Okay, okay, I get it: No more project cars. For a while, anyway. May I interest you in a couple of rarely-seen executive sedans from the late 1980s? I sure hope so, because that’s what we’re going to look at.
Yesterday’s 4x4s went over like a lead balloon. Honestly, I get it; they’re both objectively terrible ideas, and I don’t have a whole lot of gumption when it comes to potential projects myself, these days. But I try to mix it up a litle, you know? I still think they’re both viable projects, but someone is going to have to put in some time and money into both of them, and I get the impression that that someone isn’t going to be anyone here.
The Toyota won handily, because it looks like it has a better chance of once again becoming a car. I guess, if pressed, I’d go the other way: the Land Rover is cheaper, and it would be a more interesting conversation piece sitting disassembled in the barn. Anybody can have a Toyota, but who do you know who owns a derelict ’50s Land Rover?
Nothing said you’d arrived in the 1980s like a European sedan. BMW and Mercedes were selling cars like hotcakes to young execs flush with their first big paychecks, Volvo somehow convinced Americans its cars were luxurious, Audi was kicking ass until, well, you know, and even Peugeot and Saab were getting in on the action. If it came from Europe, everyone knew it was expensive, and they all knew you had someone named Hans or Gunter on speed-dial to keep it humming like it should. No Cadillac or Lincoln carried the same status. For your consideration today, I’ve found a couple rare members of this class, one from a British outsider that got some help from the Japanese, and one from the unfairly-maligned black sheep of German automakers. Let’s take a look.
1988 Sterling 825SL – $3,800
Engine/drivetrain: 2.5-liter OHC V6, four-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Tacoma, WA
Odometer reading: 39,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Whole books could be, and have been, written about the disaster that was British Leyland/Rover Group in the 1970s and ’80s. The conglomerate left US shores in 1981, after a long and graceless decline from its ’60s heyday, but then it did something smart: it partnered with Honda. This car was one result of that partnership. It’s mechanically the same as the Acura Legend, but – and this is crucial – it was built in England, not Japan. Rover chose not to use its own name for this car, which was probably a wise move. The last Rover sedan sold in the US was the SD1 3500, a wedge of sadness and despair that not even a V8 could save. Instead, it chose the Sterling nameplate.
Powering this Japanese/British mixed breed is a Honda C25A six-cylinder, making 151 horsepower and driving the front wheels through a four-speed automatic. You could get a five-speed manual, but it’s rare in the Acura Legend and almost unheard-of in the Sterling. This one hardly has any miles on it; the six-digit odometer is clearly visible in the ad and shows 39,344 miles. It runs and drives great, according to the seller, which it ought to.
Because of Jaguar, British sedans had a reputation for luxury in America that Rover had to live up to with the Sterling. There was a base S model of this car available, with cloth seats, but if you’re going to get one, this SL model is the version to get. That’s real wood on the dash and door panels, too, just so you know. It has a trip computer in the dash with banks of buttons befitting its status as a European (this was way before Brexit, remember) luxury car. Hopefully it all still works; Rover did the electrical design for this car, not Honda.
I’ve been looking at photos of this car next to the Legend, and as far as I can tell, they don’t actually share any sheetmetal. They sure do look a lot alike, though, in that angular ’80s sedan way. It’s as clean and straight as you would expect for such a low-mileage car, but the trim on the rear bumper is a little wonky. Then again, it could have been that way from the factory. Build quality was not one of this car’s hallmarks.
1990 Audi 100 – $3,995
Engine/drivetrain: 2.3-liter OHC inline 5, three-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Everett, WA
Odometer reading: 137,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
It’s really a shame that the 60 Minutes malarkey is all that this car is known for. Nobody ever talks about how nice they are. We had three Audi 5000s in my family when I was in high school and college – an ’83 Turbo, an ’86 CS, and an ’87 standard model, all automatics – and they were all an absolute delight. The scandal hit Audi so hard that in 1989 it renamed its entire range in the US, realigning model names with Europe. Hence, this car, which was once the 5000, became the 100. It didn’t help sales much, sadly. This is a rare car.
