I’m generally okay with getting older. I’ve come to accept that I’m going to be stiff and sore if I overdo pretty much anything, and I can put up with the music I listened to in high school now being played on “classic rock” stations. But one thing that still throws me for a loop is seeing appreciating values on what were essentially throwaway cars in decades past. Who would have thought a sixth-generation Dodge Colt would ever fetch even four figures again? Since I found not one, but two such Colts with disturbingly high price tags, I thought we’d look at both of them today, and see if either one of them is worth the asking price.
We looked at two sporty hatchback coupes yesterday, both one-owner cars in really nice condition. It sounds like many of you were disappointed in the Firebird’s specification, and I agree that a V6 with an automatic is kind of the worst of both worlds for those cars, but it’s also the most common configuration. The Ford Probe with its five-speed manual, even without the GT’s turbocharger, appealed to a lot more of you.
You already know my choice. It’s not often you have to sell a car you really like just to get something you want more, and it’s even rarer to get a second chance at the first car years later. I still want to add another small manual car to my garage eventually, and if I were able to go shopping for one today, that Probe would be high on the list. Unless, of course, I found a Geo Storm in similar condition.
Now, before we dive into these two cars, I want to clarify that there were some Dodge Colts that were genuinely cool, and worth consideration as collectible classics. The Colt Vista wagon, especially in its 4WD form, was a neat car. And the eight-speed “twin stick” models of the early ’80s were novel and fun to drive. That generation of Colt, as well as the generation that followed, were also available turbocharged, and those were even more fun. But these two? Really? For this price? Let’s take a look at them and see if there’s any way they’re worth it.
1989 Dodge Colt GT – $4,500
Engine/drivetrain: 1.5-liter OHC inline 4, three-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Odometer reading: 106,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Previous generations of the Dodge Colt were available in a variety of body styles, but the sixth generation only came in one: a three-door hatchback. You could get a four-door sedan if you went to your friendly neighborhood Jeep/Eagle dealership and asked for a Summit, but Dodge and Plymouth only offered the hatchback. Several different trim levels were available, though, including this GT. From what I can tell, it’s just an appearance package, with red trim and some fancier seats.
The engine in this Colt is a far cry from the turbocharged engines in earlier versions. Apparently, you could get a Colt Turbo in 1989, but they only built 1,500 of them. This one has a humble 1.5-liter engine making 82 horsepower mated to a three-speed automatic. Yes, I agree; a five-speed manual would have been a better choice, but whoever ordered this car new disagreed. The seller says it runs fine, but has a bit of a rough idle from sitting. You know the cure for that: put some fresh gas in it and take it on a road trip.
The interior looks all right, but I don’t know what that pile of crap on the passenger’s seat is, or why it’s there. A bigger mystery is what a genuine Nardi steering wheel is doing in a Dodge Colt. It looks great in there, and I’m sure it feels really nice too, but why this car?
The photos in this ad are terrible. The car is clearly parked just inside an open garage door; why not pull it out into the sunshine to take a picture or two? We can tell it’s shiny, at least, by the reflections of the LED light grid on the ceiling. I’d check the date codes on those tires, though; I can’t imagine how long it has been since anyone made 155R13 whitewalls.
1992 Dodge Colt GL – $5,995
Engine/drivetrain: 1.5-liter OHC inline 4, three-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Altamonte Springs, FL
Odometer reading: 78,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
This body style of Colt only lasted for four model years, and coincidentally, we have one example of the first year, and the last. Apparently, it didn’t change much over the years. This is, I’m guessing, a GL model. There was a base model, but the presence of air conditioning on this one makes me think it’s a step up.
This Colt has the same drivetrain as the black one above, a 1.5-liter four and a three-speed automatic, but it has fewer miles, and we have a little more information about its condition. It has a new battery and a new fuel pump, and it runs and drives great.
The interior looks really nice, as you would expect with so few miles. One photo shows the back seat, and it has a popped seam, but the front seats look fine. The air conditioning works, which is a nice thing to have, but I bet it feels like you dropped an anchor when you turn it on.
The outside looks great, and there’s a reason: the previous owner had it repainted. Again, I have to ask why. Not only why did it need repainting, but why invest so much work and money in a car like this? Was it sentimental attachment? Or rust repair? Whatever the reason, it looks better than any ’92 Colt I’ve seen since about ’93.
Don’t get me wrong; these are perfectly decent little cars. But are they five or six grand cars, three and a half decades after they were built? I’m not so sure. But I’ll leave it up to you. And for those of you who have always asked for a “neither” option in the poll, today is your lucky day.
Somebody is betting on gas prices to skyrocket and demand for true lightweight econoboxes to follow suit. That’s the only explanation.
I liked these when they came out. I was a high school Honda freak at the time, but thought the 4th Gen Civic had gotten fat and bloated. I later had a 4th Gen Civic, and it was one of my least favorite cars. Unfortunately both of these are overpriced and not desirably equipped. I always like the body & design though.
