt comfortable in it, if he has some time in driving old tanks where you peered through a mud-plugged slot, but nobody else should be driving the thing. The front windshield is so narrow that I was always trying to get close up to it, to expand my field of vision and to get the normal-sized but relatively enormous rear mirror out of my eyeline. And the rear window, which would have been small in a two-seater, ended up looking like a door peephole in the wagon.

I got the Magnum because they didn't have any of the little Hyundai I'd requested. The kid at the agency acted like I was getting this fabulous upgrade, but after a few hours of driving the thing, even on the highway where it ought to be best, all I could think was, "What a shittily designed car." It made me miss our minivan.

[BrotherMan]

To all the cars I've owned before...


Small, capable, fun mini-ute. I often find myself wondering how this car would be doing if I still owned it. It didn't have a lot of power but it didn't need a lot either. It was easy to care for - oil change and gas were all I needed to do. Now that I'm creature of comfort I doubt I could tolerate the bouncy-noise-noise that goes along with a vinyl topped driving brick produces.


I never really liked this vehicle. I suckered myself into it. It was a V6 and not a convertable. The gas gauge was broken as was the AC. It was a completely unremarkable vehicle. It got me where I was going. (A trip from Delaware to Texas and back to boot.) But I was never in love or passionate about it.


Yes. Two Fords, back to back no less. I may not have liked the Bronco II, but neither did I hate it. And the Ranger turned out to be one of my favorite vehicles - moreso than my first love Samurai. I don't have any superlatives handy to describe this vehicle, but I don't think it warranted any. Subtle would be one word. It was a little truck. It carried me, it carried things. Exactly what you would want it to be and do. I'd like to have gotten another one but it looks like Ford isn't going to put any money into redesigning the chassis - which has been in place for two decades.


I'd wanted a Neon since they first came out. I believe at the time I thought it could become the next Beetle (which was before VW had officially announced they were making a New Beetle). A friend of mine had one for a while and he seemed to enjoy it. When it came time to say goodbye to my old friend Ranger, I was looking at the Focus and the Neon. The number of recalls for the Focus pushed me to the Neon.

I haven't regretted that choice. I bought the SXT package specifically for the sound system. It's not a premiere system but it is quite capable. (My resident audio expert claims he'd only add a bass unit, remarkable as he's usually putting a lot of money into system upgrades even on new cars.)

It's my first front wheel drive and my first automatic. I have no real complaints about the chassis or the drivetrain even after 112,000 abusive miles. (75% highway driving) Which is all for naught because they're not making the Neon anymore.


I rented this one a whle back when I went to a friend's wedding. I didn't get a chance to put my weight into testing it, I just drove it around a little. It was nice and if it were in my price range I'd consider a purchase.

[Qingdai]

I am pretty sure no one wants or needs a review of driving a 1982 Honda Accord. That's what we have. It's noisy and getting hard to find spare parts.
Before I had two different 1988 Toyota pick ups, which were great. They are noisy, uncomfortable for long distances and easy as hell to repair.

[Dingfod]

To all the cars I've owned before...To all the cars I owned before getting married ...

It was an 8 mpg, V-8 powered 2-1/2 tons of chromium plated rust, held together by dirt, mud, bailing wire and chewing gum. That road-wallering beast leaked oil and transmission fluid, its brakes were iffy at best, the shocks were worn out, all its turn signals and brake lights were intermittent, and the wide-whitewall tires were as bald as Yul Brenner's head. It came with no ignition or door key so I couldn't lock it but a screwdriver could start the car. But, for $95 it wasn't too bad as a first car for a 16 year old driver.

My second car, purchased at age 16 was a "Firemist Red" (read metallic pink) '64 GTO look-alike, a two-door hardtop with bench seat, column shifted two-speed Powerglide automatic, and barely enough power from it's six-cylinder engine to pull the hat off your head. Volkswagen Microbuses could outrun it. Yet I loved that car, a lot of good memories are attached to it. I drove it nearly trouble free for 3-1/2 years and almost 40,000 miles even though it had 107,000 miles on it when I bought it for $325. It actually was the perfect teenager car, basic transportation that only looked sporty.

I traded my Tempest and $1000 for four hundred and forty cubic inches of Mopar muscle that put it's power to the ground through a Borg-Warner T-10 four speed with a pistol-grip Hurst shifter and a 4.30:1 Dana 30 axle turning 11 inch wide L50-14 tires that cost $50 each (I know this because I replaced a few of them in the short time I had the car. I used to say the car had only 36,000 miles on it -- in 1/4 mile increments. It would blast through the quarter mile in about 13-1/2 seconds topping out a little over 100 mph. Six months later, I wrapped it around a tree, then it sat for another six months before I parted it out. I paid $78 a month for that car for a year after I didn't have it any more. This was not a good car for a teenager.

My post Challenger ride was given to me by my father, his work car, after he quit his job and started working as a carpenter's helper in the new houses being built across the street. That old faded Ford green Falcon wasn't fun to drive, it had no air conditioning, no power anything, wouldn't warm up enough to clear the windshield in the winter, and was slower than molasses in January. However, it did get 25 mpg and got me back and forth to work for more than 3 years. It was good reliable transportation. I would buy one and drive it today if I could find one in good condition.

[curses]

When considering the Prius (or probably any other hybrid) you should be aware the transmission/electric drive costs $9000 to replace when it goes out a few hundred miles after the warranty expires.

Dear sweet god tell me about it.

* curses just had hers replaced, Toyota met her over halfway on the price

[Guinevere]

I had dinner last night with friends who had rented a Prius over their Christmas holiday, while visiting Florida. They were impressed with the mileage (1000 miles on 2 tanks -- which actually isn't as impressive as I would have thought), but hated the handling. In particular, they thought the car was awful in wet conditions, which means it is thoroughly impractical for New England.

I personally drive a 2001 Volvo C70 Cabriolet, and I love it. Great ride, smooth, comfy, decent mileage, and handles beautifully in the snow (especially with new snow tires). Most importantly, I look tres cool driving it with the top down :coolsun:

[California Tanker]

Before I had two different 1988 Toyota pick ups, which were great. They are noisy, uncomfortable for long distances and easy as hell to repair.

You've seen these then? Proof of the indestructibility of the Toyota pick-up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrk6vsb77xk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Uc4Ksz3nHM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfZDtC9kjVk

personally drive a 2001 Volvo C70 Cabriolet

Oooh.. very nearly bought one of those in 2000 (Obviously a 2000 model). Suspension was recycled from an older car, but it's nice nonetheless.

NTM

[Guinevere]

Oooh.. very nearly bought one of those in 2000 (Obviously a 2000 model). Suspension was recycled from an older car, but it's nice nonetheless.

NTM

I just bought it a year ago w/ only 52K on it. Got a steal -- who buys a 'vertible in New England in December but a true nut!

[AndyH]

I also had my first experience in a Prius on Saturday - spending about three hours as the passenger during a stop and go tour of New Hampshire back roads setting out campaign signs. I didn't drive it, but the driver says that she loves hers. I observed that it was quite peppy in stop and go city driving, but lugged and struggled on two-lane asphalt, a problem that seemed to be compounded by rather poor handling and road holding. The driver stopped several times to let people pass, and unless she was a much worse driver than she seemed, the quality of the handling didn't add to the experience. She's pleased with the car's reliability and its quirks don't seem to bother her. The hatchback seemed quite roomy, but though the passenger seat was firm and comfortable, it didn't go back far enough for my six foot frame. Fit and finish seemed very good, even for a Toyota.

I drive a twelve-year old Volvo 850 Sportwagon, which reliably and comfortably gets me back and forth on my 120 mile daily commute, hauls all my stuff, and handles far less clunkily than I expected it would. Our family is pretty much devoted to Saabs and Volvos, largely on the strength of our relationship with the best Swedish-car mechanic in northern New England!

[California Tanker]

Today: 1989 Ford Fiesta.

As part of the hatchback wars, Ford's offering has been going strong since the 1970s. The 1989 Five-door was the more practical of the two offerings, coming with easy access to all seats, and offering in my case 1.1 litres of grunt.

Much maligned are Ford cars, Found On Road Dead, Fuel Once, Repair Daily, that sort of thing, but in credit to Ford, this car took everything I threw at it, and came out smiling. Granted, we didn't throw as much at it as the Toyota pick-up, but even when other, larger, cars ran into it, it would come out the better of the two. Over its 15-year-service life, the vehicle only wore out one clutch. Indeed, after it had been retired in favour of a Hyundai, when the Hyundai died it was the Ford that hadn't been started in over two years which we used to go collect people.

Unlike many of the small hatchbacks, I could fit into the Fiesta. It wasn't pretty, with the knees straddling the wheel, but this was better than the Nissan or Opel counterparts which I physically could not enter. Fit and finish was reasonable, although certainly not the bleeding edge. Hand-crank windows, no central locking.

Handling wasn't bad. The car was very prone to understeer, but it's far safer than oversteer. Sadly, whatever horsepower that 1.1 was putting out wasn't the greatest, and long grades on the motorway would see the speed slowly decrease as you climbed. Eventually you would have dropped down to a gear with which the engine would allow you to maintain the speed, but that would result in travelling about 20mph slower than everyone else. Gear changes were rough, but acceptable.

Interior space wasn't bad: Even with the seat all the way back, there was reasonable room for back seat drivers. The boot would take a suitcase, and of course the rear seats could fold forward if they had to.

It was sad to see her go...

NTM

[Dingfod]

I bought a 1980 Ford Fiesta in 1996, meaning to fix it up for my daughter. It had a 69 horsepower 1.6L engine. In a 1700 pound car, that means pretty peppy performance. I'm 6 feet 1 inches tall and I thought it was comfortable enough for a small car, one of the few where the seat goes far enough back and yet the rear seat still has leg room. I ended up donating it to the Kidney Foundation for reasons not related to the car itself.

[godfry n. glad]

I've had several Toyotas in my lifetime. My first was a '69 Corolla station wagon that died an ignominious death in the grill of a 3/4 ton pickup in '79. Despite being t-boned and thrown 25', sending me to the hospital for 12 stitches, a week later, I drove it across town to the scrap yard. They paid me $125 for it.

