Good morning! Today we’re looking at a couple of “fancy” versions of ordinary cars, nearly a decade apart in age, but very close in ideology, and that ideology is that you can have nice things, as long as you don’t expect them to be exciting as well. Grab a cup of coffee; you’ll need it to stay awake looking at these two.
Yesterday’s high-mileage battle ended with a win for the Mazda 3, though quite a few of you expressed a desire for a “Both” option. Many of you were concerned with the possibility of rust on both of them, but cars on the West Coast just don’t have that problem.
Don’t believe me? Check it out: That’s a photo of the left rear cab mount/cab corner/rocker panel of my own ’89 Chevy truck, a thirty-five-year-old ex-government fleet truck that spent its service life in eastern Washington state before retiring to Portland, without a lick of rust. It just isn’t an issue.
Oh, and speaking of which, my vote is for the Tundra. I like the flames, and the overall scruffiness of it. It’s one of the few trucks I’ve found that would make a suitable replacement for my Chevy, should anything ever happen to it.
Now then: American cars of the 1980s just weren’t very exciting, and I say that as someone who is terribly fond of them. It’s just hard to drum up enthusiasm for some ninety-horsepower sedan with an automatic. But, if equipped correctly, they can be quite nice cars – not flashy, not putting on airs like the Lincoln Versailles or the Cadillac Cimarron, just nice. Comfortable seats, good air conditioning, and a smooth, quiet ride can make up for a sixteen-second 0-60 time, with the right attitude. Not everything has to be hardcore all the time. Sometimes a little Christopher Cross is just the ticket. So instead of thinking of these cars as “lame” or “slow,” think of them as the automotive equivalent of yacht rock. Here they are.
1983 Chrysler E-Class – $3,000
Engine/drivetrain: 2.2-liter overhead cam inline 4, three-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Everett, WA
Odometer reading: 126,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives great
You have to hand it to Chrysler; they got a lot of mileage out of the K platform. Starting with one basic front-wheel-drive formula, the struggling automaker managed to put family sedans, station wagons, luxury coupes and sedans, and even sports coupes into showrooms, not to mention something that came to be known as a minivan. And right in the middle of the range was the Chrysler E-Class, a short-lived variant of the E platform, a K-car with a longer wheelbase.
Unusually for an E-Class, this car is powered by Chrysler’s own 2.2 liter four-cylinder engine instead of the optional Mitsubishi-supplied 2.6 liter that ended up in many cars in the early years. Even more unusually for an upscale model, it does not appear to be equipped with air conditioning. I can’t imagine ordering a car like this and not checking that box on the form, but somebody was trying to save a few bucks, I suppose. It runs and drives beautifully, the seller says, and has a new timing belt, alternator, and voltage regulator.
It may lack air conditioning, but it does have another well-known Chrysler option of the era: the Electronic Message Center. Yes, the talking thing. The ’83 Dodge 600 we had when I was young had this option, and it was amusing for the first month or two, but got a bit annoying after that. My mom got in the habit of fastening her seat belt before starting the car, so it wouldn’t tell her to do so. My ’84 Chrysler Laser had it too, but that car had a lot of weird electrical gremlins, so the Message Center would spit out random dire warnings now and again. I think there’s a reason why this gimmick never caught on.
It’s in remarkably good shape, with shiny paint, including the four body-matching hubcaps, a blatant ripoff of Mercedes-Benz. Comparing cars to Mercedes was all the rage for a while; Ford famously designed an entire advertising campaign around comparing its Granada to a Mercedes W116 S-Class. I doubt either ruse actually persuaded any buyers.
1992 Mercury Topaz GS – $1,800
Engine/drivetrain: 2.3-liter overhead valve inline 4, three-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Odometer reading: 55,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well, but needs exercise
Ford was the last of the Big Three to embrace front-wheel-drive; the imported Fiesta subcompact had been available since 1976, but it wasn’t until 1981 that a home-grown FWD Ford appeared in the form of the Escort, which replaced the RWD Pinto. In 1984, Ford enlarged the Escort’s basic design to create the Tempo and Mercury Topaz, a replacement for the Fox-based Fairmont. And as had become its custom, Mercury produced its own version of the same basic car with different trim: the Topaz, in this case.
I’ll never quite understand Ford’s thinking when it came to the engine in the Tempo and Topaz. It’s a 2.3-liter four, but not the one you’re thinking of. It would have made sense for Ford to use the Lima overhead-cam engine, or even an enlarged version of the Escort’s CVH four, but instead it developed a whole different engine, based on the ancient Falcon-style inline-six. I guess reusing the old tooling made it worth it? Anyway, this one runs fine, but it hasn’t been driven much, so it probably has some cobwebs that need to be blasted out. It also has a leaky valve cover, but a new gasket is included.
