Enthusiasts hate automatic transmissions. Right? Given the choice, we’d always rather have a manual gearbox, especially in an old and/or interesting car. But what if the automatic is the rare choice, and the car isn’t exactly a performance machine anyway? Can we love the automatic then? That’s what we’re investigating today.
Yesterday we looked at two extra-capacity versions of cars that are usually seen as sedans, and it was a close one. Only fifteen votes gave the Mitsubishi Diamante wagon the edge over its Mazda 626 hatchback “Touring Sedan” rival. But a win is a win, and this round goes to Mitsubishi.
I’d take the Mazda, personally. I’m very fond of the Mazda GD platform, especially with a five-speed manual. I had a Ford Probe with the same engine and transmission as this 626, and I loved how it drove. This one has probably had some more of the niceness worn off it, but I bet it’s still a good driver. And I bet there’s a way to swap in 1988-89 model year non-motorized seat belts.
I can’t even count the number of times I’ve seen an otherwise interesting old car for sale and thought, “Too bad it’s an automatic.” We’ve all done it. And inevitably the thought creeps in about the difficulty of swapping in a manual transmission, to “correct” the “defect” from the factory. But because this happens so often, I’ve sort of turned the corner on automatics, especially in cars where they don’t belong. Yes, they’re unbearably slow, and dull to drive – but that slowness and dullness has kept them from getting trashed over the years. Some of the cleanest and most original examples of old cars around are automatic versions of cars that are usually manuals. These aren’t the cleanest examples of these two cars I’ve seen, but they’re pretty damn nice for the price, as long as you’re willing to give up the clutch. Let’s take a look.
1969 Opel Kadett 1900 L – $2,600
Engine/drivetrain: 1.9-liter OHC inline 4, three-speed automatic, RWD
Location: La Mesa, CA
Odometer reading: 104,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
When you think of a General Motors car from 1969, I bet this isn’t it. A Chevelle maybe, or a Camaro, but an Opel Kadett? GM sold this little German import through Buick dealerships, where it must have looked a little funny alongside the Skylarks and Electras. But GM sold more than 400,000 of these little things in the US over the course of six years. They’re all but gone now; this is the first Kadett wagon I’ve seen in several years.
The Kadett is powered by Opel’s 1.9-liter “cam-in-head” engine, a tamer version of the engine found in the Opel GT. Typically, you’d find a four-speed manual behind it, but a TH180 automatic was an option, and that’s what this car has. It has had an absolute ton of mechanical work done to it, and the seller says it’s a reliable driver. The seller says they have all the service records too, which might make for interesting reading.
It’s extremely well-preserved inside; the last Kadett wagon I saw in person was street-parked in Portland, and it was not nearly this nice. The seat upholstery looks a little grubby, but it’s intact, which is saying something for fifty-seven-year-old vinyl. I see a couple of cracks in the dash, but nothing worth worrying about.
It could use some freshening up outside. The paint is chalky, and the window seals look hardened. I’m not sure how much of that stuff is still available for a car like this; it’s probably a good thing it’s in sunny southern California, where dried-out window seals don’t matter so much. Still, even as it sits, it’s charming and cute, and it would certainly draw a crowd at most car gatherings.
1976 Honda Civic CVCC – $2,900
Engine/drivetrain: 1.5-liter OHC inline 4, two-speed semi-automatic, FWD
Location: Monrovia, CA
Odometer reading: 78,000 miles
Operational status: Ad just says “runs”
Every hero story has an origin, and for the Honda Civic, it’s this little bubble. The first-generation Civic was once a common sight on the roads, but I can’t remember the last time I saw one in person; alas, this is also the origin of Honda’s reputation for rust. This one seems to have escaped that curse, thanks to Southern California’s dry air.
Honda made headlines with this car, specifically for its clever CVCC engine, which was cleaner and more efficient than other designs, able to meet emissions requirements without a catalytic converter. It displaces 1.5 liters and makes 53 horsepower, which may not sound like much, but this car weighs about as much as an empty shoebox, so it’s plenty. Most Civics had either a four- or five-speed manual, but Honda also offered the two-speed “Hondamatic,” a semi-automatic transmission with a torque converter. As I understand it, you have to shift between high and low gear yourself. I can’t tell you much about this one’s mechanical condition; all the seller says is that it runs.
