Welcome back! Well, after last week’s imaginary doom-and-gloom scenario, I figure this week I should feature some more cheerful choices. These will all just be cars that make me happy, with the hope that they make you happy too. We’re going to go in ascending price order again, but not as strict as the last time. We’ll just start out cheap, and get more expensive as the week goes on.
But first, we should wrap up the zombie stuff. Your mission on Friday was not to choose one car above all the others; it was to choose which one you were going to drive in our imaginary apocalypse. To my surprise, when I opened up the poll to see the results, I found a two-way tie between the Chevy van and the Crown Vic for the top spot. I guess that means I get to cast the tie-breaking vote, and I choose… the van.
So there you have it: The best vehicle to find during a zombie apocalypse is something of a zombie itself: the seemingly-immortal GMT600/610 Chevrolet Express or GMC Savana. And you can still buy one new. Shamble into your local Chevy dealer for a test-drive today!
Now, it’s no secret that the world is a stressful place these days. And in times of stress, it’s good to have a hobby or two to fall back on, and I think it’s safe to say that if you’re reading this, one of your hobbies is cars. As it so happens, it’s one of my hobbies too. (Go figure.) So this week, we’re just going to have some fun looking at cool cars, starting with these two dirt-cheap projects.
1970 Saab 96 – $500
Engine/drivetrain: 1.7-liter overhead valve V4, four-speed manual, FWD
Location: Temecula, CA
Odometer reading: 64,000 miles
Operational status: Last ran 20 years ago
The history of Saab automobiles is a study in gradually decreasing weirdness. The earliest Saabs were little streamlined coupes with suicide doors, two-stroke engines, and front wheel drive. And the last, or course, were basically Chevy Malibus. Before the GM takeover, the Swedish airplane-maker-turned-automaker gained a reputation for not only marching to its own drummer, but often inventing its own drums. This car, the 96, originally came with a three-cylinder two-stroke engine, but this one has a more normal four-stroke overhead-valve engine provided by Ford of Europe.
Okay, “normal” might be pushing it. It’s a V4, an arrangement not often seen because it’s not the smoothest-running shape for an engine. This one, designed by Ford in Germany for its Taunus model (that’s Taunus, not Taurus) has a balance shaft added, and uses a split-pin design on the crankshaft, to quell the shakes. I can tell you that it makes an exhaust noise unlike anything else you’ve heard. This one has a Weber carb installed, and was a reliable daily driver, until the seller had a kid twenty years ago and parked it. It hasn’t moved since.
The 96 has a four-speed manual gearbox, with a column-mounted shifter. It’s equipped with a freewheel mechanism, which allows the car to coast with the engine at idle while decelerating. This was meant to keep the two-stroke engine from running out of oil, but it was retained for the four-stroke version. This one has had the freewheel locked out, so it acts like a normal manual.
It has a cool hood-mounted tachometer which the seller says works (or will, once the car is running again). They re-did the interior upholstery in 1998, and it still looks good. It has some gauges dangling from the dash that will have to be put back, but really, it looks good inside for the price.
It was repainted in 1998 as well – by Maaco, so don’t expect a concours-worthy finish. It also has bits of a cheap car cover stuck to the paint here and there that you’ll have to get off. But it doesn’t look rusty, and it has those cool Saab “soccer ball” alloy wheels.
1979 Triumph Spitfire 1500 – $1,100
Engine/drivetrain: 1.5-liter overhead valve inline 4, four-speed manual, RWD
Location: San Ramon, CA
Odometer reading: 30,000 miles (not accurate)
Operational status: Runs and drives
The Triumph Spitfire came out in 1962, when British sports cars were on top of the world. It was introduced as a competitor to BMC’s low-cost fraternal twins, the Austin-Healey Sprite and MG Midget. By 1979, when this Spitfire was built, Austin-Healey was gone, and Triumph and MG were under the same British Leyland corporate umbrella, but still competing with each other for a dwindling small sports car market – and doing so while hobbled by restrictive smog equipment and heavy bumpers.
The Spitfire and Midget also shared the same engine, a 1500 cc four-cylinder. In the UK, it was fed by two SU side-draft carburetors like British four-cylinders are supposed to be, but US emissions control regulations required a single carb that did nothing for the engine’s meager power output. Slow as it may be, it sounds like this one runs well, and it has had a lot of work done recently. It needs a smog test if you’re keeping it in California, and it’s not exactly clear whether or not it will pass.
It looks like this car was prepped for racing at some point: the interior is mostly gutted, and it has a full roll cage, racing seats, and a quick-release steering wheel installed. It has two fire extinguishers inside, not a bad idea in an old British car whether you’re racing or not. It also has racing seats, four-point harnesses, and a hardtop that fits over the roll cage.
It’s straight and rust-free, and it looks pretty good, except for the sun-bleached rubber bumpers. You could probably hit up a British car swap meet and find some small chrome bumpers off a Mark IV Spitfire to replace them, and save some weight in the process.
I know I sometimes feature cars that some of you don’t consider “cheap,” but I don’t think that complaint applies here. These are both straight-up bargains in my book. And hell, one of them you can even drive home, if you get temporary tags for it. Obviously the purchase price is only the beginning with projects like these, but the lower the cost of entry, the more room you have in the budget to fix them up. So what’ll it be – the derelict Swede, or the race-prepared Brit?
