Looking for suggestions for fun car under $3k

bigred177 said:
Or, go the other way to something ridiculous like a limo, deuce and a half, Jeep, Karmann Ghia, etc.
Click to expand...

You know I've always had this strange desire to own a deuce and a half. There are places that sell them, but you can't touch one for under $10K. Plus a lot of them have been retrofit with automatic transmissions.

I remember getting my M35 stamp on my license form when I got to my unit in Germany.

"Spec Four Arrow, can you drive a deuce?"

"I'm sure I can figure it out."

"You're good to go then."
 
My buddy had a 58 Cadillac hearse, that was the ultimate party mobile.
 
Bill Jennings said:
Actually, if you care about your kid, an older gently used fullsize Buick or Crown Vic is much better.
Click to expand...

As someone who learned how to drive in a huge white dinosaur 1975 Chevy Nova (just like that Buick, only uglier), I thoroughly disagree.

Old fart cars are very heavy with soft suspension. They are not easy to corner and are not tolerant of less than perfect road conditions. And a 350/350 is too much power for a kid. You want something that will barely do highway speed, very light, responsive to cornering and braking, and accelerates like it's dragging a boat anchor.

That myth that more steel means more protection to the occupants is not true. If you hit a tree at 60 MPH, your survivability will be much worse in a steel tank than in an accordion econobox.

A pretty good choice is an old Geo Prizm. Crash it and it will ball itself up into nothing, but the occupants will walk away from it.

An old Buick is not an easy platform to teach parking in, either. A Festiva isn't bad at all.
 
Last edited:
Very few cars of that era had 350 hp. 350/350 in that era meant 350 cuin engine and turbo 350 transmission. Typical HP would be between 130 and 180 hp. The "Smokey and the Bandit" vintage T/As had 190hp from 400cuin. BTW, the Nova was not a large car. It was small and light at the time, the out growth from the Chevy II, an economy car.
 
MAKG1 said:
As someone who learned how to drive in a huge white dinosaur 1975 Chevy Nova (just like that Buick, only uglier), I thoroughly disagree.

Old fart cars are very heavy with soft suspension. They are not easy to corner and are not tolerant of less than perfect road conditions. And a 350/350 is too much power for a kid. You want something that will barely do highway speed, very light, responsive to cornering and braking, and accelerates like it's dragging a boat anchor.

That myth that more steel means more protection to the occupants is not true. If you hit a tree at 60 MPH, your survivability will be much worse in a steel tank than in an accordion econobox.

A pretty good choice is an old Geo Prizm. Crash it and it will ball itself up into nothing, but the occupants will walk away from it.

An old Buick is not an easy platform to teach parking in, either. A Festiva isn't bad at all.
Click to expand...

I agree that old school full size cruisers can be a challenge, but a Crown Vic is actually a quite nice handling machine. Dead neutral steer. I had one for a few years. There is nothing challenging about it at all except maybe it's size in comparison to an econobox or small sports car.

One of the cars I learned to drive as a kid was a '68 Dodge Dart with a 270. It was real easy to get in trouble with that thing if you weren't careful. It had non-power assist steering with something like ten turns lock to lock and a ton of play, and the suspension was really loose. It was easy to start fishtailing if you cut across a lane too quick.
 
MAKG1 said:
Old fart cars are very heavy with soft suspension. They are not easy to corner and are not tolerant of less than perfect road conditions.
Click to expand...

Thus one develops far greater skills than an easy to drive car. Kinda like a tailwheel pilot vs tricycle.

That myth that more steel means more protection to the occupants is not true. If you hit a tree at 60 MPH, your survivability will be much worse in a steel tank than in an accordion econobox.
Click to expand...
Hit a solid unyielding object? Yes, the better designed car will be safer (regardless of mass) When two cars collide, it's hard to argue with physics, the larger vehicle usually wins. This IIHS video basically says as much (and you can see a few same manufacturer smaller vs larger car crash tests).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXunnaaYtz0

An old Buick is not an easy platform to teach parking in, either. A Festiva isn't bad at all.
Click to expand...
Meh. I learned to drive on an old Dodge Power Wagon 4x4, stick shift, with supercab and an 8' bed. 149" wheelbase IIRC. Once I could drive and park that vehicle with finesse, my Dad started letting me drive the "small" car, a Chrysler Newport :lol:.

