 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / September 2006RWD stick shift "family" car... and fairly recent?
I give up. Kid #2 is on the way... so I'm car shopping. I don't want a minivan, and neither does the wife. However, her Beretta is 16 years old, my Jimmy is dead, the truck is a regular cab, and the TA is parked for 6 months of the year. All I want is a rear wheel drive car* with a stick shift. It doesn't have to be a V8, but it does have to have enough room for two baby seats in it. (all wheel drive is allowed.) Let's also say a price cap of about $20k. It can't be too old - the wife equates old with unreliable, and with the winters here, that's probably not a totally unfair request. I just can't do the front wheel drive thing. I drove a Camry. Nice car, but the whole time I was thinking "I could never buy this..." Oh, and you can suggest any car in North America other than the GTO because GM didn't certify it for Canada. <sigh> So, fire away with car choices. I'm curious if anyone can find something that would satisfy my fairly simple criteria... because I can't. Ray *car=car. not a truck, but a car. :) > I give up. > Kid #2 is on the way... so I'm car shopping. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > *car=car. not a truck, but a car. :) BMW 5-series? Of course, my favorite was the E28 (late 80's) and IMHO all the more recent ones have been "over-gadgetized" to the point that the average shadetree mechanic will throw his hands up in disgust and start cussing the Fatherland whenever something breaks and he realizes that it'll take an electrical engineer to fix it. If all wheel drive is OK, how about a Subaru? Sure, they're more like a FWD than a RWD but... maybe drive one and see how you like it? All I can say is, I feel your pain, brother. I'm hoping the get my '55 Stude coupe back on the road soon. My other car is a Porsche 944. I, too, cannot do the FWD thing or the boring car thing, but there's nothing new available that tempts me to spend the megabucks. I could see me driving a S2000 or maybe a WRX or even a Boxter... but the prices... nate >>I give up. >>Kid #2 is on the way... so I'm car shopping. [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > nate I looked at a WRX. I liked it. The problem is the cheapest ones I can find are $20,000. And it hurts that my V8 powered Trans Am gets BETTER fuel economy... (5.7L @ 19/28 vs 2.0L @ 20/27) I was thinking BMW 3 series due to the cost, but BMW is definitely on the list of cars I need to look at... I almost bid on an old 7 series on ebay that went for only $2500... Thanks, Ray > All I want is a rear wheel drive car* with a stick shift. It doesn't > have to be a V8, but it does have to have enough room for two baby seats > in it. (all wheel drive is allowed.) Let's also say a price cap of > about $20k. Mustang. « Paul » wrote: >>All I want is a rear wheel drive car* with a stick shift. It doesn't >>have to be a V8, but it does have to have enough room for two baby seats >>in it. (all wheel drive is allowed.) Let's also say a price cap of >>about $20k. > > Mustang. Uh huh. Ever ridden in the back seat of a Mustang? Go to fordvehicles.com and look at the interior pics. I need a _real_ back seat... not huge, but not one of those fake back seats like my Trans Am has. :) Ray > « Paul » wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Ray Won't two baby seats fit in the back of a Mustang? I know one fits quite well. « Paul » wrote: >>« Paul » wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Won't two baby seats fit in the back of a Mustang? > I know one fits quite well. Probably about as well as they fit in my Trans Am. They fit, but the kids better have short legs. Judging by the pics of Ford's website, the amount of legroom looks ... well ... nil. I'm 6 feet tall, so the seat goes back pretty far. Oh, and a reverse facing seat... means the passenger is kissing the dash. Just not practical enough. Ray > « Paul » wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Ray Hmmm... I've been looking at cars myself lately. I really don't think there is one that fits your requirements. As someone else mentioned, the G-35 is very nice but prices for a used one with 60k miles start at about $23k. That's why I don't have one. « Paul » wrote: >>« Paul » wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > As someone else mentioned, the G-35 is very nice but prices for a used one with > 60k miles start at about $23k. That's why I don't have one. Which is why I posted here hoping I missed something. This sucks. :) At the rate things are going I'm looking at in 04ish Intrepid because they're big and cheap. If I don't like it, I don't want to spend a lot of money on it. Blech. I love cars, I hate cars. > « Paul » wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > of money on it. Blech. > I love cars, I hate cars. Intrepid is FWD though. Its a decent car. My son has a 04 Stratus. We had to replace the LF window motor recently ($120) but that's been it in about 37k miles. He has the 2.4 4cyl. Its really underpowered but IMO its better than the 2.7 v6 that gunks up and destroys itself. « Paul » wrote: >>> Hmmm... I've been looking at cars myself lately. >>> I really don't think there is one that fits your requirements. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 37k miles. He has the 2.4 4cyl. Its really underpowered but IMO its better than > the 2.7 v6 that gunks up and destroys itself. they're all fwd crap... until you start spending good money... and I'm feeling cheap. My problem is an Impreza WRX is 2x the price of something like an Intrepid. I already have three "toy" cars... so I start thinking instead of a WRX I can get TWO Intrepids.... I was just hoping I missed something relatively cheap, rwd, stick shift with a back seat that can handle people and baby seats that was built in the last 10 years.... > Which is why I posted here hoping I missed something. > This sucks. :) > At the rate things are going I'm looking at in 04ish Intrepid because > they're big and cheap. If I don't like it, I don't want to spend a lot > of money on it. Blech. > I love cars, I hate cars. Intrepids are a great deal because the resale values are low. They're great cars, though, especially if you avoid the 2.7L v6 engine. People will pay 4x the price for a similar-condition Japanese car, but if you ask me that's just flushing money down the crapper. On 8/19/06 6:23 PM, in article F3NFg.435172$IK3.245253@pd7tw1no, "ray" <rollingviolation@domain.invalid.com> wrote: > I give up. > Kid #2 is on the way... so I'm car shopping. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > *car=car. not a truck, but a car. :) A used G35 might match your desires. > A used G35 might match your desires. Hmm... THAT one is new to me. Might be a bit pricey for my current (cheap) budget, but because it CAN come with a stick might make it worth looking at one just to see if I like the rest of the car. Thanks. That one's been added to the list of cars to check in the "might actually like" category instead of the "sucky minivan I'll probably end up buying" category. :) Ray >> A used G35 might match your desires. > > Hmm... THAT one is new to me. Might be a bit pricey for my current > (cheap) budget, but because it CAN come with a stick might make it worth > looking at one just to see if I like the rest of the car. Well, if buying a Nissan product doesn't turn your stomach (and I guess it doesn't if you're considering a G-35), then you could get a Maxima for a lot less than an Infiniti. It is getting hard to find 4-door cars with stick shifts anymore, but they're out there. Among American makes, the only one that jumps to mind are certain 4-cylinder variants of the Chrysler Cirrus/Dodge Stratus (and the late Plymouth Breeze) but I know there are a few others too. Oh, and the PT Cruiser- and they're quite affordable on the used market these days, as well as being a lot more visually appealing than a Cirrus/Stratus/Breeze or other econobox. On 8/20/06 12:52 PM, in article 3N-dndCfe9zFPHXZnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@texas.net, >>> A used G35 might match your desires. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it doesn't if you're considering a G-35), then you could get a Maxima > for a lot less than an Infiniti. Maxima was my first thought, but the OP was pretty clear that he wants rear wheel drive. Maximas all have front wheel drive. > It is getting hard to find 4-door cars with stick shifts anymore, but > they're out there. Among American makes, the only one that jumps to mind [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > these days, as well as being a lot more visually appealing than a > Cirrus/Stratus/Breeze or other econobox. >>> A used G35 might match your desires. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it doesn't if you're considering a G-35), then you could get a Maxima > for a lot less than an Infiniti. well, if they made a REAR WHEEL DRIVE Maxima, I might consider it. I want a stick shift... I can live with an auto, but not fwd. Not easily, anyway. It's just not "right" for me. :) >>>> A used G35 might match your desires. >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I want a stick shift... I can live with an auto, but not fwd. Not > easily, anyway. It's just not "right" for me. :) I hate FWD too, it makes any car feel like driving a dump truck. But it is eminently practical in many cases. Didn't really know which was the greater evil for you. The bottom line is that all the carmakers have discovered that they can get better CAFE ratings and lower emissions by taking the driver out of the loop and letting the computer control the engine and transmission. Stick shifts are a dying breed. But honestly, given the choice of a stick-shift import v6 or a rear-drive automatic American pushrod V8 with a mountain of torque, I'll take the v8 every time. > well, if they made a REAR WHEEL DRIVE Maxima, I might consider it. > > I want a stick shift... I can live with an auto, but not fwd. Not > easily, anyway. It's just not "right" for me. :) ======================= Don't know if it is still true, but the Mazda 626 used to be RWD, and consurmer reports lists it as a "best buy" for used cars under $20k >> well, if they made a REAR WHEEL DRIVE Maxima, I might consider it. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Don't know if it is still true, but the Mazda 626 used to be RWD, and > consurmer reports lists it as a "best buy" for used cars under $20k according to wiki... the 626 was rwd in 1982... a little older than the 5 year window I was hoping to work in :) V8 or V6 RWD - Stick Shift, Family car for around $20,000????? Nothing in GM's barn as you describe, same goes for Ford. If you can live with an automatic trans, for around $20,000 you can get a RWD V8 2006 Mercury Grand Marquis or Crown Victoria. Plenty of room for wife & baby. Good Luck Harryface 05 Park Avenue 45,004 91 Bonneville 307,255 >V8 or V6 RWD - Stick Shift, Family car for around $20,000????? > >Nothing in GM's barn as you describe, same goes for Ford. > >If you can live with an automatic trans, for around $20,000 you can get >a RWD V8 2006 Mercury Grand Marquis or Crown Victoria. No stick shift on the Crown Victoria any more? That's sad. I'd think the law enforcement guys would at least be requiring a few of those. --scott  Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." >>V8 or V6 RWD - Stick Shift, Family car for around $20,000????? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > No stick shift on the Crown Victoria any more? That's sad. Good grief! I don't think the LTD/Crown Victoria was EVER available with a stick. At least not since the very different "Crown Victoria" of the 50s, and definitely not since the current cop-car Crown Vic family got started in the late 70s. > All I want is a rear wheel drive car* with a stick shift. It doesn't > have to be a V8, but it does have to have enough room for two baby seats > in it. (all wheel drive is allowed.) Volvo 700 or 900 series. You can also find estates with an extra pair of fold-up rear-facing kid seats, good for smaller kids. The 800 are nice enough, but they're FWD and smaller than a 700 inside. Otherwise you're looking at Beemers if you want RWD. They're like walking into a garage with a sign on your back saying "Kick me". Surprisingly small inside too. Mine's a 740 2l, 17 years old with about 250k miles on it. Just had to fit a new exhaust to it -- first maintenance money its cost me in over a year. > I give up. > Kid #2 is on the way... so I'm car shopping. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > *car=car. not a truck, but a car. :) Ray, One more sorta-kinda option: the VW Passat is available in AWD, in a wagon or sedan. Unfortunately in the US we only get the V6/Auto combo, but otherwise it's a good-sized car and has a generally reliable drivetrain. It's a VW, so you will have to deal with sensor problems and such, but if you get a good mechanic it's more an annoyance than a real problem; I'd say less annoying than owning a BMW. I think the W8 was also available in 4Motion, but again only an auto. In Canada they got the 1.8T with the 4Motion - chiptune that and it's a great engine/trans combo, quick and responsive with only the slightest hint of turbo lag, and you can break 30MPG without thinking about it on the highway. But more directly: The Audi A4 is available in a stick and AWD with a variety of engine choices. I really like the 1.8T with chiptuning, but there's also a V6 that's very smooth and easy to drive. An '02 or '03 should meet your price target, and if you hunt for a bit will have a decent chunk of factory warranty left to cover any hidden bugaboos. As with all VW vehicles, get a detailed service history. The good ones are good ones, the bad ones are no fun. -Keith Keith Jewell wrote: >> I give up. >> Kid #2 is on the way... so I'm car shopping. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > One more sorta-kinda option: the VW Passat is available in AWD, in a > wagon or sedan. Unfortunately in the US we only get the V6/Auto combo, <snip> been in a couple of Passats, they just didn't "impress" me. I'm actually going to look at an 02 Subaru Legacy wagon with a stick after work... might be promising. :) > I give up. > Kid #2 is on the way... so I'm car shopping. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I just can't do the front wheel drive thing. Why not. It is far more useful in snow. There are no inexpensive rear wheel drive wagons made that I'm aware of. Up the price scale are the tiny BMW and Mercedes wagons. To be honest the rear seating and storage space are quite limiting in those vehicles. By the time you get anything decent sized it will be on the high side of $50k. > I drove a Camry. Nice car, but the whole time I was thinking "I could > never buy this..." Why not. It is reliable, safe and economical. Unfortunately they don't make a wagon as such. The Highlander could be thought of as a high standing wagon I suppose. But it doesn't come with a stick shift. The automatic works quite well though. > Oh, and you can suggest any car in North America other than the GTO > because GM didn't certify it for Canada. <sigh> > > So, fire away with car choices. I'm curious if anyone can find > something that would satisfy my fairly simple criteria... because I can't. Not sure if you live in snow country or not. But if you do I would look at the Subaru Outback. >>I just can't do the front wheel drive thing. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > storage space are quite limiting in those vehicles. By the time you > get anything decent sized it will be on the high side of $50k. John, I'm a bit different than your usual driver. :) I live in Manitoba, where we get a foot of snow in the winter, and it falls to -40 for a week straight. That alone makes me different... but I can't talk the wife into moving to Florida. Anyway, I don't like fwd. Even in snow. I drove an 02 Legacy Wagon today and I think I may have found something I can like. It's got awd for the snow. And frankly, the whole fwd traction in snow thing is kind of a joke. In Winnipeg, it gets cold, and we get snow, but for maybe two weeks out of the whole winter the roads are "snow covered" and then it's just frickin' cold with the odd patch of ice or a side street that's poorly plowed and rutted. The rest of the winter you're stuck with a funny handling fwd plow. (understeer) :) >>I drove a Camry. Nice car, but the whole time I was thinking "I could >>never buy this..." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > high standing wagon I suppose. But it doesn't come with a stick shift. > The automatic works quite well though. My other cars are a Trans Am, and a Camaro dirt track race car. I don't belong in a Camry. I can't do boring cars. Either cheap beaters, or something fun. Beaters are never boring. ;) > Not sure if you live in snow country or not. But if you do I would > look at the Subaru Outback. The Legacy is the "lowered" version of the Outback, and I drove one today and think I enjoyed it, which is more than I can say for most of the stuff I drove so far. Ray > >>I just can't do the front wheel drive thing. > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > today and I think I may have found something I can like. It's got awd > for the snow. AWD is one step up from FWD which in turn is a huge step up from RWD. > And frankly, the whole fwd traction in snow thing is kind of a joke. Not in my experience in snow. FWD gets cars moving easier in snow. > In > Winnipeg, it gets cold, and we get snow, but for maybe two weeks out of > the whole winter the roads are "snow covered" and then it's just > frickin' cold with the odd patch of ice or a side street that's poorly > plowed and rutted. The rest of the winter you're stuck with a funny > handling fwd plow. (understeer) The steering on any sedan is predicable in normal driving conditions. I don't understand why if you are driving within speed limits that over or understeer would be much of an issue anyway. > :) > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > belong in a Camry. I can't do boring cars. Either cheap beaters, or > something fun. Beaters are never boring. ;) It would have been very helpful to know what your real requirements were in the first message you posted here. Your real requirements have very little