Good morning! Today, I’m setting a challenge for you all. I can literally hear the groans of disappointment from the photos, but just sit tight; we’re going to play a little game. But before I explain what we’re doing, let’s look at yesterday’s foregone conclusion:
Now, I want to point something out about those results, and it kind of leads into today’s pairing. The idea here is not, as some of you seem to think, to feature practical, desirable, or even reasonable cars. The idea is to get you to click, and read, and discuss, and vote. And by that measure, that Seville was wildly successful. I knew it was going to lose by a landslide, but how often do you see one for sale? How could I not write about it? Cars you love to hate are cars you love to talk about, and I’m going to take advantage of that whenever I can.
Today, I have two cars that I know are unpopular around here. Both are from the same seller, part of a property cleanup effort. Both are dirt-cheap. Both, ostensibly, run, at least enough to move onto a trailer. And both are cars I legitimately, unapologetically, unironically like. In fact, I have model kits of both of them in my stash:
But I don’t want you to just hate on them. That’s easy; anybody can do that. It takes a true love of automobiles to find something positive to say about some cars. So here’s what I challenge you all to do today: Find one thing you genuinely like about one of these cars. Find a reason, however insignificant, to vote for one of them. This is purely a thought experiment; no money is on the line, and you don’t have to drive one of these to work tomorrow. All I want is a positive comment, something that you think is cool about one or the other of these cars. That’s not too much to ask, is it? Let’s take a look at them.
1983 Plymouth Turismo 2.2 – $800
Engine/drivetrain: 2.2 liter overhead cam inline 4, five-speed manual, FWD
Location: Ridgefield, WA
Odometer reading: 135,000 miles
Runs/drives? Allegedly will run if you put a battery in it
The two-door variant of the Chrysler L-body was a neat little car. Sure, it wasn’t very powerful (at least until Carroll Shelby got his hands on it), and it wasn’t cool (even when Alejandro DeTomaso got dragged into it), but there’s something appealing about it, especially the early ones. They’re just cheerful little cars.
Starting in 1982, the Dodge Omni 024 and Plymouth Horizon TC3 became the Charger and Turismo, respectively, and gained some much-needed horsepower courtesy of the K-car: the ubiquitous 2.2 liter four, fitted with a two-barrel Holley carburetor. Chrysler chose to advertise this fourteen-horsepower bump with a borderline-obnoxious graphics package, a spoiler, and a bulge in the hood. Hey, it was not a great time for performance cars; you got your jollies where you could.
This Turismo 2.2 funnels the K-car power to the front wheels through a five-speed manual transmission, which is a good thing. With a manual, the L-body is a tossable little plaything; with an automatic, it becomes almost a punishment. The seller says this one will run if you put a battery in it, but I get the feeling that information is out of date by a good few years.
But with its wedgey ’80s styling, happy face, and flashy orange stripes, it just calls to me. It looks like it has a bit of rust here and there, and the paint isn’t in great shape, but the inside looks all right, and the original seats are included if you want it all to match.
1989 Dodge Daytona Turbo – $800
Engine/drivetrain: Turbocharged 2.2 liter overhead cam inline 4, three-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Ridgefield, WA
Odometer reading: unknown (digital, no battery in car)
Runs/drives? Will run with a battery, engine knocks
The K-car rescued Chrysler, and then the minivan gave it some stability, but no one was ever going to call a Reliant or a Caravan “fun.” The Charger and Turismo were sporty, but they weren’t a match for the Mustang or Camaro. Chrysler needed a pony car. Enter the Daytona. Based on the K platform, but rocking a turbocharger and flashy fastback styling, it still wasn’t a match for the Mustang or Camaro, let’s face it. But it was good enough for Dee Dee McCall.
This Daytona’s turbocharged 2.2 is stuck in front of an A413 Torqueflite automatic transmission. It’s not a bad automatic as automatics go, but a car like this deserves a third pedal. I used to own a Chrysler Laser, this car’s twin, with the same drivetrain, and I can tell you from experience it does take a lot of the fun out of it. This one is said to run, but it has a knock.
The interior of this one looks pretty good, if a little dirty. Red interiors seem to be a love-it-or-hate-it thing; personally I love them, but your mileage, as always, may vary. This car’s mileage is listed as unknown; I think that’s because it has a digital instrument panel and no battery.
