People have posted threads addressing the biggest, slowest, best cornering, best looking, fastest, ugliest cars etc. Well now let's pick the best all-around vehicle. Take your shots. Am I right?
Compared with 10 years ago for example, cars now are heavier, get poorer mileage, and are ladened down with gizmos we really don't need to get us from A to B.
Therefore when all facets of motoring are considered, I feel that the Corolla or Civic 4-door sedans of 10-12years ago were the best all-around cars. Able to seat four adults, durable, economical, good resale, and simple.
Most Practical would be a hatchback. So I will go with Mazda 3,Matrix.
Practical? Don't overlook the FIT.
The typical Civic certainly has more personality than the typical Corolla. Go to any local autocross, and you'll see a lot more enthusiasts bring out Civics, even old ones.
The 198x-1991 Corolla would be my pick. I had a '91 5spd wagon and found it to be a great car in comparison to the Civic of the time. I bought my SAAB in part because I wanted the practicality of the Corolla wagon. The Civic has become the better of the two cars but I don't think the Civic was better at that time.
U need to get out and drive the newer compacts. They are better in every way than older cars. The older Civic is smaller than today's Fit. And I definitely won't call those better. The old Corolla size is more like today's Yaris. Okay. Yaris does suck but no worse than old Corolla.
When you've narrowed it down that far, maybe you should just get behind the wheel and see how you like them.
I'd put in a vote for the Vibe/Matrix twins-- We get 26-29 in the city ,30-36 mpg in hiway travel plus configure to haul all sorts of stuff-- And they are extremely reliable, low maintenance.
Originally Posted by bellwilliam
U need to get out and drive the newer compacts. They are better in every way than older cars. The older Civic is smaller than today's Fit. And I definitely won't call those better. The old Corolla size is more like today's Yaris. Okay. Yaris does suck but no worse than old Corolla.
In many ways you are right. However, I think the old 1991 Corolla I had was a design from when Toyota felt it didn't have to build to a price, it was built to a standard. The subsequent generations were better in some ways but also showed signs that Toyota was cost cutting and holding back. I suspect the new ones will last just as long. In general the auto makers have done a good job of cutting cost without cutting reliability. If we use the Honda Accord as the example I would argue that the 1997 Accord was the last that seemed to be built to a standard. It was the last one that said, we put old school Mercedes ideals into a family sedan. Of course the 1997 Accord costs about the same in unadjusted dollars as a current Accord so clearly Honda is figuring out how to deliver more for less. Still, I think the 1991 Corollas and the 1997 Accords were the last versions that seemed to really feel high quality in every way.
One of these days I'm going to have to drive a Fit. Lots of good press but on the surface I can't think of any reason to buy one over a similarly priced Civic save for the hatchback. If Honda would give us a Civic hatch then I can't think of any reason to get the Fit over the Civic.
We have one of each. '04 Corolla and a '07 Civic. It's a toss up. I think the Civic handles a little better but the Corolla is a little quieter. The Civic dash may take some getting use to. The Civic looks more modern, sort of like a hybrid. Both have been reliable.
We also have a Sienna and Odyssey in the greater family. Like the two compacts I think the Sienna is quieter and a softer ride, the Odyssey slightly less quiet but a firmer ride and maybe nicer handling, but those are just judgments on my part.
Volvo 240 or Accord wagon.
Originally Posted by PGH1NC
We also have a Sienna and Odyssey in the greater family. Like the two compacts I think the Sienna is quieter and a softer ride, the Odyssey slightly less quiet but a firmer ride and maybe nicer handling, but those are just judgments on my part.
No, not just your part, it is true. We bought the Sienna Limited fat pig that had everything under the sun instead of the Honda 2 years back. I also like the quiet and softer ride. The Honda sales guy kept trying to convince that the Odyssey is a real quot;driver's vanquot; and corners better then the Toyota. Nuts. I think I had a Porsche t-shirt on that why he kept pushing the handeling and performance on me. My wife had a 89 Corolla with over 250 K miles on it when we gave it away to my buddy's kid who went to college with it. I think It still running. He drives it home 2 times every year. He's on a 7 year college plan. It would not die. I also heard good things about the civics.
I tend to like the Toyota brand a little more than Honda. Just a preference from experience. My vote goes to the Corolla.
However, to add to the list: Subaru Baja.