I currently own an '98 Siena mini-van. I bought it in '99 with 30,000 miles on the odomer. I've now had it eight plus years and it has 77,000 miles. Every Toyota I've had has treated me well. The current one has annoying sliding door issues, but it's never let me down.

My SO, after owning Volvos, Chevys and Hondas, won't own anything other than a Toyota any more. Her youngest got himself a small Toyota pickup, which I constant chide him about it being "the choice of 9 out of 10 Afghan warlords." Which from the links above, is quite believable.

[ITSOZAZ]

we drive a toyota echo hatchback (now the yaris). it's a cool little city car that's as efficient as a hybrid, but we need to get something bigger with Zeke in the picture...

[California Tanker]

Her youngest got himself a small Toyota pickup, which I constant chide him about it being "the choice of 9 out of 10 Afghan warlords." Which from the links above, is quite believable.

Exactly why the Top Gear crew did their testing.

YouTube - Top Gear Toyota Hilux Torture Test Part 1

(This bit was cut out of the top three links): They specifically note that Toyota pick-ups are the transport of choice for militias.

NTM

[Deadlokd]

How tall are you CT? I thought Tankers had to be short.

[viscousmemories]

You're thinking of jockeys.

[California Tanker]

6'5".

Height limit for tankers in the US Army is 6'2", but there are ways around the system.

Hmm.. Maybe I should review my tank?

NTM

[Garnet]

I've always thought that old people drive 4 door sedans with automatic transmissions.

I'm officially old.

This is a car exactly like mine:

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u32/Garnet2727/bonneville.jpg

It's a 2003 Pontiac Bonneville. I like the comfort, the relative peppiness (surprised me...it's pretty quick for a 6-banger), the bells and whistles and the handling. So far, the only trouble I've had is that the seat heater on the driver's side quit working.

[Deadlokd]

6'5".

Height limit for tankers in the US Army is 6'2", but there are ways around the system.

Hmm.. Maybe I should review my tank?

NTM

If the prose is as good as your Prius review it will be excellent.

I just remember reading somewhere that tanks were made for short people. Maybe they were old generation tanks. Or Russian ones.

[ShottleBop]

I've owned a Prius for almost a year, now. Primarily used to commute 13-14 miles each way on a daily basis. We've taken trip to San Francisco in it, and many to Los Angeles. Handling is fine (but we don't have severe weather here in San Diego). Mileage is great. I would like a tach, though. Without one, you have to trust that the car's computer will not allow you to over-rev (we did manage 70 mph up the Grapevine, but I worried about the engine).

I'm 6 feet tall, and agree that anyone taller than that would have issues with the driver's leg room. The back seat, however, fits real people, and the trunk is big enough for my purposes.

[California Tanker]

2001 Chevrolet Camaro.

Pretty much everything I have said in the Prius is reversed in this car.

This is old-school Detroit cutting edge technology at its finest. :P

It's certainly a tasty looker, there are uglier cars on the road. Gives a good sense of aggressive purpose.

First impressions are moderate. There is ample room in the driver's seat for my long legs, though the back seats are more like cushioned cargo shelves. Literally cushions, in the event of a water landing, they can be removed. I have no idea how they will work as a flotation device, however. The passenger's seat suffers a slight legroom problem as there is a bulge in the floor designed for some sort of blower housing in the larger-engined models. It doesn't affect the length of legroom, but does take up space if one wishes to move one's legs around a bit.

Build quality is anything but Japanese or European. It doesn't have the European luxury, and the fit of the interior parts is absolutely atrocious. There are big gaps, and 'steps' where one interior panel meets another. The outside is a lot better, but prone to damage: I've seen more than one Camaro (my own included) with the panel directly in front of the door bulged out at the bottom as a result of bottoming or a misplaced jack. Similarly, the electrical control buttons seem cheap. Well, Chevvies have to have their costs kept down, I guess. The gearstick is about as cheap as they come. A long metal shaft with a pool ball stuck on the end, wrapped in leather.

The boot is a particularly odd shape. There is a deep well, but it's only a foot wide, with the rest of the boot higher up, presumably to clear the axle, though it does strike me as being perhaps a bit higher than it needs to be. Still it's big enough to take a full duffle bag. With the interior cover down, road noise is surprisingly reduced. It's easily removable should you need to carry more. Indeed, you would be surprised as to just how much you can cram into this car: When returning from Ft Knox, I had three duffle bags worth of stuff, my computer (including 19" CRT), a rifle case, a sports bag or two, and I still could see out the rear view mirror. That said, the C pillars (there are no Bs) are very large, and there's quite a blind spot over your left shoulder. Then again, your windows are very large. On the downside, the doors are also very large: Anticipate a lot of swing room when perpendicular-parked in order to allow you to squeeze out.

I've not had any issues with the electrics as yet. The CD/Radio system works well, with appropriate buttons to be found on the steering wheel: I rarely ever touch the stereo. They did see fit to provide both a cigarette lighter and an additional power socket. Four cupholders are provided.

Thus far, the vehicle has not been a poster child for Chevrolet build quality. Indeed, it's almost polluted me to the point that I won't buy Chevrolet again. Almost. I've had issues with the transmission, the axle bearings, the handbrake won't auto-tighten like it should, and simply changing the battery and cable was a horrendous experience which took most of the day and a couple of trips to the shops for parts and tools.

So, given everything that's wrong with this car.... I still love it.

The GM 3.8l V6 is a classic. It just gives the impression that it will run for ever, (and online reviews seem to corroborate this), and it still cranks out 200hp. Turn off the traction control, and this is more than enough to break grip with the tarmac on a mildly damp surface. If it's totally dry, and your turn is hard enough, you can still have fun by pulling up on the handbrake, allowing the tail to start to slide, then flooring the accelerator. Once you've started your oversteer, the car is very easy to collect and control until you've had your fun or reached the end of the turn. I spend a solid fifteen minutes killing the clutch and handbrake on the Bonneville Salt Flats, having a whale of a time. Got the car up to 125 or so, fully loaded with cargo. I seem to get about 28mpg, quite acceptable.

Long term comfort is quite good, I had no discomfort after my cross-country trip, and the sound system was good enough to vibrate the mirrors on the outside. Road noise is acceptable. I've never had the screens put in place under the T-roof, I like to be able to see the trees/sky/Highway Patrol Aircraft above me. T-roofs rock!

Overall... Well, I don't think the replacement for this car will be the 09 Camaro, but if your 17-year-old son is looking for a car, a second-hand one of these really isn't all that bad a choice for him. Parts are common and cheap, and as mentioned, the engine is not likely to be an issue. Sure, a Corolla would probably be more practical, and cheaper in the long run, but would he really thank you for that?!

NTM

[Artemis Entreri]

Six months later, I wrapped it around a tree, then it sat for another six months before I parted it out.



:bigtears::cry:

My first car was a 1967 Ford Fairlane w/ a 390. At 16 I wedged in a slightly moddified 429 cobra jet. I did all the work with the guiding hand of my dad except for the paint which he did alone (I was too worried about messing up). I only "wrecked" once which happened when I locked up the brakes, to prevent hitting a little old lady's crown vic, and went off the road. It only flattened a tire, no other damage. I hauled ass in that car but because I had put so much work into it I was always very careful. I still have the car which is sitting back home at my dad's place. I parked during college and haven't had the time or space to begin the restoration she deserves.
http://b9.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/01302/97/30/1302000379_l.jpg

[California Tanker]

My car does everything I want--it is a 97 Ford Mustang that is now fully customized to my driving style because the power seat is broken.

I've not had the best experiences with Mustangs. They seem to do the job, but I don't find them very reassuring. For example, when I close a car door, I expect to hear a good, solid "K-THUNK." My Chevy does this, as does the Audi. The Mustang I rented gave some feeble little noise that didn't convince me of my safety should I be T-boned by anything bigger than a golf cart.

1970 Dodge Challenger R/T

Have you seen next years' Challenger?

http://digiads.com.au/car-news/images/article_9283-img_0.jpg
http://www.hspnnews.com/images/uploads/Challenger_Back.jpg

NTM

[Dingfod]

Yeah, I've been following the new Challenger. It's supposed to hit the dealers in March or April at a sticker price of around $38,000. I bet most of them go for a bunch more thousands of dollars than that, at least the first year's allotment. It'll be about 4 years before I can even think about getting one.

[California Tanker]

$38K? Ouch.

It had better be a lot better than the Mustang GT for that price, and given that it's based off the Chrysler 300/Magnum chassis (both old-ish and not really sporting), I'm not convinced it will be.

NTM

[SharonDee]

It's Dodge; give 'em several iterations before they finally get it right. Once they do get it right, though, snap one up before they quit making them.

That's what happened with the Intrepid.

[BrotherMan]

That's pretty and all but call me old fashioned. It needs more chrome. Big shiny bumpers or little accent pieces - I don't care. Gimme some chrome, dammit.

:eager:

[Dingfod]

$38K? Ouch.

It had better be a lot better than the Mustang GT for that price, and given that it's based off the Chrysler 300/Magnum chassis (both old-ish and not really sporting), I'm not convinced it will be.

NTMNeither am I. The first year of them will all be fully loaded 425 horsepower 6.1L Hemi V-8 powered R/Ts. After that there will be less powerful and plain versions available, probably including a V-6. Chysler has admitted they cannot build them for the price of Mustangs. I bet the new Camaro will be similarly expensive for the same reason as the limited production Challenger.

If the 300 is any indication, this beast will also be quite heavy compared to the Mustang, over 4000 pounds, quite a lot heavier than the approximately 3400 pounds my 1970 weighed. I guess door guard beams and 5 mph bumpers must be heavy.

That's pretty and all but call me old fashioned. It needs more chrome. Big shiny bumpers or little accent pieces - I don't care. Gimme some chrome, dammit.

:eager:OK, you're old fashioned.

[BrotherMan]

:shakecane:

[Dingfod]

This one is just like mine was except for the white top. It isn't exactly chrome-laden.

http://www.chooseyouritem.com/classics/photos/97500/97740.1970.Dodge.Challenger.RT.SE.jpg

[California Tanker]

I got the dreaded red "X"

[ceptimus]

I did too - that site doesn't allow hotlinking.

But if you quote Ding's post and paste the image URL straight into your browser's address bar, you can see the car in all its glory.

Here's a copy.

http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3256&stc=1&d=1199306057

Looks nicer to me than the new model.

