Good morning! On today’s Shitbox Showdown, we’re looking at a couple of old cars that were made to look like classic cars when they were new, but now they just look old. (Did that make sense?)
First let’s finish up on our imported hot hatches from Friday:
Close one! And I was watching the votes on Friday – it was tied several times. I had a hunch the Honda City was going to end up winning, but apparently the Alto had enough of you singing a different tune to give it the win.
So: Onward. There was a fad in the late 1990s and early 2000s that you may have noticed: Automakers jumped on the nostalgia bandwagon with both feet. Everything from the Mini Cooper to the Ford Thunderbird was given a retro makeover, and new models were introduced with old-school design elements. Some were wildly successful, some not so much. The two we’re going to look at today enjoyed huge popularity when they were first introduced, and in the intervening two decades have become fixtures on the used car market. Are they still worth a look, way down at the bottom of the depreciation curve? Well, let’s take a look and find out.
1998 VW New Beetle – $2,500
Engine/drivetrain: 2.0 liter SOHC inline 4, 5 speed manual, FWD
Location: Portland, OR
Odometer reading: 103,000 miles
Runs/drives? Yep
I confess I did not like the new VW Beetle when it was introduced. I think it was primarily because I am such a fan of the VW Golf, a no-nonsense hatchback that does so many things well. And here was a car on the same platform that was nothing but nonsense – all awkward proportions and wasted space. It just did nothing for me. But apparently it did something for a lot of car buyers who remembered the old Beetle fondly: VW had a hit on its hands. But the honeymoon was short-lived; the aging college professors and hippies who had been able to keep their old ’60s Beetles running with nothing but a flathead screwdriver and a John Muir book were suddenly faced with the reality of a modern Volkswagen and all its foibles.
But the New Beetle’s charm was great enough that it hung around for twelve years, before being replaced by a new New Beetle, which stayed in production until 2019. It’s a far cry from the original Beetle’s half a century run, but it’s nothing to sneeze at. The Beetle was offered with a few different engines over the years: This one has the standard garden-variety 2.0 liter naturally-aspirated four. It’s nothing special in the performance department, but it’s probably the most reliable of the bunch.
[Editor’s Note: That black stripe the owner added on the bumper is interesting; I wonder if they were trying to emulate the black rubber strip – either tape or rubber – found on the simpler 1968 and up “Europa” bumpers ? I kinda like it. And I’ve always had a soft spot for these. My parents had a yellow turbo New Beetle, and it worked for a cute, tiny older couple zipping around in it, with a license plate that read YOLKSWAGEN. – JT)
This Beetle has only 103,000 miles under its belt, practically nothing for a twenty-four year old car. It looks pretty good, too: I see one scrape in one door, but no other damage, and the interior looks clean. We don’t get much information about its mechanical condition, but it has current registration, which bodes well. A buyer would probably find a few things that need fixing (it is a late ’90s Volkswagen, after all), but it looks like a respectable little car.
I’m personally still not sold on the New Beetle’s styling, but I’m coming around, especially for prices like this. Secondhand Golfs are still more appealing, but Beetles are easier to find. If I were ever to return to my water-cooled VW days, which I have threatened to do a few times, a Beetle like this wouldn’t be a terrible choice. At least they made it a hatchback.
2003 Chrysler PT Cruiser – $2,300
Engine/drivetrain: 2.4 liter DOHC inline 4, 4 speed automatic, FWD
Location: Clackamas, OR
Odometer reading: 98,000 miles
Runs/drives? Sure does
We’ve talked about the Chrysler PT Cruiser before. In fact, it was the subject of the very first Shitbox Showdown that I wrote, back in April (which feels like either last week or ten years ago). I’m a fan of the PT; despite the unorthodox styling and baffling NHTSA classification as a truck, what it really is is a small tall station wagon, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
All PT Cruisers in the US were powered by a 2.4 liter four, or turbocharged variant thereof. This one lacks the turbo, and it also lacks a clutch pedal (sorry). Out of the more than one million PT Cruisers sold, I would wager that the majority were equipped with the naturally aspirated engine and the automatic. Nothing wrong with it, but small cars are more fun with manuals. But hey, you can’t have everything.
