Welcome back! Today we’re going to check out two cars that you could build convincing models of using cinder blocks. One is the first in a long line of boxy sedans, and the other is one of many similar-looking rectilinear SUVs. Is it really hip to be square? We’re going to find out.
Yesterday we took a trip to the Chicago suburbs, where we looked at a scruffy Hyundai and a Mercury with bald tires. I expected this one to be closer, but the Mystique simply ran away with the vote. I don’t know if it was the Elantra’s hideous exterior or just the fact that it’s a Hyundai, but you all wanted nothing to do with it.
For me, the deciding factor might be new tires. The Hyundai has ’em, and the Mercury needs ’em. The $200 price difference might have bought new shoes once upon a time, but those days are long gone. On the other hand, Pick-N-Pull sells complete doors for $70, and even if it didn’t match, a straight junkyard door would make a world of difference on that car. Yeah, put me on Team Elantra, I think.
Back when my dad had a Fiat 128, he used to joke that if you asked a four-year-old to draw a picture of a yellow car, you’d get a drawing of his Fiat. The 128 was a classic “three-box” sedan, defined by straight lines and barely rounded corners. But it wasn’t alone; lots of cars in the 1970s and 80s were ruthlessly squared off. And really, that’s not a bad thing. Boxes are efficient shapes, and make the best use of the available volume. After all, unless you’re carrying a load of loose tennis balls, what shape are most of the items you’re going to put in a car going to be? That’s right – rectangular.
These two boxy machines come from up in Seattle. Both have manual transmissions, both run and drive great, and both strike me as particularly good deals for what they are. But you be the judge.
1968 Volvo 144S – $2,500
Engine/drivetrain: 1.8 liter overhead valve inline 4, four-speed manual, RWD
Location: Seattle, WA
Odometer reading: 350,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives great
With the introduction of the 140 series in 1968, Volvo entered its boxy period, which lasted all the way up until the early 2000s. This car’s basic shape carried over to the famous 240 series, which went out of production in 1993, giving this basic car an astonishing 25 year run. It also ushered in Volvo’s most logical model numbering system of all time, which sadly did not last as long. This is a 144: 1 = model range, 4 = number of cylinders, 4 = number of doors. The S on the end of this one denotes the sporty model, with a more powerful twin-carb engine.
This car has spent its entire life in Seattle, according to the seller, and has covered 350,000 miles in the past fifty-six years. When you take that into consideration, it looks pretty good – the seat upholstery is a little chewed up, and the paint is toasty, but it’s all there, and the seller has taken great pains to make sure that everything works as it should, including restoring the original gauges and radio. It’s the most stock Volvo 140 I’ve seen in ages.
It runs and drives great, and has a newer clutch and some other recent work. The engine was rebuilt somewhere along the way. It was serviced by the same shop for many years, and the seller has all the receipts. It’s always fun to dig back through that stuff if it’s available, just to see what a car has been through.
You could clean it up, I suppose, straighten the dents and fix what little rust there is, and make it shine again, but I kinda like it how it is. It’s got character. And history.
1990 Mitsubishi Montero – $4,000
Engine/drivetrain: 3.0 liter overhead cam V6, five-speed manual, part-time 4WD
Location: Seattle, WA
Odometer reading: 250,000 miles
Operational status: “Runs amazing and will last forever”
Naming cars is always a tricky business. When you get it right, it’s lightning in a bottle, and that name alone becomes part of the automotive pantheon. When you get it wrong, you end up as the laughing-stock of an entire culture. This SUV is known in the rest of the world as the Pajero, after a small South American wild cat, but unfortunately for Mitsubishi, “pajero” is also a slang term in Latin America roughly equivalent to the British slang term “wanker.” So in North and South America, this truck is known as the Montero, after a seventeenth-century hunter’s cap with ear flaps. (No, really.)
Whatever you want to call it, it’s a beefy body-on-frame off-roader with some serious pedigree. The Pajero won its class in the legendary Dakar Rally multiple times. This one is powered by Mitsubishi’s 6G72 six-cylinder engine, driving either the rear or all four wheels through a five-speed stick. Despite having a quarter-million miles to its name, it runs and drives great.
I miss when SUV interiors used to look like this: Straightforward, with only the controls you need, and a great big “oh-shit” handle in front of the passenger for when things get gnarly. One thing I don’t see is the optional gauge pod on top of the dash with a compass, altimeter, and inclinometer. But I guess most SUVs don’t actually see any off-road use, and such things aren’t strictly necessary for your average TJ Maxx parking lot.
Outside, it has a little rust here and there, but not bad. Four grand may seem a little steep, but have you seen what early 4Runners and Isuzu Troopers are going for these days? This is every inch the off-roader that those two are, for about half the price.
Personally, I like both of these, and I think they’d make a hell of a two-car garage. But I already gave you a “both” option once this week, and I didn’t take pity on you with a “neither” option yesterday. So today, you must choose. Will it be the faded Swede sedan, or the burly Japanese truck?
(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)
Volvo! I was too slow arriving at the seller with the cash to get a mint ’67 144S about 30 years ago for half the price and that still annoys me today. Plus, I have less than no interest in the other thing to the point that I didn’t even bother to read about it.
