You don’t hear the term “cream puff” used to describe cars much anymore, so maybe I’d better explain it for the benefit of our younger readers. A cream puff is a used car in particularly good shape, with particularly low miles, that has obviously led an easy life. They’re often nothing special, just well-preserved old cars–like these two. (It’s also a delicious dessert made of choux pastry.)
Yesterday, we looked at a couple of cheap projects in need of some (okay, lots of) assembly. In the nearly four years I’ve been doing this, I don’t think a single Saab has lost a Showdown, and we’re not going to break that streak today. The two-for-one Sonett deal won hands down. The Mazda RX-7 had its fans, but I think the fact that it was a former race car put a lot of you off.
I’m with you. Those two cars for $500 are a screaming deal, for exactly the right person. The trouble is finding that person. I’ve always been intrigued by the idea of making one good car out of two marginal ones. I’ve done it a dozen times with old RC cars, but never in full-scale, and I think it would be a fun project. Or a giant headache that I end up selling for less than I paid for it after several fruitless years of tinkering. It could go either way.
When I was growing up, Christmas meant baked goods, and lots of them. My grandmother was half Swiss and half Danish, and she baked up a storm every year, as did my mother. Between the two of them, we were all on a non-stop sugar rush from Thanksgiving until New Year’s. It’s amazing I stayed as thin as I did as a kid. I’ve tried, with varying degrees of success, to revive some of their recipes: my lemon-curd-filled cupcakes are really good, and my skruppers (Danish pastry made with lard and yeast, layered with cinnamon and sugar) are passable, but not yet quite right. But I have yet to attempt one of my mom’s masterpiece gingerbread houses. This year, we’re in the middle of moving, so I haven’t been able to bake anything at all. But I can still treat you all to a couple of cream puffs. Here they are.
1978 Chevrolet Caprice Classic – $6,500
Engine/drivetrain: 305 cubic inch OHV V8, three-speed automatic, RWD
Location: Mesquite, TX
Odometer reading: 39,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
General Motors was the first of the “Big Three” to introduce a drastically downsized version of its full-size cars in 1977. Ford and Chrysler advertised their 1977 models as being real full-size cars, but the joke was on them: the smaller big Chevy was a huge hit. As before, the Impala was the less-expensive model, and the Caprice, like this one, was the fancy version.
This ’78 Caprice is a one-owner car, with only 39,000 miles on it. It’s powered by a 305 cubic inch V8 with a two-barrel carb, and a Turbo-Hydramatic transmission, driving a rear axle with a super-tall gear ratio to improve fuel economy. Don’t expect miracles when you step on the gas. It is a nice, durable combo, though, and the seller says this one runs and drives fine.
It’s as clean inside as you would hope it would be with so few miles. The seller claims the seats are leather, but I’m sure they’re vinyl. I doubt you could even get leather seats in a ’78 Chevy, except maybe the Corvette. There are some strange scuffs on the passenger side of the front seat visible in one photo, and a weird stain on the floor in back, but the rest of it looks like new.
It looks good outside, though the paint could use a waxing. All four original hubcaps are there, as is all the trim. I thought there was a filler piece missing above the rear bumper, but after looking at photos of other Caprices, I think it’s just sticking out farther than it should. It might be due to the trailer hitch.
1979 Mazda 626 Coupe – $6,250
Engine/drivetrain: 2.0 liter OHC inline 4, five-speed manual, RWD
Location: Millbrae, CA
Odometer reading: 79,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Now this is a car you don’t see often anymore: the first-generation Mazda 626. They were never a common sight on the road anyway, especially the coupe like this, and most of them were claimed by rust years ago. Last time I saw one in person was several years ago, in Portland, where you can still find one good example of any car, it seems.
This generation of 626 is rear-wheel-drive, with the same basic chassis layout as the first-generation RX-7. Instead of a rotary, the 626 is powered by a 2.0 liter four-cylinder, in this case backed by a five-speed manual. This one has fewer than 80,000 miles on it, and it runs and drives just fine. It just had a tune-up and a valve adjustment; now that’s something you don’t hear much these days, either.
The interior photos in the ad aren’t great, but they get the point across. It’s in beautiful shape, and it has cool houndstooth upholstery. It’s all original, and the radio works fine – but the air conditioning doesn’t. It kicks on, but it makes a funny noise instead of cool air.
Outside, it has been partially repainted, but the new paint doesn’t quite match. The original paint was faded to the point that you can tell what’s new and what’s old. But considering how few of these are left in rust-free condition, it’s a minor quibble. There’s also a dent in the rear bumper, but that’s trivial. It has cool alloy wheels that are more often associated with an RX-7, but I guess they were available on the 626 also.
These are both probably too old, and too nice, to use as everyday cars. And I’m not sure either one of them qualifies as a “classic” as such. But there is something to be said for ordinary cars that have survived decades virtually unscathed. The prices are probably more than you’d expect, but as I’ve said before, that’s just where the market is right now. Choose your favorite, enjoy your holiday, and I’ll see you back here on Friday!
Mazda because upholstery but also because I don’t want to stand in the way when the right low rider comes along to claim the Chevy.
It’s more likely to become a donk than a lowrider.
I can’t disagree. Prime donk material. I can hope, though, right?
Love that MAZDA.
These were great cars.
I wish it was closer.
I would daily that thing.
Merry Christmas Mark to you and yours.
Mazda for me. Would rather have that much lighter 4 cyl car with a manual rather than the much heavier Caprice with the 305 and slushbox.
I think it’s interesting that the Mazda comes with “a new front cross member to convert to a 12A or 13B rotary.”
GM engineering screwed up a lot of stuff in this time period but the 77 B-body was a great platform. I could imagine this with a 420hp LT / 10speed swap.
Or a Duramax.
Interesting idea. Atoning for the sins of the Olds 350 diesel LOL.
Both/Neither today. The houndstooth upholstery of the Mazda is really neat so I guess I’ll go with that. Neither of these cars are even remotely interesting to me, and even for the malaise era, these are incredibly mediocre…the malaise-iest.
Agreed. I went with the Mazda for the seats too, but in reality both are crap and neither does anything for me.
My first car was an ’82 626; same generation as this one. To this day, it was the worst car I’ve owned. In my maybe two years of ownership it had constant problems with the emissions system and blew two head gaskets. I wouldn’t take one if someone paid me. (Mazdas are great now though)
Either one of these could be a candidate to answer a “casting call” if you live close to filming locations when they need an unmodified background car for the latest ‘70s era film, series, etc. Probably wouldn’t recover the purchasing price but would be a cool bit of personal trivia.
A couple of winters on the East Coast and that cream puff Mazda would be a pile of compost. Japanese cars of that era seemed to rust at the mere mention of salt and ice.
In spite of that, I still want the Mazda. It would be a non-winter car for me.
That’s an Impala, not a Caprice. Same car, different trim levels, the Caprice was a bit fancier.
Can’t go wrong with either honestly. Took the Mazda just because of the manual.
The steering wheel on the Caprice has some serious mank on it – Gross. The Mazda appeals to me as a long-term. Swapping in a more modern engine – the 2.5 Ford/Mazda duratech is plentiful and would wake this thing up.
In he Mazda ad, it says it comes with “a new front cross member to convert to a 12A or 13B rotary.”
I suspect this was doable because this gen of 626 had a lot in common with the RX7.
And converting it to a 13B could mean getting an engine that makes up to 160hp in non-turbo form and 200hp in turbo form… for the versions of the 13B from the 1980s that are likely to fit in the engine bay the easiest and not be crazy-expensive to acquire.
These are both entering the Land of the Nostalgia, where unremarkable period cars in remarkably good condition command a high price because someone wants to relive the past. I get it. You don’t want to know what I’d pay for a mint stick-shift 1991 V6 Camry.
The Mazda is more appealing to me. Manual, lighter weight, not painted in 1970s Sadness Brown. Slow Malaise era V8s that get near-single digit mpg and can be smelled from two blocks away even when running “correctly” are not appealing to me.
Not sure about the gas mpg claim Phil. Our 1980 Impala regularly averaged 17-18 mpg with the 305 engine. And about 22-24 on the Interstate too.
