First Car

Home  \  Asian Imports  \  First Car

Hey guys, I'm new to the board, just looking for someones suggestion on a used car. I'm 16, price roughly under 8k. I was loking at Celicas, Accords, Civics, Jettas, but i have no idea what car I would actually like to drive. If any of you have any suggestion, maybe own one, and could help me out, that would be great.

posted by  prschetrbo951

A Honda Civic in decent condition without an outrageous amount of miles is always a good bet...
:evil:

posted by  Machine

Thanks for the suggestions machine! Out of the others ones though... Would a 98 or newer accord coupe be to much insurance for a first car? I have no idea and I was also wondering about the Civic too. I like the newer civic look but are theey to expensive overall? How about the accrord?

posted by  prschetrbo951

The problem is that Toyota and Honda are among the most frequently stolen vehicles, so they aren't held in high regard by the insurance companies...I think the Accord would be more expensive than the Civic as far as insurance...
:evil:

posted by  Machine

Do you know anything about a 02+Civic, 02+Celica or a 98' accord? These sound like really good cars from Concumer Report Mag. I was wondering if any of yall have driven one maybe? If so gimme some critiques!

posted by  prschetrbo951

I drove an 02 Civic once...It seemed pretty good to me...I haven't driven any 02 Celicas, and I've driven several Accords...I'd go with the Civic for the budget and the insurance...
:evil:

posted by  Machine

Yeah, thanks man. Just out of curiosity....my mom is thinking about getting a 98' Accord ,Coupe, silver, how was the ride?

posted by  prschetrbo951

WOW! I just looked at some Acura Integras and they kick ass!

posted by  prschetrbo951

my friends got an Acura Integra and it kicks ass he left it looking stock but he has I/H/E and some z rated tired and let me tell ya it picks up and really good handing i drove it once on a back road and by far the best car i have drivin

posted by  caffeine junky02

I had a 98 Integra...Fully modded and pretty fun to cruise around in...As far as the 98 Accord, I recommend it...It's a great car and it'll be reliable...
:evil:

posted by  Machine

the integras always been a good model. but go witht the civic, if it was me, id just go for my mazda rx3, because thats the car im saving up for, im lookin for one of thoes little old lady deals, they are always good to get a cheap car

posted by  DeFecTeD

DeFecTeD, don't you mean MX-3?

posted by  snoopewite

Rx3 with 13b turbo would be nice :)

posted by  57ock

hey welcome man, get a s2000 u will love it

posted by  S2000Boy

hmmm....i guess ill play the part of vwhobo while hes out. for one thing, u cant get an s2000 with an $8k budget. last time i knew they cost about $33,000, just a little over his budget. second, the s2000 blows as a first car. for that matter, any car. they should have just put that engine in a damn motorcycle- its worthless for everyday driving. so why dont u pack ure balls up and leave s2000boy, cuz this is for men.

posted by  SuperJew

Excellent likeness of vwhobo, my fellow Jew...And it's about time someone besides vwhobo and me set the S2000 debate straight...It's a damn motorcycle engine...And notice that this supposed turbo he's throwing down under his hood has not been mentioned in detail...Who's the manufacturer? Where the dyno?
:evil:

posted by  Machine

I have driven an '02 Celica, in fact, my dad just bought one and it is a nice little car. It's definitely not as cheap as a civic, but it'll get up and go. He got the GT with the TRD package already on. It's got a great drive and a nice, short throw. It handles beautifully and has a pretty good stock sound system. I've been really please with Toyotas so far. Their quality and dependability is excellent as is Honda. I'm not a fan of the S2000 or the Civic, but I've heard and read great things about them. I have a friend who owns an Integra and it didn't hold up very well when he got in an accident. That wouldn't be my first choice looking for a car, but hey, if you like them, more power to you! Good luck in your search and welcome to the boards!

posted by  ferrarichika

yeah i was gonna say.....last time i know theres no turbo in the stock s2000. and i hope u read that vwhobo. hehe fellow jew.

posted by  SuperJew

Ok being the FNG, what is wrong with the S2000? Why is it worthless as a first car? Why should it be put in a motorcycle? Is it too underpowered for a car? I am new so don't flame me plz

posted by  Motorhead

FNG? ok well its not suitable for a first car.....u gotta rev the shit out of it to actually get it running....and its waaaaaaay too much $$

posted by  SuperJew

integras are always a good choice. i own a 96 integra along with three of my my friends. so far none of the four cars has broken down. my friend has over 140k on his integra, and all he does is oil change(although not recommended). they just last.....one thing though, try not to buy a car from anyone that's under 40 years old, b/c younger people like me abuse our cars.

posted by  ULnv4ever

What's your point? It stays on the small lobe at low RPM for drivability and economy, then changes at 6k for power. This is bad why?

