What's a good mid to late 90's economical hatchback to buy

[muso]

I am looking at getting a cheap economical second car 4 cylinder hatch or wagon pref mid to late 1990's and manual. Some are tinny buzz boxes (I had a 1985 Pulsar once...buzz box) and others not so bad.
But I drove a 1996 corolla and was impressed but they are expensive compared to other similar cars. Laser Km or Kn I find to be very impressive but have not driven one they are a 1.8 with 92 kw's I think and have a driver's airbag.

Anyway although economy and practicality are the main points I hate gutless cars so something which is manual and can at least go with the traffic would be good and fun to drive. I've made a short list:

KM or KN Laser 1.8 hatch
N15 Pulsar Hatch
Suzuki swift Hatch (GTi would be fun but too expensive)
Mitsubishi Mirage (a bit expensive in this company)
Lancer CE hatch (a bit boring and buzz box from memory)
Holden Barina
Ford Festiva
Daihatsu Charade (1.3L 4 cylinder not the triple)
Honda Civic Ed or Eg (way above the others in quality but still have Carby no EFI but they look better than anything else here inside and out)
VW Golf 3rd gen (always been a great car but may lack Japanese reliability)


ABS has saved my *** a few times but I don't think any of these have that but my kids will be learning to drive in it so the more safety features the better!

Don't want to spend more than $2500 so my choice is pretty limited.
(Pulsar SSS a bit out of my price range but would be fun with 100 kw)
So far the KM or KN Laser is the best in my opinion.

Any suggestions especially from those who have driven or even owned any of the above would be appreciated

[Simple6]

I've got a KN Laser - you'll find almost all are the 1.6L (like I've got) and only the upper models got the 1.8L. I don't find it too gutless (mines a manual by the way) but yeah, they aren't quick that's for sure. If you want the 1.8L then I hear the equivalent Mazda 323 (same car, just different face) got the 1.8L in lower models, so there's more about.

[AndyXR6T]

N15 pulsar for sure

[Yellow_Festiva]

Festiva is bullet proof, very economical and go well with the 1.5. Not very safe however.

What about a Starlet? Think the later ones had an airbag? Worn engines were prone to pinging.

Mirage is actually a sporty drive, low to the ground so they handle well. 1,5l engine was king of the small cars at 69kw till excel went to twin cam with 74kw.

How bout excel? Lots of car for the money and pretty economical.

[muso]

Being used to a tuned xr6t as my daily driver most things will feel gutless but manual 4 cylinders can be real fun to drive, and I guess I'm trying to get that equation of fun but economical and practical with some safety.

I don't really know much about 4 cylinders having been into 6's since 1990
Which of the above mentioned is the most powerful?

I looked at a Mazda 323 astina 1998 it was 1.8 but you sat a bit low in it for my liking. Some of the Honda civics have great little engines my son wants a EG model but they are non EFI Carby.

I do like some of the Hyundais but know nothing about them any recomendations I know the excel is popular. Ex wife had a 97 model (Lantra I think)and it felt pretty solid for a little car but it was auto and went nowhere when you put your foot down, would have been good with a manual.

[jpblue1000]

Im a suzuki fan, 330,000kms traveled in one and still had factory compression on original engine and not a sound out of the gearbox, had done too many to count track days as well.
But they are very small compared to today's traffic. A good standard one will have 101 HP in a 800Kg car. and come with cult status.
And I averaged 6.6 litres per 100 over its life
Might get an average condition one for 2500

JP

[muso]

What model and year suzuki are you talking about GTI?

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by muso

What model and year suzuki are you talking about GTI?

yep GTi mine was a 92 but started in 89 (mk2) through 97-8 (Mk3)
the mk1 was the boxy one. shared same motor but Mk1 and Mk2-3 rounded body Like this. still quite modern looking in my mind, not as dated as some of same age

JP

[muso]

Yes they had cult status I remember them....hot hatches are great!

[MrXR8]

1996 - 1999 honda civic. They are 1.6 but go pretty good if you can score a type r or one that had an engine swap to a 1.8 you are laughing. Remember these have vtec and they arnt bad on go go juice. Handle pretty good too.

[danzvtil]

Yep, KN Laser,N15 Pulsar will be great, Ive owned both. Check out the Mazda 323 version too, they are often asking more money but you might get lucky, as they have more features.
Civic from that era is a cracking car too.

[Mechan1k]

I had a 99 Proton Satria ... was the XLi model ... so the model just under the GTi.
1.6 single cam ... and it punted along well ... as the later 1.6L engine with 82kw from memory.

Handled well ... with a lot of features in it ... disc all-round as well ... unless rear drums on most of the small cars of that era.

