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.
My girlfriend had that Skylark. It’s the George Costanza Skylark.
Honestly, it’s awful but I’d take it for the nostalgia.
Without test driving either, the Boxster is the easy choice. But one should drive them.
I hated that rendition of the Skylark, so it’s a hard no for me.
Carvana told me yesterday that my ’17 Accord V6 is worth $13K. It was $33K when I bought it at a $1K discount from MSRP, eight years ago in SE Texas. It will still do 0-60 in under six seconds, if so summoned. I’ve done if maybe three times in the eight years I’ve owned it. 65K miles. A lot of them on the freeway.
It might make a really nice used car for someone someday. Or a decent inheritance if I shuffle off this mortal coil before it does. Just be sure to do the timing belt and valve tappet adjustments before something bad happens.
Maybe I need to do the timing belt and valve stuff soon.
I went Skylark just for the nostalgia. My uncle had one, in white, but the same red interior. I can smell the Marlboro reds through my computer monitor right now.
Hopefully this one doesn’t reek of Marlboro reds though.
I’d take the Skylark because it’s weird, I’m weird, and in 10 years it will be infinitely more rare than a Boxster and although the Porsche is the much much better car, the ‘Lark will shine at Radwood.
I’ve said my words.
It’s not expensive, that Boxster and likely the IMS hasn’t been replaced, else it would have been mentioned. The car IS 23 years old and it doesn’t have that much power (200 hp is nothing these days) and it IS an automatic. Up close probably more wear will be visible.
While the IMS issue seemed not to affect that many cars – 10% some say, it still is a higher than normal risk so a reduced price is reasonable.
The problem is that this car and engine and gearbox doesn’t really justify replacing the IMS for 2500-4000 USD. You can get a more worn car with more fun engine and perhaps a manual for more money, but close to 5k + 4k and a bit more since you’re getting a more desired car.
However .. having said that. If you ONLY have 5k and you want to drive a Porsche right now, then this is a possible deal. I see people calling ‘scam’ and while the price is good – the car IS 23 years old, the IMS issue might be around and there are plenty of other cars which hold value better than this Porsche Boxster which are also fun to drive.
Comes in mind ; Mazda Miatas, Mercedes SLK, BMW Z4 etc. And don’t come telling that the Boxster will drive sharper ; it has an automatic and it’s 23 years old so the suspension isn’t going to be sharp and with 200 hp it won’t move like you think it would move. When new the car could do 0-60 in 6.5 seconds but a) it won’t do 6.5 any more after 23 years and b) you don’t -want- to push that engine so if you get 7 seconds it would be fast and likely you will stay nearer to 8 seconds to avoid grenading the engine, especially with the IMS thingy.
So basically this is a tourer, a convertible, with the Porsche badge, 23 year old, without being or feeling like a classic. My 2 cents and YMMV, IMHO.
I’d feel a lot better about the Boxster if it had 100k miles on it and the seller had not done the IMS bearing than 65k and probably no IMS bearing, but let’s get a PPI and take a gamble.
And maybe budget $3500 to have the IMS replaced, but if it’s 65k miles and it hasn’t failed now it probably won’t, right? Don’t they normally grenade themselves under 30k miles?
So the Boxster appears to be unreasonably cheap, but it is also wearing “Primewell” tires, which I’d expect to see a clapped out 1992 Buick Skylark instead of a Porsche. So maybe they just left “salvage title” conveniently off the listing. Although for $5k, it might be worth a spin with a salvage title.
I can make a case for either but California Dreaming low mileage convertible with no rust wins out over comfortable reliable older statesman car from areas it snows in. Now that I’m old enough to be a grandpa I don’t have a problem with a good Buick.
Total no-brainer here. The porsche is so much more car for the same money. Fun to drive, future classic, much more desirable etc. The Buick is fun, but that’s about it. It’s got a face, but it drives like poop next to the Porsche.
I’m sure im like the 15th person to say, but ain’t no way that Boxter in that shape is a 5K car. It’s gotta be a scam.
Somehow I still voted for it
Now that you mentioned it yes scam vibes
Normally I would pick the mechanically safe choice, but I just can’t handle that Buick. It’s the Rodius of Buicks. It insults the words “sky” and “lark.”
That Skylark is one of the ugliest cars Buick ever made. GM was such a joke back then.
Agree, it was bad in 1992 and still bad today.
Boxster only because its a convertible. Frankly, I feel ikcy about this choice because it’s an automatic, and that’s just wrong…
A Porsche convertible for under five grand? Yeah, there’s something fishy about this car, but I went ahead and voted for it anyway.
No disrespect to the Skylark–that’s a perfectly good little car, and I’d happily vote for it in a consolation bracket at the end of the week. But convertible!