I don’t know about any of you, but I am getting really sick of winter. I’m sure part of it is just the hassle of moving in the middle of it, but this winter feels colder and drearier than normal, and I can’t wait for warmer weather to finally get here. So in that spirit, today we’re going to look at two convertibles.
Yesterday, we were seeing what it would take to get by without gas. We looked at a Chevette with a diesel engine and a Nissan Leaf with a better-than-average battery pack. It was a really close vote, but the Leaf is ahead by a nose as of this writing, so I’ll declare it the winner.
I guess I wouldn’t mind the Leaf, but I have a strange attraction to that Chevette. Yes, I know it’s terrible. Yes, I know it’s outpaced by everything on the road except maybe Jason’s 2CV. I don’t care. I have fond memories of driving a Chevette on a frozen lake years ago; those things can do donuts (or “whip shitties” in Midwesternese) like nobody’s business. The Leaf is just an appliance.
In the very fun Richard Linklater movie Hit Man, the lead character uses a code phrase when meeting with his potential clients. He meets them at a diner and orders a slice of pie. They ask him, “How’s the pie?”, and he responds with “All pie is good pie.” And you know what? He’s right. Even lousy pie is still good pie. Because it’s pie. (Except pumpkin. Ew.)
I thought about that when I saw these two cars. They are not, by objective standards, great cars. But they are both convertibles, and that covers a lot of sins. Dropping the top on a nice day and cruising around is a joy, and when you’re doing it, you can overlook a lot of a car’s shortcomings. I guess you could say “All convertibles are good convertibles.” Don’t agree? Let’s check them out and see if I can convince you.
1983 Ford Mustang GLX – $3,689
Engine/drivetrain: 3.8-liter OHV V6, three-speed automatic, RWD
Location: Louisville, KY
Odometer reading: 125,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
The Fox-body Ford Mustang is generally seen as the light at the end of the malaise-era tunnel, but it didn’t get off to an auspicious start. Ford threw basically whatever engines they had lying around in the first Fox Mustangs. It didn’t matter much because horsepower wasn’t in anyone’s vocabulary in the early 1980s. And aside from the GT model, you couldn’t really call the first few years of Fox Mustangs “sporty.”
I mean, look at this dashboard. It looks like it belongs in Grandpa’s LTD, not a Mustang. It looks like the dashboard of a car powered by a 112-horsepower V6 and a squishy automatic transmission, and guess what? It is. The 3.8-liter Essex V6 was one of Ford’s go-to workhorses for years, but it started out as this two-barrel carbureted lump. It runs well enough, from the sounds of it, but it’s going to be a leisurely ride.
The interior is in OK shape, but not great. The vinyl seats look a little grubby, and it’s missing the armrest on the passenger’s side. Actually, it’s missing all the trim on that door panel, as if someone took it apart to replace the window regulator or something and misplaced the trim. Maybe you’ll get lucky, and all the missing pieces are in the trunk.
It looks a bit better outside, but the dealership selling it has photographed it wet, which hides dull spots in the paint and makes the black trim look nice and black. It might be a bit more faded-looking when it’s dry. But there’s no rust on it, and the top looks like it’s in good condition.
1985 Renault Alliance L – $6,500
Engine/drivetrain: 1.4-liter OHV inline 4, five-speed manual, FWD
Location: Port Washington, OH
Odometer reading: 49,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
The Renault Alliance is almost forgotten now, but AMC’s last gasp at the small car market was the butt of a lot of jokes for a lot of years; “Renault Appliance” being the most common one. It’s a shame, because it tested well, and it was actually a pretty nice little car. It’s certainly better to drive than a lot of its contemporaries. It has a decent ride and a nice, comfortable interior. But not even the dulcet tones and calm demeanor of George C. Scott could convince enough Americans to take a chance on the French car from Wisconsin, and it didn’t live through the Chrysler buyout.
In 1985, the Alliance was available with either Renault’s venerable 1.4-liter pushrod engine or a new 1.7-liter overhead cam unit. Since this is the basic L model, I’m assuming it’s the 1.4, and if I’m wrong, it will just be a pleasant surprise. It has a five-speed manual transmission, and the seller says it gets “awesome gas mileage.” All Alliances had fuel injection, which is a nice upgrade over the feedback carburetors used by many small cars at the time.
