I was over reading this thread on $35k newish Sport Sedans and wondered what on this list might have a generation or two older version that is now in the $3.5k range. One that stick with me is the Volvo S60 turbo. Lots of automatic version out there and a 2002-2005 version could very well be in your price range.
Great on comfort and somewhat on sport while not being too bad on mpg.
You can get a good deal on late-model Saturns and Saabs right now. I have been DD'ing an 08 Saturn Astra (re-badged Opel/Vauxhall) for 7 years andd enjoy it. They option out pretty nicely, many with leather and heated seats, but their GM bankruptcy orphan status keeps them $5,000 even with low miles. The suspension is a bit stiffer and sportier than a typical econobox, so even in automatic form it shouldn't be too boring (mine is 5-speed). Fit and finish is much better than most pre-2008 GM cars since it was imported from GM Europe.
John Welsh said:
A Prius is no less fun than the 2001 Corolla/Prizm with an automatic that you have already sugested.
Oh, I beg to differ there. I've owned both. I can't even count how many cars I've had, and the Prius was hands down the worst driving experience ever, from an enthusiast stand point. I was using it for mostly highway driving, but the very few curvy roads I had to drive it on made my minivan feel like an F1 car. I have a ton of respect for the Prius because it's incredibly good at it's intended mission. But from a fun to drive standpoint, it's a total E36 M3 box.
For that price range, I'd go with the best Mazda3 I could find.
I wonder what Priuses you guys drive or have driven. We had a 1G Prius, an 07 Saturn Vue, and now an 07 Odyssey. Unless at the drag strip, the Prius was by far the sportiest of the bunch. I can't picture any car making our Odyssey feeling sporty.
I'm still stuck on the "fun to drive" and "automatic" thing. I can't think of a single auto-equipped car at that price point that isn't soul-sucking and irritating to drive.
The only saving grace on the wife's Rio is it has a great chassis. You just never lift (because if you do it's back to soul sucking again) and hardly ever use the brakes. But it's an econobox so that's a no.
Bobzilla said:I'm still stuck on the "fun to drive" and "automatic" thing. I can't think of a single auto-equipped car at that price point that isn't soul-sucking and irritating to drive.
The only saving grace on the wife's Rio is it has a great chassis. You just never lift (because if you do it's back to soul sucking again) and hardly ever use the brakes. But it's an econobox so that's a no.
But fun to drive means a lot of things. An automatic Jeep with no doors would be fun to drive. An ls400 with a welded diff would be fun to drive. A rusty pickup truck can be fun to drive.
"Fun to drive" /always= "wins at autocross"
Robbie said:"Fun to drive" /always= "wins at autocross"
That's good.... because I've never owned one that wins at autox but I've owned a some seriously fun to drive cars.
Surprised I've only seen one post mentioning "the answer" (Miata) so far. Maybe 10% of them had automatics as this saps a fair amount of their performance, but you can find them with one if you look.
In reply to MadScientistMatt :
I think that falls into the "no crapboxes" clause. lol
came in to say look at orphans for good performance/$ ratio. Saabs are cheap and can be fast, maybe a pontiac vibe, or if you dare an Aztek (needs offroad tires and a lift though). the volvo s60 too
In reply to John Welsh :
Not necessarily the primary factor, but it does have to be a factor
I only mentioned the 2001 Corolla/Prizm because of the 1ZZ engine, and because the 4-speed auto would be better than the electric drive in the Prius.
In reply to szeis4cookie :
Crazy high mpg isn't super needed, but he is looking for something in the range of 24/34-ish
4 spd auto from 90s/early 2000s low power E36 M3box < electric drive in Prius 95% of the time. Especially as they both age by 15 years/100k+ miles
In reply to Robbie :
I should probably mention that it needs to be a little practical....Miata is out, MR2 not a chance, Mazda6 not bad (but might as well go for a Mazda3 for better MPG), P71 sucks on gas, Mustang/Camaro not a chance...
The 2003-2005 Saab 9-5 has been the most interesting and recurring suggestion on here. Thoughts and opinions on how it drives? Reliability?
In reply to John Welsh :
Thanks for the welcome Mr. Welsh
I've been really a fan of that Celica generation GTS with the 2ZZ, but unfortunately my compadre is looking for something with drive by cable if possible (only 2000-2001), and they're kind of high priced in this area (SoCal).
His previous car was a piece of crap HHR that had the electronic throttle cables get frayed somehow - cost $700 to fix it, so he does want to avoid that problem again (have tried to convince that it was just a GM thing).
