People buy cars to drive them, with very few exceptions, so it’s not surprising to see big numbers on the odometers of inexpensive used cars. But some folks just don’t drive that much, so some cars reach advanced ages without racking up many miles. And that’s the case with the cars I’m going to show you today.
You all surprised me yesterday; I thought there was no way a Dodge was going to beat a Honda. But that’s exactly how the vote turned out. Was it the relative rarity and novelty of the Rampage that did it, or was it the Honda’s high price? From the comments, it sounds like a little of both.
Lots of you had trouble deciding between them, and I’m right there with you. That’s my favorite generation of Honda Civic, particularly the hatchback, but then again I’ve wanted a Rampage since I was ten. Between these two particular examples, I think I’d take the Rampage – assuming I can find the parts to fix the brakes – but it’s a very close call.
The average number of miles driven per year is about 15,000, give or take. Some people drive way more than that, of course; when I was living in Los Angeles I put nearly 40,000 miles on a Ford Focus in a little over a year. But at the other end, I’ve seen cars that only accumulate a few hundred miles in a year. I guess some folks just don’t have that far to go. Today we’re going to look at a couple of sedans that haven’t gone far at all.
1989 Mazda 323 SE – $4,000
Engine/drivetrain: 1.6-liter OHC inline 4, four-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Plainfield, IA
Odometer reading: 100,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Mazda’s compact car line is one of those cars that has had a ton of different names. It’s known as the Familia in Japan, and the 323 in most other markets, except for the ones that are called the Ford Laser. In the US, it started out as the GLC (short for “Great Little Car”) and later became known as the Protege. But in between, it was simply the 323 here, too – except for the version that was called the Mercury Tracer.
Power for the 323 comes from a 1.6-liter single overhead cam inline four, which makes a whopping 84 horsepower. This one drives the front wheels through a four-speed automatic, which makes it a less than exciting ride, but it is nice and reliable. This one has just over 100,000 miles on it, and the seller says it runs and drives well and gets great gas mileage.
For a car with so few miles on it, the interior isn’t in great shape. It’s not damaged, but it looks dirty and unkempt. I’ve seen it before: someone buys a car from an elderly owner who took immaculate care of it, and then lets things slide. You could certainly clean it back up; it’s just a shame that you have to.
It’s in nice shape outside, at least. It was clearly garage-kept in its previous life, and probably had regular washes. I bet there was a frequent-customer punch card involved. That’s the only way I can think of that a car this old has remained rust-free in Iowa.
1995 Ford Taurus GL – $2,800
Engine/drivetrain: 3.0-liter OHV V6, four-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Chicago, IL
Odometer reading: 79,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives “amazing”
This is one of nearly four hundred thousand Ford Tauruses produced in 1995. These things were everywhere in the 1990s; I probably changed the oil in half a dozen of them a day when I worked in the garage. And I bet half of them were dark green. But that was thirty years ago, and as common as they were then, a second-generation Taurus is a pretty rare sight these days, especially one this clean.
Originally, the base engine in the Taurus was a four-cylinder, but nobody bought them. By this second generation, the 3.0 liter “Vulcan” V6 was standard, as was a four-speed automatic. It’s a dull workhorse of a powertrain, but it seems to hold up well. This one doesn’t even have eighty thousand miles on its odometer yet, so it should have a lot of life left in it. It has a new battery, muffler, and tires, and the seller says it runs very smoothly.
For some reason, the ad only has this one photo of the interior, taken from the back seat. I don’t know if they’re hiding something in the front seats, but I doubt it. It looks really clean. And unlike most rental- or fleet-spec Tauruses, this one has bucket seats and a console-mounted shifter. Whether that’s a step up from the standard bench seat and column-mounted shifter depends on your taste, I suppose.
This one must have been garage-kept as well, because it’s cleaner than any ’95 Taurus has looked in Chicagoland in probably two decades. There’s no rust on it, and the paint is nice and shiny. This is probably the best-looking bodystyle of Taurus too, which makes the ovoid “catfish” model that came out a year after this one look even worse by comparison.
These are both old enough to be considered “classics,” but nobody is going to call them that. They’re just old cars, just like millions of others, that got lucky enough to lead easy lives. Yeah, the prices are a little higher than you might have paid a few years ago, but they’re nothing compared to a lot of ’80s and ’90s cars. And they’re both begging to have some more miles put on them. Which one do you prefer?
Definitely the Taurus. They were a revelation for a car from an American automaker. Really quite decent to drive, and comfortable. Shame this one isn’t a wagon.
Taurus easy: cleaner, lower miles, cheaper.
Grew up in a Taurus/Sable family. We had an ’87 LX wagon, followed by a ’91 GL wagon, a ’96 Sable G, and a ’97 Taurus G. Never had a 2nd gen, so this would rectify that wrong.
That Mazda is a total pig pen.
Voted for it on the hope it can be cleaned up.
Even with internet money I’d have to argue the price down at least a grand…
Taurus wins today but not happy about it.
Neither of these does much for me… But the Taurus is the nicer ride with a nicer colour. And it’s cheaper… so it gets my vote.
If I had that Taurus, I’d just keep it stock and maintained. It’s old enough now that it’s becoming radwood-worthy.
Also this being a later one, it has the improved AX4N automatic.
I owned a 323 back in the 90s. It was a competent grocery getter that gave me no trouble, but the Taurus looks like a better deal to me, and that’s what it’s about with these kinds of cars.
Neither if I’m honest. But Taurus is nicer she more nastalgic for me. Not sure it’s really a classic but I suppose a survivor.
