Good morning, and welcome to another Shitbox Showdown! For your Monday morning reading pleasure, I have a couple of convertible versions of General Motors cars more commonly seen with their roofs intact. But before we get to those, let’s finish up with Friday’s sandbox toys:
Baja Bug takes it, but not by much. Either one would make a fun toy, but I think I agree with the majority here; a lower price and more “car” left make the Baja the winner here.
It used to be that almost every car was available as a convertible. Throughout the 1950s and 60s, a droptop was just another body style on the option form. But when the regulatory shit hit the fan in the 1970s, American automakers believed that convertibles would no longer pass impending safety requirements (which never came to pass), and phased the soft-top option out. From 1976 until 1982, the closest thing to an open-air driving experience to be had from American cars was T-tops, and as cool as they are, they’re just not the same. It’s no wonder Chrysler’s LeBaron and Dodge 400 convertibles sold well. They were literally the only game in town in ’82.
Ford and GM wasted no time beheading their own cars, of course; in 1983 you could get a convertible Mustang, Chevy Cavalier, or Pontiac Sunbird. Even AMC got in on the act with a soft-top version of the Renault Alliance. And from that point, it was game on; convertibles were back. Not on every car, just select models, and sometimes the models selected made little sense. Like these two, for instance.
1991 Geo Metro LSi convertible – $3,300
Engine/drivetrain: 1.0-liter overhead cam inline 3, five-speed manual, FWD
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Odometer reading: 118,000 miles
Runs/drives? Yep
I’m pleasantly surprised that the Geo Metro is still somehow relevant. This little three-cylinder cookie tin on wheels has hung around longer than I ever would have expected. People still love them, and still drive the hell out of them; there’s a dark red one with a mismatched door that I see quite often on my morning commute, being driving at suicidally reckless speeds, weaving in and out of traffic, and still somehow holding together. I’m making a prediction: If you want to see what the future holds for the Mitsubishi Mirage, take a look at Geo Metros now. I only hope the Mirages stay as reliable as Metros have.
This LSi convertible is just about the fanciest Metro you could get in 1991, I think. It even has a driver’s side airbag (only because the door posts to which the shoulder belts attach in Metro hatchbacks don’t exist in the convertible) and factory air conditioning (which unfortunately doesn’t work). It does, however, have the same little fifty-horsepower engine and five-speed stick as other Metros, so its fuel economy is somewhere between “wow, that’s really good” and “is there even an engine under there?”
There is indeed, and I’ve read that you and a strong friend can pull it for a rebuild without needing to use a hoist. This one is far from needing a rebuild, at only 118,000 miles, but the seller says it is due for a timing belt and water pump. All the parts are included to do that job, though. It also has a newer top, exhaust, fuel tank, fuel lines, and brake lines. And what do all those parts, besides the top, have in common? They’re all under the car, right where all that Michigan road salt does the most damage.
One look at the rocker panels on this car will send Southern and Western readers running for the hills. But this is life in snowy climates; cars get holes in the underside. The fact that a mechanic was willing (and able) to replace all that other stuff tells me that this car is still structurally sound; if they can’t safely put it on a lift to replace the brake lines, it goes to the junkyard. Believe me, I know. So this car must have at least a little life left in its structure. Maybe you could get under there and weld in some patches to shore it up.
1992 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme convertible – $3,900
Engine/drivetrain: 3.1-liter overhead valve V6, four-speed automatic, FWD
Location: San Antonio, TX
Odometer reading: 131,000 miles
Runs/drives? Nope, sitting for years, and key is lost
GM’s W platform has become such a part of the automotive landscape in the US that it’s hard to remember how controversial it was. Replacing the traditional RWD G-platform with a front-wheel-drive car made a lot of purists mad – and marked the first time that NASCAR stock cars were driven by different wheels than their production counterparts – but it turned out to be a wise move; the W-body stuck around for nineteen years and sold in the millions. They were sold by all four mainstream GM marques, powered by no fewer than nine different four, six, and eight cylinder engines backed by both manual and automatic transmissions, and in both two- and four-door versions, but only one marque ever got a convertible: Oldsmobile.
