YACT: What's a good cheap fast car?

[mAdD INDIAN]

Originally posted by: Ornery
lol, fbodies and 5.0's... auto-x them...? i rarely ever see them... and then... go look for them at the track... hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.... oops, sorry, i mean... they CAN handle well, but how much $$ do you want to put into handling on a car that's not exactly lightweight and doesn't come close to a balanced weight ratio....?

How often does handling come into play? Did 5ayle mention anything about auto-x? Is this car going to see any roads other than suburban streets? 😕

ummm...5ayle did mention that he wanted something that was good at handling.

Btw the way a car handles is very important. Think of it as active safety. You can have all the airbags and steel you want, but wouldn't be better if you could actually avoid the accident? A car that doesn't roll much, doesn't understeer, and can change directions faster helps with that. If you've ever had to dodge a sofa on the highway (that just suddnely came up on you since you couldnt' see it until the car in front of you suddely moved...u'd understand).

silkmunks: I've seen Mustangs and F-bodies at my local auto-x. And I believe a Mustang was the class champion for a few years. Driven by a girl too. 🙂

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Pudgygiant
3 series bimmer or mx6. both of those are top-notch cars. We raced the two once (one of my friends has a 325 and one has an mx6) and DAMN were they fast. If they've already been posted before, too bad. I wanted to tell my anecdote.

Man, 325i are slower than dog sh*t up a hill for the money you pay and dito for an IS as well. 😛 Whether you're looking at a decade old or brand new low end bmw, there are plenty of cars at the same price point that are faster. They just don't carry the BMW name.

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: Ornery
lol, fbodies and 5.0's... auto-x them...? i rarely ever see them... and then... go look for them at the track... hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.... oops, sorry, i mean... they CAN handle well, but how much $$ do you want to put into handling on a car that's not exactly lightweight and doesn't come close to a balanced weight ratio....?

How often does handling come into play? Did 5ayle mention anything about auto-x? Is this car going to see any roads other than suburban streets? 😕

ummm...5ayle did mention that he wanted something that was good at handling.

Btw the way a car handles is very important. Think of it as active safety. You can have all the airbags and steel you want, but wouldn't be better if you could actually avoid the accident? A car that doesn't roll much, doesn't understeer, and can change directions faster helps with that. If you've ever had to dodge a sofa on the highway (that just suddnely came up on you since you couldnt' see it until the car in front of you suddely moved...u'd understand).

So, an unmodified F-body, or Mustang wouldn't have enough maneuverability for navigating through our dangerous suburban streets?

 

[Ime]

When it comes to cars (and most things in life), you can normally go by the following formula:

Good
Cheap
Fast

Pick two.

 

[Ernieb]

pontiac sunfire

 

[slikmunks]

Originally posted by: Ornery

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: Ornery
lol, fbodies and 5.0's... auto-x them...? i rarely ever see them... and then... go look for them at the track... hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.... oops, sorry, i mean... they CAN handle well, but how much $$ do you want to put into handling on a car that's not exactly lightweight and doesn't come close to a balanced weight ratio....?

How often does handling come into play? Did 5ayle mention anything about auto-x? Is this car going to see any roads other than suburban streets? 😕

ummm...5ayle did mention that he wanted something that was good at handling.

Btw the way a car handles is very important. Think of it as active safety. You can have all the airbags and steel you want, but wouldn't be better if you could actually avoid the accident? A car that doesn't roll much, doesn't understeer, and can change directions faster helps with that. If you've ever had to dodge a sofa on the highway (that just suddnely came up on you since you couldnt' see it until the car in front of you suddely moved...u'd understand).

So, an unmodified F-body, or Mustang wouldn't have enough maneuverability for navigating through our dangerous suburban streets?

ok, did you read the quote that i quoted... the guy who said to watch fbodies and 5.0's at the auto-x....? it's easy to see why you're -😕-

btw, sayle said he wants a car that has good handling... so you're telling me, the first thing you think of when talking about good handling is an fbody or a mustang...? maybe you shouldn't be posting in this thread....

edit: while it may seem like i don't like fbodies or mustangs, the truth is, to each their own. it's not my favorite car, but i don't really hate on any car other than a poser car, whether it be import or domestic.

 

[Templeton]

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: fumbduck

Originally posted by: 5ayle
Let's try this for a dumb question...

Which DSM's come w/ turbo?

Dudez0r i've posted this already.

90-94 (though, 92-94 are the easiest to mod and work on) Eagle Talon TSI AWD, Eclipse GSX, Plymouth Laser RS(?).

The Dodge Stealth/Mistubish 3000GT VR4 are very crappy cars compared to the above, they come with twin turbos and are slower than the above which only have single turbo.

