Good morning, and happy Friday to you all! Today is all about second chances, as we pit the week’s second-place finishers against each other. But of course, to do that, we need to find out our fourth contender, so let’s see how yesterday’s vote went:
Well, that’s pretty decisive. I would still have a very hard time choosing between them; the Alfa would be a lot more fun to drive, but I get the feeling the Rover might be more fun to own.
By the way, there will never, ever be a “Neither” option, not while I’m at the helm around here. I’d post two real nightmares, you’d all chicken out and choose “Neither,” and what fun would that be? No, you must choose. The shitbox gods demand it.
So, we’ve got four cars to choose from here, but I feel like I ought to give you a use-case scenario to help you decide. How’s this: Your significant other’s seventy-year-old Aunt Silke is flying in for a visit. You’ve offered to pick her up at the airport, about an hour away. Silke’s cool, and always has the best stories; she was a roadie for ABBA on their first farewell tour, and she once starred in a Mentos commercial, but no one is exactly sure which one. She’s also a bit of a gearhead, with a pristine Gilbern Genie in her garage that she claims to have won in a bet, but won’t elaborate. Silke knows that you’re the car person of the family, and has made mention of leaving the Gilbern to you, so you want to stay on her good side. Unfortunately, your shiny new Giulia is in the shop again, so you need to borrow one of these four to go pick up dear old Aunt Silke.
Oh, and for our purposes today, we’ll assume that the Saab has been returned to running condition and the Rover’s brakes are brand-new. So what’ll it be?
1983 Saab 900
Pros: Bona-fide European classic, smooth ride, nice clean interior
Cons: Somehow dull and weird at the same time
If cars were only bought by people who love cars, Saab would not only still be around, they’d be a roaring success. We car nerds all seem to love their quirks, their unconventional but brilliant engineering, and their funky style, but the general car-buying public for some reason preferred their Camrys and Accords. This early 900 is what happened when Saab tried to be normal: it’s a four-door sedan with an automatic transmission, still possessed of all the Saab oddities but not much of the charm.
Still, it’s a mighty nice car, and it seems to be in great condition. The low mileage helps, of course. And driving a forty-year-old Saab instantly marks you as one of the chosen few – eccentric gearheads. If you’re reading this, you’re already one of us; might as well put on the uniform.
2011 Kia Soul
Pros: Roomy, efficient, practical
Cons: Cheap interior, looks and feels like a rental car
Of course, Saabs are an acquired taste. Your own personal flavor of weird might come in the shape of a Korean compact wagon that looks a bit like an Imperial Stormtrooper’s helmet. Or maybe you just want to prove to Aunt Silke that you can drive a stick. Behold, the Kia Soul, in all its manual-gearbox glory.
The trouble, of course, is that it’s a Korean compact, built to a price, and it shows. And if it’s anything like similar cars I’ve driven, and I’m sure it is, it’s a tinny, buzzy little box on the freeway, Maybe that’s why they put a big kick-ass stereo in it, to cover up the road noise. Also, they’re everywhere, so it’s not going to feel very special. There’s no sense of occasion to it.
2000 Buick LeSabre
Pros: Super-comfortable, big trunk for luggage
Cons: Booooriiiiiing
By contrast to the Kia, noise, vibration, and harshness are not words in the Buick LeSabre’s vocabulary. From its pillowy-soft seats to its floaty Dynaride suspension, this car is all about not letting you know anything about the surface of the road. Yeah, it has a Stone Age engine and a Playskool dashboard. But who cares? Point this barge down the highway, and just sail.
The trouble, of course, is that it is completely devoid of style or personality. It’s just a big dumb cruiser. It’s really good at being a big dumb cruiser, but it’s not the sort of car you can look cool leaning against the fender of while waiting for someone.
1966 Rover P6 2000
Pros: Classy, stylish, great presence
Cons: Always a chance you won’t make it there, or back
Now, you want to talk curb appeal, here it is. This old Rover looks like something Mr. Incredible might drive, resplendent in baby blue and chrome, with that glorious mid-century modern dashboard. And this one has just the right amount of patina to give it cred. Pull up to the airport curb in this beauty, and the cops will be too awestruck to tell you to move along.
However, it is a fifty-seven-year-old British car full of no-longer-available parts. Demons of all sorts lurk under its sleek bonnet, waiting to spring on the unwary traveler and utterly ruin an otherwise pleasant voyage. At least you’ll look good waiting for a tow.
OK, so the scenario is a little silly. Ignore it if you want, and just pick your favorite. Or imagine yourself crusing down the Interstate, coming up on a sign that says “Arrivals – Next Exit,” on your way to pick up an older woman and enjoy a nice drive home full of pleasant coversation and, if you’re lucky, some of those almond windmill cookies she always seems to have with her. You’ll get crumbs on the seat, but that’s all right. Which steering wheel are you looking down at?
(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)
Unless I want Aunt Silke to disown me for not making it to the airport, I wouldn’t pick the Rover.
The Saab won’t be the most exciting ride, esp with the slushbox, but it will make it there and back, and my second option is the Buick – even less exciting, but also likely to not leave me stranded.
I can see by the vote that most folks don’t regard “may you have entertaining stories about your cars” as a curse.
Buick. If Auntie Silke is a true enthusiast, she’ll appreciate the rock solid 3800 V6 (I think, pic is a little out of focus) and the supreme land-yacht comfort of a LeSabre. Far better choice than the Sob, Souless, or RovingElectricalNightmare.
