Considering getting an older car

[zmaster]

Hi all,
Just recently got a new job that allows me to spend a little more on a car.
Am currently driving a dec2005 Toyota tazz 1.3. Fuel efficient and all, but really a crap car in terms of the hotness factor.
So I decided to upgrade. And I saw the beauty 1997 Mitsubishi GTO at a dealer.
Now I know that the twin turbo is gonna chow fuel, but i live 800m from my place of work (very lucky find). and i doubt that i will travel a lot out of work.

So what do you guys think?
Sensible or am i being crazy

Oh and cliffs
Own dec2005 Toyota Tazz
Decent new car, but lacks the hot factor
Saw a Mitsubishi GTO 1997.
Drool
Wants to get it.

 

[angry hampster]

If you can afford it, then why not get what you want? I've always been attracted to that body style. Those cars weren't the most reliable things though IIRC.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: angry hampster
Those cars weren't the most reliable things though IIRC.

That is an understatement. At least, it is for the turbo versions. Any 11 year old car will have maintenance issues at some point though, so he'll need to be wary of that. If he can afford maintenance and repairs going forward though, it's not a terrible decision.

ZV

 

[DivideBYZero]

IBTCWP

(in before the crank walk post)

 

[Arkaign]

That is the 3000GT VR-4 here in the states.

*BEWARE* of this car. It will eat you alive in maintenance. From the head, to the transmission/differential, to the half-axles, etc, etc. IIRC the all-wheel steering and active aero were no longer features of the '97 model, but it remained a overly-complex vehicle during it's lifespan. The car was *very* quick for it's day. Oh yeah, it's quite heavy and will eat tires like mad as well (stock 18" size is pretty expensive).

The VR-4 is the only way the 3000GT / GTO made sense though. The Base and SL models either had 168 or ~220 HP, and the car was simply too heavy to move like a sports car with that setup, and the stock 16" wheels looked silly in the enormous wheel wells.

Caveat emptor. You may want to consider more reliable / cheaper to maintain options, even if they're not as visceral in performance. The VR-4 / GTO will be loads of fun when it's running, and agony when it's chewing up $500 parts.

 

[thedarkwolf]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
IBTCWP

(in before the crank walk post)

wrong car

 

[Demon-Xanth]

These were some of the cars I admired growing up, however these days, I have no desire to own them. iirc, to change half of the spark plugs you needed to remove the upper intake manifold. The biggest downside I see is that they were great because they were technological marvels, however being technological marvels means there's a lot to go wrong. These days my interests have shifted to simpler cars that are more inherently reliable.

If you're willing to do the work and buy the parts, go for it. But don't expect a maintenance free ride, and check for signs of being abused.

Edit:
http://www.supercar-engineerin...t/All/Plugs/index.html
That's what I'm referring to.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
That is the 3000GT VR-4 here in the states.

*BEWARE* of this car. It will eat you alive in maintenance. From the head, to the transmission/differential, to the half-axles, etc, etc. IIRC the all-wheel steering and active aero were no longer features of the '97 model, but it remained a overly-complex vehicle during it's lifespan. The car was *very* quick for it's day. Oh yeah, it's quite heavy and will eat tires like mad as well (stock 18" size is pretty expensive).

The VR-4 is the only way the 3000GT / GTO made sense though. The Base and SL models either had 168 or ~220 HP, and the car was simply too heavy to move like a sports car with that setup, and the stock 16" wheels looked silly in the enormous wheel wells.

Caveat emptor. You may want to consider more reliable / cheaper to maintain options, even if they're not as visceral in performance. The VR-4 / GTO will be loads of fun when it's running, and agony when it's chewing up $500 parts.

Excellent description. The 3000GT is an excellent example of a "mistress" car. It will hurt you. It will cost you a lot of money. It will make you incredibly angry. It will also be nearly sublime when everything is working right. You just have to decide how much pain the pleasure is worth.

ZV

 

[Black88GTA]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Arkaign
That is the 3000GT VR-4 here in the states.