[ShottleBop]

Mrs. ShottleBop drives a 2002 Chevy Avalanche with well over 100,000 miles on it. It came out just as we were looking to replace our 1998 Blazer, which was too small for two car seats and an adult in the back seat. Mrs. SB was getting the oil changed in the Blazer, saw the Avalanche, and fell in love with it--espcially the Rubbermaid cladding, which made it look like a big Tonka toy. She still loves it. She has been able to use it to haul 4 ft. X 8 ft. sheets of plywood, and it seats five adults comfortably. The engine (small-block V8) has plenty of power, and the thing is a great highway cruiser. Our grandson has calle dibs on it for when he turns 16.

We have had generally good luck with our Chevys and Saturns (we've owned 5 of those), and horrible luck with Ford products ('94 Windstar)--not just in quality of product, but with treatment by dealers and their service departments.

[California Tanker]

2007 Chrysler Abrams.

Technically now produced by GD after a buyout, but introduced by Chrysler, at any rate.

Even though this is the fourth generation of this model, you would hardly know it to look at it. It retains with very little change the same lines as the earlier first generation, and is all but identical externally to the 1990 generation.

Getting into the drivers' seat can be difficult if you are of corpulent build, and unfortunately legroom is restricted. People over 6'2" are going to have some difficulty, though I did find myself able to squeeze in, with resulting problems of being a little heavy on the pedals. Once in, however, the driver's comfort is unparalleled by any other vehicle I've been in. Falling asleep can be a particular hazard.

Advertised as carrying the driver and three passengers, this is quite true with no provision made for additional persons: Four seats are all you get. Though it would theoretically be possible to seat persons on the flat outside, it is ill-advised in all but emergency situations. There is ample room for luggage, each person can bring two large bags and thensome. The passenger seats themselves are basic, and the two on the right are best described as 'cramped'

Creature comforts are limited. The heater has two settings, off and furnace, there is no air conditioning, and there are no cupholders. The sound system does have the facility to plug in your iPod or other such electronic device, but unfortunately there are no power outlets in the vehicle. Due to a design flaw, you have to step outside in order to hook into the power circuits. It is fitted with a CB-style radio system for communication with other road users. Satnav is available as an optional extra, and mounts in a pre-designated spot on the right side.

Driving controls are simple enough to understand. A simple 'start' button spins up the engine, and the gear lever is self-explanatory. Though there are only two pedals, be warned that one of them is not the accelerator: They're the brake, and parking brake, acceleration is obtained by twisting the handlebars, just like your average motorcycle. Although the dash controls are of an unusual configuration (headlights are a toggle switch, for example), they are all very clearly marked in writing for that 'Easy to find in an emergency' convenience. All the expected dials are present, speedometer, rev counter, and so on, plus ample warning lights. The headlights are kindof weak, but this is countered by the additional night-vision systems which will pick up a rabbit a mile ahead of you on the road.

Despite the high (1,500) horsepower engine, acceleration is nothing to write home about due to the rather low horsepower to weight ratio. My chevrolet has over 100hp/ton, but this has a mere 22hp/ton. Torque, however, is outstanding, and it will have no problems pulling the average camper trailer or boat, no matter how big, on the heavy-duty hitch provided as standard. With the ability to turn on the spot, however, parallel parking is a breeze.

The grip, on the other hand, is astounding. Particularly impressive is braking, as the vehicle will go from 30mph to zero in ten feet, even without ABS. This can be a problem as seat belts are not provided and this can cause injury to passengers if they are not braced in anticipation. Roadhandling is very good, and it is quite possible to weave through traffic at 45mph. Unfortunately, visibility for the driver is much less good, restricted to the front, coupled with a lack of mirrors, so the driver is dependant on assistance from the passengers. Of course, should you actually hit someone, so what? The vehicles' permanent all-track-drive also provides excellent cross-country abilities, should you feel inclined in that direction.

The ride is very comfortable, even on the worst-maintained of roads. At higher speeds, road noise is, however, atrocious. At low speeds, however, the vehicle is very quiet, and you may find yourself wishing that Chrysler had thought to incorporate a horn to get the oblivious out of your way.

It is apparent that Chrysler spared a thought for passenger safety, complete with a continuously monitored automated fire detection and suppression system, with both manual backups and portable hand extinguishers if required. There are, however, no airbags fitted, and there is a notable lack of crumple zones.

En-route entertainment, in addition to the aforementioned iPod hookup, is provided by the German cannon and Belgian machineguns. Hours of fun can be had with these, though one should be cautioned that their use is frowned upon in some jurisdictions.

Build quality is adequate. It certainly does the job, though one can occasionally see rusting bolts or excess grease. The systems are also prone to leaking. All panels seem to be seamlessly welded, however. Sadly, however, the vehicle really drops down in the world of practicality. It's a little big for most driveways, and though one rarely ever finds oneself hampered by traffic, the fuel bills at about four gallons to the mile are such that only the more affluent person can use it as a daily driver. Then again, at a drive-away cost of about 4.2 million dollars, before extras like ammunition or survivability upgrades, only the most affluent can really afford to buy it in the first place so filling up the 500 gallon fuel tank won't be much of an issue.

Recommended for small families or survivalists with a few select friends.

NTM

[Godwhacker]

I waited a few years to buy my Acura RL, and I love it. I think its one of the most underrated vehicles around:

http://www.edmunds.com/pictures/VEHICLE/2008/Acura/2008.acura.rl.20125783-T.jpg

Its nice and big, great crash test scores, and handles like a much smaller car thanks to SH-AWD, which can send power to any of the four wheels. For example, in a strong turn, the SH-AWD can send power to the outside wheels, "yawing" the car into the turn. The car can take turns at rediculous rates. Also helps with the traction in the bad weather here in the U.S. Northeast.

Interior is awesome, and voice command lets me keep my hands on the wheel and eyes on the road.

I had an Acura TSX before the RL, which I can also highly recommend. Great car.

Wife has a Honda Odyssey, which is another gem. Does not handle like a van typically, but similar to an Accord. Very comfy on long trips or when we need to haul big stuff around. Also good crash ratings and protection for the little one.

If you can't tell already, Im a big Honda/Acura fan. Before that, I had a Pontiac Grand Prick in which the transmission died at 38,000 miles. Generous motors did nothing about it, so I told then I would never buy GM again.

[Dingfod]

I could write a lot of reviews because since 1972 I've owned or leased 14 GMs, 12 Fords, 3 Chryslers, 4 Mazdas, 3 Jeeps, 2 Nissans, 1 Mitsubishi, and 1 Isuzu. This is the condensed version with a rating of up to 5 stars for quality and reliability and a short comment on each following:
*1955 Pontiac Chieftan ** (a clunker)
*1964 Pontiac Tempest **** (nice ride for a teen, said a father)
*1970 Dodge Challenger *** (powerful but really crappy build quality)
*1968 Ford Falcon **** (it never should've lasted as long as it did)
*1973 Mazda RX-3 *** (it went hmmmmmm)
*1972 Ford Torino *** (wife's clunker)
*1977 Chevrolet Vega **** (1st new car, 72K miles in 2 years)
*1964 Chevrolet C10 *** (work truck)
*1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo ***** (one of the best cars we ever had)
*1974 Mercury Capri **** (fun car, good handling, economical)
*1981 Chevrolet Chevette * (gutless crapmobile)
*1981 Pontiac Bonneville ** (barely better than the above)
*1975 Chevrolet Vega * (hunkajunk)
*1978 Chevrolet Monza Wagon *** (not a bad car, Iron Duke 4 cylinder)
*1975 Oldsmobile Omega * (barely transportation)
*1974 Ford F100 **** (drove the wheels off it, sold it for more than purchase price)
*1978 Toyota HiLux 5-speed ***** (one of the best vehicles I've ever owned)
*1982 Toyota Corolla ***** (flawless except for being low powered)
*1983 Toyota HiLux 4x4 ***** (like the 78, only with four wheel drive)
*1975 Toyota FJ55 Landcruiser Wagon *** (two and a half tons of indestructable pig iron)
*1982 Toyota pickup ** (somebody at Toyota quality control was asleep)
*1986 Chrysler Lazer Turbo *** (0-60 in 8 seconds and 37 mpg, what's not to like?)
*1976 Ford Elite [zero stars] (the worst mistake I, or Ford, ever made)
*1982 Jeep Cherokee Chief *** (good tough 4x4, high maintenance)
*1982 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme **** (near perfect)
*1985 Dodge Colt Premier Turbo **** (nice car, fast and fun)
*1989 Isuzu Trooper *** (broken wheel lugs, tippy ... pretty good 4x4)
*1989 Ford Ranger **** (one bad ass little truck)
*1995 Ford Taurus ***** (the only car I would like to have back)
*1979 Ford Fiesta * (didn't ever get it on the road)
*1988 Hyundai Excel *** (pretty good quality for an early model Korean car)
*1994 Ford Ranger XLT **** (not quite as bad ass as the 1989, but still good)
*1997 Jeep Grand Cherokee ***** (the standard all SUVs should be compared to)
*1998 Nissan 200 SX ***** (nice little car, nearly perfect)
*1999 Buick Regal LS **** (not bad, pretty reliable)
*1999 Chevrolet Silverado ***** (the truck I wish I had kept)
*1982 Mazda RX-7 GS (non-running)
*1981 Mazda RX-7 GSE (non-running)
*1984 Mazda RX-7 GS (non-running)
*1994 Ford Escort *** (really good until the tranny blew a seal)
*1994 Ford Ranger **** (just as good as the other 1994 Ranger)
*2001 Ford Focus ZX3 **** (fun car, hot smell never went away)
*1997 Nissan 200 SX *** (cheap tinny, reliable)
*2004 Chevrolet Trailblazer **** (very powerful, average quality, decent mpg for a V-8 SUV)
*2002 Jeep Grand Cherokee *** (the jury is still out, but it's not nearly as good as the 1997 was)

The best make I've ever owned? Toyota
Second best? Nissan
Third? Mitsubishi

Why don't I buy all Toyotas? Initial purchase price, probably. They just cost more to buy.

[California Tanker]

*1979 Ford Fiesta * (didn't ever get it on the road)


Hmm. My mother's first car was a Fiesta. She liked it so much, she bought another one. She like that one so much, she bought a third one...

NTM

[godfry n. glad]

If you can't tell already, Im a big Honda/Acura fan. Before that, I had a Pontiac Grand Prick in which the transmission died at 38,000 miles. Generous motors did nothing about it, so I told then I would never buy GM again.

What? No 60,000 mile power train warrantee?

I generally tell such folks that not only will I never buy their product again, but I'll tell my family and friends, and go online to all my internet newsgroups and recommend that everybody else might be wise to do the same, given the unwillingness of the retailers to back up their claims.

[California Tanker]

That said, doesn't GM now come with a 100,000 mile powertrain warranty? They must be pretty sure of themselves, or they're liable to lose a lot of money.

NTM

[Caligulette]

I have a 1993 Subaru Legacy station wagon which I like. I'm the second owner, am taking it to its one and only mechanic, and have had something like no trouble with it except once when the battery died. The only trouble I really have is that the tape-type cassette I got to be able to listen to my ipod while driving is lodged in the tapedeck, thus disabling the radio (which I'd like for the news, but o, well).

My second most troublesome car was the one I had in 1991/2. This was the 1968 Ford Fairlaine 500. It was gorgeous, and I could fix it myself- until the head gasket blew. Oh, man, that was bad. I used to get offers from fellow drivers at red lights to buy it. The engine sounded like a rumbly piece of heaven, and the roomieness- we could fit 7 fully-costumed ren fair workers in with no problem. (Two of them in hoop skirts, no less.) I felt like a mazzillion bucks driving it- and went way too fast in it, I am sure. But I was watching the road, not the speedometer, so who am I to say?

[Dingfod]

If you can't tell already, Im a big Honda/Acura fan. Before that, I had a Pontiac Grand Prick in which the transmission died at 38,000 miles. Generous motors did nothing about it, so I told then I would never buy GM again.

What? No 60,000 mile power train warrantee?It wasn't all that many years ago that a 12,000 mile warranty was all you got.

That said, doesn't GM now come with a 100,000 mile powertrain warranty? They must be pretty sure of themselves, or they're liable to lose a lot of money.Most GM cars and trucks will last a lot longer than 100,000 miles without much in the way of problems, just like most any of their competitor's products. Believe me, if Hyundai and Kia don't go broke offering 100,000 mile warranties, neither will GM.

[Ymir's blood]

My current vehicle is an '08 Subaru Impreza hatchback. It's only a month and a half old though. Not much to talk about.

I got it to replace the Ford Ranger which was starting to have a lot of rust related problems on the underside. Still it lasted 10 years, with me driving it. I'm hoping the Subaru will go longer.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I'm officially old. I bought my 94 Nissan SkylineGTS with less than 10,000 kms on the clock,at the time it was considered to be a Japanese sparring partner for the executive/sporting market.
Finally admitted defeat last year after watching countless examples of this once-desireable car fall prey to the very worst of the dickhead petrolhead.

Now I drive a Mitsubishi Diamante station wagon. Despite having a much larger engine, and much more power, it's easier to insure and a lot more comfortable to drive. Granted, it has a turning circle similar to the QEII and all the charisma of a librarian, but it has sufficient grunt to compensate for its extra bulk, and sufficient road prescence to win whichever lane I want in traffic. When you put boot to floor, the gearbox kicks down seamlessly, and the only sound audible over the protestations of Mrs Schrodinger [who may or may not be in the passenger seat] is a light sucking noise as the car empties my wallet through the fuel pump. Back in the '80s Mitsubishi advertised the predecessor to this model as having 'more tow than an Aussie tank'. I've not actually had chance to tow a tank with it yet, but can confirm that it will pull a good sized boat fast enough to keep up with hill country traffic.

[kappablackmafia]

I just purchased an '08 Toyota Camry SE. I have no real complaints with it at the moment as I've only had it for a little over two months. I was a little let down when I purchased it that it didn't come with heated seats unlike another model I was looking at, but it really doesn't matter. It's not like I paid for heated seats then they were suddenly missing!

[Clutch Munny]

1992 Buick Park Avenue

Purchased 2nd hand in 2002, with 120,000 km on the clock, this was a great alternative to a minivan for a family of five. As an American near-luxury model, it had lots of bells and whistles circa 1992, a.k.a. standard equipment circa 2002 (like a driver's airbag, ABS, keyless entry, and headlights that remained on for 60 seconds after killing the engine, enabling the octogenarian owner to hurry indoors in their brilliant light, before the teenagers lurking in the shadows could leap out).

Of course it was a Buick. So the seats were soft, making up in plushness what they lack in structure and support. The ride was equally soft, and would have been dreadful on twisty roads, but was very nice for freeway driving. The steering communicated about as much road feel as in a video game, and the brakes... would stop the vehicle, at some point, if continuously applied.

What was great about the car was this: An absolutely enormous trunk, capable of swallowing as many as five large suitcases without taking out the diaper bags and hockey sticks. The GM 3.8, absolutely unkillable, with plenty of power for pretty reasonable fuel economy. The seatbelt for a sixth passenger up front, under the fold-down armrest. The stability and security of a large and quite well-built vehicle. And the fact that it was a car, built at a time when minivans were not car-like.

We put over 100,000 km on the car, but had to let it go for almost nothing when the rear suspension popped. It just was too old to be worth putting money into it, so we sold it and got a Dodge Grand Caravan.

[Waluigi]

I drive a 2004 Elantra GT Hatchback. I love it. Manual transmission, came with a satellite-radio-ready Kenwood deck, decent fuel mileage, fold-flat rear seats mean I can carry a lot of cargo if I need to.

I'll likely drive this car until it can't be driven anymore, which hopefully is still quite a few years away, because I don't see any vehicles currently that I would replace it with (maybe a Toyota Matrix, but that's about it).

[Godwhacker]

If you can't tell already, Im a big Honda/Acura fan. Before that, I had a Pontiac Grand Prick in which the transmission died at 38,000 miles. Generous motors did nothing about it, so I told then I would never buy GM again.

What? No 60,000 mile power train warrantee?It wasn't all that many years ago that a 12,000 mile warranty was all you got.

That said, doesn't GM now come with a 100,000 mile powertrain warranty? They must be pretty sure of themselves, or they're liable to lose a lot of money.Most GM cars and trucks will last a lot longer than 100,000 miles without much in the way of problems, just like most any of their competitor's products. Believe me, if Hyundai and Kia don't go broke offering 100,000 mile warranties, neither will GM.

It was a 1999...it had a 3yrs/36,000 mile warranty.

Agree that it was probably just bad luck, although I have heard that the Grand Prix was prone to tranny problems.

[Ymir's blood]

Agree that it was probably just bad luck, although I have heard that the Grand Prix was prone to tranny problems.Are you sure it wasn't drag racing?

[GodPossessed]

I drive a '92 Miata V8 conversion (yeah, I know). 17mpg on premium ~150 between fillups. :rolleyes: I also have a '97 Toyota truck with 160k miles, the wifey drives a '91 LS400 with 195K miles, son has '87 Accord with 140K+ miles and daughter drive a '97 Camry with 175K miles. Yay Toyota!!!

[Dingfod]

Damn, you need to get your wife a new car.

[GodPossessed]

Damn, you need to get your wife a new car.

She'd shoot me if I tried to take her car!! That thing looks stinkin new and gives NO trouble.

[Godwhacker]

Agree that it was probably just bad luck, although I have heard that the Grand Prix was prone to tranny problems.Are you sure it wasn't drag racing?

HA! I love it!

Ironically, when I took it to the dealer, they accused me of drag racing it, which really ticked me off further, which is what I think they were trying to do, as the car was FWD, four doors and a six cylinder....not exactly a dragster

[Pendaric]

I have a Mercedes CL 600 for my main running about, a BMW 530d Touring for the wife and an old Bentley Turbo as an occasional weekend car.

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k225/baldbantam/Me/bentley.jpg

[Stormlight]

Can I have your stuff? :giggles:

[But]

You've got too much money, man.

[Dingfod]

He HAD too much money.

[Stormlight]

:lol:

[California Tanker]

My mother has always wanted an older Bentley, and hopes that one day all her children will band together and buy her one. It's surprising how cheaply... well, less-expensively, you can get a 15-year-old one which is in reasonable condition: Not as if Boy Racers have been driving them into the ground, after all.

NTM

[Ensign Steve]

You've got too much money, man.

It's all the money he's saved on medical costs.

[But]

It's all the money he's saved on medical costs.


What do you mean?

[Ensign Steve]

Sorry, I was doing a little cross-thread humor (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=474388&postcount=33) there.

I use the word "humor" loosely.

[BrotherMan]

By unfortunate circumstance I am now the proud renter of a 2007 VW Passat. I've only put maybe 10 miles on it and I can honestly say I don't hate it.

It's a solid feeling vehicle with good pick up in either the automatic or manumatic mode (I <3 manumatic). It's still a larger vehicle than I'm used to so it's not exactly nimble. (Say, compared to a 2000 VW GTI, which my roommate had and I loved to drive.)

Big buttons, easy to use, find and understand features. Though some of that may be due to my already passing familiarity with VW interior layouts. At least I picked it up faster than I did on the Caravan I had initially.

It's a nice car and one wouldn't go wrong with it I don't think. But if you've the money for it you probably have better options.

As an aside, I am now in the market for a new vehicle. My research (over the last year, off and on) leads me to either a Civic coupe or a Mazda 3 sedan. If anyone has an opinion on either of those or good reason to look at something else in that range I'd appreciate it.

[BrotherMan]

Now that I've put just over 1,100 miles on my new car, I can give it a fair evaluation.

A couple of weeks ago I totaled my 2002 Dodge Neon. Other than the damage to the vehicle it wasn't anything major, only involved my car, and I wasn't in any danger of injury. The frustrating parts are, it was almost paid off and I wasn't ready to be rid of it. With only 116,000 miles on it, she seemed to have some life left – despite my callous abuses.

Fast forward to now: I am paying for a 2008 Honda Civic LX. As of this review, it's totally stock but the features it does have are at least equivalent to, if not better than, what I had on my Neon SXT. My favorite feature is the cruise control. It's been on vehicles for many, many decades, but this is my first vehicle to have it. I swear it will keep me out of trouble as my comfort level with the car increases, so does the weight of my right foot. Thankfully, that is no longer a problem. (Or, better stated as a reduced problem.)