Put a lot of kays on it before selling it ... I left it unmodified for ages ... and first part replacement was clutch at just over 100,000km ... that was it ... then it got modded and kept on going.

economical as well as it had a bit more power and being manual ... highway runs it ran on the small of an oily rag.

Kinda miss that car ... was all sorts of good fun.

[muso]

Wow thanks guys for all this info

[stevz]

There is no such thing as a good 90's hatch. They are all horrible death traps.

[muso]

Originally Posted by stevz

There is no such thing as a good 90's hatch. They are all horrible death traps.

Yes there isn't much protection!

[galaxy xr8]

Originally Posted by stevz

There is no such thing as a good 90's hatch. They are all horrible death traps.

What a load of absolute rubbish from someone that has no idea, I have owned many little Laser's that have been rear ended, 3 of them actually, Only one that I was the driver and the vehicle that hit me was a late model Fairlane driven by a young bloke that was texting, 60klm straight into me no braking and let me tell you that both car's were written of but if you were at the scene like I was you would clearly see that the Fairlane didn't fair any better then the Laser.

So how many accident's have you been in while inside a 90's hatch ?.

[stevz]

Originally Posted by galaxy xr8

What a load of absolute rubbish from someone that has no idea, I have owned many little Laser's that have been rear ended, 3 of them actually, Only one that I was the driver and the vehicle that hit me was a late model Fairlane driven by a young bloke that was texting, 60klm straight into me no braking and let me tell you that both car's were written of but if you were at the scene like I was you would clearly see that the Fairlane didn't fair any better then the Laser.

So how many accident's have you been in while inside a 90's hatch ?.

Lol, really. So you've been involved in a couple of rear enders in a Laser and suddenly you're an expert on automotive safety? You better tell all the engineers at ANCAP they are wasting their time.
The fact of the matter is that very little consideration for safety went into 90's small cars. No airbags, no seat belt pretensioners, weak and primitive body structures that easily buckle and collapse offering next to no protection for the occupants, combine all this with the lack of size and weight on your side and you have a recipe for disaster.

http://www.caradvice.com.au/12883/20...rx-crash-test/
Scroll down to see the results of an old small car vs newer small car. The evidence speaks for itself.

[galaxy xr8]

Originally Posted by stevz

Lol, really. So you've been involved in a couple of rear enders in a Laser and suddenly you're an expert on automotive safety? You better tell all the engineers at ANCAP they are wasting their time.
The fact of the matter is that very little consideration for safety went into 90's small cars. No airbags, no seat belt pretensioners, weak and primitive body structures that easily buckle and collapse offering next to no protection for the occupants, combine all this with the lack of size and weight on your side and you have a recipe for disaster.

http://www.caradvice.com.au/12883/20...rx-crash-test/
Scroll down to see the results of an old small car vs newer small car. The evidence speaks for itself.

The only expert around here seem's to be you mate, as clearly demonstrated by your post and lack thereof. Here you are comparing a 90's model vehicle to a late model, have you ever thought about the fact that technology throughout the yr's tends to evolve some what.

What's to be said, yes I was involved in the rear end collision and yes I am here today to talk about it and sustained no injury's, neither did my wife that was also involved in two other separate collisions that were also rear ender's , one a old HG Ute and the other a similar style 90's sedan, once again all vehicles written off and no sustained injuries.

But according to you all occupant's should be dead by your standard's observed in your finding's or feeling's toward's those vehicles.

I can tell you now that I would rather be in my little Laser then my old XW if I were to suffer an unfortunate accident or a collision.

Oh and my Laser does have a driver's side airbag, as to your dismay.

If you like to look up crash test result's have a look here then as a 98/99 model Laser as like mine with driver's airbag's faired better then an equivalent yr model Falcon.
http://users.tpg.com.au/users/mpaine/ncaplist.html

So your theory about size and weight does not mean a safer vehicle to be in.

[GREGL]

Originally Posted by stevz

Lol, really. So you've been involved in a couple of rear enders in a Laser and suddenly you're an expert on automotive safety? You better tell all the engineers at ANCAP they are wasting their time.
The fact of the matter is that very little consideration for safety went into 90's small cars. No airbags, no seat belt pretensioners, weak and primitive body structures that easily buckle and collapse offering next to no protection for the occupants, combine all this with the lack of size and weight on your side and you have a recipe for disaster.

http://www.caradvice.com.au/12883/20...rx-crash-test/
Scroll down to see the results of an old small car vs newer small car. The evidence speaks for itself.

The O.P best walk then $ 2500 doesn't buy much of anything with safety features and he doesn't want a big car . Besides how often do you see a manual falcon /commodore for sale in that price segment ?
Next time I see the couple in their 80's driving their '69 corona probably bought new , I'll have to ask them how they have lived so long !
One of my early cars was a bloody death trap on wheels and only dumb luck saved me , what was it a XD with a huge 200 ci motor , yet with the previous three 302 s I never came close to a sphincter loosening moment .
Go a magna if you can find one , that little bit of extra size is handy and as far as fuel goes they are quite good . I found the lasers very tight but am 195 cm tall . Good luck whatever you buy .

