Welcome to day two of our week-long search for some actually reasonable used cars! Today we’re dropping even further down the price range, and looking at a couple of cars for sale in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. They’re a little crispy around the edges, but they’re cheap and they run fine.
I was a little bit surprised by yesterday‘s results, not because I didn’t expect the Accord to win, but because I didn’t guess that the Buick would still carry such an old-man stigma. Yeah, it was probably someone’s grandpa’s car ten years ago, but who cares? Now it’s a reliable, comfy car that’s dirt-cheap to insure and is maybe halfway through its service life.
Don’t get me wrong; I really like that Accord too. And in fact, this is one of those comparisons where I think it would come down to a test drive and an inspection. Whichever one felt more honest in person would get the nod. That’s a difficult proposition, because they’re on opposite coasts, however.
Today’s cars are easier to cross-shop, because they’re both in the Twin Cities, a place that measures annual snowfall in feet, often drops below zero for days at a time, and uses a ton of salt to keep road ice at bay. It’s hard on cars. Any cheap cars you find there – and many expensive cars, come to that – are going to have some rust on them. Mechanical reliability is more important; I can tell you from experience how much it sucks to have some old clunker refuse to start when it’s nine below out and you’re already late for work. These two are both nice and solid mechanically, and it sounds like they’ve been well cared for. Let’s check them out.
2000 Toyota Corolla CE – $2,000
Engine/drivetrain: 1.8-liter dual overhead cam inline 4, four-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Odometer reading: 143,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
If ever there was a “default reliable car for non-car-people,” it’s the Toyota Corolla. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve recommended a Corolla to someone, and no one who has taken that advice has regretted it. I’ve even owned a couple of Corollas myself over the years. You can’t call them exciting, but they do the job of being a car better than just about anything. And even better, unlike its big brother the Camry, a used Corolla can usually be had for cheap; the “Toyota tax” doesn’t seem to hit them as hard.
This generation of Corolla is powered by a 1ZZ-FE four-cylinder engine. This engine has a very un-Toyota-like tendency to burn oil, but it is still plenty reliable. This one is coupled to a four-speed automatic, but I can tell you from experience that a manual transmission doesn’t really make this car any more interesting; it just gives you more to do. It’s still young at 143,000 miles, and it’s been owned by the same family its whole life.
The word “sturdy” comes to mind when discussing the interior of a Corolla. “Dreary” as well. There’s nothing wrong with it, but it’s not going to inspire anyone to do anything more than go from one place to another. This one is in good condition, except for the air conditioning. It conked out not long ago, and the seller elected not to have it repaired.
It’s not all that rusty, really; the passenger’s side looks all right, and the driver’s side doesn’t have any gaping holes. It’s not uncommon for cars to rust more on the driver’s side. That side gets crud from oncoming traffic as well as passing cars when it’s parked. Obviously it’s not worth fixing, but it will be years before it becomes a problem.
2008 Chevrolet Malibu LT – $2,000
Engine/drivetrain: 2.4-liter dual overhead cam inline 4, four-speed (?) automatic, FWD
Location: Farmington, MN
Odometer reading: 162,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
The Malibu nameplate has a long history, stretching all the way back to 1964 when it was introduced as a trim level on the new mid-sized Chevelle. In 1978, the Chevelle name was dropped, and the Malibu became its own model. As famous as the name was, it was replaced after 1983, ironically by a car called the Celebrity. Celebrity became Lumina, or Corsica depending on which one you considered the middle of the range, and then in 1997 Chevy came to its senses and brought back the Malibu name. Last year, the Malibu fell victim to the crossover takeover and went out of production again – this time without a replacement.
The base engine in this era of Malibu is a 2.4-liter Ecotec four, putting out 169 horsepower to the front wheels. It’s an automatic, of course – no car with a Malibu badge has had a manual transmission since 1983 – but I can’t tell you for sure how many gears it has. Both a four- and a six-speed automatic were available. Whichever it is, it’s in good condition, and the seller says it runs and drives well.
Inside, it’s got more plastic parts than an AMT model kit, but it’s serviceable. It looks like it could use a good cleaning, but it’s not torn up or anything. The traction control and airbag warning lights are on, which may or may not be a big deal depending on your feelings about those particular systems. But everything else works, the seller says.
It’s pretty rusty outside, and it’s probably worth looking underneath to make sure there’s nothing more serious than what you can see. If it’s still structurally sound, then it should serve someone well until it isn’t.
