Sometimes you can look at a car and just tell that its owner is elderly. Older domestic cars that are suspiciously clean and stock, especially with AAA stickers in the window, are almost always the property of retirees. With modern cars, it’s a little harder to tell, because a few vehicles aimed at young buyers ended up being the darlings of older drivers, like the Scion xB and the Kia Soul. But the two we’re going to look at today have definitely done their time in the parking lots of bingo halls and sensibly-priced buffet restaurants.
Yesterday, we looked at two CVT-driven hatchbacks that had seen some serious use. A lot of you were as impressed as I was at the condition of that Dodge Caliber, considering its mileage, but not impressed enough to give it the win over the little cranberry-colored Mirage. There’s just something endearingly plucky about those Mirages; they’re like Rudy in car form, and you can’t help cheering for them.
Unless for some reason I needed the extra interior room, the Mirage would be my choice as well. If I’m going to drive something as uninspiring as these, it should cost as little to operate as possible. Besides, I don’t think I could ever stop being mad at the Caliber for not being a Neon.
Spending four years back in the mid-1990s working in a gas station/garage gave me an appreciation for a certain category of car: elderly-owned low-mileage American cars. I saw a lot of them; the neighborhood was near a college, but also home to a lot of retirees They all seemed to know my boss’s boss personally, and half of them got special deals on service because of it. I saw the same cars over and over again, at 3 months on the dot, for oil changes, even if it had only been a few hundred miles. I explained over and over that “winterizing” a car isn’t really a thing; it’s just checking everything over to make sure it’s ready for the cold weather. These folks clearly loved and appreciated their cars, and would have been highly offended if any young Honda-driving whippersnapper dared to call them “junk.”
These two would have been fairly new cars back then, but they’re very much cut from the same cloth. I know they don’t hold much appeal to enthusiasts – a hundred horsepower and a three-speed automatic aren’t exactly a recipe for fun – but they are just about the nicest examples you’re likely to find, and they are that way because someone took care of them. Let’s check them out.
1988 Chrysler LeBaron Sedan – $5,200
Engine/drivetrain: 2.5-liter OHC inline 4, three-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Bristol, VA
Odometer reading: 54,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
In 1987, Chrysler introduced a redesigned LeBaron coupe and convertible, a streamlined shape that shared almost nothing with the earlier boxy K-car shape, even if it was the same mechanical bits underneath. But the four-door sedan and wagon stuck with the old shape for another couple years, to appease older buyers – and Lee Iacocca, who reportedly preferred this design.
One thing that Chrysler has always done well, no matter who its parent company has been, is iron out problems in a design. The later in a model’s run you get, the better the cars are, and the LeBaron is no exception. Improvements like electronic fuel injection and balance shafts made the old K engine a more pleasant powerplant, and a bump up to 2.5 liters gave it more power and torque. The transmission is the same old three-speed Torqueflite, but half of the art of improving something is knowing what to leave well enough alone. The seller says this one has had some recent work including a new valve cover gasket (a common oil leak on these), and it runs and drives beautifully.
The LeBaron was quite a bit fancier inside than its Aries and Reliant siblings, but you’ll notice the windows are still manual crank – they work fine, and we’re not made of money, you know. This is one of very few cars I can think of that paired manual windows with a digital dash, however. The interior is in beautiful shape, and the seller says everything works as it should, including the air conditioning.
It’s very clean outside as well, with only a few blemishes and some faded trim. It has a landau top, but I’m pretty sure that was standard on the LeBaron sedans then; if you didn’t like it, go buy a Plymouth. Most photos show these awful Pep Boys wheel covers, but one photo shows the original Chrysler ones; hopefully all four of those are included, because you’ll never find a complete set of them.
1994 Mercury Topaz GS – $3,500
Engine/drivetrain: 2.3-liter OHV inline 4, three-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Sioux Falls, SD
Odometer reading: 35,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
GM and Chrysler had already been producing their front-wheel-drive midsize cars for a few years by the time Ford got into the game with the Tempo and Mercury Topaz in 1984. But Ford was leading the way among the Big Three when it came to aerodynamics, so the Tempo and Topaz looked a lot sleeker and more modern than their contemporaries. The two nameplates had different designs for the four-door sedans, but the two-door coupes looked the same, and it’s a style that still looks pretty good today.
Mechanically, the Tempo/Topaz was a bit of a strange throwback: its four-cylinder engine was “all new,” but based heavily on the old Falcon inline six, and therefore an older overhead-valve design. It’s not a high-revving engine, but it’s reasonably smooth and efficient. It drives the front wheels through a three-speed automatic shared with the Ford Escort. Again, it’s nothing special, but it works. This one has a scant 35,700 miles on it, so it’s barely broken in. It could probably use a good “Italian tuneup,” but the seller says it runs and drives well.
