Good morning! For today’s Shitbox Showdown, we’re looking at a couple of open-air fun machines. They’re probably not the sort of thing you want to drive every day, but either one would make a fantastic weekend toy. And they’re not the same old thing you see everywhere, either.
But before we do that, let’s see where you ended up with yesterday’s Hawaii trucks. Lots of you worried about the inoperative air conditioning in the GMC, which may have been a factor in giving the Toyota its easy win. I doubt the AC is a difficult fix, but then, I’m the sort of person who will tear apart anything to fix it – including air conditioning – so I’m hardly a judge of what others consider “difficult.”
All things being equal, I’d take a GMT800 over a Tacoma any day of the week. But these two are not really equal; the GMC is a 2WD with a standard cab and an automatic, while the Tacoma is a stickshift 4×4 with an extended cab. 4WD and a manual are nice, but that extended cab makes it way more useful as an only vehicle, as it’s likely to be, so I’d take this Tacoma over this GMT800. But only just.
So now it’s time to look at a couple more convertibles. Well, really one true convertible, and one sports-utility vehicle with a removable roof. But the end result is the same: Sunshine and fresh air, in forms you don’t see all that often. Let’s see which way you’d rather get there.
1962 International Harvester Scout 80 – $5,000
Engine/drivetrain: 152 cubic inch overhead valve inline 4, three-speed manual, part-time 4WD
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Odometer reading: unknown
Operational status: Runs and drives, but has been sitting
If you think about it, the SUV craze really started when World War II ended, when thousands and thousands of soldiers returned home and discovered that their beloved wartime buddy – the Jeep – was every bit as useful on the farm as it was on the battlefield. Other automakers took notice and started designing their own Jeep competitors, often improving on the formula. International Harvester, already well-known to farmers, entered the fray in 1961 with the Scout, first as a pickup, and later with a full-length roof. In either case, however, you could remove the roof and fold down the windshield for the same open-air experience as a Jeep.
The standard engine in the Scout, for all nineteen years of its production, was a 152 cubic inch pushrod four, but an unusual one. It’s one-half of International’s V8, literally. They just lopped off one bank of cylinders and one head and called it a day, leaving the remaining cylinder head canted over at 45 degrees from vertical. It’s an incredibly durable, if not terribly powerful, engine. This one powers either the rear axle or both through a three-speed manual gearbox.
It runs and drives, according to the seller, but it has been sitting around for many years, so you know the drill – change the fluids, replace everything made of rubber, go through the brakes, all that good stuff. But being able to hop in and turn the key and fire it up is huge.
The seller describes it as “partially restored,” but to me it looks pretty good. It’s a truck; it’s not supposed to be pristine. You can keep your six-figure Broncos and the like. I’d rather have this old “Binder” with slightly mismatched body panels and no rear bumper.
1976 MG Midget 1500 – $4,195
Engine/drivetrain: 1.5 liter overhead valve inline 4, four-speed manual, RWD
Location: Columbus, OH
Odometer reading: 37,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Time for a quick history lesson, if I may: The “Midget” name was first used on pre-war MG sports cars, way back in 1929 with the introduction of the M Type. The name stuck around all the way up to 1955, through the J, P, and T series cars, though the post-war TC through TF cars are not often referred to as Midgets. The name was officially revived in 1961 for a badge-engineered Austin-Healey Sprite, which was produced for nineteen years – coincidentally, the same nineteen years as the International Scout.
The Midget progressed through four generations during that time; this is the final generation, equipped with a 1493 cc four-cylinder engine from fellow British Leyland marque (and rival) Triumph. It’s the same engine used in Triumph’s Spitfire. The Midget 1500, as the Mark IV cars are usually called, had been saddled with the same big black rubber bumpers as its big sister the MGB, but this one has been “back-dated” with earlier chrome bumpers. This is an easy and popular mod for later Midgets, and it really is an improvement. The rubber front bumper makes the Midget look like a stoned frog with an underbite.
That’s not the only improvement that has been made to this car. It also features a really nice aftermarket steering wheel, an electric radiator fan, and a Weber DGV downdraft carb conversion. It all works, it all runs well, and the seller says they have put a lot of time and money into this car to put it in good running order. The only reason they’re selling it is that they’re moving, and can’t take it with them. (Well, not with that attitude, you can’t…)
Not all is well, though: The seller also notes that this car has a fair amount of rust. The non-original British racing green paint is also substandard, though it does look all right from a distance. The number roundels are a nice touch. My advice is to just drive it and enjoy it, and don’t sweat the cosmetics too much.
We’re big fans of open-air motoring around here, whether on or off the pavement. But there’s no reason to limit your options to the common choices, your Wranglers and Miatas and the like. These two, by virtue of being a little more obscure, are relative bargains. Neither one is perfect, but either one could be perfect for you. Which will it be?
(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)
I’m going with the MG, at least in a hypothetical world where I can fit in the damn thing. After reading the original ad, I’m not concerned about the rust. Seller notes a patch panel in one of the floors and a door that sags slightly when opened. I don’t see a reason to believe this car has structural rust or isn’t safe to drive (at least compared to one of these in perfect condition). I’m also not concerned about the paint. Cars in this price range have flaws. This car looks like a solid 20 footer. Assuming it runs as well as the seller claims, this sounds like a good purchase at this price.
