Good morning! I felt like we were drifting too far afield of our typical price range, so I’ve dialed it back a bit for today. Don’t worry; I’ve still found some bizarrely-modified vehicles to fit with our theme for the week. We’ve got a luxury sedan that is soaring to new heights, and a small truck that is trying to win a limbo contest.
It seems like yesterday’s Baja bugs kind of landed with a thud. I can always tell when you all aren’t terribly excited about a Showdown by the low comment vote totals. Ah well, can’t win ’em all. Thanks for being good sports about it anyway.
I wouldn’t touch these either, for what it’s worth. I love Baja bugs, but I prefer the traditional VW-based kind. And I do plan to build one soon, actually – but it will be 1/10 scale.
Altering the ride height of a car is a pretty common modification. Lots of people will raise a truck a couple of inches to fit bigger off-road tires, or lower a car just a little to make it look a little meaner. But that’s not enough for some folks; they need to take it to the extremes, setting a car body atop a truck chassis to lift it sky-high, or lowering a car to the point that it scrapes its oil pan on every pebble. Today, we’re going to look at one of each.
1991 Buick Park Avenue – $2,000
Engine/drivetrain: 350 cubic inch OHV V8, three-speed automatic, 4WD
Location: Tecumseh, MI
Odometer reading: unknown
Operational status: “Was running and driving when parked a few years ago”
I would imagine that all projects like this start in about the same way: On one side of the yard is a 4×4 truck with a rusted-out body, and on the other side of the yard is a derelict car. Nearby in a lawn chair sits an above-average shadetree mechanic, a couple of beers deep into a Saturday afternoon. He casts his eye from one vehicle to the other, and suddenly springs up from his chair and runs to the garage to find a tape measure.
What we have here is a Buick Park Avenue sedan body atop a Chevy truck chassis. It’s powered by a 350 V8 and a TH400 automatic transmission, driving “a Dodge and a Ford axle, don’t remember what they are,” according to the seller. It all seems to work together, or did at one point – it hasn’t run in a few years. The seller says it was a lot of fun, but they don’t have time for it anymore.
The inside, as you might expect, is trashed: there’s mud everywhere, and wires dangle from the dash. I mean, we’ve seen a worse Park Avenue interior, but this one is pretty bad. How much of the old Buick stuff is still functional after this transformation is anyone’s guess, but I have a feeling not much of it.
Apparently it’s called the “Beast,” which seems like a fitting name. It’s surprisingly rust-free, and apart from some clearcoat damage, the body isn’t in bad shape. I’m not sure about the legality of the cop light bar on the roof, but I have a feeling that’s the least of offenses that might get you pulled over in this thing.
1993 Ford Ranger – $2,500
Engine/drivetrain: Probably a 2.3 liter OHC inline 4, five-speed manual, RWD
Location: Middleville, MI
Odometer reading: 43,000 miles
Operational status: Your guess is as good as mine
I confess I’ve never really understood the appeal of slammed vehicles like this, especially trucks. It takes too much utility out of it, and I don’t really like the look all that much. But like anything, I can appreciate the commitment and the hard work that went into it. I just wish I could tell you more about this truck; there is literally no description whatsoever in the ad. Not one word.
If I had to guess, I’d say this was a pretty basic Ranger, with the 2.3 liter “Lima” four-cylinder engine. It has a five-speed manual transmission, though it’s listed as an automatic. I get the feeling it runs and drives, based on the fact that the photos in the ad show it in various locations. But I could be wrong.
The seller claims it has 43,000 miles on it; I’d believe 143,000. The interior isn’t bad, but it isn’t great either. That stack of pine tree air fresheners hanging off the headlight switch are a bad sign – at best it smells like crappy pine tree air fresheners, but they could be covering up something much worse. I don’t think the bucket seats are original; they’re from a Mustang, maybe?
The lowering is serious; the bed floor has been raised for clearance, essentially ruining any truck usefulness it once had. I believe those things in the bed are hydraulic cylinders, which would mean it can be raised up for driving. In the front, it has massive negative camber, which is to be expected from Ford’s Twin I-Beam suspension operating at that severe of an angle. The body has had some other customization done, but it’s banged up. I imagine this was a much nicer truck at some point, but its best days are behind it.
