I’m always amazed by the sheer variety of cars you can find when looking at the cheap end of the market. Depreciation is the great equalizer, hitting higher-priced cars harder than cheaper ones as it tends to do, so you can find some wildly different vehicles for the same price. This week, I’m going to find cars that don’t have anything in common except the asking price.
Last week, we looked at old and new examples of cars from the same manufacturer, and we finished up on Friday with a pair from Lotus. Neither car was perfect, but they were both presentable, and in good mechanical shape. You couldn’t really go wrong with either of them, if a simple, visceral sports car experience is what you’re after. The old Elan won a very close race, making the score 3-2 in favor of the old cars for the week.
I’m not sure which way I’d go on these, to be honest. I love the Elan’s styling, but I think I have enough cantankerous old British cars in my life. And I’ve never owned a mid-engined car before. But the Elise is really hard to get in and out of. I guess I’d choose the Elise, and plan to send it on its way when my bad hip finally says enough.
Huh, weird – I just noticed that the vote totals are the same numbers as the bore and stroke of a Chevy 350 V8: 4.00 by 3.48 inches. Does anybody else’s brain immediately pick up on car-related numbers like that when you see them out of context? I sure hope I’m not the only one.
Anyway, let’s move on. Pricing a used car is a tricky business. I have never been much good at it; I set a price for something I think is fair, and the car languishes for sale for ages. I ask a price that seems high to me, and I’m inundated with messages, and someone snaps it up immediately. Whatever price you set, someone will always say it’s way too high, and someone else will think it’s the deal of the century. What’s fun is that for any given price, you can find a massive variety of vehicles, and some will seem too expensive, and some too cheap. These two weren’t the only cars I found for $4,900, not by a long shot, but they’re the two that went together the least. So they’re what we’re going to look at.
1992 Buick Skylark Gran Sport – $4,900
Engine/drivetrain: 3.3 liter OHV V6, three-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Anderson, IN
Odometer reading: 62,000 miles
Operational status: I assume it runs and drives just fine
Here’s a car my grandfather would have loved. He would only drive one make and model of car: the Buick Skylark. He had a blue ’72 coupe when I was little, which was replaced by a brown ’78 coupe, and then a white ’82 sedan that was his last. But he told me once that the ’72 was his favorite, because of the style. I wouldn’t have guessed he cared about style at all, gruff retired firefighter that he was, but I think he would have liked this second-generation N-body Skylark. It doesn’t look much like the ’72 model, but it has a similar attitude.
This is the Gran Sport model of the Skylark, with less chrome, bigger wheels, and more power. It’s powered by a 3.3 liter version of Buick’s 90 degree V6, basically a smaller-displacement cousin to the beloved 3800. The only transmission available on the Skylark in 1992 was GM’s three-speed TH-125C automatic, which isn’t very grand, or sporting, but at least it’s reliable. I can’t tell you how well this one runs, because there is absolutely no description in the ad, not a single word. It’s running in the photo above; I can tell by the blur of the alternator fan, but that’s all I know. I assume that for this price, it runs and drives flawlessly.
GM took to heart the complaints about the X and J-body cars all looking alike except for the badges, and made sure that the N-bodies had distinct characters. The Skylark, Pontiac Grand Am, and Oldsmobile Achieva all share a platform, but they have different sheetmetal, and unique interiors. The Skylark is uncharacteristically swoopy for a Buick. Too swoopy for traditional Buick buyers, as it turns out; a refreshed design in 1996 toned things down considerably. This one looks like it’s in decent shape inside, with just a little wear and tear.
Not everyone likes the styling of this car, but I do. It’s dramatic and unique. But it only works as a two-door; the four-door sedan version looks like ass. And the Gran Sport looks better than the standard model, with its two-tone paint and red accents. It’s in lovely shape, and I bet it would be a hit at car gatherings. You almost certainly won’t see another one like it.
