Buying a new car, down to 4 options. HALP

Fivelives wrote: a 78 Jaguar XK-R

<snip>

The Jag - yeah. Good luck keeping this beast running. There's a reason it got a reputation for being a mechanic's car. I just don't have the time to keep it going, so it's parked.

May sound dumb, but if you want a reliable Jaguar, get an OLDER one. You want a '67 or earlier, or a Ford-built Jaguar with a V8 in it. It you get a 70s or 80s one, it needs to have been rebuilt, because the factory sure as hell didn't put it together right, and that was thirty years ago.

Also: Something about "78 Jaguar XK-R" is a typo . They only started making the XK-R in 1996. In '78 they were making the XJ-S, XJ-C, XJ-6 and XJ-12.

Yeah, no idea how I fucked that up, other than perhaps because it's been garaged under a car cover since getting it shipped back from Germany in '02. Next time I visit the hometown, I'll edit it (if I remember, not planning on visiting until December, at the earliest). I remember the year though, since that's the year I was born

Makes things easy.

'78 Jaguars:

Seats: 2 or 4? If 2 seats: XJ-S

If four seats - how many doors?

2 doors: XJ-C

If four doors: 6-cylinder = XJ6, 12 cylinder = XJ12 (both "Series 2" XJs.)

It's an XJ-S, then. Thanks for the flowchart, knaughty (lol).

Haven't driven any of the above, but a friend of mine test drove the camaro SS and said it had some trouble cornering, and didn't shift very smoothly.

I'm saying the camero, but its more of a "lesser of evils" opition. Unless the mustang got a big overhaul, I've never found them comfortable to drive in. Leg room of a small box, and I'm not that big. dodges, actually I've heard nothing about dodges, so you could go with no news is good news thing.

I don't know, I prefer my little honda cause the thing doesn't know what quit means, untill I blew the raditor, but even then, the thing didn't really stop

The general lee from the Dukes of Hazzard was a 1969 Dodge Charger. The car that Michael Westen (from Burn Notice) drives is a 73 Charger rallye edition.

From the reviews I've been reading, the Challenger is probably the most likely candidate for handling and comfort, but probably not the best racer.

Mustang > Camaro > Challenger > Charger in the raceability ranks
Charger > Challenger > Camaro > Mustang as far as comfort is concerned

Dodge makes great muscle cars, even if they kind of fell off the map with the (almost) 30 year break between their last entry into the pony car division, and when they picked it back up with the 2008 Charger.

I went and test drove all 4, and here's my impressions of them:

Mustang: sporty, responsive steering with minimal over/under steering issues. It handles great, the suspension is nice and stiff, and I felt like I was taking off in a fighter jet when I floored it from a dead stop. Sadly, the salesman wouldn't let me drift it, he was pretty white-knuckled throughout the test drive (note: get new salesman). As far as comfort is concerned, I felt like a square peg that got hammered into a round hole that was too small for it - this DEFINITELY isn't a car I'd want to drive for more than an hour at a time. There was also a lot of noise transfer from the ground inside the car.

Camaro: noticeable delay between steering and car response, HUGE over/under steering issues. Doesn't handle all that great in a turn, and I felt/heard tire slippage while taking turns at "safe" speeds. Going on/off a freeway on-ramp at 10mph over was definitely not something I'll do again with a salesperson in the car. Flooring it from a dead stop didn't give the same feel as the mustang, but I didn't expect as much from this car, either. Comfort-wise, it was a touch better than the mustang, but I still had to sit on the right side of the driver's seat and was jammed up against the console. It's not a car that I'd want to take on road trips, but wouldn't be bad for a few hours at a time.

Charger: it's a BOAT. Handled well for a sedan, no over/under steering issues. The suspension was ridiculously soft, but I didn't get any bump transfers from the road. Not a car I'd want to race in, it seems like Dodge is relying on the charger name to get the mid-life crowd - my initial impression before driving the actual car was right: it's a mid-life crisis compromise car. Sporty enough to satisfy someone that doesn't intend to use it as an actual performance car, roomy enough to accomodate the wife and kids. Comfort-wise, it was great, except that I like to drive with my seat back in a reclined position, and sedan seats just don't feel "right". It's like sitting on someone else's recliner chair, no matter how comfortable it is, it's not YOUR chair.

