Which Nearly-New Old Car Might Actually Be Worth It? 1985 Chevy Cavalier vs 1990 Dodge Daytona

Welcome to another week of questionable automotive decisions! Today, we’re looking at two American fastbacks with alliterative names and practically no miles on their odometers. Does their like-new condition justify their price tags? You’ll have to be the judge.

I make no apologies for Friday’s weirdness. I see cars like those, and I just have to share them with you all. I do it because I care. I expected that the be-finned Lincoln with a Pontiac face might win, given the sorry state of the Celica-maro, but I didn’t expect some of you to actually want the crazy thing.

Though looking at that Lincoln now, it’s sort of growing on me, too. Someone mentioned that it looks like something from Fallout, and I can totally see that. And I love the idea of taking it to car shows and making up a placard for it and everything – with a bullshit backstory, of course. I still don’t want it, but I have a grudging respect for it. Certainly more so than that ruin of a Toyota.

On Friday, Antti wrote about what might be the ultimate barn find, a nearly-new Mercedes-Benz 280TE station wagon buried under and protected by earthquake debris for decades. When I saw it, I couldn’t help thinking that for the right price, a car like that might actually make a lot of sense compared to a modern tech-heavy nightmare. But then it sold for more than a quarter million dollars, which is absurd.

But then a funny thing happened: I was perusing the Underappreciated Survivors group on Facebook, and came across not one, but two old cars for sale, both under ten thousand miles, and both under ten thousand dollars. Granted, they’re no olive-green 280TE, but they’re just as mechanically simple and free from technological crap. So I’m considering them the Shitbox Showdown equivalents of that Mercedes, and it will be up to you to determine which one might actually be worth its asking price.

1985 Chevrolet Cavalier Type 10 – $6,000

Engine/drivetrain: 2.0-liter OHV inline 4, three-speed automatic, FWD

Location: Amherst, NH

Odometer reading: 9,000 miles

Operational status: Runs and drives well

According to Wikipedia, Chevy sold 383,752 Cavaliers in 1985. I once owned two of them: a pale yellow sedan and a black Type 10 coupe. Both were scrapped with engine failures in 1996 (one spun rod bearing, one dropped valve, long story, not necessarily the cars’ faults). If I had to guess, a great many of them were already in junkyards by that time, and precious few of them were on the road by the time George W. Bush was sworn in. So how did this Type 10 hatchback survive forty-one years in almost perfect condition?

It is kind of an uncommon Cavalier; the hatchbacks never sold as well as the other body styles, and ’85 was the last year for the sporty Type 10 trim package. In 1986, it was replaced by the RS (four-cylinder) or Z24 (V6). You could get a V6 in an ’85 Type 10, but sadly this one doesn’t have it; it makes do with the old 2.0-liter four-cylinder. This engine is often mistaken for the 2.5-liter “Iron Duke” four-cylinder, but it’s a completely different design, and the two share no common parts. It delivers its eighty-ish horsepower to the front wheels through a TH125C three-speed automatic, which works fine and isn’t especially trouble-prone. With only nine thousand miles to its name, this one should be in fine shape – assuming it has had some exercise over the years and wasn’t just stuck in a garage and forgotten about. The seller says it “runs great,” so I guess we’ll take their word for it.

When was the last time you saw a first-generation Cavalier interior this clean? I’m guessing it was sometime in the late ’80s. These were cheap cars, made from cheap materials, and most of them ended up trashed inside. Seeing one like this is kind of a treat, even if you don’t like these old J-cars as much as I do. One word of warning, however: it does not appear to be equipped with air conditioning. Hey, it was like a seven hundred-dollar option! I might not have sprung for it either back then.

It was obviously kept in a garage, and kept clean; the paint looks great. I’d like to know how it ended up with the later model Cavalier Z24 wheels, though. They look good on there, but what happened to the originals? Are they still in a corner of the garage, with twenty-year-old out-of-date tires on them?

1990 Dodge Daytona – $9,500

Engine/drivetrain: 2.5-liter OHC inline 4, five-speed manual, FWD

Location: Santa Barbara, CA

Odometer reading: 7,000 miles

Operational status: Runs and drives well

Base models of sporty cars are funny things. They probably outsell the fancy high-performance versions by quite a lot when they’re new, but twenty or thirty years after the fact you’d never know it, because they’re all gone. Dodge Daytona Turbo Zs and Shelbys turn up for sale with some regularity, but this is the first base model I’ve seen in I don’t know how long. It isn’t even the luxurious Pacifica model, or the stripe-and-spoiler ES package. It’s just a Daytona. And that makes me like it even more than the fancy ones.

So what did you get under the hood of a Daytona if you didn’t check any boxes on the option sheet? A basic 2.5-liter four, sitting alongside a five-speed manual transmission. It’s only a hundred horsepower, but it’s also probably the most reliable K-car drivetrain ever made. Chrysler’s perpetual shoestring budgets mean that engines stay in production for ages, and eventually all the bugs get worked out. And without the potential pitfalls of an automatic to worry about, this car should be just about bulletproof. The seller has already replaced all the soft parts that you’d want to refresh on such a low-mileage car, and they say it gets driven regularly to keep the juices flowing.

1990 was the first year for the new dashboard in the Daytona and LeBaron, and personally, I don’t like it as much as the old one. The switchgear feels flimsy, and I find the gauges harder to read. But just look at those seats! Do they look inviting, or what? And this one does have air conditioning, by the way, and the seller says it works fine. It’s just about the only option, though. It has crank windows and little blanking plates on the steering wheel where you’d find cruise control buttons on a fancier Daytona.

It’s nearly perfect outside as well, and in a great color. This car shows another thing I like about base models: like the second- and third-generation Chevy Camaro, the Daytona looks best without the ground effects and big rear spoiler that the faster versions come with. Sometimes it’s best to just let the sheet metal speak for itself rather than tacking on a bunch of extra stuff.

Now, I know you’re all going to scoff at the prices of these, and maybe you’re right to. But maybe not; does it really make any less sense to spend six or nine grand on one of these than it does thirty or forty grand on something built this year? You can maintain either of these with a good socket set and a Chilton’s manual. They won’t get quite the gas mileage of a brand-new car, but I bet they’re both up in the thirties on the highway. And no, they don’t have all the safety doodads or crash survivability of a new car, but they’re both still way safer than motorcycles. Still not convinced? Fine. Pick one anyway.