As I’ve mentioned before, the name of this feature is pretty vague. Not every car we look at is junk, nor are they all in rough condition. Sometimes we look at nice stuff. And sometimes, like today, we look at nice cars that have always been kind of crappy.
On Friday, we looked at two rough rear-engine machines, and it’s another instance where I thought the vote was going to swing the other way based on the comments. The Fiat 600 seemed to have more support, or at least more vocal supporters, but it’s the VW Thing that took the day.
It’s a tough choice for me. The Thing looks just like an AFX slot car that I had as a kid, and it was one of my favorites. But I prefer the idea of a fresh-out-of-storage car over one that has already been pushed in the direction of someone else’s tastes. I think I’d go for the Fiat, and raid the seller’s parts stash to fix it up.
I love “survivor” cars, as you may have surmised from some of my picks over the years. I like seeing cars that haven’t been restored, they were just never worn out to begin with. It’s even better if it’s the sort of car that no one would preserve on purpose, or ever bother to restore, like these two. Cars like these are reminders of how far we’ve come, and what we’ve tossed aside along the way. Let’s check them out.
1988 Chevrolet Cavalier RS – $4,750
Engine/drivetrain: 2.0-liter OHV inline 4, three-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Palmyra, PA
Odometer reading: 41,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well, but has a coolant leak
Early in its life, the J-body Chevy Cavalier was available in five different bodystyles: a two-door coupe, a four-door sedan, a station wagon, a two-door hatchback, and a convertible made from the coupe. The hatchback was never all that popular, and it left the lineup after 1987. For 1988, the coupe was redesigned to make it look more special and less like a two-door version of the sedan. This generation of Cavalier coupe was so ubiquitous in high school and college parking lots in the early ’90s that you’d think students were issued them. I haven’t seen one this clean in ages, though. Those other Cavaliers all led much rougher lives than this one did, clearly.
The standard engine in the base and RS model Cavaliers was a 2.0-liter version of Chevy’s 122 pushrod four-cylinder, often confused with the Pontiac-derived Iron Duke, but it’s an entirely different engine, altogether. (“It’s an entirely different engine.”) The 122 makes 90 horsepower and a lot of noise, and propels the Cavalier by its front wheels through a TH-125C three-speed automatic. You could get a Cavalier coupe with a five-speed manual, and that makes it kinda-sorta fun-ish to drive, but most of them have the automatic. This one runs and drives just fine, and it has had a lot of recent work done, but it has a coolant leak from somewhere that should be addressed.
It’s pretty fancy inside as Cavaliers go, with power windows and locks, as well as the classic ’80s Delco stereo with the sideways cassette slot. The seller has stuck some sort of screen device on the windshield, GPS or CarPlay or something, and in the process ruined a big chunk of the ’80s charm and outward visibility. Hopefully, whatever that is doesn’t come with the car. I mean, if you like that sort of thing, then more power to you, I guess, but for me it wouldn’t even last the drive home.
Being an RS model, it has red and black exterior trim instead of chrome, and some snazzy alloy wheels. They’re not as cool as the Z24 checkerboard-style wheels, but they’re not bad. It has a few minor blemishes, but no rust or sun fading; it was garaged its whole life.
1992 Mercury Topaz GS – $4,900
Engine/drivetrain: 2.3-liter OHV inline 4, three-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Wyoming, MI
Odometer reading: 45,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
In the last couple of decades, US automakers have shed a lot of brands. We’ve lost Plymouth, Oldsmobile, Saturn, Pontiac, Hummer, and Mercury, among others, I’m probably forgetting. Some folks might have been sad to see some of them go, but for the most part, thanks to badge engineering, their products were superfluous and available with a different grille down the street at another dealership. Such was the case with Mercury. It was Ford’s “cool” division in the ’60s, but by the end, Mercury cars were literally just mid-range Fords with a handful of cosmetic changes. You could probably change this Mercury Topaz into a Ford Tempo in half an hour by replacing a few parts, and no one would be the wiser.
The Topaz and Tempo use one of two different 2.3-liter four-cylinder engines made by Ford, and it’s not the one everyone loves in the Ranger. This is the HSC engine, an overhead valve engine that shares most of its design with the old Ford Falcon inline six. I could look up the horsepower output of it, but it doesn’t really matter; it’s probably ninety-something, just enough to move the car around in the least interesting way possible. It has a three-speed automatic, which doesn’t help the excitement factor at all. This one has only 45,000 miles on it, and it runs fine.
The Tempo/Topaz interior is not unpleasant, and the seats are reasonably comfortable – if you can get past the motorized shoulder belts. They seem to be less offensive on a two-door coupe like this than they are on the sedans; having the B-pillar that far behind you makes the position of the belt more comfortable. It’s all in good condition, as you would hope for such low mileage, and it all works.