Challenger: I didn't expect it to handle and perform as well as it did. With a curb weight over the 2 ton mark, I expected it to be unresponsive, but it handled with minimal slippage and no over/under steering issues. The suspension is soft, and when I took a tight corner it felt like I was in a roller coaster and it's the first time in a long time that I've felt a rush like I was about to roll over. All 4 tires stayed on the ground though, but I think if I took a tight turn sufficiently fast I'd end up on 2 wheels. Off the line at a dead stop, I'd put it as easily comparable to the Camaro and slightly behind the Mustang, which was kind of expected. Also, holy hell I didn't expect it to be as comfortable as it is. I'm honestly surprised more people didn't vote for this option in the poll.

Fivelives wrote:I'm honestly surprised more people didn't vote for this option in the poll.

Well, I only voted because you said it was down to the looks. I've driven/sat in zero of the four*.

Edit: Hmm. Actually, I sat in the Knight Rider car at an auto show; what kind of car was that?

Edit 2: Pontiac Trans Am, never mind. 0/4 is correct.

Yeah, the looks thing was before I actually sat down in them and drove them myself. Read all the reviews and look at all the specs you want, and it still comes down to whether or not you and a car fit.

Gonna sit on it for a few weeks, then go buy one. Considering that for the cost of any of the cars, I could put a 30% downpayment on a house (or a 10% downpayment on a really nice house), it's one of those decisions I really don't want to rush into.

Oh, and I would've gone for either the 'stang or the camaro if I didn't utterly loathe them after the test drive.

Fivelives wrote:Yeah, the looks thing was before I actually sat down in them and drove them myself. Read all the reviews and look at all the specs you want, and it still comes down to whether or not you and a car fit.

This. Ive seen a fair number of those Camaros in my area, and it looks like guys are practically dislocating their arms trying to rest their elbows on the window frame, because it's so high relative to the seat.

A bit late but

knaughty wrote:It cost $14,000 Australian, plus $3,000 to do the "post purchase" work I wanted done. That's about $15k US.

Arnock wrote:A bit late but

knaughty wrote:It cost $14,000 Australian, plus $3,000 to do the "post purchase" work I wanted done. That's about $15k US.

One of my personal favourite things is to ask people who say "Awesome car!" and don't know what's it's worth: "How much do you think it's worth?"

I've had about two-dozen estimates, lowest was $30k, most are in the $50-80k range.

Gives me a warm glow.

Classic Jaguars are really good value, and cheap to maintain compared to their competitors.

Thread derail Compare and Contrast:

My Jaguar Mk VIII? Change from $20k for a good one. Link goes to the specs.

Bentley R-Type Continental? Add a zero and change the currency to Pounds Sterling.

Here's a picture of each car. See if you can say which one is which...




Want a two-seat 150 MPH V-12 Convertible?

Jaguar E-type Series 3 $75k US or thereabouts. Described by Enzo Ferrari as "The most beautiful car ever made." Ferrari's not quite as pretty convertibles start at about a quarter-miland ramp up fast for a more desirable model.

Mustang- Cramped, no trunk, annoying to drive, no back seat. Go with the 2011 5.0 or not at all. The 4.0L v6 and 4.6L v8 is UNDERPOWERED. Interior isn't so bad on the optioned out ones and is decent in the 2011's.

Camaro SS- Its a dog. It only traps 2mph and 0.20x in the 1/4 faster than the Challenger and Charger SRT8 while being 270lbs lighter and having better gears through the powertrain. Interior is crap and a shoebox.

Challenger RT/SRT- Has weight issues, but deffinitley fun to drive and the Hemi sounds SWEET with SLP Loudmouth I exhaust and headers.

