Welcome back! As I sit here writing this on Wednesday evening, it’s a lovely sunny 65 degrees out here in Portland. I drove home from the big-box home improvement store with my windows down and my sunroof open, just soaking it all in. But there’s an even better way to enjoy all that sunshine: convertibles.
But before we get topless, let’s see how yesterday’s vote turned out. A lot of you thought these two would make a good two-car garage, and I’m inclined to agree. I’d maybe add a third car into the mix that’s actually fun to drive, however. But either or both of these two would serve anyone well. The Camry won the vote, based primarily on its condition, I think. That is one clean 28-year-old car.
There is already a GMT800 SUV in my own household fleet, a 2004 GMC Yukon very similar to this one, only 4WD. It’s a great truck, but I don’t think we need another. And if I ever were shopping in this price range again, I think fuel economy would be a prime consideration, so the Camry would get my vote on that measure alone.
Now: If you’ve never owned a convertible, you’re really missing out. Driving around with the top down on a nice day is pure joy, especially in the spring and fall when it’s not too hot out. I mean, there are drawbacks; you can’t yell at other drivers with impunity, because they can hear you. You will get caught in traffic in the rain with the top down at least once a season. And a parked convertible with the top down is a magnet for bullshit – I once left my Miata with the top down outside a brew pub, and came back to find a half-empty beer in the cupholder. Apparently someone was sitting in my car having a grand old time while we were inside eating. How rude.
But go out for a drive at sunset, with the top down, and all of that nonsense will be forgiven. A convertible doesn’t have to be fast, or handle well, or have a manual transmission. It just has to open up and let the world in. And a cheaper, older convertible is the way to go; let someone else pay the depreciation. Let’s see what you make of these two.
1986 Dodge 600 ES Turbo Convertible – $4,000
Engine/drivetrain: Turbocharged 2.2 liter overhead cam inline 4, three-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Olympia, WA
Odometer reading: 84,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
I’ve been trying to take it easy on the K-cars, because I know I’m alone in my love for them (unlike kei cars, which seem to be everyone’s darlings). But just look at this thing! It’s a Dodge 600 ES, with the turbo engine, the “pepperpot” wheels (not as cool as the earlier “Swiss cheese” wheels, but close), and a digital dash. I mean, come on. If ever there was a K-car to celebrate, it’s this one.
Under that magnificent louvered hood, you’ll find our old friend the 2.2-liter Turbo I engine, good for 146 horsepower – not a big number today, but plenty for the Reagan years. As befitting a comfy cruiser like this, it’s backed by a Torqueflite automatic. You could get a 600 ES with a five-speed manual, but I’ve seen exactly one in my life, and it was a four-door sedan. (I did, however, once own this car’s predecessor, the Dodge 400 two-door coupe, with a four-speed manual, a combination so rare that Mopar fans I’ve mentioned it to have disputed its existence.) This car has only 84,000 miles on its digital odometer, and the seller says it’s in fine shape.
The top is new, and works perfectly. The seats could use reupholstering, but the seller says another pair of seats is included, which may be in better shape. A spare digital gauge cluster, the original radio, and some other odds and ends are included too. One thing I do note about this car is the lack of air conditioning; not uncommon for a convertible of this age, but if you live somewhere with really hot summers, it could be a deal-breaker.
All right; so it’s still the bargain-basement K platform underneath, slapped together with 1980s Chrysler seat-of-the-pants build quality. But it’s also a rare bona-fide American classic, in mighty clean condition.
2005 Ford Thunderbird – $4,900
Engine/drivetrain: 3.9 liter dual overhead cam V8, five-speed automatic, RWD
Location: Camarillo, CA
Odometer reading: 145,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well, but has a parasitic battery drain
Ford’s eleventh-generation Thunderbird is pure retro pastiche, a throwback to the very first Thunderbirds from 1955-57. It should have worked; Volkswagen had a huge hit on its hands with the New Beetle, and Chrysler’s PT Cruiser was flying off dealer lots, and it wasn’t even based on any specific old car. But the T-Bird kind of landed with a thud. It sold all right initially, but by 2005, apparently every Baby Boomer who wanted a new-old Thunderbird already had one, and Ford pulled the plug.
