Year 2K

Okay, I admit it: I like Japanese cars. How much, you ask? A lot. [Reg: "Right. You're in."]

Now that we've got that out of the way, let's look at the year that, for me, may be the finest year for Car Lust: the first year of the new millennium. For me, the year 2000 is the automotive equivalent of an All-You-Can-Eat Steak and Seafood Buffet; it's like being the only male staying overnight in the hotel booked by the Miss Universe Pageant contestants; it's like trying to pick the greatest all-time NFL game, or having to choose the best Porter/Stout out of all the various micro-brewery products. I can't choose just one great car from 2000 to lust after, so here is a list--which, as you shall see, is mostly Japanese, with a touch of German.

The year 2000 straddles the years I like best for almost all the cars listed, and it also includes the first model year of one favorite generation and the last model year of another favorite generation. The year 2000 is the only year that captures them all.

In no particular order, here is a list of cars I would have been ecstatic to own new, and would be pleased as punch to find a used one in good condition today:

Honda Civic: Clean lines. Decent power for acceleration up hills and in passing. Phenomenal fuel economy for a non-hybrid sedan. Clear 360-degree vision. Superb reliability and rock-solid dependability (I think there's a difference). What more could you ask for?

In one of my many online searches of used cars, there was one with 44k miles for sale for $13k … which was probably pretty close to what it cost in 2000. It probably won't go for that, but to even come close would mean less than 20-percent depreciation after 8 years. Honda's ability to manufacture quality and value at an affordable price is just stupid strong. (“Stupid strong” is my attempt to sound hip and cool in emulating youthful semantic re-constructions--for the right price, I won't try to sound hip ever again; you can contact me through Car Lust Blog.)

I like the 2000 model best because the 2001 model received funny tail-lights committed Honda heresy by getting a 1.7-liter engine. In my mind, Civics are just supposed to have high-revving 1.6-liter engines. Don't even get me started complaining about current-generation Civics. I realize that technology, research, and 1.8-liter engines have made the current Civics safer and more powerful, and they still handle as well as they ever did. But the new ones are butt-ugly, in my opinion. Okay, I admit it, their butt-ugliness means I'll probably be lusting after one in another five years. 

Nissan Maxima SE: Maybe this car never reprised the top-notch handling found in the 1989-1994 version, but with the 2000 model the Maxima retained and perhaps even increased its reputation as a poor man's BMW. The 3.0 V-6 put out 222 horsepower, yet still achieved 21 MPG city/27 MPG highway gas mileage, and did it with a surprisingly spacious interior.

Reviewers almost universally praised the 2000 Maxima SE as a great performer, fun to drive, and with crisp handling. The 1992 Maxima may have been the ultimate stealth challenge to BMW's ultimate driving machine, but the 2000 version clearly was Nissan’s attempt to essay a more direct challenge. The buzz this car and engine garnered burnished Nissan's reputation as a manufacturer of premier sports cars and sedans, a trend which is continuing through the current Maxima, the Altima 3.5, the 350Z, the Skyline, and the Infiniti G35.

In doing an online search for used cars from 2000, I saw a pair of non-SE Maximas that were being offered for as much as $13k. To give you context, the other cars that were in the same pricing territory for that year were almost exclusively good-condition BMWs, Lexuses (Lexi?), Mercedes, Porsches, and Corvettes. Even the Honda Accords were a little bit farther down the list, starting at around $11k and going down from there depending on age, condition, and mileage.

Honda CR-V: Take pretty much all the Civic's advantages and increase the interior cargo and seating room--what could be better than that? Fuel economy logically suffers, but still ends up better than any other SUV of any size of that year.

Like almost all Hondas, road noise was excessive, especially when trying to climb mountain passes. It was willing, but the powerplant would be screaming to maintain speed. Yet, maintain speed it would, which says something.

This vehicle is a classic that not even Honda has truly been able to improve much. This first-generation CR-V is my favorite because it has better lines and proportions and an eager stance that make it better-looking than the second-generation CR-V. And while the third-generation CR-V is generally considered better looking (except for the goofy nose/grill ... Ew!) and a competitor to the Lexus RX-330 in style and quality, it sacrifices significant amounts of cargo space over the previous two generations.