Keep in mind, we’re talking about cars that cost two grand here. You might not have any need for such basic transportation, but try to put yourself in the mind of someone who does. These should both last someone a couple of years, for the same price as a handful of payments on something newer. They’d also make good first cars for someone’s kid, especially if that kid is paying their own way. So, in short, be a good sport and pick one.
(Image credits: sellers)
Malibu me (after a set of front seat covers).
White duct tape and Malibu FTW!
Was considering the Malibu as I have rented that exact model many times. Or more that my company has rented that car for me many times. But the rust PLUS the CELs for traction control and airbag are on. Those 2 systems are kind of important to me sooo.. Corolla we go.
The Malibu could be a decent choice, but its interior is too neglected. If that’s where you seat, I can only imagine how it is where you don’t see.
The Corolla seems well cared for!
To follow on with the statement on burning oil this generation of Corolla will have that problem if owners employ “deferred maintenance” when it comes to regular oil changes or they don’t use good quality oil. Toyota corrected the issue in 2003 (oil drain holes in the ring lands were too small and would clog up with sludgy oil leading to sticking rings, and voila, burning oil). If it runs well and doesn’t burn oil, just keep up the maintenance and it should be fine until the bottom rots away and you fall out.
Sounds like Toyota copied the original Saturn 1.9 piston design they had the same problem. I wonder if the new Valvoline “Restore and Protect” oil would be a fix for these?
It’s definitely from the same play book. When I rebuilt the 1ZZFE in our ’99 (long story, but it wasn’t the original engine either) I had the block upside down on the engine stand and as I pulled off the rod caps the pistons, literally, fell out of the block. There was ZERO ring tension on them at all. It was burning a quart every 100 miles and all the little holes were plugged solid.
Can’t go with the Toyota because every time I think of its name it would remind me of Adam Carolla and that guy is just annoying.
On the other hand, the Chevy would remind of one of my favorite old surf bands, The Malibooz, and that would just make me smile.
My step mom had a 98 Corolla for about 12 years. Boring but very reliable. Had about 280,000km when she got a much newer Corolla. Like the one in this ad the AC didn’t work. Beyond that there was usual wear and tear and consumables but nothing major went. While she can definitely afford a nicer car her basic criteria is 1. Cheap ownership experience including purchase, insurance and fuel and 2. reliable.
The crustiness of this one makes me take pause but if its an inspection free state it should give the owner a couple of years of use as long as they top off the oil.
I think the Corolla would be more fuel efficient than the Malibu as well.
I’ll take the Corolla. The ABS warning light on the Malibu is probably just a wheel speed sensor, but the airbag light makes me worried there’s more substantial corrosion damage hiding somewhere (and takes away the biggest safety advantage the newer car had).
I currently bang around in a ’99 Corolla CE, when I don’t need to haul anything or don’t have my family with me. That car is tough as nails. I beat the shit out of it, and it just takes it. Parts are HILARIOUSLY cheap too. I replaced all 4 struts this summer for $173+tax and shipping. Full brake refresh, front and rear, not the cheapest parts but not the most expensive either, that was like $230 in parts. I replaced all the light housings up front for something like $60. The only time it failed me, was then the (original) fuel pump died. I spring the $70 something dollars for a new Denso unit, so I didn’t have to go into the gas tank again, and also another $40ish for an OEM in tank fuel filter, and a few more bucks for a pressure regulator and sock while I was in there (it’s all in the pump housing). The heat gets hot FAST too, so it’s a perfect winter beater. Thankfully my AC still works for summer errands.
I also briefly owned, for most of 2014, a CPO 2011 Malibu. It’s a much roomier and “nicer” car than the Corolla. It was also, shall we say, lemon scented. I’d hesitated to call it a full on lemon, because I’ve owned worse, but within a year I didn’t want anything to do with that car, and sold it at a small loss just to be done with it.
So, yeah, Corolla all the way. When you’re broke and need to get to work, you just gotta get there. The Corolla will get you there.
This is the whole point. I couldn’t be more precise.
Considering how many flex pipes alone broke on the Malibu we had of that generation, Yotarolla for me.
Gross. But I’ll take the Opel….er, Chevy. I’m a little more bullish on Carpocalypse-era World Cars from GM than I am from most of their earlier stuff.
The Corolla (aka Geo Schism) might be the slightly safer reliability bet, but it’s so much less car.
