I just realized how oddly designed my Sunbird is; a bizzare mixture of sporty and utilitarian that manages to suggest both while fully achieving neither. On the sporty side, the steering is quick, as in almost Lancer Evo quick. The gears are so short that one person on another forum commented that the car might have been designed as a towing vehicle. The engine delivers a massive surge of torque straight off the line, so the car feels fast despite its complete inability to rev. All models had five-lug wheels because 'Murica. The 1993 and up models actually specified a fairly aggressive suspension setup with significant negative camber all around. On the decidedly unsporty side, some manual-transmission-specific drivetrain component, probably a bearing, is incompatible with simultaneous application of torque and speed, so V6 5MT models are chip limited to 100 MPH (I can confirm from personal experience that this limiter exists, as can at least one State Trooper, herp derp derp). The car had not one, but two no-tachometer (i.e. poverty special) gauge clusters available; fortunately the Rally cluster (only one with a tach, and fitted to my car) could be ordered on any body style, trim, or option group regardless of what else was on it. The pedals may be set up wrong for heel-toe downshifting. The doofy parking brake handle and attendant doofy release mechanism, probably used because of the cramped interior, like to stick halfway on and make you wreck if you try to do skids. The driving position is all wrong; if you're the right distance from the wheel you'll have to lean forward to reach 5th gear, if you're close enough to use the shifter's full range of motion, you'll be uncomfortably close to the wheel. The rear brakes are drums. The exhaust is shockingly terrible; it doesn't even use log manifolds, but a log manifold, singular, where the tube from the front cylinder bank feeds right into the tube off the rear cylinder bank (it wouldn't surprise me if a good pair of headers, all by themselves, liberated 30 horsepower from this engine). The 1982-1992 models specified the gooniest suspension tune ever with legit positive camber on all versions with wheels smaller than 16 inches (which was pretty much all of them). I've come to the conclusion that anything about this car that's actually sporty was either accidental, half-hearted, or actually done for a practical reason.
Thinking about getting a Mazda MX3 V6. I will keep my Peugeot 205 though. Anyone got experience with these cars? They're equipped with the smallest V6 engine around. Its 1.8 V6 has a power output of 132 horsepower, so it's powerful enough! Plus it's a Mazda, which means it's of good quality -if you get one that hasn't been abused by its owner-. I just want a fun-to-drive car, and preferably a light one (taxes here depend on weight). I love the first-gen MX5, but the MX3 is just 'one level up'. The balance between weight, chassis, engine power (1.8 V6!), transmission (5-manual), sportsmanship and comfort is awesome. Look at it! Typical 90's Mazda. You wouldn't know there is a V6 engine underneath that small bonnet.
Good looking design, fun to drive, decent handling, but be prepared for rust. These 90s mazdas are notorious for rusting badly.
If you plan on getting an MX-3, i'd suggest seriously considering the inline 4 engines that were also offered. The V6 apart from it's quirkiness isn't really that great. Expect a fuel consumption of around 10L/100km and if you do a lot of highway driving the short gear ratio 5 speed is less than ideal, making the engine rev to 4.4k rpm at 130 km/h according to internet sources. These engines also need a careful owner as they have thin cylinder walls meaning the block is more prone to cracking, so you should always let the engine heat up to operating temperature without driving like a maniac.
Your fault that he is mad. Didn't have to tell him. I once scratched my dad's car with a bicycle, but I didn't tell anyone, so nobody noticed.
something that big and deep, you'd have to be an idiot to not notice. that v6 while quirky, is notorious for not being remotely representative of mazda quality. Heavily wearing and rather weakly constructed engines.
Thanks guys, it's really helpful. My wish is to buy a compact car with five- or six cilinder engine. That little Mazda attracts me with its V6 engine, shame it's not as good as most Mazdas. I know how the 90s Japanese cars tend to rust Is a Mazda 323F V6 a better option? I think it has a different engine. Or maybe a Golf/Jetta/Bora/Vento with VR6/V6/V5 engine?
Volkswagen VR6's have a strong following, though are also notorious for fuel usage and also oil burning. But you'll have better support with one of those than a Mazda 1.8 v6 I don't see what's wrong with a 4 cyl though
Thanks guys, appreciate the advice And a Rover 45 V6? Classy car. I think it has Honda engines. I prefer a five- or six cilinder engine over a four-cilinder because of the smoothness and sound.
Well, of course it's my fault that he's mad but he isn't even really mad after all anyway. And the scratch is so big that he would have obviously spotted the scratch pretty soon. And why wouldn't I have told him about it? I'm an honest person.
I went adventuring into a old barn in the woods, what did I find? A late 1960s lemans soft top a 1969-70 gmc truck and some old 30s car! Sadly the cops came and kicked me out before I could take a pic My dad knows the barns owners so hopefully I can go back there soon without being kicked out...
I'm still on the search for a newer car with a respectable amount of power that's also fairly cheap. Something heavier I'd like an i6/v6 or larger, but in something small and light a bigger i4 would work. The newer mazda hatches look great, but the 2.5l engine costs quite a bit more than the 2.0l. Of course the nicer sedans are out there, but the ones in my price range are always suspicious because they're in my price range.
Depends on their motors, but without knowing anything about those, I'd have to say the Falcon. EDIT: Yep, doesn't even have an available V8. If it's the 3.3L, then it's probably the same worthless boat anchor that showed up in several US Fords in the late 1970s and early 1980s and distinguished itself by producing no more power than the Pinto four. Wikipedia doesn't even say on the car's page how much power it puts out in this form, nor does it provide those same details for the 4.1L. So, yeah, it's pretty much like the somewhat-downsized boatmobiles that got dumped on us during the 80's, but with even smaller engines. Unless I know at the time of purchase where I can locate a compatible V8 and all necessary swap hardware, I'm going to have to switch and say the Merc. On the other hand again, the Falcon was available with a manual transmission. I'm not sure if the same can be said about the Mercedes. If the Falcon is a manual, that tilts my decision back toward it.