Charger RT/SRT- Bang for the buck here....especially if you go for a used 2006/07. RT's in the 06/07 range go for 15k and the SRT's go in the low 20k range. Best interior between the Stang, Camaro for the price. Same car as the Chally minus the rear diff (Getrag LSD with 3.06 gears) and its slightly longer and weighs a whole 50lbs more. EXCELLENT car for someone who needs the back seat. Has folding seats, large trunk space and plenty of power to boot.

Note: The 5.7L Hemi with the Road and Track package available for both the Charger and Challenger comes with an upgraded suspension and better flowing exhaust.

knaughty wrote:Here's a picture of each car. See if you can say which one is which...

Hood ornament on the jag kinda gives it away =P

Fivelives wrote:I'm honestly surprised more people didn't vote for this option in the poll.

Some of us voted without having actually driven any of them. Even if I had driven them, I don't race, and generally drive very conservatively, so I wouldn't be able to analyze them very well from a performance standpoint. (In retrospect, I should probably have not voted at all.)

knaughty wrote:Classic Jaguars are really good value, and cheap to maintain compared to their competitors.

Here's a picture of each car. See if you can say which one is which...

Well, the second one has a jaguar hood ornament, so I'm assuming the Bentley is the first one.

Aren't those things an absolute death trap to drive, though!? I mean ... wouldn't you pretty much get completely fucked in any accident?

Also: Mmmm, V12. That makes me wish I knew a damn thing about driving one, hehe, because somehow it just sounds like it would be fun.

Kelaan wrote:Aren't those things an absolute death trap to drive, though!? I mean ... wouldn't you pretty much get completely fucked in any accident?

Accident and death rates in classic vehicles are hugely lower than modern cars. They're driven by enthusiasts who are paying attention, and they tend to be very obvious to other road users as well, and they tend to be polite, if not particularly aware of the old car's limitations. They're very much driven within the limits of car and driver - no one wants to dent their "precious" (or kill themselves). Proof is in the insurance bills - my car is Aussie $250 (US $200) per annum for full comprehensive maximum level insurance. Only restriction on my policy is "no more than 4,000 miles a year" - which isn't a major issue for most. You can pay a little more and get unlimited miles.

If you do have an accident, however, it can be very bad news. Friend of my Dad very nearly died in a minor traffic bingle (the hospital told the family he wasn't going to make it). No seatbelt, and basically a blunt spike on the end of the steering column... which is solid. He basically got the end of a gridiron football shoved into his ribcage. Only reason he lived is that his wife was in the car behind him, and prevented anyone from pulling the steering wheel out of his chest. Dad's friend had a minor blackout, veered into oncoming traffic on a suburban road, nearly died. The guy in the modern had some bruises from belt & airbag.

I've added high-quality lap/sash seat-belts to my car, at which point the safety levels are very dependant on the accident. Rollover, tree or solid barrier would be extremely bad - there's no crumple zone, intrusion prevention bars or a passenger safety cell and my car has a chassis you could use for a truck. If I hit a nice modern hatchback, I end up with a well engineered crumple zone... it's just in the other car. My son would be fine - he's in a child seat - recent case in Australia where someone rolled their SUV - mum & dad died, kid in the restraint in the back was fine, even though he wasn't found for a couple of hours.

You're also more likely to get cuts & bruises in a classic in a tiny accident - no air-bags, lots of interior hard surfaces.

Your real protection is the fact that car enthusiasts who drive classics have enormously lower accident rates (like ten times lower or something). To be blunt: We're better and more careful drivers. In 22 years of driving, I've never had at at-fault accident, and only been hit once (imbecile ran a red light and t-boned me 20 years ago).

It's basically got the same safety features as a big SUV or F-150/Hummer style truck, but without the airbag and padded dash. IE: None. Don't crash!

The safety features in old cars and newer big trucks are only nonexistent because you can count on the other vehicle being your "safety feature".

Steel cars > plastic lego cars, basically.

As I said, I'd feel pretty safe if I hit a nice squishy modern hatchback.

Death and critical injury rates for truck/SUV/classic car people who have a head-on or hit immobile scenery (trees, concrete barriers) are pretty horrific, however.