In reply to mazdeuce :
Just needs to be a good daily driver in the city, with decent space inside and a good trunk that isn't totally small (fold-down seats a must)
The Infiniti version of the Sentra was the G20, unfortunately pretty unremarkable from what I've learned about it (funnest ones were 1991-1995 - too old and the newer ones got too heavy on curb weight).
Only small and decent Lexus that interests my guy would be the ES300, but of course it's a V6 - no-no for MPG.
In reply to KyAllroad :
Yeah...to hell with stick shift - it's not happening with the constant stop-and-go with hill traffic. It's too much a pain in the ass to bother.
In reply to John Welsh :
I was thinking something Volvo, but I heard that basically anything past 2000 was less reliable than older ones (electronic issues, or so I heard). S60 seems like a great car.
John Welsh said:Try going to www.Fueleconomy.gov where you can compare the mpg of various models.
EPA ratings can be a farce. F'rinstance, Teh Volvo is EPA rated at something like 24 city and 30 highway. In the real world, I get 32mpg in mixed driving, and the only time I dip below 30 highway is when towing a trailer at average speeds of 75+ while being a complete and total unashamed d-head. I have seen 40 actual all-highway and have also seen 34 all-highway while towing and driving like a respectable member of society.
Basically, if the car was tuned for the test, your economy is going to suck compared to the rating. If the car was tuned for driving enjoyment, your economy may actually be better than the rating.
This is why I am not afraid of the R's abysmal 24 highway and city rating so low it's probably a negative number. Volvo transmissions and engines are tuned for drivers, not passing tests. I note with enthusiasm that the 6-speed auto behaves exactly like the old 5-speed in how it always manages to be in exactly the gear you'd want it to be in, and you can preselect a downshift with a well timed throttle pop just like the motion for a double-declutched downshift in a manual.
In reply to maschinenbau :
To be fair, if I wanted suggest a GM option (friend just sold his lousy HHR because of some electrical issues), it would have to have an Ecotec 2.2 or 2.4 motor at least.
The Astra seems pretty decent, though, for a GM car. I'll look it up.
Oh wait, I just looked them up - only one Astra XR, and it's asking $3900 :(
In reply to MadScientistMatt :
The friend is 6 feet tall, he's not fitting in a Miata lol
Aside from that, it's already been discounted from search - impractical
In reply to Bobzilla :
I should probably rephrase what I mean by "no crapboxes"
It just needs to avoid being tinny or being put together poorly.
As long as it's solidly built, I'm ok with cheap materials.
John Welsh said:I was over reading this thread on $35k newish Sport Sedans and wondered what on this list might have a generation or two older version that is now in the $3.5k range. One that stick with me is the Volvo S60 turbo. Lots of automatic version out there and a 2002-2005 version could very well be in your price range.
Great on comfort and somewhat on sport while not being too bad on mpg.
I'm shopping for S60Rs right now because I have yet to see an R going for over 9k while S40s of any type with AWD are going for 10k+, which is faintly ridiculous.
Confession: The R that I'm very close to buying is listed at $6k and I can probably talk them down to 5 because it has suspension issues that leave it stuck in Sport (default) mode and it's been on their lot for over two months. The suspensions issue bothers me exactly zero.
maschinenbau said:You can get a good deal on late-model Saturns and Saabs right now.
...because a lot of lending institutions refuse to loan money for "orphan" manufacturers like SAAB, Saturn, Oldsmobile, HUMMER, and so on. Few people can pay for near-new cars with cash money, so that small market for a large number of cars means low retail value.
Knurled said:John Welsh said:I was over reading this thread on $35k newish Sport Sedans and wondered what on this list might have a generation or two older version that is now in the $3.5k range. One that stick with me is the Volvo S60 turbo. Lots of automatic version out there and a 2002-2005 version could very well be in your price range.
Great on comfort and somewhat on sport while not being too bad on mpg.
I'm shopping for S60Rs right now because I have yet to see an R going for over 9k while S40s of any type with AWD are going for 10k+, which is faintly ridiculous.
Confession: The R that I'm very close to buying is listed at $6k and I can probably talk them down to 5 because it has suspension issues that leave it stuck in Sport (default) mode and it's been on their lot for over two months. The suspensions issue bothers me exactly zero.
But why not an S80? Get that sweet 4.4 Yamaha V8.
Too cruiser-like for you?
You'll need to log in to post.