Saabs and Volvo of that era are so neat looking. That one seems like the right one yellow Saab for $500 I’m sure it’s already gone. It needs a tractor diesel shoved in to make it weirder. Then you can do like the 2 strokes and make dark clouds everywhere
I had a 96 back in the ’70s (oh gawd, was that really 50 years ago?). They’re great cars. It sounds like it shouldn’t be that hard to get it going again, even after allowing for the fact that everything takes twice as long and costs three times as much as what you estimate. The SAAB.
I already have a MUCH nicer Spitfire than this heap, so Saab all the way for me.
SAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB!!!
MAN I wish I had the space, time, and means to go get it. If I had the space and the car was local, I’d be convincing a buddy with a truck to help me get it home.
Those Saabs are, if not peak quirky fun old weird car, close to it for sure. And with the soccer ball wheels and yellow paint with black stripes? Come ON, what’s not to love about it??? That’d make a wonderful project car for double the price, for $500 that’s “why not?” money!
Was there a doubt what I’m picking?
I chose the SAAB as well though it looks like the car version of Charlie Brown.
Good grief, you say that like it’s a bad thing.
Saab for me… I like the colour, I like the weirdness and I like that it does NOT have a rollcage. And for $500, I definitely would want to save it.
Since the answer is always Miata…I would have jumped on the Spitfire…but this one is so far removed from a drivable example…I will break the rules and take the SAAB.
This should be interesting…
“We all live in a yellow Saab-marine!”
If you’re gonna go weird, go all the way. As the venerable Toecutter recommends, I’d buy this for an EV conversion, if I were inclined to have a project car, which I’m not at the moment.
I’ve had many Spitfires. If I were to get another, it’s going to be a lot older and a lot nicer than this 1979 model. Getting the interior back to stock is not going to be cheap at all, and you’ll still be stuck with a ’79 instead of one of the ’62-67 models you really want.
The SAAB is a gorgeous little long term project. It’s the winner, no question about it.
I voted Saab 96. The only used car you could buy today with a more slippery CdA value is a 1st gen Honda Insight. It would make a great electric conversion, as would the Spitfire. But the Spitfire would need a custom hardtop to cut drag in order to really take advantage of its low frontal area.
I respect your opinion and reasoning, but personally feel like removing the V4 would be a crime as that’s a rare driving experience.
A lightweight, aerodynamically slippery, ANALOGUE car is a rare driving experience by itself. An EV that is the same, that also offers 200+ miles range AND supercar performance, is even rarer than the V4. It’s so rare that no one has ever offered it on the US market, and you have to build it yourself for around $15k-20k in parts, in addition to the donor chassis and labor. But doable it definitely is, and the OG Saab 96 is a near perfect donor choice, it’s most major flaw being front-drive.
Enthusiasts are being robbed by such a thing not being available. It would be so damned CHEAP to do too.
Saab, I’ve owned several British cars and it took years of wrenching to recover. I don’t have enough years left to risk another.
The Saab has enough character to make investing in it worthwhile. The Triumph is good but falls under “somebody else’s project”, which requires your intent to be the same.
I have just enough 70s British car experience to not want anymore.
I love old Saabs.
Give me the Spitfire…
Kidding!!
If that Saab was closer to Michigan it’d already be on its way to joining the rest of my derelict project fleet!
Pretty sure I’d brain myself on the cage but other than that spitfire for the win.
Had to pick the Saab at that price, even if it gets nowhere, it’s still a cool piece of yard art. Plus I just got rid of a 1980 Spitfire. Been there. Done that. Wrote the article. Got the t-shirt.
Quick correction on the Spitfire’s big plastic bumpers – Yes, you can get chrome ones and replace them, BUT, those two big nubs jutting out from the bumpers on each side are extensions of the frame. You’re gonna need to chop and weld the frame down if you want to go to chrome bumpers.
I kinda dug the plastic so I left mind alone, but I’m weird and we all know that.
This is like Sophie’s Choice, if she wasn’t fond of either child.
I’m intimidated by 20 years of sitting, especially for a car that isn’t mainstream in any way.
Meanwhile, I’ve always wanted a British sports car, and I think the Spitfire looks sharper than its near-peers, but A. 1979 is a bad year, B. I absolutely do not want or need a roll cage, and C. it’s more than twice as much!
With great trepidation, I went Saab. As long as it only needs basic revival stuff (new rubber, fresh fluids, fuel system cleanout), I get a fun, quirky car in a good color without breaking my neck or doing major parts swaps.
Having owned a pair of ’69 V4 Sonetts, the trouble with ancient Saabs is that the parts that are unique to them (a surprising number of things) are horded by a couple of greybeards who price them accordingly. Spitfires remain cheap and cheerful. But as I already have a really nice Spitfire, had to go with the Saab and the potential pain.
Yeah, the parts availability is terrifying.
Everything is *available* – for a price. That you too often won’t like very much.
Triumph. Running and driving > “ran when parked (20 years ago”. Also, that generation of SAAB’s fender cutline always bothered the hell out of me JUST MAKE IT A FOUR-DOOR DAMMIT, SIXTEN SASSON 70 YEARS AGO!!! (ahem)
After looking up the exhaust-note on Youtube, I’ll take the SAAB for sure.