Good morning! Today we’re headed out for some fun in the sun with a couple of convertibles, but we’re being safe and sensible, because they both have rollbar hoops. But first, let’s see how our rough-and-tumble work vehicles did yesterday:
Another Mopar win. I think if the GMC (or actually probably a Chevy, as was pointed out) had been a little less of a bruiser, it would have won. But you don’t buy a dually flatbed unless you need a dually flatbed, in most cases. And the early stickshift Chrysler minivans are pretty cool.
You have probably noticed that there are a whole bunch of different terms for convertible cars. The trouble is, nobody can agree on exactly which term means what. Is that a cabriolet, or a drophead coupe? If it has a tiny back seat, can it still be a roadster? Does it matter whether it was designed to be a convertible in the first place, or adapted from a fixed-roof car? Nobody is quite sure, and most of the terms date back to horse-drawn carriages, and they weren’t applied consistently back then, either. All I know is that a VW Phaeton is in no way, shape, or form a phaeton.
Today’s pair are generally considered cabriolets, owing to the presence of some permanent structure besides the windshield frame. In the case of both of these cars, the B-pillars are still present, connected by a structural hoop that goes over the passenger compartment but fits under a full convertible top. This gives you that open-air feeling, but adds a little peace of mind in case things go sideways (or upside-down). It also adds quite a bit of rigidity to the structure, something lacking in a lot of convertibles.
And you’ll notice that we’re spending a little more imaginary money today than usual. I just got tired of scraping the bottom of the barrel, and wanted to look at something shiny for a change. Let’s check them out.
1998 VW Cabrio GLS – $7,500
Engine/drivetrain: 2.0 liter overhead cam inline 4, five-speed manual, FWD
Location: Gig Harbor, WA
Odometer reading: 96,000 miles
Runs/drives? Great, according to the seller
First, I want to give credit to this seller for their photography. Parking this car in such a pretty spot for photos was a masterstroke of salesmanship; I want to climb into this photo, hop into this car, and drive off down that lovely coastal road. It’s the one thing I miss about owning a convertible: a twisty road, a perfect day, some good tunes, and a nice manual gearbox.
Yes, that’s right: This topless Volkswagen is equipped with the correct transmission. It doesn’t have a whole lot of power spinning those gears; this car has the basic “two-point-slow” four-cylinder. But when has a lack of power ever ruined a nice drive, if you approach it with the right attitude? This car runs great, has had a bunch of recent work including some upgrades to the suspension, and rocks a decent aftermarket stereo for the tunes. What more do you need?
It’s still under 100,000 miles, and it looks good both inside and out. VWs of this era have a bit of a reputation for finicky electrical systems, among other issues, but this one is about as simple as they get mechanically, and everything electrical works at the moment, so at least you’re starting from a good place. The seller does note that the top isn’t in great shape; it was replaced by the previous owner, but it may be due again. It rarely pays to skimp on a replacement top; take it from someone who suffered with a cheap ill-fitting replacement top on a Miata for several years. Just pony up for the good one.
Or, you know, just leave it down, and only drive it on nice days. That’s an option too.
2005 Chrysler PT Cruiser Convertible – $4,700
Engine/drivetrain: Turbocharged 2.4 liter dual overhead cam inline 4, four-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Salinas, CA
Odometer reading: 124,000 miles
Runs/drives? Sure does
We’ve looked at quite a few PT Cruisers before, and I know they can be polarizing cars. But I don’t think we’ve featured a convertible before. This version of the PT lost not only its roof, but its rear doors as well, which to me always drove home the point that Chrysler should have made it a two-door all along. It actually makes a striking-looking car, especially with the top down.
This one is some sort of special edition called a Dream Cruiser. But then, it seems like “special edition” PT Cruisers outnumbered regular editions; there were a ridiculous number of special packages available for these cars. It has the turbocharged 2.4 liter engine, unfortunately saddled with an automatic transmission. But this car’s mission is right there in the name – “Cruiser” – and for that purpose, an automatic will do just fine.