But I agree, that Mazda is sweet.
Sorry, that was an exaggeration. 17-18 is pretty good for the time.
And I agree 100% on the Mazda choice, loved these.
Pretty sure that’s a Lambo (I mean Impala) dude. It even says so above the glove box inside.
That’s why it’s such a stripper – the Caprice had a fancier grille and dashboard/gauge cluster and upholstery in ’78.
I appreciate a good ol’ American malaise shitbox as much as anyone – grew up in that era so there’s some nostalgia. But there’s also reality…I drove plenty of these back in the day, and they’re just…there. If this one was more optioned up, I might be more tempted, but it’s clearly a stripper – it doesn’t even have a fold down arm rest between the front seats.
OTOH, the Mazda just looks happy. Admittedly, the lemon yellow helps, but beyond that, the overall condition is simply amazing. It’s an approachable collectible that will no doubt garner more than a few looks and nods of approval from those who know what they’re looking at. Mark is absolutely right – you simply don’t see them anywhere. The 5-speed should make it (at least) engaging, and rowing those gears while sitting on incredible period-specific houndstooth is a win.
Realistically I’m not paying $6,500 for any malaise era car but of the two the Caprice is the one. Roomy and can pull a trailer.
I also find the wheel chock suspicious on the Mazda.
Thank you, that half of a brick says a lot.
Photographing the Caprice in the parking lot of a Family Dollar seems deliberate.
I guess I’ll go with the Mazda? Neither of these cars are all that desirable and both are overpriced.
I voted for the Caprice out of nostalgia. My dad had a gray ’79. It had a leak in the roof which would slowly drip water on the front passenger, i.e., me.
Mazda for me. I had an ’82 626 coupe back in the day that was great – until the motor threw a rod through the case. Open diff rear end makes for some interesting fishtailing.
The thing about this model is that the doors are pillarless. Drop the front and rear windows and it’s one big opening like a convertible.
Didn’t notice it was a pillarless hardtop! Shit, I definitely voted wrong.
Price feels steep in both cases. I feel like the current owners are saying to themselves “the right buyer will come along”
Caprice will find parts anywhere. And maintenance should be easy with as much free space under the hood as it has.
Everyone will want the Mazda until they drive the Caprice.It may be slow but it’s comfortable and easy to fix.That motor and transmission will run forever and not one cop will blink an eye as you cruise by at 75MPH.These things actually look good with a nice set of Ralleye wheels and a pair of curb finders.The price is steep but it’s Christmas.
I. in fact, got a speeding ticket in my mom’s 78 Caprice (white with blue top and interior, 305 engine) for going 78 in a 55. The trooper actually jumped out of his car and asked, ‘Where’s the fire?’ This was back in about 1991.
This is an interesting one, at first I thought I’d go with the Caprice as it’s pretty easy to find parts for, but then I remembered that my dad had one when I was a kid and he hated the thing, and so why have an old boring car at all? The 626 is interesting and maybe fun and while it’ll be painful to find parts for, it might be rewarding in a way that the Caprice never will be.
Yes this exactly.
I’ve owned that 626 with a manual transmission. It was my first car and definitely not fun. The only Mazda back then with zoom zoom was the RX-7, and then just barely.
They’re both intriguing, but I’d pick the Caprice simply because of the ease in finding parts for it. I’d also lose the trailer hitch and reinstall the rear bumper correctly.
I’d be looking to find a passenger-side mirror for it, too.
In my morning stupor I thought that Mazda was a Volvo for a moment. The front end, the color… Sweet car.
Why is there a block on the wheel of the Mazda. Guessing the Ebrake doesn’t work?
Safety first.
The chocks are in front of the front wheels. If it were to roll, it would go backwards… That’s a faux pas, like leaving a can of Coors Lite in the cupholder when taking the Craigslist photos.
The Caprice seems to be a steal by the prices I’ve been seeing for them lately, but the ugly color and upholstery material are probably good reasons why. The Mazda is more interesting, a manual, and a coupe, but not interesting enough for me to want it.