How Much Fun Can You Have For 10 Grand?

Times are tough.  Credit used to flow like water, getting a job after securing a bachelor's degree in English was a sure thing, and the world was a lot easier place to live in.  Not so any more: those who once figured "Hell, I have a job and a pulse, I can get a new car" are now realizing that no, they can't.  They don't have a credit score of 700 and a 10,000 down payment sitting around.  What's a car enthusiast to do?

If you're handy with wrenches and know a fuel injector from an EGR valve, you don't have to plunk down 40 grand for a car that will both plaster a smile on your face 95% of the time and not leave you stranded on the side of the road.  If you're more patient, you can pay a lot less.  I've been helping a friend of mine get his first car into roadworthy condition: a 1991 Toyota MR2 Turbo.  Which leads me to my first entry here...

Toyota MR2 Turbo.

Ok, name another car that possesses the following attributes:  Mid engined, rear wheel drive, 2.0L 16v turbocharged and intercooled four-cylinder with 200bhp and torque, 5-speed manual, leather seats, T-tops, popup headlights, twin-piston front brakes, a high five-second 0-60 time, and the ability to be worked on (successfully, most of the time) by two monkeys with basic tool kits.  Oh, and for 5 grand or less.  He picked up his MR2 Turbo for the princely sum of $2,500, and it hardly ran.  I've actually detailed the purchase and some of the basic repairs we did previously, but in short: bought the car, hooked the throttle position sensor up properly, replaced the spark plugs, changed the oil, JB Welded the EGR pipe back together, replaced all the vacuum lines up top, replaced a coolant temperature sensor so it'd idle, replaced the front rotors and pads, and bam: mid-engined exotic car, daily-driver status, for as much as you'd pay for a really beat up Civic.  Winning!

And I can't stress how fun to drive an MR2 Turbo that's running well is.  The fact that it's a balanced, mid-engined rear drive car with targa tops is awesome enough.  Just tooling around at low revs, you feel like a rock star.  But when that 3S-GTE hits boost, the turbo spools up behind your back, and everything goes into warp drive... it's lovely.

The problem with MR2 Turbos... is finding one.  Using a 300 mile radius search for MR2's of any kind, 1990-1995, a grand total of 6 popped up.  Unlike the other cars in this list, you might spend a lot of time trying to find one at all, much less trying to find a perfect one.  My friend lucked out when his popped up on the local craigslist in some guy's back yard; don't expect that to be the norm.

These cars are getting pretty old by now, and they're not as easy to work on as a normal car, so know what you're getting into.  The 3S-GTE is a tough motor, but there weren't a lot of them new, so finding parts is sometimes fun.  Overheating and blowing head gaskets isn't unusual, and you'd much rather replace the thermostat that pull the head.  The turbocharger's condition depends almost entirely on how rigorous previous owners were about their cool-down prodecures.  3S motors have an odd tendancy to just skip teeth on the timing belt, so if it's running funny, that might have something to do with it.  Early Turbos are known for having weak 2nd-gear synchros (one must shift gently into second in my friend's '91 to avoid a nasty crunch), but changing to high-quality synthetic trans fluid helps alleviate the issue and prevent further wear.  It won't be as reliable as a Civic, but hello - it's an MR2 Turbo.  Worth it.

BMW (E36) M3

What's (probably) the best all-around new car for sale today?  Probably the E90/E92 BMW M3.  It's got a 4.0L 32v V8 that revs to the stratosphere, fancy suspension and active differential, a 6-speed or a DCT, and you can get one as a coupe, sedan, or a folding-roof convertible.  It'll comfortably carry 4 or 5 people to dinner, or it'll blast sideways at 8,000+rpm with the rear tires sending a smoke signal all the way to Montreal.  Problem?  Well, yeah.  The sedan starts at $55,900, the coupe at $58,900 (3 grand for two less doors?), and the convertible is $67,500.  Unless my kidnapping business starts up again, or I win the lottery, it ain't happening.