It’s not that it’s an ugly car, exactly, but it leans so hard into the retro thing that it’s a little cringey. This one is missing its removable hardtop – which actually has portholes in it. I do have to admire Ford designers’ restraint in not putting tailfins on it. Like the original T-Bird, this one is a two-seater with a V8 under the hood. As part of Ford’s then-ownership of Jaguar, this car’s engine is actually a Jaguar AJ V8, backed by a Ford five-speed automatic. Neither is a paragon of reliability, but this car has managed 145,000 miles and still runs all right.
The top works, as does the air conditioning. However, there is a parasitic drain somewhere in the electrical system when the car is off; let it sit for a few days and the battery goes dead. I’ve dealt with drains like that before, and they’ll drive you nuts trying to find and fix them. On older cars, you can just install a battery cut-off switch and be done with it, but I’m not sure how well modern electronics would take to that.
It also needs a new turn signal switch; hopefully it’s an off-the-shelf Ford part and not something designed specifically for this car. That’s the biggest problem with lower-production cars like this, and the Dodge also, for that matter: If something is broken, and you can’t find the part, it stays broken.
It is my opinion that every car nut should own a convertible at some point. You won’t want to keep it forever; the irritations will get to you after a while, and you’ll want a hardtop back eventually. But having a drop-top for a while – and not just renting one on vacation, but actually being able to put the top down on the way home from the grocery store – is worth the trouble.
(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)
D/EW98 electrical gremlins, you don’t say! And no thanks. I would tool around in the nice and simple old K-car.
Well as someone who ones one of the two of course I had to vote for it even though the featured one is a little ratty, in the wrong color for a Convertible, lacking the hardtop and very high on miles compared to the average for them.
I’ve always kinda liked that generation of Thunderbird and would have voted for it…but I don’t think I would want that particular one. It looks kinda rough and I’m not a fan of the black on black color scheme. Especially when you could get some fun colors on one. And I don’t want to chase down electrical gremlins right off the bat. So, unusually for me, I voted for a K car.
Loved the T-birds when they came out, still do.
They did retro-inspired (e.g. not full-on retro as we’d later see with the S197 Mustang) well and I never fully got the hate.
What did people expect Ford to do…make a bespoke two-seater T-bird that looked exactly like the original and cost, what, $90k? How many of those would have sold? Ford tried hard to hit the sweet spot for a mass-market car, and while it may not be perfect, it was solid.
A big reason I like this one is the wheels. Unlike everyone else and their brother who got the optional bling bling chrome-colored big spoked ones on theirs, this one has the base alloys. They look so much better and more understated, which is in line with the original car’s mojo.
I always thought they were fine. Not for me, but I get the appeal of them. I like it way more than the S197 which is my least favorite Mustang style besides the II.
Totally agree – I’ve gotten a ton of crap over the years for suggesting that the S197 style isn’t that great b/c it was basically a greatest hits album.
I’m old enough to have been around when the Fox bodies arrived – in the early ’80s, it was common to see a few originals, a fair amount of IIs, and then new Foxes all running around. The Foxes stood out for being new, but you could still see the evolutionary connection.
I have always called the 05-09 the “whalebody” because it looks like a whale with its mouth wide open to me
My 2004 came with the chrome wheels which I do not like. However Ford still had a handful of NOS ones hanging around so I picked up a set like on the featured car for about the price of some crappy aftermarket wheels or what many are asking for used and abused versions. I think I’m going to pick up a 5th to have just in case.
Makes me happy Ford actually did that and was willing to actually sell them, instead of the common business “no we disposed of <discontinued product> immediately so nobody could have them” tack.
And that they have hung around for almost 20 years. Thankfully they use the same center caps as the chrome and non-chrome version of the other wheels. The funny thing is that when I ordered them I put in the VIN and got an email saying that those weren’t the “right” wheels for my particular car. My response was I know my car came with the ugly wheels which is why I’m buying a full set of the good looking ones. I could understand them questioning if I was only ordering 1 but a set of 4 was a little confusing since they do fit and have the same exact specs as far as sizing goes.
Ha! I had a similar experience when I got sick of replacing Ford’s infamously crappy jacketed lug nuts on my Focus and decided to get a set of unsexy but functional nuts from the base S model.
The parts finder kept telling me “these aren’t the right ones for your SE”. Actually, they are.
Interesting you bring up the S197 Mustang – I think we might disagree on this one.
I consider the Mustang to be one of few other retro-inspired cars that could stand on its own. It was clearly styled with the original in mind, but no styling elements appear out of place and it doesn’t appear the vehicle made any sacrifices to be retro. If that car existed in a vacuum, it wouldn’t strike me as unusual.
