12/03/07, 10:11 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 7,692
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AnnaS
I have a Saturn SL manual with 232,000 miles on it. It gets 32-40 mpg, depending on the season, driving type, and what I'm hauling. I have used that poor car to drag freshly disced fields, haul a flatbed with 2 tons of hay, (not actually a good idea) and haul up to 4 goats in the back seat/trunk. I've owned it since new. The engine & clutch are original- I learned to drive stick on that clutch- the new parts in it are the alternator, blower motor, and wheel bearings.
I sold Saturns for six years. We saw many Saturns that went over 300k with minor repairs. We had one in for oil changes that went 425k before he totalled it hitting a deer. The S-series was designed to be easy for a layman to fix & maintain, to crash right, and to last forever. It did all these things, which is probably why GM stopped making them. BTW, there were 2 parts on the car NOT made in the US, and 1 part that was shared with other GM cars.
If I was looking for another car, I'd want a 1996-2002 Saturn SW1- the station wagon version. A little more hauling room & the same kind of mpg.
|
Interesting. Recently while looking for info for something else I ran into a blog about these Saturn SLs. Seems at least the ones from like 99-05 had little problem with shifter cable. A plastic bushing would disintegrate on the shifter cable. The bushing only available from dealer as part of shifter cable ASSEMBLY for mere pitance of like $175 to $250 plus labor of maybe $400. Somebody of course came up with some home fixes and one guy even started offering his own replacement bushing on ebay for $20. Otherwise people on the blog were saying this is a durable car with good gas mileage. Only Saturn I ever rode in was like 7 years ago when my ex talked me into going used car shopping with her. I dont remember the model of the Saturn, but had to be one of the roughest riding cars I ever been in. At the time I had a '72 Ford Courier pickup that I kept patched together with scrap metal and baling wire and I swear it rode better than the Saturn.
As to my recommendation, guess it depends whats most important, fuel economy, or homestead utility use. For fuel economy you want small car, they get much better fuel mileage than pickup. Oh there were some old Mazda pickups with economy gearing that would get up into 30s, but most small pickups the mid to high twenties is best you will see. A 90s era 5spd Ford Ranger with 4cyl (the one with 8 spark plugs) is a real good buy if in good condition. They'll get around 25mpg and with bit care can last as good at the Toyota/Nissan. I have an old Ford Festiva 1.3L and 4spd, but it is very small and not great if you have to keep up with traffic on freeway. I am not really comfortable taking it beyond 65mph. It does get 44mpg with 4 spd tranny. Probably top 50mpg with 5 spd. For a family something like an older Honda Accord would be better. (on Hondas change out timing belt and water pump every 60k miles or the engine WILL self destruct when timing belt breaks and pistons hit the valves) Also dont overlook the Mazdas. Personally on Mazdas, I'd go for the single overhead cam engine models though if you are thinking of it as a throw away, then doesnt matter. I just still have the old fashion notion that a car should be able to be worked on. A lot of the modern high tech stuff is throw away, by time its a decent price used, any significant repair costs far more the car is worth due to the complexity and hard to work on design. Some of these just about have to be reverse disassembled in exact step by step form from way they were put together in factory, like some giant Chinese box puzzle. Well unless you can find a midget mechanic that is double jointed.
__________________
"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" -Dorothy
"Well, then ignore what I have to say and go with what works for you." -Eliot Coleman
|
