Eye-Catching Colors: 2007 Chevy Cobalt vs 2009 Ford Flex

Welcme back to Shitbox Showdown! Today, we’re looking at two unremarkable cars that happened to catch my eye because they are interesting colors. Are they also good deals? We’ll see.

Yesterday it was Jaguar versus Porsche, but not in the way you’d expect, or necessarily want. Now, to be clear, I don’t have a problem with automatic transmissions in daily drivers; I just don’t think they belong in sports cars. And I realize that the Jaguar AJ inline six is a better engine in pretty much every regard than the V12, but everyone who knows a little bit about cars equates the XJS with its twelve-cylinder engine. You’d have to issue a disclaimer every time you opened the bonnet.

But the Jag is the more appealing car, though I still have questions about its actual current condition. If it’s got some bugs and extra miles from a cross-country drive, that’s fine, but why not take new photos when you got it here? And why, why, can’t it be any color other than fire-engine red?

Color enters into my choices of cars here more than you realize. Browsing Craigslist and occasionally Facebook Marketplace shows just how monochromatic our vehicles of choice really are. I see, and generally gloss over, so many thumbnails of silver, gray, white, and beige cars that could be good choices, but they just don’t jump out at me. If I click on a silver car, it’s usually because it’s an unusual model, like yesterday’s Boxster.

Today’s cars are the opposite. They’re fairly tame choices of cars, but in colors not normally seen. And it’s the color that drew me in. They both look like reasonably good used cars as well, as it turns out. Let’s see which one catches your eye.

2007 Chevrolet Cobalt LT – $2,700

Engine/drivetrain: 2.2 liter dual overhead cam inline 4, four-speed automatic, FWD

Location: Fort Worth, TX

Odometer reading: 108,000 miles

Operational status: Runs and drives great

I’ve been reading car magazines for long enough to remember reviews for several generations of GM small cars now, and it seems like they always started the same way: “This time they got it right! This is so much better than [previous model].” When the Cobalt replaced the Cavalier in the mid-2000s, the reviews were glowing, and nearly all of them denigrated the Cavalier as much as they praised the Cobalt. Then, when the Cruze came along, the cycle repeated. From this, you could infer one of two things: Either GM small cars improve exponentially with each generation, or they’re all pretty much the same level of “meh,” and auto journalists sometimes tend towards hyperbole.

Having owned a couple of Cavaliers, and rented a Cobalt or two, I’m going with “meh.” This is marginally nicer inside than a Cavalier, and the Ecotec engine is a little smoother and more powerful than the old 122, but there’s nothing revolutionary here at all. It’s a perfectly fine little car, though, and this one appears to be in good shape.

It runs and drives well, the seller says, and has just had an oil change. It’s too clean under the hood, like the engine was just steam-cleaned and then coated with that shiny goop, whatever it is, that used car lots love to slather on. It’s a little suspicious, as is the wildly crooked intake runner. It probably just snaps back into place, so why not do it before taking the photos?

It’s nice and shiny, but it has a pretty good dent in front of the right rear wheel, and the panel gaps are, well, cheap GM. The trunk lid also looks like it might be a slightly different color than the rest of it, but it might be a trick of the light.

2009 Ford Flex SE – $3,800

Engine/drivetrain: 3.5 liter dual overhead cam V6, six-speed automatic, FWD

Location: Austin, TX

Odometer reading: 218,000 miles

Operational status: Runs and drives great

Every source I can find refers to the Ford Flex as a “full-size crossover SUV” – but look at this thing. It’s a wagon if there ever was one. It’s not tall enough to be an SUV, and it’s not four-wheel-drive. But for some reason “wagon” has become a dirty word, so we have to call it a crossover.

Whatever you want to call it, the idea is the same: it’s a big box on wheels, with lots of places for people to sit if you need that, or lots of room to carry stuff if you ditch the seats. It’s powered by Ford’s Duratec 3.5 liter V6, which is a smooth and powerful engine with a serious Achilles heel: the water pump is in a stupid place, and driven by the timing chain, which means if it fails, it can take the whole engine with it. However, this one had its water pump and timing chain replaced at 200,000 miles, so it should be good to go for a while.

You can tell it has a lot of miles on it just by looking at the interior. It’s not trashed, but there are some definite signs of wear and tear. The seller says everything works, including the air conditioning, so we can forgive a little scruffiness inside, I think. For this price, you don’t expect perfection anyway.

Outside, it has a wrinkle on the same corner as the Cobalt, oddly. But it’s purely superficial, and can be ignored. The rest of it looks pretty good. And for the record, my dislike of red cars does not extend to this cranberry color; this I quite like.

These aren’t really cars anyone would comparison-shop; one is a small commuter sedan and the other is a family hauler, but when has that ever mattered here? Just pick your favorite based on whatever criteria you choose.

(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)