Good morning! Today I’m raiding the “Underappreciated Survivors For Sale” group on Facebook again, for a couple of low-mileage cars that are painted in the most boring and common hue of all: plain. But could either of them add a little color to your life? We’ll see.
Yesterday was all about the winter beaters, and rust was order of the day. I get the feeling that both of these cars are worse underneath than they look in photos, so you can’t expect much more than a year out of either one. The voting was close, with the Hyundai taking a slight edge over the Impala, due mostly to it having 4WD.
4WD is nice to have in the snow, but I got through a lot of Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota winters without it. Nose-heavy FWD cars like that Impala do just fine in the snow. I think for me, the choice would be whichever one had better tires. Nothing bugs me more than having to put new tires on a cheap old half-dead car just to make it safe to drive.
Now then: Cars, refrigerators, and Kleenex all have something in common: their most common color is white. I think the popularity of white cars is skewed somewhat by fleet sales; work vans and trucks are still almost universally painted white, but passenger cars devoid of pigment in their paint are awfully common too. I personally have only owned one white car, and it’s the only car I ever bought new: a 2002 Mazda Protege. I guess that makes me part of the problem. In my defense, however, I tried to buy a green one, but the only two cars on the lot with the options I wanted were both white.
When it comes to older cars like this, you don’t really get to pick the color. You get what you get, unless you want to go through the trouble of painting or wrapping it. These two are both clean, low-mileage examples of their respective breeds, but you have to be okay with plain white. Let’s check them out.
1992 Mazda 323 SE – $2,000
Engine/drivetrain: 1.6-liter overhead cam inline 4, four-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Dacono, CO
Odometer reading: 89,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Mazda’s BG platform is one of the unsung heroes of the automotive world. This simple front-wheel-drive design provided the backbone for not only Mazda’s own 323, Familia, and Protege models, but also two entire generations of Ford Escort and Mercury Tracer in the US, as well as a Kia or two. It’s one of those designs that “just works,” and is rugged enough to last.
This is the most humble BG variant, the 323 hatchback, with a simple 1.6-liter engine and an overdrive automatic transmission. I never could understand exactly why, but the percentage of these 323 hatchbacks with automatics is much higher than, say, Honda Civic hatchbacks of the same era. It’s a shame, too, because Mazda’s manual transmissions are generally excellent. But we have to take what we can get, and this car is in great shape mechanically, despite having the wrong transmission.
It also, sadly, has the wrong seatbelts. Here again, Mazda chose automatic, with motorized shoulder harnesses and manual lap belts. The steering wheel looks like it should have an airbag in the hub, but it doesn’t. It’s a nice, friendly space, apart from the motorized belts, and it looks like it’s in good condition. I’d personally yank that steering wheel cover off in a heartbeat, but I know some people like them.
GM and Chrysler weren’t the only ones having trouble keeping white paint on cars in the early 1990s, clearly. The rear of this car is shedding paint like a pug sheds fur. Luckily, it looks like it’s galvanized underneath, so the bare spots won’t rust as quickly as they might otherwise. It’s probably not worth fixing, but it’s worth keeping an eye on.
1995 Oldsmobile Achieva S – $2,500
Engine/drivetrain: 2.3-liter overhead cam inline 4, three-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Dunkirk, MD
Odometer reading: 57,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
GM’s N-body is best remembered for the Pontiac Grand Am, the official used car of pretty much everywhere. But other GM divisions got in on the fun as well, and in their second generation, all the N-body variants got their own sheetmetal to make them stand out. Buick’s wild Skylark was the most polarizing (and probably not coincidentally, my favorite), but Oldsmobile’s replacement for the humdrum Calais was mighty weird as well, and carried a downright dumb name – the Achieva.
