Which Is The Better Offbeat Beater? 2005 Saab 9-3 vs 2005 Ford Mustang

The standard advice, when someone says they’re looking for a good cheap car, is “Corolla, Camry, Civic, or Accord.” And there’s nothing wrong with any of those – except that they’re the obvious choices, and they’re kinda boring. We, as gearheads, choose to walk a different path, and seek out something that gets the blood pumping a bit more.

Yesterday, we looked at two convertibles geared more towards relaxed summertime cruising than tearing up the track. Both had automatic transmissions, and yeah, that’s a disappointment, but for those particular cars, not a dealbreaker, at least to me. The vote was reasonably close, but in the end, the BMW took the win over our own S.W. Gossin’s Nissan Z.

I have some familiarity with the mechanical bits of both of these cars; my wife has owned both a 2005 BMW 325i and a VQ35-powered Infiniti QX4 in recent years. The VQ was a pain in the ass to work on, but it needed a tenth as much work as the BMW. And parts for it were half the price. I’ve never been too crazy about the 350Z’s styling, but I think it’s by far the better car.

Now then: let’s think outside the box a little, and take a look at a couple of inexpensive beaters that won’t bore you to death. They’ve been around the block a few times, but they’ve both got some life left in them. Here they are.

2005 Saab 9-3 2.0t – $2,500

Engine/drivetrain: Turbocharged 2.0-liter DOHC inline 4, five-speed manual, FWD

Location: Taft, TX

Odometer reading: 260,000 miles

Operational status: Runs and drives well

Every time I feature a Saab here, it wins. Seriously. I don’t think one has lost yet. We’ll see if that streak holds with this one, which has far less Saab in it than some others. This is the second and final generation of the 9-3, based on GM’s Epsilon platform and powered by an Ecotec four-cylinder. It still has some of the Saab quirks, like the ignition switch in the center console, but its quirkiness is watered down and sanitized, like a chain restaurant or Van Halen with Sammy Hagar up front.

The Ecotec engine in question displaces 2.0 liters and is turbocharged, though there were two versions, and I’m not sure which one this one has. If I understand right, since it has a lower-case “t” on the back instead of an upper-case “T,” it’s the low-pressure version making 173 horsepower, as opposed to the high-pressure turbo that puts out 210. Either way, it channels its power to the front wheels through a five-speed manual. The engine was replaced about 120,000 miles ago, and it has a brand-new clutch. It runs and drives great, according to the seller.

The interior is holding up well for 260,000 miles; there are some cracks in the leather, but nothing terrible. The interior is the one place GM didn’t interfere with Saab, and we should all be thankful for that. This could easily have been a Chevy Malibu interior with different badges; this is way nicer. The seller says the car has “new AC components,” which I assume means it’s nice and cool in there on hot days.

It’s missing some clearcoat outside, and it has a few bumps and bruises, but overall it looks pretty good. The ad says this car is blue, but it looks gray to me; maybe because of the electric-blue Mustang parked next to it.

And speaking of electric-blue Mustangs…

2005 Ford Mustang Deluxe – $2,800

Engine/drivetrain: 4.0-liter OHC V6, five-speed manual, RWD

Location: Roseville, CA

Odometer reading: 240,000 miles

Operational status: Runs and drives well

The family motto of my wife’s Scottish ancestors is Sero sed serio, “Late but in earnest.” At the Battle of Ancrum Moor, in 1545, they didn’t engage the invading English forces until late in the day – but proceeded to clean house. That motto could also apply to the S197-chassis Ford Mustang. The retro-inspired design craze had been in full swing for several years by the time Ford introduced this car – but it was not messing around. Ford’s designers mashed the nostalgia button hard and held it down to create this car. And to their credit, it worked.

As has always been the case with the Mustang, the base model eschews V8 power in favor of something tamer, in this case a 4.0-liter Cologne V6 with single overhead camshafts. In contrast to the weak four-cylinder base engine of the Mustang II and Fox-body days, this one puts out 210 horsepower, more than a whole decade’s worth of optional V8s. This engine has a reputation for timing chain trouble, and due to its design, replacing them is a bear. But this one has covered 240,000 miles, which indicates that it either isn’t an issue with this particular one, or the chains have been replaced. It drives the rear axle through a good old Borg-Warner T5 five-speed stick, and the seller says it runs and drives great.

Even the seat upholstery in this car echoes the ’60s original design, as does the shape of the dashboard and steering wheel. Unfortunately, this one is rougher than a lot of ’60s originals I’ve seen; the seat bolster is worn through, the door panels are sagging, and the dash has a weird woodgrain applique that I’ve never seen before, and it’s not in good shape. However, the seller says everything in there works, including the air conditioning.

Outside, it’s shiny and blue, with a couple of dents and paint chips, and some more aftermarket crap stuck on. The louvers on the back window are a throwback that looks out of place; I’d deposit them in the nearest Dumpster and not look back. Ditto the silly chrome trim around the taillights. Otherwise, it’s not bad looking at all, especially for the price.

You could take the safe route and go for a nice beige Camry, but with options like these around, I’m not sure why you would. Any old cheap car is going to need a little maintenance, even a Toyota, so why not choose something a little livelier? Today, your choices are a turbocharged Euro sedan or a red-blooded American pony car, both with manual gearboxes. Which one would you take as a cheap beater?