It’s in good condition, with only 124,000 miles on the clock, and a recent timing belt and water pump job. Everything works, and it looks nice and clean inside and out. I do wonder about the seat and steering wheel covers; are they protecting pristine surfaces, or hiding worn ones? Only one way to find out, I suppose. The pine-tree air freshener around the shift lever seems counterproductive in a covertible; you’ve got no shortage of fresh air.
I like the color, too; I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a metallic brown PT Cruiser before. I think the trick to a car like this is not trying to force it to be something it isn’t, just appreciate it for what it is: a reasonably comfy, reasonably economical little car with a top that goes down.
Yesterday here in Portland was a damn near picture-perfect summer day: low 80s, not a cloud in the sky, and a light breeze. I drove home with my windows down and my sunroof open, and counted five convertibles with the top down on my way home. Cars like this are made for days like that, and if you’ve never driven a convertible around with the top down on a summer night, you have hardly driven at all. Which one of these is the perfect ride for it?
(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)
The VW is the only way to go. While the cabrios are harder to source parts for because they don’t share everything with their golf/Jetta siblings this is a car that can last forever. Plus the roof rack setup for them is fucking amazing.
Also, I have always heard them referred to as bitch baskets.
VW. At least it would be fun to drive.
I dont trust the Germans and i am cheap so PT CRUISING ON A SUNDAY AFTERNOON….
Even with the automatic, the Turbo PTs are pretty quick. And this one is cheaper than the sketchy VW with the 2.slow. PT it is.
Man, tough choice, the VW is a chick car that has been modded up and then suspiciously put out for sale shortly after. The price seems high to me, but maybe that is normal for these little cars. I do know they seem popular, and the lack of a Turbo on that 4 cylinder means it will have fewer things to go wrong at 100K. But the PT is…well an auto turbo Cruiser. anyone who has had the misfortune to have to work on one will tell you that maintenance costs were an after thought, or not considered at all. the price is right though, so man, it is a toss up. I would probably drive the VW more and then give it to my daughter when she gets her permit. She will need to start driving stick before I let her own and auto. seems like a good fit for that over a Jeep, Scout or a couple muscle cars.
Since the VW is an A3 and manual I choose it over the PT Cruiser even in rainy Western Oregon
This is it: the first time I just… didn’t care. I very much dislike both of these. If forced to take one, I’d go with the VW, but I’m just not voting on these.
Yikes.
You’re no wrong about the 2 door look of the PT Cruiser. I love the look of the Audi A4 convertible for the same reason, they should make a coupe out of that.. The A5 coupe looks much better as well.
Simply because it’s the 2.4 turbo (sorta, but not really) yanked from the Neon SRT-4, I ‘m going PT Cruiser….even if its auto (which i think they all were)
I’ll go with the “strawberry basket.”
Long term, VWs need tons of fawning over. If I’m going to have to dutifully maintain something, I can at least put in a 16V with a bit of work on it. Sure, that engine will be just as much of a PITA over time, but it’ll be a buzzy fun thing, and with better suspension can be decent enough on back roads to genuinely harass normal modern hatches.
Can’t put too grippy a tire on a Cabrio though, otherwise you risk traction rolling the car.
I used to bag on convertibles until I got my old Boxster S and then I realized how great they are in the right places. Neither of these are really my particular brand of vodka, but I must choose so I choose the manual transmission.
I miss my 97 Cabrio on a nice day when I could be cruising with the top down. It was triple black, leather, badgeless grille, ST cup kit coilovers, Ronal LS wheels, exhaust, polished crossflow manifold, VR6 front lip, all the usual bolt on shit lol. Sold it to a friend for much less than this and his daughter used it for school. This one’s got some strange baggy seat covers on it which don’t match the door cards but I’d still take it all day over the PT.
Do I vote for the PT Cruiser, from an era of disappointing and weak Chrysler transmissions and ever-replacing head gaskets with questionable style?
Or the VW, a Mk3 in the era of Mk4 cars, with typical VW environmental robustness of ever-questioning rust/electrical connections?
Really, between the two, the VW is the only one I’d likely enjoy driving around when it is running.
But, maybe, an old GM J-body convertible might be a more frugal choice if you just want a sunburn whilst driving. At least you know it’s cheap to fix, and the under-stressed engine with a 5spd transmission will likely be ok regardless of the rest of it – and no one’s going to judge you for having a PT Cruiser.
