For today’s Shitbox Showdown we have a choice to make make between two American cars that have only two things in common: both come from near-luxury brands, and both are hatchbacks. Aside from that, they couldn’t be more different.
Hey all! Mark here. I’m new. But the site is still new, so aren’t we all? I mean, they haven’t even taken the plastic off the screen yet. Makes it hard to read, to be honest.
First, I want to thank young Thomas for getting the ball rolling while I worked things out with Jason and David. I ended up having to bribe them with a “vintage” box of Teddy Grahams Bear-Wiches that I found behind the seat of my truck to let me do this. (Seriously, guys; don’t eat those.)
Between Thomas’s excellent choices yesterday, it appears the Scirocco is the clear winner, no matter how many times David Tracy banged the TC By Maserati vote:
The Scirocco would be my choice too; the TC is just too much like a LeBaron, and I wouldn’t want a LeBaron unless it came with its own Veronica Mars.
1975 Buick Skylark – $2000
I chose this car for personal reasons. It makes me think of my grandfather, who was a Buick Skylark man. (Not a Buick man, mind you; a Buick Skylark man.) He had a brown ’76 similar to this that I still have fond memories of. I also briefly owned a ’78 Chevy Nova coupe that was just about the same car. This one looks pretty sharp in pale yellow with a white vinyl top, and its two-door fastback body holds a secret: It’s a liftback.
Isn’t that awesome? More cars should open up wide in the back like this. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say that every modern stubby-trunk sedan or coupe should be a liftback. Down with mail-slot trunk openings! Give us room to load stuff!
There is the matter of the transmission, mentioned in the ad, but seriously, it’s a Turbo 350. You can probably fix the thing with a hammer and some strong language. Worst case scenario, you end up replacing it, but they’re approximately as rare as black leather jackets at a Judas Priest concert.
Just make sure you get one with the Buick/Olds/Pontiac bellhousing bolt pattern, because unliike the later years of this generation of X-body, this one does not appear to be packing a Chevy engine. Judging by the location of the oil filler neck, that’s an Oldsmobile V8, which in this car would have displaced 260 cubic inches and put out – wait for it – 110 horsepower. (How the hell did they manage to break the transmission with… oh, never mind.)
But none of that matters as soon as you open the door. Just look at this interior.
Yep. Those are white vinyl bench seats. And they look as comfy and inviting as any conversation pit ever built. I’m going to be honest; I kinda love this car. But let’s take a look at its competition:
2002 Chrysler PT Cruiser – $2500
It’s hard to imagine these days, when there are a dozen of them in every buy-here-pay-here lot, but when the PT Cruiser was introduced, there was a waiting list for it. The first one I ever saw in person was in early 2001 on a dealer lot; it had a $4000 markup on the sticker, and it was already sold. Madness.
But I’m not here to pick on the PT Cruiser; plenty of people have done that already. I actually quite like the idea of it: a small, tall wagon that gets respectable mileage and is more or less reliable. You can haul a surprising amount of stuff in it. It’s stubby, so it fits into tight parking spaces. And these days, it has zero appeal to thieves, so you can park it in a sketchy neighborhood and be reasonably sure it will be there when you get back. What’s not to like?
Oh, right. That face.
I chose this particular PT Cruiser for one reason: It’s a manual. And if you look closely, someone appears to have replaced the plain round ball shift knob with a chrome skull:
This is a nice touch, because otherwise, apart from those two body-colored inserts on the dash, the rest of the interior is that soul-sucking industrial gray that US automakers seemed so fond of 20 years ago. But at least it looks to be in decent shape. That five-speed manual backs up the standard-issue 140 horsepower four, which won’t set the world on fire, but it’ll probably handily outrun the Buick.
So. Those are your choices. Generally-hated Cruiser that’s really not as bad as its reputation, or a bright cheery yellow cruiser from the darkest days of the U.S. auto industry. The winner will join yesterday’s Scirocco — along with Wednesday’s and Thursday’s choices — on Friday to battle it out for Shitbox Of The Week, the highest of Autopian automotive honors.
I chose the PT Cruiser because you can throw on some ZZ Top decals on the side and not care.
