GS300 vs early Q

[Qdog]

I started thinking about Q replacements recently in case the 92Q should be totaled in an accident. The mid 90's GS300 looks like it could have the right stuff, but I've never driven one. Can anyone compare the driving & ownership experience with an early Q ?97-01 Q's seem boring, like an American car with great build quality, and the LS400 are pricey & boring too. BMW are high buck whether new or old, same for Mercedes. The short list could include the S6 Audi, 5 cyl turbo, very quick & stiffly sprung, somewhat heavy for it's size, but it has a 5 speed stick. I know a good local Audi shop that tunes them for AutoX & sport classes, and does the occasional Porsche & VW....I should check an Audi board but I'd like to hear from someone that can compare it to an early Q45. Thanks

[jimb]

Drive any mid 90's Camry and you'll have a good idea about the GS 300.

[juiceman]

The ES300 is based on the camry

The GS300 is a rear drive car isn't it

[tkd_q45]

I too am a fan of the GS300 but I didn't consider it at the time I bought the Q because back then it was a good 5-7K more and being that it did not have a V8 I couldn't justify the price. I do think that the GS300 is a handsome design (Gugario). In Japan you can (could) get it with a V8! Anyhow I would drive one first. I spoke with another person who had originally looked at the GS300 but ended up with the Q because he said power wise the GS300 "was a dog." I would be curious to see what your findings are. The GS300 is a more compact size and would be easier to park and manuver through tight spots. Reliability wise I know that they are bullet proof. They use the same inline six as the Toyota Supra (N/A).

The A6/S6 is a beautiful car but... it's German! If you can live with mechanical and electrical gremilins then go for it. But if you have become accustomed to the mostly worry free aspects to Japanses car ownership, then I'd stay away.

Do you have a price range you'd like to stay within?

If you want to try something German try looking at an 500e (W124).http://www.mercedesshop.com/500e.htmThis car kicks ***!!! 322hp & and a Porsche suspension. Need I say more!

I myself wanted to try something different and went with a 400e (W124).http://www.mercedesshop.com/400e.htmI do like the car and it has grown on me. But if I was to do it over I think I'd seek out a really clean 1st Gen Q! I did a comparison between the Q and the 400e some tiime ago in this forum (do a search). If you'd like any more info about the 400e let me know. If you are interested in any MBZs check out this forum:

http://www.mercedesshop.com/shopforum/index.php3

Lots of good info here.

[reggiegsd]

There is a GS400. Guess which engine it has.

The downside is price and Automatic only. It's still pretty quick.

[PalmerWMD]

The first generation GS only came with a V6, it is the second gen GS that came w/ V8's.

yes the GS is RWD.

pretty and relaibel cars but...:

Used Dollar equivalent of GS (V6) is to Q45 (V8)New GS300 aboput same price as a much superior V8 M45.

Fred....

[tkd_q45]

1st Gen 300GS actually has an inline 6, not V6.

[PalmerWMD]

1st Gen 300GS actually has an inline 6, not V6.

hmm, ok:dunce

the current one is a V..but my main point was that the first gen GS was avalable only w/ a 6..:angel

Fred...

[maxnix]

the current one is a V..Fred:dunce...

Actually, it is still a straight six, very similar to the six in the last Supra. In fact in JDM, one could get the twin turbo set up in the GS, which made quite an acceptable performance car.

The FWD ES and RX 300 (now 330) have the V6.

[PalmerWMD]

aawww,

I thought the engine in the GS was the same as in the ES..

Well one never ceases to learn..

Fred...

[EWT]

Actually, it is still a straight six, very similar to the six in the last Supra. In fact in JDM, one could get the twin turbo set up in the GS, which made quite an acceptable performance car.

The FWD ES and RX 300 (now 330) have the V6.

I believe it is the same I6 as the non-turbo mkiv Supra. I've always thought a turbo mkiv motor swap would make for an ultimate sleeper sedan. Stock, they are nowhere near as fast as a first generation Q. I think they were mid-high 16 second quarter mile cars.

[bpmguys]

If you want to drive a car that does not break, buy the gs. I don't know about the engine compartment config. but if it is the same engine as a supra, then you may be able to swap the supra turbo into it. Even so, it is the "bulletproof car" that everybody like to talk about with other cars. I have been around those for the last three years with the business, and it is the first recomendation I give. less hp but less problems

[lessthanjakejohn]

How about a volvo?