The heart and soul of this car is the same as it was in the 5000: Audi’s signature inline five, sticking out ahead of the front axle and driving the front wheels through a three-speed automatic. It’s the tamest drivetrain Audi offered in this car, but it doesn’t feel underpowered. There’s no overdrive, but I can personally attest to the fact that this car will cruise smoothly and quietly along at 90 miles an hour for as long as you want it to. This one has 137,000 miles on it, and the seller (a dealership, just FYI) says it runs and drives great.
The driver’s seat shows a little wear, but the rest of the interior looks really clean. It looks like another one of those cars that did most of its miles with only a driver on board. It’s a pretty basic car as 100s go, but even the standard equipment includes an automatic HVAC system, power windows and locks, and some other goodies.
This car looked like a spaceship when it first appeared in the ’80s, and it has aged very well. This light blue was a really popular color for these, and this one is in really good shape. The paint is nice and shiny, and apart from a couple scuffs on the bumper, it’s untouched. It’s rare to see these with any rust, by the way; Audi galvanized all the sheetmetal throughout the whole car.
As nice as both of these cars are now, the reality is that neither one is going to be easy to find certain parts for. Basic mechanical and maintenance stuff shouldn’t be a problem, but if some interior trim breaks, or an electrical switch goes out, you could be in for an epic quest to find a replacement. In short, if you choose a car like this, you have to love it, or you’ll end up hating it. So my question for you is this: Which one do you think you could love?
This is a tough call. Go with the Sterling, which was built in England (ack!), but is full of Honda mechanicals and has few miles on it? Or go with the Audi, which might have been more reliable on day one, but which has well over 100K on it? I’m going with the Sterling. You don’t see many Audi 100s around here any more, but you don’t see ANY Sterlings. It’ll end up being a PITA, but I’ll never see another one in the AutoZone parking lot.
Sterling, mostly because I have always found them interesting. The Audi isn’t bad, but it also isn’t interesting.
Flip a coin. They’re both decent looking, probably ok to drive for a while, affordable, and not very amazing at all. I picked the Sterling b/c low miles.
This is a both day for me.
ho I have the feeling the Audi may be as unreliable as the Sterling with this mileage – at least I’d have the other when things inevitably go wrong.
the only reason to buy an old Audi is for AWD, this one is a basic FWD jellybean with the last of the non OD transmissions at the time.
I think I would go Sterling here, low miles and Honda Heart make it appealing, though I do feel like they would both be money pits over time.
Definitely the Audi. I had a 200 Quattro Turbo Avant in the late nineties, and it was great with that awesome five-cylinder growl. I seem to recall it had a crazy low drag coefficient of something like .30Cd, which is good for even today. I think it was also one of the earliest lines of cars to be fully galvanised, which means rust isn’t too much of an issue for such an old car.
No way I’d take the Sterling. Sure, it started life as a Honda Legend, but then was wired up by the good folks at Lucas Electronics. Take that for what you will.
Not a huge Audi fan, but this seems like the better car for the money.
Almost perfectly split so far! I took the Audi because I love the “aero” 80s aesthetic. Also the inline 5 snarl warms my Volvophile heart
The Sterling is more interesting in my opinion but I bet the Audi is more fun to drive and would have better parts support/more information available. I might be wrong, but I also didn’t do any research since I would never love either car.
As much as I don’t want an old German sedan, I REALLY don’t want an old British one, so Audi it is.
I’d take the Sterling just because it is a more interesting story.
Fun fact about the Rover/Sterling 800 series. As a show of faith, Honda allowed Rover to build the European-market Legend at its facility in Cowley, Oxfordshire, alongside the Rover version. However, Honda had no faith in the Brits’ ability to put the cars together correctly, and so set up a finishing line at its Swindon, Wiltshire plant to correct defects before sending the cars to dealers…and there were many defects.
My wife drives a 2020 Civic Hatchback – it was built in Swindon.
Yep. S VIN and all. All of the U.S.-market 10th-gen Civic Hatchbacks were built at Swindon, including the Type R.
that is interesting for sure.