'85 4WD for sale in LA area

[Petros]

I seem to recall the old EPA rating as 32 mpg hwy, and the "new" adjusted rating as 30 mpg. This is pretty close to what most list members get. I saw that on the official EPA website. I have never seen the Tercel4wd ever rated as 40 mpg, that might be for the 2 door hatch back DX (lightest one they made, a full 700 lbs less empty weight than the T4wd).

[dlb]

just looking at the government fuel economy website and it says that the late 80's tercel coupes and hatchbacks got 37 mpg on highways.that's pretty good; at least that way a family could buy a cheap car that was also cheap to run and fix. our cars are pretty good but improving economy is always high on my list of priorities.

[tercel4wdrules]

I checked out the figures that are listed on the fueleconomy.gov's website and there seem to be inconsistencies with the data presented there as compared to what's listed on the Toyota brochures. The old MPG figures are what I believe should be the same between the brochures and this data. The new MPG figures are supposed to depict driving with faster speeds and harder acceleration, air conditioning use, and colder outside temps, all which affect MPG.

1984 Toyota Tercel Wagon 4WD

Old MPG:

• City - 28
  Highway - 33
  Combined - 30

New MPG:

• City - 24
  Highway - 30
  Combined - 26

1985 Toyota Tercel Wagon 4WD

Old MPG:

• City - 27
  Highway - 32
  Combined - 29

New MPG:

• City - 23
  Highway - 29
  Combined - 26

1987 Toyota Tercel Wagon 4WD

Old MPG:

• City - 26
  Highway - 30
  Combined - 28

New MPG:

• City - 23
  Highway - 28
  Combined - 25

Here is the 1983 Toyota brochure MPG figures:



1984 Toyota brochure MPG figures (note how they varied slightly from the 83 figures):



1985 Toyota brochure MPG figures:



1987 Toyota brochure MPG figures:



As you can see, the 1984 MPG figures on the Toyota brochure are a lot different than what is listed on the EPA's fueleconomy.gov's website for the 84 model year. One of the most interesting things to note is how as the years progressed the MPG estimates became lower, and the 87 T4WD had the lowest MPG ratings. I wonder if the estimates were just getting closer to the kind of figures that would be realistically seen by the consumer. I have not owned an '87 yet, so I can't say much about what the real-world MPG figures are, but at least in the 83-86 model years, which are the ones that I own, I have seen as low as 22 MPG with a heavy foot and as high as 66.7 MPG with a lot of patience and hypermiling techniques! The silver 85 SR5 which is my daily driver will average usually about 24-26 MPG combined, but on all-highway trips, I have consistently gotten between 36-37 MPG on 90-100 mile trips. Petros is incredulous on how I have been able to get such high averages on the highway, I don't know how to explain it either. Other times I might only average 31-32 MPG, even driving slow.

I'm sorry Petros, but there isn't a 700 lb difference between the lightest hatchback and the heaviest T4WD curb weight. According to the 1986 Tercel brochure these are the curb weights:

3 door liftback: 2000 lbs
5 door deluxe wagon 5 spd manual: 2145 lbs
SR5 4WD wagon: 2290 lbs
deluxe 4WD 5 spd manual: 2270

The difference from the lightest 3 door liftback to the heaviest SR5 wagon is a whopping 290 lbs!

There's still a lot that I'm learning about these cars, little stuff like this piques my interest. I hope this information helps clarify some confusion.

[takza]

Part of the reason for lower mileage with the later wagons is the higher engine speeds due to the change in final ratio? The '83-'84 brochure mileages are not of this world? I saw 47 mpg once on highway with a tailwind all day....wind direction makes all the diff.

[tercel4wdrules]

Part of the reason for lower mileage with the later wagons is the higher engine speeds due to the change in final ratio? The '83-'84 brochure mileages are not of this world? I saw 47 mpg once on highway with a tailwind all day....wind direction makes all the diff.

In my experience, there isn't much difference with the shorter final drive, they seem to get about the same MPG, even though the shorter final drive makes a big difference in drivability. I suspect there might be a difference perhaps if one's cruising at higher speeds 75+ MPH, the extra few hundred RPM's might make a difference. I hardly ever cruise above 65 MPH, so I wouldn't know what the difference would be.

[tercel4wdrules]

Back on topic, I went to go see this car this afternoon. The seller has relisted the car on Craigslist for $3,000 after getting very little response at his initial asking price of $4,000. I travelled 50 miles one-way to go see it.

Here's the link to the new ad: http://inlandempire.craigslist.org/cto/2208768281.html

I wish I would had arrived earlier when there would've been more light to have asked permission to take pictures of the car and post them here. The car's exterior doesn't look as great as it does in the pictures in the ad. The paint was dull and the clearcoat has oxidized, most noticeably in the top portion of the hatch. The body looked good, but had some minor surface rust in the usual places - the top right corner of the windshield frame and in other random areas. The interior I would say seemed a bit above average for a 28 yr old car with almost 176k. The alloy wheels were nice, it seemed to have all of the center caps. The electric sunroof worked per the seller's demonstration. I did not test the operation of the AC. It still has the factory AM/FM radio, not sure if it works or not as I did not test it. The front windshield did have a small crack on the right side of the glass. The front windows are tinted, note that this is not legal here in CA, the tint on the rest of the windows is permissible. This car has the rare optional guard for the transmission, this is the second car that I have seen with them (besides my own '84 SR5). The clutch engaged well and smoothly. The transmission was above average shape, it was quiet and the syncros seemed to work great, even 1st gear. The engine was quiet and felt good for a stock engine, it revved well. The tires have plenty of tread left on them. The suspension is in need of replacement, the ride felt a bit bouncy. The passenger side CV axle is in dire need of replacement, it was clicking loudly, although he claimed that was "the first time he had heard that noise." After the test drive, I took a peak underneath and the CV axle boot was gone and the joint was exposed and looked rusted, no wonder it was so loud. It drove straight, but it might need some attention to other parts of the front-end, however, my inspection was not as thorough as to have determined this, but I'm sure some of the clunk and vibration was due to the bad passenger side CV axle.

In my personal opinion, I think that $3,000 is too much to ask, I've seen vehicles in similar condition sell for half the price. Perhaps it might be worth that much to someone else, I don't know, we'll have to wait and see if it sells. I'm going to pass on this one... unfortunately, I will not be "tickled pink."

[ARCHINSTL]

What - the "Pastor" claimed it was "the first time he had heard that noise."?
Sure...
Tom M.

[tercel4wdrules]

It must have indeed been a revelation...

[ARCHINSTL]

Good 'un, C!

Wish I'd thought of it!
Tom

[Petros]

He might just be hard of hearing...what clicking noise?

Sounds like it should be worth about half that much much, even with just the bad paint.