Good morning, and welcome back to Shitbox Showdown! It’s the tail-end of November, with winter coming soon for most of the USA. What better time to check out convertibles? Today we’ve got two early-90s droptops tuned for comfort rather than speed, and both are in remarkably good shape.
Before I show you those, we should check the results from yesterday. Everyone’s favorite erstwhile Swedish automaker pulls out another win, with that red 900 Turbo absolutely crushing the Discovery. A lot of commenters seemed to think the Saab would be “less work,” but I’ve owned a Saab, and I’m not sure that’s true. I think I’ll take the Discovery, myself.
Besides, every summer at the Portland All-British Field Meet, the Land Rover contingent looks like they’re having the most fun. Land Rover club members give rides around the motocross track in the PIR infield in old crusty Land Rovers, and it’s a blast. This year, we took a ride in a beat-up Range Rover driven by a woman whose name I think was Sarah, and we loved it. I “get” Land Rovers now, and an old stickshift Disco would be a great way to join the fun. Yeah, it might turn out to be a Disco Apocalypse, but that’s the risk you take.
Anyway, let’s check out some convertibles. After Lee Iacocca’s revival in the early ’80s, convertibles enjoyed quite a renaissance in America. Almost every carmaker offered one for a while, and usually more than one. They’re relegated to sporty coupes like the Mustang now, but comfy near-luxury convertibles were A Thing for a decade or more. Let’s take a look at two of them from the early 1990s.
1990 Chrysler LeBaron Convertible – $3,750
Engine/drivetrain: 3.0 liter overhead cam V6, four-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Odometer reading: 81,000 miles
Runs/drives? Yep!
I’m not sure what corner got turned in the Chrysler design department in the mid-1980s, but thank goodness for it. The K-cars, for all their virtues (and they had many, don’t roll your eyes like that), were not what you’d call stylish cars. Fortunately, the stodgy upright look was gone from nearly all of them except the traditional full-size sedans by 1990, and a sleeker, more modern look had taken over. And the Chrysler LeBaron, of all things, was one of the best examples.
Under the sleek hood was a welcome horsepower and torque infusion from Chrysler’s Japanese partner Mitsubishi, in the form of a three-liter V6, shared with many other Chrysler and Mitsubishi vehicles. There’s nothing remarkable about it, good or bad; it has a tendency to burn oil at higher mileages, but otherwise keeps pumping out middling amounts of power to the front wheels through, in this case, Chrysler’s then-new and unproven Ultradrive four-speed automatic. A lot of these early Ultradrives had problems, mainly due to improper maintenance, but if this one has been kept up as well as the rest of the car appears to have been, I’m sure it’s in fine shape.
This LeBaron has a scant 81,500 miles on its futuristic digital odometer, and it looks like it. Normally seat covers are a bit of a red flag, but in this case, I have a feeling they’ve been on there since 1993 and the seats are immaculate underneath. I could be wrong, but this doesn’t look like a car that has led a hard life.
I expect to hear the usual barrage of LeBaron references in the comments: Jon Voight, Kitty/Karen, etc. But make sure you don’t miss the obvious one. Otherwise, I’ll have to tell you that we used to be friends.
1994 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme Convertible – $4,000
Engine/drivetrain: 3.1 liter overhead valve V6, four-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Reno, NV
Odometer reading: 167,000 miles
Runs/drives? Sure does!
K-car just isn’t your style, and nothing I say can convince you? Fair enough. How about General Motors’s slightly larger chassis-that-went-under-everything, the W-body? Here we have a model unique to the Oldsmobile brand, a drop-top Cutlass Supreme. It’s not quite the full open-air experience that the LeBaron is, due to that basket-handle roll bar, but I can’t fault it too much, because it retains the W-body coupe’s coolest feature: those door handles in the B-pillars. I don’t know why, but I always thought those were neat.
Powering this Cutlass is GM’s ubiquitous 60-degree pushrod V6, the engine nobody loved, but everybody bought. Like the Chrysler/Mitsubishi V6 in the LeBaron, it’s just sorta there, occasionally developing piston slap, or springing a coolant leak, but otherwise chugging along. GM’s 4T60E Turbo-Hydramatic handles the gear-changing duties.
THis car has more than twice the miles on it that the Chrysler does, but you wouldn’t know it to look at it. The paint is shiny, the interior is rip- and stain-free, and apart from a missing Oldsmobile emblem on the nose, I can’t really see anything wrong with it. It runs and drives great, according to the seller, and has a stack of service records and receipts from recent repairs.