2002 Porsche Boxster – $4,900
Engine/drivetrain: 2.7 liter DOHC flat 6, five-speed automatic, RWD
Location: San Francisco, CA
Odometer reading: 65,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
The 911 has been Porsche’s flagship model for six decades now, and it has only gotten fancier and more expensive over the years. Periodically, Porsche has introduced a lower-priced model to lure buyers into the showroom: first was the 912, then the 914, then the 924, which evolved into the 944. All noble efforts, but none stuck around for the long term. In the mid-1990s, Porsche finally got its entry-level model right, with the mid-engined Boxster.
The Boxster has its engine just behind the seats, a 2.7 liter flat six making a little over 200 horsepower. Obviously, considering it’s a Porsche, you’d really want a manual gearbox, but an automatic was available, and unfortunately that’s what this one has. You can slap the gearshift lever side-to-side to activate the “Tiptronic” manual shifting capability, but it’s just not the same. On the upside, the seller says it runs and drives very well, and just passed a smog test. There is no word, however, on whether the Boxster’s Achilles heel – the dreaded failure-prone intermediate shaft bearing – has been taken care of yet. It’s a question you should probably ask.
This Boxster has only 65,000 miles on it, which is probably why it’s so clean inside. There’s a little wear in the leather on the driver’s seat, but that’s all. I’ve driven a Boxster (a proper manual one, though) and I can tell you that this interior is quite a nice place to be. The seats are comfy, and the driving position is just about perfect.
It looks great outside, too, with nice shiny paint, but why does it have to be silver? I know, silver is the traditional German racing color, and it has been used on some very famous Porsche racing cars, but it’s overdone at this point. And we all know that the Boxster is available in some way better colors.
So, you’ve got just a little under five thousand dollars of fake internet money burning a hole in your pocket. There are lots of choices out there, but today I’m limiting you to these two: a flashier-than-average GM coupe, and a German roadster with the wrong transmission. Your reasons for choosing one over the other are your own, but choose you must.
This was easy- Porsche! The front end on those Skylarks is horrid. It’s cool as a coupe and is still good for someone who needs a car that will run badly longer than other cars will run at all. I’ll have a ton of fun cruising in my Boxster! (After manual swapping it) I’m surprised how cheap it is for such low miles…maybe since it’s an auto
I went Boxster, pretending it’s not WAY too cheap. Something’s fishy.
Yep. The Buick is normal price for a hunk of crap no one wants. The Boxster is a car people want, which means for this price it’s definitely one step away from the scrap yard.
Which means the Buick will probably run longer.
That era Skylark is one of the ugliest cars ever IMO. This one is dressed up a little more, but since they are both automatic give me the Porsche Boxster!
I have a weak spot for GM cars of this vintage, but no question, Boxter. As long as it currently runs and drives, it’s a functioning convertible for cheap money.
It’d be kind of funny to do a safari style build on it, like people do with Miatas.
The Buick, IIRC that front end design was supposed to hark back to Buicks of the 1930’s. I always thought these were a bit awkward looking, but I actually liked the Olds version of this car, the Achieva. The Pontiac looked good also, and was probably the only one that looked good as a 4 door too.
I had a VHS promo tape that I requested via mail for those cars when they came out. That was some high-quality entertainment…god, I was a nerd.
Not voting today, BUT would propose the correct answer is buy both and take the Buick nose and put it on the Porsche.
That’s just the kind of madness I come here to read.
Or somehow shoehorn the drivetrain from the Boxter into the Skylark. Then add your own “Powered by Porsche” badges like the Chrysler TC by Maserati.
I would so take the Skylark. That Porsche will drain your bank account and kill your soul. The price is a down payment on the misery you’re about to experience. Buick will be cheap to fix and at least it’s weird.
“Does anybody else’s brain immediately pick up on car-related numbers like that when you see them out of context?”
Yeah, I’ll pick up on time or date numbers, like when it’s 3:50, or when the day is 3/27, stuff like that.