Edit to respond to above: Crankwalk isn't a big problem, it happens to about 1/100 DSMs. The best is to get a first quarter 92, it has the 6 bolt/4bolt combo, best of both.

Dudez0r, you're giving him the wrong info anyway.

1990-1999 (or whenever they stoped producing the 2nd gen's) are all DSMs.

Also, why are 92 through 94 the easiest to mod? The engine was the exact same up until mid-year 92 when they redesigned it. Therefore, there's no difference in modability. Btw, I don't know if you've actually worked on one but those things are never "easy" to work on. Changing the freaking air filter will take you 10 minutes.

Also, I suggest you re-check your info on crankwalk. It's a pretty big problem. I know more than a few who've had the problem. The guy I bought my 92 from a couple years back had also owned a 94. He burned through two engines due to crankwalk in a couple years. Plenty of DSM enthusiasts with 7 bolt motors pull their engines and drop 6 bolts in. There's a reason they do that.. Granted, you can reduce your risk by using a quality oil and filter, changing them regularly, not putting in a really heavy clutch, and keeping your foot off the clutch when you don't need to have it there but you're still at risk.

You are right about the Stealth/3000 GT. They do suck.

92+ (92.5+?) have the advantage of the 4 bolt rearend, when you get fast enough with the earlier years, the 3 bolt axels will start breaking. A 4-bolt rear is a lot easier to swap into a pre 92 car then a 6bolt engine into a post 92, so pre 92 is probably the way to go. With that said, I say you try to find a '91 or '92 galant vr4, same engine and drivetrain as the 91-92 awd dsm, with 4 doors and some other small extras. Much more of a sleeper then a tel. Can be tricky to find, 2000 brought over in '91, 1000 in '92. good luck with whatever you choose

 

[Ornery]

Here's his criteria in order:

1. reliable
2. fast
3. cheap
4. good handling

NOTHING fits that bill like the classic pony cars. A turn key solution, with no engine swapping, add-ons or other mods. Handling MORE than adequate for where it will be driven.

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

Originally posted by: Ornery

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: Ornery
lol, fbodies and 5.0's... auto-x them...? i rarely ever see them... and then... go look for them at the track... hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.... oops, sorry, i mean... they CAN handle well, but how much $$ do you want to put into handling on a car that's not exactly lightweight and doesn't come close to a balanced weight ratio....?

How often does handling come into play? Did 5ayle mention anything about auto-x? Is this car going to see any roads other than suburban streets? 😕

ummm...5ayle did mention that he wanted something that was good at handling.

Btw the way a car handles is very important. Think of it as active safety. You can have all the airbags and steel you want, but wouldn't be better if you could actually avoid the accident? A car that doesn't roll much, doesn't understeer, and can change directions faster helps with that. If you've ever had to dodge a sofa on the highway (that just suddnely came up on you since you couldnt' see it until the car in front of you suddely moved...u'd understand).

So, an unmodified F-body, or Mustang wouldn't have enough maneuverability for navigating through our dangerous suburban streets?

huh? When did I say that? In fact I did say that they were competent handlers and their auto-x standings prove it. I was defending pony cars not saying they suck.

Btw, I don't mean navigating. I mean cruising at, say, 60mph, and suddenly seeing a car lock up in front of you, so you must change lanes instantly. You'd like the car to change directions quickly, you'd like the steering to be somewhat precise (not have so much "dead" center like our Camry..you can literally move it quite a bit without it having any effect).

 

[Ornery]

I think the handling of the Stang would be fine, even in that emergency scenario. If nothing else, it wouldn't be bad enough to negate the first three criterias on his list, which it fits VERY well.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Here's his criteria in order:

1. reliable
2. fast
3. cheap
4. good handling

NOTHING fits that bill like the classic pony cars. A turn key solution, with no engine swapping, add-ons or other mods. Handling MORE than adequate for where it will be driven.

How far back are we talking? 1970? Sure they handle well if by handle you mean they can turn in a parking lot to get into your parking space at walking speed 🙂

 

[Ornery]

Early '90's. Handling MORE than adequate for where it will be used... and you KNOW it!

 

[huesmann]

cheap and fast? get a roach at the junkyard and mount a rocket engine on that sucka.

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: Templeton

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: fumbduck

Originally posted by: 5ayle
Let's try this for a dumb question...

Which DSM's come w/ turbo?

Dudez0r i've posted this already.

90-94 (though, 92-94 are the easiest to mod and work on) Eagle Talon TSI AWD, Eclipse GSX, Plymouth Laser RS(?).

The Dodge Stealth/Mistubish 3000GT VR4 are very crappy cars compared to the above, they come with twin turbos and are slower than the above which only have single turbo.

