Automotive Forums  Where Car Enthusiasts Go to Discuss Cars Online

I'm looking to buy my first car and was hoping for some input (how's that for a change of pace?) The things that I would like to have in said car are: must be manual, would prefer RWD, 2 door. I want something reasonably sporty, but the older models would have to fulfill these requirements, as I'm looking in the under 5000 price range. I have being doing a bit of research so I'll provide some cars that I have been considering. '85 Pontiac Fiero, '90 (ish) Toyota MR2, Pontiac Firebird (don't want too large of a gas-guzzling engine) Mazda RX-7. I want an engine that is powerful enough to make my car sexy (fun to drive) but not so large that it sucks $50s straight out of my wallet and into it's tank. I'm a student with a part time job, so money is tight. If there are any questions or if you want more specs on the above cars that I was considering, please ask. Any feedback is greatly appreciated.  

Of the cars you've mentioned, only the MR2 seems reasonable.  The Fiero was a novel idea (affordable mid engine sportscar) when it first came out, but it was blighted by 1980's GM engineering.  The car is generally unreliable, and at 20+year old, will probably be a terrible money pit.  Add to that the fact that GM's engines at the time were big and underpowered for their size and unrefined.  The MR2 is Vastly more reliable, and by 1990, was a sweet-looking, fun to drive sports car that was available with a reasonable base powerplant (I think it was a 140HP 2.0liter) and a powerful turbocharged version of that engine making 200HP.  The innitial versions of the car suffered from a bit of handling unpredictability, but that would only show up if you regularly took it to its handling limits.  Otherwise, it was a fantastic car.  

If you don't want a gas-guzzling engine, then just avoid the Firebird.  The 3.8L V6 offered as the base engine in the mid-late 90's was adequately quick, but sounded like junk and wasn't particularly efficient.  Any of the V8s offered throughout the Firebird's history have been gas guzzlers in comparison.  

For $5000, you're probably looking at a late 80's RX-7 with reasonable mileage, or a very high mileage mid 90's version.  In the late 80's, the RX-7 was available with either a moderately powered naturally aspirated 1.3 liter rotary engine or a 200 something HP turbo version (I'm too lazy to look up all the specs).  They're "good" cars in the sense that they're sporty, quick, espeically with the turbo, and handle well.  But the unique design of the Wankel engine, along with the relative rarity of these cars means that maintenance can be frequent and expensive.  

A 90's RX-7 came with a 250 (or so) HP turbo Wankel engine, largely based on the previous RX-7 engines, but with two sequential turbochargers.  This car is massively fast, and probably one of the all-time best handling cars of the 20th century for under $100K.  They're sexy, fun, fast, and just freakin awesome in every way.  But the same reliability/maintenance issues that exist with older RX-7s still exist, and in some ways, may be exacerbated by the sophisticated sequential turbocharging units.  Plus, insurance will be very high, and you'll have to find a very high mileage one to come in under $5000.  

Honestly, I'm having a hard time thinking of anything else that'll fit your criteria.  But do you work on your own cars?  Having a high auto-repair skill level would help you because any reasonably high-performance, stylish rear-drive cars you'll find will need to be very old or very high-mileage to be affordable with $5000.  

Thanks for the reply, you've definitely reaffirmed much of what I had suspected. THe only difference between what you say and what I had heard/read is that the rotary engine needed a lot of maintenance. I had heard the exact opposite, that they were quite reliable. Then again this was from the same person who said MR2s were "Crap" but that was based on a single bad experience... I do some work myself, I don't exactly know how qualified I am to deal with all problems but I have 2 very good mechanic friends, and am still learning, for what that counts. Firebird and Fiero are officially out, now I'm REALLY leaning towards an MR2, and the one I had my eye on was, in fact, a 1990 GT-S Turbo, which put out 200Hp... very attractive If I did get one, can anyone make some suggestions as to what I could do to reduce the chance of a snap oversteer? 1990-1992 in particular were bad for that, but for the record when I get it (if it doesn't have one) I'm putting in a LSD, guess you know what that's for thanks very much for the help. (Ps. please assume for arguments sake that, when it comes to suspension/handling adjustments, labor is no problem but parts are, to an extent. Thanks) Also! (one last thing) does anyone know what the actual trunk dimensions were for an MR2? I've been looking, becuase I would be adding a sound system, but I can't seem to find real specs. This is for the 1990 (second gen) version. Thanks again.  

Having done some more research I am going to throw a Nissan 300ZX and (tentatively) the toyota Celica Supra into the mix. thanks.  

Whoever said MR2's are "Crap" probably doesn't understand the value of seeing beyond individual experience.  I'm willing to bet that someone, somewhere, has had a Honda Civic that was unusually unreliable--but we all know how unique that situation would be.  

Rotary engines are mechanically simple; it's part of the beauty of their design.  But that doesn't mean that they're "reliable" as an everyday car. I have heard, however, that the basic engine components of a mazda wankel are relatively trouble free--but only to a point.  15-20 year old Wankels are likely to suffer from worn apex seals, which will only increase the already miserable fuel and oil consumption.  Actually, racers often comment about the fact that a Wankel only gets faster as it gets older, consuming more fuel and oil as it ages.  And unlike a piston engine, which typically fades in performance as it ages, a Wankel reaches its peak right before it completely fails.  A wankel might be mechanically sound when young, but at the ages you're talking about, I'd worry about the future.  

I have no real personal experience with MR2s, so I don't know off-hand how to correct the snap oversteer that effected the early models.  But the car has a loyal following, and I'd be willing to be that a simple google search will yeild advice on how to correct the problem.  As a general rule, however, increasing dynamic negative camber and toe-in will prevent unexpected or early loss of rear-end grip.  Dynamic negative camber simply means that as the outside wheels compress in a turn, the top of wheel is pulled inwards by the control links to maintain a parallel relationship with the road.  Dynamic toe-in is usually effected by a toe-control link (i'm to lazy to look up the suspension configuration of the MR2), and simply increases toe-in on the oudside rear wheel in a turn--thus introducing a bit of tire scrub BEFORE the tires loose traction--thus making eventual traction loss more gradual.  

What year 300ZX are you looking at?  Up until 1988 (or was it 89?), the ZX was a bloated GT, not a sports car.  I'd avoid it, only because, for the money, you can probably get something more exciting.  

Do you really mean a celica-supra?  Those were the old old old early-mid 80's rear drive cars that were hardly exciting.  But I bet you could pick up a somewhat-rare early-mid 90's Celica GT-S with AWD and the same 200HP turbo as the MR2.  Fast, fun, and all-weather capable.  

A late 80's supra is also a better car than the ZX of the same era (keep in mind, I'm not talking about the 89+ last generation 300zx).  In turbo form, it was very quick, and although it was certainly big and heavy compared to the MR2, it did the "big n' fast" thing better than the ZX, and sounded great doing so---oh, and it had a better interior.  

Still, the MR2 is my personal favorite of the car's listed so far, and if practicality isn't a concern, It's probably the best car of the lot.  

*sigh* I'm noticing a trend, if I find a car that I like and there are a few (1 or more) available, it turns out they aren't what I thought they were. There are a LOT of cars that are close but not quite... still looking.