But older M3's, why, mere mortals can afford those!  Sure, they don't have 400+bhp V8's and carbon fiber roofs.  But it's still a BMW M3.  The car that Car & Driver put on it's 10 Best list in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999.  Which, by the way, was every year BMW sold the E36 M3 in this country.  They once said something to the effect of, "If you ran over a quarter with the left front tire of an M3, you could almost read what year it was."  Sure, by now the E36 is pretty old, but the basic BMW formula is intact: lusty, silken straight six up front, manual transmission behind it, drive wheels in the back, and tight (but not too tight) suspension at all four corners.  Add in confidence-inspiring brakes, great weight balance, awesome seats, a classy interior, and why are you sitting here reading this?  Go buy one!

US-Spec E36's were different from the rest of the world, mainly under the hood.  While every M car before and after the E36 M3 in the US had individual throttle bodies, to keep costs down the US-spec car had a single throttle body from the normal 3-series M50 motor.  So while the rest of the world got 281 horsepower, we "only" got 240.  The 3.0L S50 was only here for the 1995 model year, replaced in the 1996-1999 models with an S52 (3.2L), still with 240 horsepower, but with 240lb-ft of torque (instead of 225.)  Despite the "fake M" engine, the car still did 0-60 around 6 seconds and topped out at 155.

A lot of E36 M3's have been ridden hard and put away wet, but they're still durable vehicles - a friend of mine has a '97 Sedan automatic at 236,000 miles and change, still going strong.  Like any car with a ton of miles, they'll burn some oil, have electronics issues, and need maintenance - but so does a '97 Accord, so quit whining.  The other thing is, they're not hard to find.  There are 41 for sale within a 300 mile radius of me on Autotrader, the most expensive being a '99 M3 Convertible with 37,000 miles(!) for 14k, the lowest being a '98 sedan with an automatic and 136k miles for $5,500.

Honda S2000 (AP1) 2000-2003

I can't believe how cheap S2000's have gotten these days.  But I will say one thing before I launch into how amazing these cars are on the used market: make sure you can fit in one first.  I have trouble.  It's all down to the fact that Honda sold the S2000 with a non-adjustable steering column - meaning it doesn't tilt or telescope - so big people may find their budget hot rod leaves the steering wheel firmly in their lap all the time.  Your mileage may vary.

Other than that, there's not much to dislike about the original S2000, which 12 years on is still a very remarkable car.  For one thing, it's a front-mid engined, rear wheel drive Honda 2-seat convertible.  The engine is the star of the show - the F20C held the record for highest bhp/l from a naturally aspirated engine (at 120!) for a while.  It was interesting to see at the time that Honda was making as much power out of an atmospheric 2.0L I4 as GM was out of a supercharged 3.8L V6; but that's not exactly apples to apples.  The high-tech four cranked out 240bhp at an ear-splitting 8,300rpm, and 153lb-ft of torque at an also ear-splitting 7,500rpm, with the fuel cut set at an "are we in a rotary?" 9,000rpm.  This Dremel tool of an engine was mated to a six-speed manual gearbox (no automatic even optional!  Suck it, Miata!) with some of the best shift linkage of any car, ever, period.  Power was sent to a Torsen LSD in the back, and all that added up to needing a Prepaid Legal subscription to offset the urge to rip off redline upshifts whenever it was possible.

Like most Honda products, with proper care and maintenance it'll be one of the few things remaining after the Zombie apocalypse, but the high-strung nature of the S2000 means there are more things to look out for than on a "regular" Honda.  The OEM clutch left a lot to be desired; the only way to get it to launch fast was dropping the clutch near VTEC engagement (6,000rpm), which would quickly lead to a slipping clutch.  Early-build S2000's don't have the strongest transmission synchros in the world, so look for grinding (mainly going into second gear.)  Honda switched to a glass back window (from plastic) in 2002, and it's preferrable because the plastic ones tend to yellow and glaze with age.  Also, the convertible tops themselves can begin to wear at the hinge points - but that's an issue with most all convertibles.  Other than that, uhh, what's not to love?

Availability: using the same search parameters as the M3, there are 26 AP1 S2000's available, ranging from $8,500 for a white 2000 model with 85k miles, to $19,000 for a 2003 with only 28k miles, although I've personally heard of AP1's going for considerably less if one knows where to look.

2001-2003 Subaru Impreza WRX

A pretty obvious no-brainer here, but again with the caveat to make very sure that the car you're buying is in actual, working condition.  A used WRX is one of the best performance values, even stock.  It had all the things people loved about Subarus up to that point - funky styling, permanent four wheel drive, tractor-like reliability, but with some things the US hadn't expected from Subarus to that point.  Mainly, it was fast: the 2.0L EJ205 engine under the hood had a TD04-13t attached to it, blowing 1 Bar (14.7psi) of boost through the funky intake runners, increasing power to 227bhp and 217lb-ft of torque.  There were two transmission available, a 5-speed manual and a 4-speed automatic.  They both have known issues, but if you're buying a WRX, I can't think of a good reason to get an automatic - the early 2.0L cars don't have much bottom end, and having one less gear ratio plus a torque converter just compounds the issue, so skip that.

The issue with used WRX's are the people that bought them - mainly, young to mid 20 year olds who'd grown up on Gran Turismo and were excited to get their first taste of what a redline clutch-dump in a WRX felt like in real life, not through pixels on a TV screen.  Which of course lead to a high number of transmission failures, especially on the first year of cars - they switched to heavier duty gearsets in 2002, where each gear itself was 1mm wider.  They also added a clutch-release delay valve in an additional attempt to prevent the not-too-tough 5 speed from exploding.  These cars were good for a 0-60 run in the high five-second range - they had around 230bhp, weighed just over 3,000lbs, and had more than enough grip, so they're pretty fast.  Make sure the transmission shifts smoothly without grinding, and be aware that clutch chatter is very common on high-mileage 5-speed WRX's.

Another great thing about the WRX - you could have one in a sedan or a wagon.  While the sedan is lighter and has more chassis rigidity, the wagon didn't get the sedan's flared fenders, making it even more of a Q-ship: WRX Wagons are quite hard to spot in traffic, unless you see the hood scoop.  Of course, by now the aftermarket for the WRX is fairly massive in the US: even basic bolt-ons (Cobb Access Port tune, catless downpipe, exhaust modifications, etc) yield significant power gains.

The most impressive thing about a WRX isn't it's absolute straight-line capabilities, as impressive as they are for a 2.0L.  It's how fast it can cover a road, any road, in any conditions.  The automatically variable 4WD apportions power where it needs to go without any Haldex-style slip 'n grip, and the surprisingly long-travel suspension (stock WRX's look like they have the Z71 package) means it floats over imperfections, camber changes, and other junk that low, hunkered-down performance cars would be thrown off course by.  If you haven't flogged a WRX down a back-road, you haven't lived.

The WRX wasn't that expensive when it came out (mid $20's new), but they still retain a reasonable amount of value, even a few years old with more than 100k on the clock.  In the same 300-mile radius as the other searches, I turned up WRX's from 2001-2003 ranging from $8,500 for a blue '03 with 103k miles, to $15k for an 03 with a lot of modifications and low mileage.  The WRX was always a big seller in the US, so the good thing is they're not hard to find - just searching 01-03 WRX's, there were a total of 29 within my radius, and expanding the search to include 04's (which are the same but received a mild facelift) yielded 52.

Chevrolet Cobalt SS Supercharged

I had a tough time on this one.  It was either going to be the Supercharged Cobalt (since the newer, awesome, Turbo ones are still too expensive), or the Dodge (Neon) SRT-4.  They're both similar formulas: start with a cheap, American economy car from the mid 2000's, add stiff suspension, tight seats, boost, and a big aftermarket.  So what made me tip over to the Cobalt?

