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?
Both of them were anachronisms when new, let alone now. But at least I feel like Chrysler knew that when that LeBaron rolled off the assembly line, and they embraced it. Meanwhile, the Topaz was just a deary, forgettable (if perfectly adequate) econobox for people who were old enough to think they’d actually use the luggage rack, but were too cheap for a Buick LeSabre.
I’ll take the Chrysler, please. Even if it is halfway across the country while the Merc is about an hour away.
I’ll have to pretend I’m a decade older to drive it, but I would prefer the K-car to the Tempo.
Driving the Tempo would make me feel two decades older. They were awful, at least the few that I had the misfortune to ride in were.
The real choice is neither one, because they are both overpriced; additionally, you would have a difficult time finding parts for them in a junkyard, because even the worn-out junky ones have been crushed years ago.
A college buddy had a brown Tempo. It was the right color, because that vehicle was a turd. When Ford was pumping out the world-changing Taurus, the Tempo was an aero shaped box of disappointment.
At the time I didn’t love the K-based Chryslers either. But after helping my son fix and daily an ‘87 Aries circa 2020, I’m more impressed with the ride quality of the K platform. The LeBaron is a pig with lipstick…. But it’s a pretty good pig.
Tough call, like the looks of the LeBaron but the mileage and price of the Topaz. Of course I am not a fan of the automatic seat belts but I have noticed something. In every car I have owned or driven the regular 3 point belts stopped rewinding. They get stuck when you close the door. The lights stay on and you have to manually rewind them every damn time. Is there a fix for this? I am not sure a working automatic belt isn’t preferable on old cars.
I had an ’84 (I think… it’s been a while) Aries wagon as a company car and it was pretty competent for back then. I was a TV news photographer, and the luggage area held all my stuff more than adequately. And it was a fair amount. 30-pound video camera, 15-pound tape deck, 15-pound tripod and a lighting kit. Plus, a bag of audio bits. Wired and wireless microphones. I had $100,000 retail then, worth of gear in that car.
Kids, these days. They don’t know how easy they have it.
Anyway, it drove decently. Far better than the ’80 Dodge Diplomat wagon with a 318 Lean Burn V-8 it replaced. I hated that thing.
Motorized shoulder belts are a total non-starter for me. I hate those things too.
So, even though I am not a Mopar guy, The LeBaron for the easy win from me today.
How well did it drive in the snow? You know going uphill both ways to the story. Lol
Being FWD, the Aires did a lot better than the Diplomat. We didn’t put dedicated winter tires on either back then.
In the second half of my career, I installed, upgraded or tweaked software for TV stations (and networks–CNN, NBC, ABC, Fox News) to produce their newscasts. In the northern climes, some stations had a big pile of wheels and tires that depending on when I was there had either all weather or winter tires on them. And they would probably have a really fun party when it was time to switch between one set and the other some Saturday afternoon.
Voted LeBaron. So clean, 4 doors, seems to have been garaged vs the faded interior and lights on the Merc. Plus I’m a sucker for a seemingly rust free landau top, even if this stubby one makes me think of Milhouse’s dad.
NO.
The LeBaron is cleaner, and a Topaz is downright embarrassing, no matter the condition. Easy win for the ‘Baron.
I wish the LeBaron talked, but I went with it anyway.
I’ll say that there’s probably some wiggle room in that LeBaron price… so that’s where my vote goes.
Dang, that’s almost museum-spec.
tough choice, but Lebaron for me. I suppose if this was the rare AWD topaz from 91, I might have given Merc at least a second look, but in the end I still would prefer the Lebaron over that thing. Neither are notoriously bad or good. and the low miles on both is impressive at least.
My Tempo experiences have been pleasant–I drove a friend’s four-banger rental one afternoon, and spent some time my dad’s V6-equipped.
Always thought its exterior design was underrated.
Although I could see the case for LeBaron, not the least of which is its better engine. It’s just so dumpy, though; one really has to own its really-aged-for-its time brightwork and such, to want to drive it.
I really wanted to vote for the Tempo, as I have spent plenty of time in similar ones back when they were relatively new. However, the LeBaron is a more useable four door, doesn’t have the annoying moving seatbelts, and…who am I kidding, I have owned too many K-cars to ever vote for one, so Tempo wins by default.
Just here to re-assert that those belts never really bothered me much, although I can see how some folks found them temperamental and yes, the dang car wouldn’t start if it thought they were disconnected IIRC.
This being a two-door Tempo, the power seat belts actually made getting into the back seats WAAAY easier. Faint praise, sure, but it made a difference for those of us who weren’t as quick calling shotgun.
I can’t believe I’m typing this, but I have to go with the LeBaron solely because the interior is so much better. As cheesy as the Chrysler interior is, the little out of date fake luxury touches really do make it more comfortable. Fabric covered doors and reasonably good seats make the interior more hilariously dated than uncomfortable.
