Good morning! We’re up to the letter S in our trip through the alphabet, and I hesitate to even show you the cars I chose for today, because I already know which one is going to win. I knew the second I saw it that I wasn’t going to find a worthy competitor for it. But I did my best.
Yesterday ended up being a bit of a blowout as well, with the Renault 17 absolutely obliterating the Reliant Robin. I don’t think most of you actually wanted either one of them, but the Renault took the win based on it already being in this country, and possessing a sensible number of wheels.
I not only choose the Renault over a decrepit tricycle an ocean away; I actually kinda want it. If I had a warehouse stocked full of tools and a lift, I fear my real car collection would closely resemble my RC car collection: very silly, often broken, and far too numerous. Good thing I’m limited to a two-car garage and a carport, I guess.
I wasn’t sure which way to go with S. There are some good S makes – Simca, Saturn, Studebaker – but I know that Saab is always a big crowd-pleaser here. But it couldn’t be just any Saab; I had to find something you all haven’t seen before. And oh boy, did I find it. To go along with it, I first checked to see if that Sunbeam Alpine coupe that has been kicking around the Pacific Northwest for a decade happened to be for sale again at the moment; no dice. But I did find a very nice old Subaru that I think you might like. Let’s take a look.
1969 Saab 95 panel van – $8,900
Engine/drivetrain: 1.5-liter overhead valve V4, four-speed manual, FWD
Location: San Leandro, CA
Odometer reading: 42,000 miles (probably rolled over at least once)
Operational status: “Runs like a champ”
Panel vans are cool. So are old Saabs. But never in my fifty-two years did I have any idea that such a thing as a Saab panel van roamed this Earth, nor that you could buy a good-running one in California for less than ten grand. I’m sure someone out there was aware of the existence of these things, knowing the intense nerdery of this crowd, but I certainly wasn’t. Just look at that image above. Have you ever seen anything quite so fundamentally, inherently right?
This 95 is new enough to be equipped with a Ford-sourced V4 engine instead of the two-stroke triple of earlier cars. It’s easier to live with, and just as weird. It drives the front wheels through a column-shifted four-speed manual, which I believe is still equipped with a freewheel mechanism, so don’t expect any engine-braking on downshifts. This one runs very well, according to the seller, and has been well-maintained. It looks like it; if you know old car engine bays, you can usually see if something has been looked after just from the general appearance. Nice shiny hose clamps, a smattering of new parts, and a lack of leaks and grime are all good signs.
This car is actually a seven-seat wagon with two rows of fold-down seats; the second row faces forward, and a third row faces out the back, Country Squire-style. I can only imagine how sluggish this thing is with seven passengers, but it is theoretically possible. Personally, I’d just leave those seats down and use it as a van.
Outside, it’s straight and rust-free, but it looks like the front fenders came from a different car. It’ll need some paint if you want it to look its best. But honestly, I think it looks all right as-is. My only gripe is that the seller installed those awful-looking aftermarket LED headlights. Yeah, I know, they’re brighter than halogens, but they look out of place on a car this old.
1983 Subaru GL-10 sedan – $5,000
Engine/drivetrain: 1.8-liter overhead valve flat 4, five-speed manual, FWD
Location: Portland, OR
Odometer reading: 133,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Model names for cars didn’t used to be strictly necessary. Back when automakers only made a bunch of variations on one basic car, you could just say “1953 Chevy” or whatever, and, barring a few trim differences, everybody knew what you meant. Up until the latter part of the 1980s, Subaru only sold one basic car in the US, in four or five body styles, and although that car had a model name in other markets (Leone), it wasn’t used here. Hence, this is just a 1983 Subaru sedan, in top-of-the-line GL-10 trim.
