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?






LeBaron all day, because K Cars are like Legos and Turbo Mopar stuff plops right in there without much effort. This car with a Turbo II setup with the boost cranked to the moon would get you to the bingo hall lickety split!
Both cars are really nice examples of pieces of crap. (IMO, of course.) If I’m going to own a piece of crap car, I might as well own one like the LeBaron, that with all the chrome and the vinyl roof screams, “I’m a piece of crap!”. The Tempo is a much more subtle and less overt piece of crap, so why bother?
I figure you might buy the Topaz by accident, but the LeBaron is definitely ironic.
I am surprised after yesterdays shit on shit on shit that these relatively decent except old designs are getting such hate. I’d gladly give either of these a quick retro go over and daily them with sarcastic pride.
My vote goes to the LeBaron… because in the LeBaron, not only would I be a Baron… I would be The Baron.
Also that Tempo has the stupid motorized seatbelt. And the Chrysler 2.5L OHC engine is a better engine than the Ford 2.3L OHV engine.
Yes but a French Baron living in America. In other words you wouldn’t be a light fluffy chocolate French Croissant you would be a Burger King ham egg and American cheese croissant
Both have their positive aspects…
I’ll vote for a kei car every time, but never a K car. Plus, I learned to drive stick on my grandma’s old Ford Tempo, so even though this one is the Mercury and auto, it’s still similar enough that it will take the win over the K.
As much as I hate the mouse belts, I’ll take the “sporty” Merc. $5200 for a 37 y.o. K-car is too damn much! Even if it did belong to John Voight. Maybe for a TC by Maserati, but not for a sedan. Sorry Gramps, someone has been sneaking some delta 8 oil into your Quaker Oats.
I like them both for what they are, the era they represent and the condition they’re in. I always liked the light up bars on Mercury and Pontiac cars, but in this case I’m taking the K car for senior cruising, even if high on price.
My first new car was a 1993 Topaz GS 2-door exactly like the one pictured above, white with the 7-spoke alloys, blue interior and an automatic. it was a leftover 93, and the dealers were running a great special on them… i was young and it was cool to have a new car (parents financing, i paid the payments). So for nostalgia sake, and i think they do still look cool, I’d take the Topaz.
Since you mentioned the seatbelt situation, Ford did offer a driver’s side airbag on the Tempo/Topaz, but only with the right combination of options. The car had to be a 4-door. Had to be an automatic. Couldn’t have cruise control. If you got the optional airbag, the driver’s side automatic seat belt was replaced with a standard 3-point belt but the passenger’s side was still the automatic style belt.
“ but the passenger’s side was still the automatic style belt.”
Well isn’t that a kick in the nuts…
If I recall the steering wheel also lost its tilting feature if you ordered the airbag. I have vague memories from the owner’s manual in my dad’s 86 Tempo GL Sport, 5spd, 2dr, which of course didn’t have it
You are correct, tilt wheel was not available on the Airbag equipped models.
The Tempo/Topaz were the first Ford vehicles with the optional airbag, which debuted in the 1987 year model (it may have been a late 1986 addition, but doens’t show up in brochures until 1987). The Taurus didn’t get an airbag until 1990 year model.
I was a little taken aback by the LeBaron interior. Having had two K platform cars, I know that those seats are starting to get a little worn and the plastic is getting brittle. I’ve also just never really liked the faux wood dash treatment and “luxury.” (I also don’t like huge overstuffed lounge chairs, so…)
The Topaz is alright. Remarkably clean for what most people considered a consumer product and not a durable good. Given the location, I’d have to check the underside rust situation.
Honestly, though? Mostly a toss-up.
The LeBaron is waaaaay overpriced. But, I’m still picking it because the seatbelt situation in the Topaz is unacceptable.
The K’s price is too high but it is identical to my wife and I’s first car except for color and the dreadful digital dash. We had an ’86. It was a great car, super reliable, 30 MPG, and a spacious interior. Then it just stopped running one day years later. The seatbelts rule out the Ford.
For some reason I always wanted one of these Lebarons. It’s Lee’s predictable attempt to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
I could go for a nice, Reliant Automobile today.
And you don’t even need a million dollars!
But a green dress wouldn’t hurt.
Haven’t you always wanted a monkey?
That’s Cruel!
2 doors and low low miles FTW
Kcar’s price is far too high.
That leaves the Topaz. Any well-stocked nearby American junkyard would have ample parts to keep it running.
I can deal with the seatbelts. The Topaz is a much better looking car.
Both a bit pricey, but I’d pick the LeBaron. Option packaging was weird back then. We had a LeBaron GTS, the sporty hatchback, with a turbo. It too had a digital dash, but crank windows and manual locks. It was a nice car. It replaced a disastrous Tempo, so my choice is based on anecdata. This LeBaron with proper wheels and a little soap and water inside would be a nice little hobby car. Frankly I’d prefer a column shift, but can’t complain. The 2.5 at this point was better than decent.
I wouldn’t pay anywhere close to those prices for either of those. But if I had to choose, I’m taking the K car
Mercury Topaz might be the greatest Drag Queen name ever. Tens across the board!
I don’t have much enthusiasm for either of these vehicles. I voted for the LeBaron because it is blue and has a cool digital dashboard. I wouldn’t pay $5,200 for this car, but there is an amount of money I would pay for it.
I don’t see much to like about the Topaz aside from condition.
If I’m getting a gramps-mobile, it’s gotta have 4 doors.
Damnit, I’m now triggered!
F–k you Ford for ever introducing the Tempo/Topaz…
I’ll take the digital dash for maximum 80’s style.
I’ve never understood how to secure luggage on those racks since there’s no forward attachment points. Do you just ratchet it to the entire trunk? Leave it floating up there and go over bumps at 2mph?
Anyway Topaz for me I guess.
Maybe you can’t see them in the photo, or maybe they are gone, but they usually had small loops at the front edges that you could attach bungee cord hooks to, or fish thru some thin nylon rope. I’m not sure this is an OEM rack. We had a Tempo sedan with an OEM rack, and I recall the bar was more prominent, chrome, and it had loops on the sides also. (As with “range anxiety” today, I think back then buyers had “space anxiety”- having been used to large cars for so long. This was the solution I guess, or those Sears X-Cargo rooftop carriers.)
I hate to say it, but the LeBaron is more interesting and my choice over the half used bar of soap styling of the Tempo.
I don’t want the LeBaron, but I reallllly don’t want the Topaz. The price differential made me pause, but I got there eventually. At least the LeBaron is sort of a neat antiquity.
I’ve been in a number of Tempos/Topaz…es? Topii? And I’ve never witnessed one that ran “smoothly”. This includes relatively new examples back in the 90’s. The Tempo was a car we made fun of back then. And we weren’t exactly living the high life in our mix of GM/Hyundai/Chrysler products.