Corolla, Corolla, Corolla! We’ve owned three of them (99 Prizm, 01 and 04 Corollas), with one blown oxygen sensor as the only problem between them, all kept to between 80,000 and 125,000 miles. The Prizm was my great coup – wife’s (then fiancée’s) father was adamant that she had to get a Chevy and tried to make her buy a Cavalier. Thank goodness (1) GM had given up on the Geo sub-brand my then and (2) I don’t think he even knows how to open a hood. They didn’t even try to rebadge anything under there…
The wife had a 2000 Corolla that she drove for 15 years. In all that time the ONLY part that ever failed was the windshield washer fluid reservoir. It dry rotted and I had to replace it. How a plastic jug full of liquid dry rots is beyond me but it did. Other than that all we did was replace the oil, tires, battery, and at some point I did the accessory belt just because.
Years later I had a job that forced me to take a company car which was an Impala about the same year as this Malibu. That pile of crap was in the local Chevy shop more than their general manager.
My vote today is with the Corolla.
I’d have to go Corolla. That Malibu is probably a disaster underneath.
That Corolla is in amazing condition for a 25+ year old econobox in the rust belt. I’ll take it over the Malibu and its will they/won’t they deploy airbags. Safety is the only reason I would have gone with the Malibu today, and it sounds like a wash in that area.
In rust we trust.
Toyota, just because it looks cleaner and more taken care of, along with the fact that an early 2000s Toyota just is better built than a sliding into bankruptcy-era GM vehicle.
I also have a penchant for the glassy good visibility vibes of late 1990s cars versus the pillbox like view out of cars built a decade later.
Now, if you see Toyota, they are sliding in many places. One is, the Tundra debacle, Tacoma Transmissions and what not. I hear QC complaints about newer Corollas as well.
This generation should outlast the vehicles I mentioned.
These are both $500 cars. I’ll take the Corolla, I guess.
I don’t think there’s such a thing as a $500 car anymore, at least not a running one. There are barely any $500 bicycles anymore.
I’ll take the Chevy. Part of it is familiarity with a same-year Aura, but also it should be more comfy and I’ll take a little more metal between me and the people around, even if that metal is crumbling. 2000s era GM cloth doesn’t take much to stain, so it’s not necessarily as scary as it looks although that Corolla is definitely cleaner inside.
I believe this ‘bu is just the 4-speed, the 2.4/6AT combo was coming online but only in higher trims and started to trickle down in following years. The 2.4 was a little peaky for just 4 gears, but it is a pretty stout combo.
My wife came with a 98 Corolla 5 speed dowry so I know that car well. Yes, it used about a quart of oil every 1000 miles but was otherwise rock solid until it rusted out and needed the steering rack replaced around 225k miles.
What impressed me was it still had the original exhaust after all of that. The hangers rusted out and we ended up dragging the exhaust on the highway before I could pull over and wire it back up. But we got it home and saw the exhaust was still ok so I just ordered up new hangers.
Was also impressed by the equal length intake runners on such an econobox. Something I doubt the Big 3 would have bothered with
I had the same thing happen to my exhaust (I think ours was a 2001), right in front of one of our middle schools. The Toyota guys swore that they couldn’t just order the hanger, so I bought two nuts/bolts, screwed it back together, hit them with multiple coats of rustoleum, and forgot about it. That thing is probably still running somewhere with its original exhaust…
Yeah, it was at least 15 years ago so I don’t remember exactly how I fixed it. Might have cobbled it together with something from the parts store.
I bet the underside of both of them are horrible,probably the car lift will go through the pinchweld area of both.If you even look at either the brake or gas lines they would start leaking through the rust.
Toyota for the win today and it’s priced right.
I went with the Toyota even though I like the Chevy more.
Owned a Prizm, loved the Prizm–but gimme Malibu. I have my reasons.
Can’t do it. It’s a half-day drive to Memphis or OKC, where cars are rust-free.
I’ll never buy another car that’s already rusty, only to make it worse by driving it around here.
The last two cars that I almost bought from Carmax here in AL made it to my own personal PPI (which is just a test drive home, then up on ramps). I had never seen anything like it as a lifelong Sun Belt resident.
I dug into a Carfax and sure enough, Michigan (both! Weird luck.). That’s how to make a 3yo underbody look like a 20yo underbody. Already beyond help.
Oh good point. Vehicle history means everything.
I always liked the styling of that generation Malibu. But the Corolla is the one I’d trust here if I needed uninspiring transportation.
I believe the issues on the Malibu were resolved in later years, for that reason I will take the Corolla too.,,
Less miles and what looks like less rust plus it’s a Toyota. Easy one today.