I went back and forth a few times, but the MG got my vote. It’d be fun to drive, though I’d ditch the roundels – I’m not racing it. Not sure I’d be up for the long-term maintenance of one, though. On the flip-side, the Scout would be a little easier to work on and keep running, but the body style isn’t speaking to me, especially with the top off.
That midget looks pretty nice, but there is no way I’ll fit in it, so Scout it is this time.
There are no wrong answers today. Both would be fun, relatively cheap toys. All comes down to which one speaks to you. I voted Scout simply because it’s less common.
I was thinking I was going MG until the next to last paragraph. A fair amount of rust? Bummer. I’ve spent a lot of time in both of these cars. A friend who happened to be 6’6″ had one and would look over the windshield to drive. These were a lot of fun and easy to wrench on.
Another friend in college had a Scout and used it as his dive car. We would load it with gear and head up the coast to a beach we would put our gear on and walk in from the beach. It broke down a time or two and left us stranded and we didn’t take the roof off too much. I recall it was crazy heavy even for 3 of us to remove. Today I vote yellow scout.
MG please. Frivolity over utility.
While it screams unsafe, the Scout always fascinated me.
That’s not the Scout doing the screaming, it’s your passengers.
Good point, I tend to tune them out. 🙂
Wait…
It’s the SCOUT that’s unsafe? NOT the car approximately the same size and with the same structural integrity as a styrofoan egg carton?
The Scout is unsafe is a different way. All metal, no restraints. In an accident you can hose out the interior for the next victim…I mean owner.
I’m all about new automotive experiences lately, and I’ve previously owned a TR6 and an MGB. Voted Scout because it’s different. Also because backwards facing rear seat!
Backwards facing rear seat is nothing compared to that mid-ship mounted spare tire!
(Imagines a manager stopping in on an engineering meeting: “Hey, Phil, where’s the safest place we can keep the spare tire? God forbid an owner gets stranded out there somewhere!”)
Both are holdovers from the original Scouts that were pickups. They didn’t bother removing the bulkhead between the cab and bed when they put a stretch roof on the wagon Scouts.
True, but not how I imagine it went down. 😉
I would definitely take both!
Both are drivers, for sure. But the sitting/lack of mileage on the Scout is concerning. I’ll take my chances with the rust on the MG. With all the standard resto-upgrades done, anything short of major structural repair makes the MG a smarter buy unless you’re a total offroad head.
I think they prefer to be called MG Little People nowadays. But that’s the one I’d take. Rust just adds character.
I’d also ditch the Weber and put on a pair of SUs. That downdraft manifold is a torque-killer.
Microsquirt EFI.
I have always liked these MGs and the level of detail that the owner provided makes me think it probably is what it seems. I would just drive and enjoy it. If the frame were rusty, I would rethink that approach.
I feel like I should click the MG ad to learn more about the rust before clicking that button, but at the end of the day I’m not actually buying it, so I just don’t care. I have no desire for a big 4×4, or a small one or whatever this is, it’s cool but not for me, so easy win for the MG in my book. Especially in BRG!
Seeing as yellow is objectively the best color for pretty much any vehicle, this is an easy choice. Scout (slowly, but inexorably) FTW!!
Personally I’d enjoy the MG more, but the price on the Scout is going nowhere but up. Buy it, fix it up, drive it around and in 5 years sell it for twice as much as you paid for it. Close call but Scout it is.
The later Scout II’s are the ones to have. But still, Scout!
That Midget is cute, and in the right colour (spelling intentional), but I’d make it look like a Power Wheels toy. Scout it is, before VW’s relaunch drives up the price any more.
I have a buddy who restores scouts for a living. This one doesn’t look to need much, but it’s always good to have a friend when taking on someone else’s partially done project.
Any chance you could provide contact info. for your buddy? “Asking for a friend”, please don’t tell my wife, that sort of thing…
I can toodle around town in a Midget. But it’s English. But it’s also green… Midget.
Do you really have to ask? Now I’m more into II’s but I’d do an 80 over a Fidget any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
I’ve owned too many Scouts. Never again.
I’ve owned too many Midgets. And If you are going to the trouble to de-impact bumper one, please, do the suspension fix as well.
Slow and nimble versus slow and able. Going with versatility today: Scout.
That seems super cheap for that Scout. My sister has one and it seems to be broken about 3/4 of the year. Great price, but they are really tough to make dependable. The MG is an OK price but will probably be much more dependable if you like to drive your classic. For the price I’d probably live with the Scout breaking down on me for a while.
Yeah the Scout is going to be much easier to make and keep reliable as a lot of the parts are still on the shelf at your FLAPS since so much of it was purchased rather than made in house. What other 60 year old vehicle has taillight lens you can purchase at NAPA?
Both have great parts availability for cheap prices. Hopefully that doesn’t change for the MG crowd with Moss buying Victoria British a few years back and now Moss being merged with Rimmer Bros and both having been bought by private equity.
I almost bought a Midget about 15 years ago. I wound up getting a divorce instead.
An unmolested Scout for less than five figures? And it doesn’t come in boxes? SOLD.
Seriously, I intend to own a Scout at some point in my life and five grand is “forgiveable dalliance” money.
If I had a place to put it, I’d be driving down to Colorado Springs from Denver to take a look.