David Freiburger used to post pics of engines on their calendar days, like a 426 Hemi on 4/26, etc.
I set my alarms at engine times. 2:32, 2:58, 302, 3:57, 427/427/428/429. Out the door by 5:02.
Can’t remember my wifes birthday but still remember the tmobile account number I cancelled 15+ years ago because it was a set of familiar displacements and model numbers.
“Does anybody else’s brain immediately pick up on car-related numbers like that when you see them out of context?”
Yes. I can tell you my first child was born at 4:27 PM, because that’s a famous big block engine displacement. My second child was born sometime around 10 AM.
It’s jarring to see this post discussing the style and powertrain of the Skylark when it’s up against a literal Porsche.
Is this really a choice? Even with the wrong transmission in the Porsche there is no universe where I would want that GM heap of poo anywhere near me. Had to drive those things as rentals back in the day faaaaar too often. <shudder>
I’ve wanted the Kraut flat-4 or -6 behind the seats for about as long as I’ve been aware of them, but an automatic?
And, seeing those Boxsters on the street? Not real unusual.
That Skylark OTOH… yeah, 3-speed, but it’s spectacular (-ly ugly, some would say, but a. they’re wrong and b. they need to fight me.)
Bottom line for my decision: That Buick would make me happier as a daily driver, obviously, but I think it’d turn more heads than the Porsche as well.
(OK, I’ll own up to a little nostalgia for my beloved, black 1963 4-door Special with red interior, and perhaps the coolest V8 ever, which was my daily driver when its Powerglide would cooperate.)
Almost certainly a bad financial decision, but I’ll take the apparently underpriced Boxster over the Buick. I just can’t imagine that there’s not something expensive that will need to be done in short order on that Porsche, but the Buick really doesn’t do it for me. It doesn’t look all that great to me, and while there are cars that can handle the whorehouse red interior, I don’t think this is one of them. I’ll take the Boxster and figure out a below the radar stream of income so that my wife never knows how much I end up spending on it.
I do like that generation of Skylark, but it can’t compete today. I kept reading to see what the big gotcha to that Boxster was but never got to it. At that price it seems even updating the IMS would make it worthwhile.
The Skylark is crackhead priced LOL
Too bad there was no Skylark T-Type with the HO Quad 4 W41 yeah that would’ve been awesome 😀
The Porsche is scary because of the maintenance and repair costs. There is no way to access the engine, and it’s not an EV, so it needs regular engine maintenance plus the additional shit because Porsche. The purchase price is just the down payment 😛
Toyota helped Porsche make the 911 and Boxster profitable, but they didn’t help with any engineering shit, which is too bad because a 3S-GTE Boxster would’ve been so much better than a Subaru but even scarier.
Also, why hasn’t Subaru worked with Porsche, since they both love shitty boxer engines? 😛
So, today’s vote is a crackhead vs just a down payment. I voted for the crackhead because of the red interior.
I was never taken with the Boxster.
I’d really rather have the Buick.
That Buick is very nice for what it is and could win many SBSs, but I just can’t justify it over a real darn mid engined Porsche that actually runs and looks clean.
I haven’t looked yet, but I can’t imagine that there is anything that would make me pick a buick over a porche.
A Buick GNX vs a base model Porsche 914?
I’d still infinitely rather have the Porsche. And I’ve driven both.
Well, just by the values, I’d go for the Buick.
914s go for about $15K in good condition. GNX’s go for well over $100K.
If I had to daily one, I’d pick the 914. If I got one as an investment, I’d go with the GNX.
I buy cars to drive, not to invest in. One-trick ponies don’t interest me much, and this is Internet funny money anyway.
The GNX is, at the end of the day, a G-body. And G-bodies are mostly terrible.
A 914, on the other hand, is all air-cooled and visceral.
So yeah – I’d much rather have the 914.
Putting a crapload of horsepower into a turd just makes it a faster turd.
914s are wildly underrated cars. They are absolutely delightful to drive. Without putting your license in so much danger.
