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)
I’m sensing a theme here in the comments: the Bonneville has the better engine and comfort, but the Mustang has the better body. And I agree.
I voted for the Pontiac, just because I know that’d fit my lifestyle better, but it was close. For $2195, it’s a great winter beater and all-around utility car; when the rust gets to be too much, you’ve still got a few hundred bucks in scrap value. I wouldn’t turn my nose up at the Mustang, though; I’m sure it’s fun for what it is.
The Bonneville had the upper hand until I saw the rust. Not that I’m really interested in either.
Since we’re getting a $hitbox anyway, I’d take the Pontiac with the trusty 3800 and the funky plethora of blob shaped buttons, dials and A/C vents. Is it wrong to love that ungodly mess of shapes on the interior?
It’s part of the Pontiac charm of the era…
But yeah, my choice would be Pontiac for winter beater reasons.
CA car… hopefully lest rust. I’d honestly sooner either save the cash for something better, or just buy a reliable ol’ civic or corolla to use until I fell on better times if that were the case.
Just can’t stomach the rust, much as I’d prefer the Bonneville. California car gets my unenthusiastic vote.
Ken Howard weeps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Shadow_(TV_series)
I hate the Ford 3.8 with a passion…in an engine catalog of some great and some less-than-great Ford engines, the Essex has to be near the bottom. So yeah, Bonnie has my choice.
This era of mustang was pretty reliable… probably because there wasn’t really much to go wrong on them, because they were simple (in good and bad ways). But this era of V6 mustang was more of a “why?” car for me.
They weren’t exciting, you couldn’t make them sound good, they weren’t that quick (but not slow either), and that chassis was SO past it’s prime by 2002…
So… Pontiac.
To get a gallon-sized engine in a vehicle up here in Canada, you’d be better off looking at a Land Cruiser with this engine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_FZ_engine#1FZ-FE
I see your 1FZ-FE and raise a 1HD-FTE… best sounding Land Cruiser engine ever
I had a red ’00 Mustang convertible with the V6 A/T options. It always ran well and I actually miss it a lot. I voted for the Mustang for that reason but if I were getting one now, it’d be the V8 and it would definitely not be silver!
No V6 Mustang for me, not from this era anyway.
I was fully on board with the Bonneville until I saw the rust. Mustang it is, then.
Voted Mustang for less rust/better condition and more/easier upgrade potential.
As the previous owner of a 2001 Bonneville SE, I am going to go with the Bonneville despite the rust. Mine was a great car – even though it was a base model and had the typical GM “interior by Fisher-Price”, it rode great, got 27-30mpg on the highway (critical for my 216 mile daily commute at the time), and the seats were unbelievably comfortable. I paid just slightly more back in 2005 for mine with no rust and only 76k miles than they are asking for this one. When I lived in the upper Midwest, these all rusted in the spot by the fuel filler, but even with all the rust they just kept running forever (even after they should have been tossed into the scrap yard).
Conversely, the “New Edge” Mustangs were sort of the opposite in comfort and durability, with the V8 and stick making up the difference to make it a compelling vehicle. Being a V6 and auto, this Mustang has no appeal to me at all.
California Mustang vs Indiana Bonneville? No brainer to anyone who lives in a salt zone.
Those are only 90% of a gallon up here in Canada.
Our official gallon is 4.2l.
That’s also why the cars up here always had better fuel economy when it was advertised as MPG.
I’m going with the Bonneville today. I don’t want to be seen in the rental spec Mustang. In my locale, that Bonneville is barely rusty. For $2k you’ll get a few more years out of it.
That gas door rust on the Bonnie is about par for a Gen-8 H-body. Every LeSabre and Bonneville will show rust there first, before anything else. I’ve seen some in an advanced state whereby most of the quarter panel is gone but the filler tube is still visible inside.
For some reason, the closely-related C-body DeVille and Park Avenue don’t rust here so readily.
I had a neighbor who had a Mustang just like this one (except black). After a few months, he put a crazy loud magnaflow exhaust on it. It sounded like ass with the blatty exhaust and automatic….why he didn’t just buy the V8 for a few hundred bucks more and actually get some performance (and a decent exhaust note), I’ll never know.
I had the 3.8 in a company car Taurus wagon for a couple of years. What a pile that engine was. I actually wanted a Bonneville (or Grand Prix) but they got me a Taurus.
So, I picked the Bonny, right? Nope – I hate (and fear) rust more than just about anything. I’d take that Mustang (so long as it doesn’t have an aftermarket exhaust on it).
Yeah, rust ruins it esp. when you know there is a lot more under it. Mustang even with the fart can on it!
Was ready to vote Pontiac until the rust. You made me vote for the rental spec Ford Mustang in silver. You monster!
As a owner of an stripper ’02, I’ll add that 2002 was the height of SN95 standard stuff. Ford steadily de-contented them from 2003 until 2005 when the S197 when live.
So at least you’re getting a fairly big bang for your bigger buck here.
If they were the same price, the rust might sway me, but I’m not paying extra for that boring-ass Mustang. I’m going to dig my old CDs out of the basement, put them in a fat wallet, and cruise the highway in Pontiac style.
The interior of the Bonneville – ugh. Car and Driver once said that all the buttons were ‘staging a riot on the dashboard’.
Ordinary, the Bonneville would win. However Midwest rust is no joke. The Mustang uses the “newer” dual port intake design that pretty muck alleviates the Head Gadket issues in the past. The Essex is essentially a truck engone with low RPMs but it is a torquey bugger. not exciting.
honestly a 3.8 from a Gen 4 Camaro and choice in the New Edge with a five speed would be the optimum . internet, make it happen….
Blasphemy in the best way possible! Angering Chevy, Buick and Ford fans all at once! Make that a supercharged 3800 for even more mind-splodey goodness.
Your assessment of the Essex is great, and reminds me that they do have a pleasingly truck-y sorta sound to them…which completely fits a basically antique like this car. A smooth, modern V6 it was not.
If I remember correctly, the torque values for the 3.8 and 5.0 of that era were virtually identical.
Bonneville. So easy. That the real king of the hill 3.8 liter V6, slightly better interior parts quality (I’m surprised to say that too), and true touring comfort.
Just send the polling staff home to be with their family.