Inside, it’s as clean as you would expect for having so few miles on it. The Tempo and Topaz never got airbags; they staggered along through their last four or five years of production meeting the passive-restraint mandate using motorized shoulder belts. The build quality of these is a little hit-or-miss; the seller says this one has a little trouble with the driver’s side power window, and some of the door lock/unlock buttons don’t work.
Outside, it’s reasonably clean and shiny, but it does have a little bit of hail damage. On a car this age, and for this price, there are worse problems to have. Being a Mercury, it also has that bar of lights across the grille opening, and I’m willing to bet that it has one bulb burned out. They all seem to, and it always ends up looking like a missing tooth.
It should come as no surprise to hear that I have actually owned cars very similar to both of these. I had a 1985 Plymouth Caravelle for a winter beater one year, and a 1992 Ford Tempo coupe was actually the first car I ever made payments on. I honestly have no preference between them; they were both just fine, plenty comfortable, and more or less reliable. Exciting? No, of course not. But they were nice. Don’t take my word for it, though; go take one of these for a nice leisurely spin.
(Image credits: Facebook Marketplace sellers)
Gimme that green Toyota in the background.
Heck, I’d settle for the Toyota minivan in the other background.
Topaz, though that’s not really much praise, as I’d have taken a broken roller skate over the Chrysler.
Under duress I would pick the 600. A friend had a Topaz and it was a infected, festering wart of a car. Never ran right, uncomfortable, awful ride, no brakes, pathetic ac and heater. The Chrysler is a Bentley by comparison.
My wife had a Chrysler E-Class back when we first started dating in school. It was baby blue with the matching blue hubcaps. It had about the same mileage at the time that this one does now and it was already mostly done in. The car was the worst kind of crap-can even by the much lower standards of crap-cans thirty years ago. I can’t imagine anyone buying one of these out of any kind of nostalgia unless it’s some kind of S&M thing and they really like the abuse.
I’ll take the Topaz for it’s lower miles, lower price, just being a better car in every conceivable way and also not having that idiotic talking message center.
Have you lived with a Topaz? They absolutely aren’t better in any way, which is kind of amazing.
My cousin had a Topaz (which she wrecked), and a Tempo prior to that, (which she also wrecked) so yes, I’ve driven one quite a bit and in the same general time period. And yes, it’s a crap-can too but a slightly better crap-can. Not a lot, but still better.
Also, the Topaz doesn’t tell me “Driver’s door is ajar… driver’s door is ajar…” in that horrible ’80’s electronic Speak & Spell voice.
I’ve lived with multiples of both, but I didn’t even have to listen to the Speak and Spell… I found the K’s less terrible, even the one I bought for $400 and left abandoned after the third ECU ate itself on my morning commute.
from what I recall back in the early 90s my parents had an 86 Tempo GLS 2dr with the 5spd and my Grandma owned an 85 Caravelle with a carbureted 2.2 and 3 spd auto.
Yes it wasn’t an E-Class but very close in wheelbase and overall length, just decontended. That car was super comfy, of course it was Brown with a beige interior but the Tempo was peppier and handled much better than the torsion bar in the K-Car.
It all depends on what you’re looking for, but I’d take the better driving car with MPFI and A/C
Yesterday was both, today is neither. For $1200 less I’ll go with the topaz. I imagine the only E-Class with a Mondale/Ferraro sticker rusted out somewhere in Minnesota before the 80’s were through.
My first car was a 91 Topaz that was given to me with the caveat that I had to “get it off the yard” of a family friend. I resurrected it with my dad (we did brakes, new fluids, filters, plugs and wires) and drove home after about a day’s worth of work. I’m not sure how long it sat parked but it was only 8 years old at the time and the floorboards in the back seat were made exclusively of burgundy carpet thanks to rust. I drove it for about 6 months before my dad ended up killing it when he tried to pass a tractor on a two lane road. He felt badly enough to pay 800$ for an 89 Lesabre as a replacement. Even with all those fond memories, I’d pick the Chrysler for the vintage aesthetic of the interior.
Topaz, if only b/c I miss Ford’s ’80s two-tone paint jobs, esp. on the Foxbody Mustangs of the era. Ford did a good job bringing that classic design cue into the modern era I thought – it provides a pleasing contrast with the contemporary wheel patterns and body curves.
Ugh. Just ugh. I weep at the thought of owning either.
But I guess the E at least has comfy looking seats and a little more of a novelty factor? I know it’s still a POS, but I’ve had far too much Tempo experience to ever willingly take ownership of one, or it’s cousin.