The manual trans on the PT is about the only thing that could make me even look at it, unfortunately there’s just not enough in that thing to let you appreciate being alive. The Buick will at least have enough soul to help you recharge after a long day at work.
PT all the way. We bought a 2002 manual new (looked at a turbo, but our dealer couldn’t get a manual quickly and our current vehicle was dead). The two big selling points that got us past the styling were that it fit our backwards facing car seat better than Ford Escape of that era did (we were on kid #1 at that point) and the ability to take the back seats out meant its ability to move stuff was well above its size.
Also… where is the voting thingy?
Full Disclosure: We owned a PT Cruiser 5-speed that we had for years before and after the Great Recession. I had to pry it from my wife’s grip when I insisted that we could finally afford a better car that I didn’t have to work on every other weekend. However, the car did take us all the way from Detroit to California and back without any issue back in 2007.
My Vote: The PT has a stick at least, but my vote is 100% for the Buick. Why? If you have to ask then you probably deserve to end up with the PT Cruiser.
getting hit by a bus is preferable to the PT so I voted Buick.
But I thought the ‘Nova Equivalent’ was the Buick Apollo? My dad bought one in 1976 and traded it in a year later for a shitbox Ford LTD. Not so much that the Apollo was bad but it was BLAND
Apollo was the base model; Skylark was the fancy one. Pontiac did the same thing for a couple of years with these with the Ventura and Phoenix nameplates.
The fact that a good condition interestingly styled manual wagon for cheap isn’t winning right now is proof of the curse of the Cruiser. They were totally fine novelty items that, when the veneer of style wore off, were totally adequate utilitarian boxes with slightly subpar reliability. The Skylark was worse when new and a lot worse now.
The shifter knob gets my vote
You know, and something just occured to me, looking at that photo again. It’s facing forward. Usually when you see those knobs they’re installed backward so the driver can see them. Maybe this is something we can get Jason to investigate: which way is the correct direction for a skull shift knob to face? Back, toward its master, or forward, facing Valhalla all shiny and chrome?
I’ll take that Chrysler, cause we’ll I’m a sucker for them and I have a few good memories in the back of one at a Walmart parking lot, can’t hate that face too much when Chevy tried to copy it on the HHR.
For no particular reason, I vote for the PT Cruiser.
Also you will find that as a true curmudgeon, you will note that I use two spaces after a period.
So in addition to a weekly Shitbox Showdown winner, perhaps the most voted of the bunch earns the “Shitbox of the Month” title, and then have a 12-car “Shitbox Shootout” at the end of the year for the coveted “Shitbox of the Year” title.
That’s a lot of shitboxes… Not a bad idea, but I may have to renegotiate. Right now they pay me in RockAuto gift certificates that are only good on closeout items.
Yes, also loving the shitbox shootout, cause it makes my car seem less crappy ????
Horses for courses. Looking for a project car/weekend toy? Skylark. Need a cheap daily driver? PT Cruiser.
That’s what I came here to say. They both look like pretty good deals—one is a classic with good cosmetics but a busted transmission, the other is a basically-modern but deeply uncool car that is ready to take you to work and back. Are you looking for something to wrench on for fun, or do you just need to quickly replace your previous shitbox so you don’t lose your job?
I’m from Europe, and really never understood the dislike of PT cruisers in their homeland. We have them here in the EU also, and they’re just shitboxes, but people don’t hate on them and there is no uncoolness stigma. Plus, they didn’t aged that bad, in my opinion. Cultural differences, I guess?
This all day. I’d DD that PT now. They were all the buzz when introduced. They sold a ton of them. Left alone, they look fine. But the chrome door trim, flame decals, etc make them intolerable.
Skylark, no question.
One question though- how do I actually vote on this?
You have to disable ad blocker.
Not if you’re using Brave.
I disabled the ad blocker and it still doesn’t show.
Hey Congrats!!
Barf and Barfer. PT Cruiser because of the skull shift knob.
The site is having some issues today. But you know that right? The BUICK is red, old and interesting, but that interior looks like it may smell like an old pair of Melania’s panties and not in a good way…Also like Melania, parts may be hard to find.
The Cruiser just makes my head hurt. Sometimes choices just suck.