It’s clean and shiny outside, and the seller says it’s completely rust-free underneath. It currently wears Mustang wheels with good tires, but the original Mercury alloy wheels are also included, with no tires on them. Personally, I kind of like the Mustang wheels on it.
I have personal experience with both of these cars; I’ve owned a couple of different Cavaliers and a ’92 Tempo coupe. I can tell you that neither of them is going to be exciting to drive, but they both have an honesty and simplicity to them that’s nothing like a modern car. They’re easy to work on, and probably dirt-cheap to insure. No, they’re not as rock-steady-reliable as a Camry from the same era would be, but they’re not unreliable either. And anyway, there’s no going back now; by reading this far, you’ve entered a binding contract, and you must vote for one of them. So what’ll it be?
This era was interesting because GM and Ford went pretty heavily in on driver-side airbags in the early 90s, but only on their pricier, larger cars. Ford made you at least get a Taurus or a Panther or a personal luxury coupe before they’d include one. GM limited it to their senior cars: the H- and C- and E- and B-bodies, and so even the W-bodies didn’t initially get them.
These compact coupes certainly wouldn’t have had them.
As to which one I’d rather have: I’ve always thought the J-body coupes of this era were attractively styled and they probably have more aftermarket support to upgrade them than do the Tempo/Topaz. I’ve got to go with the Cavalier.
Ha! My vote exactly tied it up at 157 each.
Honestly it could have gone either way. The Cav is a much more attractive vehicle in my opinion, but the Topaz benefited, to some small degree, from a rising tide of Taurus/Sable adjacent styling cues and, while not as handsome as the Cavalier – let alone a Sable – it’s not too homely.
I’ve far greater confidence in GM automatics than FoMoCo however, and that is the deciding factor here. I’ve been let down my many Ford automatic transmissions but, while occasionally frustrated, never actually stranded by a self-stirrer from the General.
The HSC engine is nothing special but it’s nothing terrible either. It makes good torque for its size, and considerably more than the 2.0 in the Cavalier. Knowing that the Topaz likely outweighs the Cavalier, that’s pretty much a wash.
Had these vehicles both had five-speeds, I still probably would’ve gone for the Cavalier. If the Merc had had the more-than-adequate MTX 5-speed and the Cav still automatic, the Topaz would have taken the point.
Well, it’s either the heap of 38 year old crap or the heap of 34 year old heap of crap both overpriced by $2-4 grand. I guess newer heap, the Topaz.
I’m sure someone really appreciates a low mileage time capsule Cavalier or Topaz, but I’m not that someone. I voted for the Cavalier because I find it slightly less ugly.
Thank you for picking these cars for today’s showdown, Mark. I might hate them, but they make me appreciate the vehicles I own so much more. It is good to have a reminder that sometimes the grass is greener on my side of the fence.
The Driving School I used to work for used cavaliers. I spent lots of time in Cavaliers, and they’re not bad cars. We would routinely get 200,000 miles with nothing but routine maintenance.
Not great cars, but good. Certainly good enough for drivers Ed.
I had a 1991 Cavalier wagon as my second car. Got it from my Grandfather in 1996 with 10,000 miles and I put 80,000 on it in 4 years. Reliable and got 30 mpg on the highway. Died in 2000 when a quick lube underfilled it (we drained out 1.5 quarts of oil). My father rebuilt the motor and a friend of the family drove it for another decade.
Sister-in-law had an Escort from the same generation as that Tempo. Rear suspension mounts rusted out and failed while driving at 11 – 12 years old. Yikes.
So the real answer is neither – never buy a used car that has ever lived in a state that uses road salt. If I have to choose it would be the Cavalier but the coupe is the least useful version.
I wouldn’t want either of these as they are both overpriced for the heaps of shit that they are.
But if I had to pick one, it would be the Cavalier for me.
The transmission on them when paired with the 4 cyl is reliable and durable (unlike when it was paired with the V6) while as I recall, the slushbox in the Tempo/Topaz was weak no matter what.
Also the GM 122 was a better engine than the Ford 2.3 OHV HSC… which was a kludge of a design where they took their old reliable inline 6, removed 2 cylinders, managed to make it less reliable.. all in the name of reusing the old inline 6 tooling instead of spending money on expanding the production of the 2.3L OHC ‘Pinto’ 4 cyl… which was actually a much better engine.
I’m also getting parts/service for the old GM 122 will be better as it was in production for much longer for a greater variety of vehicles.
The Ford 2.3L HSC engine was only used in the Tempo/Topaz… with a 2.5L version being used in the Taurus/Sable for the 1st gen only.