The topaz is some guy at Ford deciding that “you know what this carbuncle of car needs to make it a Mercury? A pustule on top. Yeah, a pustule. That’ll make it special!”
This car makes me angry…
My sister lives in Everett. You don’t need A/C most of the time due to the cool breezes that come in off the Salish Sea. Of course, the Seattle area didn’t see as many A/C days back then than it does today.
The Topaz is just too clean, and maybe the A/C works?
I probably should vote for the Topaz (Mom had one as a company car when I was a teenager, and I thought it was perfectly cromulent), but dang if those Chrysler seats don’t look super-comfy. It also looks much cleaner … clearly this was Grampa’s car, right down to the Reagan-Bush bumper sticker.
Despite the lack of aircon, which I am shockingly willing to overlook, we’d like to buy an E.
The Chrysler 2.2L will forever remind me of the misery of working at Pep Boys, where I changed timing belts on countless numbers of them. The only time I’ve ever voted for one was when it went up against that hideous Miata a few weeks back, and it hurt to do it.
I love the period correct bumper sticker on the Chrysler. That would have to stay.
I’ve always liked the lightbar going all the way across the front of these Mercuries.
Yep. I always thought a hybrid longroof Sable front with a Taurus rear would be a pretty perfect 90s cruiser, actually.
I had a ’97 Taurus sedan that fell into my lap and was my DD for half a decade. Gutless but with a decent sound system and leather appointments, it was comfy, at least.
I’ll take the K Car. At least this one won’t be banned.
Three Gs for a K-car with no AC?!? Not a chance!!
Gimme that sweet, sweet, AC equipped Topaz with the luggage rack that I’ll never use!
Give me the Topaz.. why? It’s cheaper. Plus, old Fords never die, they just need parts.. lol
The Chrysler gets bonus Malaise points for the minty Reagan-Bush ’84 campaign sticker…
Honestly, it’s perfect for a film-production fleet.
period correct
I’ll take the Topaz since it costs less. Both of these cars are like a bowl of watery oatmeal without any brown sugar or butter. Yeah you had breakfast, but did you really?
You just described my breakfast, it costs me 16 cents a day and leaves me budget for all the k-cars I want.
Today I voted for the Topaz, better price and some nostalgia from doing drivers ed in Tempos and Corsica’s of the era, all with blue interiors.
As much as I want to vote for the K-car because of how clean and complete it is, I just can’t click vote. I really, really dislike the K-car as a whole.
Here’s the thing about the Tempo/Topaz. Yes, it’s pretty miserable to drive but it’s light-years better than the Ford Fairmont it replaced. I think people tend to forget that.
I never thought I’d mutter these words, but “Damn, that white Topaz actually looks pretty good.” I especially like the rear view with the luggage rack.
I still have a nervous tick from the motorized seat belts in my 93 Escort wagon…
Assuming you are buying one of these to be ironic, the Chrysler is the way to go, with the Mercedes wheels, the talking computer, and the Reagan/Bush ’84 sticker.
Mark you almost got me to choose a K car! but it’s nearly 2x the price of the topaz. I really hate both lol. I drove a buddies tempo, it was crap crap crap (the escorts were nicer)
I think the light bar on the Topaz was a fake.
“The Tempo and Topaz never got airbags; they staggered along through their last four or five years of production meeting the passive-restraint mandate using motorized shoulder belts”
Not strictly true. For 1994, their last year, a driver’s side airbag was an option.
It was actually an option for the better part of the production run too, first as a fleet option in 1985 and one of the first production airbags of the time, becoming a retail option a couple years later. It was pretty limited in how you could spec it, brochures usually said sedans only, and I think you had to forego cruise and maybe even the tilt wheel with it. Looking for a good pic, but the Tempaz airbag wheel was a generic design and never switched to the square-centered one so ubiquitous in early 90s Ford products with integrated cruise or horn buttons. Like they specced the original in the 80s and that’s how little they wanted to invest, sticking with the original part. They were also an earlier adopter of the motorized belts, having them a couple years before 1990.
The Chrysler is nice enough from those pictures to gracefully waltz into a Mopar show and catch the eye of many a classic Chrysler owner.
But it’s also malaise enough that the modern LC/LX owners would never accept you as part of the show, and consider you just there for the laughs.
Having been to many Mopar shows in 80’s cars, the process is explain at length that you are there to enter the show while the volunteers all try to direct you to spectator parking. Once inside find the lone fwd class with that guy that still brings his PT cruiser and hope that you are far away from the LC/LX classes so you don’t have to listen to the looney tunes on repeat from all their cosplay show setups. They are too busy setting up their darth vader or shrek dolls to even care about anything else at the show.