to do with good traction, safe handling and reliability. Your real requirements seem to be those of a 17 year old. > > Not sure if you live in snow country or not. But if you do I would > > look at the Subaru Outback. > > The Legacy is the "lowered" version of the Outback, and I drove one > today and think I enjoyed it, which is more than I can say for most of > the stuff I drove so far. Ah, but it has FWD and RWD. I thought FWD was a no no. > Ray > The steering on any sedan is predicable in normal driving conditions. > I don't understand why if you are driving within speed limits that > over > or understeer would be much of an issue anyway. > It would have been very helpful to know what your real requirements > were in the first message you posted here. Your real requirements have > very little to do with good traction, safe handling and reliability. > Your real requirements seem to be those of a 17 year old. oh ffs, John. There's more to life than driving a boring shitbox transportation appliance all the time. I was trying to avoid having to buy one. Not too many transportation appliances with the drivetrain layout I was considering. I enjoy driving. I practice driving so that I can become a better driver - not just fast, but a more patient, skilled, smoother driver. I view learning to drive as a journey, not as a destination. Learning to drive is a deadly serious business - ever been in a car doing 60mph that hits a chunk of ice on a bump and gotten right sideways? I have. Drove out of it. I'm not the world's greatest driver, but the standard response would apparently be to scream and let go of the wheel. If you have to think about this sentence "steer into the skid" and what it means, you've already crashed. In the winter, over and understeer are a huge issue - I've been "out of control" and understeering or oversteering (or both) at speeds of 5mph here in the winter trying to take a yield. with most FWD cars, your only recourse is to slide into whatever unless you can jack the ebrake to rotate the car and use the gas to pull yourself around the corner. The wife's Beretta is actually not to bad for this - run 25psi in the fronts, 32 in the rears and it will actually be pretty neutral in the winter to slightly loose. Also, I prefer active safety (big brakes, big tires, good suspension) to passive safety (crumple zones, air bombs) because I'd rather AVOID the wreck. My Trans Am saved me from whacking a deer at 75mph in Montana a couple of years ago - the semi in front of me clipped it and it came flying across the highway, in a Camry we would not have had the brakes and steering to avoid it. We actually had to stop within 5 miles because I was shaking that bad. That said, I'm a sucker for fast. I'd rather own a 500hp Chevette than a 90hp Ferrari. I've been trying to justify a WRX as a family car, but not having a lot of luck when for the same price I can buy an Intrepid AND a Neon. On my race car, I clipped a Mustang one race and got 4 wheel air... and then got faster on the race track... so I guess I am 17 inside... Dukes of Hazzard baby!!!! :) FWD sucks. Always has, always will. Better acceleration from a dead stop on bare ice is it's ONLY "saving grace." I work on my own cars - FWD is NOT easier to service. FWD does not handle better in the real world - and we're not talking about 100mph onramps, we're talking about the fact that FWD suffers from terminal understeer, which means your only choice is to slide into the ditch frontwards. At least with a rwd car, you can maybe use the gas to rotate the car and make the corner, or slide into the ditch backwards. I'm also totally biased because I work on my own cars - no Fords, no Kias, no Hyundais. There, are you happy now? You can go ahead and feel superior driving to work in your Toyota Camry now, I don't care. I drove a Subary Legacy yesterday and liked it for a family car. Yes, it's awd, which is nice for the winter - you get the benefits of both fwd and rwd. The disadvantage is you get the drawbacks of both, plus extra weight and lousy fuel economy too. If you'd like to debate fwd vs rwd all day long, fine, but show me a "top" racing series (NASCAR, F1, CART, IRL, etc...) that uses FWD. List me all the companies that make "driver's cars" that are FWD (BMW, Porsche, Ferrari.) :) Ray > FWD sucks. Always has, always will. Better acceleration from a dead > stop on bare ice is it's ONLY "saving grace." I work on my own cars - [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I'm also totally biased because I work on my own cars - no Fords, no > Kias, no Hyundais. I think I like this guy.... ;-) Except for me its "no Asian imports." Period. >> FWD sucks. Always has, always will. Better acceleration from a dead >> stop on bare ice is it's ONLY "saving grace." I work on my own cars - [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Except for me its "no Asian imports." Period. My first car was a Honda motorcycle, I had one 63 Volvo project car/nightmare, otherwise it's RWD GMs and Dodges. I really want a 4 door Trans Am as my next car, but $40k Canadian for a hemi powered Charger or Magnum is just too much money for what I'm looking to spend. My blood runs Chevy orange, but the reality is that 01-05 GM products are all fwd, a lot of them are crap, and I don't want a truck or SUV - I owned a Jimmy - nice in 2 feet of snow, but drives like a truck... and my truck is a truck, which means it's only a regular cab and gets 10mpg. <sigh> I love cars, I hate cars. :) I should have known the discussion would head this way. You ask an open ended question but every time someone comes up with an idea you begin throwing in all these restrictions and limitations. Just be up front in your question about what you really want in a car. Safe reliable family transportation is what most people would read into your original message. After this long exchange it turns out you want little more than an overpowered boys toy that also might have enough room to squeeze a few family members into. Since you apparently have a family I would have thought that safe, reliable, easy to drive for the wife, etc. would be principal criteria. Alas that is not the case. > > The steering on any sedan is predicable in normal driving conditions. > > I don't understand why if you are driving within speed limits that [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > > Ray > I should have known the discussion would head this way. You ask an > open ended question but every time someone comes up with an idea you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > family I would have thought that safe, reliable, easy to drive for the > wife, etc. would be principal criteria. Alas that is not the case. I tried. I really really tried. I looked at (and/or drove) a Civic, a Neon, a Charger, an Intrepid, an Altima, a Grand Prix, a Venture, a Caravan, a Blazer, an Envoy, a Protege5, a Sebring, a Magnum, an Impreza, a Legacy, a Diplomat, a Grand Cherokee, a Sentra, a Versa, a Malibu, a Caliber, a Mazda3, an RX8, and a Jeep TJ. I've got quite the spreadsheet going, and the "top 5" so far are: Legacy, Protege5, Sebring, Neon, Intrepid. yes, 4 of the 5 are fwd. The Camry comes in 6th in my own arbitrary "scoring" system, which doesn't give points for powertrain. (points for price, newness, 0-60, 60-0, handling, comfort, space, fuel efficiency and *cost to insure.) The reality is pretty much ANY of those cars would fit my NEED. However, once your NEED is met, how about fulfilling some of the want side of the equation? I drove a GTP Grand Prix - good in a straight line, but the interiors of the ones I looked at were ALL falling apart. The Diplomat was just too old for the wife to consider even if it was way cheaper than the rest. The SUVs all get crappy fuel mileage, the Jeep has zero cargo space, and the Hemi powered ones are too expensive. that's when I realized I was looking for a rear wheel drive stick shift 4 door and can't seem to find one. My wife is behind me about 80% on this... she won't even consider a minivan - she won't even sit in one. She grew up on the farm driving a 3/4 ton diesel truck, and currently loads a babyseat into her 2 door Beretta without complaint. I was honestly hoping to find something that would win me over in a transportation appliance, but it's just not happening. Trust me, in the past I wouldn't have even bothered looking at a Camry. I tried to like it, but I didn't. This post hasn't been a total loss though, I was reminded about the Subarus, and didn't realize the Infiniti G35 might be in my price range with a powertrain layout that I like. I am still going to look at Honda Accords and the like "just in case" but so far they just don't do it for me. *btw, that's a big factor - the Legacy costs almost $500 LESS a year to insure than an Envoy of the same vintage. Ray > AWD is one step up from FWD which in turn is a huge step up from RWD. No way do I consider FWD a step up from anything, except maybe a bicycle. Yes, I own an FWD (and 3 RWDs). It drives like an FWD, too (that is to say, it understeers like a dumptruck, and torque-steers wildly on hard acceleration on anything but dry pavement). Its very roomy, flat-floored, smallish on the outside for the amount of interior room, and comfortable- those are the only reasons for the success of FWD. It all comes down to packaging. Even the very best-handling FWDs can be whooped by a mediocre-handling RWD, and they're absolute hell to work on. > > AWD is one step up from FWD which in turn is a huge step up from RWD. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > can be whooped by a mediocre-handling RWD, and they're absolute hell to > work on. Yes, yes I know how the old ways can always seem better. Solid beam suspension with leaf springs, un-assisted steering and brakes, manual transmission, hand crank windows, rear wheel drive would make a real mans car. For some real driving pleasure why not revert to mechanical brakes too. >>>AWD is one step up from FWD which in turn is a huge step up from RWD. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > mans car. For some real driving pleasure why not revert to mechanical > brakes too. Hmm... then how come BMW never went FWD except for the Mini? And count all the FWD Porsches. Even Honda's top of the line car... Acura NSX... not FWD. DaimlerChrysler is going back to RWD... FWD is better under certain circumstances, as are manual brakes, manual transmissions, hand crank windows, and solid axles with leaf springs. Manual brakes - better if you have a car that stalls a lot. ;) Manual transmissions - you get them or you don't. Hand crank windows - don't freeze shut in -40. Solid axles with leaf springs - heavy duty trucks. Even the imports. You probably think the Honda Ridgeline is a truck. ;) Ray > >>>AWD is one step up from FWD which in turn is a huge step up from RWD. > >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Hmm... then how come BMW never went FWD except for the Mini? Have no idea, but there are plenty of stick-in-the-muds out there. Toyota has one rwd car, the Lexus GS. One can count a couple of fingers the few remaining car brands that are exclusively rwd. The number of car makers that have brought themselves forward into the 21st century by switching from RWD to front wheel drive is of course as we all know quite large. Most of the number of cars made today are fwd. > And count all the FWD Porsches. A bit player in comparison to the big players in the automotive market. > Even Honda's top of the line car... Acura NSX... not FWD. A minor, tiny portion of their production. > DaimlerChrysler is going back to RWD... Hmm...how many Chrysers are rwd. > FWD is better under certain circumstances, as are manual brakes, manual > transmissions, hand crank windows, and solid axles with leaf springs. > > Manual brakes - better if you have a car that stalls a lot. ;) I said mechanical brakes, which went out during the depression. > Manual transmissions - you get them or you don't. You get them if you pay extra. Purposeless considering how efficient auto transmissions are. > Hand crank windows - don't freeze shut in -40. Sure they do. Moisture on the linkage or around the window will freeze them. > Solid axles with leaf springs - heavy duty trucks. Even the imports. On passenger cars, which was the original thread? > You probably think the Honda Ridgeline is a truck. ;) Have no idea what a ridgeline is, but pickup trucks have little utility for me any more. Sounds like trucks with big wheels, fancy names, rows of cab lights and all that other stuff get you really excited. The F250 I owned with an 8100 gvw suspension was fine for carrying lots of heavy stuff, but empty it rode like a proverbial lumber truck. Most pickups tend to pitch and dive when empty because they are set up for carrying stuff. > Ray >>Hmm... then how come BMW never went FWD except for the Mini? > > Have no idea, but there are plenty of stick-in-the-muds out there. > Toyota has one rwd car, the Lexus GS. It's called balance. FWD doesn't have any with all the weight hanging over the nose. > One can count a couple of fingers the few remaining car brands that are > exclusively rwd. The number of car makers that have brought themselves > forward into the 21st century by switching from RWD to front wheel > drive is of course as we all know quite large. Most of the number of > cars made today are fwd. Which has to everything do with packaging costs of the powertrain. the companies that are RWD are usually enthusiast brands. >>And count all the FWD Porsches. > > A bit player in comparison to the big players in the automotive market. My point is that car companies like Porsche, Ferrari, etc... are RWD. Even Honda's fanciest car is RWD. Why is that? It's not just for status. >>DaimlerChrysler is going back to RWD... > > Hmm...how many Chrysers are rwd. fwd Dodge/Chryslers: pacifica, pt cruiser, caravan, sebring, caliber. rwd Dodge/Chryslers: 300/charger/magnum, crossfire, I believe the pacifica, caravan and caliber are available with awd, leaving the PT and the Sebring as the only Chryslers not possibly powering the rear wheels. And if you're talking sales #s... then all the people who drive trucks and SUVs should tell you something... there's got to be a few of them who converted so they didn't have to get a fwd car. I did, but I much prefer cars over trucks for on road vehicle dynamics (braking, steering, etc...) >>Manual brakes - better if you have a car that stalls a lot. ;) > I said mechanical brakes, which went out during the depression. My mistake. The park brake on your car is still mechanical and can be used in a situation where you lose hydraulic pressure. I'm not always in favor of OLD... I'm a computer guy, I like new... carbs vs FI... I'm an FI guy... but newer isn't always better for everything. >>Manual transmissions - you get them or you don't. > You get them if you pay extra. Purposeless considering how efficient > auto transmissions are. CVTs are even better. And good luck push starting your auto. The irony here for me is in the typical 4 cyl fwd application of a car like a Honda Civic that has no torque, a stick shift is waaaaay faster and way more peppy, especially off the line. >>Hand crank windows - don't freeze shut in -40. > Sure they do. Moisture on the linkage or around the window will freeze > them. Never ever had a manual window motor burn out on me. >>You probably think the Honda Ridgeline is a truck. ;) > Have no idea what a ridgeline is, but pickup trucks have little utility [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > pickups tend to pitch and dive when empty because they are set up for > carrying stuff. I believe that trucks are trucks. My truck is a 90 Chev that was my father-in-law's farm truck. 350/5spd/4wd. No A/C, no carpet. No power windows, no power locks. We use it to carry race car parts around, go to home depot, move people, etc... it's a dumb commuter vehicle at 10mpg, but unless I buy another car I'm going to need to use it this winter as one. PS- the Ridgeline is Honda's "truck"... it's like the Honda Minivan ElCamino. Think a 3/4 scale Avalanche. I'm not looking to fight about this. You can drive your Camry and completely care nothing about driving and be happy about that, I'm not interested in that. :) I can drive an old fart car when I'm an old fart. That's probably going to be about two weeks before I have to hand over my license because I'm 100 and can't drive anymore. Ray > >>Hmm... then how come BMW never went FWD except for the Mini? > > > > Have no idea, but there are plenty of stick-in-the-muds out there. > > Toyota has one rwd car, the Lexus GS. > It's called balance. FWD doesn't have any with all the weight hanging > over the nose. Yes, and rear wheel cars have such great balance thet they are notoriously poor performers in the snow. > > One can count a couple of fingers the few remaining car brands that are > > exclusively rwd. The number of car makers that have brought themselves [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Which has to everything do with packaging costs of the powertrain. > the companies that are RWD are usually enthusiast brands. What in heavens name is an enthusiast brand. > >>And count all the FWD Porsches. > > [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > Ray > > >>Hmm... then how come BMW never went FWD except for the Mini? > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Yes, and rear wheel cars have such great balance thet they are > notoriously poor performers in the snow. Says who? properly equipped, a RWD car is NOT difficult to drive in snow. I've driven my 944 in the snow before, and other than the lack of traction that one would expect with wide performance tires (I'd buy dedicated snow tires if I lived anywhere with real winter) it was exceptionally controllable. Of course, the near 50/50 weight balance helps, and the high polar moment of inertia keeps it stable (it has the transaxle in the rear, like a newer 'vette.) > > > One can count a couple of fingers the few remaining car brands that are > > > exclusively rwd. The number of car makers that have brought themselves [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > What in heavens name is an enthusiast brand. Something like Porsche, BMW, etc. - cars that are marketed for people who enjoy driving, not just as appliances. nate >>It's called balance. FWD doesn't have any with all the weight hanging >>over the nose. > > Yes, and rear wheel cars have such great balance thet they are > notoriously poor performers in the snow. Anyone who is pushing the "performance" of his car in the snow deserves whatever he gets. I will not sacrifice good driving and handling 99.99999999 percent of the miles I drive a car for that .0000001% that I have to drive in the snow. >>> It's called balance. FWD doesn't have any with all the weight hanging >>> over the nose. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the miles I drive a car for that .0000001% that I have to drive in the > snow. And even in places like Winnipeg, where it's -40 for 6 months of the year, most of the time most of the roads are plowed and stuff like 4wd and studded tires are way overkill. From about xmas to valentine's day, it's just cold, but the roads are usually clear, so you can drive a regular car just fine. I had a Jimmy, and needed to use 4 wheel drive about twice a winter during heavy snowfalls, or I could have just stayed home for the evening and let the plows clean the streets for me. Ray >>>>Hmm... then how come BMW never went FWD except for the Mini? >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Yes, and rear wheel cars have such great balance thet they are > notoriously poor performers in the snow. when was the last time you drove a rwd car in the snow? And you're confusing static weight distribution with performance. <sigh> I'm not going to argue this all week with you. Enjoy your Camry. > Have no idea, but there are plenty of stick-in-the-muds out there. > Toyota has one rwd car, the Lexus GS. That's fine... Toyota has *zero* cars I'd ever own. > One can count a couple of fingers the few remaining car brands that are > exclusively rwd. And interestingly, they are ALL premium marques. Hmmm..... The number of car makers that have brought themselves > forward into the 21st century by switching from RWD to front wheel > drive is of course as we all know quite large. Most of the number of > cars made today are fwd. The vast majority are transportation appliances. FWD is fine for that. Like I said, it packages better for people who neither know nor care what makes the car go. >>DaimlerChrysler is going back to RWD... > > Hmm...how many Chrysers are rwd. The 300, the Dodge Charger, the Dodge Magnum, and the Dodge Challenger. Of all the new-generation Mopars, only the Caliber is still FWD. Intersting that Chrysler was the first carmaker to go wholesale to FWD, and is now the first to start moving back. >>Manual transmissions - you get them or you don't. > > You get them if you pay extra. He meant "get them" as in "understand why some people want them." > > Have no idea, but there are plenty of stick-in-the-muds out there. > > Toyota has one rwd car, the Lexus GS. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > And interestingly, they are ALL premium marques. Hmmm..... Reminds me of the argument buyers of Rolex watches use to justify their purchase: "If Rolex charges such a price the watch must be designed right". Unfortunately the movement contains one feature that is seriously behind the times and results in owners having to take the watch in for repairs that are rarely seen on other watches. > The number of car makers that have brought themselves > > forward into the 21st century by switching from RWD to front wheel [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Like I said, it packages better for people who neither know nor care > what makes the car go. All cars are transportation devices (appliances). I got a real chuckle out of a guy driving his Porsche 911 in traffic recently. The spoiler is designed to pop up or disappear at about 40 mph. Traffic varied at that cutoff +- 10mph and that little spoiler was wagging up and down like a train crossing guard. With the assistance of a disappearing spoiler, his little RWD sporty car got him to the offramp at exactly the same time as my Volvo FWD station wagon. > >>DaimlerChrysler is going back to RWD... > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > He meant "get them" as in "understand why some people want them." Manual transmissions are fine IF you like attempting to equal the performance of a good automatic transmission. Unfortunately most drivers really have no idea of how to use a manual transmission effectively and fail miserably in the attempt. The most common and silliest mistake is to keep the car in too low a gear. It does little more than waste gas most of the time, although if the exhaust is loud enough the driver does get the rush that comes from a self-induced image of being a momentary race car driver. >> He meant "get them" as in "understand why some people want them." > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > enough the driver does get the rush that comes from a self-induced > image of being a momentary race car driver. the irony of all that is the only car I own that's an automatic is my race car. And that's only because we have to run one in my class, and the car was originally a stick. You just don't get it. I'm trying to be polite, but if the nicest car you've ever driven is a Volvo wagon, you just don't get it. There's a reason people buy fancy clothes, and a reason people buy $7 walmart jeans. Whatever. Just don't make personal potshots at me because you don't like my choices in cars, because you're just reinforcing the opinion I have of a.sholes in Volvos. > >> He meant "get them" as in "understand why some people want them." > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > You just don't get it. Which "it" don't I get. > I'm trying to be polite, but if the nicest car > you've ever driven is a Volvo wagon, you just don't get it. Again, which "it" are rambling on about. And why is it important that I drive a Volvo branded car vs another. > There's a > reason people buy fancy clothes, and a reason people buy $7 walmart jeans. And that reason is???? > Whatever. Whatever??? What do you mean by this phrase. > Just don't make personal potshots at me because you don't > like my choices in cars, because you're just reinforcing the opinion I > have of a.sholes in Volvos. You asked for suggestions for a family car with rear wheel drive and a stick transmission that was to be used in snow country. I responded with what is common wisdom for most drivers these days: 1. There are no inexpensive rearwheel drive cars with manual transmissions made recently and only a very few expensive ones. 2. Frontwheel drive cars are more common, thus offering you a greater number of choices. 3. Front wheel drive cars also offer better traction than rear wheel drive cars in snow and slippery situations. The only rear wheel drive cars with stickshifts that I can think of would be well used high milage vehicles like Toyota Corona and Volvo 240 stationwagons and sedans that are at least 15 to 20 years old depending on the model. I'm sure there are others. >>>> He meant "get them" as in "understand why some people want them." >>> Manual transmissions are fine IF you like attempting to equal the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Which "it" don't I get. Driving as a passion, not as a chore. >> I'm trying to be polite, but if the nicest car >> you've ever driven is a Volvo wagon, you just don't get it. > > Again, which "it" are rambling on about. And why is it important that > I drive a Volvo branded car vs another. Because there's not a whole lot sporty about a Volvo wagon. there's no "zoom zoom" (Mazda), no "ultimate driving machine" (BMW), not even "We build excitement" (Pontiac.) What's Volvo's theme? Safety. I'm not saying ALL Mazdas are sports cars, but there's a certain "dna" that runs through car lines, and Volvo is... well... about as unsporty as you can get, which is fine if you're looking for that. >> Just don't make personal potshots at me because you don't >> like my choices in cars, because you're just reinforcing the opinion I [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 3. Front wheel drive cars also offer better traction than rear wheel > drive cars in snow and slippery situations. well then... to rebut your comments: 1-I know this, which is why I was asking around in hopes I missed one in a brand I'm not familiar with. 2-see #1 3-I don't care what you believe about snow traction in a fwd car, I asked about rwd cars, not sermons on what kind of car you think I should be driving because I happen to live where it snows. Just because YOU can't keep a rwd car out of the ditch doesn't mean the rest of us can't. I wasn't (and am still not) looking to start a fight over fwd vs rwd - I prefer rwd, I prefer stick shifts. I'm looking for a family car with both that's not a zillion bucks or 30 years old. And because my request is apparently weird I'm having a difficult time finding one. I've looked at auto/rwd and manual/fwd combos and will buy one if it's the better choice, but I was hoping to find "the car." Like I said, you're not a driving enthusiast, or you'd understand my points, and that's fine, but don't mock me for not wanting to drive a Volvo wagon or a Toyota Camry for the next 10 years. Ray > >>>> He meant "get them" as in "understand why some people want