Welcome back to Shitbox Showdown! Today’s choices take us to South Florida, where I’ve lined up a couple of inexpensive and economical rides that are just far enough out of the ordinary to make them interesting. Desirable? Well, maybe not. But I’ll leave that up to you.
Our Weber-equipped coupes yesterday had some of you torn, admiring the Capri’s style but acknowledging that the Celica is a better buy. The bright yellow Toyota took a comfortable win, despite having to be towed home. I still figure it’s an easy fix; power to the ignition coil or to the distributor is my first thought. It might even be one of those things you can fix on the spot, and then drive it home, leaving the seller flummoxed and irritated, but $2,500 richer.
This is a tough call for me to make because they’re both similar to the MGB GT that I already have. I don’t really need another car with Rostyle wheels, nor another yellow car. I prefer the Capri’s style by a country mile, but the rust worries me. I have lost cars to rust before, and it’s a really annoying reason to have to junk something. Wow, I really did stick you guys with a hard choice.
Now then: There are times when finding cars for this column gets a little bit, dare I say, tiresome. You have no idea how many Chevy Malibus and Nissan Rogues I scroll right past on any given day, because I don’t care about them, and I can’t imagine you do either. And when I do find something interesting, I need to think back: Have I done one of those ever? If so, how recently? I try to spread things out geographically as well, but some parts of the country are just used-car dead zones, so I spend a lot of time in the same stomping grounds. Today, I turned to Miami, hoping to find something really stupid to make fun of, but instead I found a couple of pretty decent little cars that we haven’t talked about in a while. Here they are.
1997 Saturn SC1 – $2,700
Engine/drivetrain: 1.9-liter overhead cam inline 4, four-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Pompano Beach, FL
Odometer reading: 157,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives great
This is another car I have personal experience with. I owned an SC1 a couple years newer than this, with a five-speed stick and the extra door on the driver’s side. It’s one of those cars I really wanted to like, but just never quite connected with. Maybe part of the reason is that it was a replacement for a wrecked Plymouth Neon that I really liked. It had big shoes to fill.
This one has neither three doors nor three pedals, unfortunately. And since it’s an SC1, it has the basic single-overhead-cam version of Saturn’s “Power Module” (why they couldn’t just call it an engine, I’ll never know) delivering only 100 horses to the front wheels. It also has taller gearing than the twin-cam version; great for gas mileage, but not for acceleration. It runs great, the seller says, and it should have quite a lot of life left in it.
Apart from the automatic, it doesn’t look like this car has a lot of options. It has crank windows, manual locks, and no cruise control. I would assume it has air conditioning, being a Florida car, but it was optional, and with no underhood shots or clear views of the center console, I can’t confirm that. It is in pretty good shape inside, but the cloth appears to be delaminating from the plastic door panels – mine did the same thing. I imagine they all do eventually. I bet the headliner is sagging as well.
It’s got a bit of clearcoat failure, but it is twenty-seven years old; I’d be amazed if it didn’t have some blemishes. Saturn’s plastic body panels keep these cars looking sharp, but they can hide rust on the steel structure underneath. I don’t think it’s as big of an issue in Florida than it would be in the Midwest, but it is something to be aware of.
2007 Chrysler PT Cruiser convertible – $2,400
Engine/drivetrain: 2.4-liter dual overhead cam inline 4, four-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Pompano Beach, FL
Odometer reading: 93,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives great
The convertible version of Chrysler’s PT Cruiser always confused me. The standard PT is a practical little four-door hatchback, with lots of room inside for people or stuff, and that practicality offsets its weird looks and lukewarm performance (at least from the non-turbo version). But what happens when you take away the roof, and with it all that cargo space, and give it a small and awkward-to-reach trunk? All that’s left is the style, and despite all the accolades heaped on it in the first year, the PT Cruiser’s style has not aged well. It’s at best kitschy, at worst hopelessly outdated.
