Best wagon under 10k?

singleslammer wrote:

Leafy wrote: Saaburu, wrx, or fxt if gas mileage is of no concern. Mazda 6 if it is.

Somebody didnt read the thread.

Its over rated.

I mean is 26ish mpg good enough for you or do you need more?

Leafy wrote:

singleslammer wrote:

Leafy wrote: Saaburu, wrx, or fxt if gas mileage is of no concern. Mazda 6 if it is.

Somebody didnt read the thread.

Its over rated. I mean is 26ish mpg good enough for you or do you need more?

The OP had followed up with a comment that he had rejected the WRX, FXT and Saabaru based on interior space.

To the OP - I don't know if the 2009 VW Jetta wagons or the 2010-present Golf wagons hit your price point but they are nice cars.

Consider the 9-3 Saab SC. It is better looking than the 9-5 and handles better while only slightly less interior room mostly in the rear leg room. Get the 2.0T with a stick and it will yield better mileage too. 2006 was the first year, but prices should be under $10k with low miles. It is more modern than a 9-5 and much nicer that a Mazda 6. Lots of tuning options if you are inclined. The 9-5 is also a good choice, but may be harder to find a good one.

I imagine that the Jetta or Passat wagon MIGHT work but the Golf will be too small.

I think the 9-3 might be too small but I will have to check it out. I do like the fact that it uses a GM engine and should be easy to support.

Both Saabs seem to be ideal candidates for me as they are both somewhat easy to find with a stick and have really great storage capacity. Anyone have personal experience with these and reliability? Which one drives better? Which would you rather have?

540it?

The 540iT is a great option but mpgs isn't that great.

Had a 90 Subaru Legacy wagon. it was replaced after way too many miles with a 95 Volvo 850 wagon. Loved it. Fantastic road trip car and very reliable. Other than oxygen sensors I spent no money on it. That was replaced with an 03 V70. Great car but prone to automatic transmission problems. Watch out for the Aisin Warner (AW55) transmission common to all Volvos. known problems of sticking solenoids that prevent gear changes. I dumped the car when it started getting really bad. Both Volvos got bilsteins and springs and this would transform the car. It would hold its own on twistys and still get 28mpg hauling the interstates of TX (Avg speed above 80 is the norm here). Plus the Volvo has cavernous space in the back. More usable room than my wife's Pathfinder.

Interesting... Can a newer v70 be had with a stick?

Watch out for the Aisin Warner (AW55) transmission common to all Volvos.

My mom's S80 has a GM 4t60 and im happy about that.

If they had made a 1st gen s80 wagon i would already own one or be trying like hell to get one right now. As much as i like the v70R, it's a DISTANT 2nd to the way i imagine an s80 wagon.

singleslammer wrote: Both Saabs seem to be ideal candidates for me as they are both somewhat easy to find with a stick and have really great storage capacity. Anyone have personal experience with these and reliability? Which one drives better? Which would you rather have?

Avoid 2003 9-3's. It was the first year of the sedan body style and they're known for electrical problems. The interior was updated in 2007, and the body facelifted in 2008. My understanding is that the later ones are quite reliable, at least by the standards of modern euro cars.

9-5's had engine sludge problems that got figured out around 2004 I believe. It may be worth dropping the oil pan to check for that upon purchase. 9-5s, especially wagons, have an appetite for rear control arm bushings. I had a 2000 9-5 lpt sedan that had 276k+ miles when I sold it.

They're both nice to drive, but the 9-3 is better IMO. That said the 9-5 has a LOT more space.

WRX wagon doesn't have enough space? The 02 I bought has more space than any other car I've ever owned. Why not consider a bus or rapist van if you need more?

In reply to DirtyBird222:

Wow, that is a heck of a response. My BIL has a forester and that is tight.

http://daytona.craigslist.org/cto/3875171266.html

I don't think of the WRX as a wagon. It's a hatchback. You want a wagon, get the forester version.

kreb wrote: I don't think of the WRX as a wagon. It's a hatchback. You want a wagon, get the forester version.

The new ones are a proper hatchback. The 02-07s are def wagons.

I own a 2001 V70 with manual transmission. 230K miles on it and bulletproof. The car was super entertaining on the canyon roads in SoCal, fits loads of stuff, has a very nice and comfortable interior... there's not much wrong with it and I got an incredible deal. However if I were to go back and do it all over I'd probably buy a BMW if I could find one with a manual or an urS6.

Regardless the wrx doesnt have the space behind the seats i am looking for.

Audis and vws scare me though.

I had a 99 528it manual trans that I enjoyed immensely for 12k miles. Excellent driving car and I consider it to have saved my life when I exited the freeway backwards at speed and hit a concrete divider wall. It got 28/29ish but all of my miles are highway; 100 at a time.

singleslammer wrote: Both Saabs seem to be ideal candidates for me as they are both somewhat easy to find with a stick and have really great storage capacity. Anyone have personal experience with these and reliability? Which one drives better? Which would you rather have?

I would go for the 9-5 over the 9-3. The Saab B-series is a much stouter engine than the GM Ecotec, there is a much bigger aftermarket, and it sounds like you could use every inch of extra space the 9-5 offers. Search on the board, I have contributed to a few 9-5 threads, but I am at work and don't have the time to find them this second. I loved my '99 9-5 though.

Audi Wagons are sex, just don't know about reliability which ones are "ok" vs "terrible"

Jaynen wrote: Audi Wagons are sex, just don't know about reliability which ones are "ok" vs "terrible"

5-cyl = best core drivetrain, but the car built around it is the crappiest

1.8T, 2.0T, 2.7T, 2.8 = have their issues, but "okay"

3.0 = RUN RUN RUN RUN

SlickDizzy wrote: 5-cyl = best core drivetrain, but the car built around it is the crappiest 1.8T, 2.0T, 2.7T, 2.8 = have their issues, but "okay" 3.0 = RUN RUN RUN RUN

4.2!

codrus wrote:

SlickDizzy wrote: 5-cyl = best core drivetrain, but the car built around it is the crappiest 1.8T, 2.0T, 2.7T, 2.8 = have their issues, but "okay" 3.0 = RUN RUN RUN RUN

4.2!

I have no personal experience with the 4.2 but I'm not looking to have one anytime soon either