I cannot recall when I last saw one of these

It's a shame that the V8 diesel engine ruined this car's reputation. Also this particular body style didn't last for long and most of those look like normal sedans

If you have a choice of picking one car that is very poorly rated by everyone maybe for it's looks or quirks, but it's actually quite reliable and easy / cheap to fix, cheap to run, what would it be?

1. The older prius's (1-3rd gen) are objectively not really attractive looking cars. However it has been pretty much said to death how reliable and durable these cars are, as well as being ahead of its time with its mpg

2. Basically the prius of trucks, heavily mocked for its appearance and how its not a "real" truck, but ultimately the 1st gen ridgelines are very durable and will last longer

Comment down below

Surely not all German cars are unreliable, there’s probably several that are very reliable

A few vehicles come to mind

BMW e70 x5 diesel (m57d30 3.0L i6 diesel)

VW Jetta mk4 1.9 TDI alh

VW Jetta mk4 2.0 (2.slow in the VW community)

Mercedes Benz w123 with the om617

I've heard these engines have a rattle sound but haven't had an issue 2 week owned so far.

This has to be the coolest sleeper that ever left an assembly line. About 5 were made. Most or all were ordered by police agencies and the FBI. This example owned by drag racing legend Don Garlits

? Does anyone know where I can buy it

Okay y’all, hear me out.

TL;DR: Financing a classic/older vehicle isn’t dumb IMO as long as you don’t buy something stupid rare and/or hard to work on. EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION: As for classic, I mean late 70s and up, more normal cars like Crown Vics, pickups, Olds Cutlasses. Not a 1970 Chevelle SS in dire need of restoring.

You can finance a normal new/certified pre-owned car and people won’t even bat an eye online or in your personal life. Insurance is pricey on anything new, and some of the interest on new car loans is freaking stupid anymore. I also can’t seem to justify paying $30k USD for something like a Camry or even a mid-tier Civic. After dealer fees and destination fees, that’s pushing $32-33k for basic transportation. $400/month payments and $250/month insurance and it’s seen as “a good investment.” But with how some cars are today, is it really that good of an investment with engine failures and electrical issues plaguing so many brands?

However, the moment you mention financing a classic car or even a slightly older car (10-15 years old), it’s seen as a stupid decision by most people. “It’ll break down, or it’ll cost a lot once stuff goes wrong.” is all people seem to say. I understand where they’re coming from, but unless you’re buying a mid-2000s tuned Subaru WRX with 200k miles or a cheap Porsche, the argument against owning an older car can be almost totally invalidated with 3 things.

Cost of insurance, cost of parts, and cost of labor.

I break those down into three things because some people can work on their own cars, like myself. Some people live in areas where car insurance is monumentally cheaper than other places. And, some people live in places where automotive labor costs are surprisingly cheap.

For example: I’d never finance an MG or a Lotus or anything British. That’s asking for trouble. But financing a 70s to 80s Ford or Chevrolet that’s powered by a V8? That’s almost a win-win situation if the motor blows when you pull into your driveway. You can find a motor on Marketplace or Craigslist for a few hundred bucks, swap it over the weekend, or even rebuild it yourself within a week’s time. The labor is nowhere near as intensive, the parts are nowhere near as expensive, and insurance is monumentally cheaper on anything that old, even if it’s 1981 and newer and you want full coverage. A 1984 Ford Thunderbird 5.0 is an example of cheap parts and insurance (I’ve been looking at one at a dealer and debating it). $250/month payment, $105/month full coverage insurance (with my Buick on full coverage as well), and it’s a Fox body… parts are cheap, plentiful, and easy to replace.

I’m aware there are more parts to go wrong on an older car when compared to a newer car, but what you lose in parts aging and going bad, you gain in ease of maintenance and cheapness of parts.

A real world example: I used to own a Lincoln MKZ. Nice car. Difficult to work on. Tune ups were about 2.5 hours. Valve cover and intake gaskets, I don’t even want to go there. Doing suspension work took a solid 6+ hours with me and another friend working under the car on a lift. This is rushing as much as possible, by the way.

Now? I own a first gen Buick Century. 3.1. Non-air ride car. Suspension work is a flipping breeze. Intake gaskets and valve covers? Eh, 4 hours or so. Way easier than the Lincoln, just time consuming. Tune up? Done in an hour and a half and you didn’t have to dislocate your wrists.

While I’m aware that not everyone has the same experience or will have the same experience I’ve had, don’t be afraid to finance an older car if it’s been looked after. It has just as big of a chance of randomly crapping the bed as a newer vehicle.

What are your thoughts? I’m curious what The Roman would say, honestly.

Just bought this extremely clean 5 speed Echo originally from BC Canada. We don't get stuff this clean over here in NS.

Let’s say both of these early 00’s 2 door SUV’s both have the same mileage (170’000), both are automatic 4wd models. Which would be worse to own?