The interior is in really good shape, though it seems to suffer from an overabundance of floor mats. There is something missing from the dash; I think it’s an ashtray that goes in that blank space. The rest of the dash looks nice, including the wood, which I believe is real wood on these.
The seller describes this car as “rust free,” which isn’t quite the case, but I guess this is about as rust-free as a first-generation Civic gets these days. You could call it “patina,” I guess, and just leave it. I do wish it were more evenly faded; it’s too many different shades of blue.
Yes, you’re right – both of these cars would be more fun to drive with manual transmissions. But they might both have been run into the ground by now. They might very well owe their current condition, possibly even their existence, to those leisurely automatic transmissions. You could find the parts to convert either of them to manuals, I’m sure, but I think I’d rather just sit back and enjoy the slow ride. Maybe I’m getting old. What say you all? Which one would you rather drive slowly and with only one foot?
I’ll take the Opel. It’s just a lot more interesting and unusual. These old Civics pop up more often than folks realize. They’re cool, and a historically significant model, but not particularly unusual. 40 of them on BaT history, most selling under 10k in excellent condition.
Hmm… the Opel, which misspells both “opal” and “cadet”…
or the CVCC, which stands for “Compound Vortex Controlled Combustion”, but everyone things they just misspelled “Civic”.
Either way, I’m explaining a lot of things. I’ll take the Opel because I have to explain why there’s not back doors and that’s more to explain. And I like explaining things on weird cars.
Kadett because it will look great next to my GT.
It would get an engine swap anyway so having an automatic is really a moot point for me.
I learned how to drive on an Opel Kadett with a stick shift. I’ll take the Honda. Not sure why. Must be some repressed memory.
Being both autos, that doesn’t narrow it down.
But the Opel is cool, and way more rare for C&C than an old Civic.
Adding a third Civic to the fleet is on my To Do list, but not this one. I actually like the Opel and could see myself tooling around in it, that poor Civic is too far gone.
Today’s build:
Not much really, give it a really good Frieburger Comet wash to see what’s left of the paint, maybe some of that Patina Wipe stuff to give it a little luster.
The Interior should come back nicely with a solid weekend of scrubbing, steaming, vacuuming and conditioning.
The window seals can probably be replaced with generic ones, back then they all were more, or less; the same.
Give it a solid dose of maintenance and maybe hide a Bluetooth radio in the glovebox for funzies.
Nothing crazy just a neat weird old car.
I’m grateful the Civic was made, because it’s brought a lot of improvement to the compact car scene over the years, but that Opel is just vastly more interesting. Plus, the longer the roof, the longer my interest, so that’s my pick!
My mom had a similar vintage Civic from 1986-1988 or so, when she traded it in on a 1985 Civic hatch. It replaced a 1977 or 1978 Corolla. Even as a child I remember how tinny it felt. But I voted for it out of nostalgia.
This is amazing. Amazing, as in I have experience with both of these obscure examples.
I did a lot of growing up in the back seat of a ’67 Kadett – but ours was the Rallye with the fastback. “Fast” is just a word here, don’t get excited. And my mom still has a 1971 GT whose engine Dad and I rebuilt from individual pieces of metal. That one is an automatic, too. I still remember where the vacuum line connects under the transmission. The Kadett is pretty much the same car as the GT, especially as far as the drivetrain is concerned.
My first car was a 1976 Civic with the “Hondamatic.” “L” would take you up to about 50mph, “H” will take you everywhere else. Most of the time you could just leave it in H because, light as it was, the torque converter was enough to get the car moving without shifting at all.
Honestly I would be strongly inclined to take both of these vehicles, just for the sake of the nostalgia. But looking for a daily that is easy to live with, I’d go for the Honda.
If forced to choose for nostalgia, I still want the Honda. That was a fun little car.
“Put it in H!!” actually applies to a real car?!?
I would love to buy the Opal and brag about my classic European shooting brake and then pull up in the old Kadett.
A 1970’s 1.5L with 2-speed auto would be best described as “leisurely” paced.
Opel Kadett is adorable and a long-roof. It’s also more likely to reach speed before nightfall. So gets my vote.
I think it’s das Kadett today. 1) my dad’s first car was a later one, 2) it’s a longroof so it’s useful for stuff. 3) if there’s one thing GM got right it’s Automatics.
I’ll take Oliver’s long roof cousin today, please and thank you.
OLIVER!