Okay, okay, enough justifications: the bottom line is that I just like the first generation better. I had one once, and I'm strongly considering picking up a used one with 130k miles because I have every confidence it can go to 250k miles without a problem. The first generations, at least, were perfectly built.

Mazda 626: Larger and more luxurious than a Toyota Corolla, but not much more expensive. Decent though unimpressive fuel economy. Nice lines and a beautiful stance when parked. It handles well and drives like a champ.

With the V-6 and a manual transmission, it compared favorably to a BMW when price is factored in--though maybe only in my mind. Fit and finish finally came together in the 2000 model. And let us not forget the ultimate reason to lust after the 626: the auto-swinging air vents!

All right, I'll admit it--it is quite likely that a 2000 Camry can out-perform the 626 in nearly every way.  And the only way an Accord comes up short of the 626 is in interior space; the Accord certainly outperforms the 626 in handling, power, and fuel economy. But there is a certain aesthetic about the 626 that the others can't beat. I'm a sucker for a car with an eager stance, and the 626's lines look liquid to me, making it one of those cars that looks gracefully in-motion even when standing still.

The 626's main wart is a horrible transmission that needed to get rebuilt--often. I should know; mine is slowly developing the tranny stutter step. But despite its problems, I still kind of want to replace it with another 626, just as long as it has a better paint job than my current one. Something like the one in the photo would do very nicely.

BMW M5: It might not be Japanese, but if I am going to refer so often to cars that challenge BMW's crown as the ultimate driving machine, then it only makes sense to include an actual BMW.

This is the most attractive generation of BMW's 5-series, and if you are going to lust after a BMW, it might as well be an M. The big problems for me with this car are its price (I'm a skinflint, remember?) and its horrible reliability. Okay, okay--lust is one thing, but reality another. If given the choice, I would buy a 2000 Honda Civic over a 2000 BMW M5 10 times out of 10.

Toyota Corolla: Toyota made only minimal style changes from the previous Corolla generation to save costs, but the 2000 engine was a masterpiece that helped the Corolla achieve 31/38 in fuel economy while still making the Corolla peppy and fun to drive. I think someone once said this was a possible Poor Man's BMW. Okay, maybe it was me ... when I was drunk. But I wasn't struck down by lightning, and that says something.

The car itself is ubiquitous and uninspiring in appearance … but isn't the second the result of the first? In a typical automotive irony, this car would probably inspire much more public lust if so many people didn't actually buy it in the first place. On the other hand, maybe my lust for this car means I'm frumpy, insipid, and uninspiring. I can live with that.

Honda S2000: A Honda roadster that can blow the doors off of a Miata and hold its own with a Porsche Boxster or BMW Z-series--what's not to love? One review pointed out that the 2000 S2000's engine produced more horsepower/liter than any other normally-aspirated engine on the planet (240/2.0). Wow!

Honda performance, both acceleration and handling, is so wonderful on their practical cars that it is almost inconceivable to think what it must be like to drive a Honda dedicated to maximizing fun by abandoning any pretense of practicality. A non-practical Honda? You'd think just saying those words would make the universe implode, but the universe is still here and so is the S2000, almost unchanged. It is due for an update, but the fact that it has remained competitive for eight years with only minimal updates speaks volumes about the S2000's greatness. Since it is cheaper than a BMW Z4, that makes it a poor man's BMW by definition, right?

Toyota Camry: The 2000 model has always been the best-looking Camry, in my opinion. It has nice, clean lines, good visibility for the driver, and that eager stance I like so much. Also in my opinion, with its power and handling, its driving experience is the most sporty, least grandmother-ish in the history of the Camry line.

In fact, if your grandmother told you she wanted a BMW, this might just be the first Poor Grandmother's BMW. Since I've never driven one, that might just be my imagination--but my imagination is all I need sometimes.

Honda Accord: If there is a car more perfect than a Civic, it is probably the Accord. The Accord offers more room, more luxury, more power, better handling, better looks--and the only cost is a slightly higher price and slightly worse fuel economy. Would I like one? Why, yes, I'll take two, thank you.