Not only did Subaru in the early 1980s not have model names, they didn’t necessarily all have four-wheel-drive. The front-mounted boxer engine was there, and had been since the late 1960s, but it drove only the front wheels, unless you specifically ordered 4WD. You could also get a turbocharged engine starting in 1983, but this car doesn’t have that either. What it does have is a five-speed manual transmission and a whole list of recent services and repairs. It has a few minor issues, namely a slight coolant leak and some minor electrical gremlins, but basically it runs and drives just fine.
The GL-10 package included a whole bunch of options, including power windows, a sunroof, and a digital dash. It also has air conditioning, but the seller says its output is weak; you’ll probably have to have it converted to R-134a if you want any real cooling. It also has some service indicator lights in the message center that come on at odd times. Old cars; what are you gonna do?
It’s clean as a whistle outside, and in a nice shade of green. This is another one of those cars that, because of where I lived, I have a twenty-year gap in seeing them. They were fairly common when I was a kid in Chicago, but few of them made it out of the 1980s due to rust, and during my years in Wisconsin and Minnesota, there were none to be found. When I moved to the West Coast, suddenly they reappeared, and they’re just normal-ass cars there. This car was daily-driven for eight years until the seller bought it last year.
Look, I already know the Saab is going to win. But humor me, and let’s pretend this is a competition. I mean, as Subarus go, that’s a pretty nice one. Make your choice, and I’ll see you back here tomorrow for the letter T.
I appreciate that Saabs exist. I like that there are other people that like Saabs because I do like seeing them in the wild, but I just can’t get excited by the idea of having a Saab. The Subie on the other hand is ringing all of my nostalgia bells.
Tough one. The saab is weird as fuck and needs work, but so so cool.
The subie is in great shape, and from the same year as me, but meh.
Weird wins every time, with my fake internet money.
Have to go with the Saab, “born from jets”, but I guess this was born from a cargo jet as opposed to a fighter jet.
Just because something is old or rare does not mean it’s valuable.
That Saab has a cool factor by nature of how fkn WEIRD it is, but that Subaru has no redeeming qualities beyond simply existing. Ok, and being green, I’ll give it that.
If the Saab was 6 or 7K cheaper MAYBE, but other than that, hard pass on both.
There is a cool factor with the Saab, but I’ve only driven a column shift once on an old Chevy C-10 and it was *horrible*. It might be a manual but it’s an automatic… no from me. UR A BUS gets my vote.
I had the pleasure of test driving a saab sonnet v4 column shift. It was an absolute hoot.
The Saab is cool, but I’d take the GL-10. Love the color scheme, the size, the 5 speed manual, and those old school wheels are right for this car.
Who needs another boring sedan? Give me the Saab.
Yeah, but does it run like a Studebaker Champ, the vehicle I wish was in the competition today?
…or mebbe a Fender Champ, which I can see tucked into the back of that little BandWagon.
Of course, to be cushioned by several semi-soft cases containing stratocasters, telecasters, and budweisercasters (post gig)
I’ll take the Subaru and enjoy the perplexed looks on people’s faces when I get it stuck in the next snowstorm.
No question on this one. We already have a boring sedan that will always be more reliable than that Subie. The Saab has plenty of issues, but it’s funky and way more interesting; it’s definitely a conversation starter, even if Saab purists won’t want to talk nicely about it. 😉
It’s only boring to you if you’re not interested in it. On the other hand, I’d probably look that thing over for a good half hour instead of YET ANOTHER Tri-Five Chevy or fucking Mustang.
Maybe it’s where I live. As he says, they’re just normal-ass cars out here. (Although this one is in far better shape than most.)
Yeah, those are so rare in New England. they’re all piles of rust or crushed into some other consumer good now.
This is a tough one in many ways. The patina on the Saab is charming and the V4 is a bonus, but the ad for the Subie is truly excellent and the seller seems like exactly the kind of person you’d want to buy an old Subaru from. Yes, the Saab is unique but when did you last see a GL, let alone one this nice, on the road? I wound up going with the Subaru today but it could easily have been the Saab.
I don’t need a Sob Story! Subie Scooby Do !