I know, I know: They’re both awful, and you don’t want either one of them. Well, tough. That’s not how this game is played. You must choose. Will it be the backyard 4×4, or the slammed minitruck?
So far most of the commenters have gotten this one wrong. The Ranger is a very cool truck. It needs attention (minor body work, destinking of the interior, removing the weird fur from the bed, etc.) but this could be a nice custom vehicle with minimal effort, assuming the seller isn’t hiding any major problems.
I may be the only one here who actually likes lowrider mini trucks (they were semi cool in the ’90s, but that has been a while) but I’m surprised no one else can see that this is a reasonably well executed custom truck that could be returned to its former awesomeness with minimal effort and expense. In contrast, the Buick is a ridiculous drunken novelty at best. This should be a unanimous victory.
I genuinely want that Ford.
You and I both.
Once again, the lower priced car wins. This is actually worse than yesterdays I think
Ford, please.
It can be driven to the location where it will be parted out, so that’s good. Or it can be put back to a useful height – keeping the wheels, just because – and then used for small truck things.
However, it may have some non-trivial issues (beyond the obvious). Look at this pic: https://images-stag.jazelc.com/uploads/theautopian-m2en/571237948_25994669610133423_8060193057164784348_n-e1770775865974.jpg
Is the driver’s side actually about two inches lower than the passenger’s side? I’m looking at the clearance between the bumper/dam and the pavement. Maybe it’s an optical illusion.
Anyway, the Buick-related thing may be useful for parting out but I’m not the one to do it.
Hmm, I wonder if that’s a result of the hydraulics.
I’ll take the Ranger.I can load it up with wood easy enough and it’s already dragging on the ground anyway.
Planning a Viking funeral?
Well, you can half-load it up.
Today needs a “Nope” button.
I’m sitting this one out. The thud for these should be louder than yesterday’s.
Assuming the Ranger runs, it is in much better condition, and you could still use it to do some trucky things I bet, especially if you raise the ride height a bit! Give me the stRanger.
I don’t hate the Ranger, so that’s where my time and money would go. Yeah the interior probably stinks, but there isn’t much of it. and pulling the seats and carpet out to clean/replace is easy. While I’m in there I can add some Dynamat to make it a nicer place to be, add a pair of giant subs behind the seats, and new door/a pillar component speakers.
Rip that god awful carpet out of the bed, get a can of bedliner and clean it all up, then give the lighting the overhaul it needs. It won’t be a show winner, but neither am I.
You know the hassle of loading a motorcycle into a standard height truck bed? Problem solved with this Ranger. If you park it with the rear tires on the curb, it might actually be downhill into the truck bed.
Both. Put the Ranger’s body on the Park Avenue’s donor chassis, and Bob’s your uncle! Or more likely Cletus is your uncle and also your brother.
Genius. And then the Park Avenue goes on bags on the ranger chassis. I bet it would look decent slammed down on those mustang wheels.
Who says you can’t un-fuck what’s been fucked?
The Buick is something to take to a mud park to drink massive quantities of beer until you pass out, and abuse the engine and transmission while stuck axle deep in mud. Definitely not my scene.
And while the Ranger has seen better days, it reminds me of the occasional former show cars that appear on Mighty Car Mods to be restored. The current build especially. It needs some love, and when you’re done you’ll have a time capsule of late ’90s/early ’00s minitrucking. That appeals to me more. Now I just need a lift and a YouTube channel…
Both of these are way too sketchy to even consider as a driver in their current conditions.
I’d take the Ranger, but only if I needed that generation of Ranger for parts.
Because, judging by the number of christmas trees hanging next to the steering column, it likely smells like an ashtray full of curdled skunk milk.
Gotta go with the Park Avenue Skyscraper. That ranger just looks terrible and useless and boring, while the lifted grandpa mobile actually is unique and looks like fun, if it runs of course.
Nope.
So…I feel like this week we need a “Burn it all” option so that Friday we could have a vote on what should rise from the ashes of this automotive freakshow of one man’s trash.