What this particular example does have to offer is an odometer still on five digits (barely). It’s an early model, with the ugly gray plastic bumpers, and they haven’t weathered the years too well. The paint looks great, however. With this few miles, I suspect, and hope, that the seat covers and dash covers and big rubber floormats are precautionary, and the seats and dash look like new underneath. I could be wrong – it could be trashed, but I doubt it.
There isn’t much information to go on, again, so a careful inspection is a good idea, as well as a timing belt change if there is no record of it being done already. The only thing that worries me a little bit is that it looks like more than one wheel has a missing lug nut. I’d like to know what the story is there. With that caveat, this looks like a decent deal on a reasonably good car.
I know a lot of you will take one look at these and say, “Ew, neither.” But set aside the hokey nostalgic styling, and what you’ve got here are two pretty decent little cars. Sure, you’d have to be seen in them, but for cars this clean and low-mileage, I think I’d be willing to make the sacrifice. What say you, Autopians? Which cheesy retro-mobile do you choose?
(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)
Neither of them I would want, but for cheap to repair versatile transportation the PT Cruiser takes my vote. IMHO New Beetles are crap and there’s that saying “Nothing is more expensive than a cheap German car.”.
I’ll check Beetle. I accompanied my sister on a test drive when new, and had fun zipping around town. The manual is a bonus.
Besides, the PT Cruiser is a punch in the eye.
I don’t often think this on these but. No. There are certain cars I can’t pay more than $2k for.
Tip for restoring those plastic bumpers – take a heat gun to it. I did this on my wife’s old PT, and it worked like magic for zero dollars.
My wife (then girlfriend) had a PT of this vintage in silver, and loved it. I had harbored an irrational hatred for that car. It was fine for her to get through college – roomy, reasonably good on gas, and pretty reliable. I just couldn’t get past the stupid styling, and the fact that it was an older Chrysler that I was bound to spend some time under eventually. I had a very bad experience with a mid-aughts Jeep Grand Cherokee, so I was very gun-shy of Chryslers in general. Anyway, I cannot fault anyone for picking it if they need a cheap car. It is practical and at least looks like something as opposed to every other CUV out there these days. More flavor isn’t better flavor, but you get my point…
PT Cruiser.
Look. We’re talking about shitboxes. A piece of shit meant to get you from Point A to Point B with minimum fuss, minimum drama, minimum hassle.
Early 2000’s VW electronics are anything but that, regardless of mileage. Need to fix anything on that engine – and you absolutely will – and it’s assume the service position. Speaking of which, exactly none of you keyed to the fact that this Beetle is of the timing belt variety with a 60,000 mile interval, and an interference engine. These are still on the road because owners tend to be fanatical and willing to spend thousands on a car worth half that on a good day. The timing belt job, by the way, requires an engine hoist per the factory service manual. Uh-huh.
The PT is also of the timing belt variety (90k interval, annual visual; use Gates, Dayco, or Goodyear only on the early 2.4’s to avoid tensioner hum.) But it’s an early 2.4 with a very late 41TE, by which point every issue had been fully resolved. Change the transmission fluid and filter in your driveway every 50-60k, and it’ll never complain. Improve trans cooling and you can extend to 80-90k. What killed most PT Cruisers was just outright abuse and neglect.
Then there’s the utility. Ever tried to load groceries into a New Beetle? They have basically zero cargo space. PT Cruiser’s party trick was always “HA HA ALSO CARGO! Load me up with people and bags of mulch! (No tow plz.)” They’re thoroughly mediocre, but like most of the contemporary Dumber-Chrysler products, built to be mediocre longer than anyone else. (They were being sold with a 7/70k warranty. They had to be.)
If the Shitbox Showdown pits a vial of anthrax against the PT Loser, I’d still choose the former.
Tough one… I went Beetle, but both are valid answers based on different use-cases. If you are really hurting for a cheap single car to do everything, you have to go with the PT because it is just so much more practical. If this is your “runner”/second car to get to/from work, go with the Beetle.
New Beetle for me. Though I really liked the second-gen/refresh better, when they squashed it a little and ditched the Apple iMac (yeah it was a concurrent thing back then) vibe this one has.
Also, steel wheels on the PT Cruiser. Steelies are great on some vehicles, but they don’t help here.
