Good morning! On today’s Shitbox Showdown, we’re getting back to basics and looking at a pair of good old fashioned “Transportation Thrifties,” both from dead marques whose parent companies are still around. What does less than two grand get you these days? You might be pleasantly surprised. But first, let’s see which old truck you preferred:
Hmm. Long bed = long line. Short bed = slightly shorter line. Coincidence? Yeah, probably. Honestly, I don’t think there is a bad choice here, and if the two trucks were side-by-side, it would be hard for me to choose. It would probably come down to a test drive. But I will say that all pickup trucks of a certain age really should be two-tone, unless they are fortunate enough to be painted Forest Service Green.
Now then: I spent most of the mid-late 1990s and early 2000s living in and around the twin cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul, Minnesota. I was flat-broke for a lot of that time, with crappy credit and not much money to spend on vehicles. I got by with whatever $500 clunker I could find, and I went through more than a dozen of them in ten years. It was, now that I think about it, perfect training for this gig, actually.
Those days are long gone for me, but every once in a while, I like to check out the listings in the Twin Cities to see what bargain-basement junkers I might be shopping for if I were still in that situation. $2,000 is the new $500, it seems, but the spirit of the “beater with a heater” is still alive and well. These two jumped out at me as being particularly good deals, and coincidentally, they’re both from American brands that have been since killed off. Let’s check them out and see what you think.
2003 Pontiac Bonneville – $1,700
Engine/drivetrain: 3.8 liter overhead valve V6, four-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Brooklyn Park, MN
Odometer reading: 200,000 miles
Runs/drives? Yep
First up, we have a car with a Minneapolis connection, through music: Legendary Twin Cities alternative rock band Trip Shakespeare immortalized the Bonneville in song back in 1991. That fact alone makes it cool, in my book. Also, it was named after a big flat area where people can drive really fast. But I have been a fan of Pontiac’s big plasticky sedan ever since it went front-wheel-drive in 1987. I backed a maroon Bonneville LE into a concrete bollard in driver’s ed learning how to parallel park. My friend Jeff’s dad bought one, only he went all-out and got the SSE, in monochrome white. I still remember being awestruck by the sheer number of buttons on the dash and steering wheel. Me and the front-drive Bonnie go way back, even though I’ve never owned one.
This 2003 model represents the Bonneville’s swan song; it is from the tenth and final generation of the big Pontiac. It’s powered by one of GM’s greatest engines ever, the 3800 Series II V6, putting a healthy 205 horsepower to the front wheels through a 4T65-E automatic. Keep the fluids clean, preventively replace a couple of gaskets, and this powertrain might run until the end of time – if the subframe and engine cradle don’t rust away from under it before then. A nose-heavy FWD car is great in the snow, but road salt trapped in the subframe, a known problem for these H-bodies, can crash the party in a hurry. Best take a peek underneath and make sure it’s structurally sound.
Overall, though, this big Pontiac seems to be in decent condition for having 200,000 miles on the clock. There is a bit of rust showing, and probably more under the plastic cladding, but the paint is shiny and the clearcoat is intact, which suggests to me that this car was garage-kept, so there’s hope. The interior is a little grubby, but GM interiors from this era always look a little grubby unless they’re perfect. But for this price, who cares?
This strikes me as a damn near ideal beater: cheap, economical to run and fix, comfy, and able to stand up to some neglect and abuse. Its sister model, the Buick LeSabre, often appears on lists of recommended cheap used cars, but everyone tends to forget the Bonneville. And it’s the same car, only cooler.
1997 Plymouth Voyager – $1,800
Engine/drivetrain: 3.0 liter overhead cam V6, three-speed automatic, FWD
Location: St. Louis Park, MN
Odometer reading: 157,000 miles
Runs/drives? You betcha
When someone says the word “minivan,” this is the vehicle that comes to my mind, even all these years after it went out of production: the Plymouth Voyager. Chrysler made approximately seven bajillion of these things over three generations, and during my time in the Twin Cities working at a service station, I must have changed the oil on approximately half of them. Like the Bonneville, it’s a vehicle I’ve always admired, but never owned; it’s not cool, but it’s relentlessly, unabashedly practical, and that is an admirable quality.