When my daughter is old enough to drive, there is no way I'm putting her in a crapbox Metro, Le Car, or Fiesta.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
 
Last edited:
Bill Jennings said:
Thus one develops far greater skills than an easy to drive car. Kinda like a tailwheel pilot vs tricycle.

Hit a solid unyielding object? Yes, the better designed car will be safer (regardless of mass) Then two cars collide, it's hard to argue with physics, the larger vehicle usually wins. This IIHS video basically says as much (and you can see a few same manufacturer smaller vs larger car crash tests).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXunnaaYtz0

Meh. I learned to drive on an old Dodge Power Wagon 4x4, stick shift, with supercab and an 8' bed. 149" wheelbase IIRC. Once I could drive and park that vehicle with finesse, my Dad started letting me drive the "small" car, a Chrysler Newport :lol:.

When my daughter is old enough to drive, there is no way I'm putting her in a crapbox Metro, Le Car, or Fiesta.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Click to expand...

A late 60s vintage SL Mercedes, a 70s vintage is safer, but not nearly as pretty.
 
At 16 my kid bought one of company's Chevy work trucks. V-6, 4WD, 120K miles, single seat. It didn't carry many people and it didn't go fast. It was perfect.
 
Henning said:
Very few cars of that era had 350 hp. 350/350 in that era meant 350 cuin engine and turbo 350 transmission. Typical HP would be between 130 and 180 hp. The "Smokey and the Bandit" vintage T/As had 190hp from 400cuin. BTW, the Nova was not a large car. It was small and light at the time, the out growth from the Chevy II, an economy car.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know what a 350/350 is.

The Nova may have been called "compact" in its day, but it's a whole lot bigger than a modern full size. The size shrunk dramatically in the 80s. It would very easily haul six teenagers on the bench seats, at way-too-fast speeds on southern California freeways. But it steered and braked like a supertanker even with the then-new disk brakes.

The other car I had at my disposal at the time was a 1978 Mustang II with a 2.8L V6. Still much too fast for a kid, but it sure was easier to park, brake and corner. And replace vacuum lines on…gawd I hate that engine.
 
Hmmm. My son learned to drive on a Porsche 928GT. We never had a bit of trouble with that, but he was more responsible than dad, so it worked well. When I finally turned him loose in it we had a discussion; 'Son, you have - by a large margin, the fastest car in school, and among all your friends. There is no reason to ever prove it. If you want to drive fast let me know and we'll go to the track'.
 
docmirror said:
Hmmm. My son learned to drive on a Porsche 928GT. We never had a bit of trouble with that, but he was more responsible than dad, so it worked well. When I finally turned him loose in it we had a discussion; 'Son, you have - by a large margin, the fastest car in school, and among all your friends. There is no reason to ever prove it. If you want to drive fast let me know and we'll go to the track'.
Click to expand...

:rofl::rofl::rofl: At my school a 928GT (aka AMC Pacer Sport) would have come in maybe fourth or fifth, maybe. Boy, you could have fun with hot rods for next to nothing back then. You could put together a Hardy V-8 Vega for $5k, spend another $2500 on the engine and run in the high 8s and low 9s.
 
Henning said:
:rofl::rofl::rofl: At my school a 928GT (aka AMC Pacer Sport) would have come in maybe fourth or fifth, maybe. Boy, you could have fun with hot rods for next to nothing back then. You could put together a Hardy V-8 Vega for $5k, spend another $2500 on the engine and run in the high 8s and low 9s.
Click to expand...

That is funny. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

You think a 1/4 mile ET makes for a fast car. And using a Vega to prove your point - well, that is just priceless. :no::no:
 
docmirror said:
That is funny. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

You think a 1/4 mile ET makes for a fast car. And using a Vega to prove your point - well, that is just priceless. :no::no:
Click to expand...

Drag racing is fun, but my Z-28 also would eat a 928 on a road track, I was pushing 800hp and had a good suspension under it including Corvette IRS at the end. Even my lawer who had a Daytona Ferarri couldn't beat me.

A Don Hardy Chassis with either a small or big block Chevy and a Vega body was a great starter car for drag racing and gave you a great platform to upgrade class with.
 
Uh - now we get a Camero. With drum brakes, live rear axle, recirc ball steering and wishbone suspension.

Oh - my - god.

Next we'll hear about some lame-azz Pontiac. It's inevitable.
 
docmirror said:
Uh - now we get a Camero. With drum brakes, live rear axle, recirc ball steering and wishbone suspension.

Oh - my - god.

Next we'll hear about some lame-azz Pontiac. It's inevitable.
Click to expand...

