1990 LE or 1993 SE?
#1
Member
Posts like a V-Tak
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Valparaiso Indiana
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1990 LE or 1993 SE?
I am not very familiar with the newer Bonnevilles, how is a 1993 SE different from my 1990 LE? I only have about 75,000 miles right now, and the SE has about twice as many. I am considering "upgrading" to the 1993 to gain leather interior, sunroof, and working AC, but I can't afford to replace a transmission if it may need it soon, or any other major problems. Are there any other advantages to the 1993 that may make the switch a good one, or is the dependability of the 1990 worth keeping?
Thanks for any input!!
Tom
ps- I have had the 1990 since it has had 50,000 EASY miles, so I know everything about it already.
Thanks for any input!!
Tom
ps- I have had the 1990 since it has had 50,000 EASY miles, so I know everything about it already.
#2
Senior Member
True Car Nut
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa.
Posts: 7,551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i could understand upgrading to newer but not downgrading mileage. i have always bee touchy about buying a car with 70K + on it. you should shop around a bit in my opinion...
#3
Senior Member
True Car Nut
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Three Oaks, Michigan
Posts: 4,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NOTE: I may have a biased opinion
If your car runs great, with low miles then why are you shopping for a new car? Personally, I would keep the LN3-equipped car [90]. Since you have low miles, you will be set for a very long time with that car [powertrain-wise]. I say keep it, no reason to change cars if you are happy with your current one. Especially since you know the car'* history and whatnot [always great to know].
SSuperchargedEi: Unfortunately, not all of us can afford cars with < 70k. And you will be hard pressed to find a '93 with < 70k. If you do, you may run into problems if it was not driven much and all that great stuff. Higher miles doesn't always mean less reliability. However, I would stray from a new[er] car with > 70k [02+].. IMO that is much too high, even if it was well taken care of.
-justin
If your car runs great, with low miles then why are you shopping for a new car? Personally, I would keep the LN3-equipped car [90]. Since you have low miles, you will be set for a very long time with that car [powertrain-wise]. I say keep it, no reason to change cars if you are happy with your current one. Especially since you know the car'* history and whatnot [always great to know].
SSuperchargedEi: Unfortunately, not all of us can afford cars with < 70k. And you will be hard pressed to find a '93 with < 70k. If you do, you may run into problems if it was not driven much and all that great stuff. Higher miles doesn't always mean less reliability. However, I would stray from a new[er] car with > 70k [02+].. IMO that is much too high, even if it was well taken care of.
-justin
#4
Senior Member
Posts like a Camaro
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Jenison, MI (Near Grand Rapids)
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SSsuperchargedEi
i could understand upgrading to newer but not downgrading mileage. i have always bee touchy about buying a car with 70K + on it. you should shop around a bit in my opinion...
That said, I'd still stick with the old one. If you really want leather and working air, those things can be upgraded and/or fixed, probably for cheaper than upgrading. The sunroof is a bit different, but you can go aftermarket flip-up on that if you really need to. Personally, I don't like sunroofs - just one more thing to go wrong.
#5
Senior Member
Posts like a Corvette
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Posts: 1,445
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
74, 000 miles on your '90 is amazing, and I would definatly keep it if it is running well. I have over 130,000 on my '89 and nothing is even showing signs of breaking. Sure the A/C doesn't work, but I like driving with my windows down to listen to the exhaust anyway.
#6
Senior Member
True Car Nut
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa.
Posts: 7,551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by theJMFC
70k? Sheesh, these things arent even broken in until 50k... I wouldn't hesitate to buy one with 140k on it.
#9
Senior Member
Posts like a Northstar
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Richfield, MN
Posts: 781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mine has got 204k on it and it still feels like a brand new car. Not looks of course, but feels. But if i was in your position, i'd keep the lower miles.
#10
Senior Member
Posts like a Camaro
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Jenison, MI (Near Grand Rapids)
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SSsuperchargedEi
Originally Posted by theJMFC
70k? Sheesh, these things arent even broken in until 50k... I wouldn't hesitate to buy one with 140k on it.