The only reason to buy either one of these cars is for basic, penalty-box transportation. You need to get from A to B and back again, and you need to do it every day without drama or extra cost. Judging from my experiences with 90’s VW’s, that’s a hard (HARD) no for any of them in this situation. 90’s Chrysler’s aren’t that great, either, but they will not have the ridiculous, expensive litany of problems that a 90’s VW could have. Add in the fact that the Cruiser has much more (and better-shaped) interior space that the Beetle, it becomes winner by default.
Beetle, easily. Both cars are a pain to work on, both have their ups and downs, but those Beetles are incredibly comfortable, especially for a bigger guy like me. Just pray you never hurt the rockers.
The PT Cruiser…..it’s an old Chrysler. At least with the VW when it angers you too much, you can sell it. The PT Cruiser has a less ardent fan base.
And I would say the same even if they were both turbos.
The correct answer is neither but if forced to pick, I’ll take the beetle. Though a terrible waste of space, the interior is much nicer to look at and that’s where you’ll be spending all of your time. They look slightly less atrocious when slammed with some funky body add ons like eyelids. I could have a lot more fun in this than the ugly neon
Neither, but stick wins?
If these were the rarer, more interesting variants of these cars there might be a real conversation – retro-bodied SRT-4 vs. a Turbo S or Sport 5 cyl would be a toss up, particularly if they were both manuals.
But as base models I’d rather have a stick…. and not a chrysler product.
As a very late Gen-Xer, both of these cars were extremely popular during the halcyon days of my early-adulthood. They were absolutely everywhere. And I hate them both now as much as I did then. I guess if I hit a low point in life and these were the only options for a means of conveyance, I would be grateful to have one. But if I had any other choice, I would choose it (unless it was a 1st gen Chevy Trailblazer. the car I hate the most. They came off of the assembly line looking like clapped out junkers. I would rather walk than drive one of those). If I had to choose one of these, as others have said, give me the Beetle cause manual.
Totally on their ubiquity back in the day (I’m Gen-X prime).
I think what made them go from hey neat to annoying so fast was that retro style was basically their only calling card.
The SN95 Mustang had retro elements, but it also brought the unique pony car driving experience with it. These two drove like pretty much any other mid-market compact of the time.
And the PT cruiser later appearing as Michael Scott’s car of choice is what put the nail in its coffin…you could at least watch the Beetle rallycross on tv for awhile, which gave it something.
You couldn’t have picked a better car for Michael Scott to drive. I laughed out loud when I saw him in that stupid convertible in whatever season opener that was. Perfect car casting.
Even topping his earlier Sebing.
And that was tough to do. I’ll never forget his having Ryan help him clean it out so he could attempt to give Amy Adams’ character a ride home…all fast food wrappers and a mostly-empty bottle of the Rite Aid version of Drakkar Noir.
The Beetle wins. I drove a PT Cruiser and felt like I had to turn in my man card. 🙂
Oof, wait till you drive that Beetle then lol. There’s literally a built in dashboard vase to keep your flowers while you put around town.
I get why people are choosing the Beetle, but if I had to choose one of these for me, the Cruiser is more practical. Cargo space in the Cruiser is better, comfort is better, and it’s not like either of this is a really cool or fun car.
That said, I do think the VW looks to be in a bit nicer shape and I knew a guy who had one with the manual around 2002, and if it could handle what he thought was race shifting, I think it’s a pretty tough clutch and transmission.
Tough call. I don’t WANT either one, but I think the VW is the better buy for someone who wants it, while the PT Cruiser would be more practical for me.
I know that the PT Cruiser is seeing a bit of a redemption arc in automotive hipster circles…but I will not entertain the possibility. They’re absolute hunks of junk. They looked bad then and they look worse now, especially the lower trim ones with all the visible plastic.
I’d take a bug over one every day, and the fact that this bug is manual makes it even easier. It’ll inevitably be a pain because most modern VWs are, but I’ll gladly deal with the pain for manual motoring with a hint of styling seasoning. Not much, mind you…but a pinch. The shameless more is more, nostalgia cash grab approach to retro modern styling that American manufacturers took at that time has never done it for me personally.