Last time I checked, high revving was a GOOD thing.

posted by  jasona

SJ, I'll take this one for ya.

Okay, you're partially right, high revs CAN be a good thing. High revs just for the sake of high revs isn't. So... please impress me with your vast automotive knowledge and experience. Your turn.

posted by  vwhobo

:popcorn:

:thumbs:

posted by  BavarianWheels

thanks man.

posted by  SuperJew

Welll.... if you didn't know.....

HP = torque x RPM / 5252

Sooo.... revving to a higher RPM increases the value for RPM in the equation, therefore meaning a bigger number after you do the math, therefore increasing hp. Soo.... as long as your torque curve doesn't drop off, you will ALWAYS make more power by revving higher.

In addition to that...

Your engines torque is multiplied through your gear ratios. In simple man terms I know you can understand, the lower the gear you're in, the more torque you put to the wheels. This is why your car accelerates harder in a low gear than a high gear. Sooo..... if you can rev higher, you can hold each gear longer, increasing the time you spend in the lower gears, therefore ultimately putting more powah to the road during the race, and going faster.

It's all basics...



Your turn...

posted by  jasona

Oh yes, I do know. Thank you for sharing that with us. You are correct in almost everything you say but there is still a fly in your ointment.

That is exactly what I was referring to in my previous post, high revs for the sake of high revs. More specifically using high revs to build horsepower because of a torque deficiency. There are three problems with your theory.

1. You are using engines with a torque deficiency. Torque as we know is twisting force, or a measure of work potential. Horsepower is a measurement of how fast that work is accomplished. If your hypothetical engine was capable of more work (torque) it wouldn't have to rev it so far to make decent horsepower.

2. By spinning said engines to high RPM, continously trying to make decent HP, you are bringing piston speed to dangerous levels. This not only serves to rapidly increase the rate of internal component wear but in many instances turns your engine in to a grenade.

3. Shorter gears will give you faster acceleration. On the other hand a light flywheel will do the same. An engine built as you describe needs a much closer ratioed gearbox to keep it in the powerband which is very narrow in a low torque, high RPM engine. Therefore you spend more time shifting, less time accelerating. The ideal compromise is a torque heavy, moderate RPM engine that allows you to be in a gear long enough to have time for useful acceleration.

So the moral of the story. You don't need to keep it "simple" for me to understand. You are very good at theory, but I draw on over 30 years personal experience building and racing everything from 50cc ringdings to 600ci+ thumpers, minibikes to serious groundpounders. In the real world, torque rules.

posted by  vwhobo

I never said it was bad to have a low revving torquey engine. I'm simply pointing out that the S2000 having to rev high isn't a disadvantage. A low revving, high torque engine can end up performing the same as a high revving low torque engine. If you like the feeling of winding out every gear, you'll probably like the S2000. If you like a torqey low RPM engine instead, that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the S2000.

posted by  jasona

Again, I really can't disagree with much that you've said but... First and foremost I never said there was anything wrong with an S2000. Honda may disagree because for 2004 they've made it a point to increase torque and lower the redline while maintaining the same horsepower to make the car more drivable.

Also a high revving engine still wears parts at a faster rate, so that could definately be considered a disadvantage. As for your assertion that a higher revving engine allows you to wind out every gear, what it does is force you to do so to produce power. And if you have useful a powerband of say 2000 RPM on screamer or 3500 RPM on a torquer the torquer actually gives you more time to wind out every gear.

Finally I'd like to thank you for making this an intelligent exchange instead of a name calling match.

posted by  vwhobo

yeah the name-calling match is for me to do :P :D

posted by  SuperJew

Race cars with large turbos and small engine don't make there maximum torque in 1st gear.

