Welcome back! Today we’re looking at two cars with the same engine displacement: 3.8 liters, or between 231 and 232 cubic inches, or if you prefer, just a little over a gallon. They’re similar designs, but from crosstown rivals, and installed in very different cars.
But first, we should wrap up yesterday’s Mitsubishi V6 faceoff. Sometimes, I can sort of guess which way the voting is going to go based on the comments, but this was not one of those times. Lots of love (or at least lukewarm support) for the Shadow in the comment section, but it didn’t translate to votes. We love it when you read, and it’s even better when you participate by voting, but a comment explaining your vote is the best. This is like math class: You have to show your work.
As it happens, I disagree with the silent majority. I don’t dislike the third-generation Eclipse in the way some of you seem to, but I really dig the Shadow/Sundance twins, and this is a good spec. I don’t even mind that it’s all white, though it occurs to me that “White Shadow” sounds like a second-tier superhero, like one of the Mystery Men or something.
Now then: Units of measure are a funny thing. It’s not something that most places in the world struggle with; everything’s metric, and that’s that. But here in the US, we have stubbornly clung to our inches and quarts and acres, except when it comes to manufacturing, where the metric system is used incompletely. Most American cars built since the 1990s or so will require metric tools, but sometimes only for the engine; chassis components may still be in inches. Or vice versa. It gets really confusing sometimes.
However you want to measure them, the engines in these two cars have more similarities than differences: Both are 90-degree V6s, both are overhead-valve designs, both have seen use in front-and rear-wheel-drive applications. The cars they’re installed in are very different, though. And there’s more to a car than the engine anyway. Let’s check them out.
2002 Ford Mustang – $3,500
Engine/drivetrain: 3.8 liter overhead valve V6, four-speed automatic, RWD
Location: Sacramento, CA
Odometer reading: 109,000 miles
Operational status: Current tags and smog certificate, so I guess it runs well
Base-model Mustangs are strange cars. They have the look and feel of their more powerful siblings, but without the power to back it up. All hat and no cattle, I believe is the expression. But Mustangs weren’t really high-performance cars to begin with, and a base engine has always been a part of the equation. And although I haven’t checked the sales data, I imagine you’d find the base models sell a whole lot better.
In fact, in 1974, the first year of the Mustang II, there was no V8 option at all. The fastest Mustang on offer featured a wheezy 2.8 liter V6 making only 115 horsepower. The V8 returned a year later, but it didn’t actually start to help matters in the performance department for almost another decade. Base models, meanwhile, suffered along with a 2.3 liter four-cylinder engine, all through the Mustang II and Fox body days. In 1994, Ford finally banished the little engine that couldn’t and replaced it with the Essex 3.8 liter V6, making more power than the new-for-1975 V8.
This “New Edge” Mustang couples the Essex V6 to a four-speed automatic. It’s not ideal for performance, but again, base-model Mustangs with automatics date all the way back to the beginning. It has low miles, current tags, and a recent smog certificate. I’m always a little leery of cars with these cheap Wal-Mart seat covers; I worry about what they may be hiding. But the rest of the interior is so clean that I think these covers might actually be doing what it says on the box – protecting the upholstery, not covering up flaws.
Outside, it looks OK, but not great. It has a scrape on one side of the front bumper, and a scrape and wrinkle behind the right door. It looks as if someone was inept at maneuvering it in and out of a narrow garage. Worse than the scrape, however, is the knowledge that 2002 Mustangs were available in some really great colors, and whoever ordered this one originally chose boring silver.
2002 Pontiac Bonneville SLE – $2,195
Engine/drivetrain: 3.8 liter overhead valve V6, four-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Bloomington, IN
Odometer reading: 154,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives great
Pontiac’s big sedan named after a dry lake bed dates all the way back to 1958, but even before that, the name was used on a convertible version of the Pontiac Star Chief, and a really cool bubble-topped show car. The best-known Bonnevilles, however, were the V8-powered monsters of the 1960s and early 70s, and the front-wheel-drive models introduced in 1987, powered by increasingly-improved versions of the 3.8 liter V6.
This 2002 Bonneville features a 3800 Series II engine, sending 205 horsepower to the front wheels through a 4T 65E automatic transmission. It’s a fantastically reliable and durable engine, with only a few potential trouble spots, mostly centered around the plastic intake manifold and valve covers. There was a recall for the valve covers; it’s worth finding out if that work has been done on this one. The seller does say it runs and drives great at the moment.
