Good morning! Those of you who like your cars ready to drive as soon as you purchase them are probably going to be disappointed this week. We’re looking at projects, but only viable projects around $2,000. And we’re starting out with a couple of cars that are local to me, and would be tempting if circumstances were better.
On Friday, we did a weekly runoff with a twist: I added a new, fifth car to the mix. The results were nearly a four-way tie between everything except the Hyundai Sonata, which is probably a solid used car but could be used as an anaesthetic. The beat-up little Mazda 323 won by just a few votes over the other three choices.
That little Mazda would be a fun car to mess around with, especially for the price, but if you ignore the prices, the Dodge Daytona is still the one I’d be most interested in owning. But I would buy something like that to drive, not to let sit around, which means its value would plummet like a rock as soon as I got it home. So maybe I’d be better off with something cheaper like that Mazda.
I know a lot of readers don’t like project cars. I’ve heard many of you question why someone would buy a cheap, non-running example of a car and spend time and money fixing it up instead of just spending more on a better example to begin with. It would be easier, and probably cheaper in the long run, right? Yeah, maybe. But here’s the thing: Some of us like turning wrenches. It’s kind of the point. I’ve even had friends who lost interest in a car as soon as it was finished, sold it, and bought another wreck, because it’s the work that interests them. I’m not sure I’d go that far, but I do enjoy the satisfaction of driving a car that is only running because I made it run. Fixing stuff, and using stuff you’ve fixed, is one of life’s great pleasures. The money matters, of course; it always matters. But it isn’t the point.
That said, you don’t want to spend too much money on the initial purchase, because it eats into your budget for fixing the car up. But you also don’t want to scrape too far down into the bottom of the barrel, because down there all you find are basket cases and parts cars. Two grand, give or take, feels like a decent initial outlay for a project car these days, so that’s the price range I’m shopping in this week. We’ll do four pairs, and then a runoff at the end of the week. Here’s the first two.
1984 Volkswagen Scirocco – $1,900
Engine/drivetrain: 1.8-liter OHC inline 4, five-speed manual, FWD
Location: Wayne, MI
Odometer reading: 120,000 miles
Operational status: Hasn’t run in a couple years, bad fuel pump
You never forget your first, they say, and that’s as true for cars as it is anything else. My first car was a VW Scirocco that was well past its prime by the time I got it, and I always felt cheated out of quality time with it when it had to be junked due to rust. I’ve wanted another one ever since. I’ve test-driven a bunch over the years, but the right car has not materialized at the right time. This Mk2 Scirocco looks pretty good on the surface, but it needs some mechanical work before it’s ready to hit the road again.
The Scirocco never was a real screamer; even the final 16V models were not all that quick. But they’re lightweight, tossable cars that will put a smile on your face even during mundane drives. This one has a 90 horsepower 1.8 liter engine and a five-speed stick. It has been sitting for a couple of years, at least; the seller bought it non-running with a bad fuel pump and never got around to fixing and reviving it. The new fuel pump is included, but that’s probably not all it needs by now. Belts, hoses, brake lines, and tires should all be inspected at the very least, and probably replaced.
I wish I could show you the interior, but the seller only included exterior photos. I can see through the window that some interior panel or other is between the front seats; it could be one of the door panels, or it could be the security panel for the rear cargo area. In any case, I’m sure it’s in need of a good cleaning.
The paint is in pretty good shape, considering it looks like it’s just sitting behind a repair shop. It has a little rust showing in the photos, but the Mk2 Sciroccos weren’t nearly as rust-prone as the Mk1s were. It probably has a bit more rust underneath, but I’m sure it’s not ready to fold up like a soft taco like my old Mk1 was.
1987 Dodge Shelby Charger – $1,975
Engine/drivetrain: Turbocharged 2.2-liter OHC inline 4, five-speed manual, FWD
Location: Romeo, MI
Odometer reading: 100,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives, but “would be best to trailer home”
The relationship between Carroll Shelby and Lee Iacocca produced some amazing cars, but this one is often overlooked. It’s overshadowed by the Ford GT40, various Cobras, and a whole range of Mustangs. But considering what Shelby started with, this little FWD Dodge Charger is a hell of an accomplishment. It’s finally getting some recognition and respect, but for years it was the red-headed stepchild of the Shelby lineage, and nobody cared about it at all, except for weirdos like me.