The Tempo/Topez had one of the worst interiors I have ever experienced in a car. The seats were odd shaped and very uncomfortable, and every surface you touched was covered in an unpleasant feeling plastic that immediately stained. Somehow they all smelled like old cigarette smoke – even when new.
I have a soft spot for the K-cars. They seem to have better attention to details than a lot of domestic cars of that era. But if that is the Mitsubishi 2.5 engine, stay away. These engines were wonderful when they ran. But the head gaskets were always weak. They will all eventually fail.
Do you mean the 2.6l “silent shaft” Mitsubishi? I agree that they were crap but this is the Chrysler 2.5l Trenton engine which was an enlarged 2.2l. These are boring but relatively reliable engines.
Yeah. That one. It was 2555cc if I remember correctly- somewhere between 2500 and 2600.
I’m pretty forgiving of malaise era common commuter cars, but for some reason both of these turn my stomach. I love the classic look of the LeBaron, but I drove a relative’s car to my prom, and even without much car experience, I was unimpressed.
My family had a loaded 5-speed Tempo coupe from the late 80’s. It isolated from the road better than some cars, but managed to drive like a boat, even though it was svelte on paper.
I HATE those useless luggage racks! They just rattle when you close them!
I should have nostalgia for both of these, but I just can’t today. Maybe the LeBaron is the better time capsule, but the Topaz would drive better? Neither is worth near these asking prices!!!
You keep using this word… “beautiful”. I’m an admirer of beauty. Truly, I am. Certainly, perception of beauty is entirely subjective. Oscar the grouch lives in our imaginations to remind us of this truth. If beauty can be found in a K-car derivative, then let there be beauty everywhere and in everything.
Topaz for me, but nothing wrong with choosing the LeBaron. Whoever buys the Chrysler needs to immediately ditch the Walmart wheel covers and source a set of wire wheel covers to get the look just right.
Believe it or not those are OEM Chrysler wheel covers, just not period correct for this LeBaron. I know because my first car was a hand me down 1st gen Stratus which my mom purchased new in 99 and it had those wheel covers. Amazingly it never lost any over the 10 years we owned it.
You’re right, they were on the Status, Breeze too.
I like my infinite sadness cheaper. Topaz, please.
I’ll grit my teeth and go K car because this vintage Tempo/Topaz have front seats that hurt my back.
My personal favorite old person car is a 2000-2005 Buick LeSabre or Park Avenue. These have 200 odd horsepower from a 3800 V6, 4 speed automatic and the usual conveniences apart from Bluetooth. The ride is floaty and gas mileage is meh but they are reliable, roomy and easy to fix. There’s a few clean shiny ones driven by elderly owners and a few slightly beat up ones driven by youths.
Somehow both too nice and too shitty to daily…What do you do with these?
Cars so terrible even their owners didn’t want to drive them. But of this pair, I will take the fancy K-car.
Only the Sable that got an actual light bar. The Topaz got a look-alike trim piece that never had lights behind it from the factory.
Someone handy could make a light-up Topaz grill. The special kind of someone who’s got the mechanical abillity to do that and also wants to drive a Topaz. A unicorn.
I thought you were going to say “An Autopian”, because if that weirdo actually exists, they’ll be on this site.
there has to be someone. I mean, not long ago a 2nd gen Sable owner featured here did an LED upgrade + programmed them for some really cool effects.
High school friend’s dad was ~6’6″, worked for Mercury (back when it was a thing) and wanted a manual. The 2 door topaz 5 speed with a V6 was the only car that he could wedge himself into. The driver seat moved all the way back to touch the rear seats. He still looked like a monkey on a tricycle in that thing. We soon found out, the 2 door topaz V6 was a sleeper. It was quick but drew very little attention.
My cousin, also about 6’6″ and built like an oxen, had a Tempo like that. 2-door, V6, 5-speed. I never rode in it with him, but he RAVED about it.
He had the XR5, the Holy Grail of the Tempaz line.
I had a ’90 Topaz in high school (it was only two years old at the time). 80k miles, four door, Sandalwood Frost with hubcaps and whitewalls. I loved that car and always took care of it. If this one had been a four-door I would have voted for it, because I really don’t like the “fat butt” of the coupes. The four doors had a nice squared off roof line that made them seem classier.
Going with the K-car today.
80,000 Miles in two years? And it still ran? I know 80,000 miles is just broken in now but if memory serves we were still at 12 months or 12,000 miles which ever comes first warranty.
My dad bought it new in ’90, traded in his ’88 Tempo for it that had almost the same mileage. Lots of daily commuting miles.
The car ran perfectly. The ONLY, and I mean ONLY problem it ever had was when the backlighting on the radio went out.
He traded it in for a ’93 Taurus the summer of ’93.
My parents did not have a lot of money back in the early 90s so my dad got an 86 Tempo GL Sport 2dr with the 5 spd. That car had around 60K miles when purchased and he sold that in 99 with 150K to an uncle who drove for another 2 years and sold to someone else out of state. Maybe we were super lucky but that car never needed more than wear items and a clutch. The power steering of course went but he never fixed it.