IMO, Aunt Silke is most likely dish the dirt on ABBA in the passenger seat of a Saab.
Rover seems the obvious choice. Nice car with style and comfort, but not boring like the Buick. And that dash…
The current results are the correct ranked choice. The rover is the most interesting and it’s desirable in it’s own right. The Saab is a close second, being let down by its slushbox, but still a correct choice. The Buick, in third, is not a correct choice, but I’ve could make a practicality argument for the given assignment. The Kia belongs in fourth despite being a manual hatch. Too chintzy and boring, and IME commits the crime of being a small car that feels like you’re driving a much bigger car. Corners are hard to see, the A pillars are too big and feel miles away
I vote Rover, and it’s in the lead! Good to see so many brave souls
I’m going with the Buick. It may be booooriiiiiing, but it is comfortable, spacious, and has working air conditioning. When I unfold myself from an airplane seat, the last thing I want is to ride home in a car that is loud, hot, or uncomfortable.
Also, while it is not an interesting vehicle per se, I don’t see many of these around. Boring cars become interesting when they are old and uncommon. I appreciate the chance to experience new vehicles, even if they are not vehicles that are usually thought of as interesting. I presume other car enthusiasts do as well.
All good points. If I was picking somebody up at say Pearson airport in Toronto, I would take the Buick. If it was the small, local airport, I would take something interesting.
I went Saab because I think it’s just wonderful, but I suspect Silke would prefer the Rover.
The airport is too fringe a use case. Horses for courses;
the Soul is a cool color and practical too 🙂
The Buick, because you can also use it to pick up Aunt Silke’s great-grandchildren from the Hyperplane Spaceport after they’ve flown in from Venus.
Saab has never lost on one of these votes, and it better not lose now. This 900 is a certified cutie.
Buicks are made for airport runs.
Hear, hear!
Quirky is good unless it means not actually getting home from the airport.
The Buick is not exciting, but it is better than the other three at doing car things. For an airport run it is the clear choice.
And Aunt Silke doesn’t seem like the kind of person who would get judgy about the car used to give her a ride.
That’s fair, but we desperately need a “neither” option in presidential elections. If enough people vote for “neither” or “none of the above” then all the parties have to go back to the primaries and select new candidates.
We don’t need a “neither”, that particular choice is so crystal clear it’s not even funny.
can u not
Auntie would appreciate the look of a classic brown Saab.
Blue Rover, blue Rover send Auntie on over.
Rover, Buick, Rover, Buick. Very tough choice. Good thing I have all weekend to decide since DMV isn’t open Monday. Nevermind, I choose the Rover. I can find a Buick anywhere at any time. The rover? Not so much.
That SAAB is nice. I mean, nice. Very, very rarely do I consider reaching out to the seller of any of the showdown vehicles, but this is definitely one of them. It has a magnetism, an intangible allure, and reminds me of that Swedish movie I once saw, “Den Attraktiva Bibliotekarien.”
The Attractive Librarian? Perfect description of the Saab.
Aunt Silke will appreciate the Rover out of these four the most, just say a few prayers and make a few sacrifices to St. Lucas to get the British car gods on your side before heading to the airport. You need to make it there at least. But be prepared for a break down on the way back. Have a thermos of hot tea and a bottle of gin at the ready. That way, when you do break down on the way back, you spend some quality time with Auntie, hear her stories and give her some new stories to talk about. And by then, that Gilbern Genie is as good as yours!
Speaking of which, I feel we need a Holy Grail write up about this car I’ve never heard of.
This is the right take. I also think she’d be warm on the Saab, but if this fictional loaner garage told me the Rover gets around regularly, that’s the style I’d want.
Given the scenario, the Rover is the only correct choice, minus the scenario I would have to look at some of the others too, but not the Kia. Never the Kia.
Coin toss between the Buick and SAAB. Buick won
Rover. I was going to vote Saab but baby blue fits so well with the 2000 that I had to vote for it. Plus even if (when) I break down I’ll have a beautiful machine to ogle while I wait for the tow.
I don’t know what Aunt Silke would prefer, but if it were me being picked up from the airport, I’d want the Buick — and the others aren’t even close.
No matter how many bags I’m traveling with, it will be easy to fit them into its cavernous trunk. After being squeezed into tight airplane seats, it will be a treat to sink into those plush Buick seats that are more comfortable than my living room furniture. And the smooth ride would be greatly appreciated after the series of dehumanizing cattle-call queuing associated with air travel.
An ride home from the airport shouldn’t be exciting — it should be comfortable and dependable, and to me the Buick is the most likely to deliver on those attributes.
Rover, but nearly the Saab.
I just have always dug the looks of the 2000, so don’t care if it’s not the most exciting machine on the planet. The Saab might be a little more fun, but since we don’t have an option to take two, I had to go with my peepers’ choice.
Saab would be fun, but this is the worst version of a Saab. Solid example, but the most boring variant ever made by the weirdos.
I happen to be a weirdo that digs the 900 sedan over the hatch, because it has the silhouette of a fedora instead of a scally cap. And the 8 valve engine is no problem for me. I prefer the lower end torque it provides as well as the throatier exhaust note.
Fair enough. If it was a hatch I could go for it, or if it was a manual, or better yet both! But a boring FWD auto sedan just doesn’t stand out enough. I have no issue with the engine though.