starting to shop...suggestions?

[CaFordDude]

I say broaden your search to automatics and you might have better luck. Besides as you grow older manual's just get to be a pain in the ass...Or maybe that is just in Cali traffic...

 

[john112deere]

I say broaden your search to automatics and you might have better luck. Besides as you grow older manual's just get to be a pain in the ass...Or maybe that is just in Cali traffic...

I'd buy a Chevy before I bought an automatic. Hell, I think I'd drive a purple Toyota before a Ford with an automatic.

*It's worth noting that when my grandfather died at age 82, he still owned, drove, and preferred a manual transmission. All three of his children still own, drive and prefer manual transmissions, too. So there's some inherited/ingrained/learned preference there...

You're right, of course...and if the Ranger was non-operable, and it was a matter of getting something to drive...all this would go out the window, and I'd just be looking for something legal and in good shape for a price I could afford. But since I have the luxury of a little bit of time, I'm going to try to find what I want. And the number one thing I want is a manual trans.

 

[john112deere]

any update on your shopping thoughts?

Whoops...Aaron's post was the top of the new page. Didn't see this one.

Finding a rust-free gen-9 is, not surprisingly, effectively impossible in New England, I think.

4x4 Rangers are also very dear to their owners until they reach a certain age...at which they're pretty well worn out.


I'd really, really like to find a job before I buy anything. And I can swipe my sister's car until the middle of June, so I've got at least a month. If I find a job, depending on what it is...I'm thinking harder about maybe taking out a loan and dropping more like $10k on a newer Ranger (or maybe even a Jeep). Unless I go somewhere far from here and can find just the right gen-9 with absolutely no rust.

 

[Bob Ayers]

They do now, but not back then. I had a '71 142 bought new. Damned thing is still running around Olympia, Washington with god-only-knows how many miles on it. My dad had a 164, bought because of the experience with the first one. Barb's had two (240 wagons). I honestly think those Volvo's are about the perfect car for a young driver. Fold 'em up in a wreck, and people still seem to walk away from them. Parts are readily available and relatively cheap because the only thing in-house on those cars is the body and the motor. Everything else came from outside suppliers. Just match up the components in the aftermarket. With front engine/RWD, there's ton's of room under the hood if you do have to work on one. They were mechanically simple, high quality RWD cars- and roomy enough that even Ben could fit in one no problemo.



Google the "Volvette." Guy had a 6.0L Corvette motor lying around, a couple of turbos, a Tremec 6-spd tranny, and his wife's Volvo 740 turbo Wagon. Here's the kicker- thing peels out with the stock rear end/u-joint. ("overbuilt" was not in the Volvo engineer's dictionary).

Edit: Why Volvo's are what they are.

1. Sweden has a high road tax, and it's based yearly on the value of the car. Ergo, Swedes keep their cars as long as they possibly can.

2. The Average Swedish male is something like 6'1". A little econobox won't fit the family, much less the driver.

3. The weather in Sweden sux for most of the year. Even though Volvo's are RWD, there's almost 50/50 weight distribution- they work great on snow.

4. Swedes drink like fish.

Soooo... Sven leaves the bar to go home in the middle of a blizzard. A Corolla is out of the question, an armored personel carrier would be good if it didn't get such crappy gas mileage. He climbs into his Volvo to face the elements.

I agree on the Volvos. I rolled a 1973 164E on it's top three times on the pavement in 1975. I bought it new in 1973, and I can say that their roll-cage construction works. I remember back in the 70's Volvo had an add, where they stacked about 12 of them on top of each other. Rumor has it that a flood in Georgia totaled them at a Volvo dealer, so they decided to stack them on top of each other for an advertisement. My first car was a 1964 Volvo 122S wagon, that my dad bought in Germany. I still have the Volvo 1800E that I bought after rolling the 164E in 1975.

 

[89frankenford]

hey ian, ill keep an eye out for you. i know i have actually seen some rust free turcks up here. ill let ya know

 

[john112deere]

Well...

I took Dad's car in for some warranty repairs today. Supposed to be three hours (turned out to be more like 5) so I wandered around all the new-car dealers in the area.

Most of it was just killing time outside on a nice day...but I did, in fact, drive two brand-new trucks. Oops. (Hey- in both cases, I just wanted to look and ask a few questions, but they insisted I drive. And I told no lies or partial truths to make myself look more able to afford a truck than I am.)

Turns out GMC (but not, apparently, Chevy) builds extended cab, 4-cylinder, 4x4 Canyons- and they had one on the lot. I was way more impressed than I expected to be by how it drove, and also pleasantly surprised by how much closer to my "ideal" set of options GMC will equip a Canyon, than Ford a Ranger. The 2.9 is rated for 23 highway, to the Ford's 19...and had adequate power. GAWD was it loud, though, with the window down, even below 3000 rpm.

Also drove an '09 Ranger...and wasn't entirely impressed. 4.0 with 3.73 gears isn't THAT spunky, the gearbox is just as notchy/balky as my '97 (I thought I heard they fixed that).

I'm still a Ford guy, but if I was in a position to buy a brand-new compact truck tomorrow...the GMC would get some real serious consideration.

 

[john112deere]

I'd buy a Chevy before I bought an automatic. Hell, I think I'd drive a purple Toyota before a Ford with an automatic.

I may have to insert my foot in my mouth on this one...

It's looking like Grandma may not be able to drive again, and if that's the case, buying her '98 Escort, with an automatic, might be my next step. It's hardly my dream car, but I know it's history, and it's got basically no rust and fairly low (78k) miles. Just something economical to drive for a few years while I save up for what I want...

It's a kind of touchy situation, of course, though...if she can't drive, she really can't go back to living at home alone. So it may not end up working out. We'll see.

 

[tomtoc]

I mayIt's hardly my dream car, but I know it's history, and it's got basically no rust and fairly low (78k) miles.

had a few of those in my family (taurus, impala, ltd). not ideal, but it's a mental connection to it that you can't just sell it for no money when you could drive it yourself.

 

[O'Rattlecan]

erica has an escort and would come on here to tell you she drove trouble free up to about 165,000. Then it threw the timing belt and dumped the alternator within a week.

Ryan

 

[john112deere]

Was that the original timing belt that threw at 165? And are they interference engines? (2.0 L)

 

[O'Rattlecan]

Yeah it was the original timing belt.

I don't even know what interference engines are. The DOHC 2.0L is reliable as all get out.

Ryan

 

[Bob Ayers]

Yeah it was the original timing belt.

I don't even know what interference engines are. The DOHC 2.0L is reliable as all get out.

Ryan

AN interference engine is one that the valves hit the pistons if the cam(s) stops turning, while the crank continues to turn, which happens when you
loose the timing belt. With a non-interference engine, the valves don't hit the
pistons if the crank continues to turn, when the cam(s) stop turning.

 

[O'Rattlecan]

Well the guy at the shop said that most of the import engines he gets that throw timing belts bend all the valves in, and that for some reason the escorts he gets in almost never do.

That must be what he was talking about.

Ryan

 

[Likeastone]

coughmustangcough



...maybe i am a tad bias