Good cars, good engines, and good transmissions. They will do high mileages as long as they are serviced from time to time.
phillip.weston,
Apr 6, 3:56pm
Yep - good cars, a little boring to drive, but at least the import Gracias look a bit better than the poverty pack NZ-new Camry wagon. Also for a late 90s-early 2000's car, the chassis platform is more or less the same as the model from the early 90s. Safety features include ABS and two airbags and that's it - no side air bags, no EBD, no TCS etc.
thejazzpianoma,
Apr 6, 4:30pm
The inlaws have one, its pretty pathetic economy wise given the size of the car and the output. They are especially bad in urban situations, you may as well run a V8 around town. The apologists will tell they are good on the open road. but pretty much everything is!
thejazzpianoma,
Apr 6, 4:46pm
You totally need a Multipla Diesel. Seriously, even if you have to put a bit on tick its going to pay you back so quickly. Running two cars always costs more than you think it will.
BTW, when you say haul around gear, would this be on a trailer!
taipan4,
Apr 6, 4:47pm
picked up a 1999 2.2 for $4500 2 year ago, & typically Toyota,highly reliable, Not very exciting to drive but at 60 years old do I care, If you want reliability buy ToyotaI've owned 8 of them
thejazzpianoma,
Apr 6, 4:53pm
To put it into perspective, comparing the Multipla to the Camry, for your running you are going to be a good $2000 a year better off with the Multipla. Plus its a hang of a lot more usefull for gear, you can just take one seat out of the back and throw the bikes straight in. I would also much rather drive the Multipla around the City than the Camry, the better view and tighter turning circle make it a real pleasure. But then you have driven one so you no doubt know what I mean.
thejazzpianoma,
Apr 6, 5:20pm
Compared to what you are paying now, if you payed the Buy Now on the Golf it would have paid for itself in fuel savings in about 9 months.
thejazzpianoma,
Apr 6, 5:23pm
Thats a MK3, I have only had teh GTI in the MK 3 so can't comment on the standard one. But the GTI had absolutely stunning handling. It was just an idea as a stepping stone. All good to sit on the fence, you might get another multipla like the cheap one that went at Turners the other day. But then its worth considering that every week you wait costs you. Thats where a stepping stone car like the Golf which is also a good tidy up project might be an idea. Just don't have any high performance disillusions with it! Its an economy machine at the end of the day, but should be a comfortable commuter non the less.
zirconium,
Apr 6, 5:25pm
My sister-in-law had one (station wagon), it was very similar in size, handling and manouverability to our Mondeo wagon. Very comfortable on a long journey, economical when she was driving it, not so great when brother-in-law was at the wheel. :)
zirconium,
Apr 6, 5:27pm
The 2.2L auto camry's are not rated very high for towing.
thejazzpianoma,
Apr 6, 5:29pm
Funny thought on the Vitara, the 2.5 V6 like you linked to should cost exactly the same as the Camry for your running. At least you get a more versatile vehicle for the running costs! As an interesting side note, you may well be about $15 a week better off running an XC90 than either the Suzuki or Camry.
thejazzpianoma,
Apr 6, 5:34pm
Can't tell you much as mine didn't need anything mechanical done. Mostly though with MK3's the common stuff is window winder mechanisims, ABS faults and ECU failures (Usual VW stuff I have done on other VW/AUdi's of that vintage) . None of that is particularly hard, nasty or expensive so long as you are sensible and don't mind jumping on the net for instructions. of which there are loads of great how to guides and heaps of support forums because they were so popular.
All of those faults can be dealt with by the weekend home mechanic without much hassle at all if you follow the above.
So its a case of yes they have their niggles, they are no Multipla or Punto BUT its all interesting fairly easy stuff to deal with and not usually stuff that will keep you off the road.
I have no idea what the DIesel is like performance wise though. Knowing the VW Turbo Diesels its probably really good for an old school Diesel but the best plan would be to take it for a run.
I am pretty sure that motor is the one that is renowned for doing insane milage before major work is required as well.
thejazzpianoma,
Apr 6, 5:39pm
A manual Punto would be a much better car for the commute for similar money. But if you want to load up the trailer etc then the VW may be better in that department.
That said though, I would not hesitate to tow a couple of Kayaks and some camping gear on a trailer behind a MK2 Punto so long as it was the 80HP one. If anything was going to affect you it would be a high load in the wind not lack of HP for a light car trailer.
craig04,
Apr 6, 5:44pm
How do you figure that out! Running costs I mean. I know you don't like Toyota's, but I think your hand is firmly on it.
thejazzpianoma,
Apr 6, 5:51pm
The Camry is a shocker once you start some urban running. For my other calculations I was assuming an average of around 12l/100km which I think is fair given they do about 14l/100km Urban Running.
Its not that I don't like Toyota's I just don't like their pricing in NZ! In this case they are not at all economical for that sort of running, especially in Auto and doing stop start.
Off hand the Suzuki is a bit under 14l/100km Urban and the Volvo usually about 12l/100km depending on exact spec.
Feel free to check on me as this is a combination of what I have seen the Camry do in person and what I remember. I would rather look silly than put papariccardo crook.
thejazzpianoma,
Apr 6, 5:55pm
I actually meant the cheaper easier to get Petrol XC70, the Diesel would no doubt be quite good for town running. Good point on Tyres, its so important to keep everything in perspective!
Are we talking sea Kayaks or shorter river ones!
You may find the Multipla is way to short for sea Kayaks on the roof. they are surprisingly short as a car and then a lot of it is bonnet leaving very little roof, you are just about better with them sideways the roof is so short!
Given what you are doing if you can fit ina Punto and the Kayaks fit on the roof its probably the better buy given its newer, a bit safer and can generally be had in really nice conditions with low KM's for not much more than the Golf which is in need of work.
craig04,
Apr 6, 6:17pm
The 2.4 Rav does 11l/100km's urban. Being heavier, less aerodynamic and with a larger (slightly) motor I would have thought it would be slightly worse than the Camry. 14l/100 seems a bit out there.
zirconium,
Apr 6, 6:25pm
Agreed. SIL was a bit vague on details (she thinks all cars have the same sized petrol tank, sigh), but she seemed to get around the 8-10L/100km mark. Her hubby did about 11-12, he's a shocker! This was a year 2000 auto camry.
thejazzpianoma,
Apr 6, 6:26pm
It catches lots of people by surprise, I remember comparing to the bigger 2.4 Estima and drawing similar conclusions. But the reality is in stop start urban running with the old technology 4 Speed Auto and low tech engine they are just not that great at all.
Twice the price of running a Punto but your call! Actually, it would be really interesting to see how well you can do driving economically. It would be great to see some figures if you go down that route.
chris_051,
Apr 6, 6:36pm
Peugeot 406 turbo diesel wagon, hello 5.5l/100km. Better to drive than any boring jappa of the day as well. Capatilise on this countrys love affair with over priced, over rated boring japanese appliances and get a decent 'unreliable' Euro which will be more rewarding to own.
I still stand by the figure I used of 12l/100km for Papa's use and I think that is likely to be on the generous side given how he described his commute. Especially considering that is a good 1.5l below the urban rate.
thejazzpianoma,
Apr 6, 7:23pm
Just looked up the figures on your Honda papariccardo, it looks very much like the Honda would actually becheaper to run than the Camry! By a good litre per 100km too.
vtecintegra,
Apr 6, 7:27pm
I'd expect a Golf with the 2l FSI to be about 20% better on fuel across the board than a 2.2 Camry.
The difference isn't near as dramatic as jazz would make out
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.