Welcome back! Today on Shitbox Showdown, we’re leaving the ’80s nostalgia behind (finally, I can hear some of you saying) and looking at two cars that are only just starting to age into bought-for-cash beater territory. But before we do, let’s take one more trip back in time and finish up yesterday’s broken classics:
Wait. Stop the presses! A Saab has lost a Shitbox Showdown! I don’t think that has happened before. Not only that, but it lost to a Mitsubishi. Didn’t see that one coming. Honestly, I’d happily wrench on either of them. But I do think I’d have more fun with the Montero.
Now, I’ve been looking at (and buying) cheap cars from the classifieds for a whole lot longer than I’ve been writing this column. And it has been fascinating to watch over the years as cars gradually drop into beater price ranges, and at the other end, sometimes frustratingly, rise in price into classic territory. Today’s shiny new cars are tomorrow’s shitboxes, and today’s shitboxes are tomorrow’s shiny classics, and if you can’t see that, you don’t know shitbox from Shinola. (Yes, that was a long way to go for that pun, but I stand by it.)
The cars we’re going to look at today are at or under the average age for cars on the road in the US these days – 12 years or more – but they still look remarkably good. By contrast, I remember scrapping a rusted-out 1984 Honda Accord that was so far gone I couldn’t even jack it up to replace a rotted brake line. That was in 1995. They really don’t make ’em like they used to, and in a lot of ways, that’s a good thing. Which one of these is a better bet for a cheap-ish beater? You be the judge.
2011 Kia Soul – $2,988
Engine/drivetrain: 2.0 liter dual overhead cam inline 4, five-speed manual, FWD
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Odometer reading: 203,000 miles
Runs/drives? Yep
I have to admit: I kinda dig the first-generation Kia Soul. I mean, I liked it more before it was every fifth damn car on the road, but it’s still a neat-looking little box. It amuses me that, despite the ridiculous “youth-oriented” hamster commercials, most of the Souls I see are driven by middle-age-or-older folks. I’m sure Kia doesn’t care; a sale is a sale. But the older demographic probably did mean fewer Souls left the dealerships with manual transmissions than might otherwise have. Luckily, however, this is one of them.
This is the higher-trim “+” model, so that stickshift gearbox is connected to the 2.0 liter engine, rather than the 1.6. It also has power goodies and audio controls on the steering wheel. Power windows and locks are, of course, a given; this is about the time that window cranks disappeared from “premium” economy cars. Nowadays, they’re all premium, for better or worse. No idea how much of the power stuff works – it’s being sold by a dealership, and they won’t tell you anything like that in the ad, if they even know.
They do say it runs well, and has “nice tires.” It is north of 200,000 miles, which would be worrisome if it were a year newer. In 2012, Kia changed the Soul’s engine from the older “Beta” design to the trouble-prone “Nu” engine. Horsepower rose by 24 to 166, but reliability plummeted. Hyundai and Kia are still suffering fallout from the resulting debacle. But this car, with the older engine and a manual, should be pretty reliable. A careful inspection is still a good idea, of course.
Otherwise, it looks nice and clean, especially for a twelve-year-old Minnesota car. Rust is still a huge problem in road-salt states, even with all the galvanizing and undercoating of newer cars, but if you keep it washed and garaged in the winters, you can keep most of the corrosion at bay.
2012 Chevrolet Cruze Eco – $5,000
Engine/drivetrain: Turbocharged 1.4 liter dual overhead cam inline 4, six-speed manual, FWD
Location: Sacramento, CA
Odometer reading: 111,000 miles
Runs/drives? Sure does
Chevy’s small car game has always been a little sketchy. At best, you get a fun, rowdy little plaything like the Cobalt SS. At worst, well, you get the Vega. In between, there is a vast ocean of dull, poorly-built but rugged cockroaches like Cavaliers and Corsicas. In 2008, the latest chapter of the Chevy small-car saga opened, in the form of the Cruze, a world car designed largely by Daewoo and Opel. And despite the fanfare surrounding its launch, it seemed to be more of the same in a new shape.
This “Eco” model has a far higher-tech engine than its predecessors, at least: a 1.4 liter turbocharged four with variable valve timing tuned more for fuel economy than fun. This one is, at least, backed by a six-speed manual for a little bit of driving engagement. I do find it funny, however, that despite all the advances, the GM Delta II platform on which the Cruze is based still uses the same suspension design as the 1980 Chevy Citation: McPherson struts in the front, and a twist-beam axle in the back. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, I guess.
