 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| OK, need opinions on Saturn reliability from anyone and everyone. by Senor Barborito 07/28/2003, 9:41pm PDT | ||||
 |
 |
|||
| The two car-guys I've asked thus far say 'thumbs up' on Saturn reliability, with my dad in particular (who is as good at fixing cars as he is those photo machines) saying they're up there with Honda/Toyota.
The cars in contending, specifically (after spending all day reviewing government crashtests, EPA mpg measurements, reliability assessments from various independent agencies), are: '97-'98 Saturn SC1 2 door coupe, which I'm pretty sold on in terms of features/safety/fuel economy. Looks sharp, according to what I've read handles sharp, and what it lacks in excess horsepower V and and I could frankly give a flying fuck about. Oh, and the body's rust-proof and dent-resistant. '97-'98 Toyota Tercel 2-door coupe - similar to the above, not as sporty-looking (and I don't think the rust-proof applies) and half the trunk space plus missing a lot of little extras - but it averages $250 less for the same year/mileage '97-'98 Toyota Paseo 2-door coupe - similar to the Tercel, horrible in the trunk department but better looking and about equal to the Saturn in terms of extra features. Middling in price. So, your thoughts on reliability and overall? This is basically a car for the worlds two most boring people who will never have children to worry about. The Saturn seems to throw the rust-proof panels (huge win), armrests (sorry, I lurv armrests), extra trunkspace (twice the Tercel and two and a half times the Paseo) into the mix at the cost of a very little price, 3mpg, and a slightly less well-known reliability reputation. Frankly, the 1% compromises here in exchange for the rather significant features does seem worth it. Also, while I'm not a 'looks good' guy, the SC1 really fucking looks sharp compared to the Tercel. Shit. Did I just convert to FreeBSD? --SB |
||||
 |
 |
|||
|