I've only driven one of these once, during a test drive. Its alignment was all messed up, so I didn't get a true feel for what an Accord drives like. It still left me with a good enough impression that I can't wait to drive one in good condition.

The resale value on these puppies is just a little too good, however; it's hard to find even a year 2000 Accord within the $4k range I search when dreaming of an additional used Japanese car. Camries abound; Corollas are all over the place for that price; but only a few Civics and no Accords are available for the magical $4k price point this cheapskate is looking for. Say it with me: Poor Man's BMW, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Audi A6; Volkswagen Jetta; Volkswagen Passat: These three cars all suddenly became lust-worthy for me around 2004, when I realized that the new-looking Passats, Jettas, and A6s I was seeing on used car lots were actually 4-6 years old.

Despite their frequent electrical problems, these cars' prices seem slightly high. Their fuel economy is slightly worse than similarly-sized and equipped Japanese cars, and the materials and and design effort they put into these cars meant that they looked up-to-date even a half-decade after appearing on the market.

Much of this appears to be due to high-quality paint; I have rarely, if ever, seen a peeling or faded paint job on an Audi/VW less than a decade old.  Audi and VW were design leaders at this time; most top luxury/performance cars had adopted the A6's smooth, rounded lines of the A6 by the mid-00s. In any case, I'd love to have someone give me one. Interested donors can contact me through the the blog's e-mail address.

--Chris H.

Comments

[Cookie the Dog's Owner on July 31, 2008 at 03:32 PM]

Nice selection of rides you've got there; it's gonna be tough finding a garage big enough to hold them all.

I completely agree with you about Honda styling: the current generation Civics and Accords look like the guy who runs the wind tunnel blackmailed the rest of the styling department into letting him run the show. The '00-vintage Civics I see seem to all have rust issues at the back of the rear wheel well, but if you can get past that, at 100k miles, a Honda's just getting out of the break-in period.

[Andrea Lin on July 31, 2008 at 03:36 PM]

Fabulous list and great reasoning - but you forgot my baby, the Subaru Outback Sport. 33mpg and still on mostly original parts at 141K, its zippy (enough) and dirt cheap to maintain.

[sillypickle on July 31, 2008 at 03:51 PM]

I'm with you on recent Honda styling, although I think you were WAY too kind to the CR-V. To my eyes, it's one of the ugliest cars ever made. I prefer the Aztek.

If I were to do a post like this, mine would be about 1990 (or around then) since the Japanese really made a lot of fantastic cars then too. Our 1989 Camry was actually incredibly fun to drive, thanks to a JDM 2.0 liter V6 that screamed to its 6800 rpm redline with the best mechanical noise I've ever heard from anything on the street. Even with a slushbox, I loved driving that car.

[rob the SVX guy on July 31, 2008 at 03:58 PM]

Actually, the Civic doesn't offer 360 degrees of vision at all. The 3G prelude easily trumps it in the visibility dept, with a range of 326 degrees out of 360. It's easy to see why, with it's really narrow C pillar.

I think 2000 was far too late if you like Japanese cars. I much prefer 1989-1993 somewhere. You could get RX7 twin turbos, NSX, 300ZX, 3000GT, Supra, 4ws Preludes, Civic Sis, CRXs, Impulse RSs, so many hot cars. Later on things just got bigger, fatter, and heavier. Not to mention the popularity of SUVs killed almost all of the sports cars.

[Chris Hafner on July 31, 2008 at 04:02 PM]

I'd agree with you, Rob, that in terms of fast Japanese machinery the late 1980s and early 1990s were much better. I get the impression Nathan isn't really a sports car guy, though - a little too extroverted perhaps. I think a nice, clean, moderately aggressive sedan is a little more Nathan's speed.

Sillypickle, I couldn't agree more on the new CR-V. I saw one this morning, and my fight-or-flight instinct nearly kicked in. I remember seeing my first one in the metal, and I thought it had been involved in a terrible wreck on the way to the car show.

[Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame on July 31, 2008 at 04:36 PM]

Oh, I didn't say the year 2000 was the *only* year I Lust after.

1992 is coming...

[Mochi Mochi on July 31, 2008 at 04:37 PM]

1st Gen CRVs are still tops on my list. The most recent accords and CRVs are really hard on the eyes. My biggest problem with the year 2000 was that it was actually the end of good visibility in cars.

But this is a fantastic list and a great compilation. Great work Nathan. I'll be re-reading this as soon as I get back from my next meeting.

[Sillypickle on July 31, 2008 at 05:04 PM]

I wonder if visibility is impaired because of safety standards requiring thicker pillars and such? I mean, it's definitely a style thing as well, but I don't think it's entirely to blame.

[rob the SVX guy on July 31, 2008 at 05:12 PM]

I think it's mostly styling. The Prelude was able to achieve the amazing visibility with its narrow pillars due to the use of special high strength steel instead of normal metal. But you'll be finding out all about that in a few days. :)

As for the CRV, I don't have a problem with them. If you follow the history of Honda automobiles, the CRV is really just a civic wagon, with a bit of a lift. If you put a civic wagon and a CRV next to each other, you definitely see the family resemblance.

[Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame on July 31, 2008 at 05:17 PM]

For all that the CR-V may be ugly, but they have fantastic resale value.
There are only 233 for sale on cars.com:
The most expensive is $13k...how many entry-level cars from the year 2000 do you know that sell for $13k? That is only about 40% depreciation in 8+ years. Can you find me a Lexus or BMW that can say that?
The cheapest is about $5k, but it has 130k miles on it.
And check out this one:
http://www.cars.com/go/search/detail.jsp;?tracktype=usedcc&searchType=22&pageNumber=4&numResultsPerPage=50&largeNumResultsPerPage=0&sortorder=descending&sortfield=PRICE+descending&certifiedOnly=false&criteria=K-|E-ANY|M-_18_|H-|D-_213_|N-N|R-10000|I-1|P-PRICE+descending|Q-descending|Y-_2000_|X-popular|Z-76903&aff=national&paId=282245760&recnum=219&leadExists=true
180k miles, and they are still asking for more than $5k.

There's a reason for that...maybe it's not the looks, but the looks can grow on you when you appreciate the car itself.

That's what happened with me and the Volvo 240, too.

[Brian on July 31, 2008 at 06:41 PM]

If I only had those cars to choose from, it'd be the 2000 Corolla for the wife and the Honda S2000 for myself. My favorite Japanese car of all time, though, is by far the AE86 Corolla GT-S, seconded only by the early 240Z.

[Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame on July 31, 2008 at 07:23 PM]

Anyone figure out who "Reg" is yet?

[Mochi Mochi on July 31, 2008 at 07:37 PM]

No ! I'm always left wondering to whom you are giving shout-outs!

[Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame on July 31, 2008 at 07:56 PM]

Does "How much do you hate the Romans?" help at all?

...I guess I'm a sucker for ancient pop culture references. Sorry about that.

A small financial contribution can get me to stop. You can do so through Car Lust Blog...

[David Colborne on July 31, 2008 at 08:17 PM]

Wait - did you just quote an old Mel Brooks movie? Seriously? History of the World Part 1? Tacky, sir. VERY tacky.

(I still dig it, though. It's good to be the king.)

The biggest problem I have with Japanese cars of this era is precisely the resale "problem" that you mention - they preserve it far too well. Being a skinflint myself, I find it really difficult to justify spending over $10k on a car with over 150,000 miles, but it seems that everybody with a used Honda or Toyota is firmly convinced they can get that. Worse yet, it seems they're right. I am far too cheap to put up with such nonsense, so I end up lusting after used American, which, of course, leads to all kinds of Car Disgust fodder.

(Yeah, yeah - you get what you pay for. I get it, I just don't want to pay for it.)

