From 1997 to 2001, over 10 years ago, we were introduced to a new kind of hot rod. The “mail order” hot rod. Well, maybe you couldn’t exactly order one through the mail, but you could take a stroll down to your local Plymouth dealership and pick one up. No bloody knuckles from turning countless wrenches, welding, hours of body straightening, paint booths, wet-sanding, and polishing. These baby’s came right off the lot ready to roll…

The Plymouth/Chrysler Prowler was like no other vehicle that has ever been mass produced commercially. Designed with the beautiful lines and features of the 1930’s roadster, the Prowler is souped up as a 1950’s custom project with the modern flare of a sleek Dodge Viper.

The custom hot rod theme didn’t stop at its looks, as the front wishbone suspension was modern, but also designed to resemble that of the old. Despite its old fashioned rear-wheel drive, the prowler still maintained the modern amenity of independent suspension.

While not designed for the most comfortable ride, the Prowler could hold its own on the road using its front 225/45VR17’s wheels in the front and 295/40VR20’s in the back. With the size of these tires, and the fact that the rear trunk was basically used to store the roadsters top, there was no room for a spare, which means that these tires came standard as “run flats”.

The largest complaint from consumers during the Prowlers existence was its V-6 engine which was introduced with only 214 horsepower. Considering the standard for the American Hot Rod Association is a 300 horsepower V-8, the Prowler got off on a bit of a rocky start. Listening to such criticisms, the Prowler was eventually boosted to 253 horsepower and 255 lb-ft of torque, which was actually enough to lay a thick bead of smoking rubber upon stomping on the accelerator.

Even with its newfound horsepower, the Prowlers dual exhaust was never quite able to successfully mimic the low rumble of a classic hot rod roadster, which is why a popular conversion for some enthusiasts was a V-8 transplant. While not easy, this offered quite the surprise at a red light for the traditional hot rodder’s who thought the standard Prowler slow!

But actually slow, the prowler was not. In 1997 the original 3.5 liter (214 horsepower) was only able to roll from 0-60 in over 7 seconds, which is a snails pace to todays standards. The new 253 horse version unveiled in 1999 however, was a full second quicker at a 6.3 second 0-60, which is definitely respectable.

Other complaints were that purple was your only color choice back in 1997, which was later opened up to other colors, such as yellow and red. Also on the complaint list was its practicality of storage space. With its bucket two-seater interior, you had room for two average sized people and maybe a duffel bag at best, but this could be said about many sports cars. If you want to take the family on a road trip, take a station wagon…

Well, actually that is not completely true, as a popular addition for the Prowler was the “tow behind”, which was color matching trailer that could be attached to the prowler for grocery shopping, road trips, etc. While not the most convenient alternative, it actually was a nifty looking solution that solved yet another one of the Prowlers downfalls…

There were only 400 Prowlers produced in 1997 and 12,000 total over its five years in existence, which means that they are a bit of a collectors item. But what makes this collectors item truly unique is that fact that you can get one anywhere from $16,000 to $30,000 in brand new condition. Since these are predominantly weekend cars, you’ll rarely find one with much over 30,000 miles, and many of these “babies” are closer to the 5,000 to 15,000 mile range.

While they have their share of flaws in design and conception, these cars are an American classic (even though they’re not V-8’s) and rarely receive a bad review from the actual owners. The critics can slam these cars all they want, but the owners like them, so they must know something that others don’t!

With the SVT…

and Roush Ford Focus hatchback out of the way,

… the Mazda 3 hatchbacks can sit back and pull in some of the residual consumers that have been cast out from Ford Motor company now that the coupe and sedan Focus is all they have to choose from for 2008.

But there are still quite a few used models of the performance oriented Focus available… and at the average cost of $10,000 to $15,000 less than the MazdaSpeed 3, they just might make a great way to get a great gas saving economy car at an even better economy price.

The Stage 1 Focus Roush package has all of the sporty looks, yet still maintains its 30-plus MPG capabilities. The Stage 1 package includes driving lights, mid-wing spoiler, side skirts, rear fascia, and exhaust system with chrome tip.

Using the optional 5-speed manual, the 2,800 lb focus has plenty of spirit to get you around using the stock 2.4 liter boasting around 130 horsepower. If you opt for the Stage 2 Roush of the (non-turbo) Ford Focus you’ll get the addition of suspension upgrades for the springs, struts, shocks, and a rear sway bar.

If you really have the need for speed, the SVT Ford Focus ups the ante to 170 horsepower and 145 lb-ft torque. Reviews show that the average driver probably won’t notice this horsepower increase much unless they really push it out on the open road.

The gears on the SVT are a bit too tall for inner city driving, but out on the highway they make a perfect fit. From 0-60 the SVT Focus can see numbers in the 7.7 second range, which is a good second and a half faster than the Stage 2 Roush’s 2.4 liter, which is approximately 9.3 seconds.

While the focus will never have the capability to beat the MazdaSpeed at a red light without the Roush turbo upgrade, it’s looks and handling are very comparable and the price is right for somebody looking for a fun compact in the $10,000 to $15,000 range.

With todays average sport compact costing upwards of $25,000 for even your most basic driver package, you really don’t need to spend big to save big and have a heck of a lot of fun going about it!

Roush or SVT… either way you can’t go wrong!

Here is a very touchy subject that has been beat to death over the Internet for years. But the only real answer anyone has come up with is just to agree to disagree. The problem here is that there are several ways to look at this scenario.

On the side of our environment, it is easy to make the case that the newer vehicles today are much more efficient. Just look at the fuel economy comparisons of old and new cars, not to mention their overall emission ratings.

Among a world of recycling, where do these cars go that we get rid of in order to purchase a new one? That’s right, they go to another driver who will continue to drive the car, therefore emitting the same poorer emissions into the environment that you were trying to save the world from in the first place.

We could destroy all the older cars. The government could create a mandate for everyone to bring in their old cars to be destroyed and then receive vouchers for discounts to newer, more efficient vehicles.

That would probably not be such a great idea either…

Just like trash, old cars do not necessarily get recycled. Just look around at the number of junk yards in the world. These cars just sit around taking up space just like all the other leftover McDonald wrappers sitting at your local dump.

It really is a complicated question, because while our technology is constantly advancing, there will always being leftover technology lingering long after the new. Just like when they came out with the new DVD system, Blu-Ray… or the new broadcast system of HDTV.

It takes several years before a typical person can replace old technology. People just can’t afford to keep up with all the purchases necessary, especially with the economy the way it is today. Blu-Ray maybe better, but there are going to be a lot of consumers who just assume stay with the original DVD’s.

This is of course the other way that people look at this question, from the perspective of what males economic sense. While most experts will tell you that it is by far better to go with the new… there can be made a very strong case for why economically it is better to keep an older reliable car.

What is the answer to this ongoing dilemma?