94 Ford Ranger XLT, 2000 Ford Ranger XLT, or 91 Honda Civic Hatchback?
93 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Second-gear-of-mgear;29201778]I'd trust a lower end pickup more than a rebuilt economy car. Sure those older Civics are awesome and fast, but it's been rebuilt and they weren't exactly sturdy brandy new.[/QUOTE]
Pickup trucks from America are the most reliable, agile, most-powerful, trucks on this planet.
Any other Pickup in America isn't going to do aswell as an American one. It is like throwing a person from Africa into the Arctic regions of our planet and saying they will automatically do better than the people already living there.
Trucks built here are better simply because we actually need trucks for offroading and hauling. Other countries do not and therefore their trucks fail.
[QUOTE=stupidass;29201838]Pickup trucks from America are the most reliable, agile, most-powerful, trucks on this planet.
Any other Pickup in America isn't going to do aswell as an American one. It is like throwing a person from Africa into the Arctic regions of our planet and saying they will automatically do better than the people already living there.
Trucks built here are better simply because we actually need trucks for offroading and hauling. Other countries do not and therefore their trucks fail.[/QUOTE]
what no
toyota
id say go for the 94 ranger and talk him down a bit, since the civic has been fucked with.
[QUOTE=Dysplasia;29202750]what no
toyota
id say go for the 94 ranger and talk him down a bit, since the civic has been fucked with.[/QUOTE]
Haha.
Toyota.
I knew it had to be mentioned, not even going to answer this joke.
[QUOTE=stupidass;29203506]Haha.
Toyota.
I knew it had to be mentioned, not even going to answer this joke.[/QUOTE]
What are you talking about? 80's toyotas run for god damn ever.
[editline]15th April 2011[/editline]
You can beat the shit of a 22re and it'll ask for more.
[QUOTE=Funcoot;29197577]I found a 93' Civic Si going for $3,500. I was told to check Edmunds.com for the value of the car, and Edmunds says $1,558? Should I negotiate for around that price? I am very confused to this whole used car negotiating.
[url]http://www.edmunds.com/honda/civic/1993/tmv-appraise.html?sub=hatchback&style=3890[/url][/QUOTE]
You can't go by book values on Civics, they're popular in the tuning (and ricing, ehhhh) scene and the price fluctuates a TON.
A good EG (92-95) Civic Hatch will cost around $3000 in my area, BONE stock. And EF (88-91) goes for about $2000, and Si EF's are 2500-3000. Book values for those are generally half that.
Also, rebuilt engine DOES NOT MEAN rebuilt car.
Anyways, the Civic is still the best value if you can get him down a few hundred at least. If not more than that.
I guarantee that the Rangers will not take the day-to-day abuse that the Civic will, and driving that civic is like driving a go-kart man, so easy to turn even without power steering (pretty sure none of the hatchbacks came with PS) and so fun to whip into parking spaces that other vehicles just [i]can't[/i] fit into.
You will not regret getting the Civic. I promise.
[QUOTE=stupidass;29201749]Rangers definitely don't suck, but if you are gonna get one it needs to be 4WD and have the 4.0 Liter V6, otherwise it is garbage. They get really good gas mileage for trucks too, I think around 27 MPG on Highway.
I used to have a 4 Cylinder one and I had around 120,000 miles on it before the transmission finally just shitted itself out. I didn't really take good care of it either.[/QUOTE]
The 4.0 is literally one of the best engines Ford's used in their light trucks and SUV's. Timing chain is the only internal component you'll be having to worry about once you crest 110k miles. The trannies on the other hand weren't very good. At all. And you definitely won't be seeing 27mpg average with the 4.0
I drive a Ranger. Don't know the year, looks like the 2000 one though, except green. It's not fun to drive in adverse weather and the gear stick is very finicky if it gets cold. Otherwise it's okay to drive. Mine's only a V4 but it has nothing else under it, just and engine, a radio, and wheels, nothing special, has some pep to it.
I haven't put a lot of miles into it yet but it's not bad. I still think the Civic would be smarter, since I never use the truck element and I have to load sand in the bed to have any traction.
Found a yellow 92' Honda Civic.
[img]http://images.craigslist.org/3n93m33o05T05Z25W0b4c9d74383b8aed154a.jpg[/img]
Wish they had high quality pictures and more information. They didn't specify the mileage, but I will call and ask tomorrow. They're asking $1,300. Selling due to family emergency apparently.
Not a bad deal, even though it is a sedan. Sedans are generally worth less but they are still alright.
[QUOTE=bradley;29209925]Not a bad deal, even though it is a sedan. Sedans are generally worth less but they are still alright.[/QUOTE]
It seems that the Hatcbacks have better mileage.. and the fact that they're hatcbacks makes them aweosme-er by default.