[PalmerWMD]

I am currently driving an 85 volvo 240GL w/ 4 cyl and 4 speed transmission, tape holding up the sunroof and rustholes so thick u can stick a fist thru..

Fred...

[Chaz98Q45t]

I agree that the GS300's are bullet proof...but they are dogs. I drove a '95 GS300 when getting a car for the wife - ended up with the '97 J30T....much quicker. I would say after you've driven any Q that the GS300 is a huge step down in power and you wouldn't be happy. But - you gotta test drive one yourself to see...

[greg_atlanta]

I was looking at a used GS400 and the salesman talked me into driving a 2001 GS300 saying it was nearly as fast. Had a great engine and drivetrain, transmission very sharp. But kinda cramped interior-wise.... and the styling still doesn't win me over.

If you don't need a big car, the IS300s are fun, very refined little car. They'll still be over 20K, though. '01 was first year.

[BadQ45t]

I was looking at the GS400 when I was car shopping in 2000 and the main reason I passed was you cannot tell the V8 powered much more expensive 400 from the GS300 unless you look at the badge. I could never get over the funky styling it has...the GS300 is indeed an I6 out of the supra, although supposidly updated from that late 80's design. The ES300 is a V6 similar to Camry but with more HP.

[jimb]

If my memory serves me right (I had a Supra with that motor) it produces 200 hp without the turbo, the turbo was good for 232 hp.

They aren't high revving engines and so are down a bit on hp considering the turbo was a 4 valve design with dual overheads and an intercooler.

It was very smooth, though and the engine/transmission combination were as bullett proof as any combination made.

In the GS I would expect a 16-17 sec quarter, a tick slower than the supra with a car the size of a Camry.

[Q45tech]

But like any car a bad owner can abuse and destroy any car fast, you should see some of the pathetic GS300 our customers drive.

If a human could intentionally destroy a bullet proof car [if maintained] they do it............but to date never changed a transmission, lots of suspension problems, engine leaks, crudded up [lack of oil changes] but running wallowing piglets..........

The 98 and later ones are much better but electronic dash problems abound.

As with all cars 94-95 seems to be the sweet spot [before OBD2].

[Q45tech]

"The ES300 is a V6 similar to Camry but with more HP.' ?????????

The engines are identical, we change dozens of them a year!

Maybe the software is a little sharper but hardware wise clones!

[tkd_q45]

As far as Volvos go- I know most Volvo owners are quite a loyal lot - but so are Saab owners! A good friend of my wife just recently aquired one of their All Road wagons. I was not impressed by the thrashy noise of the drive train as well as the poor (for this level/price car) NHV and cheap looking leather.

2nd Gen GS300/400 doesn't seem to be aging well IMHO. It is a strange duck. I know many like the performance aspect of this car. I don't find it outright ugly but it does grow tiresome to my eye. Unlike our 92Q which I still often admire it's striking profile and nice lines from almost any angle.

All things considered, it's pretty hard to beat the value (price, performance, styling, luxury, dependability) of a well kept 1st gen Q. You can find different rides for the same price range, but none will be as good a mix as the Q. I think after owning a Q one might want to try something different for the sake of change but I don't think it's worth it - I speak from experience!

Anyone care to challenge this theory?

[maxnix]

Quote »Anyone care to challenge this theory?[/quote] Not me. I think you very well articulated my own observations.

I know a few Saab enthusiasts who have had their enthusiasm blunted by repeated driveline failures. Have a friend now with a low pressure turbo post GM one, so I will monitor the performance of that car.

[airman]

I test drove 96 GS300. It was very slow and sooo boring (like V6 camry). Yes, it had I6.

[EWT]

If my memory serves me right (I had a Supra with that motor) it produces 200 hp without the turbo, the turbo was good for 232 hp.

They aren't high revving engines and so are down a bit on hp considering the turbo was a 4 valve design with dual overheads and an intercooler.

They fixed that with the mkIV Supra. http://home.attbi.com/~etyppo/513dynosmall.jpg is a dyno chart from my car with just a full exhaust and some additional boost. They usually dyno at 280-300 rwhp stock. They also fixed the head gasket problem the turbo mkIII cars had. Also, I think the GS has the same 220 hp motor the mkIV non-turbo used rather than the motor out of the mkII. There are turbo kits out there for it designed for use on Supras that would probably work on a GS300 as well.