94 Ford Ranger XLT, 2000 Ford Ranger XLT, or 91 Honda Civic Hatchback?
93 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Del91;29248364]With gas coming up on $4.00 a gallon, butt loads of MPGs is a enough merit by itself.[/QUOTE]
You got so cheap petrol :frown:
[QUOTE=Ldesu;29253130]You got so cheap petrol :frown:[/QUOTE]
I hate when my grandpa talks about how gas used to be a like a nickel a gallon.
wasnt bread like a nickel then to?
current bread prices are like $3.50 a loaf or something?
so before inflation they were paying like the same wouldn't they?
[QUOTE=Del91;29248364]With gas coming up on $4.00 a gallon, butt loads of MPGs is a enough merit by itself.[/QUOTE]
Gas seems to be way cheaper the more rural you go. Here in Tennessee it's under 3.50 a gallon. He says he lives in a rural area.
man fuck dose pussy trucks
get one o deez heer ferd eff-tre-fiddys like i saw tooday
[img]http://i696.photobucket.com/albums/vv327/Blacker_ninja/2011-04-17_14-04-18_158.jpg?1303082058[/img]
-wrong thread-
He was saying he wanted a car for going to and from work and Occasionally driving home from college. If he wants a pickup for that, then have fun.
[editline]17th April 2011[/editline]
Are their any updates from the OP anyways?
[editline]17th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=lemon_lover;29254182]wasnt bread like a nickel then to?
current bread prices are like $3.50 a loaf or something?
so before inflation they were paying like the same wouldn't they?[/QUOTE]
He quit smoking Cigarettes when they hit 50 cents a pack.
Also, if he got the 2000 Ranger, there is a chance it may come with the 5 Speed Automatic. That both increases power and fuel economy. The 4 cylinder gets 20 City, 24 Highway. The 6 Cylinder gets 16 and 21. While the Electric (just thought I'd put it in) gets 62 and 54. The Civic, if it has the 1.6 gets 24 and 29. Not really huge differences when comparing the capability of the two vehicles. The Civic has a top speed of around 110, while the Ranger has a top speed of around 95 while under the governor, but if you disable that it hits 130.
Civic doesn't have the 1.6. It's obviously a DX or LX sedan with the 1.5. Only the EX has the 1.6.
35 city, 43 highway, 38 combined with the manual. [url]http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/8714.shtml[/url]
Who the fuck is going to go over 100 in either of those vehicles? First you talk about safety and then you brag about the truck going 130. Herp a derp.
[QUOTE=bradley;29261202]Civic doesn't have the 1.6. It's obviously a DX or LX sedan with the 1.5. Only the EX has the 1.6.
35 city, 43 highway, 38 combined with the manual. [url]http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/8714.shtml[/url]
Who the fuck is going to go over 100 in either of those vehicles? First you talk about safety and then you brag about the truck going 130. Herp a derp.[/QUOTE]
You always brag about it being fast. Now you're saying that he is never going to those speeds. If you do that, then there is literally no advantage on the civic except for the slight increase in gas mileage. If he is never going to go fast, why not go for comfort and ease of use. Soundproofing and an Automatic.
[QUOTE=Second-gear-of-mgear;29261396]You always brag about it being fast.[/QUOTE]
Where in this topic have I said that? Maybe in other topics, about cars that are [i]actually fast[/i]. Regardless, I'm talking about about [i]your[/i] reversal of "safe" to "fast", not my opinion on it. Why suddenly decide that speed is where it is?
[QUOTE=Second-gear-of-mgear;29261396]If you do that, then there is literally no advantage on the civic except for the slight increase in gas mileage.[/QUOTE]
Slight increase? 20/24 is way less than 35/43. Almost [i]half[/i]. I would not call that slight. That could be the difference between having enough gas for the week and having to bum money off of someone for some petrol after burning it all in the first few days.
[QUOTE=Second-gear-of-mgear;29261396]You always brag about it being fast. Now you're saying that he is never going to those speeds. If you do that, then there is literally no advantage on the civic except for the slight increase in gas mileage. If he is never going to go fast, why not go for comfort and ease of use. Soundproofing and an Automatic.[/QUOTE]
Also you act like getting in a front end collision is an every day thing. It is highly unlikely that he will get in one of those collisions, unless he is a shitty driver.
I would rather have five seats than two seats.
Civics are WAY easier to work on and they are way more reliable. I don't think I have ever seen a Ranger with more than 200,000 miles and every civic I have ever owned (4) except one has had more than 200,000 miles. Sure you'll have to replace the water pump and timing belt everyone and a while, but that shit is easy. On the other hand if some shit goes wrong on the Ranger there is no room in the engine bay and there is a huge/long serpentine belt and all the shit attached to it. So if the belt goes bad you loose your water pump, power steering, and A/C. Haha fuck that.