As you would expect from the mileage, it’s in beautiful condition inside, though the carpet could use a shampooing. The interior of these is nothing special, but it’s comfortable and functional. Unfortunately, when the passive-restraint mandate arrived in 1989, Ford elected to equip the Tempo and Topaz with motorized seat belts instead of airbags. I personally don’t like them, but I know some of you don’t mind. I’ll leave it up to you to decide if they’re a dealbreaker.
I always found it charming that the Tempo and Topaz coupes had luggage racks on the trunk lids. Did anyone ever actually strap luggage to one of these things? I can’t imagine it. This one is nice and clean outside, except for a few minor things, and since it’s a GS, it has nice alloy wheels on it. And of course, like all 1990s Mercurys, it has a light bar across the grille. Any bets on whether or not it has one bulb burned out, like they always seem to?
Yes, you’re absolutely right – these are both going to take thirteen or fourteen seconds to reach 60 MPH, and they’re both going to understeer like an overloaded Costco shopping cart. But if you’re concerned about that, you’re missing the point. They’re both very clean, low-mileage cars from late in their respective production runs, after their manufacturers had ironed out all the bugs. Yes, they’re priced a little high, particularly the LeBaron. But either one would do nicely for a second car, or as an offbeat weekend cruiser. You’re guaranteed to have the nicest one around in either case. Which one speaks to you?
The later Ks were a far cry from the early ones in terms of quality and reliability. Too bad this isn’t the GTS/Lancer body, I’d be on my way to Virginia.
The Tempo looks way cooler, but I don’t trust the mechanicals underneath. The engine was half-baked, and using the transmission from the Escort doesn’t assuage my concerns. I might consider a Taurus in this condition, but only with the V6.
My grandmother (Big Nana, as we called her… she was 4′-10″) had an almost identical Topaz years ago so I guess I’ll go with that for the nostalgia factor. Also, $5200 for a K platform is insane, I don’t care if it has zero miles and is just off a museum floor, it’s still crap. The Topaz is crap too but it’s cheaper crap at least.
I was going to go with the LeBaron, but I honestly couldn’t pull the trigger with that price. I know…fictional dollars, but it’s the principal, right? I don’t mind the TemPaz at all. The Ford mousefur interiors were perfectly adequate places to be in those days.
The motorized seat belts are the decider for me. We had a Mazda 626 with them and oh how I hated them. LeBaron for the win.
The Topaz, I’ve always wanted a personal misery coupe.
I am totally stealing this one, ROFL!
I’m afraid I can’t take claim of the phrase. Judge Eric of 24 Hours of Lemons fame coined it when talking about the one he had in high school.
Do you happen to be raised Protestant? (Remember: Suffering makes you a better person, even though you don’t deserve that designation.)
Topaz – not even close.
When buying beater commuters it comes down to age and price. I would have to be insane to pay $1,700 more for a K car that is 6 years older.
I think you’d have to be insane to trust a Topaz from ’94 as a beater commuter though. Relatives of mine hardly trusted this car when it was brand new, much less 30 years later.
Both of these cars come from an era when the domestic automakers were turning out pure garbage. K-cars aren’t reliable either. Nobody in the 80’s trusted their car.
The answer to the question is neither but if we are forced to choose I’ll take the newer and cheaper bad option.
Growing up in 80’s Michigan I had friends and family with similar experiences to what Jason is saying here:
The Chrysler K-Cars Were Kinda Crappy, But Did Have This One Really Cool Detail – The Autopian
Oh I agree, and I’m not considering either of these choices to be something to depend on. I would prefer the LeBaron in the world of “this is my weird third car”.
It’s fair though to simply choose the cheaper of the bad options, lol.
I don’t have room for weird 3rd cars in my life. Nor am I a collector like some of the staff here at The Autopian.
Cars must have a function or they get sold. (I’m more forgiving with motorcycles as they take much less space to store)
If I’m going to drive something like this, it better look Stately and Respectable. LeBaron checks that box.
Gestures wildly to the hybrid Wrangler thing that’s been recalled 15,000 times.
Hey look, 4, 5 more years they’ll have that thing buttoned up!
Either is perfect for handing over to a 16-year-old new driver. Underpowered enough that you can reasonably expect any shenanigans to be strictly back-seat-related, old and bland enough that you can expect them to be secure against theft even with the doors standing open, and cheap.
And if they crash it and die, you can have fun making a new kid. Win-win.
I’d want my kid in a Volvo 940 personally.
