RWD 4 door challenge

[mcrews]

I had COMPLETELY forgotten about that body style!

[Nonhog]

.38 claimed Cd. (Fox Ltd)

[straight5]

Originally Posted by ALS

Four doors and decent fuel mileage over 30 mpgs, RWD then I have the car for you.

Find a 1993 - 1995 Volvo 940 and make sure it isn't a Turbo. Stock NA 940's would easily get 31-33 mpg on the highway. They have a 2.3 Liter four banger, four doors, automatic.

Stay away from the Turbo's (25 mpgs) and the six cylinder 960's they are real fuel hogs.

I agree with a Volvo choice, but I would go with a turbo. Doing a little tweaking you could probably go into the 30's mpg range with very little money and not many changes. Then you'd have comfort, reliability, safety, and the power when needed, and the mileage when you don't. I agree, stay away from the 6's

[acparker]

Is the '04-'08 Dodge Magnum too recent?

I also like the '91-'96 Caprice Station Wagon or any of its GM derivatives.

The all-wheel drive AMC Eagle is a nice upgrade from the Concord, but might be pricey to maintain.

Almost any of the mid-'70's to early '80's rear-wheel drive Japanese cars (add to that list the Opel Kadett and Chevy Chevette) will get you into your efficiency range, but I am guessing that is not what you were looking for as far as size.

Some of them made great gravel and dirt road cars with pretty good ground clearance and great range, but were generally underpowered. I had a roommate who used his mid-70's corolla station wagon to access his paleontology digs.

Those '70's Corollas were notorious for rusting out (my brother's rusted out just being stored in the vicinity of the East River for a year), but there is a mint condition one driving around my neighborhood.

[Allch Chcar]

I don't know much about classic RWD sedans. For a modern RWD sedan, I've heard good things about the Dodge Charger.

Personally, I was looking at the E36 BMW 318 at one point. Probably not even in the same class that you're talking about though.

[sikbrik]

+1 on the Volvo suggestion. Early 90s were very safe, still relatively light (hood and liftgate were aluminum) and they were reliable as anything. Airbags, crumple zones, stiffened rockers. Oh, and if you want to put a different drivetrain in, it's been done to death so you'll find plenty of info. 940 had better cd than 740 due to redesigned fenders, bumpers, and I think maybe even windscreen angle. There will be aero pieces available, too. No six speeds if you stick with the stock 2.3...only 5-spds, unless you fab up your own.

All that said, the old man gets 31mpg from his house in NJ to my place in central PA and never under 26 mixed in his 95 Caprice, 5.7LT1 but it's the towing package...2.41 or 2.73 rear, slightly tuned LT1 but not crazy. Nothing else fancy other than lack of a lead foot. It drops a bit when I drive it.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by sikbrik

+1 on the Volvo suggestion. Early 90s were very safe

I still remember the day I saw a bus hitting an early-90's Volvo 460 and the driver just walked away with no scratches. If it was any other random car from the same timeframe and similar size, the aftermath probably wouldn't be the same...

[svt98t]

Originally Posted by 93tracerwagon

The early 90"s redesigned LTD/Crown Vic is really hard to beat if you want a huge 4 dr that can get good mileage. IIRC they cut 700 lbs off the previous model and still kept the full frame. I think the early 90's models were about 4200 lbs. The next redesign about 1995 added 300 to 400lbs....

My 93 Grand Marquis weighed 4080 with me in it and a few gallons of gas. Should be around 3800-ish empty.


-ryan s.

[93tracerwagon]

Wow, I think that's in the range of the T-bird from that era.

[straight5]

about the 940 :
According to Technical specs, dimensions, fuel consumption of cars it only weighs 2976 lbs.
Something I love about Volvo, they are mostly ignored by police