You know how people say that Miata is always the answer? There is an inverse truth to that. The PT Cruiser is never the answer.
Either one of them is going to be a massively unreliable disappointment but I personally went for the PT because turbo.
Even though I can’t pass one on the road without silently thinking “PT Loooooooozer!” put me among the minority vote in preferring it to the VW. The VW would kill me on maintenance and reliability, it’s $2800 more, and even with a stickshift it’s just not that much cooler. For the purpose of serene top-down cruising the PT will serve about as well and the overall cost of ownership will be much lower.
I think my buddy paid less money last year for a Saab 9-3 Viggen convertible in manual for less money than the VW, and that’s a million times cooler than either of these choices.
Speaking of the Viggen, I got to borrow it last summer when I visited the East Coast. I made sure to drive a bunch on country roads and I took my eighty-something year-old dad out for a nighttime drive. Good times.
If you’d like to skip my unhinged ramblings, the short version is I voted for the VW. I didn’t actually read anything about the VW. I don’t know if it runs. I don’t care. The VW is the winner.
…and yet you offered us a PT Cruiser convertible? How is that NOT scraping the bottom of the barrel?
Please don’t ask why I know this (it was a friend! A friend owned it!), but that is not the good engine. Sure, it makes more power, but it also is one of the prime reasons we associate Chrysler drivetrains with unreliable garbage.
You’ll have plenty of time to look at it while it sits broken. You’ll appreciate new angles as it is loaded onto the tow truck.
Wait, its mission involved transportation? I thought it was just supposed to look cool. Uh, I’m afraid it didn’t live up to its mission.
It’s a turbocharged Chrysler powertrain, in a retro-themed car that was a one-off side project from a company that existed to sell trucks and SUV’s. 124,000 miles is a lot. “Good condition” is relative, and I guarantee this thing is nothing but problems.
It’s expensive for lawn art. I guess I can appreciate lawn art, but I ain’t paying that much for it.
Is this even a contest? Lol. Do you want this cool car with a stickshift or this dorkmobile with an automatic?
Do you want 113hp with a manual or 215hp with an automatic? Hairdresser car or dorkmobile? It’s not quite so clear when you think about it…..
I feel like this is going go to be an overwhelming win for the VW, but perhaps there are more PT lovers out there.
I think the PT is a better deal, but I’ll take the better car. VW takes the win for me today.
I can’t let the PT win, the VW for me.
I went back and forth on this one for a while. If it’s a car have to keep, I lean towards the VW, even with the maintenance headaches. I’d prefer an older Rabbit/Golf cabrio, but this looks good with the top down & the manual could be fun. Still a little pricey. If I’m fake-buying a cheap convertible to roll up the CA coast, the PT Cruiser isn’t bad. Knock the price down a bit and it’s not a bad deal. But I’d rather put the money towards a car I actually want; these aren’t cheap enough to buy for the hell of it.
A dream Cruiser is as nice as a PT cruiser can possibly get. It’s basically one with every option they offered. I’ll take the VW.
Halleluiah, Brother Tucker! Especially on a late summer’s night (i.e., November down here), when the evening start to get a slight tinge of chill in the air. One of my favorite top-down motoring memories is driving back from an evening of water skiing. The road I was on crossed a creek in a bit of a valley. The colder air settles in this valley and getting a sudden whoosh of cooler air was almost magical after a hot afternoon.
Also, driving out in rural areas on a starlit night, with nary another car in sight, has a cool, relaxing, but slightly eerie feeling to it.
God I need a ragtop again! But neither of these. I’ll holdout for one of the 5 Mustang convertibles that has an actual manual transmission. At gunpoint, I’ll take the V-dub over the PTthhh.
Convertibles are the best cars. I personally have 3. Well, I don’t have a top for the CJ5 so it doesn’t really ‘convert’ it is just ‘topless’.
They suck on 85+ degree days and 60- degree days but the rest of the time more than makes up for it.
Easy pick for the VW. One, I just like them. Two, awesome mod platform. Lots of ways to make these more interesting. Three, I’ve watched 100PercentJake’s PT Cruiser series, and they look like absolute hell to work on.