This is not the greatest era for General Motors interior design. It’s too busy-looking, too cheap and flimsy. This car has “all the bells and whistles,” but they’re all controlled by crappy little gray plastic buttons. At least it all looks like it’s in decent shape. This car is afflicted with a seat cover as well, and I have less confidence that there isn’t some torn leather or a popped seam under there.
Outside, it looks good – until you get to that left rear wheel well. That is a lot of rust. This is a Midwestern car, after all, with all the crispy edges and possible structural problems that go with that distinction. And the left side always gets it worse, I think because it gets sprayed with salty water from oncoming traffic.
These old pushrod V6s are technological dinosaurs, but I love them for that reason. They’re mechanically simple, low-stress, and more efficient than you might guess, especially with nice tall gearing to take advantage of the low-end torque. They have low power output for their size, but keep clean oil and coolant in them, and they’ll just keep spinning. Which one do you prefer?
(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)
The rest of that Bonneville looks pretty good. Even though it has a dizzying number of buttons on the interior, I’d rather hedge my bets the undercarriage is rusty but not likely gone from said rust.
Trust the rust!
I’m also not a fan of the new edge Mustangs. The original SN-95’s was far better looking, imo.
Less rusty Mustang is my choice. I don’t mind the look of the new edge. I’m sure that Pontiac is completely gone underneath at this point too. There are also a fair number of mustang enthusiasts around me that could at least liven up that one for a reasonable price.
The GM 3800 engine is a gem. The Mustang V6 is a shaky, cobbled together POS. Gimme the Pontiac.
Neither of these deserve any excitement, despite Pontiac’s marketing (and Ford’s, too, come to think of it).
The Pontiac should have a few years left in it. The Buick 3800 is a very stout engine. I’d be surprised if many of the original Dex-Cool intake issues are still out there. They’ve had more than 2 decades to get them fixed (or just change coolant types and the problem fixes itself). The rust is unfortunate, but looks fairly average for my corner of the salt belt.
The Ford 3.8 Essex engine is famously unreliable. Eats head gaskets like candy. Having owned two of them, and gone through 3 sets of head gaskets, I wouldn’t want a third one if you paid me to take it. There’s a reason it often shows up on lists of “worst engines ever made.”
So my personal choice, if I had to drive one of these, would be the Pontiac.
If I were looking to flip a car, the Mustang will probably hold its value better and be easier to sell. Also, I don’t see any rust, and that’s always a plus.
Wanted to go Bonneville but all that rust has me running straight to the Mustang
The mustang will probably hold its value better.
I have driven the less squared off SN95 with a 3.8, The motor was pretty weak, the trans was 90’s AOD slushy, and a 70’s caddy put it to shame in the turning radius category. I suppose if it was also not on a buy here, pay here style lot, I might consider it over the much more attractive Bonnie. since they are both on said lots and both are relatively low miles for the age and I know the pros and cons of the 3.8 a bit better, I would consider the lower priced family touring sled.
Ugh. Neither is a good choice, for very very obvious reasons.
I went with the Bonneville so I wouldn’t have to hear “it got a V8 in it!?!?”
Despite voting for it, I absolutely hate the Fisher-Price dashboard and buttons in that era of Pontiac. The relatively nice looking exterior hides this black plastic tomb of pillow-shaped sadness.
pillow soft interiors were present in this era of GM pretty much across the board, call it sadness if you want, they were a fairly pleasant place to place your posterior on a long ride.
I’m more referring to the pillow-shaped identical plastic buttons everywhere.
I was all in on the Bonnie until I saw that dashboard. Woof, I forgot how hard GM interiors sucked in that period, with the “bubbly” design everywhere. I don’t think I could sit behind that wheel regularly.
I voted Bonneville because my dad drove them. The interior was indeed horrible, his ’88 had the steering wheel buttons.
I’d much rather have the comfy cruiser that is the Bonneville, but I guarantee there are no rocker panels left under that plastic cladding. That car is going to wad up like a Natty Light can on a frat boy’s forehead at a rager in an accident.
Base model Mustang it is!
this would indeed be a concern of mine and it would mean a deep dive inspection for this very thing before I would part with any money.
I don’t think you’ll have to go too deep, before you nope the hell out of there.
Yeah, same. the underside is probably a horror show if the wheelwellls are that shot. And I can’t recall that last time I had Natty Light. Probably a $25 dollar keg of it in school.