them." > >>> Manual transmissions are fine IF you like attempting to equal the [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > through car lines, and Volvo is... well... about as unsporty as you can > get, which is fine if you're looking for that. I see that you have taken the advertisers bait, hook-line-and-sinker...swallowed it all. Do you really believe that nonsense about some brand being an Ultimate Driving Machine? You are the advertisers dream buyer. I believe in results, not ad copy. And when I can get 300k miles from a Volvo with little effort all the while enjoying the drive and reliability then I will keep doing that. > >> Just don't make personal potshots at me because you don't > >> like my choices in cars, because you're just reinforcing the opinion I [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > be driving because I happen to live where it snows. Just because YOU > can't keep a rwd car out of the ditch doesn't mean the rest of us can't. I SAID THIS BEFORE SO GET YOUR READING GLASSES OUT THIS TIME: CAR COMPANIES DON'T NOW AND HAVEN'T FOR QUITE A WHILE MADE AN INEXPENSIVE REAR WHEEL DRIVE CAR. THERE ARE A VERY FEW HIGH-END COMPANIES STILL PRODUCING THEM HOWEVER. BECAUSE YOU DID NOT WANT TO SPEND MORE THAN $20K I SUGGESTED THE ONLY AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVE...FWD. > I wasn't (and am still not) looking to start a fight over fwd vs rwd - I > prefer rwd, I prefer stick shifts. I'm looking for a family car with [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > points, and that's fine, but don't mock me for not wanting to drive a > Volvo wagon or a Toyota Camry for the next 10 years. Your original requirement was for a family car...not the racy type boys-toy car yopu referred to in subsequent messages. > Ray >>Because there's not a whole lot sporty about a Volvo wagon. there's no >>"zoom zoom" (Mazda), no "ultimate driving machine" (BMW), not even "We [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > when I can get 300k miles from a Volvo with little effort all the while > enjoying the drive and reliability then I will keep doing that. rrrright. Ever driven a Porsche? Ever driven anything but a Volvo? I don't believe any advertising crap, especially the crap about FWD. Any car is just steel plastic and rubber. It's how you put the parts together that determines if you end up with an F150, a BMW 3 Series, or a Toyota Corolla. There's a huge difference between a Hyundai Accent and a BMW 3 series, and I can't believe you can't fathom that. > I SAID THIS BEFORE SO GET YOUR READING GLASSES OUT THIS TIME: > CAR COMPANIES DON'T NOW AND HAVEN'T FOR QUITE A WHILE MADE AN > INEXPENSIVE REAR WHEEL DRIVE CAR. THERE ARE A VERY FEW HIGH-END > COMPANIES STILL PRODUCING THEM HOWEVER. BECAUSE YOU DID NOT WANT TO > SPEND MORE THAN $20K I SUGGESTED THE ONLY AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVE...FWD. Then have a large helping of STFU because I was asking for a RWD stick shift. I wasn't asking to be converted, I was asking for options. > Your original requirement was for a family car...not the racy type > boys-toy car yopu referred to in subsequent messages. I'm hoping to find the perfect car - sporty and practical. I'm just being honest, but finding a stick/rwd combo was hard enough that I was getting "desperate" and trying brands I wouldn't normally consider. It's called refining my selection. For example, I looked at a couple of really small cars (Versa, Wave) and they just are way too small. Even a Neon/Civic sized car is probably too small for what I want, and so I see no need to test drive a Corolla or a Cobalt because it's just too small - you can only make them so big on the inside, and I need passenger space and cargo space, but yes, I was hoping for something a little more like a 4 door Trans Am, and less like an appliance. I already have an automotive appliance in the wife's Beretta, and it will technically do the job for now, just not very comfortably (the seats suck) or very fast (3.1L... 140hp) or very sporty (underdamped) but the damn thing just won't die. Ray > >>Because there's not a whole lot sporty about a Volvo wagon. there's no > >>"zoom zoom" (Mazda), no "ultimate driving machine" (BMW), not even "We [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > rrrright. Ever driven a Porsche? Ever driven anything but a Volvo? I've owned and driven a fair number of cars over the years, although the Volvo cars have proven to be very reliable. I have no interest in owning a Porsche, mostly because they are outrageously priced for what they are. > I > don't believe any advertising crap, especially the crap about FWD. You need to go re-read what you have written then. > Any > car is just steel plastic and rubber. It's how you put the parts > together that determines if you end up with an F150, a BMW 3 Series, or > a Toyota Corolla. Cme on, there is more to it than the way parts are put together as a finished product. That doesn't ring true, because when I shut the door on a Kia it feels less substantial than the door on an S-80. > There's a huge difference between a Hyundai Accent > and a BMW 3 series, and I can't believe you can't fathom that. Well, yes, there is a huge difference in price, so one would hope that the BMW is to some extent a better built car. But doesn't Hyundai offer cars with a 10 year 100,000 mile drivetrain warranty? That makes me think they are quite confident about the quality of their products. > > I SAID THIS BEFORE SO GET YOUR READING GLASSES OUT THIS TIME: > > CAR COMPANIES DON'T NOW AND HAVEN'T FOR QUITE A WHILE MADE AN [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Then have a large helping of STFU because I was asking for a RWD stick > shift. I wasn't asking to be converted, I was asking for options. As we all know by now there are no new modestly priced rear wheel drive cars made. There are a few high-end cars with rwd made. As previously indicated you will have to look at the used car market for 15 year old cars. Although, now that I think about it, Ford made their large rear wheel drive sedan until recently, so you might look at the used models within the last five years or so. > > Your original requirement was for a family car...not the racy type > > boys-toy car yopu referred to in subsequent messages. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > (3.1L... 140hp) or very sporty (underdamped) but the damn thing just > won't die. If cost is a consideration as it is for most of us, then I would keep the Beretta running for as long as possible. My goal is to stretch 300,000 miles from my cars and I'm succeeding so far. My son has apparently caught the same bug because his 1987 Toyota Camry (front wheel drive) just hit 250,000 miles and is still going strong. The Trans Am is a nice looking and driving car - I got one with 500 miles on it as a rental about 4 months ago. For appearance sake the seats are set down and over-the-hood visibility would suffer a bit for someone 5 feet tall. As I remember the guages are lit in red, which I found a bit distracting and difficult to read at night. Overall I thought it was a nice package and the rear seats were reasonably roomy. And yes, Volvo's like the V70 and S80 are somewhat sporty, or at least good handling cars that are designed for fast well controlled driving, their "safe but stodgy" image notwithstanding. My V70 came with a 2.5 turbo engine that puts out gobs of low end power - more than enough for any driving situation I will encounter. And the 235.45.17 stock wheels combined with the already wide stance, reasonably stiff body and suspension gives sure and certain handling. Add to that HID lighting, variable power steering and very effective brakes and the result is a fine road car. My wife's S80 with the T6 motor has twin turbos that crank out even more power. Volvo also makes AWD S60R and V70R models with the 300hp high pressure turbo motor are bundles of high performance power. Not exactly the stodgy, boxy modest handling Volvo 240 of the 1980's. > Ray >>> I see that you have taken the advertisers bait, >>> hook-line-and-sinker...swallowed it all. Do you really believe that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > owning a Porsche, mostly because they are outrageously priced for what > they are. If it's any consolation, I wouldn't buy a Porsche either. But, a friend of mine has a Boxster, and we've gone hotlapping at the local road course with it, and the balance of it is beautiful, even if my TA can probably lap faster. Go AutoXing, and the tables are turned. All my point is is that pretty much any car in the last 10 years can get you from point A to point B with a minimum of fuss, so it comes down to what you WANT from the car as the differentiation. I'm not much into "gadgets" like nav systems, traction control, OnStar, etc... I'm more into the powertrain and suspension. I'm attempting to find a car that is a little more fun than a Taurus wagon without breaking the bank, and I've concluded the powertrain I really want is a rwd stickshift combo. I'm still not sure why you seem to be taking personal offense to it. >> There's a huge difference between a Hyundai Accent >> and a BMW 3 series, and I can't believe you can't fathom that. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > offer cars with a 10 year 100,000 mile drivetrain warranty? That makes > me think they are quite confident about the quality of their products. fwiw, you couldn't pay me to buy a Hyundai - if people feel justified rejecting domestic cars because their mom's 78 Pinto was a POS, then my parent's 86 Excel POS is proof enough for me that Hyundai sucks. (and my co-worker's wife's 99 Accent is bonus proof - what a POS.) > As we all know by now there are no new modestly priced rear wheel drive > cars made. There are a few high-end cars with rwd made. As previously > indicated you will have to look at the used car market for 15 year old > cars. Although, now that I think about it, Ford made their large rear > wheel drive sedan until recently, so you might look at the used models > within the last five years or so. Not true. Dodge Charger/Magnum. Subaru (awd is close enough). Mustang. There are quite a few, but the stick shift/rwd combo is the rarity. WHICH IS WHY I POSTED HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE HOPING SOMEONE HAD ANOTHER BRAND/MODEL I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT LIKE THE INFINITI G35. yeesh. > If cost is a consideration as it is for most of us, then I would keep > the Beretta running for as long as possible. My goal is to stretch > 300,000 miles from my cars and I'm succeeding so far. My son has > apparently caught the same bug because his 1987 Toyota Camry (front > wheel drive) just hit 250,000 miles and is still going strong. Cost is not the only consideration. Winter here is brutal on cars, and fixing them in my garage in the middle of January isn't any fun either. Coupled with a pregnant wife I'm getting concerned that the Beretta AND my truck, which are both 16 years old, may not be reliable enough for a Winnipeg winter when I can't afford any downtime. At the same time, I don't feel like spending $40k on a car. (Actually I don't even feeling like spending $2k but that's a different story.) > And yes, Volvo's like the V70 and S80 are somewhat sporty, or at least > good handling cars that are designed for fast well controlled driving, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > variable power steering and very effective brakes and the result is a > fine road car. I'm not disagreeing. I thought the 850 turbo wagons were really cool, fwd notwithstanding. Like I said, I'm looking for a rwd platform, so that likely excludes Volvos in the price range I'm looking to pay. I actually owned a Volvo project car way back when... A 1963 Volvo PV544. Unfortunately I had bitten off way more than I could chew, so I ended up selling it because parts were somewhere between non-existent and super-expensive. Ironically, it was a stick shift rwd. :) It's not that I'd NEVER buy a FWD car - I actually don't consider buying a minivan to be the horrible tradegy my wife seems to think it is, but I'm trying to find something better. Which is why the Subaru will probably end up being my choice - it's all around decent, has awd for the winter, and doesn't really "suck" - except for the bland styling, but according to the wife it's still better than a minivan. And I only need to keep it for a couple of years until I can trade it in on a new Camaro. ;) I just LIKE rwd better. And yes, I can tell the difference. It's hard to explain, but the balance of a rwd car is just better - to my backside anyway, and if I'm paying for it, that's all that matters. :) Ray Ray > >>> I see that you have taken the advertisers bait, > >>> hook-line-and-sinker...swallowed it all. Do you really believe that [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > course with it, and the balance of it is beautiful, even if my TA can > probably lap faster. Go AutoXing, and the tables are turned. Yeah, I drove my son-in-law's boxster, and it was fun...sort of. Rather uncomfortable for more than an hour and lacking in storage room of any kind. But I acknowlege one doesn't buy that car any more than a vette for its hauling capacity. Well, other than hauling a** ! > All my point is is that pretty much any car in the last 10 years can get > you from point A to point B with a minimum of fuss, so it comes down to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I've concluded the powertrain I really want is a rwd stickshift combo. > I'm still not sure why you seem to be taking personal offense to it. Well, first off let me be the first to ratchet this way back...I got a bit carried away. No personal offsense taken. I was trying to point out hat there are very few reasonable priced choices remaining. > >> There's a huge difference between a Hyundai Accent > >> and a BMW 3 series, and I can't believe you can't fathom that. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > time, I don't feel like spending $40k on a car. (Actually I don't even > feeling like spending $2k but that's a different story.) Those are very reasonable concerns, especially since both cars are of the same age. Subaru AWD seems like it could be a viable choice. Although try it for size...they are not roomy in the rear. Also if you can live with an automatic transmission then look at one of the recent full sized Ford Crown Victoria sedans. They had rear wheel drive, plenty room for a growing family and have a good rep for reliability. > > And yes, Volvo's like the V70 and S80 are somewhat sporty, or at least > > good handling cars that are designed for fast well controlled driving, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > ended up selling it because parts were somewhere between non-existent > and super-expensive. Ironically, it was a stick shift rwd. :) I worked for a guy once...a swede that owned a PV544. Drove it once or twice and was somewhat impressed. I believe it had twin side-draft carbs that gave it some punch. The styling was dated though...looked like a 1940 Ford. > It's not that I'd NEVER buy a FWD car - I actually don't consider buying > a minivan to be the horrible tradegy my wife seems to think it is, but [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > to explain, but the balance of a rwd car is just better - to my backside > anyway, and if I'm paying for it, that's all that matters. :) That's cool... I'm one of the dinosaurs that can control the slide in a rwd with the gas... A disappearing art.... > Ray > > Ray >> All my point is is that pretty much any car in the last 10 years can get >> you from point A to point B with a minimum of fuss, so it comes down to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > bit carried away. No personal offsense taken. I was trying to point > out hat there are very few reasonable priced choices remaining. :) >> Cost is not the only consideration. Winter here is brutal on cars, and >> fixing them in my garage in the middle of January isn't any fun either. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > full sized Ford Crown Victoria sedans. They had rear wheel drive, > plenty room for a growing family and have a good rep for reliability. My Uncle is on his third Grand Marquis. He loves them. I think the Subaru can fit in the trunk. That's a little TOO big. :) And the Legacy Wagon passed the headroom and the reverse facing child seat test with ease. > I worked for a guy once...a swede that owned a PV544. Drove it once or > twice and was somewhat impressed. I believe it had twin side-draft > carbs that gave it some punch. The styling was dated though...looked > like a 1940 Ford. I bought it because I thought the styling was cool. Then I discovered that a cap and rotor was a special order item, spark plugs were special order, the floor was rotten, etc... > That's cool... I'm one of the dinosaurs that can control the slide in > a rwd with the gas... A disappearing art.... but a fun one. I believe the phrase for that is "Slideways" :) See... we can get along. growing up can really suck sometimes. Next thing I know I'll be buying pants that are comfortable. I already lost the mullet. ;) Ray > > >>>> He meant "get them" as in "understand why some people want them." > > >>> Manual transmissions are fine IF you like attempting to equal the [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > when I can get 300k miles from a Volvo with little effort all the while > enjoying the drive and reliability then I will keep doing that. You've never actually *driven* a BMW, have you? I used to own an '86 535i and I still fondly remember that car, craptacular as it was (not due to design, more to having been flogged for 200K miles by a previous owner.) Even as old and beat as it was, you could still tell that it was a cut above your average Lumina. I'm assuming that this is the kind of effect that the OP is looking for; which is why I recommended that he see if a more recent 5-series might not fit within his budget (although from a purist's standpoint, even the E28 was getting to be over-gadgeted, and the later models have only gotten worse.) > > >> Just don't make personal potshots at me because you don't > > >> like my choices in cars, because you're just reinforcing the opinion I [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > COMPANIES