When I think full-on retro, I’m thinking of vehicles like the SSR and the New Beetle. The New Beetle was a Golf with a body that limited rear seat and cargo room. The SSR sacrificed almost all utility to look like it does. I’m not trying to be critical of the SSR or New Beetle (I really like the second generation New Beetle/Beetle and I appreciate SSR styling), but they are great examples of vehicles that gave up a lot of function to capture the look of a historic vehicle. There is also no universe where the SSR and New Beetle would exist had the originals they were emulating not existed.
I think Ford has done retro vehicles right. The Thunderbird, Mustang, and current Bronco are the best retro-inspired vehicles thus far.
Your vacuum existence question is very thought-provoking.
From my pov, the original Mustang design is really a channeling of the original passenger car design from the turn of the century – long hood to enclose an engine, then passenger space, then what’s left for a trunk for storage. The original Mustang is a mid-century riff on that, on which the S197 then riffs.
But a Beetle seems the first of its kind. So the New Beetle (aside: I really liked the second gen too) is then imitating that. So maybe the stand-alone-ness might hinge on the amount of time a design is in play?
Interesting point about the Mustang. I can see what you mean that it is channeling the design of traditional passenger cars.
I would argue the Beetle is doing something similar, though. Many cars designed in the 30s and 40s had hoods that tapered inward toward the front of the car and fenders that were separated from the body. The tapered hood and separated fenders are two of the more distinctive styling elements of the Beetle. The rear engine layout allowed the hood to slope sharply downward toward the front of the car, but it otherwise has similar styling cues to its contemporaries. The surprising thing about the Beetle is that a car designed in the 1930s survived mostly unchanged (at least in terms of styling) until the early 2000s.
The more I think about it, I have no idea what a car designed in a vacuum would actually look like, or if it can even exist at all. It is interesting to think about it.
This is such a great discussion topic – thank you for posing it! I’ve been thinking about it more too, and maybe the unease over the New Beetle came b/c it was basically concurrent with the original?
As since the Beetle never really changed that much design wise, the new one for sure couldn’t pass your vacuum test b/c in a sense, the original was still around.
I think part of the problem with the New Beetle was that it was perceived as a “Beetle” first and a modern car second. The target audience was drivers who owned and loved air-cooled Beetles in their youth. While these people had a lot of positive associations with their cars, they also remembered the downsides (limited interior room, engine noise, lack of heat, lack of mass in front of the driver in the event of a collision, etc.).
I talked to a lot of people who were unaware the New Beetle was a front drive, water cooled car. Several people I talked to expressed concerned about safety and the lack of an effective heater. They were always surprised to hear a New Beetle was basically a Golf, and that it had nothing in common with the original Beetle aside from the overall shape.
In hindsight, VW was in a tough position with the New Beetle. They had to design a car that was Beetle enough to provoke nostalgia, yet different enough for buyers to realize it was a modern car.
And then at least the S197 Mustang is authentic to what it is, compared to the New Beetle’s being basically a car that’s skinned to look like another car.
I love those T-Birds as well. Right on, Jack!
This is high praise from a guy who is probably at this very moment searching auction sites for “Dodge 600 manual.”
For my part, I’ll admit that as much as I prefer the T-bird’s wheels relative to others available for it, I prefer the Dodge’s in absolute terms.
I remember the days of the K’s very well, and I have zero nostalgia for most of them. I also kinda dig the T-bird in spite of it’s winga-dinga(TM-RCR) target market.
Fair on not, I’ve always placed the T-bird and Chevy HHR in the “How NOT to design a retro” category. And I’ll be a total snob here and say that all of my convertibles shall remain British and of the sporting variety.
This pairing reminds me of the Simpsons crab juice bit:
Blecch! Ew! Sheesh! I’ll take the K-car.
I’ll take the Thunderbird. I think it is one of very few retro style vehicles that works. It has some styling cues of the original T-bird, but it isn’t cartoonish and it doesn’t look like a caricature of an old car. My litmus test is this – if the original car didn’t exist, would this car still be appealing? For Thunderbird, the answer is yes. It is a reasonably comfortable two door convertible that looks nice.
Being someone who identifies as a boomer (despite being 40) I am not entirely sure what “cringey” means, but from the context I will assume it is a pejorative. This car is NOT cringey. It is cool. Get off my lawn.
From my pov, you’ve hit the nail on the head – retro cues, not full-on retro.
