In article .com>,
"Al Bundy" > wrote:

> Don Bruder wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> > "SQ" > wrote:
> >
> > > I am looking for a vehicle with a 4-cyl engine and a
> > > 5-speed tranny. My main criterion is ease of service,
> > > meaning easily accessible engine bay for spark plugs, fuel
> > > filter, timing belts, misc. sensor replacements.
> >
> > I'm real fond of my '82 Mazda 626 for ease of service and reliability -
> > I get in and turn the key, and if it isn't out of gas, it starts and
> > takes me where I want to go every time. I drive mine hard as a delivery
> > vehicle, so it *HAS* to be both reliable, and fast to put back on the
> > road on the rare occasions when it craps out. I do *ALL* of my own
> > wrenching other than smog testing, with very little trouble doing so.
> > Just rolled over 170K miles on it last week, and it's showing no sign of
> > giving up anytime soon. I *DO* need to get the rear seat re-upholstered
> > - one of these days...
> >
> > Yeah, I know you said 10 years or younger, but it fits *EVERY* other
> > criteria you list - In-line 4 with single OHC, 5 speed (can be had with
> > automatic, but I've only ever seen two of those), RWD, plenty of room
> > under the hood, the most common parts are decently cheap (even moreso in
> > my case, since I'm scavenging from two wrecks, one mine, one bought for
> > the purpose), timing CHAIN, not belt, no sensors to dink around with
> > (pure vacuum emission control system) plugs practically jump out into
> > your hand once you've lifted the air-cleaner out of the way (if you
> > don't lift it, 1 and 4 can be gotten to with the same 3 inch extension
> > you need anyway, and 2 and 3 only need another 6 inches of extension on
> > top of the of 3 you'll already have on the ratchet), fuel filter swap is
> > a two minute task once you've got the rear end up on stands, front brake
> > pads are a "jack it up, pull the tire, 1 bolt and 5 minutes per side,
> > replace tire, drop it" job, rears are drum, so of course more pain in
> > the butt than the front, but still not a major headache.
> >
> > Basically, it's a "you can't kill it, and if you somehow manage to, it's
> > easy enough to fix it unless you literally blow it up" ride. For a
> > shade-tree type, it's probably one of the nicest fairly recent cars
> > going.
> >
> > Only downside I've ever heard about them: In the snow-belt or on the
> > edge of the ocean, the salt makes them die of cancer in no time flat.
> >
> > Post-1983, they got "complicated", though...
> >
> > --
> > Don Bruder - - New Email policy in effect as of Feb. 21,
> > 2004.
> > Short form: I'm trashing EVERY E-mail that doesn't contain a password in
> > the
> > subject unless it comes from a "whitelisted" (pre-approved by me) address.
> > See <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd/main/contact.html> for full details.
>
>
> You've had a good run with that Mazda, Don.

Even moreso, considering my first one was a $300 "junker" that I put a
master cylinder and more than 40K on before it suddenly developed a
PT-cruiser shaped growth on the driver-side front quarter that put it
out of commission.

Current one is a $700 E-bay find. Exactly the same car other than paint
color (charcoal gray instead of white) and having AC and power steering
where the previous one lacked those amenities.

> I don't blame you for
> sticking with it since you know where every bolt goes and can reach for
> the right wrench without checking.

Yup... That pretty much sums it up. Anymore, I'm pretty much diagnosing
it's health by sound as it goes down the road

> But it's pretty hard to expect a man
> to go hunting down a 23 year old vehicle to start with. What would you
> buy if you had to update to something newer? You may not have even
> considered it because of your unique situation. I'm driving a 23 year
> old Chevy myself, but the frame rust will shortly end my run with it.
> I've never been a Ford fan, but from what I see a 97-98 Ranger pickup
> is almost bulletproof and fairly easy to work on. And the parts are
> readily available not and for a long time. I'm partial to RWD and the
> big three.
>

Well, nowdays, Mazda and Ford are, if not the same rolling stock,
assembled in the same plants, at least the same brand. In some cases,
Ford and Mazda are the exact same vehicle with the exception of the
badging (See also Ford Explorer/Mazda Navaho around '92 or Ford
Probe/Mazda 626 in (I think it was) '90-93)

But I do take your point - I've never even considered what I'd look at
for a "newer" vehicle - This thing I'm driving is so bulletproof (and
when it *DOES* take the occasional bullet, I've been a good enough
"surgeon" to cure it) that the idea just doesn't come up. Never mind
that it's ugly as a bucket full of ape assholes, so nobody in his right
mind is gonna steal it even if I leave it running at the curb while I
make a delivery

And RWD definitely - Take those damn front wheel drive things and stuff
'em in the cruncher - They just don't "feel" right... Having to go
backwards to do a decent brodie just plain sucks! Not that I care to
destroy tires that way anymore - those days are LONG behind me - but I
think you understand my point - When I do "X" with the gas/brake/wheel,
I expect "Y" from the way the car moves. In a FWD or AWD ride, I do "X"
and get "Z" - or maybe even "Q" - instead. That screws with my
reflexes/instincts in a big way - enough to be potentially dangerous,
even life-threatening, to both me and others in a "pressure" situation.

--
Don Bruder - - New Email policy in effect as of Feb. 21, 2004.
Short form: I'm trashing EVERY E-mail that doesn't contain a password in the
subject unless it comes from a "whitelisted" (pre-approved by me) address.
See <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd/main/contact.html> for full details.