This third-generation Voyager is just about the specification I would choose, too: a short wheelbase SE model, with the optional Mitsubishi-built V6. A 2.4 liter four was available, but almost nobody bought it. An automatic transmission was compulsory in this generation; previous Voyagers could be had with a manual, but despite what David says, a stickshift does not, on its own, make a vehicle fun or cool. This is a practical utilitarian vehicle, not a sports car, and there’s no reason to avoid it solely because it’s an automatic. The automatic in question is Chrysler’s three-speed A670 Torqueflite, not the sexiest gearbox around, but sturdy and durable.
Chrysler minivans never seemed to be as affected by rust as some other vehicles. Sure, they rust – everything does – but they don’t dissolve like wet tissue paper like some cars do. This one has had some rust repair done on the door bottoms, the seller says, and it looks like there might be some rot in the rocker panels, but for a cheap twenty-six-year-old car in Minnesota, it doesn’t look bad at all. Plus, it’s green, arguably one of the best colors for any vehicle.
Inside, it’s even cleaner. The seller says it has a fault in the HVAC fan controls; the fan is either on full-blast or off, nothing in between. This is usually controlled by a resistor wired to the switch: When the resistor burns out, you lose the in-between speeds. I’ve had to replace a couple of them over the years on various cars. (It was a common failure point for mechanical speed controls in Tamiya RC cars back in the day, too, come to think of it.) They also note a slight coolant leak from the radiator, which they keep topped off, but I think I’d just throw a new radiator in.
Both of these cars, honestly, look like absolute dreams come true compared to some of the clunkers I had in the Twin Cities, like the Chevy Cavalier that spun a rod bearing on the day after Christmas, or the Dodge Colt with the rusted-out fuel pickup tube inside the gas tank that made it sputter and stall when it got below half full. But cars in general have been getting steadily better, so it stands to reason that they would hold up better later in life. They’re more expensive these days, too, but everything is. These both seem like good deals to me. Which one do you favor?
(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)
I’d take the mini hauler. Remove all but the 2 front seats and you have a covered pickup truck. Also 50,000 less miles.
Respect the van, man. The van can haul people, tow a trailer, have the seats removed and be used for cargo. For a beater, it is much more useful
Finally get back to the Showdown after a couple weeks away from home and the first choice is between a 3800 and anything else? The choice has already been made, folks.
Bonneville all the way. I come from Minnesota. It’s not rusty until it literally falls apart.
Both seems to be the best option here.
I choose the Bonnie Lass!
The practicality of the van is my justification for that choice. Rare situation where it doesn’t appear there’s a bad answer here.
Gimme the van and I’ll drive it straight to a junkyard to shop for four hubcaps that match. Vans can be used in many of the same ways as pickup trucks, as long as you don’t care much about the interior.
The choice here is predicated upon which vehicle will serve a better purpose for you, but either one is perfectly fine. Do you need a utilitarian vehicle to haul people and things around or do you need a nice comfortable ride?
Going Bonneville because 3800 and the minivan is the mini version (i.e. short wheelbase).
I’ll leave the admittedly very clean Voyager for someone else to appreciate and take the Bonnie instead. I have a thing for peak front-wheel-drive GM products; I’m just brain-damaged that way.
Don’t get me wrong, I love a nice van, but the egg-shaped generations of the Chrysler minivans aren’t on my want-list. Thier shape makes their corners disappear particularly badly; they’re objectively worse to park in close quarters compared to the more squarish designs that came before and after. And you lose some cargo room in the very back without a more upright rear liftgate.
I want to vote for both. Love me a Pontiac and a van
I thought this was going to be a toss-up until I saw the Voyager was a SWB. That kills a good chunk of the practicality, so I’ll take the couch on wheels instead.
Bonnie, please. I’ve always been a Pontiac homer and would gladly take that Bonneville for a ride. I wouldn’t mind finding a clean SSEI for a DD.
Neck and neck!
I thought it was going to be an easy win for the Bonneville—just like Mark, I always liked their looks, and you can’t go wrong with the 3800—but that van looks great. If you told me it was an ’07 I’d believe you.