Edit to respond to above: Crankwalk isn't a big problem, it happens to about 1/100 DSMs. The best is to get a first quarter 92, it has the 6 bolt/4bolt combo, best of both.

Dudez0r, you're giving him the wrong info anyway.

1990-1999 (or whenever they stoped producing the 2nd gen's) are all DSMs.

Also, why are 92 through 94 the easiest to mod? The engine was the exact same up until mid-year 92 when they redesigned it. Therefore, there's no difference in modability. Btw, I don't know if you've actually worked on one but those things are never "easy" to work on. Changing the freaking air filter will take you 10 minutes.

Also, I suggest you re-check your info on crankwalk. It's a pretty big problem. I know more than a few who've had the problem. The guy I bought my 92 from a couple years back had also owned a 94. He burned through two engines due to crankwalk in a couple years. Plenty of DSM enthusiasts with 7 bolt motors pull their engines and drop 6 bolts in. There's a reason they do that.. Granted, you can reduce your risk by using a quality oil and filter, changing them regularly, not putting in a really heavy clutch, and keeping your foot off the clutch when you don't need to have it there but you're still at risk.

You are right about the Stealth/3000 GT. They do suck.

92+ (92.5+?) have the advantage of the 4 bolt rearend, when you get fast enough with the earlier years, the 3 bolt axels will start breaking. A 4-bolt rear is a lot easier to swap into a pre 92 car then a 6bolt engine into a post 92, so pre 92 is probably the way to go. With that said, I say you try to find a '91 or '92 galant vr4, same engine and drivetrain as the 91-92 awd dsm, with 4 doors and some other small extras. Much more of a sleeper then a tel. Can be tricky to find, 2000 brought over in '91, 1000 in '92. good luck with whatever you choose

I wasn't aware that the three bolts were that weak. Learn something new every day :beer:

Good call on the Galant VR4 too 🙂 Although, like you said, good luck finding one.

 

[CraigRT]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Here's his criteria in order:

1. reliable
2. fast
3. cheap
4. good handling

NOTHING fits that bill like the classic pony cars. A turn key solution, with no engine swapping, add-ons or other mods. Handling MORE than adequate for where it will be driven.

There is no way a 30 year old muscle car will be as reliable as something from the 90's or newer. also.. cheap? good muscle cars go for like 10 grand in mediocre condition.. you just can't swallow the fact there are cars out there that aren't muscle or big american iron.. but there ARE, and they are GOOD!

i love both, and infact i want a 67 Stingray some day... or a 71 Hemicuda..... but your recommendation is lame, man.

 

[Pudgygiant]

If you actually know what a 10-second car is, you'd know that 10.32 seconds is NOT a 10-second car. More like an 11-second car. And my friend's dad not knowing what he's talking about is not an option, as he's contracted out to Stutgart (sp?) Germany. If you don't know what's there you don't know nothing about cars. (yeah, bad grammar and all that. shutup.)

 

[BatmanNate]

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: BatmanNate

Originally posted by: blahblah99
Go with a Celica all-trac and do some minor turbo mods. Ultimate sleeper since people don't think celicas are fast. 🙂

Good luck, those hold their resale value VERY well. 🙂

And very, very rare. I looked around for one for a while and couldn't find jack. Those are some nice cars, same idea and setup as a turbo AWD DSM, but toyota reliability. Some guy two blocks down from my house owns two matching alltrac celicas. :Q

It's kind of a shame toyota isn't into sports cars anymore. For a while Toyota had a whole lineup of turbo coupes for all kinds of price classes (celica, MR2, supra). 🙁

Don't worry, the Supra's coming back in 05 I believe. At least it was last I heard. N/A though 🙁 Seems like boost is dead. 350 Z, RX-8, etc. Naturaly asprirated poop I tell you!

Boost isn't dead, look into the Cobra mustangs. 😉

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

Originally posted by: Ornery
I think the handling of the Stang would be fine, even in that emergency scenario. If nothing else, it wouldn't be bad enough to negate the first three criterias on his list, which it fits VERY well.

Definately. A late 80s-early 90s Stang is perfect. Same for TransAm/Camaro. Good looks (to me anyway), good handling, decent reliablility, and goes like stink (after you uncork it anyway).

 

[BatmanNate]

Originally posted by: Pudgygiant
If you actually know what a 10-second car is, you'd know that 10.32 seconds is NOT a 10-second car. More like an 11-second car. And my friend's dad not knowing what he's talking about is not an option, as he's contracted out to Stutgart (sp?) Germany. If you don't know what's there you don't know nothing about cars. (yeah, bad grammar and all that. shutup.)