The original Shelby Charger engine was just a souped-up version of the regular Chrysler 2.2-liter four, but as soon as the turbocharged 2.2 became available, Shelby wasted no time shoehorning it into the Charger. In “regular” Shelbys like this one, that meant 146 horsepower, which doesn’t sound like much these days, but it put the Charger in the same performance category as all but the hottest contemporary Mustangs and Camaros. This one runs, but it sounds like it was just recently brought back from a long slumber. The engine has been rebuilt, and it has a new clutch, brakes, shocks, and fuel tank. It still needs new fuel lines and a few other things. The seller suggests bringing it home on a trailer to complete the work, but I guess if you’re brave enough, you could try driving it home.
The interior is grubby, but it looks like it could be brought back with some elbow grease. The Grant steering wheel is actually a huge improvement over the stock plastic wheel, which is the same thing you’d find in garden-variety Omnis and Horizons. It doesn’t have air conditioning, and I don’t know if it ever did.
Outside is where it gets a little dicey. There is some significant rust under this car, and some areas in the floor that need patching. The left rear wheel arch doesn’t look so hot, either. It’s time to either learn how to weld, or make good friends with someone who does.
Personally, I’d happily drag home either one of these and start digging in. I just lack a couple of minor things – time and money – that prevent that from happening. But hey, a fella can dream, can’t he? Which one would you stick on a rented trailer and bring home?
Chryslers and old VWs don’t hold up well to roadsalt.
Why are you you’re not showing me the structural rust under the car?
Since I did the tow a scirocco home thing 30 years ago, I have to do the Shelby. I do not think I would be allowed to do it again.
Joke’s on you, Mark, I already bought a HF welder (the 200 Unlimited) because a man has needs damnit
Charger for me. “Would be best to trailer home” sounds like a challenge.
I could work on either and it would be fun. Something to do with the kids. I started to get excited about the Charger, even though I was never much of a fan when they were new. But then you got to the rust. Argh!. I just don’t want any part of that. And I realize that the Scirocco is also a Michigan car so I would inspect the hell out of it first and then trailer it home. That’s my pick.
I can handle basic, and even some intermediate mechanical repairs, but I am not a body and paint man and I don’t think I ever will be.
Between these two I will take the scirocco, I like a light tossable car, and I think after the $2k down payment, and another $2k into rubber and mechanical bits I could have a fun radwood car that’s worth $3,500-$4,000. Also I enjoy doing a thorough detail job to try and bring an unloved interior back to life.
Yeah that Charger fits right in with “trailer home” alright
I’m finding it hard to believe that the engine was “rebuilt” in that charger, so grubby! but I was going to pick it, until the rust! yuck no ty sir!
Man, I went back and forth quite a few times on this one. At first, I want the Shelby because I love Shelby stuff, especially the under appreciated ones. The Scirocco is cool, but awfully plain.
Then I started thinking about getting that old turbo motor running right and decided I’d rather have the simplicity of the N/A Scirocco. Oh! But the Shelby motor was recently rebuilt! That’s promising.
Then you get to the rust issues… Yikes. I’d much rather have to pull and rebuild a motor (and definitely rather do a fuel pump and replace some rubber bits) than learn to patch up all that rust.
As a project, the amount of tedious work with questionable return on the Shelby means I’ll lose interest long before I had it back on the road in presentable fashion. I think I could at least get the Scirocco in drivable shape within a few weekends, depending on how that interior looks.
I bought a Mk1 Scirocco new. Maybe my favorite car ever. On rare occasion I see one for sale, the problem is zero parts support. And being a VW, it will need parts.
Today I’m voting for the Shelby Charger purely for nostalgia reasons. It was originally built at the Belvidere Assembly plant and there’s a good chance that my Dad helped build it.