The Voyager is cleeeeeeeeeeeeeean.
I would hate myself for the box on wheels, but it’s hard to argue the practicality of that box.
It’s hard to make the rust call without looking underneath.
A friend bought 3 2004 Impala police cars from a govt auction and I ended up with one as a daily driver. I would never have shopped for such a GM but I have begrudging respect now for how solid they are, the ride, and that 3.8L engine. Mine was reported owned by the county sheriff and he mainly drove it back and forth to work. Got it with 70k, now up to 150. I’m curious how far it’ll go before the rust kills it
Bonneville all day long. Those cars eat up highway miles while getting 30 mpg or better. The back bank of plugs isn’t horrid on these either. The 2003+ 4T65 was made with more durable components than earlier versions. So it’s the one to get. But the door bottoms and rocker panels are likely Swiss cheese. They can be fixed but if it’s worth it on this car is open for debate.
Bonnie for me! That 3800 will go another 100k and then some. Till the car rusts out around it. And I’ve had many GM 4 speed autos and they all kept going just the same. All I gotta do is polish up those headlights so I can see during the winter when it’s dark going to work and dark going home.
While the minivan could carry a lot more which is nice, I don’t trust Chrysler products of that era, especially the transmissions. I need something that isn’t gonna leave me stranded in the cold. At least the Bonnie is a decent sized car and I can fit a lot of junk in the trunk and back seat.
As much as I love G bodies the potential rust issues on one from the upper midwest scare me. The van is really clean and it can serve a lot of purposes.
Just saw a picture posted up thread, the van did not escape the rust either. Bummer. I think either is a good option, neither is better imo.
I agree those both beem like good deals. I’ll take the Bonneville. I can feel how comfortable those seats are from here.
Bonneville. Will never own a Plymouth Voyager…for more details, see my comments on the “what car do you irrationally hate” article. Those Mitsubishi V6s can be damn near unkillable, though, and if you needed a good van, that one looks like a good option.
FYI: Gas overfill has ruined the paint at the gas door on the Bonny. Just saying. The Mitsubishi V6 known to be an oil burner if it doesn’t get oil changes on time. Check the oil filler cap. Take a peek in the valve cover. And yep you’re right a blower motor resistor would fix the hvac fan problem. Check your fluids often and if you get 2 years out of either one call it money well spent.
That’s rust bubbling out from the inside. It’s a known issue on those cars.
The late 90s Chrysler minivans are known for transmission problems, so stay away. Also, it’s funny to see captain’s chairs in the shorty base model.
If you really want a Chrysler minivan, import one from Europe. You get amber turn signals and a manual transmission (with a choice of 4-cylinder gas or diesel). However, the shitty USDM V6 + auto combo is also available
It’s no fun at all to work on a transverse V6 minivan, so always opt for the I4 when available.
The Bonny is clearly a better car than the Voyager. Also funny to see the front bench in the sporty sofa (as opposed to the Buick version).
I voted for the Pontiac.
The 4 speed Ultradrive transmissions are trouble-prone. This is the old 3 speed Torqueflite, and it’s plenty durable.
Ultradrives are pretty horrible too. I know there was the fluid confusion but I don’t think that would have saved them.
My sister had a Shadow, the 3 speed took a dump. She asked my advice I said don’t buy a Dodge. What’s she do, buys a Neon. Between head gaskets, that 3 speed took a dump too.
My buddy worked at a GM/Chrysler dealer in the late 90s or early 2000s. Said they had to keep Chrysler transmissions on the shelf at all times, they failed so often. Not so with the GM.
Refugee from Golden Valley here. The Van is just what I’ve been looking for.
To live in down by Bassett Creek.
Would maybe consider the Bonnie, but no one has seen Grandma for weeks, and I’m afraid to open the trunk. I think there’s something going on here.
Easy day…basically went straight to vote for the Bonneville…
Now going back to read the article…
I love the term “beater w/ a heater” & also have been saying it & living it for a long while now
Boy, these are both great choices. Just remember that for $3500 you can have both.