This 1992 Cutlass Supreme convertible is one of only about 25,000 ever made, out of almost a million total W-body Cutlasses. And if you really want to get granular, it’s one of 746 in this color combination from this year. (It never ceases to amaze me how this kind of information is so widely available these days.) Apart from its unusual roof configuration, which retains the B-pillars and a “basket handle” roll bar, it’s your basic Cutlass, with a 3.1 liter V6 and a four-speed automatic.
Unfortunately, we have no idea how well, or even whether, this one runs. It’s being sold as part of an estate sale, and apparently, they couldn’t find the keys. It has been garaged, but all the seller was able to do is tow it out and hose off the dust for photos. A locksmith should be able to make keys for it easily; this is before the era of Passlock, so there’s no chip in the key. I’m not sure why they’re trying to get almost $4,000 for a car with no keys when keys are so easy to obtain.
That’s not the only off-putting thing about this car’s listing, either. The odometer is in plain sight in one of the photos, but they still listed it as “11111.” Couldn’t be bothered to actually go out and read it when writing the ad, I guess. It’s listed as being in “like new” condition, and it does indeed look awfully nice outside, but the “perfect” leather interior looks a little shabby to me. The best I’d give it is “still pretty good for an early ’90s Oldsmobile.”
The maddening thing about both of these cars, as I’m sure you’ll all agree, is that better examples of both of them turn up for the same price or less with some regularity. These are uncommon cars, but not unheard of. But you have to be in the right place at the right time to snag one, and these are what’s for sale right now. One needs a little mechanical attention and some rust repair; the other needs a locksmith and a reality check. Which one strikes your fancy?
(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)
Metro. The drop-top Cutlass always struck me as a car that was trying too hard to compete with a European invasion that really wasn’t there. But the Metro… that was a statement vehicle. And that statement was “please, just let me merge.”
The cutlass is a nice looking car… I’d buy. W body – parts everywhere. Easy to get in road shape. Drop top!? Hell yeah. Grab the mix tape and roll on. I’d put on OEM wheels and add a JC Whitney Pacesetter pipe to let that 3.1 make noise. Weird how 31 old car NOW nostalgia is so different from a 31 yr old car in 2010. Let the sun in and do 1st gear tire chirps!
Don’t want either of these, but I could take the Metro out here, do minimal work to arrest the rust, and use the thing to drive around the neighborhood for the next six months on one tank of gas. If I were actually looking for a full time car to drive, then the Cutlass might be the choice, but the whole business of the missing key and the total lack of attention to the ad make me a mite bit suspicious. Metro it is.
The Geo is a hunk of plastic junk w/ bowling balls for wheels…three cylinders? Get a life…might as well turn it into a lawnmower. I’ll take the Olds in almost perfect shape!
I like sitting in my cars not wearing them around my waste so Cutlass but offering half of ask.
Wearing anything around your waste is not recommended. Try Depends.
I former girlfriend’s sister drove one of those Metro convertibles in red. I always considered it a ‘convertible casket’, since getting into an accident in one wouldn’t be worth prying you out, and the car is small-enough to drop right into the vault.
That said, the Metro has a whole lot of fans, and the Olds is full of all kinds of sketchiness. It hurts to shun the Olds, which I always thought looked fun, but the sellers of the Olds need to pretend to care a bit to ask that money.
The Metro is rad, but I can’t imagine sourcing one from Michigan. I’ll take the….
I erased my original response, because I’m trusting the listing details less and less as I think about them. The laziness with the key and such for an estate wouldn’t be all that surprising, but what’s up with those aftermarket wheels? Why is everything all blacked-out? It seems to be overall in great shape, but I initially thought I was getting a babied old lady car. Now I’m thinking it’s already been through a couple of grandchildren.
I’ll take the Metro after all.