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by stevz

Lol, really. So you've been involved in a couple of rear enders in a Laser and suddenly you're an expert on automotive safety? You better tell all the engineers at ANCAP they are wasting their time.
The fact of the matter is that very little consideration for safety went into 90's small cars. No airbags, no seat belt pretensioners, weak and primitive body structures that easily buckle and collapse offering next to no protection for the occupants, combine all this with the lack of size and weight on your side and you have a recipe for disaster.

http://www.caradvice.com.au/12883/20...rx-crash-test/
Scroll down to see the results of an old small car vs newer small car. The evidence speaks for itself.

Buying a used car up to 2,5k means you have to allow for compromises and safety is one of them.

It's an obvious given that a newer small car is safer. You have offered nothing to this thread other than shooting down suggestions that fit in with the requirements and constraints given by the op.

Do you have a valid suggestion? If you want the car to be newer and safer will you chip in the several grand extra needed? Honestly...

[5.8]

Originally Posted by stevz View Post
There is no such thing as a good 90's hatch. They are all horrible death traps.

Originally Posted by galaxy xr8

What a load of absolute rubbish from someone that has no idea, I have owned many little Laser's that have been rear ended, 3 of them actually, Only one that I was the driver and the vehicle that hit me was a late model Fairlane driven by a young bloke that was texting, 60klm straight into me no braking and let me tell you that both car's were written of but if you were at the scene like I was you would clearly see that the Fairlane didn't fair any better then the Laser.

So how many accident's have you been in while inside a 90's hatch ?.

Have a look at Stevz quotes on his signature/avatar. We're dumb, we're screwed, and 2013 is the beginning of the end of Australia. Would you really think he would have anything positive to say about anything?

[stevz]

Originally Posted by 5.8

Originally Posted by stevz View Post
There is no such thing as a good 90's hatch. They are all horrible death traps.





Have a look at Stevz quotes on his signature/avatar. We're dumb, we're screwed, and 2013 is the beginning of the end of Australia. Would you really think he would have anything positive to say about anything?

Well sorry for telling things as they are.

I wouldn't put myself or my family in a 90's small car and I'm just trying to give the best advice possible

My avatar and signature have very little to do with the matter.

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by galaxy xr8

What a load of absolute rubbish from someone that has no idea, I have owned many little Laser's that have been rear ended, 3 of them actually, Only one that I was the driver and the vehicle that hit me was a late model Fairlane driven by a young bloke that was texting, 60klm straight into me no braking and let me tell you that both car's were written of but if you were at the scene like I was you would clearly see that the Fairlane didn't fair any better then the Laser.

So how many accident's have you been in while inside a 90's hatch ?.

I got T boned by an early 90s laser in my old ED that did 80k's right through a red and the entire bonnet/engine bay section had practically disintegrated, it pushed up into the dash which pushed the dash into her and the impact shattered her kneecap. you looked at the car side on and there were no panels left past the windscreen. My car was hit in the diff/wheel and there was hardly any impact, maybe pressed in 2 inches. If my car crumpled like hers the gas tank would've exploded. My car almost did a 720 from the force of the impact. Her panels would've been pressed in around 3-4ft compared to 2 inches.

[GREGL]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

I got T boned by an early 90s laser in my old ED that did 80k's right through a red and the entire bonnet/engine bay section had practically disintegrated, it pushed up into the dash which pushed the dash into her and the impact shattered her kneecap. you looked at the car side on and there were no panels left past the windscreen. My car was hit in the diff/wheel and there was hardly any impact, maybe pressed in 2 inches. If my car crumpled like hers the gas tank would've exploded. My car almost did a 720 from the force of the impact. Her panels would've been pressed in around 3-4ft compared to 2 inches.

Hit in the diff , is that the cast iron thingy that is about 4 inches diameter and weighs about as much as the engine and wouldn't bend if you dropped it from a highrise ? Come on pal be serious , at 80 kmh hitting what is basically a stationary object she came out pretty well for what the car was hitting your strongest point .As for the Fuel tank exploding you would have to be in a very serious crash if any post 70's car did it period .

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

I got T boned by an early 90s laser in my old ED that did 80k's right through a red and the entire bonnet/engine bay section had practically disintegrated, it pushed up into the dash which pushed the dash into her and the impact shattered her kneecap. you looked at the car side on and there were no panels left past the windscreen. My car was hit in the diff/wheel and there was hardly any impact, maybe pressed in 2 inches. If my car crumpled like hers the gas tank would've exploded. My car almost did a 720 from the force of the impact. Her panels would've been pressed in around 3-4ft compared to 2 inches.