[QUOTE=bradley;29208564]
You will not regret getting the Civic. I promise.[/QUOTE]
Until he wrecks. At least the Ranger has some structural integrity. That era of Civic had absolutely no safety features besides seat belts. It didn't even have proper crumple zones, it used the entire car as them.
Well the hatchbacks weigh hundreds less than sedans. Honda has a great formula going on; low weight, moderate power, few accessories == Great mileage.
If you're going for mileage I reccomend a 92-95 DX coupe, 5-speed. Airbags are fine, but don't get power steering. A/C is optional, you can get 41-42MPG without and 39-40 with it.
This is based on the two DX coupes I've had/driven, one was a '93 DX with no passenger airbag or A/C, the other was a '95 with passenger airbag and A/C. They both got around 40. The '93 had 274k and the '95 (Japfeiffer's) had around ~190k. Both cars are still running, I see both of them around.
The lady who ended up with the '95 has not taken good care of it though... it's sad.
Great mileage cars, no doubt.
[editline]16th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Second-gear-of-mgear;29211854]Until he wrecks. At least the Ranger has some structural integrity. That era of Civic had absolutely no safety features besides seat belts. It didn't even have proper crumple zones, it used the entire car as them.[/QUOTE]
Quit being a douche. It's not like he wants to buy a fucking tank. He wants a car that would be great as a commuter. Not something that he can haul a car full children around in. Regardless, he's already moved on to other Civics. Of a year range that DOES come properly equipped with airbags.
Quit beating a dead fucking horse and either a) contribute to the thread or b) gtfo, brah.
[QUOTE=stupidass;29203506]Haha.
Toyota.
I knew it had to be mentioned, not even going to answer this joke.[/QUOTE]
please tell me you're joking
But us Americantruckbros hate toyota trucks
and i must say the tundra is one fuck ugly thing
i like american trucks and all too, especially the older ones, but there's no denying that toyota makes good trucks, nissan is pretty good too iirc.
[QUOTE=bradley;29213349]
Quit being a douche. It's not like he wants to buy a fucking tank. He wants a car that would be great as a commuter. Not something that he can haul a car full children around in. Regardless, he's already moved on to other Civics. Of a year range that DOES come properly equipped with airbags.
Quit beating a dead fucking horse and either a) contribute to the thread or b) gtfo, brah.[/QUOTE]
A 1990 Civic does not come with airbags.
Driver SRS: 93-95 CDM Si, Some CDM 92 Si, Some 93-95 CDM DX, VX, CX
Plus if he is driving the thing to college, and later on to job offerings, a small Civic hatch isn't going to look very professional. I mean hell, at least the 2000 looks like you'd be able to handle yourself in public. Plus that hatch would scare away all of the attractive chicks.
[QUOTE=Second-gear-of-mgear;29222387]Plus that hatch would scare away all of the attractive chicks.[/QUOTE]
I already drive an ugly 97 Grand Am. :v:
[QUOTE=Funcoot;29223139]I already drive an ugly 97 Grand Am. :v:[/QUOTE]
ugly grand am bros :v:
THE Ranger apparently has a faster 0-60 time than that Civic too.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n2_soBpj3s[/media]
That's only with a Flowmaster on it.
The Civic ranges from 9 to 13 seconds to 60.
[QUOTE=Second-gear-of-mgear;29222387]A 1990 Civic does not come with airbags.
Driver SRS: 93-95 CDM Si, Some CDM 92 Si, Some 93-95 CDM DX, VX, CX[/QUOTE]
[editline]17th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Funcoot;29209662]Found a yellow 92' Honda Civic.
[img_thumb]http://images.craigslist.org/3n93m33o05T05Z25W0b4c9d74383b8aed154a.jpg[/img_thumb]
Wish they had high quality pictures and more information. They didn't specify the mileage, but I will call and ask tomorrow. They're asking $1,300. Selling due to family emergency apparently.[/QUOTE]
The 92-95 have a driver airbag standard.
Seriously, why are you being a douchebag about the subject? How is a truck going to look more professional at a job interview than a cleaned up Civic?
In the end he'll get whatever is best for him, depending on his own personal taste. Quit shoving the Ranger down his throat and let him breathe.
[editline]17th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Second-gear-of-mgear;29222387]Plus that hatch would scare away all of the attractive chicks.[/QUOTE]
[img_thumb]http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/196820_199049833463264_100000747462026_555290_241759_n.jpg[/img_thumb]
Fuck you.
If he buys the Civic he can just flash all the cash he has from not buying gas. :v:
[QUOTE=bradley;29230140][editline]17th April 2011[/editline]
The 92-95 have a driver airbag standard.
Seriously, why are you being a douchebag about the subject? How is a truck going to look more professional at a job interview than a cleaned up Civic?
