Good morning! I hope you all are weathering this dumb no-man’s-land week between Christmas and New Year’s all right. I never liked this week, at least as an adult; nobody wants to work, we’re all nursing a cookie hangover, and it’s all just cold and dark and weird. We’ll get through it together, with the help of some old cars to look at. Yesterday was all about high-mileage imports; today we turn our focus to well-kept low-mileage domestics.
A lot of you share my affection for stickshift Honda Accords, it seems; that poor Previa got absolutely creamed in the voting. And I can’t say I disagree. The Previa is pretty cool as vans go, and it’s not in terrible shape for the mileage, but come on. A manual Accord wagon, in that kind of condition? You never see those for sale. Sure, $4500 is a big ask for a car that age with that many miles, but you can pretty much rest assured that it has a good hundred thousand miles left in it.
Even if you don’t trust it enough to drive daily, it would make a great weekend toy. A Honda station wagon, you’re saying? In the garage spot usually reserved for convertibles or Corvettes? This guy has finally lost it. But for all intents and purposes, this car is now a classic. It’s 31 years old, a clean survivor of a car that many people have fond memories of, much like the Pontiac Grand Am in Thomas’s post yesterday. That’s the very definition of a classic car. They don’t earn the title by having commemorative badges glued on at the factory, or being squirreled away in a climate-controlled vault like an overpriced bottle of Chateauneuf-du-Pape; they earn it by being cars that people remember using, and loving.
Today’s contenders could be considered classics as well, by their age, but you’re more likely to remember seeing them parked in front of the drugstore or the beauty parlor, with a box of tissues in the back window. These are the sorts of cars favored by your aging parents or grandparents, depending on your age. They’re not cool, not high-performance, and not stylish, but they are pretty nice. And nice is hard to find when it comes to cheap cars. Let’s check them out.
1989 Oldsmobile Cutlass Cruiser – $1,995
Engine/drivetrain: 3.3 liter overhead valve V6, four-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Longview, WA
Odometer reading: 148,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives “excellent,” they say
“Wagon” must have been a dirty word around GM offices in the 1980s. Only Chevrolet used such a coarse, common name for their long-roofed A-body offerings. Buick Century wagons were Estates, Pontiac 6000 wagons were Safaris – and Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera wagons, of course, were Cruisers. But because “Cutlass Ciera Cruiser” would have been significantly longer than the row of tiny flags below the badge on the front fender, Oldsmobile dropped the “Ciera” and simply called this wagon the Cutlass Cruiser.
Cutlass Cieras (and Cruisers) were equipped with a wide variety of engines over their long run, but this one is powered by a 3.3 liter version of Buick’s famous 90-degree V6, driving the front wheels through, of course, an overdrive automatic. It runs and drives great, according to the seller. The tires are new, but that’s about all the specifics we get about its running condition.
It sure looks nice and clean. There’s a little wear on the carpet and upholstery, but for a 34-year-old GM interior, this is immaculate. The outside looks fine, except for a weird faded spot on the rear passenger-side door. It’s as if the clearcoat is worn off on that door. This is especially weird to me, because my wife and I once owned another old grandma-mobile, a Chrysler Fifth Avenue, with perfect shiny paint everywhere except the passenger-side rear door. It looked just like this one. I never could figure out what happened to it, and now seeing this one, I’m even more intrigued. Any guesses are welcome.
I hesitate to call this car “cool,” but… no. I just can’t. It’s about as cool as a Yanni cassette. Or a Harbor Freight socket set. But then again, it’s a cheap, reliable car that can take you on all sorts of adventures. There’s an awful lot of room on that tailgate for bumper stickers. Hit the road and start collecting them: The Mystery Spot, Wall Drug, hell, even Dollywood. If I saw this car, festooned with all those stickers, I would consider it incredibly cool.
1993 Chrysler Concorde – $1,695
Engine/drivetrain: 3.3 liter overhead valve V6, four-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Independence, OR
Odometer reading: 93,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives, but we don’t know much more
I can almost picture the scene: A typical Chrysler customer walks into a showroom in 1993, looking to trade in their ’84 New Yorker on something a little fresher. The showroom has always been a place of comfort and familiarity: formal rooflines with landau tops, confident squared-off fascias, acres of fake wood and chrome across dashboards. But in pride of place sits this sleek, rounded “New For ’93” Chrysler Concorde, a “Cab-Forward” design signifying the dawn of a new era. And I bet I know what their first five words were: “What the hell is that?”
The LH platform is a front-wheel-drive car, but it has a longitudinally-mounted engine; this is because it was designed to be built as rear-wheel-drive as well. It took another decade for the rear-drive version (called the LX platform) to come to fruition, but it did pretty well when it finally did appear. This Concorde is powered by the base engine, Chrysler’s 3.3 liter “minivan” V6 – not the sexiest thing, but simple and reliable. It has only 93,000 miles on the clock, so it should just be nicely broken-in.