A few things.  Primarily, tolerability as a daily driver.  The SRT-4 is more fun to drive than attending bikini bull-riding night, but as a daily driver it's pretty bad.  There are no mufflers (from the factory), so even with a stock exhaust it's headache loud.  The gas mileage is spectacularly awful around town, the gas tank is tiny, the ride is stiff, the interior is awful, and I sound like an old person.

The Cobalt SS Supercharged is a similar formula.  Start with your basic 2-door Chevy Cobalt Coupe, add a built 2.0L Ecotec (the "LSJ" code Ecotecs came with tough, forged internals from the factory) with an Eaton supercharger and an air-to-water heat exchanger, a heavy duty Saab 5-speed manual, big shiny chrome 18" wheels, a big spoiler, and you have a surprisingly fun car from the factory.  While the Supercharged Ecotec didn't put out as much power as the SRT-4's 2.4L turbocharged 4-cylinder, it's also a lot more reliable and not so terrible on gas.  The Cobalt's interior isn't what I'd call great, but it's certainly a lot nicer than a Neon.  I suppose the fact the supercharged models were only available as Coupes is a bummer (later SS Turbos were Coupes or Sedans), but a lot of people don't care.

Aftermarket?  Oh, absolutely.  There are various directions you can go, the most basic of which is an overdrive pulley for the supercharger, and supporting modifications.  Putting a smaller drive pulley on the blower increases the speed it spins at, which means more boost (since Superchargers are mechanically driven.  On a turbo car, you'd just change the programming to have the wastegate open later for more boost.)  Bigger fuel injectors, a drop-in high flow fuel pump, exhaust modifications and other mods yield big power gains.  There are also aftermarket higher-capacity superchargers (like the Harrop TVS) that offer less parasitic drag, more displacement, and more power.

Of course, if Superchargers aren't your thing, or you want to break the 400whp barrier, there's always turbo conversions.  I took a ride in a Cobalt SS that had been converted to a Borg-Warner turbocharger setup with the ZZ Performance kit at Rockingham recently, and it scared the crap out of me when it actually hooked up.  Around 475whp on E85 will do that to you!

httpvh://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aueVKvfI-6c

Using the 300-mile search radius, 49 listings popped up for 2005-2007 Cobalt SS Supercharged models.  (There was also a naturally-aspirated Cobalt SS that had a 2.4L Ecotec instead of the standard 2.2L, but skip that).  The best deal (if the theoretical budget could stretch to 12k) was a dark red '07 CSS Supercharged, with only 38k miles and change - and it already had the GM Performance Stage II tuning done, which includes bigger injectors, a smaller blower pulley, and an ECM tune, plus a ported exhaust manifold and full exhaust, good for 13-second quarter miles.  One thing you should make sure your CSS has: option package G85, which included Recaro sport seats, and a limited-slip differential: something the torquey LSJ motor really requires, especially if the car is modified.

Sure, it's not the most refined or pretty thing, but they're an absolute hoot, and it's something a bit different.  The SS Supercharged was produced from 05-07, when the LSJ was replaced with the turbocharged, direct-injection LNF motor.  While the LNF cars are considerably faster (260bhp and torque from the factory), the earlier Supercharged cars are actually more reliable.  There are minor things to look out for, and they're all no-brainers.  A totally stock SS will be a reliable daily driver, good for more than 100,000 miles on a stock clutch.  It's when they start getting modified (and they do) that things start to fail.  The axles on the Supercharged models are a weak spot (which were upgraded considerably on the Turbo models), but this only becomes an issue quickly if you're launching on drag slicks.  A stock clutch won't tolerate Stage II power for very long, and I suppose a really small blower drive pulley might yield issues with the stock Eaton blower after a lot of miles.  Compared to some of the issues the Turbo Cobalts have, this is just small talk.

This is just part one - in Part II, we'll cover some muscle cars, because I realize not everyone likes high-winding forced induction imports and compacts.  Stay tuned!