A large frame turbo can't flow the necessary exhausts gases without sufficient load on the motor. This limits the turbo ability to create sufficient boost levels as the compressor is unable to revolve fast enough.

posted by  57ock

Something with cheap insurance and something that is rather reliable.

posted by  Arthur

Get on with it Arthur, what is it you're trying to say?

posted by  vwhobo

Ask yourself this question, What is the name of the Thread? First car, there for Cheap insurance + Reliable = Good.

posted by  Arthur

No shit Sherlock, unfortunately that is painfully obvious. If you read the thread he's looking for a specific recommendation, not something his grandmother could tell him.

posted by  vwhobo

I'm not sure of the insurance over with you but i would recomend a VR6 Golf or Jetta. The VR6 engine is lovely and has sufficient torque low down to make it nice to drive and yet doesn't mind being revved hard, has great tuning potential (some run over 700bhp and a 10.2 1/4 mile) and VW's hold up well in crashes (trust me, i've experienced it first hand and recomend them highly). i hope this was useful in some way... :thumbs:

posted by  R34RB30DETTV

Hey, something in common! I as well am new to the board, but I'll tell you what I know. Under $8k could get you something quite nice if you are looking in the right places. Depending on your intentions with the car, the Civic may not be the best choice. The post '95 Civics lacked their previous generations' handling capabilities, and Civics have never been in themselves horribly fast automobiles. Depending on the model in question, a 0-60 time ranges anywhere from 8.8-10.5 seconds. Not too bad, but more power can be found elsewhere. As far as insurance goes, a Honda is a very good bet. Reliability and safety are notorious Honda virtues. As well, I wouldn't rule out the Civic if you plan on modifying the car to any extent. Civics take very well to performance modifications, and there is a plethora of parts available.
As far as the Accord goes, the only Accord that I myself have been in is my brother's former car, which was a 1993 Accord LX. Given the car's 175,000 miles at time of purchase, I didn't expect much. The car surprised me though. It was a manual, so acceleration was much improved. The car when equipped with a manual tranny makes good use of the 2.2L (I;m pretty sure it was a 2.2L engine) and performed fairly. Of course, the car did have some sort of low-profile performance exhaust system on it when we bought it that gave it a good 5-10 horses to run with. Handling was mediocre with noticeable body roll. As for what model you would be looking at, anywhere from 1994-1997 I'd say, 0-60 runs around anywhere from high 7's to low 9's, which is a considerable improvement over the Civic. The problem with the Accord is that it's harder to find it in a 2dr model which looks considerably better, and if you care about transmission, only about 30% were made with a standard tranny. Thus, you may have some amount of difficulty finding what you're looking for, especially if you want one with a V6. Insurance would be less because the Accord is classified as a family sedan and boasts Honda safety and reliability standards.
As far as the Celica goes, you are looking at anywhere from a 1995 to a 2000, if you don't mind higher miles, which shouldn't pose too much of a threat, since Toyota is just as reliable as Honda if not better. Admittedly I know little about Celicas other than they look decent and can boast 0-60 times that hover in the low eights and well below. Given, Toyota in general, with exceptions like the Supra, is often regarded as a bit of a feminine auto maker. If that doesn't bother you, then there is insurance to get around. Unfortunately, insurance companies regard the Celica as a "Sports/Sporty" car, which means heightened insurance rates. Of course, Toyota and Honda alike are reknowned for impeccable build quality and reliability, so it may even out somewhat.
The Jetta that you mentioned is a bit of a toss-up. Though the Jetta has been regarded the most sought-after European compact import, reliability has been less than remarkable and the car lacks the relatively sporty looks of the other cars. The Jetta is a bit of a tank in the weight department, and the all-too-common four cylinder engine has a tough time getting up and going with a meager 115hp. Given, if you can find a GLX, the Jetta moves up to... I believe it's between 170-175 horsepower. Even so, the best times can only boast high sevens to 60. Handling and steering are good, and the Jetta is a commonly tuned car, so finding parts shouldn't be too rough. Insurance will be elavated, due to the reliability problems that have plagued the Jetta.
In conclusion, all of these cars would be good choices for your first car. The Accord or Celica would be my recommendation, but there are a lot of cars that are very good for this same price range, such as my brother's new car, a '96 Nissan Maxima, which delivers very good acceleration and handling. As well, you might consider things such as a Mazda MX-6, Nissan 240SX (although they are rare), Acura Integra (Performance-minded Civic), Honda Prelude, Mitsubishi Eclipse, etc. There are few domestic cars that would be worth recommending. Hope I helped. I do aplogize for how long this ended up being.... :hi:

posted by  Patrick

um Patrick...i hate to say it but prschetrbo951 left about 8 months ago. :roll:

posted by  SuperJew

About the same time as he registered :hi:

posted by  Cliffy

Whoops. My mistake. Oh well, at least I got to stick out what I know, despite the fact I wasted an hour talking to an empty room, so to speak... :banghead:

posted by  Patrick

There are faster and slower Honda Civics than that.

posted by  snoopewite

Your Message