Usually the first thing said about the '08 Civics is about the split gauge cluster. True, it is disconcerting at first. Doubly so for me as the speedometer is a digital gauge (only showing numbers) because I'm stuck on the analog dial meme. I'm already used to it now, probably have been for the last few hundred miles. I would prefer some kind of sweeping indication of speed, but I don't hate the setup now. The placement of the speedometer is good, however, being just below the driver's line of sight.

The LX is a well mannered vehicle. It offers a sporty like feel without the harshness that a tightly tuned suspension might bring. Steering feel is a little tighter than what I'm used to from the Neon, which is a plus. I opted for the automatic transmission, and I do not regret it. It's a five speed auto and the shift points don't feel out of place. I haven't done much in the way of heavy acceleration but what I have done indicates the usual shift lag as it downshifts to give better torque.

My single favorite feature from the Neon was the factory stereo. Even my music geek roommate commented that there wasn't a need to swap components. To my untrained ears there was little in the way of coloration of the music. While the Honda stereo is comparable, I noticed that it was a little more mid-rangey with a false bass boost. Which was easily corrected by simple tuning the bass down one increment. Two features of the Honda stereo that I already enjoy: The AVC, Automatic Volume Control, which can be turned off, set to low, medium or high; and the auxiliary jack where I can plug in an MP3 player. (The CD player can also play MP3 files and WMA files on a CD.)

The big thing for me now is fuel economy. I drive, round trip, 86 miles every work day. The haggard Neon averaged between 25 and 28 miles per gallon every time. I was fuelling every third day. By comparison, I've gotten 33, 32 and 32 miles per gallon on the three times I've filled the Civic – which amounts to every fourth day. As far as actual cost to me, it looks good. I'm spending only a little bit more each fill up for the utility of an extra trip to and from work.

So, after I was forced to say goodbye to my friend of the last few years, I think I did well in getting a replacement in kind, with some bonus thrown in.

[California Tanker]

The recent dodgy weather reminded me...

2005 Audi S4 Cabrio.

Probably more money than I should have spent on a car, but by God it's a nice one. Given the moniker of "The Cosset" by Household 6 as the interior is so good. This should not be a surprise, it's what Audis are famous for.

Bottom line up front: Extremely capable car, if not quite all that much fun.

The interior is already mentioned. There are storage spaces galore, and two power sockets. Being the top of the 4s, the various 'style options' are all standard. I went with the (real) wood trim. Most people go with the carbon fibre option being an S-car, but I went for 'class'. The 4 being at the bottom end of Audi's scale, all the absolute latest and greatest gizmos were not at the time standard. The DVD SatNav was a $2K option, which on a car which costs as much as it does is rather a travesty. I ended up getting a Garmin iQue for $500, and it fits in my pocket. Parking assist wasn't even an option, neither was bluetooth, though they were available in the A6 and A8 cars. Bose radio is good though. A Flappy-paddle gearbox was another $1.5K option, so I went with the manual. That said, the six-speed transmission is very light and smooth.

Clarkson called the 4.2l V8 a 'masterpiece', and it's very hard to disagree with him. It cranks out one more horse than the BMW M3's engine (of the time), and does it without the raucous screaming. You know when you hit the torque band, the car shoots off at about 2,100 rpm. It means you're a little slow off the line as it takes a second or two to get to a speed that the RPMs get high enough, but at about five and a half seconds to 60, 'slow' is relative. Once at speed (i.e. overtaking), it's a breeze, and the exhaust makes a wonderful note as you do it. Top speed is limited to 155mph, by my calculations if you take the limiter off, you'll redline at about 180.

The downside is the handling. Like all the S cars, all four wheels are driven. This makes the car a little heavy, and thus it won't win a drag race against an M3 or an Evo. Worse, it's a little prone to understeer: You just can't really get the tail out on an S4, which means that though it gets around all the corners at startling speed, it isn't that much fun to do it. On the plus side, if the road's a bit wet, the Audi's got it made. Kentucky had some horrid snow this week, the S4 took it with no fuss, whilst traditional two-wheel-drive cars were slipping. Grip is excellent, aided with stability control if you leave it on.

Another downside, surprisingly for the cost of the car, has been QA. My glove compartment door fell off. I also had a problem with the convertible top and an airbag firing sensor. Of course, everything was repaired under warranty with no fuss. I will say that I have had no problems with any of the dealers I've been to so far, something I cannot say for BMW, and I'm told Mercedes isn't all that great either. Speaking of the convertible top, other than that small problem fixed with a subsequent redesign (which they sewed in the same day), it's proven very quiet and capable. The wind deflector also is quite functional and easy to fold up once you figure it out. When the top is folded into the boot you still have enough room for a full sized suitcase. The rear seats do not fold down, but there's a pass-through for skis or a rifle or whatever long thing you want to put in it behind/through the rear seat centre arm rest.

Even nearly three years later, I'm still finding little touches on the car which make one realise that they put a lot of thought into it. Any time I've had to change a wheel before (and they give you a full-sized spare, by the way, making the size of the boot with the roof down even more remarkable), it's been a bit of an effort, trying to get the thing hooked on the five bolts. Not so in this case, it's one central nub and the wheels are very light, so no difficulty at all. Somewhere near Omaha a tail light bulb went out. I know this because it told me my left rear was out as soon as it happened. So I detoured into the Omaha dealer, and had the bulb replaced (under warranty) in about ten minutes.

Overall the experience has been that I would have absolutely no qualms with buying another Audi. My bank balance might, mind.

Only problem is that I don't wash it enough. The driver's seat is not as whiteish as it used to be.

http://www.clubi.ie/exalted/images/Other/s42.JPG

NTM

[California Tanker]

I've been travelling around a bit recently, and have to catch up.

2008 Fiat Panda.
I'm not ordinarily a huge fan of small cars. At 6'5 (As near to 2m as makes no difference, to European types, since this is a Euro-specific car) I have encountered a couple into which I physically cannot fit behind the driver's seat. Thus that was strike 1 against the Panda when I discovered that was the vehicle I would be getting at the rental place. Strike 2 was that I hadn't had the most awe-inspiring experience renting out an earlier version of the thing a number of years ago. Not that it was a particularly bad car, it seemed to do what it said on the tin, but it was not well suited for my frame, driving it was not a particular pleasure (Particularly gear shifts, that I can recall), and it was definitely short on some creature comforts such as door panelling. Just pure metal. Granted, the Ferrari F40 doesn't have interior panelling either, but at least that's a car designed to be as light and fast as possible. Can't quite say that for the Panda. But I digress.
In the back of my mind, though, was the repeated commentary by the Top Gear lads that the Panda is a recommended car. (James May even owns one). Hmm.

So, first impressions were mediocre. It's by no means a pretty car, but neither does it delve to the depths that Fiat has proven itself capable of. (Anyone who has seen the previous style of the Fiat Multipla knows what I'm taking about, not that the current version is much better). Part of it is the fact that though it is a very short car in length, as many of the current European crop are, it is also quite tall, taller than most. Results in a very odd shape. Very little of the Fiat is the boot. A single full-sized suitcase can fit in it, standing vertically, and you might get a backpack in there too. The rear seat does fold forward, but surprisingly was a single piece, not the split 1/3-2/3 one would ordinarily expect. Disappointing.

That said, the very small boot, combined with the small hood, does result in a quite acceptable crew compartment. It's a proper five-door four-seater, not a 2+2, and with the front seats all the way back, the guys in the back have as much, if not more legroom than those in an Audi A4, my yardstick since I own one. Then again, the front seat still isn't quite as good as an A4, but it is quite acceptable. I was able to sit in it for a couple of hours at a time without great discomfort: Quite a plus for a small car in my view. There is a housing well for the driveshaft to the rear wheels, but it doesn't go up as far into the compartment as one ordinarily expects. This is possibly a result of the car being higher than most, the small engine may be lower than most, or may simply be a fact that as the car is small with small wheels, it doesn't need a particularly thick or high driveshaft. Of course, it's a front-wheel-drive car, only the 4x4 version uses a driveshaft. Interestingly, in this version, as a 4x4, it is subject to 'gas-guzzler' taxes in some places like the UK, which is ridiculous. It probably still drinks less fuel than a Honda Jazz or Ford Fiesta.

The interior is not something which will take your breath away either, but in fairness, it's a damned sight better than the old Panda. You start to realise just what this car is supposed to do: It's a cheap, reliable form of practical transportation in the city. Not really designed for long-distance runs, not really designed to be the cutting edge of luxury. Does exactly what it says on the tin, as it were. As a result, 'snazzy' things like electric wing mirrors are not present: Do it manually. There is no 'speed sensor' to tell the power steering if it wants to be heavy for motorways, or light for cities. Instead, there's a button to push. The rear windows are raised and lowered with... shock... handles. (Downside, the rear windows only retract down about 2/3 of the way). Neither does it try to be anything it is not. It doesn't have fake wood panelling or imitation leather. No chrome or pretend aluminium. The air vents are very functional, but obviously cheap. Moving the switch from 'reirculated air' to 'outside air' results in a very loud clunking sound as valves move. You can hear trip switches clicking when the windshield wipers on a slow setting decide it's time to move. It doesn't try to say 'I'm an upmarket car' at all. I can appreciate that. No arm rest, interestingly, and the handbrake is down low so it's actually a car conducive to 'parking.' (i.e. making out with the girlfriend). Couple of cupholders and a cigarette lighter. My car also came with a CD-player/radio, the sound quality was fair enough. A nice touch was that the wipers automatically slowed down when the car was stationary. Saves on wiper wear.

On the road, it's not bad either. The gear lever is mounted well forward, on the lower part of the dash, but because it's such a small car, there's no difficulty in reaching it, indeed, it's almost natural. Shifting was not the muscle-wrenching ordeal of the previous Panda. Road noise is pretty low, and the ride isn't bad either. That said, this is not a car which will ever rival the Mini as a rally car. The downside to its height is that it is very top-heavy; hitting corners, even some on the motorway which were tighter than most, left me very concerned that I was going to roll over, if I didn't understeer first. No torque steer that I noticed, but then the engine isn't that big. Then again, the gear ratio is low enough that you have a viable chance of fighting for position in Italian traffic. (Just how Italians manage to correlate their relaxed pace of life with their utterly impatient manner of driving is beyond me). The downsides here are that at the higher gear ratios, getting up to the higher motorway speeds takes a while, you won't want to be overtaking many people on two-lane roads, and even then the cruise speed is at a fairly high amount of RPMs. This is not a car for playing Aygo Football in. The fuel tank was not far off 32 litres, pretty small. Then again, I don't see where they could have put a bigger one, and the small engine doesn't gulp it down either. Brakes were pretty good.

