Welcome back! After a week of attempting to celebrate domestic models with varying degrees of success, this week I promise you won’t see a single American nameplate here. We’re starting out with a pair of two-doors from Japanese makes with a simple connection: they both have black stripes that someone added.
I knew going into Friday’s Showdown that Corvettes, especially C3s and C4s, are a love-them-or-hate-them proposition, and that a lot of you were going to turn your noses up at both of them. But I was surprised by the positive comments, especially in favor of the C3. The disco ‘Vettes are generally seen as the Mustang IIs of the Corvette world, but plenty of you said that the C3 is your favorite Corvette body style. But the C4’s fuel injection and far more modern chassis design made it the logical choice, and the clear winner in the poll.
This is a tough one for me. The C4 was the poster-car dream when I was eleven, but the C3 is the classic Corvette shape. Luckily, I’ve driven both a C3 and a C4, both with automatics, so I can judge them by more than gut feeling. The C4 is the better driving car, hands-down. But the C3 is more fun, even with less power. And I think I’d have more success tinkering with the older, less electronics-heavy car. So I’m going to go against the grain and pick the C3.

Stripes on cars were originally just a way to tell cars apart on a race track. Briggs Cunningham is credited with the first use of racing stripes, on his LeMans entries in the early ’50s, and since then, stripes have become a symbol of speed. If it’s got stripes on it, it must be faster, right? But the truth is that there are all kinds of reasons to put stripes on a car. My dad added black stripes to the lower part of the doors on his tan VW Beetle to hide rust bubbles. I put stripes on my MGB GT just to break up the sea of yellow paint. Both of today’s competitors have had black stripes added, one rather haphazardly, and the other much more carefully. Which car is more worthy of such adornment will be up to you to decide.
1979 Honda Accord LX – $4,500

Engine/drivetrain: 1.8-liter OHC inline 4, two-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Douglasville, GA
Odometer reading: 40,000 miles, but odometer is broken
Operational status: Runs and drives, needs a tune-up
Honda’s Civic was a huge hit, but a tiny car. If Honda wanted to increase its sales, it needed to increase the size of its cars. Enter the Accord in 1977. A three-door hatchback was the only body style available at first, but a year later a four-door sedan appeared, along with the LX trim level which would become the most common Accord. This 1979 model is an LX, but it’s a hatchback – and an automatic.

For 1979, an automatic in an Accord meant Honda’s two-speed Hondamatic semi-auto. There’s a torque converter instead of a clutch, but you have to shift between the two gears yourself. If you’re not in a hurry, however, you can just leave it in high gear all the time and accelerate at a more leisurely pace. Driving that weird transmission is a 1.8 liter engine with Honda’s CVCC intake design. It just had its carb rebuilt, but the seller says it needs some tuning yet. The low mileage isn’t accurate; the seller says the speedometer doesn’t work, so obviously the odometer doesn’t either. And neither, sadly, do those cool mechanical service reminders.

The interior looks pretty good, but it has aftermarket seat covers, and there’s no way of knowing what the seats look like under them. There’s a piece of tape or something on the driver’s side door panel. I have no idea what that’s about. The LX package included air conditioning, but I’m assuming it no longer works.

Early Accords came in some great colors. I think this is one of two different greens that were available. It’s actually kind of a shame that someone covered some of it up with black paint. It could have been done to hide rust, but I doubt it. The door bottoms and rocker panels look rust-free.
1989 Mazda MX-6 LX – $3,450

Engine/drivetrain: 2.2-liter OHC inline 4, five-speed manual, FWD
Location: East Wallingford, VT
Odometer reading: 79,000 miles
Operational status: Doesn’t say, actually
Okay, you got me: this is technically not a Japanese car. It’s a Mazda by design, but it was built in Flat Rock, Michigan, in the same factory as the Ford Probe. Under the skin, they’re the same car. But while the Probe had its own swoopy sheetmetal, the Mazda MX-6 is basically just a two-door 626. This appears to be the mid-level LX model, based on the options, but it lacks the badge on the front fender, so I can’t be sure.

The MX-6’s drivetrain is the same as the Probe, a 2.2-liter Mazda four-cylinder engine and a smooth-shifting five-speed manual transmission. It has really low miles on it, and the seller calls it a “barn find.” I assume that means it has been sitting for a while. I can’t quite read the year number on the license plate tag, but it might be a 14, which would mean it has been off the road for twelve years. Expect to do some refurbishing, even if it starts and runs fine. You’ll probably want new tires, too.

It does look a little tired inside. From the fading and the big crack in the dash, I have a feeling this car was parked next to the barn rather than in it. That’s a lot of sun damage. Apart from the crack, it’s in good condition, but all those cloth and vinyl and plastic pieces are supposed to be the same shade of burgundy.

The stripes on this one appear to be painted on too, and there are stripes on the hood as well as the sides. Someone spent some money to have that done. Actually, now that I look at it, this might be a GT model. The wheels and spoiler are correct for it. If it is a GT, that means it has the turbocharged engine and adjustable suspension. If not, then someone added GT wheels and a spoiler to an LX. See, this is why we need underhood photos, people…
Well-preserved cars like these are cool to see, but it also makes me kind of sad. They’re not supposed to still exist; they should have been driven and used up and recycled into washing machines years ago. The fact that they do still exist gives someone else a chance to appreciate them, but time takes its toll whether a car gets driven or not. You’ll have your work cut out for you bringing either one of them back to its former glory. Which one is worth the effort?