Outside, it’s rougher than the Turismo, with some surface rust where the paint has been baked off. And it has the later front end, with pop-up lights, instead of the original quad rectangular lights, which personally I don’t like as well. But Daytonas of any age are getting hard to find, and this one looks save-able, and for practically pocket change.
I fully expect a few “Those both suck, and I’m not playing” comments. But I also hope that there’s something here you can find to admire. Dig deep – there’s a lot here to like, if you look closely. Find one thing about one of them, and cast your vote. Tomorrow’s cars will be more likeable, I promise.
(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)
The Daytona has a rod knock, so that engine is not long for this world, but for the Plymouth, I will be overly optimistic and say that with a battery, fluids, and an assortment of soft parts, maybe you could get it to run in an afternoon? Plus, for a small 80’s wedge car, I genuinely don’t hate its looks. And as others have commented- the stripes are a bonus.
There’s no way that the turismo is gonna fire with just a battery, but that aside, this is the correct call here. Ostensibly, the Daytona is the “better” car – turbo, better suspension, better wheel/tire combo, pop ups, but the hickey here is the stick between the seats. The Turismo’s shifter – even when new – sucked. It had vagueness and long throws designed in…but it’s there, and that makes it a better value. I’m actually rather surprised to see a Daytona with an auto. That was more of a Laser thing (along with ludicrously padded and tufted seats for a “sports” car, but I digress).
I had an Omni 024 with the 1.8 and automatic. The interior was roomy and the car wasn’t bad to look at. With a bigger motor and a clutch, I think it would be just fine. Turismo all day over a knocking 80’s turbo (that barely had more power)
My brother had a a non-turismo 2.2 manual back in the late 80s that was a blast to toss around. I’m going back to that well!
Love the stripes and the boast of a 2.2 L 4 banger.
The lines on that Turismo are actually super clean. One of those cars that was kind of generic at the time (hence the thirsty stripe package) but now that you don’t see similar things on the road anymore, you can look at with fresh eyes and say, huh, actually a pretty good example of the style of the times.
The Plymouth has signs of rodent infestation! Hantavirus Alert! Gloves and mask a must. Still looks like still could be the better choice. The Daytona gonna need an engine swap. Be a good parts car tho…meld the two for a Frankenstein mash up. The Monster Mash! It was a junkyard smash!
> Hantavirus Alert! Gloves and mask a must.
Congratulations, you’ve managed to disappoint David, Torch, and SWaG.
The Plymouth has cool stripes and it is a manual. That is two nice things!
Turismo solely on the transmission. If the Daytona was a manual, I’d be all over it. Because then the only “real” downer to it is that friggin’ 80s/90s slab of a steering wheel that was on literally everything they made. I hate that steering wheel so much.
The Turismo probably has some fun in it under the leaves (if it’s not seized.) Certainly $800 worth.
I’ve always really liked the looks of the Daytona, and those wheels are some of my favorites to come out of Detroit ever. But this one goes to the Turismo. It’s a decent looking car, the graphics are so stupid to be fun, and the manual would make it more of a laugh to drive.
That was my positive comment: I liked those Daytona wheels back then, and now even more so—because it’s an event when I actually see some.
I’m going with the 1983 Plymouth Turismo. Positives: It does not appear to have sunk as far into the grass and it runs with a battery and does NOT have an engine knock when running and it’s a manual! Three big selling points. Yay!
Say something nice? The grass these are parked on looks green.
It’s photo shopped. There is nothing but despair shown here.
The photo shopping is well done, does that count as nice?
This was fairly easy, as I like both of these dweeby cars.
I think they’re in rough shape, but both look nice. I like the seats in the Turismo, but that red interior in the Daytona would be my preference. But I’ll take the Turismo for the overall look including the stripes and fun retro badging. Oh and also, the manual. If I’m going to lose my mind to the point where I’m buying a cheapo Chrysler from the 80’s, it needs to have a manual.
The Turismo is the right choice, but as others have suggested, getting both gets you a decent car for $1600. Definitely stick with the manual transmission, and see what’s up with the Daytona’s engine. I mean, it’s a lot of work for a so-so ride, but I like the styling, and the price isn’t bad.
