Outstanding Cars in Last 10 Years.

NOT INCLUDING so called LUXURY cars or so called FULLY LOADED. EXCLUDE THESE.
In the last 10 years what are the above average cars used for basic daily transport.
Since 1968 I have owned two vehicles which I have used for daily transport, a 1968 Chevy Nova, 6cyl, manual transmission and presently a 1981 Ford Fairmont, 6cyl, auto transmission.
I believe it could possibly be time to replace my present daily transportation and would like to find out what are the good 4cyl and 6cyl vehicles in the last 10 years.
Thanks in advance Denny B
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Denny B wrote:

Why? You want a loaded or semi-luxury car, IMO, used. Why not get leather seats or a decent engine if it's only a few hundred dollars more?

OMG. Almost anything will be better than this. Times have changed and it's all for the better.

1996-1997 Buick Century. These are good because they are inexpensive(4-5K) and have a decent engine in them. Your best bet is to find something decently reliable with a huge depreciation ratio due to image. The Century fits that perfectly. Not as sporty as a Regal due to the smaller engine(as if 175HP wasn't just fine), and the "old man" image. I saw a 1997 on the dealer lot a month ago for $5K. All the options including sunroof, premium sound, and touring suspension. Mint inside and out. Drove really really nice and you can't get half of a KIA Rio new for $5K.
Yukon. Same deal. Depreciates fast, good used choice. Of the SUVs, this and an old Toyota 4-Runner are the best options. An older generation 4*4 F150(square metal body type) is also a good choice.
Back to cars: 1994-1995 Volvo 940 non-turbo. Thing is a tank. Many used examples exist that are in like new condition as it was a favorite of the elderly crowd. For a commuter car, this is probably going to be hard to beat for the price. The 1994/1995 didn't have a MAF either - and used a simpler sensor, so the engine won't die on you like the newer types. Also consider a low mileage mint condition 1993 Volvo 240. It's *just* over the 10 year limit, but they are some of the cheapest cars to keep running ever made. Run forever, handle well, great ergonomics.
Mid to late 90's Toyota pickup. The little 4 cylinder model with stickshift. A favorite of couriers because they are good forever and were under $9K new.
Towncar/Crown Vic Depreciates like a *rock* due to 90%+ fleet and rental sales. Good overbuilt car, though. V8 engine. Search and find a 4-5 year old one owned by a private party coming off a lease. Spend well under 8K for the car. Since it wasn't abused by police, taxi, or rental use, it's a decent car and should serve you well for at least 5-10 years.
Old generation Mercedes. ~1996 IIRC - before they went with the rounded front ends. These were the last of the old technology built to last 30 years tanks. A bit of money, but will last half a million miles if you do your part. Not half as many electronics to go wrong as the new cars, and about half as much to repair as the new techno-toy they now make. A 500 series, used, is a heck of a car. Even the 300 series is good. The 100 series is to be avoided, though.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Maybe he doesn't want the fancy stuff that can be difficult or expensive to repair when it breaks?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Timothy J. Lee wrote:

It is possible to have a bit of luxury and reliability. Of course, if all you're owned are Fords, you probably wouldn't believe this was possible.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joseph Oberlander wrote in alt.autos.gm

Good old Fix Or Repair Daily's? Tell me it ain't so.

--
Dick #1349
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dick C wrote:

Heh. My point was that Fords were neither luxurious or reliable, especially the thing he's currently driving.
I'd step up to something better myself.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
My dads secretary wanted a great little 4 cyl to save gas and not cost too much money. She opted to buy a ( new ) 79 VW Rabbit Diesel. She paid about $1000 less for that VW than what she could of gotten a new 79 Cadillac Coupe De Ville for.
She put mega bucks into the Rabbit in repairs, had constant running troubles. She didn't save much money buying that car.
She kept it till 1987 then bought a 88 Ponitac 6000 4 cyl and run that till 1996.
If she had bought that Cadillac she would of had a decent running car for many years and would not of had the problems she had with the VW.
========Harryface ======== 1991 Pontiac Bonneville LE, 3800 V6 _~_~_~_~276,100 miles_~_~_ ~_~_
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Harry Face wrote:

Ecch. What a choice. I had a 1981 Buick Regal, and my father had a 1979 Old Cutlass with the V8 option. We were very familiar with GM at the time and plainly put, people don't realize how good they now have it.
All GM cars were money pits as well back then. She'd honestly not have done *much* better.

Now, that was a better car. FWD, better engine.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.