bangbang001

I'm looking at both cars pearl white with tan. The 93 has about 70k with the 95 chrome wheels. No Naki. or heated seats or traction. One owner.
The 95 has 96k with the Naki, no heated seats or traction 2 owners with records.
They both are around 16k price range
Both with rear spoilers.
They both look very nice.
Which one should I choose and why?
Thanks for your help and advice. Hope to join you soon.

95SC400

I looked at many before I got my 95 SC400 and I am very glad I got the 95 instead of the older model.

They upgraded the suspension quite a bit and the tail lights look better!

The only thing is the older one has less mileage but unless the 95 model has obvious problems, I would go with it.

Be sure to have the power steering resevoir checked for leaks and check the coolant resevoir for cracks. Minor things though, these cars are good for at least 200k miles!

The Ikon

This is an easy choice, let's look at the pros and cons of each...

LOOKS 93 & 95 DRAW: same body, interior, wing, etc... as for the tail lights, I personally like the original ones better, I'm sorry guys but the newer rear lights with the chrome internal ring(that looks pink thru the lens) does not work in my opinion...

PERFORMANCE 93 & 95 DRAW: 0-60, 1/4 mile... basically identical from the sources I have... On the skid pad the lateral acc. .87, was the same for both years.. I've test driven both model years and I couldn't tell the difference in the suspension..

ENGINE 95: because of the 10 extra horse power gain and torque... however, you can get that back with a simple air intake K&N panel filter addition...

TOP SPEED 93: the model is 7 mph faster vs the 95 which is limited slower...

FUEL ECONOMY: DRAW

$$$$ PRICE $$$$ VS MILEAGE: 93, 2 identical cars in excellent condition, but one with 26,000 less miles (for some people that's 2 yrs. worth of driving) and less wear on the components, $$$ saved on service expense to come(timing belt, alternator, plugs, susp, battery, wires etc.) the 93 should have just had all of those..,
You can get a good extended warranty(check www.traderonline.com or www.edmunds.com )on the 93 up to 3 yrs because of the low miles and only 1 yr on the 95 with almost 100,000 miles. Plus the '93 could be bought for 14,000 - 15,000 if your really try. I'll go with the 93 SC for the miles on the car if both cars are truly the same, in terms of condition!!!

Good Luck in your decision... Let us know...

T.Harris

hassi

if it were me, i'd probably go for the 93 since it's only had one owner. The original owner spent $$$$$$ for the car, chances are pretty good he was an older individual who drove the car carefully, at least that's what I'd imagine, I assume the average individual who purchased it new would not race around in it since these are not primarily "go fast" vehicles, for that 50k he could have gotten a porsche if that was his intention.

I question why the 95 has already had two owners, something just doesn't sound right to me, a 6 year old luxury car had two owners already?

garnet92

Personally, I agree with Ikon and prefer the ’93 tail lights and the difference in mileage is pretty significant. Advantage ‘93

Another thing to consider is the higher value placed on the ’95 car over the ’93 one. And that the ’93 has been subjected to cold/heat fluctuations, perhaps rain/snow, etc. being on the earth for 2 more years, it just hasn’t rolled as much. Advantage ’95 based on perceived value of later model year.

Also agree with Ikon that you stand a better chance on improving the price for the ’93 – whereas 16k is a pretty good price for a ’95. Checkout comparative pricing at carpoint.msn.com for Kelley Blue Book pricing. I entered both – rating them both “excellent condition” and the ’93 shows 13,150 trade-in and 18,820 retail. The ’95 showed 15,590 trade-in and 22,330 retail. That’s what I mean by the higher value placed on the later model. Pricing did consider the mileage but I forgot to check the chrome wheels on the ’93 (wouldn’t make an appreciable difference tho). Another source for comparative pricing is www.edmunds.com. Seems to me that you’ll end up with a asset worth about 16k or one worth about 19k.

So what’ve we got? Chrome wheels and 26k miles better for the ’93, newer car with the Nak for the ’95. Plan on upgrading the audio? Scratch off the Nak – not an advantage. Want to upgrade wheels – 17-18” or different design? Then forget the ‘93’s chrome wheels. After all this bs, you eventually get down to “who the **** knows?” Pick the one you like and don’t look back – you’ll probably love either one.

Regards,
Garnet92

stoplight

Bottom line is you win either way. I was debating the same issues last year and opted for a 92 with one onwer, all service records and only 47000 miles. This car was seemed newer than most new cars. My bias is towards the lower milage based on general wear do to normal use (seats, carpet, body hardware electrical motors etc.)
By the way, white with tan was the only option for me too.
Good luck

amati5

bangbang,

Consumer report recommend 95' and up for reliability.