Good morning! It’s warm and sunny where I am, which has me thinking about convertibles. So we’re going to check out a couple. These two both just barely fit into our $2,500 budget for the week, but neither of them really needs anything.
Yesterday we looked at two sedans from 2009, and the final tally was decisive: the manual transmission Ford Fusion won handily. The Volvo’s minor maladies and likely higher maintenance costs counted against it, as did its dings and dents. Many of you were concerned about rust on both cars, and yes, there’s probably some, but you do know you can wash cars in the winter to keep the salt off, right?
For me, it’s the Fusion without a second thought. I’d much rather have a manual in a cheap car, and a garden-variety Ford is more “me” than a turbocharged Volvo. Parts should be cheaper and easier to find for it, as well.
So, now let’s turn our attention to convertibles. I know they’re not everyone’s cup of tea, and they can be kind of a pain in the ass for everyday use, but on that perfect day (or night), when the sun (or moon) is out, with the right company, and the right song on the radio, they can be absolutely magical. Let’s see which one of these you’d rather drive on such a day (or night).
2004 Chrysler Sebring convertible – $2,500
Engine/drivetrain: 2.4-liter DOHC inline 4, four-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Orange, CA
Odometer reading: 88,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Chrysler brought the convertible back to America after six long sunless years in 1982. Yeah, that first LeBaron convertible was just a K-car with the top chopped off, and it was not the most reliable thing on the road, but the top went down, and that was enough. And to be fair, it did get a lot better as time went on. The LeBaron finally left showrooms in 1995, and was replaced by this car: the Sebring. This is the second-generation Sebring, which ran from 2001 to 2006.
This Sebring is powered by the base engine, a 2.4-liter four cylinder also found in the PT Cruiser. You could get a V6, and most Sebrings I’ve seen are so equipped, but the 2.4 is more reliable, more efficient, and a lot easier to work on. This one hardly has any miles on it to speak of, and it was just serviced and just passed a smog test. It also has “almost new” tires and brakes, so it shouldn’t need anything right away.
It’s nothing fancy inside, but it has all the stuff you need. It’s in good condition, too, as far as I can tell. The photos in the ad aren’t great; they’re mostly close-ups of various features of the interior. So if you want to know what those cruise control buttons on the steering wheel look like close up, they’ve got you covered, but this is the only overall interior shot we get.
It looks decent outside as well. The seller says it comes with a new top still in the box, but the top that’s on it looks pretty damn good, so I don’t know what’s going on there. I don’t think those are the original wheels, either, but they look fine on it.
2008 Toyota Solara SLE convertible – $,2,500
Engine/drivetrain: 3.3-liter DOHC V6, five-speed automatic, FWD
Location: San Gabriel, CA
Odometer reading: 215,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
The Toyota Solara is more accurately known as the Toyota Camry Solara. It was introduced in 1998 with different sheetmetal from the Camry sedan, unlike earlier two-door Camrys. Under the skin, however, it’s the same old reliable car you all know and love. It was available as a coupe or a convertible, but today, it’s the convertible we’re interested in.
Like the Camry, the Solara was available with either a four-cylinder or a V6 engine. This one has the V6, a 3.3-liter unit that sends 210 horsepower to the front wheels through a five-speed automatic. Like most Toyotas, it’s more than capable of racking up some miles, so it’s no surprise that this car has passed 200,000. The seller says it runs and drives well, but the tire pressure monitor light is on. The tires are fine, so a sensor has probably failed. Also, if I’m reading the ad correctly, it sounds like the air conditioning is stuck on.
It has seat covers and a steering wheel cover that are probably hiding some wear, considering the mileage, but overall it looks good inside. It’s the fancy SLE model, so it has all kinds of goodies inside for you to play with.
The second-generation Solara’s styling is, let’s say, challenging. It’s okay from the front, but this rear three-quarter view is something only Sir Mix-A-Lot could love. Dropping the top doesn’t improve its lines any, either. But, I suppose you can’t see the outside when you’re sitting in the inside. It’s in good condition, with just a couple minor scrapes and bruises, but thankfully no “Camry Dent.”
If you live in a place where you can put the top down with some frequency, a convertible as a daily driver can actually be nice. With the top up, these are just ordinary cars with worse rear visibility and more road noise, but when the weather is right, you can push that button in the center console and turn them into something much more enjoyable. And even if you can only use them once in a while, the price of these is low enough to keep them around as a second car. Which one are you going with?