That Saab is cool as hell but my best friend in highschool had this same Subaru in yellow (We all ride in a yellow Subaru, a yellow Subaru, a yellow Subaru.) so I’ve gotta vote Subie for nostalgic reasons but today could really use a BOTH option.
My thought, too! I had the yellow (beige, in my case) Subaru that I painted green; my car was a GLF, the 2-door version of this car (analog dash, though).
Total nostalgia vote, for the GL-10 today.
Was it faded yellow like so many old subarus?
Yep a very light shade of yellow.
And once again, weird wins! Go Saab.
Well this was never in doubt for my vote, but can I have both?
Definitely would redo whatever janky fenders those are and redo the headlights. That Saab would fit right into my planned fleet of Saabs. (My wife agreed to another pre-GM convertible, but I haven’t told her about the planned 900 turbo, 99, and another 9-5 wagon. We had a 9-5 that was cursed and sold it, but I still love that car. Night panel!
My planned fleet of Saabs, that will never happen, are all Sonnets of various years and colors.
But given how little room there is in a Sonnet this cargo van can be your parts getter
https://www.theautopian.com/somebody-needs-to-explain-what-1971-saab-was-thinking-with-this-wagon-seat-arrangement-here/
I don’t get why that article even exists. The seating arrangement exists because it was only a 2-door vehicle. So it let you keep three rows of seats, without requiring origami-folding-yourself to get to the rear most row.
I want that saab as an use occasionally camping car. Fix it up a little. bolt the panels on better, clear coat the patina, find some AT tires, put a mattress in the back and she is a little slow camper.
Subaru for me. It’s in much better condition at half the price. And I hate the ‘patina’ trend which is just a lousy excuse for not giving a car a proper paint job.
Plus I’m not a fan of the mods the owner of the Saab did. I get the impression that the Saab owner thinks he’s making the car ‘better’ but he’s actually making it worse by killing the originality. Seriously… he wants to install a multifunction unit in place of getting the original speedometer fixed???
And I’m guessing this originally was a wagon that had windows in the back… not those blackout panels. Why? I’m guessing this thing is being restored on the cheap.
Nah… I’ll take the non-project-car Subaru at half the price over the somebody-else’s-unfinished-project Saab. The Saab, in its current state, is grossly overpriced. Don’t care if it’s rare. Rare does not automatically mean valuable.
Subaru. The Saab is too weird and needs too much work.
The Subaru is in better condition and cheaper.
That Saab is a hot mess in terms of condition. I didn’t know they offered the 7-seater with no windows.
I’m guessing they didn’t. I’m guessing this is being ‘restored’ on the cheap. And putting in blackout panels was easier and cheaper than locating replacement glass or getting the glass made.
You’re right about this not being an original panel van, but Saab made a “sedan delivery” version of the 95 for quite a few years in the 1960s. This one is wrong… it’s missing the vestigial C pillar that’s visible in the real ones.
The other indicator would be the engine, which probably is a 1.7. A real panel van likely would have had an earlier 1.3 or 1.5 V4, or even a 2-stroke.
You’re correct about the factory sedan deliveries having the window openings stamped in place, making the car offered above not original:
https://www.diyauto.com/uploads/users/3/2017/05/4557699754_44592c5718_o-1493910232.jpg
SAAB continued making a handful of sedan deliveries into the ’70s, however, so the later examples came with the same 1.7 as the corresponding regular 95, the 96, and the 97. SAAB never used the 1.3 version of the Taunus V4, though, just the 1.5 and 1.7.
I had a ’70 95 briefly and it was interesting but in rather poor condition. I ended up taking a few parts off of it for my 96 and 97, then passed it along to someone else who used what was left of it similarly.
The Saab for sure, just due to weirdness.
I don’t know the rule for smog in CA: if the engine in that Saab is sourced from a Ford ’76 or newer, maybe that means that this weird panel van DOES need to be smogged every two years?
That would rob it of some of its awkward charm IMO, but I’d still probably prefer it to the Subie (which is fine, just not that interesting).
