Happy Friday, Autopians! How the hell is it December already? I swear, last week it was July … oh well. As the spider said, time’s fun when you’re having flies. For this week’s Friday special, we’re doing another four-way shootout – but instead of the cars you chose, we’re going to take a second look at my favorites. Why? Because I can.
So first, let’s see how yesterday’s vote went down. I honestly had no idea how this one was going to turn out. The Z3 was the more desirable car before you factored in the current owner’s “improvements,” but there’s a lot to unpack there. And I don’t just mean all the crap they left on the floor. I didn’t know how much you were willing to overlook.
As it turns out, you couldn’t get past the Lambo doors and the silly spoiler and whatever other indignities had been visited upon that poor little roadster, and chose the threadbare but stock GTI. For once this week, we are in agreement. If I were looking for a GTI, I’d rather have a MkII; I drove a MkII Golf in college and absolutely loved it. But this one would do nicely too.
So now that we have our foursome, let’s recap them, so you can appreciate the wisdom of my choices.
1986 GMC Safari – $1,850
Pros: As durable as a hammer, can be anything you want
Cons: Would lose a drag race to a snail driving a 240D
On Monday, this scruffy Safari van lost to a much cleaner and slightly cheaper Ford Aerostar, and I suppose on the face of it, the Aerostar was a better deal. But I prefer the Astro/Safari’s styling, and I like the idea of a blank slate. Custom vans need to make a comeback, and this old school-district stuff-hauler needs a second lease on life. It’s plain white and empty now, but there’s no reason it has to stay that way.
The trouble, for a lot of you, was what’s under this van’s doghouse: GM’s trusty old “Iron Duke” 2.5 liter four cylinder. Yes, for the first few years, you could get the Astro and Safari with a four, and in some cases, a stick, too. I’ve seen exactly one manual Astro ever, so they’re not what you’d call common. This one is equipped with a TH700R4 automatic, the same transmission used in V6 Astros and Safaris, as well as full-size trucks and Corvettes. It’s absurdly overkill for the little Iron Duke, and that’s a good thing. Yeah, it’s going to be pokey, but what’s your hurry?
1995 Land Rover Discovery – $2,500
Pros: Land Rover capability, rare manual transmission, runs and drives great
Cons: Land Rover reliability, interior is trashed
This first-generation Disco lost spectacularly to a red Saab turbo on Tuesday. I believe Saab is still undefeated in Showdowns. Everyone loves them, which makes it all the more curious that the company went out of business. Anyway, Land Rover is still around, but they sure don’t make trucks like this any more. The Discovery Series I is as tough as they come, with two solid axles driven by Rover’s aluminum V8, in this case through a five-speed stick.
Like the Safari, this Landy doesn’t have much of an interior. The back seat is gone, the front seats are trashed, and a lot of the plastic inside is broken or missing. But fancy interiors in these things are overrated. Land Rovers were never meant for Rodeo Drive; they were built to traverse far more hostile terrain. This would make a great weekend off-road toy, and for that, you don’t need nice leather seats.
1990 Chrysler LeBaron – $3,750
Pros: exceptional condition, low miles, comfy seats
Cons: less-desirable powertrain, boring color combo
I actually went back and forth on this one. The Oldsmobile Cutlass convertible that won was an awfully nice car, but it had twice the miles on it, and it was bright red, and I’ve never liked bright red cars. I’m not in love with the beige on this LeBaron either, but it’s less offensive.
This LeBaron also features the Mitsubishi-built V6, which is a decent engine, but Chrysler’s own turbocharged four-cylinder is cooler, and probably gets better mileage. The LeBaron was technically available with a manual, but unlike the Astro, I’ve never even seen one LeBaron convertible with a stick. Coupes, yes, but no convertibles. But I suppose, for a soft-edged cruiser like this, an automatic is fine.
2009 Volkswagen GTI – $4,500
Pros: practical, efficient, six-speed manual
Cons: VW with over 200,000 miles, not the most fun GTI
This is probably the most practical car here. Four-door hatchbacks aren’t terribly common in America, but in other parts of the world, especially Europe, this style of car does most of the heavy lifting. You can haul people or stuff, park easily, and not use too much fuel doing it. Get a “hot hatch” version like this, and you can even have some fun along the way.