Rich Corinthian Leather or GTFO!
My first car was an ’86 Mercury Lynx, but my dad had the LeBaron. Much nicer car than the Merc for the time; it felt more upscale than other company cars he drove, too. That’s where my vote goes
The Tempo 2.3 was not in fact “reasonably smooth” or even actually all that efficient. It’s an inline 6 with two cylinders chopped off and it sounds like a thrift store food processor full of walnut shells.
Yeah, its the one two punch of slow acceleration and terrible fuel economy. The worst of both worlds.
I imagine they were a lot better with a 5-speed which wouldn’t have them bellowing at 3500 rpm on the highway, but most of them were the 3 speed auto.
I’ve driven one with the 5-speed, including a long trip on the highway, and it does drive much better than the auto.
Completely agree-my family had an ’88 Topaz and that engine-oof. No wonder my Dad went 100% Honda and Toyota after that…
THIS. I wrenched on these back in the day and they were just one step up in refinement from an Iron Puke. Thrashy, loud, rough, and totally devoid of any low-end torque.
came here for this, leaving satisfied. I had one of these in a ’87 Taurus, what a pig, and the NVH was horrific, bonus points it was pretty easy to work on.
I’ve never had the displeasure of experiencing the 2.5 version from the Taurus but I can’t imagine more mass to shake improved it at all.
it def did not! lol I held onto that car for a mear 6 months, then sold it, didn’t have a car for the summer than bought a ’89 Sunbird SE 5speed. light years better!
I’ll pick up my girl in a short skirt and a long jacket in my Chrysler LeBaron.
I’ve spent far too much time in both of these platforms, the K at least feels component, and has four doors, the Topaz, even new felt like a penalty. The two-doors are even worse for rear seat access.
Thank you for putting that song in my head this morning.
I’m happy to help!
The 2.5 is really not a bad engine. I remember them being a good match for the Shadow/Sundance and I imagine they do equally well in this LeBaron.
I have had the same experience with the 2.5. My derisive comments were directed at the Topaz 2.3.
I would have voted for LeBaron if it had the highly prized Rich Corinthian Leather. Since it doesn’t give me an excuse to work on my Ricardo Montalban impression, I’ll save a couple grand with the Topaz.
Going LeBaron. Worth it to spend a few extra internet bucks for some actual style, which the Topaz completely lacks.
I may still be half asleep but that LeBaron front end in the lead image reminds of an early 80s Volvo 240, the headlights and rectangular grill, in a good way.
I always thought that with some creative manipulation of chrome trim, blackout paint, and wheels/tires, the later Dodge Dynasty could have passed for a Volvo 7-series.
I voted Topaz strictly out of nostalgia.
Back in high school, a good friend got a nearly new (then) Ford Tempo coupe as a gift from his parents. It was gunmetal gray, and he added a monster stereo to it. We had so many good times in that car. His was an infinitely cooler five speed, but this one could give me some of that old fun feeling.
Or rip my rose colored glasses off my face and stomp them to flinders right in front of me…
If someone forced me to choose, the cheaper Topaz it is.
I need an excuse to play the B-52s with the windows down – and that LeBaron is not as big as a whale – so Topaz.
I need the LeBaron, and it has to have a license plate on the front that says #1 SON.
It’s a pretty sad statement that I would go for the Lebaron because I trust it more. Every single.person I know who had a Tempo or a Topaz, except for one, had been scarred by the experience so badly that they’ll never buy another Ford. The exception works for Ford and gets the A plan discount.
Add one more. We watched my parents 4-dr Topaz burn down on the side of the highway from a wiring issue when I was little. No one was hurt. They did buy a 500 (missed) and then a Focus later on.
EDIT: I almost forgot that after everything was put out and towed away, my vovo (grandpa) picked us up from the side of the highway in a Tempo! I think it died of old age eventually (the car, to be clear). So, 50/50 I guess?
The Lebaron is a bit high on $ but was still my choice. I feel like that’s going to be the most comfy and least troublesome when I need a simple cruiser.
I was all ready to click on the newer topaz and the LeBaron is CP price BUT I saw the seatbelt location on the Topaz and had a visceral systemic revulsion reaction.
Right there with you.
For $5K, that better be John Voight’s LeBaron. That aside, I voted for it because when I was a kid, one of my friend’s parents had a LeBaron and I remember it as a nice car, especially compared with the barely funtional shit-boxes we always had.
I’m imagining everyone groaning the moment they saw this.
Anyway, K-Car as the Tempo/Topaz disappeared from the roads around here even faster than the K’s did.
LeBaron for me – I need to know if a door is a jar.