Likes: the retro graphics on the Turismo, the wheels, and the transmission. The decadent interior of the Daytona and the pop-up headlights.
My first car was a 1985 Plymouth Turismo. It wasn’t the 2.2 pacakge, but it did have the 2.2L and 5-spd manual. I prefer the look of the later quad-headlight Charger/Turismos, as well as the Shelby ones with the ground effects and power bulge hoods.
The Daytona looks even better, especially this refreshed model with the pop up headlights. I have a soft spot in my heart for all of the FWD performance Mopars, and the higher trim Daytonas just looks great.
Picking between these two, I’m gonna have to go with the Turismo however, strictly based on the manual transmission in it.
The graphics on the Turismo coupled with the manual, easy vote there. Pure ’80’s all the way!
How do I choose just one? I always liked the looks of both of these. Drivetrains, not so much – not then, and not now. V8 RWD 4EVR BABY!
I gave the edge to the swoopier Daytona, even with the ugly front end.
These cars always look smaller, more compact than the Mustang-Camaro counterparts, which makes me want to root for them. These should have been on everyone’s ” Slow Car Fast” list, but I never heard them to be peppy or crisp-handling, thus the hate.
I prefer the looks and engine of the Daytona, but my money would go to the Turismo. I’d pause at the thought of carbs. I don’t miss those at all.
The seller should have at least hooked up a battery to these for a quick assessment, and maybe dumped a bucket of water on them, but there is no accounting for sales strategy in this day and age.
The challenge is to say good things about both:
When I was looking to buy my first new car in 1983, I looked at a Shelby Charger. It looked really sharp in its blue and silver color scheme and it drove pretty well, given that the turbo model hadn’t come out yet.
A friend of mine bought a first year Daytona Turbo Z. It was actually fun to drive and had decent power – it wasn’t as fast as my Mustang GT but it handled better. It was the first turbocharged car I ever drove.
Always liked the Turismo, but never got to own one as they were too ratty even when I got my license in 1995. This has some sweet graphics and an manual which always is extra points.
This was my least favorite Daytona, and this example looks like it’s been left for dead 5-10 years ago.
I picked the Turismo, but I think if I were in Washington to buy it I might always regret not finding a Rampage instead!
My dad had a Daytona of that era in the middle Nineties. I never got to drive it even once.
I think it even had a red interior too.
Just… no.
I generally hear about all L-Car Dodge’s being sold, and virtually nothing of the Plymouth’s, so the Turismo gets my vote just because it’s a Plymouth.
Bitchin’ tape stripes versus pop-up headlights, rad early-’80s almost-Europeanness and light weight versus vivid scarlet fuzziness and (relative) refinement? And each has a super-’80s spoiler? Ordinarily a tough call, but…
While I’m with the “both are great drivetrain swap candidates” crowd, the Turismo could probably be coaxed to enjoyable-enough-weekend-driver status while you source the parts you want, while the Daytona will… sit… unless you already have a hoard of old-turbo-Mopar stuff, or at least a lightly-wrecked Neon, on hand. A car you can enjoy while you work on it (doing a bit of bodywork as you go, having the decals reproduced for the future) beats one that’ll need a new engine and, for nearly all of us, transmission right away… plus there’s more to go wrong with the Daytona, electrically.
Turismo, then, easily.
> a hoard
You’re the only person on the internet who spells that word correctly.
I owned a Daytona Turbo, the one before they ruined the look with grafted-on pop-up headlights. Mine had a 5 speed and checkerboard red/black velour interior. I liked it but it was the worst car I ever owned, a group that included Renaults, Fiats, and Corvairs. This one was worse in every way when new. Now it is a frickin’ fright pig.
Turismo all day long.
I have owned/own many of these cars.
The Daytona with it’s fuel injected turbo engine and more modern engine controls would be the nicer of the two to live with on a daily basis. Also the easiest to make faster with a simple boost controller. It should have the 2.5l engine in 89. The automatic trans sucks the fun out of it and the ES trim means it doesn’t have the big brakes and stiffer springs of a Shelby package car.
The Turismo has more character and would probably be much more of a mechanical pain in the rear with the feedback carb. I still picked the Turismo.