This Cruze has covered only a little more than half the miles of the Kia above: 111,000. You’d expect it to still be in good shape at that mileage, and you’d be right. It does have a couple of minor issues that need repair, namely a minor oil leak and inoperative rear windows. Otherwise, it runs and drives well, and the seller says its maintenance is up-to-date.
Chevy did offer the Cruze as a hatchback and a wagon elsewhere, but the hatchback didn’t come to the US until 2017, and we never got the wagon. So for a cheap used Cruze, this four-door sedan with its mail-slot trunk opening is the only option.
These cars, and a whole crop of cars that came out around the same time, are still sliding down the steep part of the depreciation curve, so prices can only come down. We’ll be seeing more Cruzes and Souls in the “thrifties” section in years to come. Used car prices in general are still artificially high, of course, but being willing and able to drive a stick is still the key to a good deal. So, today, faced with these two choices, which is your new ride?
(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)
Sorry – the Cruze wins by default. The Kia was hacked and stolen 15 minutes after it was posted.
… But then the thief got caught because he stalled it repeatedly because he didn’t know how to drive stick.
No way on the Soul, I’d feel like I was sitting on a barstool. And that engine + only 5 gears + boxy body + 80 on I-80 x all day = serious fatigue.
I just came back from a 1,000 mile trip in a 2016 Soul with the 1.6 and it did fine on the highway. Not the greatest MPG, maybe 30.
“Play it Steve.”
I’m a Soul man, but I would fillet this one: rear-seat extraction = busker van deluxe.
And I’ve always been partial to 2-seaters even if I hafta roll my own (see past stories of my ’71 Mustang with driver’s seat only).
Maybe I’m just biased because I own a 2016 Cruze, but I voted for the Cruze. Bought mine brand new and just hit 157K miles. The thing has been dead reliable, other than a few things these cars are notorious for, water pump/outlet and camshaft cover (GM replaced the latter for free). Still has the original engine, transmission and turbo (I have the 1.4L). Otherwise just brakes, tires and fluids. Aesthetically the exterior and interior have held up very well, even in the salt belt (though I do take above average care of my cars). Great gas mileage, and the thing actually moves pretty damn well in traffic with the turbo.
The Kia has twice the miles for marginally less money and has spent its life in the salt belt (versus California). In spite of my bias, I think I can comfortably say that the Cruze is the better value. Oh, and you’re a lot more likely to be a victim of the stupid ass “Kia Boyz” driving around in a Kia of this vintage. Even if you’ve “fixed” the car to make it theft proof, you’ll still pay way more in auto insurance and it doesn’t stop some degenerate from smashing your windows and destroying your steering column. This one’s easy.
They both seem to be pretty good value, which is really odd for Shitbox Showdown.
I have a couple friends with Cruze Ecos that are each well over 200k without issue. I’d much rather have the diesel version, but the gassers have been really durable, too.
Chevy by a small margin.
While I do like the 1st gen Soul, when put against a California example of the best economy Chevy with half the miles, the Minnesota KIA isn’t quite as appealing, even when priced much lower.
The Kia at 2,988 was a $400.00 trade-in. Love the manual transmission but it’s likely about to meet its last owner.
TIL: You can get a Cruze diesel for CHEAP if you don’t care about rust or oil leaks.
https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/991736281819078/
I would never go for a 200k mile Kia, but I have a Cruze currently and it’s awful. I think I’ll go Kia just because of the color and if I have to hate what I’m driving either way then I’ll save some $ and get the one that will die sooner
If I was smart, I’d have bought either one of these instead of a 25 year old BMW.
I voted for the Soul because it’s more practical for me, and it sounds like it has a more engaging drivetrain, which isn’t a very high bar to clear, I realise. Price makes up for mileage. But, really, I’m not enamoured with either of these.
I wonder if those “inoperative rear windows” is just the child lock switch.
If it has the same electronics as my 2013 Malibu, a hard reboot of that system will restore the rear window function. Ask your mechanic if a hard reboot is right for you!
That was my guess. That switch is really easy to hit accidentally.
The turbo is scary, but the Soul has a timing belt.