The interior of the Alliance is more AMC than Renault; ace designer Richard Teague’s fingerprints are all over it. (Not literally; don’t worry.) These seats are as comfortable as they look, by the way. It’s in great condition, as you would hope with so few miles on it, and the seller says everything works.
This car spent the majority of its life in Arizona, and the seller says it has never seen snow. The paint is shiny except for the trunk lid, and the top is in good shape except for a cloudy rear window. It does have a couple of little dings and dents, but it’s still one of the nicest Alliances I’ve seen in years.
If you were shopping for a convertible, these two would probably be pretty far down your list of candidates. Well, a Mustang might be near the top, but not this Mustang. And how many of you even remembered there was a Renault Alliance convertible? But whether or not these came to mind right away, they’ll get the job done – the job being putting wind in your hair and sunshine on your shoulders. (Yes, I just made a John Denver reference. Deal with it.) Which one of these unlikely candidates wins for you?
That sorry ass Mustang will be the definition of “a fool and their money are soon parted” the Alliance is a bummer, albeit a bummer that I can probably at least get my money’s worth of usage out of. Regrettably, my click goes in Alliance with Renault
I can take your questionable car opinions, Mark, but this time you’ve gone too far. Pumpkin pie is the fucking best.
As for the cars, both cheap convertibles are appealing in their own way, but I voted Mustang because there’s a well-established community of enthusiasts to help me track down parts. The Alliance, not so much.
Cheap Mustang. The boat anchor 3.8 can go live in a river and an LS can live there. Why LS? One: to make the Ford faithful cry. Two: it’s going to be easier to find parts for than an old Ford V8. Three: it can get a proper automatic instead of that three speed lump. Four: it’s a marriage of the two biggest aftermarket parts supplies about ever. Every parts store will have Fox body and LS parts in stock.
Rollin, in my 3.8 with the ragtop down so my hair can…shake?
I can’t believe I’m saying this, but Alliance. If only to have a genuine AMC key on my ring, but that’s a thin excuse.
But better than the milquetoast Mustang. Ugh. Can’t even go full bottom-tier on this thing with the 2.3 four-pot, the dedicated-to-the-middle 3.8? Just ugh.
If I get a convertible, I should get a bumper sticker that says ACAB (All Convertibles Are Boss.) Though I think a Camaro should have a bumper sticker that says ACAB (All Camaros Are Bitchin’)
Oh, and wheezy Mustang. It’s not a car to be taken seriously.
My question is:
How desperate for sales is that Stellantis dealership that they are prominently featuring a 43 year old Ford product in their showroom?
It doesn’t even make the required V8 noises.
Heart says Alliance, head says Mustang. I can’t think of another 40-year-old car with a better parts situation than the Foxbody.
True that. Its excellent condition is the Alliance’s main saving grace, that it needs virtually nothing. Because should it develop a need, that’s what it’s going to be able to get: nothing.
Yuck, nope! I don’t really care for either. A white 83 Mustang with no power and missing parts for the very strange price of $3689 or a Renault convertible that is not exciting in the least esp. for $6500! I only voted Mustang because it’s cheaper.
I had this exact Mustang with a red interior when I was 15. By the time I turned 16, I realized I couldn’t afford the insurance on a Mustang at that age and sold it for way more than I paid and banked the money to be used 2 years later on my 92 Integra GS (my favorite car that I ever owned until I bought my CTS-V). So I picked Mustang even though it’s not the better condition.
112 hp was a healthy number for 1983. I kind of forgot the Alliance existed. I voted Mustang because it’s cheaper and I’m sure I could still find parts. The Alliance is at least interesting in its obscurity though.
These are drivers, not collector items. I’d go with the Fox because what other convertibles will you find that cheap? Maybe a Sebring with a puddle of oil under it? The 3.8 is a fine engine (if entirely underwhelming) but its not like the Fox bodies don’t have a MASSIVE aftermarket to swap parts and fix that if you want. It’s grubby but you won’t care once the top is down.
Had a green Alliance stick when I was in grad school. Got decent mileage and handled a drunk driver pulling out in front of me in a giant Caprice very well; it crumpled and protected like it should have. I can still smell the interior and hear the seats crinkling from those Alliance pictures.
That said that’s way too much money for one, so I voted Mustang. At least I know I can get parts.
Neither does anything for me. So I voted for the Mustang because it’s cheaper.