Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

rolla.. u want something a) cheap B) parts cheap c) doesn't use much petrol d) ..not.. too slow .. thats probably most of them. .and as there are so many around you can beat a good price, or take your pic of which one you are after.. Rather than looking for the 3 or 4 turbo "cool hatches" or whatever in the state at any one time which may or may not be trouble.

i've heard of a few that have bought daily hynundais or whatever else and its cost heaps as they just aren't as reliable.. spoils the point of a cheap car..

  • Replies 49
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I test drove one of those new shaped toyota corollas a few months back and was pleasantly surprised with the zippy 1.8L. A roomy small car. Compared to the 2004 pulsar a much more enjoyable car to drive. Those new swifts have also had a lot of good reviews.

Heres a crazy idea,

Why not take the r33 back to stock?

Take off the huge exhaust, wind the boost back down.. and dont floor it everywhere! There you go, an economical car and you didnt have to spend a cent, and your not driving a shitbox.

Doesn't work like that. A stock as a rock R33 is still a gas guzzler. Change the ECU or lean it out a bit with an SAFC and you're going to wind up with more power and less fuel consumption.

2002-2004 Toyota Corolla Sportivo approx $25k

1996- 1998 Honda Civic VTi-R $15-20k

1999-2003 Toyota Celica $20-$30k (these can go for around 20k friend got one 1 year ago for 19k 90,000kms

1999-2002 Lexus IS200 $25-$30k

1999 - 2000 Nissan Pulsar SSS ??..

pay a bit more:

New Mazda 3 $24-26k?

Honda Civic $24k

NIssan Pulsar eer.. maybe maybe not haha

my 2c

i would go a new turbo diesel hatch, but they are priced aroung the high 20's low 30's so probably out of your price range. diesel is more expensive but diesel engines are more efficient so they end up costing less to run assuming difference between the price of diesel and petrol doesn't get too extreme. or you can go to the local truck stop with a jerry can :)

peugeot 307 1.6 HDi $30k

6.1 l/100km city 4.3l/100km highway

VW golf 1.9 trendline TDi $28k

economy is slightly worse than peugeot i think

only thing with these might be the cost of servicing/spares.... at least you would save on spark plugs. ;)

I'd go for either: A mitsubishi FTO GPX Mivec!!

Or have you considered one of the new levins available under sevs?

1.6 litre, 20valve, 6spd manual! sure they're front wheel drive but every review I've read has praised them!

I'm sure they couldnt be that bad on fuel....

go a integra or prelude VTi-R. from memory the teg is 128kw stock...not sure for lude. But 4 cyl and cheap on insurance too, i got quoted $400 full compo for a 17 year old P plater. cant be too bad on fuel either. PLUS VTEC LAH!!

Renaultsport Clio! Surely the best value hot hatch on the market! It won Motor's Bang for Your Buck award a couple of years back if you care about such awards. 124kw isnt much, but ain't too shabby in 1000kg. 0-100km/h in a shade over 7 seconds. Plus you get 4 airbags and 1/2 leather interior. Official fuel consumption 6.8 l/100km highway, 9.0 l/100km city. Can pick up used for under $20k now.

Check out M5 Board for some info on the Clio. I realise a BMW forum is a wierd place for Renault information - but its a good thread! The posted pics are worth looking at.

Hmmm... if I'm not careful I might convince myself to buy one!

If you are just worried about fuel consumption, the 1st generation Toyota Prius (not sold here - the first one we got was the mkII) is available under SEVS for under $20k. Less than 5 litres/100km. Alternatively check out the locally delivered Honda Insight - most fuel efficient vehicle ever sold in Australia, (a little impractical though). Although Hybrids look like they are going to be poor for resale value - particularly the Insight.

If all else fails, VTEC honda civic or integra should be a bit of fun, and probably more tunable than the renault. I still would go the Renault though.

Or get a scooter.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...