the cressida was TOO good. so good that toyota took it off the market in order to sell lexus. mine is hands down the finest example of automotive execellence i have owned
What is your favorite sleeper car?
- Thread starter Popinski
- Start date
- Status
I know a kid who drove a nice, few year old Audi TT. After about 2 years of that, when he was about a year out of high school (this was last year), he bought himself a second car, a 1990 Toyota Cressida with 290k miles on it. He now has 2 cars. Guess which one he drives 90% of the time... Yep, the Cressida. When Toyota replaced it with the Avalon, they should have at least made the Avalon RWD like the Cressida.
Originally Posted By: rslifkin
When Toyota replaced it with the Avalon, they should have at least made the Avalon RWD like the Cressida.
I agree with this.
When Toyota replaced it with the Avalon, they should have at least made the Avalon RWD like the Cressida.
I agree with this.
i knew an old 80's cressida well. RWD, I6, digital dash. The owner was *abusive* to it, and it ate the cams from his driving-- eroded them, scored, scarred, horrible wear. But he was a binary accelerator driver, on/off, floored/idled, nothing in between. each engine lasted 100k with this treatment. The trans was original. unbelievable.
M
M
09+ Ram 1500 Regular Sport R/T: Hemi, 4:10 gears, 2wd. Some have ran high 13s bone stock. Remove the "Hemi" badges, swap the 20s for 17s, and you have a sleeper. Plus, people don't think trucks are fast in general.
Our Aspen is somewhat of a sleeper (for us anyway). It's rated 376/401, and is 2wd. If I had 3:92s, it would be better. It's not terribly heavy for it's size (4800 lbs). It made my 4.6 3V Sport Trac (also 2wd) seem slooow.
Our Aspen is somewhat of a sleeper (for us anyway). It's rated 376/401, and is 2wd. If I had 3:92s, it would be better. It's not terribly heavy for it's size (4800 lbs). It made my 4.6 3V Sport Trac (also 2wd) seem slooow.
Last edited:
My Jeep SRT8!!
Ricers are shocked when they hear the 4 tires chirp as I step away.
Ricers are shocked when they hear the 4 tires chirp as I step away.
Yeah, those SRT8s are just nasty when you open it up.
jumping on the SRT8 bandwagon - I've had a crush on the SRT8 Magnum since I first saw one - Rocket Sled FTW!
It's a real easy car to like!
And a true sleeper, because very few people recognize what it is.
You have to pay 80k to get a 4 door that will run with it.
And a true sleeper, because very few people recognize what it is.
You have to pay 80k to get a 4 door that will run with it.
Originally Posted By: santov
My Jeep SRT8!!
Ricers are shocked when they hear the 4 tires chirp as I step away.
This would be my first choice also. But, only ricers are dumb enough to not know the thing is freakin' fast. IMO, a sleeper is something people don't expect to be fast (doesn't look fast).
My Jeep SRT8!!
Ricers are shocked when they hear the 4 tires chirp as I step away.
This would be my first choice also. But, only ricers are dumb enough to not know the thing is freakin' fast. IMO, a sleeper is something people don't expect to be fast (doesn't look fast).
Just remember, the Jeep SRT8 is a 'quick' car, not a fast one. It has great gearing and super traction, but it is VERY heavy and has bad aerodynamics.
Put it against any other SRT8 and at about 3/16 of a mile they will blow past you.
But stoplight to stoplight it can be a real giant killer.
Put it against any other SRT8 and at about 3/16 of a mile they will blow past you.
But stoplight to stoplight it can be a real giant killer.
Originally Posted By: kkreit01
This would be my first choice also. But, only ricers are dumb enough to not know the thing is freakin' fast.
Ricers are dumb enough to really believe that any domestic nameplate absolutely cannot be fast/quick!!
This would be my first choice also. But, only ricers are dumb enough to not know the thing is freakin' fast.
Ricers are dumb enough to really believe that any domestic nameplate absolutely cannot be fast/quick!!
Originally Posted By: rslifkin
I'd have to go with either a Marauder, or a 5.9 Grand Cherokee (6.8 0-60 stock, with plenty of room for mods, makes a statement when you step on it).
The 5.9 Grand Cherokee isn't all that fast on the strip in stock form, however. 1/4 mile is 15.2 seconds. It's a force to be reckoned with off the line, however (especially 0-35). 0-30 time is 2.1 seconds, 3.3 0-40. Nail it from a stop, and it'll chirp the tires then peg you in the seat and off we go!
I had one of these from February 1998 to September 1999 (when it was stolen, never recovered). Leased it new. Just hearing it start up brought a smile to my face. Had a 3" stainless exhaust as O.E. equipment. Sounded great. Brutal gas mileage, though. In one particularly heavy snow storm the trip computer showed 9 mpg. My vehicle itself wasn't the most dependable either.
I'd have to go with either a Marauder, or a 5.9 Grand Cherokee (6.8 0-60 stock, with plenty of room for mods, makes a statement when you step on it).
The 5.9 Grand Cherokee isn't all that fast on the strip in stock form, however. 1/4 mile is 15.2 seconds. It's a force to be reckoned with off the line, however (especially 0-35). 0-30 time is 2.1 seconds, 3.3 0-40. Nail it from a stop, and it'll chirp the tires then peg you in the seat and off we go!
I had one of these from February 1998 to September 1999 (when it was stolen, never recovered). Leased it new. Just hearing it start up brought a smile to my face. Had a 3" stainless exhaust as O.E. equipment. Sounded great. Brutal gas mileage, though. In one particularly heavy snow storm the trip computer showed 9 mpg. My vehicle itself wasn't the most dependable either.