I am with you on the Scirocco,and that engine/gearbox combo is actually really good.
I wanted to vote Shelby, but given these two examples, I think the Scirocco might be the better waste of money.
It shall be the Shelby. Now, if the Scirroco was a Mk l, much tougher choice.
I wanted to go with the Charger, but it sounds like work I don’t want to do. Maybe want isn’t the right word. Mind? Like, I wouldn’t mind the work on the VW, but the charger is going to annoy me at every step.
Yup, my thoughts exactly. I’d lose interest and ditch it at a major loss before ever enjoying it.
I’d rather improve my welding skills then have a car sit around just because I’d rather engine swap it.
The VW has been a non-runner for one owner already, being the second guy to take on a dead project isn’t appealing. At least the Charger runs.
And frankly it’s a little more interesting. Either of these options is priced about a thousand more dollars than I’d be willing to spend but since it’s just pretend money, I’d take the Shelby.
Living in the same region of these cars, I know terminal rust when I see it. The Shelby is too far gone, without thousands of dollars that you’ll never get back. If you want to learn this stuff with a pretty low bar for failure that’s a good candidate.
The VW is only slightly better, it needs new rear quarters, I guarantee you it’s worse than it looks. It also needs at least one door, I can see the driver’s side door seal peeking out underneath it, and that probably means the inner weld between the skin and door frame has rotted away.
With the VW, I probably have a better chance of getting replacement panels as they are a bit more collectible than the Charger, so that’s where my money goes; but I’d haggle the hell out of the deal. Honest assessment, these are both parts cars.
Big ole oof to either. I guess the Dodge but bother of these are way to ratty.
Same, but I picked the VW. That generation of Charger always looked odd to me. The proportions are just off to me.
They are off to about the exact same proportion that the Scirocco, with almost the identical body configuration, is right. It’s just a matter of subtle tweaks here and there.
Mark about the VW you wrote…
“The Scirocco never was a real screamer; even the final 16V models were not all that quick. ”
And then about the Daytona
..
“In “regular” Shelbys like this one, that meant 146 horsepower, which doesn’t sound like much these days, but it put the Charger in the same performance category as all but the hottest contemporary Mustangs and Camaros”
Which is funny bc the US spec. 1988 Scirocco 1.8L 16v had 140 hp and 0-60 was I think 7.0 seconds. I certainly agree this is not lightning quick, however it IS within 6 hp of the Daytona and the Scirocco weighed approx. 2100 lbs.
A friend in HS father had 1st an 86 8v, kept that and bought an 88 16v.
The 16v was more than enough to surprise many similar vintage V8 Camaeros as in the mid-eighties they (sadly) had a pitiful 170 hp and of course weighed easily about 1000 lbs more
Was the 16V really that quick? I’ve driven one and it didn’t feel like it. Daytona Turbos always felt much quicker. Maybe the turbo lag was fooling me.
16V GTI, 0-60 in 8 seconds or so. Daytona Turbo… 7.5 seconds. The Daytona felt a lot quicker probably thanks to the big difference in torque: 168 vs just 120 for the VW. And of course the way all that power arrived at once.
Yeah I tried looking up the specs for the 88′ 1.8 16v and I found 1 source stating the US market one weighed just under 2100 lbs and had 137 up, so close to my memory. Although ‘137 hp’ seems like an awfully odd total up number.
Since my friend’s father had one, I do remember ‘stop watch’timing it from 0-60 about 7.0 seconds.
Of course it is possible his dad mildly had his tuned with a chip or tuning box? That would definitely be something I can see this dad doing, mind you this was 33 years or so ago… so I’d expect a
If he did chip / turning box it, the effects would be minor.
As a comparison I bought a 98’Jetta TDI that I purchased chipped that added 25 up and 50 lbs of torque, though being a turbo diesel, way different ball game.
