Good morning! For today’s Showdown, we’re escaping from the world of grayscale and looking at two Colorado cars in colors you don’t often see. Yes, their paint might be the most interesting thing about them, but hey, you gotta start somewhere.
Yesterday it was old Lincoln versus new Lincoln, and I guess all I can say about the results is that you all have taken “they don’t make ’em like they used to” to heart. Just like with the Caddy comparo last month, the newer MKZ didn’t stand a chance against almost nineteen feet of classic Americana.
I can’t say I disagree. The MKZ is a nice car, sure, but it’s also interchangeable with a whole slew of other nice cars. Nothing else can take the place of a 1970 Continental sedan – except maybe a 1970 Cadillac or a 1970 Imperial. If you have your heart set on a classic American land yacht, there is no substitute.
When you drive into the state of Colorado, from most routes, you’re greeted by a large rustic-looking wooden sign that reads “Welcome To Colorful Colorado.” And boy, they ain’t kidding. The state gets a little monochrome in the winter when everything is covered in snow, but in the spring and summer, it’s bursting with hues, from alpine wildflower fields to the rock formations of Garden Of The Gods, which are particularly stunning right after a rainstorm. It really is a beautiful state.
Fitting, then, that we look at a couple of old cars for sale there, in colors you don’t see much these days – orange and purple. They’re not exciting rides, but you should be able to spot them in a parking lot. Let’s take a look.
1999 Plymouth Voyager – $2,900
Engine/drivetrain: 3.0-liter overhead cam V6, three-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Alamosa, CO
Odometer reading: 174,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives great
Being a Chrysler fan means constantly looking back to the company’s “glory days.” When exactly those glory days were is a subject of some debate: Was it the “Forward Look” cars of the late 1950s? The muscle car era? The recently departed Hellcat era? Everyone has their own opinions. Not too many folks look back fondly on what could be called the “Bob era” (Eaton and Lutz) immediately preceding the DaimlerChrysler debacle, but one important development from that time cannot be understated: Plymouth offered cars in not one, but two shades of purple.
This metallic aubergine color was made famous by Plymouth’s neo-hot-rod Prowler, but it was also available on the humble Voyager minivan, like this one. Plymouth also offered the Neon in purple, but it was a non-metallc shade that had more in common with Grimace than with grape Skittles. This is a base-model short-wheelbase Voyager, which the seller says is equipped with a 3.3 liter V6. But I have learned my lesson about taking the seller’s word for things, and since the VIN was posted in the ad, I checked – it actually has the 3.0 liter Mitsubishi engine, backed by a three-speed Torqueflite automatic. It runs great, and it has new tires, brakes, and more.
It does have some options on it, power windows and locks and cruise control, at least. It’s a one-owner van, and it looks like it has been well-maintained. In fact, it appears to be one of those vans that was not really used as a passenger van; I don’t think anyone ever even sat in the second two rows of seats.
The purple paint looks nice and shiny, and I personally prefer the most basic of these vans, with the gray bumpers and the small wheels. They have an honest, no-bullshit look to them. I could do without the Pep Boys wheel covers, but I’m not sure bare black steelies would be better. You shouldn’t have any worries about rust, either, from a southern Colorado car.
2006 Kia Rio5 SX – $3,200
Engine/drivetrain: 1.6-liter dual overhead cam inline 4, four-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Denver, CO
Odometer reading: 107,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives great
As the 1990s faded, so too did most automakers’ color palettes. Gone were the teals, magentas, and purples, but small and sporty cars were still available in yellow. And although silver was ascendant, a new color gained popularity here and there: this burnt-orange color, sometimes called “spicy orange” or “fiery orange.” Kia’s shade was a little more red than some others, but if you see it in the sunshine, it really pops. And a car like the Kia Rio needs all the help it can get to make it interesting.
The second-generation Rio shared a platform with the Hyundai Accent, and was allegedly a big improvement over the first generation. I should hope so; I test-drove an early Rio back in 2002 and it was dreadful. The first generation’s wagon version was called the Rio Cinco here; for this generation, Kia stole Mazda’s silly naming convention and called it the Rio5 – no space. It’s powered by a 1.6 liter four, and this one has an automatic (sorry). It has a scant 107,000 miles on the odometer, and it just passed an emissions test. Its timing belt was changed at 84,000 miles, so it’s good for a while yet.
The inside of the Rio shouts “economy car” so loudly your neighbors will peek out their windows to make sure everything is okay. It’s industrial gray, and made from hard plastic and scratchy fabric. But it’s in good condition, and the fit and finish looks better than the earlier ones.
I’m disappointed that the photos in this ad are so dark, because I’ve seen this color in person, and it’s great. It has a few bumps and bruises, the clear coat is failing on the hood, and the ad mentions something about hail damage, but it doesn’t look terrible for a cheap used car.
As I said, they’re kinda boring apart from the color. But boring runabouts have their place too; a good beater, especially one with some cargo space like these, is a wonderful thing. And if you find yourself in need of such a beast, why not choose one that stands out a little? You’ve got a choice between an eggplant-colored van, and a spicy red-orange hatchback. What’ll it be?
(Image credits: sellers)
Argh! I guess the minivan. At least it’s useful and the words “failing clear coat and hail damage” don’t apply to it.
The Rio is a better car.
Chrysler minivans are known for transmission problems. So I voted for the red car.
The four speed, yes. The three speed torqueflite that this van has will probably outlast the rest of the car.
Not this one. IIRC the four speeds had issues resulting from dipsticks of the wrong length (insert crude joke here) but the three speeds were fine.
Source: My dad had a Dodge Caravan of this year with a 2.4L I4 / 3A and it mostly survived his abuse (and boy oh boy did he abuse it!). The transmission only failed when dad damaged the radiator including the transmission oil cooler and absolutely refused to listen to my advice to replace that radiator and fluid flush when I found milkshake under the radiator cap during a coolant check (it was already running hot). He kept driving it for a few weeks till the inevitable happened. That radiator and those fluids ended up being replaced anyway but with the added bonus of a couple of tows and a full transmission rebuild.
The good news is that transmission was surprisingly cheap to have professionally rebuilt. Had I more confidence in the mysteries of automatic transmissions I might have tackled that project myself but then I’d have been on the family warranty hook for any and all future problems.
I trust mid aughts Kias more than I trust the Plymouth of the late 90s.
I feel like people forget the Accents and Rios of the 2000s were basic cars, but neigh indestructible.
Voyager gets more nostalgia points so it gets my vote. Nice purple too
Does the Voyager still have rockers? I’ll take that then. Around here a not-so-rusty late 90s Chrysler minivan is almost Radwood material.
The Kia is kinda cute, but the eggplant Voyager has the goods to live it’s best life as an enclosed pickup truck at this stage of the game. I used to have a minivan at my disposal that served that purpose, and I do miss that kind of usefulness.
Also, I lowkey love the MOPAR interiors of this era. Seats are comfortable, fabric holds up well, good ergonomics, etc. They really went downhill starting in 2005.
I don’t think there is really a good or bad choice here. Neither is going to be great or awful so it really depends on what you need the vehicle for. I’m picking the Kia simply because I don’t need a van at this point.
That’s a fetching shade of purple and orphan cars deserve to live on, but I suspect the Kia has a lot more life left in it. The wagon body would handle my cargo needs adequately. If I had wider and heavier materials to haul I’d have gone with the Voyager today.
Minivan. It survived Y2K!
Also, what is a Grimace?
The purple McDonalds mascot.
aka, what Type 2 Diabetes would look like if it manifested into its own physical form.
He was the mascot associated with their shakes. Hamburglar/hamburger, Mayor Mccheese/cheeseburgers etc.. Always wondered why an amorphous purple blob named “Grimace” Was that what you did after you drank one? Grimace?
He initially was the Baba Yaga of Milkshakes, multiple arms and all. Only took one year for them to take him from the milkshake thief to a blob that loved shakes, but just hung out with Ron. I think the cop character was always chasing Grimace because they did not give him the memo.
There’s nothing wrong with the Kia (probably), but we’ll take the van for its superior utility … and because I can tell people who ask that it’s “aubergine.”
If I had to buy a car today, and these were my options I’d go with the Plymouth. Back in the early Aughts I worked for a computer store as an on-site network tech and we had two of these as our shop trucks, they were fine to drive. I don’t want a truck again, but a cheap mini van would fill a hole in my once a month chore needs without enticing friends to recruit me to help them move shit all the time.
I also have this strange urge to slam it on Wats and build a twisted version of a Dajiban.
I owned a 5-speed Rio5 just like that one and would certainly own it again. The van isn’t bad, but the Rio5 is hoot to drive (at least the 5-speed is). Neither is a bad, though.
I aspire to never again touch a transverse V6, so Kia for me
My mom’s Grand Caravan of this generation (which she got as her last kid was going off to college) was classy looking with the burgundy paint and nice alloy wheels and was a good® car. It was also garaged for most of its life and never trashed or had little kids in it, so it stayed classy looking until 2019, when it was relegated to the driveway. So I’d choose the van and swap the wheels for some silver Caravan alloys.
That li’l Rio is a great work runabout. A set of roof racks, and it’s a Transformer!
The world needs more purple cars, so I guess I’ll have the minivan … but I feel like I’m probably going to regret this decision.
No interest in either really, but I like hatchbacks, and overdrive. I guess I’ll take the KN today
This is a pretty high-optioned base van too – it has the integrated child seats in the 2nd row, so just about everything you could add to the base trim. Sort of the inverse of the Rio which is high trim, without options.
It’s not a spec of Chrysler van I really want, but I don’t really care about the Rio either other than noting how much of an improvement this gen was over the first one. A point in the Rio’s favor is its timing belt change is noted while the van’s is TBD, but the van sellers seem pretty detailed so they’d be honest about whether its status is known.
No contest, Purple Plymouth takes it.
And holy shit, I forgot Mopar was still using 3 speeds in this era. My buddy had a Neon with a 3 speed auto.
I chose the Voyager because it’d be cool to have any type of Plymouth, and it’s purple. Tell me to drive it and I’ll be complaining the whole time why someone bought a 3.0. Not because it’s a Mitsubishi engine, but because I found the 3.3 to be adequate and something I’d want in an older Mopar van.
Edit: if anyone cares to know, the purple on the Voyager is called “Deep Cranberry Pearl Coat”. Code is PMT in case someone just happens to want it.
It did seem like as the 90s went on, they loosened up on where the 3.0 could be specced. When the 3.3 first rolled out it was basically all Grands all the time, by the 3rd gen you could spec Grand SEs with it again.
I bet this buyer was adamant on a SWB model and those skewed more to base trims at this point, it was harder to find higher-trim SWBs. Base shorties usually maxed out at the 3.0 and per brochures 3rd gen base vans only got the 3.3 in lieu of the 3.0 for emissions reasons in some states like CA/NY/MA.
It really is a coin flip, but since I already have a minivan I’ll take the Kia today.
Van for me. But only just. The color sold me, Chrysler really did have a couple of great colors back in the 90’s. My dad’s Stratus was a similar color, and it’s amazing how many purple-ish and wine-ish colors were offered back then.
Do I have to? Fine, I will take the Kia. No explanation, I just could at least stand to be seen in it at an event which doesn’t have “demolition” in the name.
I love the van, but it’s nearing the useful end of life for a Chrysler product of that era.
I’ll take the Kia. It’s not quite as useful as the minivan, but unless I gotta haul something, the Kia is gonna be better in every day driving. Plus better fuel economy and recent timing belt change. Sure, it’s DT unreliable in the long run, but it should be good for a couple years.