You are an idiot, any 10.xx second car is still a 10 second car.

 

[Pudgygiant]

Originally posted by: BatmanNate

Originally posted by: Pudgygiant
If you actually know what a 10-second car is, you'd know that 10.32 seconds is NOT a 10-second car. More like an 11-second car. And my friend's dad not knowing what he's talking about is not an option, as he's contracted out to Stutgart (sp?) Germany. If you don't know what's there you don't know nothing about cars. (yeah, bad grammar and all that. shutup.)

You are an idiot, any 10.xx second car is still a 10 second car.

Erm, actually it's UNDER 10 seconds. Like for classic soccer, U16 does not mean any 16.xx player can play, it means anyone YOUNGER than 16.

 

[NeoAaronX]

A "cheap" "fast" car will kill you.

But really,... if you want to go fast for cheap get a DSM. But, they are not reliable by far. You really need to stay on top of the repairs.
I own a 95 Eagle Talon TSi AWD, and almost every month I find something that needs to be replaced on it.

It's a love, hate thing.

Just don't end up in a ditch going 60+MPH.


-Aaron

 

[NeoAaronX]

Originally posted by: Pudgygiant

Originally posted by: BatmanNate

Originally posted by: Pudgygiant
If you actually know what a 10-second car is, you'd know that 10.32 seconds is NOT a 10-second car. More like an 11-second car. And my friend's dad not knowing what he's talking about is not an option, as he's contracted out to Stutgart (sp?) Germany. If you don't know what's there you don't know nothing about cars. (yeah, bad grammar and all that. shutup.)

You are an idiot, any 10.xx second car is still a 10 second car.

Erm, actually it's UNDER 10 seconds. Like for classic soccer, U16 does not mean any 16.xx player can play, it means anyone YOUNGER than 16.

Hmmm,... a car that pulls 10.xx in the 1/4 mile is a car that, "pulls in the tens". Which means, it's a 10 second car.


-Aaron (Does not pull in the 10s) 🙂

 

[NorthRiver]

Sporty, stylish, and cheap. Theft will never happen .

 

[halik]

crx = 2k
b16a + install = ~2500
bolton's with the rest

= fast car, pretty reliable

Here is my recommendations :

1) 1989-1994 Nissan 240SX
2) 1988-1990 Honda CRX
3) 1990-1995 Toyota MR2
4) 1992-1995 Honda Civic Hatchback (yea i know, you don't want civic but wth)
5) 1990-1993 Toyota Celica All-Trac

Alright,
first off let me get the idiot statements out of the way.
Honda CRX with whatever is not gonna be fast, not for 5k. Integra GSR cannot be had for 5 k, anythign honda is not gonna be fast for 5 k, and fast means under 15 sec quartermile. Your 15.5 CRX with whatever kinda swap (from 80 ...140hp whoopty fvcken do) is NOT FAST.

celica all tract cannot be had for anywhere near 5 grand if you can actually find one.... and same story for mr2 turbo

I currently own a 300zx n/a and those arent "fast" per se either. I would guess mid 14s at the best. But the cars do handle like crazy, especially at high speeds.

As far as straight line acceleration goes, go with either fbody, 5.0 mustang or a DSM. If you want the car to hadle as well, definitelly go with the AWD DSM. Testdrive one and youll know what im talking about ( i used to own 96 tsi awd).



240sx's with swap "can" be fast also, but not likely for 5 grand.

Also if you want something more sportscarish, go with the stealth twin turbo. They are heavy and all, but they can hit 13s stock. If ytou dont mind somethign older, you could also check out pre 93 supra turbos.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: NeoAaronX

Originally posted by: Pudgygiant

Originally posted by: BatmanNate

Originally posted by: Pudgygiant
If you actually know what a 10-second car is, you'd know that 10.32 seconds is NOT a 10-second car. More like an 11-second car. And my friend's dad not knowing what he's talking about is not an option, as he's contracted out to Stutgart (sp?) Germany. If you don't know what's there you don't know nothing about cars. (yeah, bad grammar and all that. shutup.)

You are an idiot, any 10.xx second car is still a 10 second car.

Erm, actually it's UNDER 10 seconds. Like for classic soccer, U16 does not mean any 16.xx player can play, it means anyone YOUNGER than 16.

Hmmm,... a car that pulls 10.xx in the 1/4 mile is a car that, "pulls in the tens". Which means, it's a 10 second car.


-Aaron (Does not pull in the 10s) 🙂

yup hes right, thats a good seqway to the next thing
for 5 grand you will not get 10 second car, no matter what vin diesel tells you It just not gonna happen, just like a "fast" honda for 5 grand


Oh yeah please ditch that nasty ass bumper on that talon....