I’m looking to buy a car with high mileage probably around 20 years old. Obviously it is recommended that I look for a Toyota or Honda but are there any other companies that produced long lasting vehicles in the late 90s-early 2000? I want a car/suv that I can buy with 150k miles that can safely last to 250k-300k with good maintenance
Maybe a Crown Vic or Mercury Marquis if you don't mind something that large. An issue with those though is they are prone to HVAC problems requiring complete removal of the dashboard to repair.
Other than what above said America hasn’t really ever been great at building reliable cars. Early 2000s SUV I’d go GM suburban.
This is not a recommendation. But an observation. Obviously I recommend most Toyota and Honda of almost any era. Not all, but most.
With that said, The Ford Escape / Mazda Tribute seems like and intriguing vehicle from the early 2000. I only say this because I still see a ton of them around. And they seem to be doing well.
I have no knowledge if they actually are good cars or will last long. It just surprises me to still see so many on the road.
A lot of 90s GM cars had incredible reliability, especially the ones with the 3.1, 3.3, and 3.8 V6 motors, I've seen lots of them with over 200k and 300k miles on them. I have a 1993 Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera with the 3.3 that has 192k with the original engine and transmission. They weren't too slow either, especially if in a lighter car. I'd recommend cars like the olds cutlass, Buick century, Oldsmobile 98 regency, and the Buick Park avenue if you want a midsize or full-size sedan. And if you wanted a V8 car with more power, GM B-Body full-size sedans were one of the best ways to go. Models years 1991-1996 had either the 5.0 V8 or the 5.7 LT1 V8, both of witch were pretty reliable engines, I've seen both with over 200k on them. Now while the V6 engines had little to no faults, the V8s had an "optispark" system which could go out around 150k if not maintained, and some would go out even earlier even if you did maintain them. The other thing you have to keep in mind is while both these engines were great, the transmissions were sometimes the weak point in these cars, you can't drive like a maniac too much with them. that goes for both the 3-speed and 4-speed automatics. If you don't care about speed or power too much, get one with a V6. They are easy to find and a good condition one will cost under $3k, I bought my olds for $500 but it had high milage and not everything worked. But if you need a car and don't have much money like myself, any GM midsize to full-size car with the 3.1, 3.3, or 3.8 V6 will definitely make you happy, even with over 200k they work great of you take care of them. Talking from personal experience with these cars. Or if you want to go ford, the panther body cars can be reliable. But only certain model years are really good. Go for model years that were before or a few years after a refresh, I had a 1998 Mercury Grand Marquis and it only had 106k miles and it started having problems. But 1998 was a first year of a refresh so they hadn't fixed all the problems that had come with the new design yet. So if you want to go ford, be weary of which years you look at for panther body cars.
Nah. Not the 3.1L. I had one and they are a never ending headache. Just try a search they are notorious.
Really? I'd imagine it's just fine. The only difference between the 3.1 and 3.3 is the engine size. Unless the 3.1 was still the part of the older Gm V6 line from the 80s which wasn't as good.
"GM has saved a bundle on manufacturing the 3.1L engine by using the production line tooling it originally developed for the 2.8L V6"
Ooh, I see. So the 3.1 and the 3.3 wasn't developed from the same architecture and are not the same engine. Ok, scratch the 3.1. But the 3.3 and 3.8 are both great motors. Some of the best motors ever made by the American car industry actually, I've heard mechanics say that it was the closet GM ever got to Toyota reliability.