It does have a rebuilt title, for an unknown reason, and I imagine the dealership selling it doesn’t even know. But when a car is this cheap, it doesn’t really matter; just assess it by its condition as it sits. It looks nice and clean inside, and straight outside. It’s missing some clearcoat, but show me a car from the ’90s that isn’t.
You don’t see a lot of first-generation LHs on the road anymore, and that’s a shame. I always thought they were handsome cars, and I especially like this green and silver two-tone color scheme. As cheap beaters go, I think this could be a pretty good one.
Sub-$2000 cars that run always require some compromise. The cool ones run badly or not at all, the known-reliable ones all have a bazillion miles on them, and the low-mileage ones, like these, tend to be boring and uncool. But if you’re just looking for a nice old car to drive, maybe boring and uncool is all right. Maybe Grandma was right after all. Which one of these will it be?
(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)
Meanwhile, my college GF bought a Century wagon in ’93 or ’94, when they were still ubiquitous, but she managed to melt the head gasket when her copilot (not me) told her to ignore the overheating light. It limped along for a few months, but it was doomed. No fond memories of that car.
Almost exactly 23 years ago, I spent a week driving around central PA with a colleague for work (field measuring for Verizon Wireless stores, on expense account: steak dinners and nice, old hotels in worn-down old towns like York). We had an Intrepid, and it was a spectacularly comfortable ride for those purposes. I wouldn’t daily drive the Concord around town, but I’d save it up for road trips.
Would definitely sign up for AAA before heading out, though.
Take the Cutlass . Run far away from the Concorde. The transmission of those cab forward cars will fail in spectacular fashion. The Cutlass will probable outlive us
I have a good friend who had a Concorde in the early 00’s that he got from his grandmother. The car had over 200,000 miles on it, and he put on at least 50k more. All on the original transmission!
He went through at least 4 fuel pumps in his time with the car, but we called it the “Miracle Chrysler” because that transmission wouldn’t die!
Since it’s the base 3.3, I don’t think the transmission problems were quite as prevalent (being a fair bit less powerful than the 3.5)
If I recall correctly I believe the Chrysler Transmission failures of this Era were a result of leaky gaskets and a sensitive limp/safety mode that allowed you to get it to the dealer driving with no damage
My ’94 Intrepid went 150k miles on its first transmission before I sold it. I even towed a pop up trailer with it quite a bit. I did install an extra trans cooler but otherwise no issues. I think the gloom and doom on the Ultradrive is overstated.
The transmission is fine as long as you stay on top of the transmission fluid and filter changes using the correct fluid.
But the real issue with that particular Concord is that it has been in a major frontal collision and improperly rebuilt. Look at the ad and look at the pic of the front of the car and note how the hood looks lower on the driver side compared to the passenger side and how things don’t seem to fit that well together.
Thought this would be a harder decision but I’m usually down on Chrysler. The rebuilt title settled it. I definitely don’t want to deal with that at all for under $2000. Wagon all the way. It’s time to road trip!
The long roof is supposed to be the “right” choice, but I had to go LH platform here even though it isn’t the LHS model (I have a weird and very specific affection for the LHS). I can also say a buddy of mine had the Buick Century twin to the Ciera and it was hot garbage, so I’m sure that is coloring my opinion.
+ serious pts for LHS.
Chrysler is never the answer (IMHO), although the LH platform was unusually good. Gimme that couch on wheels instead! That well-preserved, but well-used, wagon is a heart-warming sight. Its owners have clearly loved and cared for it over the decades and it’s got a lot of life left in it.
The immaculate interior of the Concorde nearly swayed me, but detail the Olds and it’ll get more use.
Ciera any day of the week. There is a reason you still see these late 80’s/90’s abodys on the road, theyre pretty rugged/durable.
The cab forward Chrysler LH handidly outsold the Ciera and Buick century, but they were a rare sight during the first Obama adminstration in my parts. Nonexistant today. Junk transmissions in those cars, at 93k miles plan on doing a trans rebuild. Even if its had one done sometime earlier.
Also wagon is always more useful/cooler than a sedan. I wonder if the Ciera has the rear facing 3rd row seat with an ashtray(yes this was a thing on some GM wagons) “Billy leave your sister alone back there dammit!!! Have a smoke and chill the hell out!!”
Voted for the Concorde as I’ve had versions of both and the Concorde is a superior car to a Ciera, but if both were closer to me I would purchase both of them at these prices.
I’m a sucker for a cheap and clean wagon. The fact that this one is in the same shade of blue as the Reliant wagon my parents used to have makes it a clear winner for me. I suspect the Concorde drives and rides better, but I still want the longroof.
Wow that Olds even has the proper gauge cluster. Nice.