But if you can ignore the looks, and don’t need all the hatchback room, a convertible PT Cruiser is still a pretty compelling choice for a cheap used car, especially in this condition. It’s a bit under 100,000 miles, so it’s probably due for a timing belt change if it hasn’t already been done, but as long as everything else has been kept up, it should be good for a while. I have a friend back in Oregon who has had a PT Cruiser convertible for years; I don’t know how many miles are on it, but it has to be a couple hundred thousand by now. I have high hopes for this one.
The seller says the convertible top is new, and the ad includes both top-up and top-down photos, so obviously it works fine. Like most convertibles, it looks better with the top down than up, even with the basket-handle roll bar. The interior could maybe use a cleaning, but it has held up well.
It’s clean and shiny outside. The ad says this car has been garage-kept; it does make a difference. I suppose you could make the case for this car as a future classic; there weren’t a whole lot of convertibles to begin with, and I doubt there are too many left in this condition. But right now, it’s just a really nice, low-mileage, inexpensive used car.
These two aren’t going to set the world on fire, obviously. They’re sub-$3,000 used cars, perfect for young drivers or as cheap daily drivers, and if you’ve been paying attention, you know we’re awfully fond of cheap cars around here, pretty much no matter what they are. But our opinion isn’t what counts here. Which one of these are you more fond of?
(Image credits: sellers)
A PT Cruiser droptop with 2/3 the miles is an easy choice for S. Floriduh.
I voted for the PT Cruiser. I’ve never driven one, but it cannot possibly be slower than anything stuck with that Saturn SC1 “Power Module “… lol
As someone who’s on their second chrysler product from around this era, I suppose I’d take another one. Bonus points for being a convertible.
Saturn.
That automatic has the easiest to check/replace solenoids of any I’ve seen. With pinouts available at SaturnFans, you can check them without removing the valve body cover. And the transmission filter is right there at the front of the engine compartment.
The coolant temp sensors go bad quickly, so this one has likely been replaced already. The radiators are kinda crap. You definitely want to replace the transmission input & outpt shaft nuts if you’ll be driving in snow. They HATE fancy spark plugs (waste spark systems): I think the cheap Autolites were favored. You carry a spare coil pack always.
Not fast, fancy, or sexy, but a solid commuter if you do a bit of prep
I went for the Saturn due to reliability. Those engines tended to have ring failures but as long as you kept oil in them they ran forever. That generation of Saturn was dead reliable.
PT for the win! Take a boring car, cut off the roof and it’s a fun car. For less than $3k? That’s a great deal. At this point in time, you’re not lame, you’re eccentric. I worked with an interior designer who sold her mgb and bought a manual Cruiser when the mg proved completely unreliable. She loved it.
If only the Saturn were a stick…
I’ve driven several Saturns of that vintage – my wife’s extended family had a few over the years – and they were fine, if unexciting, in the automatic version, and generally reliable and durable.
The stick shifts, on the other hand, were the perfect hoonable econo cars.
We bought a manual VUE as our first family car, and, after a couple of weird failures during the first 10K miles, it ran without issues for 12 years and 140k before we sold it. I wish I had been able to keep it for a kid.
So, Saturn it is.
I’d vote monthly bus pass over a PT Cruiser.
No matter which SC it it may be, I picked the PT instead. (A five-speed SW2 might have changed my mind.) I live in an area with a pretty long top-down season – late March to November for at least occasional use, with a couple of days in the remaining period usually warm enough as well (heated seats would further extend that, so maybe an aftermarket kit), which makes it a workable daily, and the soft top works with the retro details in a way that it doesn’t on a Murano Cross Cabriolet without them. Plus the kitsch factor and the slightlly lower price. It being in Florida means there’s a chance it’s a former rental. but it hasn’t been driven much since so it’s probably fine.
Go for the PT. I love Saturns, but the SOHC with an auto? No way. Especially not that generation – gimme a first gen SC2 with a five speed and I’ll choose it over almost anything.
I like Saturns but the PT Cruiser is objectively the better choice here. A base Saturn without the DOHC engine is just asking for a penalty box that would be smoked by this PT at every greenlight.
$2400 for an immaculate, well maintained and low mileage car. Or for more money you can have an older, higher mileage, worse condition car that was a penalty box when it was new.
