Good morning! It’s time for another Shitbox Showdown, and today, we’re going back to basics and looking at a couple of cheap clunkers just to get around in. But first, let’s finish up our Route 66 tour and see where you landed on Friday’s cruisers:
Solid win for the funky Dart. A lot of you felt the Jeepster was too slow and too primitive to really be much fun except for in a parade, and I’m inclined to agree. Besides, I’m a sucker for Jet Age styling.
Now, today, we’re getting back to our roots. Cheap economical wheels are still a necessity for a lot of folks, and buying something for whatever cash you can scrape together makes a lot more sense than going to one of those predatory “buy here pay here” places in the hopes of finding something nicer. Unfortunately, $500 shitboxes are $1,500 these days, and halfway decent $1,500 beaters are now $3,000. Still, there are some bargains to be had, if you dig a little. Here are two broadly viable options I found in my neck of the woods, each well under two grand.
1985 Toyota Tercel Wagon – $1,750
Engine/drivetrain: 1.5 liter overhead cam inline 4, three-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Gresham, OR
Odometer reading: 277,000 miles
Runs/drives? Yep
Toyota’s humble Tercel deserves a more prominent place in automotive history than I think it’s going to get. This little unsung hero of college campuses and city commutes throughout the 1980s and 90s never was cool or glamorous, nor anything even approaching high-performance, but it proved a stalwart companion to millions, and nearly everyone I know who had one remembers it fondly.
[Editor’s Note: I always liked the weird, huge plastic unit for the license plate, lone reverse lamp, and tailgate handle that looks kind of like it might be an in-wall ATM machine. – JT]
This is the second-generation Tercel, which retained the longitudinal engine layout of the first generation. Most were front-wheel-drive, including this one; some wagons were equipped with a part-time four-wheel-drive system using a solid rear axle from the RWD (at the time) Corolla. The 4WD wagons command a premium; in this price range we’re stuck with FWD only.
Unfortunately, this one also has an automatic transmission. I’ve never understood the reasoning behind buying a small car for economy, then equipping it with a gearbox that eats into the fuel economy and sucks up a big chunk of the meager power available (just 63 horsepower in this case). But that mistake was made thirty-eight years ago; there’s no sense crying over it now. The incredibly cool blue plaid seats do make up for it a little bit, though.
The seller doesn’t give us much to go on regarding its mechanical condition, other than that the little 1.5 liter four just had its timing belt replaced. There’s also working air conditioning, though I imagine switching it on only makes matters worse in the acceleration department. No matter; better to arrive late and refreshed than on-time and sweaty.
1995 Buick Skylark – $1,200
Engine/drivetrain: 3.1 liter overhead valve V6, four-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Beavercreek, OR
Odometer reading: 139,000 miles
Runs/drives? Yes, but needs a little tinkering
General Motors’s N-body is, of course, no stranger to the bottom end of the used car market. Almost since they debuted in 1985, these slightly-bigger-than-compacts seemed destined to be beaters, with their cheap plastic interiors and sturdy simple drivetrains. And for decades, they’ve been a decent choice if you just need something cheap to get around in. The most common variant seen is the Pontiac Grand Am, but it just so happens that at the moment, the cheap $1,200 Grand Am for sale in Portland is in fact a Buick Skylark.
The first generation of N-bodies all looked alike, and were distinguishable only by trim and badges. In the second generation, introduced in 1992, each GM division styled their own sheetmetal, and Buick went for broke. The new Skylark’s pointy nose turned off some traditional buyers (my grandpa, a long-time Skylark owner, was one of them), but I always liked it better than the Olds or Pontiac variants. In four-door guise it looks a little awkward, but the two-door coupes were actually pretty slick.
This Skylark runs and drives fine, but it does need a few little things. The heater core is plugged; it might be able to be flushed out, but it also might need replacement. The driver’s power window needs a new regulator. And one rear wheel is bent, likely a result of a pothole – we have one or two million of them around here.
[Editor’s Note: I always thought the front end looks like a bird face. I like it. – JT]
But for twelve hundred bucks, in this day and age, it runs and you can drive it home. You’re not likely to find anything better for cheaper. A weekend or two, a trip to the junkyard, and you could whip this thing into shape easily.
Obviously, neither one of these is anybody’s dream car. But then again, if you just gotta get to work, and you can’t (or don’t want to) make a bunch of payments, something like one of these might just be the answer. Which one of these looks like a better deal?
(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)
Based on my FIL’s experience with a POS Skylark a decade ago, I’ll take the Tercel. It’s terribly underpowered, but it will run.
This skylark in two door configuration has always been one of my guilty pleasures. I don’t know why but a handful of gm cars from the 80s-90s still kinda do it for me. It’s okay to kink shame me for this take.