Today is a “better car vs better condition” choice.
I wonder if the same person that designed the hideous 2nd generation Lexus SC convertible also designed this awful 2nd generation Solara.
This was from Toyota’s “tuber” era of styling. The Solara, the SC, the Sienna, the Lexus ES and RX—they all looked like yams of varying lengths and girths.
“yams of varying lengths and girths”
Brother in Christ that is accurate.
Sebring. If I’m going to ride around in a flexy wobbly economy convertible, it’s going to be the one that I won’t be embarrassed to be seen in. The Chrysler looks nice. The Solara looks very tired, very sad, very done with life.
I like the first gen Solara, particularly as a hard top. It was a refined personal luxury coupe with trim and handsome styling. Toyota then turned it into a road whale with this generation. It’s bloated, it’s ugly, it’s packed on a bunch of middle-aged body fat. With the 3.3L, it didn’t skip leg day, but that’s not enough. Oh, and the dashboards on these tend to crack in multiple places at this age.
Whoever owns/owned that Sebring cares very much for that car. Who includes a new top (especially when the old one looks good) on a $2,500 car? That’s my vote.
File under Damned By Faint Praise: the chrysler is better looking
Gonna leave this here.
https://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsports/news/a29365/toyota-camry-nascar-rwd-v8/
Toyota.It’s of of the ugliest Toyota ever made but at least it’s reliable.
At this mileage and in this condition? Don’t know about reliability anymore. If the owners cared for the mechanicals in the same way they did the exterior and interior, I wouldn’t trust it to make it through the next month.
I have seen so many Sebrings just like this one with 150+ thousand miles. They are the one Chrysler product that actually seemed to last. So it gets my vote. Also, while the gold is not my thing, it’s better than the Solara with extremely sun faded powder blue paint.
Sebring…. only because is has the 4 cylinder. If it had the v6 it would definitely be Toyota day
Convertibles are awful, not fun, and just a more expensive, worse car that will help you die faster from aggressive melanoma or getting squished or ejected in a rollover. There’s fewer load paths for energy management during any crash, so if a floppy car is what you want, enjoy your casket.
Hands-down it’s the Camry. Already “experienced.” You,ve got enough to worry about when you’re only rocking 2/3 of a proper automobile.
On a more personal note, I once worked at a place with a delightfully irascible SiteCore developer named Bob. Bob was a sarcasm assassin, which we discovered by surprise. He also drove a Solara and loved it. Got sad news a while back that doctors had found a stage IV thing (Bob actually posted openly about it and admonished people to get those screenings). It wasn’t long after that we got the follow up that Bob had succumbed. And so, every time I see a Solara, I see Bob driving it, tooling out of the parking garage, heading away from our terrible SiteCore implementation and home to his beloved family.
So I’d go Solara for Bob.
Is this the infamous SiteCore CMS? Many years and years ago one of our departments couldn’t wait for us to get to their site and insisted on going with a consultant and ended up with a SiteCore monstrosity and when they inevitably had a falling-out with the contractor they wanted us to support it, with no documentation. The only problem was we mostly had experience in LAMP stack and had chosen Drupal for all of our sites. I could look at the SiteCore and poke it here and there but couldn’t really help any. Even if we didn’t have time to build their site right away I still offered to sit in on their meetings with the consultant but was firmly denied, so later when they ended up with an unsupportable kludge that cost 5x as much $$$ to host we commiserated with them but that was about all we could do.
Sure was. Apparently, we couldn’t even schedule posts.
Everything in the company was as if they’d gotten advice from a CTO/CIO at a *much* larger enterprise, so it was a small shop using tools that require dedicated in-house devs and teams, hardware, and lots of care and feeding.
My team sorted out their broadcast production/post operation, and they eventually transitioned everything over to WordPress, where they should have been in the first place.
WP definitely seems to have won the CMS war, today even Drupal is falling way behind. Back when we finally convinced that department that we couldn’t help with their SiteCore install they started hunting for a different developer to support them. It took them 6 mos to find one, I don’t know if it took that long because they wanted a certain price or something but it’s not like WP where you can walk out your front door and trip over 2-3 developers before you reach your parking space.
The biggest issue was that SC was very Windows-centric, at least the install we had was, and IIS, MSSQL, and just Windows EC2 instances cost soooooo much more to run than a comparable LAMP stack.
The best part was that consultant also managed to convince them that tying their entitlements and logins into Salesforce was a great idea so there was another unnecessary expense. It must be nice to have a budget like that.