The Soul is a cooler color and has more space inside. It’s also cheaper.
So I voted for the Soul.
Cruze. I like the Soul, but as a former Minneapolis resident, there is no way I’m passing on a rust-free Cali car for a swiss cheese Minnesota car – the rust in the Twin Cities is prodigious.
It pains me to say it, but I think the Chevy would be the better value in this case. Lower miles, a small displacement turbo, and a 5 speed to wring it out.
EDIT: is it too late for me to just get yesterday’s SAAB?
Im going with the Soul for no logical reason whatsoever. I think the Soul has always been a good looking, simple, effective economy car. They’re cheap, cheerful, plentiful, and there’s even a small handful of interesting versions out there. I think there’s currently a GT that has the 200 horsepower 4 from the Forte GT, Elantra N line, etc. and there’s an EV as well.
They even come in actual colors! Anyway, the Cruze is going to run away with this one, but I just wanted to express my affection for the Soul in general. It’s one of the last interesting econoboxes out there. I’ve always liked them and I always will.
I voted the same for the same reasons.
Ditto
Same here. Why do I suddenly think this is going to lead to a “ha ha protest vote against the prudent choice WAIT THEY WON?” moment?
I’m picking the California car over the Minnesota car, sorry Marge.
Tell me more about that blue Fit I can see in the rear quarter shot of the Soul. That would have gotten my vote today, but since it isn’t an option I’ll go with the Cruze. Hopefully the rear windows are a fuse away from working again.
Cruze for me. The allure of a manual sedan is just too much.
I currently own a manual sedan, and it’s the most unexpected combo for a lot of people; a manual isn’t unusual on a coupe or a oddball car like the Soul, but on a regular oldschool sedan…
Mark, I esp. appreciate your effort to find models with manuals for this – the 2010s was really the beginning of the era of automatics on pretty everything that wasn’t a sportscar, so these must be fairly rare!
There was a point in 2010-2012 when finding manual Cruzes on dealer lots was possible. GM actually expanded the manual’s availability due to customer demand for a few years.
The Eco made up about 10% of production. For 2011 and 2012 they were the only way to get the 1.4T with a manual. They were purchased by folks with long commutes or by enthusiasts. Leasing one was hideously expensive compared to other trims. It’s not a shock that most left today are Eco trim. Those were likely purchased by folks who maintained them compared to the lease specials.
Fascinating. I wouldn’t have expected such a thing, esp. in the 2010s, and esp. from GM!
Cruze. Maybe because I bought an identical one brand new and still daily it.
The turbo will need to be replaced at some point. They all crack at the wastegate. It’s about $800 in parts alone to do it with OEM or good quality aftermarket stuff. About $600 to do a Dorman turbo and $450 to do the Amazon Chinese white box special. Mine made it 230k miles before giving up the ghost and getting the OEM replacement.
These engines also eat water pumps by modern car standards. Plan on every 50-60k miles. It’s $50 including coolant. Stay away from OEM and go white box on this one. They all fail through the weep hole. There’s plenty of notice though.
That said, toss a tune onto the 1.4T and get 25 hp and 50 ft/lbs. It’s noticeable in a 3000 lb car. You’ll also get about 40-45 mpg highway at 65-72 mph. More if slowing down to 60.
Overall it’s been a great car and I’d buy another decent condition Eco manual in half a heartbeat.
I’ll take an extended Cruze over a Soul Survivor this time.
The Cruze for me. Just looks nicer and a good backup car/bad weather vehicle.
My Internet money is going to the Soul. I bought my son a 2013 same color and trim for his first car. Only repair we had to do was replace the crank position sensor last year. That took all but 30 minutes.
Cruze for me. Manual transmission + eco model, its a winner. Those wheels are highly desirable for Volt/Bolt owners
I like the Cruze more, but I also lean toward trusting the private seller here over the dealer. That was even before I went to the website of the Kia’s selling dealer to see that Crazy Joe is having an inventory reduction sale. Perhaps he’s Big Bill Hell’s cousin.
The Soul would be fine too, but IIRC used a timing belt until those new motors went in, so although it is just regular maintenance, that’s something to check for too so they could both potentially need some work. Crazy Joe almost certainly doesn’t know if that’s been changed.
Voted Kia. Plan on replacing the manifold with integrated turbo and head gasket soon on the cruze.