As an aside, I should also point out that I have discovered it takes knocks quite well. After a rear-ending by an Audi A2 in traffic, it came out with barely a scratch, whilst the Audi came out a bit dented.

I don't know if I could wholeheartedly recommend the Panda, but I certainly won't say too much against it if you live in a city and don't do any intercity travelling in the car. I don't see why anyone would pay the money for a Smart ForFour instead of the Panda, for example. Then again, I have not driven the Panda's competitors.


2008 Pontiac G6
Moving back to the US, a mid-size four-door which I approached without any huge prior bias. I've met Pontiacs in the past I've found at least acceptable. However, it did not take me very long to take a bit of a dislike to the car.

It is a proper mid-size, there's a fair sized boot, and there seemed to be little problem with rear-seat room, even with the front seats all the way back. Sadly, the seats themselves were not overly comfortable. It didn't take much more than an hour of cruising before both I, and my passenger (another S4 owner, though he has Recaro seats) were shifing around trying to spread the pain. The car did have all the creature comforts you would expect from that class of car, but unfortunately, it was shoddily done. I've seen worse panel fitting, I've seen better, but the fake aluminium (i.e. chromed plastic) outlines on the dials and air vents were quickly noted. In fact, the entire interior was plastic, excepting the carpet and seats.

The good point was that road noise was low, and ride quality good. Indeed, when I remarked I was cruising at 85mph my companion looked over to verify. I didn't make much of an effort to test the car's handling, I'll just say that I didn't have any issue with it on 90% freeway driving. I did, however, take a major dislike to the automatic gearbox. Now, I dislike automatics at the best of times, but this one I really didn't like. It wasn't that it was exceptionally slow, but it really had a horribly tendancy to pick the wrong gear for what you wanted it to do. Worse, the cruise control sucked, it would drop four or five mph before adding a bit of gas to bring back up to the desired speed. But when it did this, the automatic gearbox decided to drop down a gear making lots of noise, and a bit of a jump. After a very short period of time, I simply disabled the cruise control and controlled the speed myself. Which further excacerbated my comfort problems.

Though the gearbox took the brunt of my dislike, the engine took no small amount either. Indeed, I lifted the hood to see what size of hamster they had trying to spin the wheels. Alas, (probably out of embarassment) the numbers were nowhere to be seen. My companion spent some of his time looking through the manual, as we were somewhat bemused by the "TC" button. Surely they couldn't mean 'Traction Control', could they? Who'd want to turn it off? What difference would it make? We'd already concluded that acceleration seemed poor. He was amused enough to read out a bit that said that "Your engine is a powerful one, and you must be sure that if the traction control is off, then do not apply full accelerator or you may lose control.' So we put it to the test. We found a quiet level stretch of Ft Irwin Road, came to a standing stop. Turned off the traction control, started the stopwatch, and floored it. Over 14 seconds later, and without as much of a chirp from the tyres, we passed 60mph. That's pretty miserable.

Frankly, I'm at a bit of a loss to figure out why anyone would buy a G6 over, say, a Toyota Camry. I guess the Pontiac might be considered by some to be a bit better looking (I'm not sure I'm one of them), but otherwise I can't think of anything it does better than the Toyota. Probably why it's a staple in the car rental fleets, but as far as I know, not too many people own them themselves.

NTM

[Dingfod]

Thanks for reviving this thread, CT. Just yesterday I drove a car I liked.

The first Lexus of any kind I ever drove is the 1993 LS400 my eldest daughter just bought for $1600 a little over a week ago. Wow, what a car! Even with almost 200,000 miles on the odometer, the body work fit and finish is beyond compare. There is no mass-marketed automobile that is any better than this one, even new. The doors close almost silently yet have a good solid feel to them. So does the hood (bonnet), but I noticed a bit of wind-induced flutter in the sheet metal across it at speed.

The engine is silky smooth and as quiet as any Cadillac I've ever driven. The transmission shifts seamlessly. These combine to propel this full-sized (16-1/2 feet long) sedan to 60 mph in a rather sporty 7.5 seconds, much quicker than the aforementioned Pontiac G6. The acceleration is very comparable to my more powerful, yet heavier, 2004 Chevrolet Trailblazer 4x4 SUV, but lacking the monstrous torque of the larger 5.3 liter V-8 of the Chevy, the take-off from a standing start is noticeably lacking by comparison. Once rolling, it shoots forward like a luxury car should. Like reviews of them I read of this model of LS400 when they were new, they are so quiet on the road it is really easy to break the speed limit without realizing it, 80 mph comes up very quickly.

The handling is quite sporty as well, but the ride is Cadillac smooth. I think it's the smoothest riding car I've ever driven. It corners quite well for a car of its size and heft. The new tires the previous owner installed are quite capable of gripping the road under a variety of conditions, but especially on dry pavement around the curves just north of my home. It is a stealthy dark color and as silent as a luxury car of any price can be. I cannot emphasize how quiet this car is, it is that amazing.

Given only the number of miles on the odometer and the noticeable interior wear (cracked and split leather), a leaky sunroof, and dash lights that don't work, one would gather the impression that this is some old junkheap that someone has cast aside. The exterior is a dark dark green, almost black, color with the shine of a car someone took extra care to maintain. I thought the wheels were aftermarket, but they're just mirror-polished alloy wheels that came with the Lexus when new. From the outside appearance and the silky smoothness of the engine and transmission, I'd guess this thing had another 100,000 miles in it, easy. Of course, driven by someone who won't take care of it (like the person who just bought it), it may last six months to a year if it's not driven too much, which it will be, if it lasts that long. I want to find a nice one in better shape for myself. And nobody else gets to drive it.

[Egor]

My current and most favorite vehicle is my 2001 Toyota Tacoma S-runner. Well the S stands for Sport of course but it's a street truck not an off road truck. Its got a 190 HP V6 with a 5 speed manual transmission it's rear wheel drive only and sometimes I wish it would grow 4wd. I got it at around 40000 and have since driven it to 98000 with no problems except for crappy gas clogging my injectors. It's never failed to start and it get's on average of 23 MPG.

Now since it's a sport truck it came with the sport package Dual front 12v outlets the greatest cup holders on earth I can stick anything from a pop can to a Sobe bottle in them. Best of all are the front seats are bucket seats and boy are they comfortable to sit in. Now it does have fold down back seats but those are nothing fun to sit in you can fit a 6ft person back there as long as they are skinny. It's got an awesome bed liner and enough power to tow a small trailer. Now as far as acceleration goes? Well when I want to get up and go it goes I have heard that the S-runner will do 0-60 in around 8 seconds though I have not pushed mine that hard.

The only two things I do not like about it are the position of the clock which is right behind the wheel and the back windows which are broken and cant be opened. I will drive it till it dies.

My mom owns a 95 Camry great car it's got 201000 on it still runs like new. Its got an I4 engine and a 4 speed automatic with overdrive. The paint looks almost new and driving the car is very smooth. Smooth ride and smooth shifting excellent handling more ample power and best of all even after so many years of driving it gets 32 MPG.

We have had two Honda accords I was not impressed. One we got at 80000 and things were always breaking on it one thing right after another. The transmission cooked itself at 140000. It was a two door the seats sucked it always gave me a backache and I hated it. The next one we bought at around 150000 it was a 4 door wagon was much more comfortable and nice to drive. Unfortunately it was plagued by similar mechanical issues. It always was leaking oil but we could never find out where until we realized it was coming out into the plug wells and then out the back of the engine. We could never find spots or see any blue smoke to indicate leakage. It died in less than six months. We will never own another Honda.

None of the three Toyotas we have owned or the two that we own now have ever had any problems like that.

After my moms second Toyota Corolla was totaled when some one rear ended her at 40MPH while she was sitting at a stoplight. This caused a 4 car pile up yet the faithful old corolla held strong and was still drivable. Or mom decided to buy a Volvo 850 Turbo 4 door coup. Worst car we have ever owned Volvo's cost a ton to repair and it always needed something left us stranded in several places had an idiot light that would never go away. We finally traded it for about 1000 bucks we had left it sitting and it's 5 cylinder engine had turned into a 4 cylinder engine. The intake valves were totally messed up just from sitting for a few months. We had a Chevy truck that was sitting for longer and it started right up with no issues after sitting for approximately 6 months. We easily spent more than the value of the car in maintenance on it.

I drove a 98 VW passat awhile back and was not so impressed. It had 70000 miles on it and barely anything worked. Most of it was manual except for the transmission and the sunroof. The windows worked the adjuster for the left mirror did not the cruise control dropped out after awhile and the transmission was messed up somehow. Oh and the sunroof did not work either. It got us from point a-b without a problem though it was a loaner from our shop.

My grandfather owns a Prius and has talked to several Prius owners and says that Toyota makes the really nice Prius and the cheaper Prius. The nice one moves like a sports car and has a larger engine and higher torque electric motors that's the version my grandfather has and he get's up and down hills and through Seattle traffic like a fish in a river. I would not say he loves it but he does love the 40-50MPG he also has a newer Sienna van that he really likes. The cheap Prius's also have no cruise control!

[Dingfod]

My brother found out about Volvo's repair parts cost the hard way, the head warped and cylinder cracked on his $3500 850 wagon. A new engine: $10,000. Wha? Yeah, ten grand. That's a smidge more than a Prius transmission.

Speaking of Prius: I did not know there were differently powered Prii. This afternoon there was an old lady (probably 4 or 5 years old than me) driving one in the next lane. I actually had to twist the throttle more than usual to run off and leave her on my motorcycle. Granted, my motorcycle isn't very fast, it's capable of 0-60 in about 5.5 seconds, but I probably normally take 9 or 10 seconds to get to 60. I probably did about an 8 second jaunt to get out in front of her. I was impressed. Hell, she was on the cellphone at the time and we were going uphill.