Yeah, pretty much. Every drive becomes a thrill.
And G-bodies will always be grandma cars in my mind, because my grandmother had one, and they’re done up to appeal to the senses of the Greatest Generation quite effectively.
I can’t believe there’s so much commentary that the Porsche has the “wrong” transmission!
I’ve driven Porsches with autos. You know what? They’re still damned Porsches.
edit *I’m not into the GNX, but that is a completely different story given that it will get to 60 in half the time that this Skylark will. I’m assuming you can’t find a GNX for $5000.*
I grew up in the 70s, I had an 82 Olds Cutlass Supreme with T-Tops that I loved as a teenager but of course it was slow as hell. I know that I lot of people are into Grand Nationals and similar cars, I’m just not one of them.
So there is no nostalgia for this car meaning it has to be something I want to drive for other reasons and I can’t see driving a 30 year old car that isn’t fun to drive in a little sports car kind of way especially when it goes 0-60 in about 10 seconds.
The porsche looks like an economy car, but if it’s working it’s an economy car that I could give to one of my early 20s kids and they’d love it.
The Porsche is about 5 grand under the going rate from what I can find, even in a undesirable color/trans combination. I’m betting it’s almost certainly some kind of scam. Title-washed salvage, engine filled with 50-weight oil to quiet the bearing knock, or maybe the ever popular, “We’ll meet behind the abandoned warehouse, make sure to bring cash and come alone” kind of scam.
I can’t believe I’m saying this but I’ll take the ugly pointy nose Buick because I’m less likely to die during or after the transaction.
I see rough boxsters for 5k all the time.
Yes, but this one doesn’t look rough nor is it described that way. It’s got decent miles and presents well, which makes the low price very suspect, at least in my opinion.
I too am suspicious. It’s an automatic transmission, but still way too cheap.
I feel like every time you turn the key to start that Porsche and move the shifter into drive, a little bit of your soul would die. Whereas, climbing into that deep red interior, the Buick would feel like you were in a special survivor.
There’s something terribly wrong with that porsche….. (other than a tragic transmission), but I think I’d still take it over the Buick. This is a close one, though.
Today is the day I pick a Buick over a Porsche and I would never have guessed this day would come.
I know there are no “cheap Porsches”, the auto is a bummer, so is the silver color. I’ve never been a big Porsche fan anyway, short of 80s 911’s and 944’s.
At least the Buick should make a decent appliance.
They both have the wrong transmission, but I think you’d feel more disappointment in the Boxster having the wrong transmission than you would the Buick. And I like the way those Skylark coupes looked. I think that while the Boxster is certainly a “better” car to drive, the Buick is going to be less of a disappointment, as well as a nice casual cruiser that’s hell a cheap to keep running. Also, and I never thought I’d be saying this about a transverse V6, the spark plugs are going to be the easier of the two to change in the driveway.
There’s nothing more expensive than a cheap expensive car, I’ve seen what some people have to deal with on those Porsches and simple things become engine-out jobs at a specialty shop or dealer. Plus, driving a Porsche with a slushbox would just make me sad.
I’m leaning into the slush with the Buick. Comfortable, cheap parts, easy to work on at home, and no illusions about performance.
I don’t care as much about the fact that the Boxter is automatic as I do about the front end of the Skylark. I haven’t liked it since the first day I saw it, and that opinion hasn’t mellowed over the years. The Boxter is in great shape, and shaft-bearing-be-damned, it would be a hell of a lot more fun than the Buick in every way possible.
Only one of these lets me put the ‘My other car is a Porsche’ sticker on my daily driver.
Sure, an automatic makes it as fun as having sex with 15 condoms on, but you’re still having sex. The Buick and the concept of having sex are in different counties….or decades, depending on the audience you attract.
A handful of N-body enthusiasts might get excited, but is that the kind of excitement you want?
To say nothing of taillight enthusiasts…
If it’s the Buick, you better be having sex with the lights off!