Gimme that Terkle! The Buick is just an uglier Acheiva.
We had a ’98 Skylark back when it was new. It had the softer post-facelift front fascia which looked so much better than this one as it had all softer edges. It was actually a really nice car that dad thoroughly enjoyed. Out of nostalgia sake, I chose it here as well.
And your ’98 got the front-end Buick badge back. The beaked model always seemed a little odd not having it.
My own personal experience dictates choosing the Skylark. I just remember farting around in various parking lots during college in order to get my buddy’s ’89 Tercel back on the road. It would always run, but never seemed to run right. Meanwhile, I had a few nineties GM fantastic plastic machines during my family’s broke years and with a little initial tinkering, fluid changes, maybe a sensor replaced here and there and some rusty brake lines swapped out, we easily racked up more than a couple of hundred thousand miles over a combo of five different vehicles (including a dust buster!) and got the same or more money back out of each one every time I decided to move onto something else.
I don’t love the 3.1 V6, but I’d probably go Buick.
Uh… I was going to go with the Buick until I saw the heater core problem. That usually involves doing awful things, like removing the dash. Plus its fucking ugly. I had a housemate years ago from Lithuania. He needed a cheap car and found one of these with hardly any miles but dirt-cheap. That front end is super awkward looking. He didn’t give a shit and one time we loaded a ton of pallets on top of it to take to a bonfire, scratching the hell out of the paint.
No amount of time can pass that makes this generation of Skylark look good. These were the worst N-body designs by a country mile.
Fun Fact! That generation Skylark wins the prize for being the narrowest car I’ve ever ridden in. My godfather’s son (what does that make him to me, god-cousin?) had one when I was just short of my 16th birthday. We were both wrestlers, but not enormous; I was just at 6′ and 200 pounds, he was probably 5’10 165 or so – not slightly built, but not enormous either. When I got in and shut the door I was shocked to be door-to-shoulder-to-shoulder-to-door squeezed in to that car. In a Buick! I’m not sure how they managed to utilize interior space so badly, but GM found a way…
Old Achieva was the best looking car from the family.
I’m taking the Tercel and then finding a way to retrofit that blue plaid rear bench seat into my Lexus IS500. Which, Mark, as you and I know, is the inevitable conclusion of owning a Tercel wagon. 😉
agree to disagree Mark, I had a 93 Grand Am GT with the 5 speed and HO quad4, it looked tons better than the skylark and was hella fun to drive (till I cooked the head gasket). Still I voted for the Buick, close enough to my old pontiac!
My first car was a 1994 Olds Achieva coupe with the 3100 V6. Not bad for a 16 year old. Had a window motor die, and the plastic pieces on the door never fit back together right. Also had some electricial issue….I can’t remember exactly what it was…but it required me to turn the car on/off at a stop light to “fix” it. Thing ate brake pads for some reason
Car worked 95% of the time though.
Normally I’d go Toyota anything over GM, but that Tercel is looking pretty rough, while the Skylark looks like Grandma drove it on Sundays to church.
Weird reasoning on my part, but the Buick is old enough and odd enough to be interesting. I would look for a horn that sounds like
Woody Woodpecker.
I was never a fan of that Buick. But the mileage is relatively low and the V6/auto combo will be much nicer to drive than that old Tercel with the slushbox.
If the Tercel had a manual, it probably would have swung my vote the other way.
The toyota will be able to be passed down to your great great grandchildren still running… the buick however, well, it does have a v6 – but that’s about all it has going for it.
The GM N-body cars were actually not bad. Better than the J-body cars for sure.
I voted for the Skylark since George Costanza drove one for awhile. Plus it’s red.
When I thought of the Tercel having a TV cameo with Breaking Bad, I thought about George too and his ownership of various Buicks. Think his might have been a Skylark coupe though unless he had more than one.
He also had a Mercury Mystique – George likes not quite compact/not quite midsize FWD cars from quasi-upscale brands
That’s right! IIRC correctly, the Mystique was the one left at Yankee Stadium so George could pretend he was working all hours.
Yessir! I think it was a green coupe. I think he had a Regal at some point too
I never watched much Seinfeld but George always seemed like a dipshit. I don’t think I’ll make my poor auto auto purchasing decisions based on his.
The Tercel is cute, but 1980s compacts necessitated the invention of the Jaws of Life. Up against today’s trucks that thing is a tombstone. I know I shouldn’t be picky about safety in this price range, but we are competing with e-bikes on survivability here.
The Buick is red.
1995 Skylark looks too much like 1988 Topaz. Take away the beak, and, boom! Topaz.
I voted Toyota. Wonder how hard swapping in a 4wd system from a wrecked one would be.
