Are we still sticking to the 5 grand or less theme? If not, what price point are we going up to? Just for the sake of updating I have to say you can NOT (usually) get a Nissan Silvia/240sx for non-ripoff prices. Gone are the days of the sub-$5k running S-chassis. These days I would actually argue that you're better off getting either a 350z or an Infiniti g35. On the flip side, I've seen prices on 3rd gen Supras have actually been going DOWN instead of up. The catch is that they usually have around 200k miles on them. Still, the 7mgte is actually almost as reliable as any other Toyota engine once you do a couple mods to it (head gasket and something else I'm forgetting). I would replace the WRX with the 2.5RS and/or first gen Impreza since a good WRX for under $5k has gone from being rare to literally impossible. The 2.5RS is also very underrated imho (although possibly a deceptively cheap nightmare) and the 1st gen Impreza is Nissan Sentra levels of being a fun shitbox from what I hear from one of my friends that dailies one. I don't like the Tiburon (or whatever they call it outside freedomland) but I have to admit its possible to get one for under $5k. One last thing I can think to add on there is the Toyota MR2 Spyder (aka the 3rd gen, aka the ZZW30). I'm obviously biased since I own one but the prices have been going down to the point where its reasonably possible to get one for 4 grand or less. In addition, they have the Celica GT drive-train so you know they're reliable. I wouldn't touch the Poor Man's Special section as its still pretty relevant to this day, other than MAYBE replacing the Dodge Neon with 90's Hyundais or any moderately used Suzuki car ever.

>>13326 >5k Perhaps. Depending on how old it is, $5k when it was made could be a bit more than that today. If we do, maybe we should add a section for 5-10k or something. >silvia Agreed. >2.5RS WRX's don't seem that inflated in the PNW. 2.5RS are rare. Impreza Outback Sports are cheaper, and all of them were AWD (not all 1st gen Imprezas are). >tiburon All Korean cars are cheap as fuck. >ZZW30 Definitely viable, might have to go in the higher price category above if we stick to $5k. >replace neon I think it would be worthwhile. Koreans are cheap and reliable as fuck (for the most part), so even if they might cost a bit more to buy they will cost less in the long run. Same goes for Suzuki (who made the Metro).

>>13330 Another issue I have is that it lists German cars at all. Someone with a restricted budget of $5k is not going to have the money to maintain an E Class or a VR6. There is a reason those cars are so cheap, it's because no one wants them and their unreliability and absurd maintenance costs.

>>13331 >because no one wants one nah. There's something called depreciation, which happens much faster for "luxury" cars than it does for other kinds of cars. It's the reason you can get a Lexus SC300/400 for so cheap even though they're sport luxury cars with great RWD power plants. As long as its not your daily driver, getting a BMW 3 series or a Mercedes C class as your weekend/project car is doable. Just be sure to list them under "deceptively cheap nightmares" and make sure you provide an explanation so some fanboys don't throw a shitfit about it. For example >BMW 3/5 series and Mercedes C/E Class: reliable drive trains but the later the generation it is, the more likely something electronic is going to break. Once anything does break, the replacement parts are going to cost you your kidney (unless you life in Germany). Engines are not the easiest to work on compared to older American/Japanese cars. >Mazda RX7/8: Your mileage will vary hugely depending on how good a shape the rotary engine in your car is. Engines burn oil and are prone to overheating by design, so be prepared to consider "pre-mixing" the oil and spending more money to overhaul the cooling system. Small displacement engines in a lightweight body that actually get gas mileage on par with V8 muscle cars (while making similar power, to be fair). >Porsche 924/944: like the BMW and Mercedes listed above, but remove the "reliable drive train" part. Italian sports car levels of being a money pit. Could legitimately own and maintain 4+ cars for the price of maintaining any Porsche. Really, one of the biggest problems with the old chart is that it doesn't list the pros/cons for most of the "alternatives" listed (no mention of AWD Eclipse/Talon being hard to find, no mention of the CRX usually being more rusty than your average Winnebago, etc.). Some people do literally no research before buying a car so its good to at least list the basics. You also mentioned trucks and the Nissan D21 Hardbody, which I think is worth adding. We should probably add the Chevy S10 too. I don't like them myself and they are the definition of "shitty cheap truck" but if all you want/need is a dirt cheap and reliable vehicle with a flatbed than its a solid option. Same goes for Mada B series trucks, which are literally just rebadged Ford Rangers with only the front grill changed (or was it the other way around, idk).

>>13333 chek'd >depreciation They depreciate faster because once they stop being the latest luxury car, they are just expensive, unreliable heaps. I agree with the rest. >S10 AFAIK, GM anything made after 1970 is going to be plagued with poor wiring jobs and electrical gremlins. I am reluctant to recommend them, though the parts are dirt cheap for common models. >B-series Rebadged Ranger. It pisses me off what they did with that. Every Ranger sold outside USDM was a rebadged B-series (actually designed by Mazda, Toyota tier reliable), but every B-series here (going all the way back to the 60s) was a rebadged Ranger. Rangers are shitty and disposable. S10's are really shitty and disposable.

>>13330 the 2,5RS is very rare. I've seen 2 of them.

>>13335 >Every Ranger sold outside USDM was a rebadged B-series (actually designed by Mazda, Toyota tier reliable), but every B-series here (going all the way back to the 60s) was a rebadged Ranger. This I never knew, though it does seem that up until the mid 80s the Mazda was an actual Mazda, as I don't recall the Ranger ever looking like pix related.

>>13316 i was supposed to buy a cheap accord but everyone i know keeps saying no to a 1998 model because they say the gas consumption is very high compared to a civic

>>13316 i was supposed to buy a cheap accord but everyone i know keeps saying no to a 1998 model because they say the gas consumption is very high compared to a civic

>>13579 Well if you drive a car A the same way as you drive car B, they are very damn likely to have the same gas consumption. Also Civic is supposed to be a econobox student hatch, unlike the Accord.