Yes, it has a lot of miles on it, and VWs after about 1988 or so don’t have the best reputation for reliability. But in this case, high mileage might be a good thing: these cars don’t take kindly to neglect, and there’s no way it would have lasted this long without proper maintenance. The stuff that could go wrong probably already has, and been fixed. There’s not much to fear from this car, as long as you keep up on stuff from here on out.
So here’s how we’re going to play this: You tell me which car I’m most wrong about, and cast your vote accordingly, then explain your choice in the comments. So you’re not voting for one of these, you’re voting against one. Make sense? OK, cool. Have a good weekend, and I’ll see you all back here on Monday.
(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)
Wow, a 4-way vote where my response is still “neither”. Well, “none of the above” anyway.
It was a tough choice between the Landy and the GTI, but I voted to boot the Disco. That thing is trail-rated for the trail of tears, not the rubicon.
Phew, rough week: None of the Above.
Or maybe the Discovery to try and prove that it isn’t so bad as people say 😉
Welp, I screwed up the plan and voted for the Lebaron instead of the Rover. Maybe do bold lettering on special instructions LOL
DOH! Same here. Although I might vote for the GTI over the Rover as most wrong, but it is close.
As Campfire states below, just because a late 00’s GTI made it to 200k miles does not mean it has suffered all the pains it is going to see. Oh no! There are a limitless number of ways the GTI can break over the next 10k-20k miles. Get that FCP Euro account setup if you want to keep it on the road.
I chose the Land Rover. I initially chose it in the previous Showdown because I will avoid potentially bad wiring like the plague. However, it is still a worn out, abused British vehicle and that does nothing to help its case. I would rather spend time finding a clean one than buy that particular one.
Here is why I voted GTI:
Saying something is more reliable because it’s more worn out is madness. There’s not a limit on how many ways a car can break. It’s still a VW, prone to the usual faults. And being towards the end of its lifespan doesn’t improve that situation.
I’ll grant an exception for a great car with a single fatal-yet-fixable flaw, like a Buick 3800 with DexCool. If that car survives to 150k, it’s a pretty good sign that the DexCool issue was dealt with and the car will continue to run for years to come.
But with regards to non-Achilles maintenance items, a good maintenance history doesn’t guarantee eternal reliability. A worn-out VW will likely have more nickel & dime issues than a less-worn VW. “Keeping up on stuff from here on out” could easily become a major commitment.
Man, so many people are screwing this up. Apparently, reading comprehension isn’t required to be an Autopian aficionado.
The LR Disco is the clear loser here. It’s crappy and you could likely find a decent one for less money than it would take to transform that steaming pile of turn into something that could be used as a DD.
The 3 others are all better. In fact, the Lebaron and the GTI are actually nice.
Raises hand 🙁
Oh, y’all wanted a twist? Nice curveball, Tucker!
As for the vehicle about which you’re most wrong: it’s the Safari. Yeah, it’s literally a blank slate, but the “white panel van” meme is pervasive enough to give one pause. The fact that acceleration runs can be timed with a calendar doesn’t help.
Well, I voted for my favorite, the Safari. You sold me on slow but cool and durable, and I’m with you on preffering the styling of the Astro/Safari to the Aerostar.
Which one are you most wrong about? Dude, that Land Rover is a MESS. You can’t even roll the windows up! That thing is never gonna work, and it’s gonna be a wet smelly box of mold inside in about two/tree weeks. That thing can go kick rocks.
The Lebaron is nice, it’s just an unfortunate color, but it’s a good solid car. No regrets there. The VW? Not something I’d take a swing on, but I loves me some plaid.
Plus, whilst I’m wrong side of the pond for US vehicle knowledge, but I’d assume that if you don’t like the iron duke, there’s a plethora of junkyard engines that will fit in that thing without much hassle or expense.
Also yes.
Oh no! Sorry about the confusing instructions. I literally didn’t think of that gimmick until I was writing that last paragraph. Ah well, it’s not like anything’s riding on the outcome…
Ooops, I didn’t pay attention to the instructions and voted for my favorite. Sorry about that, Safari!