It will cost you a ton more to fix a Ranger than to fix a Civic, mainly because the Civic you can fix the shit yourself easily and the Ranger you'll have to take it to a mechanic.
Oh and I get 48-55mpg in my Civic.
Why do you two have Civics in your avatars? Favorite car? I think that makes you biased. Either way, I'm bored and it's not my money so just get whatever you want dude. Sure the Civics have "good" gas mileage and are easy to repair. But they are also unsafe, not that fast, cheaply made so you'll repair small things quite a bit and it won't have nearly the same resale value as a pickup truck.
[QUOTE=Second-gear-of-mgear;29263725]Why do you two have Civics in your avatars? Favorite car?[/quote]
It's the cars we drive fucknuts.
[quote]I think that makes you biased.[/quote]
Derp.
[QUOTE=Second-gear-of-mgear;29230912]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]
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]
that's a 2005 Ranger you dumpass, he's getting a 90s one
[QUOTE=Penis Colada;29264391]that's a 2005 Ranger you dumpass, he's getting a 90s one[/QUOTE]
1999 to 2009. He also Listed a 2000 one. The 94' era one got 3 star frontal driver, four star frontal passenger in todays standard. I can't find the star rating for that Civic, but the videos even got a Civic forum scared. If you're talking about the jumping picture, I'm pretty sure they've been on the same platform for a while.
[QUOTE=Second-gear-of-mgear;29265282]1999 to 2009. He also Listed a 2000 one. The 94' era one got 3 star frontal driver, four star frontal passenger in todays standard. I can't find the star rating for that Civic, but the videos even got a Civic forum scared. If you're talking about the jumping picture, I'm pretty sure they've been on the same platform for a while.[/QUOTE]
Same platform =/= same safety
See F-150
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB0araA0T_k[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LkAzt_0qIg[/media]
also 3 stars in 1994 is like 1-2 stars by today's standards
i find it hilarious how mgear gives points towards both cars
then bradley goes fuck you civics are better because i have one
[QUOTE=c0nk3r;29266890]i find it hilarious how mgear gives points towards both cars
then bradley goes fuck you civics are better because i have one[/QUOTE]
No he wasn't, he was all for the Ranger, and against the Civic. What were you reading? Civics are cheap and reliable. Rangers, well they're Fords. :v:
Most Fords aren't bad, and they have gotten better, but I've seen Fords literally fall apart in front of me. I also understand that parts are fairly expensive for Fords.
[QUOTE=Del91;29272194]Most Fords aren't bad, and they have gotten better, but I've seen Fords literally fall apart in front of me. I also understand that parts are fairly expensive for Fords.[/QUOTE]
was there a mechanic under it taking the parts out
to sum everything up:
ranger is cheap, reliable, haul things, and whenever i see one i think "boring"
civic is cheap, reliable, a death trap, haul more people, more mpgs, it's also fucking hideous and whenever i see one the first thing i think is irresponsible teen driver
lmao bradley
Those crash tests freak me out a little, I'm not going to lie. I will be doing frequent high way driving. MPG is important, but I don't trust the drivers here in Florida or Alabama... which I will be traveling through a lot on 231 if anyone knows that highway.
Also, I would like to point out that Rangers should also be cheap to fix as Ford Rangers and F-150s are pretty much the standard work trucks, at least here in Florida.
I would be saving so much money with a Civic though. I wish there was a middle ground. Also, the Ranger is a 4 cyl.
Also, I talked to my mom about this and she might trade her car with my current one, and my dad might be willing to finance one with me, so I might be able to bump my budget up to around $3,500 and finance a little bit.
You could get something way better than these civics and Rangers with $3,500+
[QUOTE=Dysplasia;29274073]was there a mechanic under it taking the parts out
to sum everything up:
ranger is cheap, reliable, haul things, and whenever i see one i think "boring"
civic is cheap, reliable, a death trap, haul more people, more mpgs, it's also fucking hideous and whenever i see one the first thing i think is irresponsible teen driver
lmao bradley[/QUOTE]
All he does is dumb my things then do some reply that goes right over the point by just shouting about MPG and that he has one.
[editline]18th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Funcoot;29278280]Those crash tests freak me out a little, I'm not going to lie. I will be doing frequent high way driving. MPG is important, but I don't trust the drivers here in Florida or Alabama... which I will be traveling through a lot on 231 if anyone knows that highway.