I much prefer a contemporary design that has definite callbacks to older stuff compared with an attempt to reproduce an original as much as possible. That way, there’s a least a little to connect it to its actual time. More authentic to what it really is, maybe?
Otherwise, you end up with this weird recursion like sometimes seen in pop culture – e.g. “hey, remember in the ’70s when we remembered the ’50s?”
You said it best: “if the original car didn’t exist, would this car still be appealing?”
Agree this is true for this thunderbird;
The K-car just looks like 90% of all cars from that era. Malaise
entirely agree.. didn’t much like them originally, but they have grown on me. Definitely a huge improvement on the previous generation of T-bird.
Most T-birds of this vintage were garage queens and low-mileage, which gives correspondingly higher prices. This one looks reasonable condition and at that price is nearly unique.
Parasitic battery drains, I’ve seen a few, I’m not afraid..
I was in Phoenix this winter, saw more of these than anywhere else I have travelled..
I know I’m in the minority with this opinion, but I have always irrationally loved the retro T-Bird. As a teen when these came out, they really struck me at the time. I love almost everything J Mays designed frankly. Even with the abysmally bad mis-aughts interior, I’m going T-Bird all day over that god-awful K car.
The retro Thunderbird never really did much for me. I’d happily go with the turbo K-car ‘vert any day of the week.
Obviously to each their own (seeing comments from those who had good k-car experiences) but for me you could put one of DT’s ‘project’ vehicles against a k-car and the k-car isn’t winning.
For me a K-car is the anti-Miata; never the answer.
Neither. For that much money I’ll find a roached out Miata.
Exactly.
As someone who bought a slightly roached Miata for this much money: I’d take either of these options over a Miata that needs significant paint or body work.
A convertible is an outfit; it should look good on you, and you should to feel good in it. I don’t give a shit how my cars generally look…exceot the Miata, and I think it’s for this reason.
I’d happily take a mechanically totalled but otherwise pristine Miata or MR2. But I’d take one of today’s choices over a truly scuffed Miata for the same price. Especially the Dodge. Mmmm, the anemoia is strong with that K-car.
The retro T-bird not only shared an engine with the S Type, they also used the same platform, along with the Lincoln LS.
I had a K-vertible in worse shape than this one in the late 90s. I had a lot of fun with that car. This one looks like a blast but the lack of AC in an otherwise loaded car is weird. I’m going K today!
I’ve often wondered how fun the T-bird would be with a modular ford V8, a 5 speed manual and a supercharger…
For that matter, a supercharged motor from a Jaguar S-Type R would slot right in, as well….
You know what? I kind of like that Dodge, and I don’t have a soft spot for K cars. I’m picking the Thunderbird though. Yeah it’s pretty big and the retro styling is a little cheesy, but it’s a charmer nonetheless. It’s RWD and has the excellent LS platform underpinning it, so I’m sure it has more grace than appearances suggest.
If I’m gonna deal with a Jaguar engine, there better be a cat leaping off the hood. Otherwise what’s the point?
The Special K makes for a perfect summer beater. A/C isn’t a big deal because if it’s hot enough for A/C then it’s too hot to put the top down, so just take another car that day. I hope the extra seats are good, because the ones in the car are done.
I always liked the T-bird.
The K all the way. It’s 100% fun. It’s perfect for a Radwood event, and parts should be plentiful.
As a former Dodge 600 (Sedan) owner, I’m all in on the K! They drive better than they should, and even the non-turbo scoots better than you’d expect, I love the Turbo’s laggy power band and the auto makes this the perfect summer cruiser.
Count me in as another man of taste and culture who appreciates K-cars! It’s the Dodge for me.
I like T-birds, but the faux-retro ‘Bird is not for me. Everything about it just seems phoned-in, and always has since it debuted.
I’ll take the Thunderturd over the 600 EW turbo.
I changed my mind. Gimme the 600 EW turbo. The Thunderturd can take a hike.
This is the forbidden fruit element talking given I’m from the UK, but I’ve always loved the way those T-birds look and for that price I don’t think I’d mind digging into it a bit to try and fix a couple of problems. Looks classy in black, too.
These are both great convertible cruisers, IMO, but, as the owner of a black convertible in an area that gets really hot in the summer, no AC, even on a convertible, is a deal breaker.
T-bird for me!!
I voted TBird but both of these are just so undesirable.
When you look at the choices then ask yourself if K-cars are really as bad as you remember