I voted for the wagon, but only because the Chrysler is in such rough shape. Being an ’89 the wagon has the 4T60 transmission instead of the made-of-glass TH-125. Having worked on a slightly older one of these with the 2.8L/TH-125 combo that a friend had, I will forever avoid those like the plague.
I am going with the Oldsmobile. The Chrysler is probably a better daily driver, but the wagon is more interesting. I doubt a blue ’80s wagon will ever be a sought-after classic, but I would appreciate seeing one of these at a car show and I am sure at least some other people would as well.
I had a much junkier version of that wagon as my first car. Iron Duke and 3 speed! Shenanigans were had and it survived a lot. This much nicer version would be a fun nostalgia trip, made better since this is the higher trim version. Plus blue on blue is hard to resist. They don’t make cars like those anymore.
I’m going with the wagon, simply because it is more useful. How many bags of mulch can I throw in the back? Plenty, I imagine.
Speaking of weird places to get a bumper sticker from, if you are ever in the New River Gorge area of West Virginia I highly recommend The Mystery Hole.
http://www.mysteryhole.com/
I see your Mystery Hole and raise my Kuntz a local Jeep Dealer here in BFE Pennsylvania
My brother had an all-black Concorde that was tight as hell. This one isn’t that tight, and I’m a little put off by the rebuilt title as well. Wagon wins.
If it had the 3.5, I’d probably go Oldsmobile…. but the Concorde has the arguably most reliable Chrysler V6 ever built, the Minivan 3.3.
I’d normally want a wagon, but I’d rather trust the Concorde here. No need for those stupidly overpriced 3.5L intake manifolds! I’ll roll the dice with that 4-speed transaxle too….. Mopar ATF+4 is pretty cheap honestly.
This is too old for a Shortstar. 2.5 Iron Duke, 3.1 or 3.3 V6’s were the engines on tap. IIRC the 3.3 V6’s are destroked 3.8’s. Could be interesting shoehorning a 3800 in there since power levels were acceptable for the era. A Civic has more power now.
Probably should’ve triple checked my work: by it, I meant the Concorde. Wrote it understanding myself what I meant: if the Concorde had the less desirable (to me) 3.5, I’d chose the Oldsmobile instead.
Doubt you would need a shoehorn. If it is just destroked then the base block and heads are the same as I doubt the 3.8 has a much taller deck height. Should be plug and play.
One year earlier, and the Ciera “International Series” came with a 3.8 from the factory. Not sure why they dropped it, unless Cieras were taking away Delta 88 sales.
And right after their close competitors at Ford gained the 3.8 Essex. Maybe they were trying to mitigate how the shiny new W-bodies had smaller, less powerful motors than the old A-cars while waiting on the DOHC 3.4 – or the 3800, in the Regal’s case.
Hell yeah, I love these kind of cars. I’d take either but am going with the Cutty since it’s a wagon. Someone up the street from me found a mint Celebrity wagon and the small sized wagon is something to see these days in an ocean of huge pickups.
Wagon, obviously, but if it sold already I will be happy to rock that Concorde.
Wagon. Not only can you shave a bunch of stuff in there, it seats six with the bench seat and column shifter.
It might seat eight. These were available with a flip up rear facing bench that sat two more.
The interesting thing about old “grandma” cars is that wagon versions don’t receive the same level of derision as sedans. Most likely because wagons retain a utility rep that dated sedans can’t match. The Cutlass Cruiser is no prize in the looks or performance departments, but you can move a couch or refrigerator with it, so it wins. Long roof changes everything.
It sure does. I’m sure if this was a regular Ciera it would be a whole different story for most voters.
Aah I moved a sleeper sofa in my 1974 Plymouth Valiant. Just tied it to the roof.
That Chrysler buyer timed it well, coming in during 1993 when they’ve still got boxes in 3-4 sizes to choose from, maybe treat themselves to a nice Imperial. A year later would be slimmer pickings.
A tougher one. It seems like half the A-bodies made over the second half of the lifespan were that shade of light blue. Points to the Ciera for having the rally gauge cluster, from me and if John Davis of MotorWeek happens to be voting. Though is the tach broken or is it really idling at 3k?
Both interiors seem about as clean. Olds will almost surely win it because wagon; I want to go Chrysler because I like the original LH cars, but the body of the Olds is just in better shape. Both may have paint fade but the bumpers on the Chrysler have really had their namesake tested.
A lot of old tachs will sit at some weird RPM when the engine is off, but start working properly when you start it. Something about a bad ground, if I remember right.
Wagon all day, every day.
This was a genuinely tough one. I prefer the LH and voted for it as I always liked this design. Early 90’s GM products all sort of make me gag. But it is wagon, and I’m sure if you wanted you could keep that thing running forever.
We had a cruiser when I was in high school. Great highway car. Reliable. Not exciting. But you could load a lot of stuff or people. It’s also not a Chrysler so wagon wins.
My family had a Buick something or other, had two sideways facing fold down rear seats in the back, not sure why still only fit 2.