Nope, I always had narrowed 9" Ford with discs until I put the IRS in.
 
Henning said:
Nope, I always had narrowed 9" Ford with discs until I put the IRS in.
Click to expand...

So, you would take a crap car to start with, then mess with the axle to make it go, then modify the engine to try putting out enough to get it where the brakes, suspension and steering would be useless, all in an attempt to out-perform a bone stock 928GT?

My second whatev of the day.

Whatev.
 
docmirror said:
So, you would take a crap car to start with, then mess with the axle to make it go, then modify the engine to try putting out enough to get it where the brakes, suspension and steering would be useless, all in an attempt to out-perform a bone stock 928GT?

My second whatev of the day.

Whatev.
Click to expand...

No, I started with a race car chassis, only idiots try to perform with a factory street chassis.
 
$3k can get you a pretty nice late 90's Mercedes S class, with less than 200k on the clock.
 
docmirror said:
So, you would take a crap car to start with, then mess with the axle to make it go, then modify the engine to try putting out enough to get it where the brakes, suspension and steering would be useless, all in an attempt to out-perform a bone stock 928GT?

My second whatev of the day.

Whatev.
Click to expand...

Henning said:
No, I started with a race car chassis, only idiots try to perform with a factory street chassis.
Click to expand...

If y'all get my thread closed I will personally track both of you down and slap you! :rofl:
 
Bill Jennings said:
Actually, if you care about your kid, an older gently used fullsize Buick or Crown Vic is much better.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't recommend an old body on frame car these days. Automotive write Jack Baruth found out the hard way that they don't do so well in crashes, particularly when a side impact is involved: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2014/01/you-have-questions-i-have-some-answers/

While I don't think a late model Crown Vic would fare as badly as this 1959 Chevrolet did, I still suspect a Fusion or a Taurus would leave the Crown Vic with the worst of the damage:

MAKG1 said:
Yes, I know what a 350/350 is.

The Nova may have been called "compact" in its day, but it's a whole lot bigger than a modern full size. The size shrunk dramatically in the 80s. It would very easily haul six teenagers on the bench seats, at way-too-fast speeds on southern California freeways. But it steered and braked like a supertanker even with the then-new disk brakes.

The other car I had at my disposal at the time was a 1978 Mustang II with a 2.8L V6. Still much too fast for a kid, but it sure was easier to park, brake and corner. And replace vacuum lines on…gawd I hate that engine.
Click to expand...

The Nova was either 189 inches or 196 inches in length. By comparison, a current Malibu is 192 inches, and an Impala is 201 inches. Cars were lower back then and didn't have as much interior volume as a similar length current model.

According to this road test, the 2.8 liter Mustang II's 0-60 time was 14.2 seconds: http://www.mustangii.net/articles/mustangii_73.asp. By comparison, a current Hyundai Accent will get that done in around 8 seconds. Cars are much faster than they used to be.

I have a daughter who will start driving next year, and I'm going to get her something late model. From an overall safety standpoint, I suspect that a midsize sedan would be best for a teen driver, but I don't think you lose much by going down a size, so she'll probably get something in the Cruze/Civic/Focus/Elantra size range. I want her to have something with all the up to date safety equipment, and the stronger body structure that newer cars have.
 
FormerHangie said:
I wouldn't recommend an old body on frame car these days. Automotive write Jack Baruth found out the hard way that they don't do so well in crashes, particularly when a side impact is involved: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2014/01/you-have-questions-i-have-some-answers/

While I don't think a late model Crown Vic would fare as badly as this 1959 Chevrolet did, I still suspect a Fusion or a Taurus would leave the Crown Vic with the worst of the damage:



The Nova was either 189 inches or 196 inches in length. By comparison, a current Malibu is 192 inches, and an Impala is 201 inches. Cars were lower back then and didn't have as much interior volume as a similar length current model.

According to this road test, the 2.8 liter Mustang II's 0-60 time was 14.2 seconds: http://www.mustangii.net/articles/mustangii_73.asp. By comparison, a current Hyundai Accent will get that done in around 8 seconds. Cars are much faster than they used to be.

I have a daughter who will start driving next year, and I'm going to get her something late model. From an overall safety standpoint, I suspect that a midsize sedan would be best for a teen driver, but I don't think you lose much by going down a size, so she'll probably get something in the Cruze/Civic/Focus/Elantra size range. I want her to have something with all the up to date safety equipment, and the stronger body structure that newer cars have.
Click to expand...