That poor sport comment being said: I voted Ranger. I feel like the name of the game from a good sport perspective is all about potential. I grew up in the kind of Southern town where the guys kept fitting bigger tires and turbos to their diesel pickups to the point they started buying tractor parts (but never fixed the gearing, so they could do a steady 25mph). I know weird lifted shit. I’ve also been the proud driver of an ’88 Crown Vic, a ’92 Town Car, a ’97 Skylark, and an ’03 Century so I also know my grandpa cruisers. I wouldn’t touch that (not currently) rolling pile of tetanus and cousin-lovin’ with a 15 foot pole.
The Ranger has potential. It is a class mini truck platform, the mustang 5-spokes are totally appropriate, the color is good, and the canvas is still blank enough that you could have some fun with it. It requires work, absolutely, but it would be the kind of work that could allow you to personalize it and have fun at car shows or, if you pick it up a bit, driving to work. The 2.3 is bulletproof (drove one as a security patrol vehicle for 3 years and it had 230,000 miles on it from going around one job site). It’d be a fun and inexpensive introduction into an important automotive subculture.
“It seems like yesterday’s Baja bugs kind of landed with a thud. I can always tell when you all aren’t terribly excited about a Showdown by the low comment vote totals. Ah well, can’t win ’em all. Thanks for being good sports about it anyway.”
…and here’s two thoroughly useless vehicles that don’t even have parts on them worthwhile of cannibalizing at their price points.
Maybe somebody should buy these and park them in a highly visible area with a sign on them that says something like “This is what happens when you snort four marijuanas and lick innocent frogs anywhere near welding equipment”
None of the above. There has to be a Saab for this price available somewhere.
But if I have to pick I’m picking the Ranger because the interior of that Buick is disgusting.
Too right. Found you an option: 1992 Saab 900 Turbo Convertible. An automatic, sure, but it is a real color and not totally gross! Go find it in CT. It is close enough and cheap enough that if I had a parking space I’d be going down to look at it.
If I didn’t have a 88 Turbo Convertible I’d go look. I went auto, since I’m tired of shifting and it’s a cruiser for my wife and I. Wonder what the “significant damage reported” is in the listing. The interior is nicer than the one I got, and I like those wheels. Reminds me of the 93 I had back in the day.
Can’t decide if you’re a good person for finding that listing, or that one person we all know who says “C’mon, just one more.” Either way, nice find.
Big nope day again, but sure I’ll click the Ranger button because it’s less awful and likely runs.
No mention of the FUR LINED BED on the Ranger?!? Really?
I’ll take the Buick.
I spent a long, long time looking at that wondering how we weren’t all freaking out about that. Thanks for letting me know I’m not alone in WHAT THE ABSOLUTE HELL
It would be the perfect truck to travel to furry conventions, if not for being so low that the weight of a fur suit in the back would bottom the truck out.
Not to mention the visible rust spots on said fur. I’ve never know fur to rust, so it’s either something REALLY bad underneath, or from those hydraulic cylinders.
I think that this particular survey needs Option Number C: I’d rather walk.
My vote is neither but since have to choose, I went with Ranger
Pretty sure it would be easier to get that truck back to something useful. Ranger for me, but I’d put a stock suspension back in it from a salvage yard.
I’ll take the FORD TUCKIN’ RANGER.
I’ll slap some winter tires on it and I’ve got my winter drift missile.
This is probably the most sensible thing you could do with it.
Another neither day. I have seen too many off road beasts like that first one at off road events and parks, in person and they are all too sketchy to even sit in.
No air filter, and an engine bay full of what can only be described as future bore polishing grit.
I have to hope that the air cleaner has been removed for a thorough spraydown and a new filter. I have to. Because otherwise that engine, unkillable SBC or not, is on borrowed time.
Each of these vehicles has parts value within it at least equal to the purchase price, and that is the only way I would consider either of them. Because ew. Especially the Ranger – no description at all? Has he never sold a vehicle before? If you can’t make yourself care, Cochise, neither can we.
Once again, I am looking for and frustrated by the absence of a None Of The Above button, which would be getting quite the workout right about now.
I’ll buy either one at the listed price if I need the parts. Otherwise, NFW, either way.
You are probably right, That “Buick” could have $2K in tires, axles, etc.