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?
The Chevy dealer in my town used to sell Saabs. Might mean they still have some parts on the back shelf. Also they’re still somewhat common to see around here. Would join the weird Swedish car enclave before getting a car the mothers of teenagers would fear.
You can still get parts, you just might have to order them online rather than going to the local shop.
Maybe, maybe not. When my 2003’s tail light clusters melted (yes, melted) after only several years, Saab was in bankruptcy and the parts supply dried up. Replacement clusters were not available. So I had to resort to my inner MacGyver and rewired them myself to keep them working. The 9-3 was nice when it worked and it was my second (and last) Saab, but truth be told, Saab was trash by then.
I had no issues getting parts for my ’05 9-3. They are readily available and fairly inexpensive. Even entire front headlight assemblies to replace the hazy yellowed ones.
Mustang. You’ll have to de-louse it a bit (what the heck is that crap on the dash? Why did we feel the need to make the taillights look CHEAPER?)
Not only will the SAAB (stand for Something An Asshole Bought) break your heart, it will break your wallet. (eventually)
Epsilon-common stuff will continue to be available, but anything SAAB-specific is in the Unicorn Tears category more and more every day.
And the 4.0L V6 is FINE. Especially with a manual.
The S197 is light and simple enough that you’ll get decent highway mileage.
Do some suspension mods that set it up for good handling – you can’t use a shit-ton of horsepower anywhere, anyway. At least make it satisfying to go around corners.
As a 2011 Mustang owner I’m going with the 2005 version with half the power and one less gear. At the very least it is a comfortable long distance cruiser. Once the stuck on crap is removed it’ll be nicer inside and out.
Having owned a V8-powered Mustang, methinks it’d be damn near impossible to be happy with this V6 Pep Boys Special.
So I’m doing my part to keep your Saab Streak alive!
I’ll take the Saab, looks better inside.
I was on the fence till I saw that interior of the ‘stang, I love the color, blue is best. I agree with a heat gun and some patience you can undo a lot of the mustangs interior, but I have an irrational love for Saab so give me the swede!
I’ll take the Mustang. I did a timing job on my Ranger, so I have the tools and know what it entails to rip the 4.0 apart.
If I’m buying one of these cheap and finishing beating it into the ground I think it has to be the Mustang, if I’m actually trying to use it as a regular car then the Saab.
Two of my friends back in high school had parents who owned these Saab 9-3s, purchased new, sometime around 2009. A turbo sedan and NA wagon. I got a decent second-hand idea of the ownership experience.
Both were great cars to ride in, and the turbo was a hoot the few times I got to drive it. Both were what many would consider “mid-life” around 2015, and already close to worthless. They had constant annoying issues like the cowl/windshield leaking water into the cabin, and were always one major repair away from being economically totalled. Parts were already starting to get tricky. That was 10 years ago. Those cars were ~5 years newer than the one in this article.
Honestly, I think the Mustang wins on both accounts. I can’t imagine the stress and expense of trying to keep the SAAB maintained as an everyday car in 2025.
The leak is a common problem on these. My 08 convertible was leaking into the passenger footwell. Its all due to the cabin air filter housing sitting outside the firewall. Remove it, fix any rust that may have formed, replace the seals, reinstall, and your good for another bunch of years.
Parts aren’t as difficult to come by as rumor would have you believe.
Personally I wouldn’t be caught dead owning a Mustang and in general any Ford product.
I think they are generally decent machines, but I can’t forget how happy said owners were to move past them. To SAAB’s credit, the sedan racked up a respectable number of miles before it’s end.
I can see owning one being a unique bargain if you have the enthusiast mindset, are savvy with the internet, and do your own repairs. Or, have access to a holdout SAAB specialist.
I just don’t see it being practical as a daily for a non-technical person, which is basically my bar for a ‘regular vehicle’. At least not as an only car.
Maybe it’s just the stigma of the dead brand, but when it comes to used cars, prices vs comparable models are generally fairly indicative of the ownership experience. At least for the average driver.
I have an irrational hatred for V6s, so Saab.
Two respectable choices at these prices. Folks are overreacting to the hideous dash treatment on the Mustang, something you fix in an afternoon with a black wrap. The Saab’s paint situation would nag at me and there’s no economical way to address it. Close call but I’m going Mustang.