I was torn on this one mostly due to the manual on the Beetle. My logical side won over in the end and I voted for the PT as it’s likely going to be cheaper to keep going and is cheaper to begin with. It’s also a private seller so you may be able to get more details on its service history.
Also regarding the lug nuts, those are clearly plastic wheel covers. I’m not sure how the covers are held on but typically the ones that look like these are snap on flavored. If so, the missing “lug” nuts are fake plastic ones. They could of course, be held on by real lug nuts and actually missing but I’m doubtful.
No VWs, ever. No Mk IVs especially. I’d sooner ride a bike than have to depend on one of them.
Shit. I’ll take the bug. Even though it has the boat anchor 2.slow, at least it has a manual to help you wring some power out of it. That said, I absolutely loathe how it looks like it’s suffering a severe bout of anaphylactic shock.
That PT, woof. Yeah, it’s got a drivetrain, so it’s got that going for it, but it also has that miserable Chrysler 4 speed too. Just big, heaping bowl of irredeemability. Plus, the interior on those are so awful, you should get credit for time served if you’re ever sentenced to jail time.
Bug.
I’m always surprised at the number of New Beetles I see on the road today, because lasting popularity wasn’t something I expected back when they came out. My best friend had one around 2006, and she absolutely hated it for its weird cargo dimensions and general lack of interior space — good for “Mallrats” quotes and not much else.
For whichever reason the PT Cruiser has its apologists, that allure escapes me. Those races where they take beat up PTs and race them until the cars basically explode are pretty cool, but I sense any donor for that purpose needs to be Lemons-priced.
Gun to head, I’d go with the Beetle. As reasoned by Bomber it’s manual, and also comes with an astounding six extra inches of parking clearance over the PT Cruiser! Woohoo!
Beetle. I didn’t read, I just voted (don’t worry I’ll go back and read it now) so it might be full of raccoons and if that’s the case… I still choose Beetle.
It looks like I made the right choice. I mean as right of a choice as choosing a modern Beetle can be I guess.
Voted for the Beetle as well, but agree with Bomber: both are pretty unattractive cars.
Cruisers looked worn out when they were new, offering zero driving pleasure, and I could never figure why Chrysler wanted to reissue a late-1930s Ford. New Beetles seemed downright silly. The original show car was kind of appealing, but VW had to tinker with the design.
Nostalgia ain’t all it’s cracked up to be….
Because do you have any fucking idea how many PT Cruisers they sold?
Don’t answer. I know you don’t.
I was wrenching when these came out. Every single PT Cruiser that came into our lot for the first 2 years was sold before it got off the truck. Usually above sticker. The entire time I was working there, not a single PT Cruiser no matter the options or color lasted on the lot more than 5 calendar days. No matter how many we got in.
Dumber-Chrysler had expected to sell no more than 50k a year; instead they had a production line panic because demand was TRIPLE that until 2008. Even after the mid-2003 de-contenting spree.
Full disclosure: I owned both an old Beetle and a new Beetle. Both of them died on me but I absolutely love one; yeah, it’s the old Beetle. The new Beetle in retrospect was a poor decision on my part, but hey, with a dash to windshield area so large it was possible to put a large pizza box up there. Doubt you could do that on the PT Cruiser.
Also, the Muir repair manual, I STILL miss that thing and I haven’t owned an old Beetle since the late 80’s. The illustrations in that thing were worth the price of admission. My spiral bound, brown cover edition lived in my Bug and had grease stains on certain sections. Every now and then I think about buying another edition to just to read.
I’ve heard the stories about the Muir manuals and they sound like one of the coolest little bits of automobilia (?) out there, given how they enhance the already sky-high street cred of the old Bug.
The Idiot’s Manual is wonderful. I have a signed print of the ‘disassembled beetle’ on my wall to this day. What was great about it was the way John talked to you: he assumed you had never touched a wrench, told you you could do it, and talked you through step-by-step. The latter ones he didn’t actually write ( I had the Rabbit & early Subaru ), didn’t have his zen-like touch.
Plus, there were sections that he would tell you what should properly be done-and then tell you how to rig it to get you home/till you had the money. Always wondered if he was related to the Muir Woods Muir
This is my first “burn them both” needs to be an option. Both horrendous cars. I voted Beetle only because it had a manual. Only redeeming quality on either of these cars.