Well here I am, sitting in front of my computer, looking for a new car.
The Nissan Sentra, my mom handed me down, is now in a junkyard some where.
After the transmision was blown last Sunday at midnight, infront of my girl
friends house ::::how embarasing:::: And had to pay 50 bucks for a cab to
get me home...
On my search for a new car, with a 3000 dollar budget I came across a 1991 CELICA GT 5 spd, hatchback, with 160K mls on it for $1700. And a 1994 CELICA ST 5 spd, with 80K mls on it for $3000.
So, my question is which is a better buy?
Any replies will be greately appreciated....
My experience with this sort of thing is very limited; I looked at some
Celicas before I decided to get my current car, but never found one I
liked. My automotive experience is definitely amateur, as well, so be sure
to take that into account...
Having gone through the car search process, though, here are some things to consider:
Firstly, 160K is a very high mileage, and probably explains why the price on the 1991 Celica is as low as it is. I don't know the average lifespan for the Celica, but the conventional wisdom that I have heard is that cars are generally due for some kind of major breakdown sometime between 150K and 200K miles. Find out the maintenance history of that car. Has the clutch been replaced? When? Any transmission trouble? The timing belt should have been replaced at ~90K, and is probably due for another replacement soon. Find out when and how many times it has been replaced. Hopefully some other people with more car maintenance experience can post here with other things you should check. I wouldn't even consider that car if the maintenance history is not available in detail.
Secondly, the 1991 Celica and 1994 Celica are from two different generations of the Celica model. A quick check of the MSN Auto website shows that the 1991 GT model has 130HP and 144 torque, while the 1994 ST model has only 110HP. In general, regardless of generation, the GT has a larger, more powerful engine. I test drove two ST model Celicas of the 1994 - 1999 generation, and the power output of them seemed sufficient, but nothing spectacular, particularly for a car touted as a "sports car". The GT would have better performance, and somewhat worse fuel mileage -- another factor to consider, given the price of gas...
Thirdly, the GT model is probably more likely to have a sunroof. I don't know if that is important to you or not, but it's something you might want to find out about.
Fourthly, there are a lot of determining factors which you still need to check out in order to make a decision here. How well the cars were taken care of is a big thing; get the VIN numbers for them and run a search on carfax.com to check their collision history and such. The maintenance history, as mentioned before -- you don't want to buy one of these, then have to spend more on top to fix problems that the owners have neglected. A lot of things, like interior condition, general perfomance, and so forth are things which you will only find out about after you do a test drive.
tnx man, you mentioned some things that i didn't even think about
but i ended up buying a 96 CIVIC DX, for $4000 dollars, with only 35000 miles on it, talk abuot a great deal. scince the engine is not the best thing you can hope for, now im more interested in adding more power, and seriously considering what i can do, with a small budget sinse in a student and dont have a full time job. :mrgreen: