Welcme back to Shitbox Showdown! Today, we’re looking at two unremarkable cars that happened to catch my eye because they are interesting colors. Are they also good deals? We’ll see.
Yesterday it was Jaguar versus Porsche, but not in the way you’d expect, or necessarily want. Now, to be clear, I don’t have a problem with automatic transmissions in daily drivers; I just don’t think they belong in sports cars. And I realize that the Jaguar AJ inline six is a better engine in pretty much every regard than the V12, but everyone who knows a little bit about cars equates the XJS with its twelve-cylinder engine. You’d have to issue a disclaimer every time you opened the bonnet.
But the Jag is the more appealing car, though I still have questions about its actual current condition. If it’s got some bugs and extra miles from a cross-country drive, that’s fine, but why not take new photos when you got it here? And why, why, can’t it be any color other than fire-engine red?
Color enters into my choices of cars here more than you realize. Browsing Craigslist and occasionally Facebook Marketplace shows just how monochromatic our vehicles of choice really are. I see, and generally gloss over, so many thumbnails of silver, gray, white, and beige cars that could be good choices, but they just don’t jump out at me. If I click on a silver car, it’s usually because it’s an unusual model, like yesterday’s Boxster.
Today’s cars are the opposite. They’re fairly tame choices of cars, but in colors not normally seen. And it’s the color that drew me in. They both look like reasonably good used cars as well, as it turns out. Let’s see which one catches your eye.
2007 Chevrolet Cobalt LT – $2,700
Engine/drivetrain: 2.2 liter dual overhead cam inline 4, four-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Odometer reading: 108,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives great
I’ve been reading car magazines for long enough to remember reviews for several generations of GM small cars now, and it seems like they always started the same way: “This time they got it right! This is so much better than [previous model].” When the Cobalt replaced the Cavalier in the mid-2000s, the reviews were glowing, and nearly all of them denigrated the Cavalier as much as they praised the Cobalt. Then, when the Cruze came along, the cycle repeated. From this, you could infer one of two things: Either GM small cars improve exponentially with each generation, or they’re all pretty much the same level of “meh,” and auto journalists sometimes tend towards hyperbole.
Having owned a couple of Cavaliers, and rented a Cobalt or two, I’m going with “meh.” This is marginally nicer inside than a Cavalier, and the Ecotec engine is a little smoother and more powerful than the old 122, but there’s nothing revolutionary here at all. It’s a perfectly fine little car, though, and this one appears to be in good shape.
It runs and drives well, the seller says, and has just had an oil change. It’s too clean under the hood, like the engine was just steam-cleaned and then coated with that shiny goop, whatever it is, that used car lots love to slather on. It’s a little suspicious, as is the wildly crooked intake runner. It probably just snaps back into place, so why not do it before taking the photos?
It’s nice and shiny, but it has a pretty good dent in front of the right rear wheel, and the panel gaps are, well, cheap GM. The trunk lid also looks like it might be a slightly different color than the rest of it, but it might be a trick of the light.
2009 Ford Flex SE – $3,800
Engine/drivetrain: 3.5 liter dual overhead cam V6, six-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Austin, TX
Odometer reading: 218,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives great
Every source I can find refers to the Ford Flex as a “full-size crossover SUV” – but look at this thing. It’s a wagon if there ever was one. It’s not tall enough to be an SUV, and it’s not four-wheel-drive. But for some reason “wagon” has become a dirty word, so we have to call it a crossover.
Whatever you want to call it, the idea is the same: it’s a big box on wheels, with lots of places for people to sit if you need that, or lots of room to carry stuff if you ditch the seats. It’s powered by Ford’s Duratec 3.5 liter V6, which is a smooth and powerful engine with a serious Achilles heel: the water pump is in a stupid place, and driven by the timing chain, which means if it fails, it can take the whole engine with it. However, this one had its water pump and timing chain replaced at 200,000 miles, so it should be good to go for a while.
You can tell it has a lot of miles on it just by looking at the interior. It’s not trashed, but there are some definite signs of wear and tear. The seller says everything works, including the air conditioning, so we can forgive a little scruffiness inside, I think. For this price, you don’t expect perfection anyway.
Outside, it has a wrinkle on the same corner as the Cobalt, oddly. But it’s purely superficial, and can be ignored. The rest of it looks pretty good. And for the record, my dislike of red cars does not extend to this cranberry color; this I quite like.
These aren’t really cars anyone would comparison-shop; one is a small commuter sedan and the other is a family hauler, but when has that ever mattered here? Just pick your favorite based on whatever criteria you choose.
(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)
Must admit that the past two days have given me 2x the normal amount of Ford Flex content I would ever expect to see on this site. That said, I was never a huge fan of the Flex. Maybe I’m old or something, but I just didn’t see the appeal of it in comparison to the Freestyle that preceded it (not a fan of that either, just thought that it looked the part a little more). Comparing it to Cobalt puts it into a more favorable light. The big bugaboo with the 3.5 has already been squished, so that’s enough to tip the scale for me.
Show me the 60 side of the Flex middle row folded down, and I’ll pick that. But I’m highly suspicious if that seat latch is still working this far and long into its life; that’s not a cheap repair; and it’ll have to be done repeatedly.
I know very little about Cobalts, even less this one, but at surface value I’d sooner risk that.
I voted Cobalt just because it’s cheaper and has fewer miles. I detailed a couple, and the interiors had some of the cheapest, miserable hard plastic I’ve ever encountered. My friend’s old Sunfire had a better interior than that. I’ve driven a Flex and was pleasantly surprised by how well it drove. But this one is too high mileage for me.
Meh. Not a fan of either, but I would trust the Cobalt longer than a 220k Ford, so I guess that’s where I’m going. Begrudgingly
Cobalt I’d say is good as a starter car at the price or you need a car TODAY.
That Flex is a good alternative to a pickup, keep it around for hauling crap. I’d probably try and pull the dent in the driveway and just fill/rattle-can the finish.
Totally Flex
Color: Cobalt
Utility/would drive: Flex
Fart/foam ratio of seats (higher is better): Flex
Flex it is.
Does your fart/foam ratio take into account the odometer reading? The Flex has spent twice as many miles being flatulented.
Somewhat, but what’s most important is that it’s well pre-farted so I don’t have to feel guilty about ruining the new car smell, or in this case having to displace all the Febreze.
The Cobalt looked fine enough at first but then you see the questionable fixes as others noted: the panel gaps, the painted trim that shouldn’t be, I see no ‘COBALT’ badge on the back and maybe still a ding just forward of the right rear wheel. I don’t have need or use for it anyway, so I was going Flex even if I wish it were higher spec (Vista Roof please!).
I’ll take the Flex since I know it has the bulletproof reliability of a timing chain!
And an internal water pump that will grenade the motor. We had it happen to us in an Explorer with the same stupid motor.
Just a little inside baseball in that comment is all.
https://www.theautopian.com/if-your-car-has-a-timing-belt-its-not-really-reliable/
David’s theory is beaten by the internal water pump grenade.
both have a timing chain but the Flex gives me more piece of mind since the water pump was replaced 18K miles ago and other than that the Duratec 3.5 is a solid engine so this one should make it to 300K miles without major issues
Are Flexes actually getting this cheap?
*Glances nervously at wallet*
Yes, but don’t tell anyone, or else the bottom of the boxy-but-good market will jump up.
My secret is safe with … all of you.
Both vehicles are very meh to me. I have never cared for the flex it reminds me a longer scion box mobile and the cobalt will most likely need a timing belt done and looks to have have some sort of front end damage with the panel gaps. So a big old meh today so I voted cobalt since cheaper I guess haha.
95% agreed but stretching out the aspect ratio mitigated the involuntary recoil I’d get looking at a Soul/xB/Cube. It’s a little too funky to be handsome, but 15 years later and for $3,800, it’s a livable funky.
Plus, cleaning those headlights would be soooo satisfying.
So crazy to think these things are already that old too. I remember these coming out when I was in highschool same with the FJ which I did not like at the time but liked them more as time went on and now own an FJ. But something about the Flex just has not grown on me.
Cobalts used a timing chain, and while that engine had timing chain issues early on it was pretty well sorted out by that point. That era of Ecotec engines paired to the 4-speed auto was pretty stout. Later versions with direct injection or paired with the 6-speed auto, things get murkier.
Did not know these were chains but makes sense you saw these things in such dilapidated states for years but still chugging along. Thought they would have been belts like my dads sonic he killed.
That’s another thing too…the switch back to belts like that 1.8, which they used in the Cruze too, and the Saturn Astra. It was a little ironic for Saturn especially since a timing chain was supposed to be a selling point in a market filled with belt-driven imports in the original S-Series. By 2008 most everyone’s 4s were chains.
Either GM small cars improve exponentially with each generation, or they’re all pretty much the same level of “meh,” and auto journalists sometimes tend towards hyperbole.
The cars are “meh” from the start but the previous model is kept around for so long, it actually is exponentially better than its replacement. Compared to everything else, it’s a mediocre offering which appeals to GM loyalists and fleet buyers.
This is correct. By the time the cavalier died, it was so hopelessly outdated as to be awful, but when it debuted in the 80s, it was amazing. The cobalt was refreshing and not bad, but got dated quickly. The Cruze was modern, well styled, and a solid car, until it too got leapfrogged by the competition.
Was the Cavalier amazing when it debuted? Or was it amazing compared only to the Citation?
Haha I am not old enough to be able to answer that one, so no idea. The Cruze is really the only one I was paying attention to the launch, and the cabin refinement shocked me for a GM product, it looked very upscale and has aged well.
As someone who is old enough to remember, the Cavalier was definitely exponentially better than the Citation
Well yes, but how did it compare to the products from Ford and the others?
It was definitely sportier than the Tempo, as for quality? Well it was the 80s and just about everything American was crap.
Yeah… The 80s were rough.
A bucket of aged vomit is amazing compared to a Citation.
Easy, easy W for the FoMoCo product. I’ve spent more time in a Cobalt of that generation (my sister in law had one) and they’re absolutely hateful little cars. They were the NPC stand in for a Cavalier, sans the whimsy.
I have fondness, and an actual use, for the Flex, so I’m going with the Flex. I have little love or need for the Cobalt.
My aunt has an AWD Flex and sings its praises every chance she gets. It seems like a lot of car to pull around by the front wheels only. On the other hand, the Chevy isn’t a lot of car at all.
Flex it is!
The Cobalt has had a really cheap repaint, I look at shock tower colors difference, and grille/fog slats are not supposed to be body colored. Couple that with panel gaps only caused by accident repair, and that thing is going to be a headache. The Flex at least has serious maintenance done, headlights can be cleaned up, and seems to be solid. Despite being more money and 2x the miles, the Flex is the better vehicle here.
After scrolling up to spot the differences you called out, oof. I’m glad my imaginary Autopian Funbucks went into the Flex.
Good eye. The hood and trunk both have weird gaps that even a bankruptcy era Chevy shouldn’t have. I suspect the thorough cleanup this Cobalt just received included a title washing.
The engine cover being so misaligned and extremely shiny was such a red flag I had to scrutinize the rest of the pictures. Unfortunately the person who will likely end up buying this thing won’t know any better and will likely end up with a total lemon. Sucks to see, but shady cleanup tactics like this work far too well on the general public.
I drive a Mazda 3, so the compact part of my driveway is filled. The Flex is slightly abused, but that just means I can abuse it further and not feel bad. Gimme the Flex.
I honestly don’t want an SUV, so I went with the Cobalt…. Even though I worry I’ll send a rod through the block like my sister did in hers.
Seeing the hole in the block was awesome.
Tesla must have benchmarked the Cobalt for panel alignment, yeesh.
While I have no real desire to own a Cobalt, I voted for it due to the lower price and half as many miles. Weird someone only tinted the back windows, like a crossover.
I’m betting the Cobalt looked a lot like that Flex before all the steam cleaning and general prep, and that a few hours’ work would get the Flex a lot more presentable. Going with Big Red today.
Give me the Cranberry cargo cart for those big trips to the beach. Ah, I can already smell the Ocean Spray.
I see what you did there.
“But for some reason “wagon” has become a dirty word, so we have to call it a crossover.”
I drive a Jetta Sportwagen, it has wagon in the title, yet everyone refers to it as a ‘crossover’. It’s a sickness
Just remember, the PT Cruiser was also a light truck.
My Dad bought a brand-new 1977 Cutlass Supreme in roughly the same color as that Cobalt … I believe it was called “Mandarin Orange Metallic” back in the day. Not a knock on the color, which is amazing, or the Cobalt, which seems perfectly cromulent.
But the Flex is the winner. I’ve always wanted one, and the (few) people I know who have owned one loved it. Polish up those headlights, maybe paint/wrap the roof white, and drive on down the road.
Seconded on putting a white wrap on the roof. This car can pull off that look. As an alternative, the Flex is a modern vehicle that has the long flat sides of old school wagons. What can you put on those sides? Fake wood, baby.
I’d be flexing with the Flex
I’ll take the fridge on wheels because those things are awesome. Not interested in a Cobalt unless it’s an SS.
Now I’m off to actually read the article.
Flex. Only reason I haven’t had one is that my wife has a serious aversion to station wagons.
Tell her it’s a crossover.