[Mochi Mochi on July 31, 2008 at 08:27 PM]

The resale value thing is only half the problem. The bigger problem is that people don't want to part with them at all! 1st Gen CRVs are a prime example. Hard to find. Once you have one why would you give it up? The good news is that these cars, if decently treated, are still great well after 250K. At that point you may need a transmission and an engine rebuild - so figure $4K - $5K total and you're back in the game good as new.

[rob the SVX guy on July 31, 2008 at 08:35 PM]

Eh... not really. I scored my accord for $500 and my 4ws Prelude for $1600. The prelude... I admit... was a pretty good deal though. :)

The trick is you need to not be afraid of miles. I bought the accord with 200k on it. I bought the prelude with 135k on it. Both have been relatively trouble free, excluding wear items.

[Walter Mellon on July 31, 2008 at 09:21 PM]

That S2000 has a lot of aftermarket tacked on to it.

[Mochi Mochi on July 31, 2008 at 09:56 PM]

The price range of 89-93 and 99-2003 Hondas is a little different. For some odd reason for similar years, Civics are actually valued higher than Preludes and command much higher prices on the ground. Also finding 89-93s that have not been "tunafide" is harder than finding a virgin at the Mustang Ranch. But Rob you got a sweet sweet deal there - no doubt about it.

You're dead on about the miles. For a Honda or Toyota buying a car with 135K on it is the equivalent of 45K on a car in the 70s.

Honda transmissions that have not been babied need a rebuild around 200K - that's in the neighborhood of $1500-$2000 - really not that much in the scheme of things. If they are meticulously driven, including double clutching, and proper transmission lube (changes every 30-40K) they will go much longer. My first civic, an 88 DX, had 225K original miles on the transmission and it was still perfect - the first time I replaced the clutch was at 190K. I'm sure it would have kept going had it not been for the rust - and the tree that fell on it.

[hunter on July 31, 2008 at 10:40 PM]

I must say I really prefer the early/mid 90s Honda styling where Accord and Civic are concerned. The big rounded jewelly bits on the 98 Accord were just awful when compared to the much sleeker '94-95 style. Likewise for the 6th and 5th generation Civics.

However, one model year 2000 Honda that I would take in a heartbeat is the last generation Prelude. Great chassis, great engine, great interior, great lines. One of the best sporty-coupes ever made, if you ask me.

As for other 2000 cars... the 99-00 Miata is the best of all of them. I had a 99. Those two years had all the second-generation improvements but were a bit lighter and purer than the '01-on.

Of course, the Integra GS-R sedan was still being made in 2000 :)

The MR Spyder had just debuted in 2000. I want one badly.

I also owned a 2000 Celica GT. I never quite got used to its weird side profile, and it never quite inspired. The GT-S engine is cooler, but overall it doesn't rate much better. Decidedly NOT lust-worthy.

[on August 01, 2008 at 05:05 AM]

Chevy Girl!

[Steaming Pile on August 01, 2008 at 09:06 AM]

Uh, no, Dave. "How much do you hate the Romans" was from Monty Python's Life of Bryan.

[Sillypickle on August 01, 2008 at 09:20 AM]

Aww, the 2000 Celica is one of the first cars I ever truly lusted after. I walked past one every day for a week in a parking lot, and I would always stop to admire it. Without the silly factory spoiler, it is really an amazing car to my eyes. It's so hard to find them unmolested by tacky body kits these days. I'll admit I never drove one so I can't claim them to be good cars in that way, but my friend had one that he put an intake, exhaust, and hotter cams in so it was making nearly as much power as the GT-S but about 2000 rpm sooner. It was a kick in the pants, and I really wish I had successfully begged him to let me drive it before it got stolen...

[spwilson on August 01, 2008 at 05:05 PM]

I've been saying to anyone that would listen (usually just the voices in my head)that Toyota needs to take the gen 1 IS platform and use it as the starting point to recreate the AE86 for today. Put a zippy 4 cylinder (not the 2.4 from the Camry/TC)Give it cheap steel wheels, keep the list of standard features short and call it a Scion something.

[Brian on August 01, 2008 at 06:30 PM]

Yeah! The world desperately needs an affordable 2-door hatchback rear-wheel-drive 4-banger stick-shift again. I don't care what you call it.