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?
It would be the Saab except the Triumph runs and drives. $500 seems almost suspiciously cheap.
I already have a Triumph sedan and a race-prepped SAAB 96 so now I’m just confused.
I think if you bought both of these and let them touch you might destroy the universe so best stay away
The universe is on shaky ground if you’re relying on me to make a good automotive decision.
There’s probably someone out there that would pay $500 for the alloy wheels off the Saab, so it’s a no-lose proposition.
No kidding. Even though the 96 is looks great on steelies, those alloys are amazing and hard to find.
The SAAB definitely. I just learned that the local SAAB dealer (and possibly the last SAAB dealer operating in the US) is being turned into a
homeless campvillage for the unhoused so someone needs to keep the flame alive.A ’75 Spitfire was my first car, and within 2 weeks of ownership, taught 16 y.o. me what snap-oversteer means in a wheels-over-head fashion. That poor car deserved a better ending, and I want to make it up by rescuing something like this little guy, de-racifying it and giving it a semi-retired weekend cruiser/backroad bomber life.
With both a TR6 and a MGB in my past, this was an easy vote for the Swede. I’m in search of different experiences.
Saab, always. No more needs saying!
I dig the saab a bit more. in a world where I had all the time and money in the word, I would consider making a Mustang 1 prototype using that V4 out back. And a Taunus FWD setup out back as well.
Since I would never actually be able to do that, I would still want to get the V4 running with a pertronix and sniper FI system. and then I would probably just drive it a few times a month.
Europeans are right: Americans will use anything but the metric system. Anything includes butt cheeks, as per the Saab description.
“Runs and drives” is a strong argument for the Spitfire, and it might be fun as an autocross car, but the smog thing could be a real problem out here and I don’t have enough driveway space for something I’m not going to drive more than a few weekends a year. The Saab is way more cool and it would actually seat more than one! Despite the work involved, I’m going with the 96.
Having had a V4 96 before, I’ll take the Saab all day long. If it were a lot closer, I’d probably be on my way there with a tow dolly to drag it home. They’re comfy, big inside for such a small car, and cute. When I last had one of these 20 or so years ago, my experience with it was, “Chicks dig it and dogs bark at it.”
“Chicks dig it and dogs bark at it.” — the highest possible praise for a cool car.
I’ve wanted a saab 96 for years. easy choice.
Who decides to park the their daily driver for a couple of decades because they have a kid? I could see selling it because you needed something else, but to just let it sit? At the very least you’d think the kid would’ve been clamoring for it when it reached driving age. It’s like having a kid and deciding not to sleep with your spouse again for 20 years. OK, I could kinda see that if you don’t like the result (the kid) or the spouse. And yeah, shit happens in life, good intentions, etc., but it is odd. But so are Saabs and perhaps Saab people (of which I am one), and it’s only $500, so going with the 96 today and just hoping I don’t end up like Question Mark and the Mysterians.
Well for one thing it’s probably pretty hard to get a car seat in there.
Most kids don’t want an old car – IF – they decide they want a drivers license. At 16 pretty much anything associated with one’s parent’s hobbies is considered cringe including their old crusty cars.
News Flash!
Kids are f’en expensive…YMMV of course.
Having once been a race car, the Spitty is rather suspect. The custom fabbed transmission tunnel means it may have a non-stock transmission. Additional interior fabrication is the only way those seats would fit as well. The dashboard is a travesty.
I think if you want to take the Spitty racing, and the roll cage passes tech, this is the way to go. I’d pass on it for a street car, though. Better ones can be had for similar money or maybe a little more.
I’ve already rebuilt a GT6, so the Saab is more attractive to me in this case.
Step 1 – Take the Spit.
Step 2 – Un-race prep the Spit.
I have no faith that I’d be able to successfully handle what the Saab needs to get it back and running again, so I’d sign up for the one that’s running and needs a bunch of stuff added into it to make it somewhat civil again. The fire extinguisher stays (but relcoated).
This is the way.
Yep, this. I love those old Saabs, but I have a bad feeling I’d never source parts to ever get it to move in its own. The Spitfire doesn’t have that same problem, though the cage needs to go and some creature comforts need to be reinstalled (like carpet for noise and heat control).
Saab. The first time I did a Spitfire engine and found that bits of wood were needed to fill empty spaces in the block, my opinion soured.
I have a V4 motorcycle and the uneven firing order makes it sound like a big block V8. I have to wonder what the Saab sounds like. If it ran.
A V4 in a 96 sounds a fair amount like a flat-4 in a VeeDub.
I really want to want the little Brit, it’s dirt cheap and runs, but I hate the roll cage and the fact that there’s no chance of getting a soft top over it (probably). So it’s a topless cruiser or a coupe, and I already have a convertible, of a similar size, so I guess today I am choosing the Saab story. It’s too weird and awesome not to win.
The Spitfire is the one I’d rather own. That said, step 1: remove the roll cage.
It was a tough choice, given the Saab’s yellowness vs the Triumph actually running, but in the end, I picked the Turnip.
In college, I had a roommate with a Spitfire, and he let anyone drive it, which I did often. It was surprisingly reliable for the summer it was a shared car and was an absolute hoot to drive. The throttle was fully down at all times unless shifting.
That being said, an old race-prepped car would be a difficult choice for road use. But a car that has been sitting for years is, without a doubt, going to be a big project.
If you want a project to restore to some degree they would be about the same. If you want a junker to hoon until the work outweighs the fun, the Triumph is the only choice.
I don’t want to restore either, so I guess the Spitfire gets my vote.
Man, both day for me but I’m going with the Saab, if only for the column mounted manual shift. Always wanted to drive one. But that Spitfire is cool too. Every sports car should have a hinged bonnet like that. Makes me wanna sit on the tire and adjust the carb.
Obv the Saab. Weird and Swedish is my kink, though. If only it still had that 2 stroke, but the V4 is still quirky.
Having previously owned an MGB I’m still scarred by the “reliability” of British roadsters so I’ll take the Swede that hasn’t run in 20 years.
Spitfire parts are cheap and plentiful, easy choice.