Man, if that Volvo was a wagon it would make it easier to choose, but I’m still picking the Volvo. I already have a boxy SUV, a 99 Cherokee, with around the same miles.
Volvo all the way! Man, that thing looks like it’s got some stories to tell! Age before beauty today!
Ahh the good old Mercury Mystique won yesterday in a landslide. My buddy who sells lots of vehicles in the shitbox price range calls them Mercury “Mistakes” due to their horrible reliability. Of course at $1400 up against that sorry looking Hyundai, I guess I understand..
Wow! Exactly 50/50! 169 votes each way.
Voted Volvo, for the record.
Hooray it’s Boxing Day at The Autopian! My choice is the little ‘Bishi Basher. Now where did I put my Nick Lowe cassette?
I’m taking that li’l, nas’, x-country Montero down the Old Town Road.
This is tough. My family had a 92″ montero until I was in college. It just kept going. Bing a 92 it was more modern, with a very 90s interior, while the 90 in question looks very 80s. My sister and I hated it when it was “moms car” but both loved it when we learned to drive, and led me to love my later Eagle Summit, which felt very similar.
I really like the Volvo too, but I gotta go with the Montero.
The little inclinometer being MIA is a ding, but I’m still here for the Mitsu. I liked the big boxy style of this era of Japanese SUVs.
I think the Montero is probably the better choice of the two, but there is nowhere to go offroading around here, and I wouldn’t dare ruin that Montero by driving it in the salt and snow, so I’ll have the Volvo.
A few grand in restoration work and this is a pretty solid two-car garage, gotta say.
Does the Montero have the over-the-road tractor-style driver’s suspension seat? I remember that being available (or maybe even standard) on the first Monteros and maybe also the badge-engineered Dodge Raider. If it has air conditioning I might tilt Mitsubishi-ward; otherwise, since I don’t live in an area where snow occurs more than once every couple of years and I don’t intentionally drive off road, I’d have to retrofit and go ’Vo.
My head wants the Montero, my heart wants the Volvo. If they were the same price it would be the Mitsu, but I could put the $1500 difference to sorting the interior on the Volvo… Volvo it is.
I’m the opposite: my head wants the Volvo, but my heart wants the Montero. Since I live in the mountains, Montero gets the nod for me, but I could definitely see the Volvo being a fun summer-only car.
The Volvo is tempting, but I’m a stickler for nice seats and those are just too trashed. Also, I had my Volvo 240 period 30 years ago.
The Mitsu would actually be useful to me now as a blizzard beast, so I’m voting for that.
Man, these are both cool and if I was in the Seattle area I might be checking out that Volvo so I’ll pick that one. I could see both sitting in an old detached garage of an old house.
Today is definitely a ‘both’ choice, honestly. Went Volvo because I had to pick one, but it doesn’t seem like there’s a loser in this one.
Hats off to whomever buys the Volvo. What a cheerful gem of a car. I don’t even mind that the front seat is a little torn up; look at that dashboard!
However, we’ll take the Mitsu. The body’s a little crusty, but it’s mostly in great shape, and it’s more versatile. Also, Lil Nas X’s government name is “Montero.”
I went with the Mitz but really there are no wrong answers today.
Damn, this is a better “both” choice than Monday’s pair.
I assume the 144 shares the same drivetrain and probably other bits as the 1800S/ES? If so, I would think that parts should be available for some time to come, making this a really tough choice.
In the end, I chose the Mitsu since it offers more utility than the Volvo, plus I already have a Volvo sedan (just much newer and much less boxy).
Parts for the 140 series aren’t hard to come by, mostly, but there’s nothing on an 1800 that will be an upgrade in performance. The 1800 in any iteration was more show than go (given that the “go” in question was the same as that of its corporate sibling).
I was thinking more of a “keep it on the rod” support rather than a “let’s crank it to 11” sense.
I voted Mitsu, but really, I’d take either.
I’m probably just fantasizing, but I can see myself bouncing along a rutted dirt road in the Montero. Seems fun!
Wait, Troopers are expensive now? A friend who drove one used to drive me to high school. It was relatively new and felt like the doors might fall off. We had to avoid the interstate when it was windy because it felt like the thing would get blown over.
Yeah same, the Trooper was Dad’s crapcan for several years. To speak to its volumetric utility, he sure packed a lot of his stuff in it when he left us!
You might find the Trooper-cone Acura version for less, and with luxury!
WOW, this is a tough one. Tied at the time of this post. I’m going with the Montero because I want a off-roader right now
Wow… this is a tough one. I LOVE the Volvo, but the Montero would actually be useful to me at the moment as a spare vehicle for construction that’s happening up in the woods. In the end I’ll have to go with practicality, much as I’d love to have that Volvo if I had spare garage space.
I’d love to own either of these, but I went with the Mitsubishi just because the paint is nicer. It’s really a toss up for me. They’re both great.
This is very tough. I’m from Sweden and I adore Japanese cars. The plasticky Montero interior sealed the deal and I voted Volvo; $1,500 should be enough to refurbish the front seat.