You need to weld in a completely different floor pan and rear end for the live axle.
Buick is a funny word. It reminds me of when you’re just about to throw up, but haven’t yet, and you’re just spitting bile out. Buuuick. All the same, this looks like the nicer example of a “need a car now that will last me for hopefully not too long.” I like the funkiness of the Tercel (which I’m in my head pronouncing as TRR-sill) but it’s just not as confidence-inspiring as the clean bile-spittle with a clogged heater core and window issues.
Yeah, lots of Scottish surnames sound like puke.
If this is in your neck of the woods, we might be neighbors since I’m pretty much equidistant between them.
And Toyota of course.
I grew up in Lansing, MI where the Skylark was built and was a teen when this generation was new. I even toured the Lansing Assembly plant and saw them on the line. At the time, I could not believe they were building such an ugly vehicle. Decades later, I still feel the same way. The 1992-98 Skylark was a sad car, and the people who drove them were not the type that you’d aspire to be.
Plausibly I could sit down in the Buick and think: what is this shit, GM? Then go buy the Tercel. But I just don’t trust that I can find parts for the Tercel anymore, and it looks awfully tired. Meanwhile that Buick looks remarkably fresh, should still have the necessary parts, and enough power to get out of its own way
If this article was based on the premise of picking a fun toy, I’d be leaning towards the Tercel. Power be damned, there is something truly fun and hilarious about pushing the limits of understeer in a light car with 155 width tires.
Sadly, the Tercel is an automatic, and we’re voting for cheap transportation.
In my experience, crappy old cars that are boring to drive just aren’t worth it. They’re a curiosity or fashion statement at best, and that’s a one-note song that gets old quick. You aren’t going to care too much about the plaid seats as you court death-by-brodozer on a daily basis.
Sadly it’s 2023, and the early 80s was 40 years ago. That’s just too old of a car to recommend to someone who needs a cheap and reliable beater. At this stage, parts availability is a real problem, even if the parts are cheap, and the car is ‘easy to work on’. People in those situations need to be driving to work, not fiddling with their carb or ignition system. The 90s Buick as lowly as it may be, is leagues safer and more sophisticated than the Tercel. Parts are readily available, and any mechanic can work on it. It comes a lot closer to the experience of a modern car, and actually looks fairly clean and nice.
I know this site is ‘Pro Car’ but at a certain point, cars become so old and shitty you really would be better off financially (and just as safe) investing in an e-bike or taking the bus.
“In my experience, crappy old cars that are boring to drive just aren’t worth it. They’re a curiosity or fashion statement at best, and that’s a one-note song that gets old quick”
+1
I share your view. Old cars can be a fun walk down memory lane…. once in a while. But not as a vehicle you have to live with daily.
Old vehicles are generally shit compared to even the cheapest new vehicles on sale right now.
It’s only worth having one if you love it for one reason or another or you have some emotional connection to it… and use it as an occasional ride. Not something you need to depend on.
You hit the nail on the head.
I don’t regret *some* of my years daily-ing “classics”, but it only works when you’re young, dumb and have no responsibilities. Living in a laid-back area with relaxed driving and a nice climate helps too.
There were certainly good moments- But some, like struggling blind to exit the freeway in heavy rain (as your passengers grit their teeth) after blowing the fuse to your windshield wipers really saps the fun out of it.
Yeah I’m old enough to remember what it was like driving these things when they were a lot newer. By the time I was in high school 80’s cars were hitting the used car lots. I had a 1987 Celica and later a 1986 Sentra. Both cars too slow to get out of their own way. Its easy to forget that back in the day, econo-cars meant PAINFULLY underpowered. These days even a Chevy Spark is faster.
I absolutely adore my 1972 Super Beetle. It’s not a full restoration, more like a perpetual rolling project I’ve had since I was 11. It’s been my spare car ever since I started driving, since the Beetle was already 37 years old when I turned 16 my folks understandably insisted on something safer for my daily driver. It can be fun to have the “vintage motoring experience” every day for a week or two at a time, but then it starts getting old. Now more than ever I worry about safety, people are maniacal and aggressive even around the Beetle. Especially around the Beetle, I can drive my Sportwagen just as leisurely as the Beetle and no one seems to care.
My best friend’s mom wanted a Skylark with a beak, but was so disappointed when they got rid of it that she went with the Grand Am instead.
Certainly has a type, that Grand Am nose being a little pointy itself. Wonder if she jumped to Acura during their Power Plenum beak years.
That Buick is actually a lovely car for $1200. I like a 3.1 with a 4-speed in a car that small. Parts are littered across every junkyard in the country. And this one presents really, really well.