STILL PRODUCING THEM HOWEVER. BECAUSE YOU DID NOT WANT TO > SPEND MORE THAN $20K I SUGGESTED THE ONLY AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVE...FWD. Or perhaps manufacturers should listen to what people are asking for - updated versions of the kinds of cars that were common 30 years ago. Sounds to me like the OP is looking for something like a Chevelle or Cutlass. Gee, those cars sold like hotcakes back in the day, didn't they? > > I wasn't (and am still not) looking to start a fight over fwd vs rwd - I > > prefer rwd, I prefer stick shifts. I'm looking for a family car with [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Your original requirement was for a family car...not the racy type > boys-toy car yopu referred to in subsequent messages. So just because you have kids you automatically get issued a minivan? I don't think so... What's so wrong with wanting a reasonably sporty (not sports) car that can still carry a full complement of passengers for a reasonable price? Certainly that's not too much to ask. Just thought of another idea for the OP - possibly a used VW R32, assuming you can find one that hasn't been flogged to death by an enthusiast PO? I realize that it's a FWD-converted-to-AWD car, but I did thoroughly enjoy my GTI 1.8T even though it was driven from the wrong end. Also pretty much any Audi, but they're pricey. nate > > > >>>> He meant "get them" as in "understand why some people want them." > > > >>> Manual transmissions are fine IF you like attempting to equal the [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > (although from a purist's standpoint, even the E28 was getting to be > over-gadgeted, and the later models have only gotten worse.) Driven BMW's several times...as rental cars in Germany as well as my future son-in-law's car. They are an enjoyable solid handling car to drive. We have also taken the time to tour the BMW plant in South Carolina. They have a fascinating museum with several of the classics on display. The highly automated robotic assembly line is fascinating to watch, although it does remove any thoughts of BMW's being the result of any old-world germanic craftsmanship. But as the original poster noted, cars are appliances first and foremost. They are appliances that move us from point a to point b. It matters little whether the driver is piloting a Saab, BMW, Taurus, Volvo, Porsche or Passat. We all get to our arrival in about the same time and generally arrive in one piece. The mental games one gets to play while piloting certain cars can be entertaining, especially in traffic. Imagining that one is an enthusiast or even better a race driver and flicking through the gears to hold the rpms up and achieve a loud mechanical whine from the motor and attain a nice exhaust tone while navigating on ramps and changing lanes can provide momentary pleasure. If done too frequently the only lasting impact is to shorten trips between gas stations. > > > >> Just don't make personal potshots at me because you don't > > > >> like my choices in cars, because you're just reinforcing the opinion I [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Cutlass. Gee, those cars sold like hotcakes back in the day, didn't > they? It would appear that most drivers today are asking for cars with: front wheel drive; motors that balance power and economy; automatic transmissions; numerous safety features; etc. If drivers didn't want cars with those features they would not buy them. Regarding front wheel drive vehicles, if drivers did not want them they would have stayed with rear wheel drive cars in the early 1980's when the transition was occuring. Consumers make their choices known to manufacturers with their pocketbook. Regarding the Chevelle/Cutlass, yes they were nice cars...in their day. I have fond memories of my 1968 Chevelle being a joy to drive when new. Like many of it's slant-window bretheren it rusted out around the bottom of the rear window and filled the trunk with water. When a fully rebuilt 1960's car is driven in 2006 one finds out quickly just how far automotive technology has progressed. Old cars are great for memories, fun for collectors and serve as excellent benchmarks to show how much new cars have improved. > > > I wasn't (and am still not) looking to start a fight over fwd vs rwd - I > > > prefer rwd, I prefer stick shifts. I'm looking for a family car with [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > nate > > > > >>>> He meant "get them" as in "understand why some people want them." > > > > >>> Manual transmissions are fine IF you like attempting to equal the [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > to watch, although it does remove any thoughts of BMW's being the > result of any old-world germanic craftsmanship. I never deluded myself that my BMW was put together by Black Forest artisans. You have to pay a lot more than BMW prices to get a truly hand built car, and there's not always an advantage to same (look at the miserable reliability record of such cars as Morgan, Aston Martin, etc.) HOWEVER - what you *are* paying for is crisp, precise handling and a design optimized for performance and driver comfort, not ease of manufacture. This has been traditionally the reason people have been willing to put up with the higher purchase price and maintenance costs of a BMW even though it doesn't always make sense from an economic basis. It simply gives them pleasure to drive a truly good car as opposed to a toaster on wheels. > But as the original poster noted, cars are appliances first and > foremost. They are appliances that move us from point a to point b. > It matters little whether the driver is piloting a Saab, BMW, Taurus, > Volvo, Porsche or Passat. To some people it does. e.g. some people are completely OK with buying a dishwasher, say, from the Salvation Army, while other people get a small amount of pleasure from having some high-end stainless steel thing with roller-bearing this and extra-insulated that. Or the difference between a Kitchenaid mixer and some plastic POS from K-mart. There are appliances, and then there are appliances. Or in other words - you have to have a car, so why not buy a GOOD one? If nothing else, you couldn't pay me enough to drive a Taurus or Passat; they're not fun enough to drive to overcome the maintenance nightmares that they inevitably become. > We all get to our arrival in about the same > time and generally arrive in one piece. The mental games one gets to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > pleasure. If done too frequently the only lasting impact is to shorten > trips between gas stations. Sure, but you can still get the benefits of a good car by knowing that you are WELL within its performance envelope at all times, and can also take pleasure in the crispness of the feel of the car even well within legal speeds. Not only is this rewarding to the driver emotionally, but there's an actual safety benefit. > > > > >> Just don't make personal potshots at me because you don't > > > > >> like my choices in cars, because you're just reinforcing the opinion I [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > transition was occuring. Consumers make their choices known to > manufacturers with their pocketbook. And you know what? I think they *would* buy larger, RWD or AWD family cars given the option. Otherwise, why would so many people buy glorified pickup trucks instead of the passenger cars that are available? > Regarding the Chevelle/Cutlass, yes they were nice cars...in their day. > I have fond memories of my 1968 Chevelle being a joy to drive when [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > memories, fun for collectors and serve as excellent benchmarks to show > how much new cars have improved. I don't get it. I've got a new ('05) Impala as my company car, and given the choice between driving that every day and having a perfectly restored older A-body, that's a no-brainer choice IMHO. The Impala is clearly optimized to be a perfect little disposable appliance, whereas the older cars usually gave some concessions to the driver in terms of actual power, some attempt at balanced handling, etc. I don't get any benefit at all from the supposed "improvements" in the Impala - it's still a slow, uncomfortable, ill-handling, loud POS. nate > But as the original poster noted, cars are appliances first and > foremost. Maybe to you. *NOT* to me. If I'm going to spend a fair chunk of my life engaged in an activity such as driving, I WILL enjoy it. > Because there's not a whole lot sporty about a Volvo wagon. there's no > "zoom zoom" (Mazda), no "ultimate driving machine" (BMW), not even "We > build excitement" (Pontiac.) What's Volvo's theme? Safety. And more importantly, "safety" to the modern Volvo is *just* a theme. Not a reality. Real Volvos ceased to exist with the debut of the front-drive S-80. > > Because there's not a whole lot sporty about a Volvo wagon. there's no > > "zoom zoom" (Mazda), no "ultimate driving machine" (BMW), not even "We [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Not a reality. Real Volvos ceased to exist with the debut of the > |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message