While you dont state the other drivers survival status but rather allude to one injury only I hightly doubt a laser hit you at 80 km/h. I have no doubt it hit you and that it's crumple zone did what it was supposed to in fact it probably did more than just help them by dissipating the impact force reducing the impact on you the driver of the old Falcon.

A statement from a Swedish study into increased speed impact testing states
’The structures of modern passenger vehicles are designed to maintain integrity up to an impact velocity of about 64 km/h (40 mph). The occupant protection system is likewise designed to efficiently protect the occupant up to an impact velocity of 64km/h’

Reading the rest of the study paper suggests that current automotive engineering is good for survivability up to and around the 64 Km/h range in a non offset 90 degree frontal impact. Hence why the ancap, euncap ,usncap etc run their tests at this speed
I highly doubt the laser was traveling that fast. I would also really like to see the photos of the falcon after said impact as I doubt a 2 inch deflection of a rear arch when impacted by the front of a car some 1.5 meters wide.
If my maths is correct the Laser may have applied a force of circa 22000N against the side of the falcon at 80 Km/h this is more than what a car crusher uses to crush a car.

Why I raise this doubt is there is too much so called anecdotal evidence used to prove false points, exaggeration and outright untruths trying to hide bias.
Lightweight 90’s cars aren’t as safe as modern light cars, but neither are older large cars. But sometimes we have no options but to choose the cheaper older car, we weigh up the options, assess the risk and inform a decision. Biased opinions not fact don’t help the decision making process.

JP

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by stevz

There is no such thing as a good 90's hatch. They are all horrible death traps.

I must be in heaven or maybe its hell. spent and so still spend many an hour in my 90's buzzbox, close to 1/2 a million km's I'm sure and by all accounts I am still alive.
I quoted not that long ago a peer reviewed statistic that you are more likely to die on the road in a falcon that in anything else ( I admit there are more of them on the roads but neeeeh)

JP

[muso]

I have been looking at later one's with air bags especially since my kids will be driving it, the other option is a reasonable economical wagon for practicality that still has enough power to get up hills etc. I looked at a TH Magna 3.5 wagon on gas, but the only problem is I had one back in 2009 and don't really want another one...good engine but I thought our local Fords and Holdens were built better but if I could find a manual 3.5 magna I'd grab it. I could stretch the budget to models built in 2000-2003 etc that way the car's body is better designed for crash safety and usually has airbags abs etc.
I quite like the Astras but have heard of quite a few problems with them.

So any suggestions on wagons (I have a big German Shepherd) so it has to be wagon or hatch

I know ba bf falcon wagons are cheap and practical and many are on gas ex taxis with a trillion k's on them but I don't like the look of them....look like a hearse......and I really want something smaller and manual gearbox.

[93EB_SXR6]

I'd suggest a 97-98 Hyundai Excel, very good car for the money. Maybe not the safest around but certainly economical and surprisingly zippy if you know your way around a manual gearbox. Don't overlook them just because they were made in Korea, I bought one for $500 with 200 xxx km and it was honestly one of the best 4 cylinder cars I ever owned.
Stupidly sold it.

[muso]

I think it comes down to engineering of crumple zones rather than size alone....in the 1960's cars were so tough they had very little give during impact. The car could have only a minor dent and a broken head light but the occupant could be dead. However a large vehicle with the same engineering is safer than an equivalent smaller car but there are so many variables in a crash that hard data is difficult to get.

The seat belt is still the best safety device engineered since cars were made, the seat belt has saved more lives than anything else!

Cheers 93EB I will check out some Hyundai Excels, I find them rather ordinary (KN Laser is much nicer but dearer to) but I will have a look.....are there any alternative Hyundais.....perhaps a bit larger or a wagon? I tend to prefer the Hyundai Accent over the Excel.

[PG2]

Originally Posted by muso

I think it comes down to engineering of crumple zones rather than size alone....in the 1960's cars were so tough they had very little give during impact. The car could have only a minor dent and a broken head light but the occupant could be dead. However a large vehicle with the same engineering is safer than an equivalent smaller car but there are so many variables in a crash that hard data is difficult to get.

The seat belt is still the best safety device engineered since cars were made, the seat belt has saved more lives than anything else!

Cheers 93EB I will check out some Hyundai Excels, I find them rather ordinary (KN Laser is much nicer but dearer to) but I will have a look.....are there any alternative Hyundais.....perhaps a bit larger or a wagon? I tend to prefer the Hyundai Accent over the Excel.

Try the Lantra 'Sportswagon'. It's a 1.8 twin cam engine. In the earlier models the SE was the base model and the GL was the mid spec but apart from trim pieces the only difference was the GL had ABS. There was a GLS model aswell - that came with a 2.0 twin cam engine.