They take a Toyota truck with almost 200k miles on the clock, drive it into a tree, submerge it in the sea for 5 hours; drive it through a wooden shed; drop a trailer on it from about 6 yards up; use a crane to smash it with a demolition ball; set fire to it; and finally leave it on the roof of a 30-storey building, demolish the entire building with explosives, and then basically drive it out of the smoldering rubble.
Definitely. If you do decide to go with the Celica, I’d offer around $10,000 and see what they come back with. I’d probably take it at anywhere between $10,750 and $11,000. Don’t be afraid to get up and walk out. Their job is to move cars, and they’re going to put on a big act of how good of a deal you’re getting regardless of the price.
None of those 3 are very appealing, IMO. Sure, the Celica is the best choice, because it’s a Toyota, and Mercury and Mistubishi are like two of the worst car manufacturers extant, but it’s pretty much one of the worst cars Toyota makes. But, IIRC an '01 isn’t all that risky.
At least, nowhere near as risky as a Merc or Mitsu. Man, nobody buys Mercs. They have the stupidest line-up among car companies IMO. Every car they make has a more reliable alternate in both the non-luxury and luxury arenas. And Mitsu: they’ve been progressively withering on the vine, ever since it was discovered that all that awesome history of theirs as a hassle-free, problem-free car maker was bullshit and they’d been covering up mechanical defects in their cars for years. Mistu America almost went bankrupt at the end of last fiscal year, since they posted ridiculous profit losses and Daimler-Chrysler, who had kept them on life support, pulled out of their deal with them. It took Mistu Japan to save them, only because they didn’t want to completely bomb out of the American market, since it’s full of suckers with disposable income (cf: Pontiac). If I had to choose between driving a used Mitsu, Pontiac, or Merc, I’d staple tread to my head and ass and somersault everywhere. Sure, they work groovily enough for the first few years, few cars these days don’t. But used?
The major prob with all of them cars is that, if you want a sports car that lists under 25K new, well…they had to cut corners somewhere to make it that cheap. Anything below a Mazda RX or a Nissan Z is a risk.
Although, you could do much worse than a Soob WRX, you just have to dig the stubby rally racer look.
If you’re looking for a quality built, durable, cheap to maintain car, then expensive sportscars (>$25K) are probably going to be inferior to any of the 3 mentioned. Ferrari’s aren’t exactly a good choice as daily drivers.
Rob has it right - higher pricetags go towards bigger engines, and more expensive parts (i.e. aluminum instead of steel), that decrease weight and improve performance. But they don’t necessarily go towards increased reliability. I think any of the 3 listed cars would be reliable, and I would certainly trust a Mercury with 28K miles more than a Toyota with 71. That the Mercury is much cheaper and has an available warranty tilts the scales that much further, if cost of ownership is the main factor.
And if the driver is going to put 100K miles on the car, then resale value is moot, because with 120-170K miles, and a car that’s likely 10 years old at that point, they will all be worth only $2-4K, depending on any glaring mechanical/physical defects at time of sale.
I have a 2002 Celica GT. I think it’s the same generation.
It’s an OK little car, has held up fairly well, though it seems to run through brake pads pretty quickly, and I pay attention to my braking, and don’t go fast in town, so I’m pretty sure it’s not my fault. Not the world’s best acceleration unless you like revving up really high, but not a slug. No power train problems. Good feel for the road, cabin noise is a bit on the high side. Rather low clearance to the ground in front, so if you drive over a lot of steep driveways or bumps you can scrape the plastic cladding on the underside right off the car through just ordinary day to day driving. Performance tires on this car are fine in the rain, but if you drive this car in the snow you’ll need all-weather or snow tires.
I had a Ford Probe once before that, which was an inferior car in most respects, for what that’s worth, but in case anyone accuses me of anti-mazdaism, I think that the 626 I had before that was actually a superior car.