I always liked the W-body Cutlass, and I think it makes a handsome convertible. Or is it technically a cabriolet, because of the basket-handle? I can never keep that all straight. Whatever. It’s a good-looking car with a top that goes down.
I know there are those of you that hate convertibles, and having owned one myself for several years, I understand why. It’s a pain in the ass at times. You can basically never lock it, for fear of someone just slicing open the top to break in. It’s always too hot or too cold to drive around with the top down, except for those few perfect days of the year. And when you drive with the top up, you’ve got blind spots the size of the Queen Mary. But the romance of them is undeniable, and when you do get those perfect top-down days (or nights; driving a convertible at night is an absolute treat), you tend to forget all that other stuff. And these two happen to be pretty good cars, independent of their convertible-ness. So which one will it be?
(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)
I personally take no issue to people asking me how ‘Jon’ is spelt or being asked if I wear a short shirt, or a long jacket. And lets get real, both cars are sort of a joke anyway, and you sort of need a sense of humor to enjoy either of them. The condition of that LeBaron is too good to be denied.
Buy the Olds. Strip out all of the combustion bits. Shove in a Chevy eCrate. Really enjoy cruising around Reno.
Always liked the looks of the Cutlass. It wasn’t a sporty car, but it sure looked like one. I can’t argue against Veronica’s LeBaron, but Cutlass for me easily.
The biggest objection to the Lebaron is the fuzzy boudoir photography style pictures. They are great for masking the scratches, dents and little defects.
The GM product is near the end of its mileage allotment, and lots of recent repairs either mean it’s mechanically fantastic or everything plastic, rubber and aluminum is dying and it’s only one tiny catastrophe from going tires up.
Both are enjoy-it-while-it-lasts buys, and neither is anywhere near Toyota quality. The Chrysler product is a toss of the dice, and the GM product is no better. So low mileage makes the difference for my vote, but since there are already 4 convertibles in my fleet, neither of these slushboxers will even get serious consideration.
Too much ptsd from picking broken parts off the ground around that Gen LeBaron. Olds all the way.
Looks like I’m in the minority, but I really don’t like the looks of the Cutlass. That roll bar just looks tacked on to me while the LeBaron looks a lot cleaner, so I voted Chrysler. That said, the only reason to buy either of these would be to have some sort (ANY sort) of convertible. There’s never been a time in my life in which I wanted a droptop enough to want either of these.
LeBaron all day. I’m not a big fan of the Mitsu 3.0, the ’88 Grand Voyager we had needed headgaskets every 30k or so, but this gen of LeBaron is simply beautiful to my eyes. A red ’88 coupe was the first car I ever drove and I’ve always loved them. I’m so jealous that Mexico got this car with the Turbo III from the Spirit R/T/Daytona IROC R/T. Why didn’t we get that?
That’s not to say I’d kick the Cutlass out of bed, either. An identical car was one of the highlights of RADwood Charlotte back in the spring. But I’ve got to give it to the Chrysler. If it was in my region I might be sorely tempted.
My name is Jim, and I’m a Mimbo.
When I lived in coastal New Jersey circa 2000, there was a mid-thirties-age blonde who tooled around town in one of these. I crossed her path a few times and after maybe the second time she would greet me with a smile that would make a bishop kick out a stained glass window.
She never said anything to me, just smiled, which spoke volumes: warm, sincere, unpretentious.
This cutlass could be hers, and I voted for it. I’m sure this would make her smile.
I loathe the K-car and absolutely every last iteration of it that was ever built. I can respect what it represents while simultaneously not liking it at all. The only way to make it even less appealing to me is to ask me whether I would rather have a convertible Lebaron, or a W-body Cutlass “basket handle” convertible. Are you kidding? Really? The two juxtaposed next to each other look like Dad’s boring car, and the teenager’s exciting car.
Not only would I have no patience for the “Seinfeld” jokes that would certainly follow me around in the Lebaron, but I would also have a sweet tooth to see what it would take to drop a supercharged 3800 between the fenders of the Cutlass. No contest. At all. As of this writing, a majority of you are on crack for voting for the Chrysler.
Yup! This one was easy…it’s an Oldsmobile! (Which I miss a lot, along w/ Pontiac!)
I hate the handle on the Cutlass while the LeBaron looks clean and well cared for. Going for the Chrysler
I thought these Cutlass Supremes were pretty awesome when they came out. Design hasn’t aged badly. Cutlass for me.