*BEWARE* of this car. It will eat you alive in maintenance. From the head, to the transmission/differential, to the half-axles, etc, etc. IIRC the all-wheel steering and active aero were no longer features of the '97 model, but it remained a overly-complex vehicle during it's lifespan. The car was *very* quick for it's day. Oh yeah, it's quite heavy and will eat tires like mad as well (stock 18" size is pretty expensive).

The VR-4 is the only way the 3000GT / GTO made sense though. The Base and SL models either had 168 or ~220 HP, and the car was simply too heavy to move like a sports car with that setup, and the stock 16" wheels looked silly in the enormous wheel wells.

Caveat emptor. You may want to consider more reliable / cheaper to maintain options, even if they're not as visceral in performance. The VR-4 / GTO will be loads of fun when it's running, and agony when it's chewing up $500 parts.

Excellent description. The 3000GT is an excellent example of a "mistress" car. It will hurt you. It will cost you a lot of money. It will make you incredibly angry. It will also be nearly sublime when everything is working right. You just have to decide how much pain the pleasure is worth.

ZV

These guys are right. Those cars are a nightmare to work on when things do break, as well. They have a very cramped engine compartment, and it's difficult to get to almost everything. I was briefly considering getting an old VR-4 as a second car a few years ago, and ultimately passed on it for this reason. And, as mentioned, parts are $$$$.

Good car for those with a high parts budget, and an extremely high tolerance for difficult repair work.

EDIT: This one's been polished + modded...but you get the idea.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
These were some of the cars I admired growing up, however these days, I have no desire to own them. iirc, to change half of the spark plugs you needed to remove the upper intake manifold. The biggest downside I see is that they were great because they were technological marvels, however being technological marvels means there's a lot to go wrong. These days my interests have shifted to simpler cars that are more inherently reliable.

If you're willing to do the work and buy the parts, go for it. But don't expect a maintenance free ride, and check for signs of being abused.

Another downside is that they are quite heavy, tipping the scales at nearly 3800lbs.

 

[bamx2]

Toyotas are better built .

 

[Black88GTA]

Originally posted by: bamx2
Toyotas are better built .

The only Toyota that would compare to a VR-4 would be the MKIV Supra...and good luck finding a twin turbo one that's not trashed for less than $20k.

Toyota hasn't produced an even remotely interesting car since they killed off the MR-2 - and even with that said, the MR-2 was the ONLY interesting car in their entire US lineup from 1999 - 2005, IMO.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: Black88GTA

Originally posted by: bamx2
Toyotas are better built .

The only Toyota that would compare to a VR-4 would be the MKIV Supra...and good luck finding a twin turbo one that's not trashed for less than $20k.

Toyota hasn't produced an even remotely interesting car since they killed off the MR-2 - and even with that said, the MR-2 was the ONLY interesting car in their entire US lineup from 1999 - 2005, IMO.

Why wouldn't the MR2 compare, aside from the midengine & 2 seats?

 

[Black88GTA]

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: Black88GTA

Originally posted by: bamx2
Toyotas are better built .

The only Toyota that would compare to a VR-4 would be the MKIV Supra...and good luck finding a twin turbo one that's not trashed for less than $20k.

Toyota hasn't produced an even remotely interesting car since they killed off the MR-2 - and even with that said, the MR-2 was the ONLY interesting car in their entire US lineup from 1999 - 2005, IMO.

Why wouldn't the MR2 compare, aside from the midengine & 2 seats?

Well...the aforementioned mid-engine and 2 seat layout is a big factor. Size / weight, price (at least when new), engine configuration, horsepower, etc. IOW, most people wouldn't cross shop a VR-4 and an MR-2, as they are about as opposite as two sport coupes can be. The VR-4 and the Supra have far more in common with each other, so these cars would make a much better comparison.

 

[AdamK47]

I like the VR4. It's a totally different car from the base model. It makes the base model look like some sort of crule joke.

 

[zmaster]

hi guys, thanks for all the input. i will take it for a test drive this weekend, and will post impressions and pics (hopefully)