Are cars from the 90’s still considered reliable daily drivers that don’t need a ton of work or maintaining...

Are cars from the 90’s still considered reliable daily drivers that don’t need a ton of work or maintaining? I’m in the market for a new car and my budget is about 5k, which I figure can get me a well taken care of pre-2000s car. My girlfriend is totally convinced that any car older than 2000 is going to be an utter pile of shit and is getting mad that I would ever consider such a thing. I know enough about cars to be dangerous but I’m not super up to date anymore. Would getting a car older than 2000 be a bad idea if I just want a “turn key and go” vehicle, even if I was willing to shell out a decent wad of cash?

Depends what it is and if it's been maintained. But at that age if you have to ask then you might be getting in to more than you bargain for.

I'll tell you one thing, I wouldn't want one if I didn't have tools and the ability to do most jobs in the driveway.

Pretty much this. Sometimes small stuff wear out and nickel and dime you, or it was a winter beater and is on the verge of death.

I’m mostly looking at Volvo and Subaru, and would consider a Saab as well, as long as it’s been taken care of. I know what I’m doing under the hood for the most part. But I guess a later model car would be better. That chart on the sticky is a bit outdated, isn’t it? Are there any cars you’d reccomend that are good basic bitch DDs that I can find for under 5 stacks?

Thanks for the advice. I was so convinced my gf was being a know it all but here I am. Pays to not be a douche sometimes. I’m in Texas so winter weather problems like rust or salt aren’t a huge issue down here- the big one to look out for is flood damage

I drove a late 90s Subaru until very recently. It could have gone on for ages, but was getting to the point where 2-3 times a year it would start up with some kind of "old car" thing. Sometimes it would be simple
>welp, the volume knob on the radio is flaking out so I guess $20 eBay replacement is in order
or it would be
>ah, clunk-clunk-clunk, there goes a CV joint
>should have taken care of that torn boot sooner
>eh, why don't I get new front shocks in there while I'm at it
or every once in a blue moon something like
>hum de dum de dum
>SPUTTER SPUTTER SPUTTER BUCK CAUGH
>oh got what the fuck
>ok, it stopped?
Until finally figuring out it was the air sensor, being meanwhile afraid it would die in traffic or during a trip

ls 400

The advantage of a 90s car is the cost of matainance. Also any car older than 5 is going to have or develop issues

This

Depends purely on what it is and how it's been maintained.

90's Corolla? It'll be fine.

90's S-class Merc? Might be reliable, might break lots and it will be expensive when it does.

Do your homework and find out what goes wrong with whatever you're looking at before you buy it so you can buy the best example and have the best experience.

Meh mines been fine.

Parts are getting decently hard to find now though.

you can buy w124 in decent condition in europe for that price. i live in caucasus, georgia and there are tons of them on road even working as taxi cars. i can swear up and down ive never seen one broken down
also its A E S T H E T I C C Q Q

also 190e's
these mercs make their sucessors look like chinese cuckboxes

haha hes looking at the 3 most prone to break and expensive to repair

My 2007 Civic is starting to show signs of age. Never get a car older than TWO YEARS, son.

get a ranger faggot

Cars from the 90s and early 2000s are perfectly reliable given proper maintenance. The main problem is the amount of rust. It will be rusty if you live in the rust belt, but it's the amount of rust you're willing to accept.

Basically if you don't find a car maintained by some rich guy or some legit enthusiast autist its going to be a money sink. I had a 300k mile car that was maintained by a rich guy that i had driven for like 7 years before it died close to 400k then went and bought two more of the same car but a few years newer and at 130k miles and both were complete shit piles.

Mileage is more important than age. If you find a well maintained car from the 90's with 50k miles on it, then it'll run just fine.

Is rust a problem for anything other than aesthetics?

If its on the body, whatever. Frame? Different story.

Assuming you're getting a redblock Volvo, they're great cars that will last forever, but they WILL need regular maintenance and repairs. The newest ones are 24 years old, and the majority of them have well over 150,000 miles on them. A lot of parts on those will be original, and will show their age and wear out on a fairly regular basis. Thankfully they're easy and cheap to repair, and parts are plentiful. Very rugged and dependable cars, just don't expect to turn the key and drive it for years without having to fix things. Buy a Haynes manual and get familiar with it. They're good cars to learn how to wrench on.

Over the past several years I've stopped seeing beat up old 240s and such. Now when I see one it's in relatively good condition and clearly owned by somebody who likes it for what it is.

And that demographic is mostly near college age, which I take as a good sign that they're well-suited to people who are wrenching on a budget.

Alot depends on the previous owner. If they took care of it and kept up with maintenance you'll be ok. If not then it's gonna be a money sink.

If you're just looking to get from point a to point b I would use that money as a down payment for a used Honda or Toyota with low mileage. It'd be a lot more piece of mind.

>in market for "new" car
>asks about 20+ year old cars