[Egor]

My Grandfather drives his like it's a sports car. He could get 60MPG if he tried!

I could Review the Semi's I've driven as well. ;)

[Dingfod]

My Grandfather drives his like it's a sports car. He could get 60MPG if he tried!I was probably getting better mileage on my scoot than she was the way she was driving.

I could Review the Semi's I've driven as well. ;)Do that and you risk my reviews of combine harvesters and tractors.

[Egor]

My Grandfather drives his like it's a sports car. He could get 60MPG if he tried!I was probably getting better mileage on my scoot than she was the way she was driving.

I could Review the Semi's I've driven as well. ;)Do that and you risk my reviews of combine harvesters and tractors.

I could Review are Kubota Tractor as well? :D

[California Tanker]

2003 Fiat Multipla.

Begin Review:
http://cdn.motors.co.uk/d/used-photos/huge/X/3/X394NGB.jpg

http://www.autobedrijfgg.nl/php/images/Fiat%20Multipla%2041-DJ-GV%20Back.JPG

http://www.budapestsite.com/wp-content/photos/f13_16_multipla1.jpg

End review.

I don't care how good it may be mechanically or practically. I would never recommend a car this hideous to anyone I like.

NTM

[Uthgar the Brazen]

I like odd-looking vehicles. If the mpg weren't so shitty (cf to my wee Toyota), I'd get a Honda Element in a heartbeat. But damn, that car is ugly.

[Dingfod]

If it got 100 mpg, I'd drive it. And sell advertising space on it's flanks.

[Dingfod]

... Fiat ...

I don't care how good it may be mechanically ...One of these things isn't like the other.

[California Tanker]

My Grandfather drives his like it's a sports car. He could get 60MPG if he tried!I was probably getting better mileage on my scoot than she was the way she was driving.

Very amply demonstrated by Clarkson in this clip: Not 'what you drive' but 'how you drive'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-MUBg0hDII

You've also got that bunch of Hypermilers, who I think take it to extremes.

NTM

[Uthgar the Brazen]

Hypermilers are just fuckin' dangerous. Cutting the engine at 55mph to "save on gas" is a great way to cause a horrible accident. By which I mean if I survive the pile-up they create, I'm going to turn them into quivering, bloody masses.

[Egor]

Well if you wanna hear about bad MPG though actually it's really good for the type of truck it is. I am averaging about 6.6 MPG in the Semi I am driving it's a 2005 Freightliner Classic XL. I drive with a pretty light and gentle foot though and my shifts are smooth and that helps allot. I have heard that our fleet average on that type of truck is about 5.7 MPG. I hauled three loads of over 40,000 lbs as well with this truck and those tend to shoot the mileage through the floor.

Now the highest I have seen was in a Freightliner Century ST and we were pushing 7.35 in it. The Freightliner Casdacia's get the highest mileage in our fleet though. Not sure what their average MPG is.

[California Tanker]

http://www.avto-otchet.net/CarReviews/2589_3.jpg?rnd=0.1865208050259306

1994 Mercedes C180

This one is a little different. It’s a fourteen-year-old vehicle with just under 30,000 miles on the clock.

The C180 at the time was the smallest Merc you could get. As near as I can tell, most people bought it for the same reason as they’d buy a BMW 316i: Cheapest way of buying the badge. In this case, this really was the reason, as at the time of purchase, a vehicle with world-wide service was required.
That said, despite the fact that it’s only a C-class with a very small engine, it is still a C-Class, a four-door sedan. And as small four-doors go, it’s not that small either. The boot is quite copious, and the even with the front seats all the way back, there’s arguably enough room for someone’s legs in the seats behind. Even better, the driver’s position is one of the most comfortable I’ve encountered in a small four-door. And the looks are still good. Unlike many of its contemporaries, time has been good to the styling.
The interior is not bad. Bearing in mind the standards of the mid-90s, at least. Although the materials are obviously not the best (fake leather, fake wood), they still manage to have enough of an overall effect that you feel in a fairly nice car. Quality is good, and best of all, the entire car feels solid and heavy.
The performance cannot be called ‘sporty’ under any stretch of the imagination due to the small engine, but on the other hand, the gear ratio is low enough that the acceleration is still quite reasonable. On the other hand, cruising at motorway speed clears the 3,000 rpm barrier. On the third hand, fuel consumption is still quite reasonable, at about 30km / litre.
Sadly, the gearbox is a bit clunky, and the clutch is heavy. It doesn’t grind or bind or any such, it just takes a little more force than I’m used to. No matter, it’s not a sports car and you won’t be doing handbrake turns in it anyway: The handbrake is actually a foot pedal. At least it leaves room for a large in-armrest storage compartment. The service brakes were definitely mushy, but I don’t think they had been replaced since production.
I’m not sure I’m convinced by the single windshield wiper. It’s sortof snazzy to watch, as the wiper extends and shortens in order to reach the corners, whilst still clearing the roofline, and I’m not sure what the interior mechanism is, it could be a simple rail, but I really can’t quite see the advantage of the system over the traditional twin-blade arrangement, except maybe that the cleared area is symmetrical and think that it results in faster wiper wear and just one more thing to break.
Ride quality is pretty good. Cobblestones did not seem to be much of an issue for the car, and the road noise is about average for a modern car, but for fifteen years ago, really pretty good. Seat comfort, as mentioned, is definitely good.
I don’t know if I could recommend it as a buy or not. After all, not many 1994 vehicles sub 30,000miles are on the market, let alone Mercs. If one could be found, it would certainly be a very good vehicle for not much money. On the other hand, one must always worry about how much repair events would cost for a Merc.

NTM

[Dingfod]

I never knew they sold any small Mercedes in the U.S. below the 190 model.

[California Tanker]

They may not have. It was purchased in Ireland, for initial service in Korea. Has since lived in Ireland, Holland and Austria as well.

NTM

[California Tanker]

People kept writing in complaining to Top Gear that they don't do proper reviews of normal cars any more.

So they do a Ford Fiesta.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO0hCILrgNA&fmt=18

NTM

[BrotherMan]

Earlier this month I made a little boo-boo on my up-till-now '08 Civic. While she was in for repairs I rented a 2008 Nissan Altima from Enterprise. (I have nothing but good things to say about Enterprise, but that's my experiences with them.)

The Altima was the 4-door sedan, 2.5L engine coupled to a CVT, constantly variable transmission.

I will start with what I liked:

Computer functions - on-the-fly MPH indicator, outside temp with freeze warning, trip functions and maintenance indicators.
Large side mirrors


Should I have need to find a car some time in the future Nissan will be on the list but I will avoid anything with a CVT as if it were the plague. The CVT under my considerate and delicate feet was a wretched experience. It always felt as though I were in the wrong gear. As in, accelerating from 25mph to 40mph. I disliked the floaty suspension or the wandering steering.

I stop short of saying the Altima is a bad car, though. It simply isn't the car for me. It does, however, make me appreciate just how in love with my Civic I really am but didn't realize. I mean, I almost started a thread about my love affair with a car. How silly is that?

[ShottleBop]

We have a CVT in our Prius. Works fine.

[seebs]

CVTs can be really nice, but:
1. They're hard to get used to if you're used to conventional transmission.
2. Some of them are, as a result, horribly mistuned for the US market so people will think they feel like regular transmissions.

[Dingfod]

I drove a Nissan Sentra with CVT. I didn't really notice a problem, it was smooth and had plenty of zip.

[BrotherMan]

Smooth, sure. It was like driving in pudding.

[Dingfod]

I didn't get a chance to drive it in traffic, it was up and down the access road and on I-44 in Tulsa. I admit it may have different characteristics in speed-up, slow-down situations like in traffic.

[Corona688]

http://www.budapestsite.com/wp-content/photos/f13_16_multipla1.jpg The heck is that? 'cab-backwards' design?

[California Tanker]

2008 Alfa Romeo 159
http://www.tuningnews.net/news/070621/alfa-romeo-159-ti.jpg

Hertz were doing a good deal, so I splurged on an upgrade from the 1.4l Focus. (Not a bad car, but I've driven a Focus before). I've not been in an Alfa that I can remember since my dad's 1979 Alfetta 1.8.

I was looking forward to driving this car. The reputation of Alfas being rustbuckets is gone, the engines sound as great as ever, and there's no arguing the styling. Given that I was only renting, I didn't need to concern myself with the ridiculous depreciation rates which make it a disaster for anyone who cares about their car's resale value.

Initial impressions were good. For starters, the car looks great. Score one for the Italians. (Making up for those FIATs). The interior was a bit dark, for some reason, but the seats were definitely comfortable. Plenty roomy as well, with a massive range of motion, whilst still leaving room in the back. One also has to put points in for interior styling. The cockpit is just a nice place to be. The dash is fairly uncluttered because the subsidiary dials (Oil temp, fuel, etc) are actually recessed into the sheetmetal centre console, angled in. Sadly, the text on the computer screen component of the dash (Between speedo and tach) was a rather blocky sort of red text, I've seen far better.

As is, apparently, de rigeur these days, the key just fits into a slot on the dash, with a push-button saying 'Start' next to it. Simple enough. Engine comes to life quickly enough. So after sorting out the mirrors with the (very nice-to-look-at) buttons in the door panel, drop the handbrake (in the usual position) and off I go. Clutch is nice and light, engine is responsive, but the gear changes are a touch heavier than I expect from a good car.

I get about 400 yards before I start seeing warning lights on the dash with the message telling me "Excess oil temperature. Reduce revs" and the oil gauge way off to my left starts going bonkers. I despondently do a full run around the next roundabout and return the car to Hertz. I guess my Alfa Experience will need to wait another couple of years.

NTM

[Dingfod]

I don't get to drive many different cars any more, but here's one I drove recently.

The car: My daughter's $1500 1994 Lexus LS400 with 179,000 miles on the odometer.

The drive: Runs on 5 or 6 of the 8 cylinders when it's first started, but despite that will attain highway speeds quite easily. The engine smooths out after it warms up, no doubt related to the "Check Engine" light in the blinking dash display, probably bad O2 sensors. With this car's drivetrain smooth is the key word, this must have been one fine automobile when it was new. Powerful, too, it reaches 65 mph in about the same distance down the road as inland wave's Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo with the "little hemi" high output V-8, which leaps like a scalded cat out of the hole. The Lexus acceleration, a bit slower on the takeoff, is like a jet airliner, the push into the seat comes on strong and stays strong.