Thanks for offering the neither button today. It’s not that either of these are terrible cars, but they’re not nearly nice or desirable enough to command these prices. A Honda Civic 2-door in similar condition could fetch it, but not these.
I want the Pontiac.
I like the addition of both or none to the poll (the latter of which I chose)
Also thanks for the disclaimer about prices throughout the article. I am not familiar with the US used car market, but 6 grand for a(n almost) 35-year old cheap, uninteresting econobox seemed like a rip off…
What did those cost new?
About $7000 probably.
I went for the cheaper, older option.
I’ll haggle them down as much as I can on price, and back that purchase up with one of the 4G63 DFSM hulks that occasionally pop up around here with strut towers that “Aren’t too bad”
I’ll gut the drive train from the Colt, drop in the turbo driveline (with the manual) and have a FWD idiot box to cruise around in.
Too bad these preservationists didn’t choose something remotely interesting. Rarity does not equal desirability. In fact, here I’d say it indicates the opposite—they didn’t last and most people felt no need to preserve them except for these weirdos. Under $3k would be a stretch, but at these prices, forget it. I’m not one to focus on safety because of what it often costs in terms of driving enjoyment, but these aren’t fun or attractive cars, they’re commuter beaters, just harder to get parts for and less safe than something significantly newer, so it’s a factor.
Definitely a neither day for me today as well. Not worth the money, and I just don’t want either car.
Somebody was foolish enough to spend a couple grand repainting that car, and is also foolish enough to think someone else is going to volunteer to pay for it.
The Red one is faster.
If I had to choose one I’d select the one without the automatic belts.
But I don’t – So neither.
My wife had a 5 sp man. 89 colt and it was a fantastic car. Super reliable and the car lasted well into the 2000s.
Just like the 3rd through 5th generations of Honda Civics, these Colts aren’t hatchbacks, they’re shooting brakes. And I love them for that. But I can’t vote for anything with ~100hp and a 3-speed automatic.
At last! A NEITHER button!
I’m not throwing over $4000 at a thirty-plus year old hatchback unless it is phenomenal, and while I do have a strong like for bottom-tier cars, that doesn’t translate to being whimsical with my money. Not even with my pretend money.
If ever there were a misapplication of the GT badge, this is it.
Would either one be fun/interesting to own? Sure – briefly. And I don’t think I could be moved to part with more than three thousand for the newer one, so that’s where the threshold stands.
Owned an 85 Colt forever ago. Dead slow, but dependable. I also owned 2 Dodge/Mitsu pickups. Both were bulletproof, even if the first one was till carb’ed. Both of today’s choices are good cars, at 1/2 that price!
I see two Dodges. Where’s the Pontiac? Anyway, since there is a rare “no” choice today, I had to take it as these are just way overpriced.
I guess there’s no LeMans for sale.
Pass on both, but really, even the name is a letdown and has to be up there with the worst car animal name choices.
Not impishly cute like Beetle or Cricket, nor purposeful like Falcon or Impala it’s just, well, a name Chrysler of that era would choose.
Actually wasn’t that the name of the original Mitsubishi that Chrysler just didn’t bother changing?
I think you may be right…that’s kinda my recollection too. It just speaks to Chrysler’s eh, this small car thing is just a fad, let’s just get through it so we can sell land yachts again when people realize that’s what they really want mindset.
Which it actually does now, so maybe it wasn’t that wrong after all.
I’m tempted to say I’d take the Dodge Colt.
But I wouldn’t.
I wanted to like the red one. Then I saw the automatic shoulder belts. And the fact that it was repainted. And a 3-speed automatic…
Nope.
Today is a ‘neither’ day.
I love survivors like these, but come on. $4,500 should be the price for both of them.
I’m not chickening out this time. Even if I can’t pretend I’m Ray Magliozzi since neither of these is a Vista.
…so then, this comes down to details. The black car is older, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing, since there’s no power seatbelts. It’s also cheaper and has a Nardi, which, if nothing else, can go in the Bug. Might do that and put a Momo in its place, since the only chance I have at getting a factory one is buying the other car too. Not turning another very nice car into a parts vehicle.
at those prices, I would be more likely to go older and get the 1980 twin stick colt on Ebay. then tractor paint it in the back yard.
Bonus points if a leaf or a bug lands on the car while you paint and you just spray over it instead brushing it away.
CP
IYKYK
IAAAP (It’s An All Abreviation Post)
Why this day do we finally get a “neither” choice? I refuse to use it as it is not in the spirit.
But I also will never choose automatic belts, so ’89 takes it for me.
Neither one does anything for me, especially at those prices. But if you knock a bit off, that red one looks nice, has working AC, and could be useful to haul a small amount of stuff.