Wild.
Sounds like someone was driven by commission.
Drupal would have been great, but WP was really the sweet spot for them because of the wide adoption and availability of talent.
For a small shop, having something that people have seen before is important. NOBODY knows SiteCore. That means there’s not even knowledge being shared on the web, GitHub, etc. (I mean, there’s some, but it’s very specialized).
Even on the broadcast side, a lot of the infrastructure was like this. It took me years to get a SAN (TigerBox) for video, and by then, we had no IT staff to help me implement it. So I had to set up, physically install, and administrate the small 10 GB network and then figure out how to move everything from our Drobo NAS over to it, make sure they were a mirror of each other, allow remote access to the SAN, and port our DAM.
I left the company before that got finished, but left strong recommendations on how to get it finished.
Of course, they just went back to running off the Drobo. So there’s a hardly-used 40TB Tigerbox sitting in a closet near Boston.
It’s definitely an obscure platform. That was my first time hearing about SiteCore and here almost 15 years later this comment thread is my second time hearing about SiteCore.
I disagree strongly with the convertible.
Yes they have worse dynamics than hardtops. But every once in a while you are in a nice road with nice weather, drop the top and enjoy the wind in your hair and the scenery.
And since they amplify everything, you can have fun doing 25.
I mean, I do actually adore the first-gen Boxster Spyder. Also wouldn’t kick any generation of Miata out of the driveway. I just personally don’t find the experience all that much fun or worth the dynamic trade-off. I’m not here to get in the way of people enjoying things, however
I’m siding with our own Stephen Walter Gossin today.
The Sebring is a handsome and simple machine.
The Solara looks like the tacky narcissist sibling of a ’08 Hyundai.
(Digital high-5)
The Solara is a nicer/better optioned car, but I voted for the Sebring. The Michael Scott seal of approval is hard to ignore.
That’s what she said.
For $2500, at least the Solara’s convertible top will still work. Sebrings were junk when they rolled off the assembly line. 80k miles didn’t make it better.
I know Toyotas are highly (over)valued on the used market, but that Sebring is suspiciously cheap for the mileage and condition. I can’t fathom choosing the worn out and subjectively ugly Solara because of the badge.
Edit* it looks like about 1/3 people would choose a scrap cube with a Toyota badge over any Chrysler product. I’m no MOPAR/DaimlerChrysler AG/FCA/Stellantis Stan, but I’m surprised.
These are from the era I was going to the auto show every year, before auto shows became crap and totally skipable.
I would sit in all the convertibles and nearly all of them I would be eye level with the top of the front window top.
No thanks.
That Sebring is a real cream puff! Boring color, but still!
Chrysler Anything vs. Camry. We’re done. The Camry or Camry derivative would have to be literally on fire in the ad pictures for me to not consider it seriously, and the visible issues with this one give me no qualms whatsoever, while all of my seat time in Chrysler Corporation products tells me that at some point, I will be walking. I don’t buy a car to then be forced to walk.
Solara.
I once heard the Solara described as the perfect convertible for someone who has never purchased a set of high performance summer tires. I suppose that could be said of both of these…
I’ve already got a second car that needs work, so I went for the less work more driving options, which sadly is the dull Sebring.
I’d get it a fresh stereo with Car Play, add some decent amplification so I can hear the new speakers over the wind noise then roll down the highway with my lady friend.
I’m on the inside.
I don’t really care that the Camry looks like a Camry. It’ll be fine.
I know the Toyota is supposed to be the better car or whatever, but it sure is an ugly duckling. And convertibles are all about the look. The Chrysler even has the 2.4L that is supposed to be more reliable than the 2.7 V6. It has way fewer miles and is super clean. Toyota tax is too damn high today.
Actually got me to vote for a Chrysler product. Bastard.
That was my thought. Crazy day today.
I’ll take the Chrysler. The Solara is the ugliest Camry and it hasn’t aged well. The Sebring has at least been cared for and it invites you to remember that famous bumpy track in Florida.
If it were a first-generation Solara then I’d probably go with it. As it stands I’ll take a clean Chrysler all day long over the hideous lumpen travesty that is the second-generation Solara. I thiiiink the wheels on the Sebring are 17″ 2003-2004 PT Cruiser GT wheels, which could have conceivably been swapped on by the dealer when new.
The badly mangled front numberplate on the Toyota seems like a very bad sign of something.
Chrysler for me.