I really wanted to vote Bonneville, but the rust you can’t see is almost always worse than the rust you can see.
Hiyo Silver Base Model Mustang! AWAAAAAY!!!
My thoughts exactly. There are definitely no rocker panels left under that cladding.
Being a little rusty myself, I’ll go with Poncho.
Really?!? “The White Shadow” was right there! Is your late 70s pop-culture radar on the blink?
I was not aware of that one. My folks must not have watched it. (Actually, it sounds like no one did.)
You are INCORRECT sir. I watched the adventures, dramas and heartaches of the Coach, Koolidge, Salami and the rest of the Carver High gang on a weekly basis when I was a kid. Fave episodes include when they went to Vegas and Kool had fake ID that said he was Malcolm Muggeridge and one of the guys brought his girlfriend some fine Holiday Inn linens, the one where they landed a superstar player who couldn’t read, and when Gomez (IIRC the name correctly) went back to his former gang. It was a weekely highlight when they sang in the showers.
But it sounds like it didn’t have much in the way of cars, spaceships, or magic in it, so back then, it would not have been on my radar.
Yeah he was kind of a Jaimie Escalante sort, but mentoring inner-city black kids. Also broke some stereotypes about white people’s basketball skills, much like White Men Can’t Jump.
As a fellow White Shadow viewer, I was also appalled at the lack of pop culture knowledge. Mark gets today’s David Tracy Oblivious Award.
Yeah, if you didn’t watch it, you had nothing to talk about at school the next day with your friends.
Mustang wins this one- yes, the power sucks, but supercharger kits are plentiful enough on the used market for those. And seats from any 94-04 bolts right in to replace those ones.
it is still a pretty terrible ride with base model handling. outside of maybe using it for an LS swap Drag car, those are second only to a Mustang II in overall crappiness.
Outside of a rear swaybar, its the same suspension as a GT.
I don’t know then, the one I drove was a bit older, 1996, but I think they were the same until the newer retro body style and IRS. at any rate that thing was a terrible ride and hade the turning radius of a 70’s Cadillac
Does it look like the Pontiac’s left rear window taped up? The wheels also look almost too good.
The rust being concentrated below the fuel filler gives me hope that somehow sloppy refueling contributed to the deterioration in that section. Still, for the price, I think there’s some value in some of the Pontiac’s parts if everything underneath is crumbling to bits to part out to people trying to keep their big GM sedans going.
Wow. This is buy-here pay-here hell. Rental-spec Mustang from the least interesting generation or high-spec early-aughts GM product with bonus rust… so the Mustang, I guess. I dunno. I might just go to the lot next door and see if they have a 2005 Charger with the hemi for another $1000.
I think I’d take the Mustang and do an LS swap… actually no – that car looks so sad, boring, and depressed; I don’t think giving it power would actually solve anything.
Mustang because it’s not terminally rusty. The location of the rust on the Bonneville means the fuel filler is gone. That’s a known car-killer for those cars. No simple cut and patch job, that. That amount of visible rust means a lot more is hidden away under the car. Those rocker panels are on borrowed time too.
This would have been an easy win for the Bonneville if not for the rust. That looks really bad, to the point where you’d have to worry about the car’s structural integrity. It could be one shoddily integrated set of railroad tracks away from sending a shock absorber into the trunk. I’ll take the low spec but much more sound-looking Mustang.
Continuing Pontiac’s winning streak in this precinct, we’ll take the Bonneville. The rust and the ratty (probably) driver’s seat give pause, but it’s tough to vote against a 3800, and it’s considerably more useful than the Mustang.
In addition, the SN95 is my least-favorite Mustang generation, as much for its bathtub-esque seating position as its clumsily-attached “heritage” design cues.
I was going to pick the Bonneville, but I’m trying to limit salt intake and the Pontiac is apparently high in sodium content, so it’s the “Secretary’s Car” for today.
I love the look of the Pontiac interior.
Am I weird?
Nope! I also really, really like the Pontiac interiors of the era. Unlike Mark, I believe those 100 or so slightly rounded buttons are awesome. The design ethos of KITT(Keep It Tactile, Thanks) is the best kind of ethos.
Yes, Bob, you’re weird. And that’s okay.
If the Mustang was a stick, it’d have my vote. More fun to drive a slow car fast, etc.
But we’ve had a number of 88s and Buicks that shared this engine and platform, and they were all excellent cars. Certainly the equal of anything else out there, particularly considering the price range. I think the bonnie would be the way to go, despite the rust…