StarDestroyer.Net BBS

My new car is a blue 1997 Toyota Corsa {read Corolla 2} three door.
It has done only 27 389 km since new {NZ new as well, not a second hand import}, automatic, 1.3 litre.

As my father got it on my behalf {couldnt get that kind of low milage here in Christchurch, damnit}, all I have to do is get the damn thing from Wellington to Christchurch...hmmmm

1.3!? That's friggin tiny.

Howedar wrote:1.3!? That's friggin tiny.

So? It will do what I need and should go for 200 000km without a hitch.

Howedar wrote:1.3!? That's friggin tiny.

You don't need a big engine for a go-cart with delusions of granduer.

Stormbringer wrote:

Howedar wrote:1.3!? That's friggin tiny.

You don't need a big engine for a go-cart with delusions of granduer.

Dont need a yank tank to have penis envy either

Stuart Mackey wrote:My new car is a blue 1997 Toyota Corsa {read Corolla 2} three door.
It has done only 27 389 km since new {NZ new as well, not a second hand import}, automatic, 1.3 litre.

As my father got it on my behalf {couldnt get that kind of low milage here in Christchurch, damnit}, all I have to do is get the damn thing from Wellington to Christchurch...hmmmm

Congrats.

Edit: Soon I'll need to replace my clunker.

Enigma wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote:My new car is a blue 1997 Toyota Corsa {read Corolla 2} three door.
It has done only 27 389 km since new {NZ new as well, not a second hand import}, automatic, 1.3 litre.

As my father got it on my behalf {couldnt get that kind of low milage here in Christchurch, damnit}, all I have to do is get the damn thing from Wellington to Christchurch...hmmmm

Congrats.

Edit: Soon I'll need to replace my clunker.

What are you running?

Stuart Mackey wrote:

Enigma wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote:My new car is a blue 1997 Toyota Corsa {read Corolla 2} three door.
It has done only 27 389 km since new {NZ new as well, not a second hand import}, automatic, 1.3 litre.

As my father got it on my behalf {couldnt get that kind of low milage here in Christchurch, damnit}, all I have to do is get the damn thing from Wellington to Christchurch...hmmmm

Congrats.

Edit: Soon I'll need to replace my clunker.

What are you running?

1992 Pontiac Grand Am. It was a good car until I became a delivery driver two years ago. In those two years I've put in about 100,000 km (the odometer read 212,000km) and over $5,000CAD in repairs. Now it is sitting in my parent's backyard collecting dust because the tranny won't go from first gear to second. I'm going to try in a couple of months, to see if it will work properly, if not then I'll have to junk it. Right now I am driving my father's 1990 Ford Aerostar. It has over 250,000km and is still going very strong.

Stormbringer wrote:

Howedar wrote:1.3!? That's friggin tiny.

You don't need a big engine for a go-cart with delusions of granduer.

I know. About 1.8L is quite enough. But 1.3 is too small.

Enigma wrote:
1992 Pontiac Grand Am. It was a good car until I became a delivery driver two years ago. In those two years I've put in about 100,000 km (the odometer read 212,000km) and over $5,000CAD in repairs. Now it is sitting in my parent's backyard collecting dust because the tranny won't go from first gear to second. I'm going to try in a couple of months, to see if it will work properly, if not then I'll have to junk it. Right now I am driving my father's 1990 Ford Aerostar. It has over 250,000km and is still going very strong.

Good rule of thumbe with cars..the simpler the better and over powered cars cause more issues.

Howedar wrote:

Stormbringer wrote:

Howedar wrote:1.3!? That's friggin tiny.

You don't need a big engine for a go-cart with delusions of granduer.

I know. About 1.8L is quite enough. But 1.3 is too small.

Too small for what? as I said above..it will do what I want and run well for 200 000km...why have more?

Stuart Mackey wrote:

Enigma wrote:
1992 Pontiac Grand Am. It was a good car until I became a delivery driver two years ago. In those two years I've put in about 100,000 km (the odometer read 212,000km) and over $5,000CAD in repairs. Now it is sitting in my parent's backyard collecting dust because the tranny won't go from first gear to second. I'm going to try in a couple of months, to see if it will work properly, if not then I'll have to junk it. Right now I am driving my father's 1990 Ford Aerostar. It has over 250,000km and is still going very strong.

Good rule of thumbe with cars..the simpler the better and over powered cars cause more issues.

Maybe but the Ford Aerostar is larger than my Grand Am and has lasted for 15 years and has 40,000km more than my car and it has caused me less pain then my car.

But other than that I tend to agree with you. I'd like to get a used Corolla or Camry and then maybe in a year, get a new Ford Ranger.

Stuart Mackey wrote:

Howedar wrote:

Stormbringer wrote: You don't need a big engine for a go-cart with delusions of granduer.

I know. About 1.8L is quite enough. But 1.3 is too small.

Too small for what? as I said above..it will do what I want and run well for 200 000km...why have more?

It's not too small for the car. But those cars are simply one of the smallest and least substantial cars legally on the road.

Stormbringer wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote:

Howedar wrote:I know. About 1.8L is quite enough. But 1.3 is too small.

Too small for what? as I said above..it will do what I want and run well for 200 000km...why have more?

It's not too small for the car. But those cars are simply one of the smallest and least substantial cars legally on the road.

so???? It does everthing I require.

Enigma wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote:

Enigma wrote:
1992 Pontiac Grand Am. It was a good car until I became a delivery driver two years ago. In those two years I've put in about 100,000 km (the odometer read 212,000km) and over $5,000CAD in repairs. Now it is sitting in my parent's backyard collecting dust because the tranny won't go from first gear to second. I'm going to try in a couple of months, to see if it will work properly, if not then I'll have to junk it. Right now I am driving my father's 1990 Ford Aerostar. It has over 250,000km and is still going very strong.

Good rule of thumbe with cars..the simpler the better and over powered cars cause more issues.

Maybe but the Ford Aerostar is larger than my Grand Am and has lasted for 15 years and has 40,000km more than my car and it has caused me less pain then my car.

But other than that I tend to agree with you. I'd like to get a used Corolla or Camry and then maybe in a year, get a new Ford Ranger.

Perhaps the Grand Am is less well designed than the Aearostar.
But Toyota does make very reliable cars..somewhat boreing, but very reliable as a whole.

Stuart Mackey wrote:so???? It does everthing I require.

Never said it didn't. I was just pointing out to Howedar that you can get away with a tiny engine in a car that's about as tough as tinfoil.

How small are we talking here?

And out of curiosity, how are the hills in the operational area of this car?

Stormbringer wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote:so???? It does everthing I require.

Never said it didn't. I was just pointing out to Howedar that you can get away with a tiny engine in a car that's about as tough as tinfoil.

Tinfoil? by what comparison?

Stuart Mackey wrote:

Stormbringer wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote:so???? It does everthing I require.

Never said it didn't. I was just pointing out to Howedar that you can get away with a tiny engine in a car that's about as tough as tinfoil.

Tinfoil? by what comparison?

I don't know, just about any object that's not going to move.

Howedar wrote:How small are we talking here?

And out of curiosity, how are the hills in the operational area of this car?

The Corrolla 2 is smaller than a Corrola and bigger than a Echo..like a Mazda 323.
Canterbury/Christchurch is pancake like in its flatness.

Stormbringer wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote:

Stormbringer wrote: Never said it didn't. I was just pointing out to Howedar that you can get away with a tiny engine in a car that's about as tough as tinfoil.

Tinfoil? by what comparison?

I don't know, just about any object that's not going to move.

Thats true of most things on the road...

Stuart Mackey wrote:Thats true of most things on the road...

Yes, but then again some are simply tougher than others. And most of the light Toyotas are skimpy on everything but sheet metal.

Stormbringer wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote:Thats true of most things on the road...

Yes, but then again some are simply tougher than others. And most of the light Toyotas are skimpy on everything but sheet metal.

That depends on the era you are talking about..the 70's-88 years they were shockers safty wise..but have improved quiteabit since re safety stuff like airbags etc. But as a general rule, bigger car beats smaller car in a crash.

Stuart Mackey wrote:

Stormbringer wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote:Thats true of most things on the road...

Yes, but then again some are simply tougher than others. And most of the light Toyotas are skimpy on everything but sheet metal.

That depends on the era you are talking about..the 70's-88 years they were shockers safty wise..but have improved quiteabit since re safety stuff like airbags etc. But as a general rule, bigger car beats smaller car in a crash.

They aren't exactly the death traps they were. But compared to a lot of cars they're still got a glass jaw.

Stuart Mackey wrote:

Howedar wrote:How small are we talking here?

And out of curiosity, how are the hills in the operational area of this car?

The Corrolla 2 is smaller than a Corrola and bigger than a Echo..like a Mazda 323.
Canterbury/Christchurch is pancake like in its flatness.

Well I'm running a 323 with a 1.5L and it's pretty gutless. So I feel for ya.