If taking the LeBaron, make sure to take Backup, too!
I really like them both!
Was a hard choice for me too. I think the deciding factor for me is I’m one of those weirdos that likes the sound of the 3100 V6. My parents bought a Grand Prix just as I was entering high school, and I learned to drive on it, so… very familiar.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a convertible with the later SFI 3100 V6 before – there’s a few early ones around with the older MPFI 3100 (which was the only engine available for a bit) but, the majority are the ‘Twin Dual Cam’ (GM speak for DOHC which, fun fact – there were 4 different DOHC engines available in the W-bodies, all from completely separate engine architectures). I’d rather a TDC, but, being that I own several SFI 3100s, a red convertible gets my vote all day long.
I don’t want either of them, because I’m not a fan of this type of convertible, but I have always had a weird soft spot for those later Cutlasses with the squinty multi-element headlights. Even in convertible form, I still find them to be pretty good looking cars – at least with the top down. So, yeah… give me the Cutlass.
The Cutty is a much better looking car. Since these cars are all about looks, it’s the clear winner.
I wouldn’t mind the LeBaron for the hidden headlights and digital dash, but a GT/GTC would have more pull for me. Even so, I do really like these Supremes and have to go that way. If the Olds had the HUD, or the digital dash (which was dropped by ’94 I think), or perhaps a more 90s color like bright aqua or dark teal (more green, and I think added for ’95), that would really seal the deal.
Lebaron for me. I like how it looks a bit better and I also know the GM W-body cars were not actually very good designs.
With the Chrysler, you have a much higher likelihood of having a cheap-to-maintain reliable car. Just make sure you change the oil and transmission fluid when due.
I always liked the version of the Oldsmobile convertible that had a hint of a rear spoiler that extended to the tail lights.
Isn’t there a tail light expert around here somewhere that can tell us if that was unique?
What would the Torch version of the Bat Signal be?
maybe red-lettered STOP like the old aftermarket Model T add-on brake lights?
Probably more like a one-year only original Beetle tail lamp assembly that came to the US with reflectors, but are somehow reversible so they could be installed on either side. But the mounting hardware was from an Audi for the Canadian market. He’d spot those in a sec.
I really love that Olds. My neighbor had the same car but with a white interior. It was striking. The Chrysler on the other hand, you’d own a 303 year old Chrysler and that seems like you’re asking for trouble. I owned a ’95 and ’00 Chrysler product and they both started to fall apart after about 70,000 miles. I will go with the GM saying “nothing runs bad longer than a GM”.
I had honestly forgotten that open Cutlasses even existed. Partly because that was during my air cooled VW phase, but mostly because I became a single father so sub-$1k beaters were all I could afford. Did have a ‘79 Cutlass, but only because I got it for $75, then put a $75 transmission in it.
Voted Cutlass due to an abiding non-affection for LeBarons
Way back in BoomerVille Cutlass convertibles were like seaglass on the shoreline. They always caught your eye with glimmer and sparkle (mid-60s to early 70s). Then of course we had the Hurst Olds (mid 70s) which was the gold/white Cutlass with a T-Top. And this was an absolute thing of beauty with or without Linda Vaughan draped over the deck lid (tho *with was bettah).
Early GenXer here. I should have said after the 70s. The big ol’ red Cutlass with that white interior open to the sky was an object of lust in my early teens. Won’t even talk about the percolating hormones Linda caused
They certainly did some Glamour Shots of that LeBaron! Too bad that at the end of the day it’s still a LeBaron.
I voted for it purely for the Emanuelle-style soft-focus pics.
Emmanuelle?
You, good sir, are welcome on my lawn anytime. Or in my living room when Cinemax After Dark comes on. Just wait until my parents go to bed.
I’m voting the cutlass because it’s beautiful, but my wife had one of that era lebaron and it had the incredibly comfortable seats. when we were shopping for a replacement for that wheezy POS we were always amazed at how good the seats felt were when we would get back into it after test driving whatever.
I love this version of the Cutlas Supreme. Olds all the way. It’s even red like a convertible should be.
“GM’s ubiquitous 60-degree pushrod V6, the engine nobody loved, but everybody bought.” That same engine and the accompanying three-speed automatic transmission powered my 90 Beretta for 240,000 trouble-free miles until I opted for a fancier European sports sedan (big, big mistake on my part). That engine/trans combo was incredible. I loved it.