Which Low-Mileage Two Door Could You Tolerate? 1988 Chevy Cavalier vs 1992 Mercury Topaz

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?