Not red, stupid auto correct.
PT because of the manual.
You know, I think the PT Cruiser is unduly derided and it’s actually a good idea let down by two things: It’s a Daimler-era Chrysler, and it was right at the end of the big nostalgia era when people started to get embarrassed by the openly retro designs. It looks a lot better than the internet dogpile would have you believe, and a practical hatchback with funky styling is actually a good idea.
But the Skylark is an engine swap away from being way cooler.
PT Cruser was pretty much all Chrysler before the merger – the refresh being worse in every way was all Daimler “how cheap can we make this”.
I had a 2002 fairly recently, 2017ish, and it was much better than everyone lets on. This one with a 5 speed would be much more fun to drive and get respectable mileage compared to it’s terrible 4 speed auto counterpart (I think I averaged 21mpg in mine).
I liked the PT exterior design . . . still do, in fact. What killed it (to me) was the absolutely miserable driving experience. I spent years in these things when they were the de facto rental car, and it seemed like everything about the interior was designed to suck. There was no way to position that seat properly, it always felt like you were driving in a dining room chair with the steering wheel positioned WAY too high and the arm rests WAY too low. For such a tall vehicle, there was NO headroom. I’m not a super tall guy, (6 foot) and my hair brushed the roof. The whole design of the interior was to put every knob and button as far away as possible, while also managing to feel super cramped. The center console was WAY too low, making it effectively useless. (Fun game, try to find a place to put a phone or GPS where you can see it). It’s a magical engineering master-class in discomfort.
We traded a PT Cruiser around 5 years ago. Granted it wasn’t in great shape, but I suspect this PT Cruiser isn’t in great shape mechanically. Few are these days. They offered $250, we countered with $500 and they accepted. It was such a god awful car it felt like we came out on top.
Woot! Congrats man!
Living the dream! Congrats, Mark.
I could not agree more about the need for modern hatchbacks, even though I’d bet my last 10mm socket that this one leaks. Despite that and the broken Malaise drivetrain, I’m all in on the Skylark. Mostly because if I had the PT I’d regret not hunting a bit longer to get a turbo version.
The manual made a world of difference in the Cruiser, but not enough to tip the scales here.
Also, the HP number on an Olds V8 is a red herring. Like the I6 Ford they were made for torque delivery, not revs. (205 lb ft in this case.) That’s why they were the last carburetor fueled engine GM made.
Look, both cars are massively overpriced. The internet hates the PT Cruiser, so it’s going to lose this contest, but it’s the better choice. Now I’m going to out myself by saying that I owned a PT Cruiser 5-speed just like that one. Bought it new off the lot. Shut up. I loved it and I’d buy another one. Almost did, in fact. But it had half the mileage, was half the price, and had just had a once-over by a mechanic buddy of mine. The manual transmission is what makes this car the winner in my book. But at 134k, if it didn’t have the timing belt replaced recently, it’s a ticking time bomb. I’d still take it over the Skylark.
Man, everything is overpriced now. Its not even worth mentioning at this point.
Realistically, what do you think is a fair sale price for the PT Cruiser? This appears to be in good mechanical condition and looks well cared for. I don’t recall a time in the recent past (last 10 years) where a generic vehicle in decent running condition could be bought for much less than $2000. I guess I don’t see $2500 as that overpriced for this vehicle, even if today’s market weren’t bonkers.
I think I need that Skylark! I used to own it’s predecessor, a ’74 Buick Apollo, and I’ve been missing it. I hate that it’s so far away from me, but I’m still tempted.
A commonly overlooked, and hilarious, aspect of private party sales is misspellings. Two of my favorites off the top of my head?
Crysler Lebron
Chevy Balzer
If I was looking for a Camaro on CL, I don’t think I’d bother searching for the correct spelling. “Camero” only.
Don’t forget “Volkswagon”.
(Scrolls back up to make sure I typed “LeBaron” right)
I never have understood the misspellings. I mean, it’s right there on the back of the car in chrome letters. Come on.
You and your misspellings… Like that one time you mispelled blue and wrote “gold”.
I have chosen to believe that there is a man named Manuel who has an incredibly prolific transmission business with a sterling reputation.