The seller says the engine is original to the car, which is believable. This panel van version was Euro only, so it’s an import that likely had the earlier 1.3 or 1.5-liter V4. I think all the Saabs built for sale in the U.S. had the 1.7-liter version of the V4.
AFAIK, Ford never sold any cars with that engine in the U.S.
The US-market V4 cars first came with the open-deck 1.5, then the closed-deck 1.5, then the 1.7, the same as other markets. SAAB never used the 1.3 version of the V4 anywhere.
Thanks for the clarification. That should have been Saab-vious to me!
IIRC the stated power stayed the same for reasons of emissions and compression ratio.
The Saab may seem right to some, but it seems butt-ugly to me. There’s not a single angle on that thing that is attractive. It’s like it was built out of spare parts in a car port.
The finish/”patina” would be fine if the panel gaps weren’t wide enough to kick a field goal through. The stance is awkward. The visibility while driving? Yeah, right. You get none. It’s like it’s waiting to kill you, and not in an exciting way, because it’s got the grunt of a Vespa with a morbidly obese saquatch riding in the bitch seat.
The Subaru? It’s not powerful, or sexy, or innovatively styled. But it doesn’t look like it’s ready to drop panels every time you hit the brakes hard (…and it has brakes). It’s been taken care of, and the interior appears to be that appropriately-styled 80’s nostalgia hit that many are looking for these days. The green finish on the outside is a bonus.
The Subie is an easy win here. The Saab? It’ll take a LOT of work to make that car desireable or even regularly driveable.
The issue with your logic is that it assumes the goal is a car that can be used as a regular mode of transportation. Neither of these is good for that. Their only appeal is as a quirky and rarely driven toy that can make it to a local Cars & Coffee. For that duty the Subaru is too bland to be of any interest while the Saab is perfect.
BTW, their HP ratings were not far off from one another and the Saab is lighter.
They saved a ton of weight by providing no interior comfort, pizza cutter wheels and tires, and no crash protection. Even with that, the Saab is only a little bit lighter.
1983 Subaru GL: 2235 lbs, 72 hp
1969 Saab: 1960 lbs, 65 hp
I know which one I’d want to be in – the one that makes it to the destination, and can change lanes without having to perform a ritual sacrifice to survive.
As I said, they have almost exactly the same power/weight. The idea that the Saab is slower than the Subaru is just wrong. In fact, based on your numbers the Saab is a bit better.
But the main issue is there isn’t any reason to get the Subaru at all. It’s just too dull. There are much better options for $5k if all you want to do is get to your destination. Not that either of these is wirth the money being asked.
You’re right about the pricing.
But I would actually drive the Subaru.
The Subaru is better transportation but has zero personality. For something that only hits the road a few times a year. Interesting > dull.
Nom de gustibus disputandum est – there are plenty of us who find a well-preserved 80’s Subaru sedan to be interesting.
I’d look at both of them if they were parked at a car show. Considering that the Saab is kind of a mess, I’d probably spend more time with the “dull” green Subie.
At the last car show I went to, I spent a decent few minutes walking around a showroom-quality mid-eighties GM 4 door sedan. Not because it was an oddball, but because it’s rare to see someone take care of one. They displayed the original window stickers, paperwork, and manual with it. It was like a time-machine. The Subaru is closer to that (and could be very similar, with a small amount of work).
The Saab is weird, but not in a way that holds my attention. A late 60’s (barely) survivor with no real features that I look for. It’s probably just me – I have a feeling that the Saab will actually win today’s vote.
Survey says scarce slabbed seven-seater Swedish Saab sure seems straightforward selection, still, somehow sedate, sensibly saved sage Subaru sedan strikes stronger sensations.
Succinctly said.
Such skillful, sharp, superb, striking, sentencing!
The Subaru is a better looking car and in better condition. Voted accordingly.
Right now that Saab hits me like a Swedish bikini!
My day is made.