In the end he'll get whatever is best for him, depending on his own personal taste. Quit shoving the Ranger down his throat and let him breathe.[/quote]
I'm not being a douchebag about the subject. I'm trying to get him to choose the better option. You aren't bringing any facts to the table and are blindly defending your favorite car. That era of Civic was an unsafe ecoshitbox that didn't have any speed until you blew money on upgrading something that you can't take to the track to race since you haven't spent any money on a roll cage or something because that would ruin the sweet sweet/slow acceleration of that car.
The Ranger can do this, the Civic can not. The Ranger has more than two speakers, the base model Civic does not, and more speakers when you're waiting at a red light would be better so you can hear over the other Civic that is missing it's muffler beside you. The Ranger looks more professional. The Ranger has more horsepower, more towing capacity, and way more features. The Ranger also has a higher top speed than that Civic.
[media]http://i.imgur.com/D2I1S.jpg[/media]
[quote]
[editline]17th April 2011[/editline]
[img_thumb]http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/196820_199049833463264_100000747462026_555290_241759_n.jpg[/img_thumb]
Fuck you.[/QUOTE]
The parts in the back are totally going to get you pussy.
I hate both of them, but the Ranger is obviously the better decision.
Crash tests for you.
Civic:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y4yIjT83kA&feature=related[/media]
Ranger:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8uip-Jzrj4[/media]
Both of those were at the same speed. Now imagine if Either the Civic or the Ranger hit another car. The Ranger is larger than most cars.
Here is an extreme example, but both cars would be scale as a Ranger to a smaller car.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ayr2X1imSA&feature=related[/media]
Sure the Accord handled it well, but it also has a FIVE star crash rating.
[QUOTE=Second-gear-of-mgear;29230912]You aren't bringing any facts to the table and are blindly defending your favorite car. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=bradley;29213349]Well the hatchbacks weigh hundreds less than sedans. Honda has a great formula going on; low weight, moderate power, few accessories == Great mileage.
If you're going for mileage I reccomend a 92-95 DX coupe, 5-speed. Airbags are fine, but don't get power steering. A/C is optional, you can get 41-42MPG without and 39-40 with it.
This is based on the two DX coupes I've had/driven, one was a '93 DX with no passenger airbag or A/C, the other was a '95 with passenger airbag and A/C. They both got around 40. The '93 had 274k and the '95 (Japfeiffer's) had around ~190k. Both cars are still running, I see both of them around.[/QUOTE]
[editline]16th April 2011[/editline]
Ranger=well it's a truck, you can put some stuff in the bed, and really that's it because they're 2wd 4 banger rangers. If you think you will be moving some stuff around that would be too big to fit in a small car, then go ahead. Or get it if you just want a pickup.
Civic=Butt loads of MPG's
[QUOTE=Del91;29234256][editline]16th April 2011[/editline]
Ranger=well it's a truck, you can put some stuff in the bed, and really that's it because they're 2wd 4 banger rangers. If you think you will be moving some stuff around that would be too big to fit in a small car, then go ahead. Or get it if you just want a pickup.
Civic=Butt loads of MPG's[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure all XLT's are v6. And is MPG the only advantage people can bring up for the Civic?
When you are driving a long distance, you don't want "few accessories", all you'd hear is road and a constant low liter four cylinder droning.
[QUOTE=Second-gear-of-mgear;29230912]The parts in the back are totally going to get you pussy.[/QUOTE]
What parts? The back has nothing in it but my bike. You are blind.
Back seat is empty but hasn't always been, if you catch my drift :V
[editline]17th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Second-gear-of-mgear;29235986]I'm pretty sure all XLT's are v6. And is MPG the only advantage people can bring up for the Civic?
When you are driving a long distance, you don't want "few accessories", all you'd hear is road and a constant low liter four cylinder droning.[/QUOTE]
Few accessories includes a radio, bro. What do you mean, all you'd hear is road and four banger droning? Civics have ALWAYS come factory with some form of radio since the '70s.
My dad's old '92 Civic recently topped 1m miles, still runs like a charm.
[QUOTE=bradley;29236799]What parts? The back has nothing in it but my bike. You are blind.
Back seat is empty but hasn't always been, if you catch my drift :V
[editline]17th April 2011[/editline]
Few accessories includes a radio, bro. What do you mean, all you'd hear is road and four banger droning? Civics have ALWAYS come factory with some form of radio since the '70s.[/QUOTE]
That year DX. Two Speakers, basically no insulation. At highway speeds all you'd hear is road and wind.
Doesn't bother me any. I have a base model, not the DX, the base model. And it doesn't make that much road noise at all.
[QUOTE=Second-gear-of-mgear;29235986]I'm pretty sure all XLT's are v6. And is MPG the only advantage people can bring up for the Civic?
When you are driving a long distance, you don't want "few accessories", all you'd hear is road and a constant low liter four cylinder droning.[/QUOTE]
With gas coming up on $4.00 a gallon, butt loads of MPGs is a enough merit by itself.
:munch:
this is enjoyable to read lol
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.