Last edited:
Mine's been pretty good for both me and both POs as far as reliability. 1 cooling fan and radiator @ about 95k, 1 plenum gasket (design flaw) and 1 water pump (tore it apart today, 105,600 miles).
Yeah, it's one of those vehicles that puts a smile on your face every time you start it, and it turns plenty of heads driving around town.
Honestly, I don't find the gas mileage too terrible for what it is. It's certainly better than an SRT8 (most people report 9-10 city). I get 12 - 12.5 in city driving (EPA is 11/16), and can break 20 on the highway doing 60 or so. Around town, it's about 0.5 mpg worse than Mom's 99 4.0 Grand Cherokee, and it's 1 - 2 mpg worse at 60 - 65 mph on the highway. Mileage drops like a rock if you drive any faster though. 14-15 mpg at 75. The need for premium does hurt a little though.
Yeah, it's one of those vehicles that puts a smile on your face every time you start it, and it turns plenty of heads driving around town.
Honestly, I don't find the gas mileage too terrible for what it is. It's certainly better than an SRT8 (most people report 9-10 city). I get 12 - 12.5 in city driving (EPA is 11/16), and can break 20 on the highway doing 60 or so. Around town, it's about 0.5 mpg worse than Mom's 99 4.0 Grand Cherokee, and it's 1 - 2 mpg worse at 60 - 65 mph on the highway. Mileage drops like a rock if you drive any faster though. 14-15 mpg at 75. The need for premium does hurt a little though.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
It's a real easy car to like!
And a true sleeper, because very few people recognize what it is.
You have to pay 80k to get a 4 door that will run with it.
wow! I just did a craigslist search to see how much used ones were running and I can't believe how well these are holding their value. I couldn't find one for less than $10k. Anyone know if they put a stick shift in these?
It's a real easy car to like!
And a true sleeper, because very few people recognize what it is.
You have to pay 80k to get a 4 door that will run with it.
wow! I just did a craigslist search to see how much used ones were running and I can't believe how well these are holding their value. I couldn't find one for less than $10k. Anyone know if they put a stick shift in these?
sorry, the only SRT8 available in stick is a Challenger.
in my opinion the fastest STOCK car is a 1968 hemi cuda/dart.
ss/ah a stock nhra class. 8.50 et 1/4 mile. its just stock.
ss/ah a stock nhra class. 8.50 et 1/4 mile. its just stock.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: crazyoildude
the buick t type like you said most of the young guys just have no clue...whats even better is take the t type emblems off and put the ones that say regal and then embarrass all the rice burners in front of their girl friends!
and at the next light put down your window and tell them lets go again this time i will punce it and see they will make the next turn probably telling their gf that he will tune it up and look for that gur or something like i miised a shift ...Yeah!
Was the Regal T-Type and Grand National the same car with different badging?
the buick t type like you said most of the young guys just have no clue...whats even better is take the t type emblems off and put the ones that say regal and then embarrass all the rice burners in front of their girl friends!
and at the next light put down your window and tell them lets go again this time i will punce it and see they will make the next turn probably telling their gf that he will tune it up and look for that gur or something like i miised a shift ...Yeah!
Was the Regal T-Type and Grand National the same car with different badging?
My best friend in high school had a 1980 Ford Fairmont Futura Turbo.
yes, turbo.
This predated the fuel injected 175 hp 2.3 (or 205 hp SVO) It was carbureted. When you opened the hood, it looked like a regular Pinto engine, and because it shared an engine compartment with the 3.3l 200 cu in L6, it was made to look even smaller because it was about a foot away from the radiator.
...but lurking beneath that conventional round air cleaner and intake manifold was a turbocharger. Careful inspection would reveal the crossover pipe but most 301 Firebird and 305 Camaro drivers wouldn't notice. And they just refused to believe the chrome "turbo" badges on the hood "scoop" (which appears to be the same "scoop" employed on the turbo Mustang, just rotated 180°.)
I read somewhere that the draw-through turbo Mustangs were limited to 5psi boost. The Fairmonts, only produced for 1980, were limited at 9psi.
Like most 2.3 turbo Fords, it suffered from turbo lag. It was a dog off the line. But once the turbine wheel was spinning good and proper and air was being compressed? That box would fly. (relative to N/A 301 Firebirds and Mustang II 302s)
He used Valvoline TurboV (remember that?) He changed it so often I would use his (still dark amber) waste oil to top off my Celica to replace what leaked past 20R's weepy front seal.
yes, turbo.
This predated the fuel injected 175 hp 2.3 (or 205 hp SVO) It was carbureted. When you opened the hood, it looked like a regular Pinto engine, and because it shared an engine compartment with the 3.3l 200 cu in L6, it was made to look even smaller because it was about a foot away from the radiator.
...but lurking beneath that conventional round air cleaner and intake manifold was a turbocharger. Careful inspection would reveal the crossover pipe but most 301 Firebird and 305 Camaro drivers wouldn't notice. And they just refused to believe the chrome "turbo" badges on the hood "scoop" (which appears to be the same "scoop" employed on the turbo Mustang, just rotated 180°.)
I read somewhere that the draw-through turbo Mustangs were limited to 5psi boost. The Fairmonts, only produced for 1980, were limited at 9psi.
Like most 2.3 turbo Fords, it suffered from turbo lag. It was a dog off the line. But once the turbine wheel was spinning good and proper and air was being compressed? That box would fly. (relative to N/A 301 Firebirds and Mustang II 302s)
He used Valvoline TurboV (remember that?) He changed it so often I would use his (still dark amber) waste oil to top off my Celica to replace what leaked past 20R's weepy front seal.
- Status