The split-grille arrangement of the Achieva’s front end hides a nasty potential danger: That part between the two grille halves is part of the hood, and sticks out at an angle when the hood is raised. It’s usually up out of the way far enough to not be a danger, but – and I speak from experience here – if you’re in the wrong place at the wrong time, trying to reach something under that hood, the resulting impact with the back of your cranium is not pleasant. Under that pointy beak of death is Oldsmobile’s “Quad OHC” four-cylinder, a single-cam version of the Quad 4, driving the front wheels through a tried-and-true three-speed Turbo Hydramatic. This one has only 57,000 miles on its odometer, and the seller says it runs well.
Oldsmobile used to say there was a “Special Feel” in their cars, but I have never found that to be the case. Except for some badges and trim differences, this car pretty much feels like any other GM product of the time, which is to say not bad at all, but nothing special. We’re a little starved for interior photos on this listing, but from what I can see, it looks all right. This is the base-level S model, as evidenced by the manual-crank windows. Hey, it’s one less thing to go wrong, or rather, four less things to go wrong, since it’s a four-door.
All of GM’s N-body cars looked better as coupes, but I think the Achieva pulled off the four-door look better than the others. The plain-vanilla paint job isn’t doing it any favors, but it’s in nice condition, and I’m sure it would shine up well enough for a Radwood-type gathering. Bonus points if you can get your hands on an old Hertz or Avis rent-a-car key fob to complete the look.
What I appreciate about these two, and the reason I picked them, is that they’re both priced reasonably. Too many cars this age and condition have ridiculously high price tags these days, due to the whole nostalgia thing, but these two are kind of bargains, actually. Hell, you could even use them as normal cars, at this price. Which one intrigues you more?
(Image credits: Facebook Marketplace sellers)
While actively shopping for a new Achieva as my first new car in 1993 (I know, right?) this is the model that I absolutely avoided (went with a snazzy red S coupe w/3.1 V-6, alloys and a “spoiler” LOL). Here in 2024, I’m cool with it. The Mazda is probably the better car overall, but that Achieva was very comfortable for what it was. I think that was in large part due to the overall interior treatment which had better ergonomics and – IMO – better quality upholstery as well as insulation than its counterparts. So yeah…it did have a *special feel* dammit!
also noticed this…”Which one intrigues you more?”
As an Olds Man(TM), I see what you did there.
I always liked the dashes from those days, when even the domestics tried to be “driver focused.” The Achieva’s was a particularly nice attempt I thought, within the price point.
WHAT? Why didn’t you get the SCX? 😛
You got a brand new 2-door Achieva in 93 but didn’t get the SCX or at least the SC!
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
it was what I could afford (hangs head)
oh man!
Yeah IDK what the price difference was back then, as all the archives of articles with the Achieva’s original MSRP numbers when it was new don’t show the SC and SCX prices at all, only the S and SL prices 🙁
Like Pneumatic Tool, I considered getting an Achieva back then, but ended up getting a Chevy Beretta instead. It was cheaper, and (for me) I remembered the coolness of the ’80s ads for it when it first came out.
Also made me check on my end – mine was a ’94, not a ’93. The way it was optioned, there really wasn’t much of a difference between S and SC (apart from leather, which mine obviously didn’t have). All other equipment was the same. I think that SC had a 5-spoke alloy and slightly lower profile tires. My alloys were 6-spoke and had a wider center dish, but I thought they looked pretty good (same wheels as the Cutlass Supreme). Overall, that’s why I chose the car – it was fairly packed with stuff that was optional elsewhere. Unfortunately 5 years later, my wife drove it into a washed out dark road and hydrolocked the engine. We already had a toddler at that point with another on the way, so after the engine was replaced by something out of a Corsica, we traded it and started the minvan years. Fun while it lasted.
I’m more intrigued about the Achieva.
It’s got the Quad 4 DOHC (not SOHC) with balance shafts and several revisions to improve on the HG issues from earlier samples.
It’s also much roomier, more comfortable and better equipped than the Mazda.
If the Mazda had a Manual and a bit more features (DOHC engine anyone?) it would’ve been a different outcome but as it stands out it’s a considerably worse penalty box than the Olds.