Also, I would like to point out that Rangers should also be cheap to fix as Ford Rangers and F-150s are pretty much the standard work trucks, at least here in Florida.
I would be saving so much money with a Civic though. I wish there was a middle ground. Also, the Ranger is a 4 cyl.
Also, I talked to my mom about this and she might trade her car with my current one, and my dad might be willing to finance one with me, so I might be able to bump my budget up to around $3,500 and finance a little bit.[/QUOTE]
If you'd like, add me on steam and I'll help you find a car. I'll just link some and you state your opinion on them.
There are few upsides to owning the trucks as opposed to the Civic. Hell, they're not even all that much safer when you consider the fact that they have a much higher center of gravity and thus a higher tendency to roll in an accident. Plus, hauling tree trunks and other such heavy objects doesn't sound like something you will be doing a lot if you're mostly using your car as transportation. That, and a Civic is gonna be a much lighter and more responsive when driving.
Don't worry so much if the civic is reconstructed. If it's not tied together with bungee cords and duct tape, that thing will still last forever if you maintain it normally. Still, I've seen my fair share of Hondas held together with bungee cords and duct tape that are still running somehow. All in all, it's gonna be equally, if not more, reliable that the trucks.
In addition, I have a friend who owned a Ranger for some time (I think it was a 94 as well). He absolutely hated the thing. As far as gas goes, they're marginal at best no matter how you drive them (he had the 4-cylinder). It was always in need of some replacement part for the engine, not to mention the way Ford had organized the engine was pretty retarded. He recently sold it to get an Acura Integra, which he really enjoys.
I'm kinda restating a few people's posts, but I thought I'd get my two bits in.
tl;dr
The Civic is the smart thing to do.
[QUOTE=Super_Noodle;29284199]There are few upsides to owning the trucks as opposed to the Civic. Hell, they're not even all that much safer when you consider the fact that they have a much higher center of gravity and thus a higher tendency to roll in an accident. Plus, hauling tree trunks and other such heavy objects doesn't sound like something you will be doing a lot if you're mostly using your car as transportation. That, and a Civic is gonna be a much lighter and more responsive when driving.
Don't worry so much if the civic is reconstructed. If it's not tied together with bungee cords and duct tape, that thing will still last forever if you maintain it normally. Still, I've seen my fair share of Hondas held together with bungee cords and duct tape that are still running somehow. All in all, it's gonna be equally, if not more, reliable that the trucks.
In addition, I have a friend who owned a Ranger for some time (I think it was a 94 as well). He absolutely hated the thing. As far as gas goes, they're marginal at best no matter how you drive them (he had the 4-cylinder). It was always in need of some replacement part for the engine, not to mention the way Ford had organized the engine was pretty retarded. He recently sold it to get an Acura Integra, which he really enjoys.
I'm kinda restating a few people's posts, but I thought I'd get my two bits in.
tl;dr
The Civic is the smart thing to do.[/QUOTE]
I'm okay with this since you actually bothered to state stuff that isn't related to the MPG and the non-existent speed of it.
Found a curve ball. 2001 VW GTI VRS $3,500.
[img]http://images.craigslist.org/3n53p13o75O55W05S3b417feb1ea055b21b73.jpg[/img]
The description is odd though.
[QUOTE=Craigslist]125,000 Miles,5spd.new belt,Mass Airflow sensor,Battery, Front Brakes About 2years old,Interior Rough..a/c works..25 28mpg..Great first car are gas mizer..850 258 3030 17 rims tires about 2 yrs old[/QUOTE]
Guessing this car has had some work done with a new airflow sensor put in. They say rough interior? It looks pretty well maintained on the outside, I'm guessing the inside can't be that bad. I will definitly keep this on my list of people to call.
Replacing the airflow sensor is just maintenance, nothing all that serious.
[editline]18th April 2011[/editline]
Rough interior probably means the seat has a tear or two, nothing some seat covers couldn't hide I'm sure.
[QUOTE=Del91;29292330]Replacing the airflow sensor is just maintenance, nothing all that serious.
[editline]18th April 2011[/editline]
Rough interior probably means the seat has a tear or two, nothing some seat covers couldn't hide I'm sure.[/QUOTE]
Wow, I would love that VW in that case. I always wanted something with extra space to carry stuff, but was still acceptable when it comes to gas mileage. Also comes with a sunroof? Yes.
It's definitely worth taking a look.
DO NOT get a VW, you'll be paying through the nose for repairs (and often). Every single 90s/early 2000s VW I've seen makes some awful grinding noise, probably because they all go wrong and nobody can afford to fix them.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.