Geo Metro for me. I’ve always had a soft spot for the Metro/Swift/Firefly. And this one has the correct transmission. I’d get the rust repaired, get it polished and detailed and it would be a cute, interesting and cheap C&C weekend car.
Had to vote for the Cutlass. I had a 93 convertible, same engine and trans, actually the same colors too, but my top was black. Not the fastest horse in the race, but it was smooth and comfy on the highway.
Would normally have voted for the Metro, I’ve driven one of those convertibles before and it’s a genuinely fun little car. But if I remember correctly they often rust out in structurally important areas, so I’d be concerned about that.
The Olds looks like it’s in pretty good shape, and while you’d likely need to fix a thing or two once you got a key for it, at least its not rusty like the Metro. I’d rather do mechanical work than deal with rust any day.
I approve this message, sums up my thoughts as well.. The Metro also “looks” more fun, but the Cutlass was a good looking convertible for the time.
I loved my Metro, but the convertibles are so floppy, I just can’t. The Cutlass is so much more car.
My wife owned a Metro (fixed-roof variety) before we married. I can see why someone else might like that car, but it is…not for me.
Trust me, I still really want a Metro convertible. Just not this one, for obvious reasons.
Looks exactly like a cutlass I had. mine had the 200HP DOHC 3.4, which is arguably more problematic, and the cowl shook like a wet towel over bumps, but they sure were attactive cars. I am not sure a michigan Metro with rust already showing is a good investment and both of these are massively overpriced. Still if I could maybe find the right resistor key to make the thing actually start, I would want to be seen in the Gutless Cutless more so.
I have a soft spot in my heart for the Olds. I had a silver coupe (International Series!) with a maroon interior (complete with peeling GM paint that was common at the time) in the mid 90s.
I loved that car, but baby I had to crash it.
I have zero desire for either of these. The Metro is less over priced, so I’ll vote for that one.
I went with the Metro. From what we know, it’s the better deal in this face-off, and might just run forever. Even with the spare parts, though, I’d expect it to be cheaper with the rust.
Both are a touch problematic, and I am sure that the Cutlass is moore car for the money – but I actually want the Metro. But I’d prefer a five-door.
I have a strict “never going to drive a Geo Metro again, barring a literal matter of life or death”-policy. I don’t like anything about the Cutlass, but it still get my vote by default.
I love that policy (never Geo!), and love the Olds!
Absolutely loved the look of the convertible cutlass.. looks way better than the same car in hardtop for some reason. They always caught my eye. Voted Metro though, too many questions. . .
A-tisket, a-tasket I’ll take the Cutlass basket.
No key no problem. It’s a 90s GM a nail file will probably do the trick.
Plus I just like the robot with a headache look.
The Metro wins by default. Cute, cool colors, good mpg, and they last a long long time with no problems 🙂
Too bad Suzuki doesn’t sell cars over here anymore.
Default? What a pile of plastic junk that should be lit on fire & driven off a cliff
$4k for an old W body with no key, ass ugly wheels and smoked tail lights is just too much for me. A shame because I love early W bodies. The ambitious features they packed into these things to make up for the car’s engineering shortcomings are great. I know this as the former owner of a Grand Prix GTP that was better at holding electronic interior goodies than the engine was at holding oil. The stick on the Metro is just icing on the cake.
“Perfect condition?” I don’t think that word means what the seller thinks it means.
“Pretty good shape” would be more accurate. And to insist the price is “firm” without being able to verify the damn thing runs? That’s just insulting. Go get a key and try again. Then maybe I’ll change my vote from the Metro.
Goddamn, Mark. You have found a couple of cars that do the shitbox moniker proud. Both of these things are horrendous for the asking prices.
If I have to choose one, I’ll go with the Metro as we know what it needs. Who knows what that Olds will need after years of sitting? The seller probably hasn’t bothered to get a key because they want to offload it without the buyer having more information to work with. The Metro is a rusty POS that runs now and will be cheap to keep running for however long it has before something structural fails.