I love a Mazda hatchback, but the Achieva is a better value. At this end of the market I put value above all else.
Down Undah fer this buyer.
Mazda.
The quad4 in the oldmehbile underachieva is not great. The transmission has half as many gears as my current daily driver.
In contrast, the Mazda is a lovely little fuel sipper that can park in many a tight spot. It’s not in as good of shape cosmetically as the Olds, but all the more power to it for being an urban/suburban errand car.
If the Achieva had a V6, we could talk. I wouldn’t go anywhere near one of those Quad4s and their disposable head gaskets. 323 is for me.
truth in this, I had a ’93 Pontiac GA with the HO version, went through 1, and when I got rid of it I think it was ready for another!
My dad leased a ’92 Achieva coupe, bought it out at the end of the lease, then decided to sell it because some of the interior bits were starting to turn (the integrated defroster vents in the doors is a nice idea, but in typical GM form the materials didn’t last) and he sold the car. Weeks after he sold, the buyer came back complaining that the head gasket popped.
Back in ’91 when I was buying my first new car, I really wanted to get that Mazda 323, but as pointed out in the article, no airbag. I was moving to CO and didn’t want to face mountain twisties and oncoming trucks/RVs without an airbag. I went with a very similar priced and poverty spec’d Plymouth Sundance America. I loved that Sundance so much.
My grandfather had a white Achieva SL sedan when I was a kid. If this one had been red inside, and especially if it had the natty six-spoke alloy wheels that some slightly-earlier examples had, I would’ve fallen for it on that basis alone.
The clock in the Olds told me to vote for the Mazda, though, so I did.
I believe the Olds has a 4 speed 4T60 or something.
The shift pattern appears to be PRND32.
If so, then Edmunds had it wrong, or I was looking up the wrong year. Both are possible.
it is indeed a 4 speed.
Achievas Series II came standard with the Quad 4 and 4 speed auto.
This is a Series I, which came standard with the 5 spd manual. If you chose the V6 it would default to the 4 spd but the Quad 4 could be had with both.
The Mazda is the better car, and the hatchback is more useful.
Also, that Achieva is NOT the SOHC engine. It is in fact the regular DOHC 2.3 Quad 4. The 95 version has balance shafts, and in 95, that balance shaft DOHC was the only Quad 4 made that year.
I wonder if they had fixed the head gasket issues by that point, my ’93 HO GrandAm GT ate one up and was ready for another when I traded it in.
they did several revisions to the Quad 4. Cams, head and crank were revised for 94-95 MY.
I wouldn’t be that concerned, the H.O engines were always more prone than the regular output engines even before the revisions.
My family had one of those 323s, in white, manual, that I drove often growing up. It’s bulletproof and surprisingly peppy.
Mazda all day long in this situation
I gotta go with the Achieva. Looks like it is in remarkably great shape and this is the car I drove in drivers ed. Has a bit of sentimental value for me.
I hate those motorized shoulder belts. That is literally the only reason the Mazda lost out in today’s vote.
Motorized belts in the Festiva our family had for about a decade never bothered me in all the time I drove it. I really don’t see why they are so disliked. In fact, I actually liked them since from outward appearance you were belted and not likely to get noticed by police, but at the same time you didn’t have to have the lap belt part on. Now, I get that you weren’t getting full protection that way, but coming from my MG where I hardly used the belts at all, it was still an improvement.
Maybe it was the particular examples I was exposed to, but they always seemed to rub me the wrong way (literally) and/or be in the way while they were moving around the door frame. The lack of adjustability on its final resting place didn’t help – they just never felt comfortable. Add to that that you had to put the lap belt on manually (usually as the shoulder belt was scrapping across my face while I was looking down), and I just really didn’t see the point in their existence. Stupid engineering at its finest, courtesy of government bureaucrats.
The Mazda 323 engine is not all that different from a Miata 1.6L of the era, so close enough for me to choose it.