I don’t know, that Accord is more of a collector object than a transport device. If they rested any faster when they were new, they would be on fire.
Most other days I’d be scooping up a pistachio Honda but today I’ll split town in the Mazda
You must be kidding re the Accord! I owned a 1980 example and here in Eastern Ontario it literally disintegrated — I’m talking body perforations within five years. And those carbs — forget about debugging one and the rat’s nest of hoses surrounding it. And the seller wants close to what must have been the original purchase price! I like the colour, but that’s it. Mazda all the way.
The Mazda isn’t *that* far removed from a modern car (ergonomics, interior design, service intervals, drivability, etc) , whereas the Accord borders on being antique.
The Mazda is the better car and it has the good transmission.
The Honda is interesting, but the Mazda is a car I’d drive around. Swap the prices, and it’d be a harder decision.
Whoever put the stripes on the Mazda had a pretty good eye. I’ll take the Purple Haze interior.
The Honda being an automatic never had a chance. Great car, awful transmission. Mazda all the way.
The Mazda is the same color combo as one of its sedan brethren I bought from my uncle long ago (but it thankfully didn’t have that stripe). Stick shift, and wouldn’t get less than 40mpg no matter how I flogged it. Other than a sagging driver’s rear window (hooray for all-weather duck tape!) it didn’t have any issues, and kept up nicely with the V6 Alero my then-girlfriend had.
So Mazda for sure.
The Honda is far more interesting than the Mazda, and that’s what you’d care about if you were really shopping 35+ year old cars. If I was interested in driving experience I wouldn’t be considering either of these.
MX-6! Ok, you got me…I REALLY wanted that Accord- it would be a fun experience to own and I like that green. Both of pretty interesting and good, but had to go Mazda for the stick. Also, it’s newer so fuel injection, etc…plus very low miles- it still has tons of life in it (would go through all the rubber bits, etc) It will be fun to cruise around in!
How is this even a question? A two speed auto, versus a 5 speed manual? Gimme the manual, even if it’s been sitting for a while. That maroon interior is awesome too.
The stripes on the Mazda actually don’t look completely shit,in my opinion. And it is a manual Mazda,so of course it wins.
The Mazda is the easy choice here, cars got considerably better as the adopted catalysts, fuel injection, and electronic engine management in the 80s, and the Mazda is a5 speed, game over.
If it weren’t for the Hondamatic….I probably would have still gone with the MX-6. But the decision would have taken more than half a second.
Mazda all the way. I’ve heard that even by slushbox standards, those 2 speed Hondamatics suuuuuuuucked.
Plus the Mazda has a manual and fuel injection. So this is a very VERY easy pick for me.
The stripes on these look like beard on Seneca Crane the gamesmaster from the Hunger Games Movie.
I really liked those early Accords. Great color. I don’t think I ever saw one that shade back in the day. Too bad it’s a semi-automatic. I don’t know whether those had a speedometer cable or if it was electronic. Either way, it’s pretty weird that it stopped counting at 40K.
I’ve owned several Hondas and drive one currently. I’ve never owned a Mazda, but they have always struck me as a solid choice. I’ve rented several and they were fine.
This one’s a stick and it has a moonroof. I think it’s the right choice today.
I’m amazed that such lovely time-capsule cars are available for sale so cheaply. If they were both riddled with rust and bad mods, they’d still cost more than their asking prices if they lived in SoCal.
They’re both great and I do want both of them. That green! That mauve! And they both seem largely original too. Cripes!
Guess I’ll take the Mazda though, and pretend I’m living in the utopia that was the run-up to the Japan bubble economy bursting.
So. Much. Mauve.
Once owned a 626 of that vintage, and the interior pics took me back in time. Fond memories of that little shitbox.
But it’s all about new experiences, so Honda for me!
Easy win for the Mazda. I like those old Accords, but that dumb transmission is…well, dumb.
Rad stripes beat groovy stripes in my book. Mx6.
We had a ‘77 Accord when I was growing up – a great car! But I’m betting the years have not been kind to the Flying Spaghetti Monster of vacuum hoses needed to keep a ‘70s Honda running smoothly. I’d take the Mazda.
Dyslexic Pastafarians untie!
Having grown up in this area of VT, I can assure you this had to be in an actual barn for most of its life, or it is not a VT car.
Our family dog put his paw through the floorboards of our Datsun after <5 years of ownership.
Well, the Hondamatic kind of ruins it. That and the $4.5k they’re asking for a ’79 Accord. And if the carb has been rebuilt, what is up with the “needs a tune” BS?
That MX-6 is interesting. It may be a GT. It is a 5spd. 10 years newer and $1k less. It looks nice. You would absolutely need to look underneath and everywhere for rust. You would need to check belts, hoses, fuel, etc. In the end, you would have a more interesting and fun car.
I have a feeling that the carburetor was “rebuild” was disassembling it, throwing in new gaskets, and then reinstalling it and hoping for the best. Unfortunately, tuning a carb is rapidly becoming a dark art lost to time.
That does sound pretty likely. I don’t know how many people under 50 know how to tune a carb or to rebuild one using those kits.