I chose LeBaron, because let’s be real here. If Toyota built their products with Chrysler badging on them, people would STILL call them unreliable. If Dodge builds a product the entire industry says “man, we can’t build something that well put together!”, people will still call it trash. If it was the most efficient car? People will say a more efficient car exists.
Chrysler can’t do right by people even if they actively tried to. Chrysler always loses, even if it happens to have the better option.
I feel the same about Jaguar. BMW gets all the ultimate driving machine love, but really? They’ve gotten fat and ugly.
Instant no for a VW with a BMW M license plate frame
You know that 88% of the people who read this are just going to scroll down and check the box of the one they like best without reading the clearly-explained directions, right?
I did!
Guilty!
I read the instructions and followed them.
Now gimme a second to put on my flame proof suit that is powered by pure smugness and go remind the teacher she said she was gonna give us a quiz AND homework for the weekend.
I almost did that before re-reading the last paragraph.
Had to pick the VW, even if I picked it to win yesterday.
VW is the worse because it is too expensive, to expensive to repair, and unlike the other 3, can’t really be driven into the dirt and then still run afterwards.
The answer is never, ever a LeBaron. I would rather drive a Yugo to get better build quality. When all the bits stayed working and not falling off as you drove, ours was pretty nice. Too bad that was about 2days out of 3 years of ownership.
I read all the way through the article and skipped the last paragraph. Oops!
Sorry lil Safari, I wish I could take my vote back. The GTI is clearly the worst car of the bunch.
Gotta go GTI. It’s manual, it’ll be reasonably fun to drive, and it’s practical. It will inevitably need a lot of very complicated work due to Ze Germans being Ze Germans but you take the bad with the good. I’d rather deal with that compromise then deal with a LeBaron with the lesser drivetrain, a goddamn Land Rover, or the corpse of a van with the godforsaken Iron Duke.
Instant edit: I didn’t read the rules so I’ll cast my actual vote here. The Land Rover is the worst of this bunch and it isn’t particularly close in my opinion.
I guess you also missed the last paragraph. A lot of us did it seems.
The VW asks the most money for the worst car (well, debatable with the LR).
Easy choice for the worst.
I chose the van over the Maserati LOL
Tough call. The GTI is just meh, typical first car for a slightly above middle class family with the ability to afford any repair bills.
The Lebaron is a well taken care of example, a shining example of “Grandma’s Convertible” that anyone with nostalgia for “muh 80’s” would enjoy.
The Disco is an interesting SUV. The interior is trashed, and finding parts for the interior is more difficult. Howevr, it’s a great starting point for an Overlander and you wouldn’t feel bad about putting dents and scratches into it. So it’s a winner in my book.
GMC is the loser here. With a V6, I’d probably call the Disco the loser of this challenge. The Iron Duke has trouble moving it’s own weight, let alone any cargo. So that’s probably the worst of the bunch.
I’ll be honest, I’m a bit disappointed to see the GTI going up against all the other losers rather than the Z3, mostly because I wanted to see comments discussing how bad the doors are compared to the Iron Duke, K-car roots, or our dark lord Lucas.
Conrad Hilton was famous for saying that the 3 most important things in real estate are “location, location, location”.
When it comes to used cars, the three most important things are “condition, condition, condition”.
LeBaron, all day long.
You are most wrong about the LeBaron. Why? It’s not that it’s a bad car, but in that color? Bleh.
What is the SOLE PURPOSE of a convertible? Most people think it’s to enjoy the open air experience, but it’s NOT.
The entire point of a convertible is TO BE SEEN. And to maximize your being seen-ness, you need a ‘vert in a fun color. It should be against the law for convertibles to be painted some version of beige.
Thus, the Chrysler is the most wrong.
Come at me.
You see “beige” and plain. I see gold, a color that definitely fits the car.
It would be a THOUSAND times better in red! Or blue! Or the best color, yellow!!
But gold/beige/champagne? Pass…
Red is a bit too extraverted for my tastes. Blue is fine in almost any shade.
Yellow? Turns to the worst shade of beige as the finish wears, especially when dirty.
But gold is timeless.
I’m not sure if you could tell this from my posts and color choices, but I am 100% extroverted. Thus, gold is a meh color for me.
I hate most of what GM offers.
But the Van wins today.
Thanks Mark.