I can’t believe I voted for the Achieva. But here we are.
Mazda for sure, even with the auto. I drove a few of these back in the early 2000’s but every one that my friends owned was manual. At least it has a 4 speed auto. I also never like the looks of the olds N body and always thought that the Grand Am was better looking.
the Achieva also has a 4 spd auto. The base auto was a 3 spd but the OG buyer paid extra for the 4th gear. Even the gear selector comes with a D-3-2 pattern
Ahh. Still voting Mazda I guess. I just read the description and didn’t look at the selector.
Mazdas may be fun, but I’ve always found their manual transmissions (specifically clutch feel) far inferior to Honda or VW.
I selected the Olds as a basic transportation device that is unlikely to drop in value any further if I drove it for another 2-5 years. Effectively I could drive it for free for a few years.
Totally agree, was unimpressed the only time I drove a FWD Mazda with a manual.
Had a 99 Protege manual for a bit, with the pathetic 1.6. I hated that car. Shifter was not great, but it was still the most redeeming quality that car had. Not saying much there.
I had a 2002 Proteg5 with the 2 and the manual was fine (if stiff) and it handled great. At times I regret trading it in on my Mustang and wished I’d kept it for winter duty.
The 5 only came with the much better 2.0 engine, and the manuals in those were vastly improved. The older ones were trash.
Odd, I tend to find Mazda’s manuals similar if not superior to Honda and BMWs. Definitely better than most VWs. Not universally, of course, but in general.
IS this N body the rear Quarter Design for the Honda Clarity? Did adding a arch over the rear wheel, really add that much cost?
It didn’t as the Grand Am was cheaper and came with full rear wheel arches.
My guess is it was an Oldsmobile thing (right from the Ninety Eight’s book)as their vehicles were always marketed to an older clientele than Pontiac’s
Mazda!! Zoom-zoom!! I love the look of these little hatchbacks.
However, if I bought the Olds, I’d get a vanity plate that read either OVA or UNDA. Given it’s a base model with and automatic, probably UNDA.
Easily the Mazda, even if it’s sadly an automatic. Dad had a manual one from the previous generation, in orange and I love love love these things.
My great-uncle sold Olsmoiles at NJ Currie in Central NY in the 80s-early 90s, so it’s the Achieva all the way for this guy.
Excellence here with the Showdown as always and a big thanks for the link to the first piece on this site that ever had my name upon it, Mark!
Mazda. The Achieva does nothing for me.
My first car was celica coupe with a blue vinyl half top. Lind of went with my mullet so no problem with white. That Olds is just fugly with a stupid name. A disgrace to the cutlass models before that I liked for some reason. My wife had a 2 door hatch similar to the Mazda when we met and was surprisingly good at hauling stuff. Hatch with spots for the win.
I picked the Achieva for the simple fact that I never see Achievas anymore. I’ll see a 323 bouncing around here-and-there but gosh, I think the Achieva is rarer than a Topaz at this point.
Yeah, it’s hard to see cars when they’ve been retired and turned into scrap.
There’s a red Achieva that stops at the gas station I visit around the same time as I do (I think they buy scratch-offs every day) that’s in remarkably good shape, with the awful white “Landau” roof and pillar treatment. I suspect its entire existence is driving to and from that gas station and the owner’s very nearby house. It’s noticeable not only due to the color and top, but because the front beakiness sticks out. Literally.
Hard choice for me. Was very close to vote for Mazda, but automatic sucks lots of joy out of it and while quite clean would need some new paint to be really clean. Olds at least looks intriguing in an ugly way and has more space. If Mazda was MT then it was a no brainer.
I appreciate the sneaky Intrigue reference in your comment, even if it was unintentional.
Hold on, a Mazda 323 with only five digits showing on the clock? For just two grand?
We’re done here. A simple, reliable hatchback for small money with gobs of life left in it is an easy sell.
And it’s already sold! Meanwhile the Olds is still available. That should speak volumes on it’s own.