Haven't been very impressed with Toyotas of the last decade. Crappy GM like interiors. Look at a 2000ish Corolla... all of them I've seen are falling apart on the inside. Vinyl around the windows shrinking away and peeling, air vents broken, door handles broken, and the engines hit a booming note when you rev them out on the freeway that they kind of hurt my ears. Haven't tried a new one since i would never buy a new Corolla.
Originally Posted by Highland Park Miata
People have posted threads addressing the biggest, slowest, best cornering, best looking, fastest, ugliest cars etc. Well now let's pick the best all-around vehicle. Take your shots. Am I right?
Compared with 10 years ago for example, cars now are heavier, get poorer mileage, and are ladened down with gizmos we really don't need to get us from A to B.
Therefore when all facets of motoring are considered, I feel that the Corolla or Civic 4-door sedans of 10-12years ago were the best all-around cars. Able to seat four adults, durable, economical, good resale, and simple.
Yeah I have to agree with this. Between the two I prefer the Hondas, but yes, I think cars have all gotten heavier and less efficient. There are a lot of basic cars though, and very small, light cars are still available.
BMW E30... as long as I can find for fabricate replacement parts it's my guarantee I'll never be stuck driving something as boring as a Civic or Corolla.
Ok, ok... I wouldn't mind giving an AE86 a shot... but they are even harder to find, and from what I hear more expensive to maintain than an E30.
Originally Posted by bosozoku
Volvo 240 or Accord wagon.
Accord wagon is wrong wheel drive....EPIC FAIL
Analogeezer
Originally Posted by conga mike
I tend to like the Toyota brand a little more than Honda. Just a preference from experience. My vote goes to the Corolla.
However, to add to the list: Subaru Baja.
That Baja is not only one of the most hideous things Ive ever seen, I dont get how its even considered so practical. The bed is essentially useless for any real hauling of any kind and you have no trunk to lock anything up in. that vehicle had fail written all over it from day one.
All Subarus are ugly, but I imagine that they would be practical. They do have a cover over the bed, as well as a tailgate extender. I have even seen a topper on one.
Better milage than a SUV or large pick up, plus AWD and a turbo. I would look at it if I ever saw one on a dealership lot. I believe they stopped making them though.
isn't Subaru Baja one of the least reliable car, at least first year. according to CR.
the corollas of the 80s were pretty sweet. i had an 85 hatch...totally the most fun you can have with about 80whp while seating 5 and carrying all my guitar gear while getting 35mpg. it was an awesome car but is now put on a pedastal by jdm fanboys things like navigation are cool but who needs it when getting lost is this fun?
I love my Pontiac Vibe. Toyota reliability, yet I bought it during GM's employee price sale. It gets great mileage and has enough room for me and my four kids when taking them to school. Plus, it has a timing CHAIN - I was tired of timing belts with the Civics I used to own.
If you are comparing a 10-15 years old Civic and Corolla, Civic wins because it came with hatchback. Especially the EG Hatch, it can carry surreal amount of stuff in the back.
Originally Posted by bellwilliam
U need to get out and drive the newer compacts. They are better in every way than older cars. The older Civic is smaller than today's Fit. And I definitely won't call those better. The old Corolla size is more like today's Yaris. Okay. Yaris does suck but no worse than old Corolla.
I thought this would be a good topic for discussion, and thanks for your input.
However I perfer more conventional compact sedan look of several years ago.
For example the new ford focus is high and narror with poor visibility to the rear. And a hatchback is not as secure as a sedan with a lockable trunk. Pysiology is also a factor I believe in new car design. People are heavier and not as fit as 10-20 years ago, So cars need to be easier to get into. Getting in and out of my Miata is great exercise. As far as the peoples choice is concerned, the Camry and Corolla are still the top sellers I believe.
Originally Posted by nikkidanjo
The 198x-1991 Corolla would be my pick. I had a '91 5spd wagon and found it to be a great car in comparison to the Civic of the time. I bought my SAAB in part because I wanted the practicality of the Corolla wagon. The Civic has become the better of the two cars but I don't think the Civic was better at that time.
I used to own a Corolla All-Trac wagon. A great car and neat looking too. Before the corolla I owned three Tercels. My present utility vehicle is a Mazda5 van, I believe it's based on the Mazda 3. My fun car is my '96 white Miata. The car I traded for the Miata was a 2002 5-spd Saturn SL1, probably the best all-around car I've ever owned...30-45 mpg! |
Post at 2-7 04:31 AM
| This Author's Posts Only