That Taurus is a time capsule from 1997. It wins easily today, I haven’t seen one of those in a VERY long time!
Mazda! (Zoom Zoom!). No thanks to the Fix Or Repair Daily/Found On Road Dead
Oh, this is tough for me. A mid to late ’80s 323 is catnip for me. Too much nostalgia backed in. But… that Taurus is in fine shape. Ultimately, I went with the Ford because the 323 should be manual and it’s not and I’m sad.
Newer, nicer, lower miles, cheaper: Taurus all the way. Is this even a contest?
If the Mazda had a manual, I might have been tempted. But it didn’t. I had a company car that might have been an identical twin (one of thousands) to this one. It was a really nice car to cover lots of miles in–quiet, smooth, competent and reasonably economical on the freeway. It even handled pretty decently for what it was back then.
And you’re right, that was peak Taurus styling wise. When the ovoid ones came out the following year, the boss couldn’t bring himself to get any, substituting blocky Explorers instead. Mechanically, the Explorers were more problematic, but the ovals were an unforced error.
My first car was a 1987 323 Station Wagon. 4 speed, absolute base model. I drove it 100.000 miles with zero issues but always lusted for 1990’s on model.
At 2 grand, maybe. At 4. Nope.
Give me the Taurus.
I’ll jump in here because I actually owned (not by choice) a 95 Taurus GL, Oxford White with Stone cloth interior, from July 2013-August 2014, and… it was a rock solid vehicle.
I wanted to hate that car SO badly. My aunt had owned a series of them starting in the mid 90’s when my grandpa bought my aunt a ’92 LX, silver with red interior when her 85-ish Grand Marquis got wrecked and she wanted something better on gas.
She had, I believe, four more of those ’92-95 Taurii between 1996 and 2011, every time she came back from Missouri to visit the family in Colorado she was driving a different one, when the last one finally had the AXOD lose third gear. my dad found her a 1997 Mystique in the infamous Dusty Rose Metallic with only 28k on it and she drove that for almost five years.
She flogged them thoroughly, slightly neglected them, and they just ran and ran. She got hit by two other careless drivers and hit a deer the third time, is the only reason why she went through four of them. She walked away from every accident mostly unscathed.
I personally put 22,000 miles on my ’95 GL in the time I owned it and took it from 109k miles to 132k miles, and it was perfectly reliable. I did change the plugs and wires when I first obtained it, did a drain/fill on the transmission fluid, and changed the oil every 5k miles.
It got around 27-29 mpg on the highway and rarely dipped below 21 mpg in town unless it was really cold.
It wasn’t exciting to drive, but it was quite good at its job of being a transportation appliance.
I sold it to a couple I was friends with for $1500, and they drove it for three more years with him commuting between Omaha and Lincoln daily, and the transmission finally blew up at 191,000 miles and they scrapped it.
The 626, to be kind, is straight up slap your knee laughing pricing. It’s far less safe, way more underpowered, and should be a $2k car, tops.
The Taurus has years and years of life left in it. Somebody will get a good backup car that is even now just scarce enough to be Radwood worthy.
Plus, gonna say it, Deep Jewel Green Metallic is one of the best Ford colors EVER. I’m so glad it has been reappearing under different names in recent years on modern Fords
Have to agree with you on Deep Jewel Green Metallic! This weekend, I saw a rare surviving 10th-generation Thunderbird in this colour – surprisingly rust free – and it really caught my eye. Like this Taurus, those T-birds used to be ubiquitous around here but now you rarely glimpse one in the wild.
this gen Taurus is the best looking, esp the SHO, this is no SHO but in great condition, that 323 if it was a stick then yes.
I’m not really a Taurus guy but between that green paint and how clean it is, not to mention the fair price, that’s my choice.
The 323 is way overpriced, esp. for an automatic. And if you’re going to ask crackhead money, at least make a half-ass effort to clean it. That thing is disgusting.
My wife and I got an ’89 Sable as a hand-me-down from my father in law shortly before we got married in ’93. It was the first actual “grown up” car I owned, and I still remember it fondly. This Taurus insn’t exactly that, but it’s in good enough shape to make me harken back…hell, it’s got the same cassette player.
The Mazda is a good car, but at the price, the Taurus is the better deal.
Taurus is cheaper, Mazda is more fun, but not enough for $4k. Plus, Taurus is green which is the best color.
Neither of these interests me even a little, so I’ll go for the cleaner, roomier Taurus over the pretty good little car.
Exactly my logic, and apparantly a whole lot of other folks’ logic as well.
I had the ovid 1997 Taurus with that Vulcan. Bulletproof.
I agree, the 95 was nicer looking. Easy choice.
If the Mazda had the 5-speed and an owner who cared for it as the previous one(s) did, it would have gotten my vote. I had an ’87 323 wagon that I loved. Between these two examples, though, the Taurus is the obvious choice.
Taurus all the way. If I didn’t have a wife to pull me back from the brink of impulse purchases, I’d go buy it right now.
The Taurus is obviously the intelligent choice, except I wouldn’t want it. I would feel no pride in showing it to anyone, I would not be able to explain it to my wife – because my heart would be cold. The 323 is probably the better car at the core, but the shape of the interior and the weird tint strip suggest that the second owner wasn’t all there.
Maybe I’m too broken in by my 1yo, but that 323 interior doesn’t scare me at all. I like this generation of Taurus, but what I really want is a wagon, and the 323 is a nostalgia trip looking like the 929 I spent a lot of time in. 323 for me today.
The Taurus is just the better deal in this case.