Definitely the Saturn…hell no to the ugly, awful PT Bruiser/Loser which should be losing
PT Cruiser for me. Say what you will about the car’s mechanicals or its no-longer-cool styling: the people at Chrysler tried hard to make it quirky and fun. (Can you imagine a quirky and fun Honda Civic?) Also: cheap convertible!
the engine in those was stout as long as you changed the timing belt. The Ultradrives were also pretty sorted out by then, 30K miles intervals are the key
only 2 Saturn’s I would own, this is not either. to be fair I would likely not spend money on a PT cruiser either, but if I had to buy one of these then the lower mile newer convertible would be it.
OK, the single cam and the automatic are big hits against it, but I adored my SL2 and I think that SC1 looks sharp as hell. Actually, it’d be a great car for my kids to learn to drive in.
Although now I’m remembering being 19 and contorting to roll down the other windows in my old Grand Am; I somehow doubt I could do that as readily these days…
I currently own 3 convertibles, but the problem with a PT convertible is that it’s really easy to be seen in the Easter Basket that is the PT convertible. Have to pick the Saturn.
In walks weirdo, will take the PT any day.
A buddy of mine had that SC… it was fine and went through two transmissions, he noped the F out after the 2nd transmission went. He saw the light and now drives a brown 5spd manual Mazda diesel B2200 truck.
Saturn, for sure. I like the way these look. And I’m not a convertible guy.
A friend had one that served him well, I’d tooled around in it back in the day. Decent car, little that could go wrong with this base model, and it made for a tough choice.
(I wound up voting PT, just because of the goofy appeal and its apparent condition. The new top should be good for a good long time.)
Fair. That’s a damn fine price for what will probably be a reliable little convertible, with a new operational top. I’m just not into convertibles. It would have to be something way cooler than a PT Cruiser. I did vote for the ’61(?) Buick convertible in a Shitbox Showdown not too long ago, but that thing just oozed style.
Going Cruising for this one. The PT is certainly weird looking, and not really my cup of tea, but it’s a convertible and appears to be in great shape. If the other option were something that wasn’t just so incredibly damn boring, I’d pick it.
I drove one just like this many years ago as a rental. It was fine. If we’re split between two meh 4cyl/ 4 spd autos, give me the convertible. At least it has some character and you can drop the top and cruise.
You’ll never convince me to own a PT Cruiser. Saturn today.
I’m not sure I’d keep the PT Cruiser around, but it’s in great shape for the price. Had the Saturn been a manual with the extra door (always like that detail), it would’ve tipped the scale even with twice the mileage.
Voting Saturn this time. Almost pulled the trigger on an SC2 way back when looking at these. It was an honest little car with some quirky features. I still remember the TV ads showing a shopping cart hitting the side of the Saturn with no damage.
I hated the PT Cruisers when they were new. Never like the look and yeah they’ve aged terribly. When I see one now, I think of my dad wearing my old Members Only jacket when I would come home to visit. It just looked wrong.
You wore a Members Only Jacket, taste is subjective.
In 1984, every 7th and 8th grader boy wore one of these. And a lot of high schoolers. Also had feathered hair and the whole 80’s look out of a John Hughes movie. Now seeing my dad wearing it out to church in 1999 was a different story. He also found my old oversized skaker knit sweaters over my mom’s protests. The memories still crack me up.
I don’t want a PT Cruiser convertible, but this car could be a spectacular deal. This looks like a second car that was owned by an older person who could afford something that passes for a toy. Well-off older buyers tend to maintain their cars very well (i.e. oil changes every 3,000 miles [even though that hasn’t been recommended in decades] and all maintenance items recommended by the dealer). These individuals also do not tend to be aggressive drivers and are generally not hard on their vehicles. I may be stereotyping Pt Cruiser Convertible drivers a bit, but I am probably correct in my assumptions.
This may not be a desirable car, but it is a low mileage, likely well-maintained, modern vehicle for $2,400. I can’t fathom why anyone would think a 27-year-old high mileage (for the era it was built) econobox for $2,700 is a better deal. This should be a lopsided victory in favor of the Chrysler.