Previous to that I had a 90 Jetta GLI w/K&N filter & free(er) flowing exhaust that maybe added 15 up (tops). This also was the same (1.8 16v 4 cylinder) engine as the 88’ Scirocco and I remember from the factory it was supposed to be 140 up, honestly these minor tweaks might have brought the example I had clos(ish) back to from the factory hp…
All 3 models (GTI, GLI, and Scirocco) shares the same basic engine with 8v vs 16v versions availabe at least for the era GTI with the difference being the head
Turbo response Always ‘seat of the pants’ feels fun!
None of the U.S. spec 16V cars (Scirocco/GTI) ever made 140 hp. It was 123 hp for 1987-89 cars. In 1990, the engine got a bump from 1.8 to 2.0 liters, bringing a useful increase in power (134) and torque, but even then it was never up to ROW power levels. Plus, the U.S. cars got saddled with the heavy bumpers so were heavier than the Euro cars.
The stock V8s pony cars of the era, particularly the ones with lazy slushboxes, were not particularly quick, so I could definitely surprise some of them with my ’87 GTI 16V. But anything with some aftermarket mods would stomp the VW pretty handily.
Oh that’s right at least about 1.8 vs 2.0 I had forgotten about the slight bump out in displacement between 88 and 90
I do remember in 16v guise both being only ok wrt torque with the majority of the acceleration not coming on until you hit 4k rpm
Dang it you’re correct about the 88 Scirocco specs w/only 124 hp
https://www.hemmings.com/stories/1986-88-volkswagen-scirocco-16v/
It was still a really nice upgrade over the 8V engine and the 16V also sounded great. A buddy had his Scirocco engine rebuilt with some nice parts and his probably did make more horsepower. We were able to hit a rev-limited 125 mph pretty easily.
Absolutely! I dont recall if the 16v Scirocco had a speed limiter stock, I remember seeing 128 mph indicated on a track lap straight and the car was still pulling.
The VR6 in the successor the Corrado had/has a glorious sound as well, in college a neighbor had a friend that had what looked and sounded like a tastefully molded VR6 Corrado.
In HS my 1st car was a 78′ TR7, we also had a 1st Gen Izuzu Impluse that I drove for a while and mentioned buddy’s dad’s 2 Sciroccos, looking back I am grateful to get to have some fun with a variety of wedge shapped, (at least from the front) designs!
I’m a sucker for the wedge designs as well. I had an AW11 MR2 back in the day and still have an Alfa Milano.
Nice, I <3 the Milano!
That baby v6 is gorgeous both visually sitting E-W in the engine bay, linear power and beautiful sound too!
I wanted to say charger until you got to the bit about the rust.
A friend of mine in high school had one that looked exactly like one in the article and it was really fun. His tires were so bald that it would hydroplane from a moderate mist, but that was part of the charm.
The VW sounds like less work and would be a good “drive the slow car fast” kinda ride. I’ve always like the look of sciroccos too.
Same. At first glance this seemed right up my alley: runs but needs work. But I don’t do bodywork, and that’s where a lot of the work lies with this one. Plus, if that motor was rebuilt, it wasn’t done by a pro. I’ve never seen a pro rebuild that wasn’t at least painted. Therefore the quality of work is questionable. I mean, the current owner might be a genius engine builder. Or not.
So I guess I’m going with the fat lip bumper Scirocco. I always had a soft spot for them.
I guess the VW. The Charger probably has suspension issues (and nasty old tires,) which is why it’s recommended to be trailered, but…um…also rust. Post-aircooled VWs don’t interest me much, but at least it looks solid and a fuel pump shouldn’t be too hard, especially if we’re talking a mechanical unit.
I’m going to Frankenstein this week and last – buy this car, and drop its rebuilt turbo goodies into the minty body of last week’s $9000 Charger. It’s all internet bucks until someone gets an eye put out.
This would be my first ‘real’ project car (i.e. not modifying an already roadworthy vehicle), so I’d go with the simpler project. And there’s probably more upside potential with the VW as far as later drivetrains I might be able to swap in.
I’ve always wanted a Scirocco – but preferably one that runs.
And I’ve driven a GLH cross-country – I can still remember how awful those seats were during that drive.
No thanks.