One thing about the Eclipse - it uses low profile tires, I guess to give it a sporty, cool look. But the tires only last about 20K miles (~$500 for 4, IIRC), and are expensive to replace. Might be an issue with the other two as well.
Just to throw out another possibility, I got a '03 Mazda Protege5 hatchback recently- $10,500 for a stick shift with all the options at 30k miles (there was a redesign in '04). Not a lot of horsepower (170, I think), but decent acceleration because it’s so damn light, handles and brakes excellent, 30mpg city, tons of room on the inside. I really don’t think I could’ve done better for ten grand-ish.
That’s the only problem I’ve had with mine. My office car lot is impossible to get into without scraping the plastic. That panel is also $75, which is gouging for about 1 lb of moulded plastic. Mine is being replaced now, and when I get it, I’m measuring dimensions. My town is full of metal shops, and I’ve already got a tentative quote for a sheet steel replacement for $40 (he does this kind of thing for trucks round here, which tend to end up driving over mesquite bushes a lot on local ranches).
Yeah, and you’ll notice I didn’t mention Ferraris, I mentioned the next price tier up, not the far end like you did. But you’re not entirely incorrect, in that if you are looking to buy a quality-built, durable, cheap to maintain car, you shouldn’t buy any sports car. The cheap ones aren’t durable or built with quality, and they get expensive in both price and especially maintenance ( drawback for all of them, really) pretty quick.
Rob has it right - higher pricetags go towards bigger engines, and more expensive parts (i.e. aluminum instead of steel), that decrease weight and improve performance. But they don’t necessarily go towards increased reliability.
Yeah, well, that’s cars for you. But “not necessarily” means “in some instances, depending on the car/manufacturer” as well. And “more expensive parts” can, you know, occasionally mean increased reliability.
I think any of the 3 listed cars would be reliable, and I would certainly trust a Mercury with 28K miles more than a Toyota with 71.
Fair enough, but would you trust a Merc with 60+ more than a Toyota with 100k? I wouldn’t.
That the Mercury is much cheaper and has an available warranty tilts the scales that much further, if cost of ownership is the main factor.
You should read what Mercury considers a “bumper to bumper” warranty. As for “cost of ownership,” I think you’re being a little too “Day One” and not paying much attention to “Days 2-15,000” IMO.
And if the driver is going to put 100K miles on the car, then resale value is moot, because with 120-170K miles, and a car that’s likely 10 years old at that point, they will all be worth only $2-4K, depending on any glaring mechanical/physical defects at time of sale.
I never said anything about re-sale. I’m talking about pre-re-sale.
I have to disagree with that statement here, sort of. Having a good waranty doesn’t mean much if you are constantly making warranty claims. Take a new Volkswagen or Audi. Everyone I know that owns one, is sick of how much its in the shop. Those things are prone to electrical problems and little plastic bits falling off problems. But, they have great warranties. IMO, it doesn’t matter if its covered under warranty, you’re still without a car for a few days. And if it happens every 5k miles, ‘free’ isn’t worth it. Every day I can drive my car to work is worth quite a bit more to me then a good warranty.
Now, you say you’d also trust a Mercury with 28k miles over the Toyota with 71k? I’d actually say they are equivalent. 71k miles in a Toyota is nothing. You are probably still in the first trimester of its life. I can’t say the same thing about a 28k Mercury. I’m guessing at 28k, it just entered its second trimester (but granted, there’s only been 2 Mercury owners that I can directly pull experience from and both were horrid experiences and are definitely skewed).
You’d have to be crazy to pick a Mercury over a not too used Toyota, as said here many times. The Cougars are pieces of crap from what I’ve heard. The Toyota will last forever. You will probably have to beat it with large heavy objects to kill it.
Love my Mazda 6S, but I bought it before the RX8 shipped. I’d have been mightily tempted by the RX8 if it had been an option to wait.
The only real downside to the RX8 is that the rotary engine limits your repair shop possibilities. Not a big deal if you’ll replace it when the warranty is up, but otherwise, the engine may limit you to Mazda dealers for service.
