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?
The Alliance convertible came standard with the larger 1.7L engine. That still only got you a 0-60 time of 16.8 seconds with the automatic!
Also, assuming the car is all original, this is a 1986 model. The ’86s had slightly slimmer headlights than the ’85s.
Motorweek review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f4mveKEg-g
Yep, all (non-GTA) convertibles came standard with the SOHC 1.7 to counter the additional weight of the top mechanism & rocker reinforcements. I’ve heard unconfirmed rumors that you could “option” down to the 1.4 in your Alliance ‘vert. They all had power operated tops, even with crank windows, & drove really well for an 80s economy car.
The droptop existed from 85 to 87 & each of those years had a distinct grille/headlight config.
Sorry but that Mustang is kind of ick. The Alliance is in great shape, is cute and has a manual transmission. I also don’t live too far from Kenosha so I know what I have to do.
That Alliance is crackhead priced. LOL no US market Renault is worth that much
I voted for the white car
Mustang, but only because you can still get parts for it. Those Fox convertibles had the structural rigidity of Jello pudding, so the low power V6 is hardly the deal-breaker part of that Mustang. The Renault is going to be both hard to find parts for and also hard to find any excitement about. I could pretend even the Radwood crowd would like it, but I’m not sure that is true…
Look, you can get parts for anything, it’s all a matter of how challenging you want you search to be. It’s all part of the fun of forming a relationship with your machines.
Signed, proud Yugo owner.
A Yugo is a Fiat. Alliance is an Americanized version of a car Renault built aplenty in other markets.
Parts, as you say, are as available as your tenacity.
Sure, which is why I said “hard” and not “impossible”, but unlike the Mustang, nobody is making new parts for the Alliance. You might get lucky and be able to import some NOS parts for an egregious amount, or find some overpriced junkyard parts on eBay, but I don’t see the Alliance being worth the effort when the Mustang is several orders of magnitude easier and also probably not worth the effort.
Look, it’s technically a “ehhhh, not really, I want to avoid skin cancer on my scalp” day, but, eh, who cares about technicalities, that’s what they make sunscreen and a hat for.
The Mustang is going to be easier to keep going. The problem is every old dude at the Cars& is going to give you crap for having a V6 and every youf is gonna nag you about lowering, caging, and LS swapping it. Also you could put Max Verstappen’s Red Bull Ford power unit in the thing and still not be able to outrun “Vanilla Ice, lol!”
The Alliance has none of these issues. The Alliance has the problem of being rare, obscure, slow and…unreliable? Actually not sure on the last one. That said, it’s way more up my alley, despite being more expensive. I like weird things. The preservation-grade Alliance is weird. And no one will say anything about Vanilla Ice. Good thing, too, because you’re not outrunning much of anything.
But Convertibles are great for slowing down and enjoying the drive. I’ll take the Alliance. Just remember your sunscreen!
Sunscreen, eh, honestly the best thing about a car with a removable roof is nighttime cruising.
Keep your head down, or you’ll have bugs in the teeth!
You just have to have the confidence to tell those people to stop, collaborate, and listen.
…see, I’m guessing this is a Vanilla Ice reference, strictly from context, but as he was too early for me and I have no nostalgia for the guy, I have no clue.
Obscure Renault convertible with the same front seats as my ’88 Cherokee?
Sold!
The Foxbody is the better buy, but I don’t care.
That Alliance is way too expensive.The Mustang is the better deal and that isn’t a terrible car.
$6500? Someone’s ambitious!
The Renault is in really nice shape and I’d rather drive a fuel-injected stick shift but the price is really difficult to get over and when something breaks I’m guessing the Renault will be difficult to find parts and service for.
I wouldn’t pay $6500 for an Alliance in the factory shrink wrap
I totally would for a ’87 GTA, hardtop or droptop. Those were legit competitors to GTI, but it was all too little too late.
The Mustang, because it is cheaper and can be turned into whatever you want it to be.
The Appliance will always be an appliance.
Mustang, because it’s a far less painful choice.
After watching the YouTube series on the history of AMC, I’m voting for the Alliance because it’s the underdog.
Any Mustang will be better than any Alliance.
I can’t believe I’m voting for a fox body, but here we are.
Mustang, both b/c I already own one and nostalgia – had a babysitter when I was a little kid, a local high school girl who was everythjng good about small town America personified, who drove one of these. Hers had the red interior, which is the best match for the white exterior, but you take what you can get.
Also, I love the early Fox dashes, with the faux woodgrain. And in fairness, they’re way cooler than an LTD dash…individual binnacles, bright red needles, cut-rate sporty at its best!
Dad’s Fairmont had the same dash, only with 2 binnacles. A speedo and a gas gauge with idiot lights. Plus a massive ashtray.
The full gauge package was an option on Fairmonts.
I’ve sided with the current majority and chosen the Alliance. It’s overpriced and parts won’t be easy to find, but the Mustang is at a dealer that hasn’t bothered to replace that door card from the ample stock of salvage yard parts still extant, so I’m concerned about what else might be lurking under the surface. And 1983 would have been the first year or so of the reintroduced convertible: examples from a few years later were quite a bit better resolved.
What is parts availability for the Alliance like? The Ford is cheaper and probably easier to fix up. Unsure which is more fun to drive. My mom had a 79 Mustang with the 5.0 V8; it was new when I learned to drive in it. I just remember over the years that it didn’t always run right and it needed repairs. Voted Mustang reluctantly.
Not a hard choice. I’ll take the old and slow convertible with one of the best aftermarket parts support there is.
As expected with this crowd, the Renault is doing pretty well.
Anywhere else, the Mustang would gallop away with the vote, and I’m voting for it.
I have to go with the predictable boring answer here, Mustang.
Today’s build would be to dump the entire driveline in the bin for a 5.0 with the GT40 upgrade catalog thrown at it, including the 75mm “off road only” throttle body. I’ll stick with an automatic because it’s a convertible, put some Cobra wheels on it and fix up the door card(s) then go rollin in my 5.0 with the ragtop down so my hair can blow.
No, I’m not sorry.
Legit question though, why would you bother doing that to this one when you can virtually buy a Fox body off the rack somewhere that already has all that done?
Because I’ve driven a Renault Alliance…
That’s how terrible I found the thing, I’d rather do a full drivetrain swap on a Mustang than pay $6500 to be disappointed.
Hahaha, fair enough.
I’ll be a contrarian today and take the over-priced manual Alliance. These cars have passed through the dark valley of unappreciation, and the few survivors have come blinking into the sunlight. I’ll have the only one at at any car show.
A fox-body ‘Stang with an uninspired drivetrain is a dime a dozen. This is oatmeal in car form, without any brown sugar or blueberries. Bleh.
Tough one today. I’d prefer to have the Renault, but I’d prefer to spend the Mustang money. Realistically, for the Renault money, though, I’d get something else.
Not really a convertible fan (I did just buy a 92 Miata but because it came with a hardtop), but the Renault seems interesting. It’s even a manual. I just wish the prices were swapped.
Zut alors! That Alliance looks clean and classy. Maybe a bit pricey, but at least it’s not burdened with an Essex V6,
I usually love French things but a Malaise Renault is not anything I would get near.