I think it has an automatic transmission, but it might as well be a CVT or a one speed for all the more you feel the shifts, it is that smooth. I never even came close to the claimed 150 mph top speed of a Lexux LS400, 75-78 mph at the most only because I can't see the numbers on the speedometer. Again, that electrical problem.

The car also rides and handles quite well for a 4000 pound hunk of well-engineered and sculpted, though old, Japanese iron. Actually, it handles well compared to anything short of sports cars. The car corners, no make that corners. It handles bumps with aplomb, if you ignore the rattles, which most assuredly are indicative of worn out shock absorber bushings.

And, speaking of shock absorbers, the car is equipped with electronically controlled self-leveling pneumatic shock absorbers with sport and smooth ride settings and normal and high height settings none of which work because of the electrical problems, four-wheel independent suspension, leaky electric moonroof, and a six-disc CD changer in the trunk which doesn't work, possibly because the stock stereo is lying in the trunk, displaced by a newer Chinese-made Panasonic with removable face in the dash hole.

The car has working climate control, though you cannot see what temperature it is set on because the LCD display for that has just plain worn out. Apparently previous owners needed to adjust that temperature quite a bit, evidenced by the worn off finish on the up and down temperature button. It still works though, by adjusting the temperature up and down one degree at a time, the system changes fan speeds and modes indicated by LED lights contained in the various manual buttons for such things.

The steering wheel is a nice fat leather-clad model with an electrically operated tilt-telescope steering column. The front seats are 8 way adjustable electrically heated seats. If you can't find a comfortable driving position in this car, it's your own fault. By the way, all of these things actually work, along with the trunk and fuel filler door release buttons on the dash.

What doesn't work? The moon roof, the dash lights, the fuel gauge, the remote door lock key fob (well, that may work, if we knew where one of them was), the power radio antenna, the electric windows, or the outside door handle on the driver's door. These things can all be repaired, if one is willing so spend a little money on a car which may last another 100,000 miles with the proper care.

[California Tanker]

2008 Volvo S80.

After returning the 159, Hertz upped me to a premium-class vehicle, in this case, the S80. I really don't know what to make of this car. I can't think of anything seriously wrong with it, but neither can I think of much I would say "I love." I mean, it's a perfectly good car, but at the risk of seeming a bit clichéed for a Volvo, it's far too sensible. Two passengers both commented on the car's blandness.

There's no denying the size. It's the largest car in the Volvo range, but priced equivalently to the mid-ranged German saloons. Indeed, it was so big that parking in the driveway was an experience wrought with concern. Driving down some of the narrow boreens was quite disconcerting (though granted it may have been as much an issue of my not being used to attempting to judge the distance to the left wing mirror). Front seat could go back even further than the distance I drive at, which makes this the first car I've ever been in for which I could say this. Legroom in the rear was still a little tight, though. Boot was similarly large.

Interior isn't bad, though I've certainly seen better. My car had aluminium inserts which just didn't do the part at all. The plastics were good, though. Easily the best thing about the interior was the driver's dash, with excellent instruments with multi-function displays within the dials. Very clean and easy to use. The various functions could all be performed without removing the hands from the wheel (Though I never did figure out how to keep the headlights on 'high-beam' without holding the lever forward). Cruise control feature was excellent: Program in the desired speed (in digits) on the MFD, and it'll get you there. Seats were quite comfortable.

On the other hand, the engine was pathetic. A 2.0 litre flex-fuel. A car this size needs something bigger than a 145hp four-banger. 0-60 is a staggering 11 seconds. This is a problem when you're trying to overtake someone on the equally pathetic Portlaoise to Abbeyleix road. Granted, this was the lowest-end engine, so warning to the wise. Avoid! That said, it got a fairly decent 25mpg average, but low-end torque is poor making it not a good city car. Fuel tank is well sized, for the larger engines in the range, so I cranked out some 650km with the fuel counter still reading 1/8 full. Gearstick/clutch combo was quite acceptable, and as a note, no strange 'quirks' required to shift into reverse. Ride was quite comfortable, if a little on the noisy side, but I was less convinced by the roadholding. Not sure how much to blame on the car, and how much to blame the Irish roads. Brakes were fantastic. (Hey, it's a Volvo. If anything works, you know it's the brake!). Unconvinced by the electronic parking brake though. (Pushbutton on the dash)

Didn't check out the 'detail' features much. The now-typical push-button start after inserting the key into a slot, and the wing mirrors fold automatically. The 6-CD audio system came with an AUX jack for my Zune, so I wasn't stuck listening to 2FM for the trip. Sound was good. During some idle time, hooked up my laptop to it, so got a sort of surround-sound whilst watching a DVD. Excellent! Adequade storage compartments, not the most, but certainly not the least.

Overall, I'm not sure what to make of it. For the price, it's a heck of a car. For the driver, it's sortof ho-hum, and even with a proper motor, I think it still is missing something. Certainly worth considering.

NTM

[ceptimus]

Those electric push-button parking brakes are becoming more common on new cars. I'm told that to perform a hill start in a car that has manual transmission, there is no danger of rolling backwards and no need to time the pressing of the button with the letting out of the clutch. You just ignore the button and attempt to pull away with the parking brake 'still on', at which point it releases automatically. I've not tried one myself yet. I don't like the idea. I prefer the greater degree of control offered by a traditional hand brake.

[Dingfod]

An S80 with a 4 cylinder? How European. I thought all S80s came with V-8s. That's all I've ever seen here.

[California Tanker]

I didn't have a problem with the hill starts at all, just do the typical 'let the clutch out until it bites' thing. I am more concerned about it being one more electronic thing to go wrong (like it not applying, which would be a bad thing). I guess one need not be too worried about handbrake turns in a 4-cylinder S80 though.

How European. I thought all S80s came with V-8s. That's all I've ever seen here.

Volvo's US website shows an inline six, turbo inline six, and a V8 as the options.

NTM

[California Tanker]

I don't get to drive many different cars any more, but here's one I drove recently.

The car: My daughter's $1500 1994 Lexus LS400 with 179,000 miles on the odometer.


That the same one you reviewed in Post #71?

NTM

[Dingfod]

It's the only Lexus I've ever driven. I'm starved for automotive variety.

[Dingfod]

I don't remember writing that. I was a much better writer then. Must have been the drugs.

[California Tanker]

199something (First Gen) Dodge Viper.

Holy shit...

[Jerome]

The Ultimate Driving Machine
http://www.automedia.com/NewCarBuyersGuide2007/photos/2007/BMW/5-Series/Sedan/2007_BMW_5Series_ext_1.jpg



The Ultimate Hauling Machine
http://www.newcarscoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/2008_toyota_sequoia_0_430.jpg

[inland wave]

I have always thought I wanted a BMW, until I realized the up keep would be really expensive. I guess that old Lexus has me luxury car shy. Have decided to tone it down and get an upper end Toyota, Mazda, possibly Lincoln. I would like a convertible, but I have never ridden in one and don't know much about care and up keep on them.

[Jerome]

Maintenance on a new or dealer bought used BMW is free for a time. Including wiper blades and brakes.

[Jerome]

Convertibles are always heavier than their no convertible counterparts, thus a slight loss in performance. I have always liked the image of convertibles, just never liked the feel.

[Garnet]

199something (First Gen) Dodge Viper.

Holy shit...

Fuckers get up and go, don't they? Did you have any problems with the brakes? The one I drove did not do well in a panic stop.

[California Tanker]

Now that my stomach has caught up with the rest of me...

That is one hell of a car. Utterly impractical, and definitely not on my list of things to buy, but an amazing example of what you can do with sheer brute force. Kindof the automotive equivalent to the F-4 Phantom II.

I was caught out by the brakes as well. They seemed not to work very well at all, but I tried using a little more 'oomph' and the thing came to a rapid halt. I finally figured it out. Anything which was not related to making the car go quick was dispensed with, in the Gen 1 variants at least. To adjust the mirrors, one needs to reach over and push the glass surface. No power steering. No roof or windows. Even the radio is a bit of a surprise. But that also goes for the brakes. I can't recall the last car I drove which did not have a brake assist. Generally speaking, you expect a certain 'pushback' from the pedal equates to a particular level of stopping power. Not so in this Viper, it goes straight from the pedal to the disks, so if you want to stop quickly, you have to make a deliberate decision to push much harder than you would 'instinctively' push after years of driving 'normal' cars.

Still, you know you're driving something special when you're getting thumbs up from random passing drivers on the freeway, anything from ricers through businessmen in M5s. The noise is wonderful, sheer raw brutality. And when it hits the torque band, it just shoots off.

I never did quite get the knack of the gear lever on this car for some reason, so my downshifts occasionally missed. The hood is massive, and takes up half your vision, so it seemed. Then again, at 6'5, my vision was also somewhat obscured by the fact that my eyes were almost at the same level as the top of the windshield frame. At lights, I would sit up a bit straighter and simply look over the top of the thing. Boot was about large enough for my shoulder bag and a laptop bag. Again, no un-necessary weight, so the boot lid had no pneumatic assist or anything, it was just a hinged piece of bodywork. No storage locations of any great note inside the cabin, and whatever the dash was made of, I can't identify it. (But it wasn't expensive). It seemed to have the suspension of a shopping trolley. I wonder if you can't make an argument for it being economical, though: At 65mph the damned engine was idling at 1,200rpm. Compare to my Audi which is doing 2,900rpm at the same speed.

Still, for such a raucous and head-turning vehicle, I couldn't believe the thing I was driving was made in the early 1990s. I can only imagine the impact this beast had when it appeared on the scene. These days, 400horse is nothing unusual. Even the 8l displacement is being approached by 6l+ engines. But the way the car was just put together as an example of 'let's get the biggest freaking engine we can find, and attach it to four wheels, two seats, and nothing else' the car's not a car, it's a moving monument.

NTM

[Garnet]

You have a real talent for writing these reviews, CT. How in the world did you get 6'5" of yourself stuffed in that car? I'm 5'7" and I felt like I was laying down to avoid banging my head on the roof.

It was a damned fun car to drive though I would never buy one for the reasons you stated.