And I recall that back in the day when Consumer Reports would give vehicle ratings that were more granular (with separate ratings with different engine options), the reliability of the Taurus/Sable with this engine was markedly lower than with the Vulcan V6
Gotta go with the personal misery coupe, the Topaz. It looks to be in really great shape.
I had a Tempo as a rental once. It has been many, many years and I no longer remember exactly why that car was crap, but the memory of it being crap lingers to this day.
Probably because the engine was noisy, vibrated a lot and the slushbox damped the so-so level of power the engine made. This youtube video of a 0-60 run might refresh your memory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJa3UcvKG-U
And this Motorweek retro review
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2sZQyLjcdU
I could see paying $5,000 for both of them, but not nearly that amount for each. Insert joke about them having low mileage because every owner hated driving them here…
Easy choice. I fucking HATE motorized seat belts. Probably more than they even deserve, but growing up with them sucked.
I like red, that engine bay is clean, and the Cavalier is less frumpy than the Topaz, which looks every millimeter the old grandma car.
But…the coolant leak is a worry and mouse track seatbelts don’t faze me. The crank windows are a plus at this age and I like the Merc’s dash design better. Going Topaz today.
Topaz, although the mouse-belts earn it a demerit.
A friend of mine had a ’91 Escort GT with those. His workaround was to disconnect the belt from the door carrier so he could get in and out with ease. He’d start the car, let the mouse do its thing, then buckle the shoulder and lap belts. When he got where he was going, he’d unclip the shoulder belt before he turned the car off. I rode shotgun with him so often, I got used to doing it as well.
In my ’92 TBird the mouse motor stopped working. I manually cranked the belt to the rear position, and then unplugged the motor. Like your friend, I just buckled the shoulder belt.
He got really good at it and could buckle both shoulder and lap in one smooth motion. Right hand grab the shoulder belt, draw it up and snap it into the mouse, drop down and grab the lap belt, bring it back across and buckle it. He’d be waiting on me to finish buckling the lap belt before driving off.
I think he considered disconnecting the motor at one point, but decided against it for some reason. Oh yeah, because he traded it for a ’93 Mustang LX 5.0. Best way to get rid of those mouse-belts, if you ask me.
If I had to pick one I would take the Cavalier.I had a ‘91 with a 4 cylinder-5 speed that had a tiny external head gasket leak for probably half of the 140,000 miles that I drove it and it never overheated or caused any issues.It wasn’t a great car but I know from my uncle’s nightmares with his Tempo to not pick that car.
Unknown coolant leak?!
Never. No way. Pass. If it was something obvious it would have been fixed.
So its probably something pretty involved, most likely water pump failure due to age of seals?
I too dislike both options, especially at these prices!
Coin toss, really. Voted for the lack of automatic seat belts.
Left Taillight
Right Taillight
Front Grille
Header Panel
Badge in Horn pad
Badges on Trunk
That’s it. That’s all that differentiate the 2-door models. 4-doors had more extensive changes, specifically the rear roof line.
These are both in amazing condition and I don’t want either, since I have experienced both. I just wrote on another article about how fun it is to find mint condition economy cars at car shows, like the Escort and LeBaron. That doesn’t mean I have to LIKE them. They are both ‘slow-car-ugh!’.
If pressed, I’d go for the Cavalier since it lacks the mouse belts and tacky luggage rack. (BTW: I am 90% certain that the silly luggage rack rattles.)
Those motorized seatbelts on the Topaz are a deal breaker.
Today, I learned that there is a place called Wyoming, Michigan. I’ll add that to the other confusing American city names, such as Peru, Indiana.
Wait ’til you find out there’s a California, MD. And everyone in California lives just outside of Hollywood.
And Indiana University is in Pennsylvania
There’s also a Wyoming, Ontario. And while we’re at it, there’s places named Ontario in 10 different states…
Mom had a tempo, sister had a topaz, mother in law had yet another tempo, so I’m going with the devil that I know. While certainly not great, they always felt a little more “put together” than their GM competitors, IMO
Cavalier since the motorized seatbelts on the Topaz are annoying.
Red>Silver. I was torn because I like the futuristic light bar across the front of the Merc and the luggage rack, but the Cavalier seems more interesting and both of them will be easy enough to keep on the road I think.
What about the ‘Stang wheels on the Topaz? That pushed me over the edge.
I dislike both of these cars. The only reason I voted for the Cavalier is because it doesn’t have automatic seatbelts.
Same, except I voted Topaz because I like the luggage rack on the trunk but both cars are evenly meh.
My family had a very bad experience with a Tempo, so I’m voting Cavalier, although both are overpriced, especially with a known coolant leak. I live south of central PA and I’ve commented before about delusional pricing up there. Something about the whole Carlisle car show scene seems to make them all think they’ve go something collectible or desirable.