I really think for an all around first car, a quality mid-full size from the late 90s on will serve well. You typically have all the modern safety features and you can buy one fully loaded that still has a couple years left cheap. The chances are high the car will get totalled before it dies. When you send them off to college, that's the time to put them in a better newer small car.
 
josephbelt01 said:
A late 90s Toyota Corolla or Camry will be safe
Click to expand...

Thus completely contradicting the main point of this thread ... to find a FUN car ...

BigRed, if my Z28 convertible wasn't broken down again (dang fuel pump, the second time), I would offer it for sale.
Heck, why not?
I am actually down the street from you.
 
If you can double your budget I'd recommend a mid 80's Rolls Royce.

:D
 
BigBadLou said:
Thus completely contradicting the main point of this thread ... to find a FUN car ...

BigRed, if my Z28 convertible wasn't broken down again (dang fuel pump, the second time), I would offer it for sale.
Heck, why not?
I am actually down the street from you.
Click to expand...


Yeah, we have kind of drifted...


1e22aa7b33d79b9bc5931b857fd7cd78.jpg
 
I recommended a Civic in an earlier post because they are the modern equivalent to a 60's-70's Camaro. There are jillions of them out there in every condition, they're easy to work on, and aftermarket parts are cheap and plentiful.

A Civic with some engine and suspension upgrades is fun to drive and will appeal to the younger set.

Some of the suggestions being made here are nuts...A Crown Vic? A Buick? A 70's VW Bug? Cars built in the 80's?

Those cars would need huge amounts of money just to repair the rust and make them run. How about a Civic built in the 21st century? You know, air bags, EFI, ABS?

:dunno:

http://www.procivic.com/

http://www.2kracing.com/Model/Honda/Civic.html

http://www.ebay.com/bhp/honda-civic-performance-parts
 
3393RP said:
I recommended a Civic in an earlier post because they are the modern equivalent to a 60's-70's Camaro. There are jillions of them out there in every condition, they're easy to work on, and aftermarket parts are cheap and plentiful.

A Civic with some engine and suspension upgrades is fun to drive and will appeal to the younger set.

Some of the suggestions being made here are nuts...A Crown Vic? A Buick? A 70's VW Bug? Cars built in the 80's?

Those cars would need huge amounts of money just to repair the rust and make them run. How about a Civic built in the 21st century? You know, air bags, EFI, ABS?

:dunno:

http://www.procivic.com/

http://www.2kracing.com/Model/Honda/Civic.html

http://www.ebay.com/bhp/honda-civic-performance-parts
Click to expand...

But they sound so funny. ;)
 
This has been an interesting drift. My first car was a '66 Mustang 289 with a 4bbl carb and a cam. I had fun with that car but I never had any moments where I think back and say "I probably shouldn't have survived that one."

I don't remember where or when I heard it, but someone was referencing all these "safety" features like RADAR braking and all that: "if you want a safe car put an airbag in the steering wheel, if you want a safe driver put a dagger in the steering wheel."
 
BigBadLou said:
Thus completely contradicting the main point of this thread ... to find a FUN car ...

BigRed, if my Z28 convertible wasn't broken down again (dang fuel pump, the second time), I would offer it for sale.
Heck, why not?
I am actually down the street from you.
Click to expand...

I've always thought a $500 Tercel would be fun. I like throw away cars.

Sounds like that Camaro is just a junker eyesore. Tell you what, just cause I like you, I won't even charge you to take it off your hands. :wink2:
 
josephbelt01 said:
A late 90s Toyota Corolla or Camry will be safe, cheap to run and cheap to fix if needed. I say "if needed" because it'll probably turn 300K miles before it has a problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

A 94 Camry 2 door V-6 and a 5-speed would be ideal. It's a nice blend of safe, fun enough, and it'll last forever. Seems like most of them are more than a mid-2000s BMW 3-series, if you can find one.
 
You could probably get a late 90s early 00s Mustang GT. They get dusted by the Camaros though
 
Man, I was ready to go to buy a 3000GT VR4 for myself but I see they have a propensity to spin bearings. I don't want a car that's broken more than it's running. :(
 
I think there's a definition of fun that's missing here.

My idea of fun is a good toolbox and an old VW in the back yard. You're definitely under 3,000 there and I think it would be a far more valuable lesson than buying an maintaining a throw away.
 
Do what I do, just type your price limit in Craigslist and see what comes up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top