I am not overreacting, it’s horrendous, and there are plenty of other V6 Mustangs in the world to choose from that aren’t this. Plus have you seen the armrest on the console? Just ew, no; I don’t want to ever touch that deformity.
This is going to sound like heresy, but as someone without any particular attachment to Saab, the GM parts bin stuff is honestly kind of a plus. Ecotecs are cockroach engines.
Parts availability is important.
The Mustang all the way. It’s bright blue, it’s rear wheel drive, and parts will be way easier to find. That Saab is not something cool and weird. It’s just old junk. It has 260k miles, and the engine was replaced 120k miles ago? Great, that means it’s about due for another engine.
Wow. That interior is like an old Lincoln made a fusion dish with those chrome letters from Advance Auto. All that work on the inside and you couldn’t get a replacement U in the back? M STANG (My forked rod or staff in Wiccan)
My brother had almost this identical SAAB a few years ago, it was even the same color. He loved how the car drove but the reliability was mediocre at best and a number of the SAAB specific parts are getting very hard to find, and pricy when found. I doubt this situation has improved in the intervening few years.
The Mustang isn’t too exciting and needs a serious detailing (also lose that tacky ebay wood dash decal set) but should be reasonably entertaining when cleaned up and you could rebuild the entire car from the back room of the local Advanced Autoparts.
Stang for me today.
I have an irrational attraction to Saabs. I don’t know why but I’ve always wanted one. Saab for me today.
Same. I scrolled down and voted for the Saab before even reading the article.
That Mustang interior would probably have prevented me from choosing it anyway …
I’ll take the SAAB. I would tare my eyes out having to constantly look at that mustangs dash.
Did the 31 people who voted for the Mustang look at that interior?!?! ooof
Yeah, I did. It’s still a way better car. Enjoy your soon to be blown motor and lack of parts availability.
Yeah, and we figure that most of it can be fixed with a blow dryer and a bottle of Goo-Off. The remaining issues can be fixed with a couple of trips to a local junk yard.
Ugh, PTSD on the Mustang. Neighbor has an ’05 V6/auto that failed smog because it had TWENTY ONE DTCs stored. These have a big problem with the cowl vent draining right onto the BCM.
PTSD on the mustang because I am old enough to remember wood grain dash stickers that came from the factory
The Mustang’s interior is gaudyAF, I would much rather spend my time inside the Saab – even though, by this point, it’s GM through-and-through (on the plus-side, it means common parts are cheap/plentiful)
Common parts may be plentiful, it’s the uncommon ones you have to worry about.
I was totally going to pick the mustang for the aftermarket support and I like the retro-est of the retro mustangs but one look at that dash and I had 1970s flashbacks and clicked on the saab.
There’s nothing so wrong with that Mustang that it couldn’t be easily corrected. It’s also not a car that you’ll be afraid to drive and enjoy. Break something? NBD…cheap parts are everywhere. Realize that this is SAAB deep in the GM days, so parts shouldn’t be terrible, but I think there’s more than a few bespoke items that would be really hard to source.
Absolutely. If you want a car to F around with, this is the only way to go.
There is nothing worse than finding out that parts are “unobtainium”.
Wow, that’s some impressive if misguided dash applique work in the Mustang. I hope it won’t be too hard to remove cleanly if you work slowly.
These final V6s offer a nice amount of low end grunt, esp with the manual, so Mustang for me.
As a happy owner of a 96 Mustang with the V6 and auto, even if they dont have the V8, these cars are something else. Mine is in very good condition and clean, and I paid 3K for it. It can go +80mph all day long with no weird vibrations and stable enough, for a car almost 30 years old is very good. Parts are plenty and very easy to fix. It has one of the strongest AC I ever experience, 90s Ford are peak Ford. This one has a rough interior but something you could fix easily.
One of the great things about Mustangs of your gen is that the powertrain was basically the only difference between the trim levels – so the “base” Mustangs still feature GT brakes, suspension, etc. And the SN95 styling has come back around to pleasing for me. I loved it when it debuted, then soured on it as too 90s later on, but now really like it again.
Thats good to know, that way if I ever decided to swap to the V8, it will make things easier.
SAAB for me.
I wanted to vote Mustang.
Then I saw that interior.
What.
The.
FUUUUUUUU…
Saab, please.
I had the same reaction to the interior, but I reminded myself it was advertised for $2500, so I can live with it.