Good morning! Today’s theme is simple: red interiors. You either love them or hate them, it seems; personally, I love them. To find one these days, however, you have to go way up the price range, or turn to the used market. And that’s what we’re going to do today.
Yesterday, we looked at a couple of rustbuckets from here in Michigan, cheap enough to be disposable after a winter or two. Just about any car will work for such use, but if you have the choice of something with a little more traction, go for it. And that’s what you all did, by a massive margin; the Subaru Impreza won in a landslide.
All-wheel drive is nice to have in the snow, but it isn’t an absolute necessity. And I have a somewhat irrational dislike for Subarus, so if these two were the same price, I’d go for the Pontiac. But at least that Impreza is a manual, and it is significantly cheaper, so I guess I’ll follow the crowd.
Car colors have gotten less interesting over the years, and these days most parking lots look like black and white photos. There are a few bright spots, however, I saw a purple VW Touareg the other day, and a Chevy Trax in a really nice shade of blue. But even if you can get the outside in a good color, your choices for the inside are usually limited to gray, black, or maybe tan. But back in the ’80s and ’90s, there were other options, typically blue and red at least. Today, we’re going to look at a couple of cars that went for the red option – and went for it hard.Â
1988 Plymouth Voyager LE – $2,500
Engine/drivetrain: 3.0-liter OHC V6, three-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Waynesboro, VA
Odometer reading: 275,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives, but needs some work
Even if you don’t know or care about cars, there are some vehicles you can date accurately almost instantly. Case in point: the original Chrysler minivan, especially one with the fake woodgrain sides. It’s as ’80s as Kajagoogoo and Ollie North. Seeing one is bound to produce a wave of nostalgia if you’re of the right age, but whether that nostalgia manifests as the warm fuzzies or the heebie-jeebies depends on your own history with these vehicles.
The earliest versions of these vans were criticized for being underpowered, a complaint that Chrysler addressed in 1987 with the addition of a Mitsubishi-built V6 to the lineup. These engines are reliable, but have a tendency to burn oil after a while. This one was replaced 70,000 miles ago, but the replacement is already starting to leave a faint trail of blue smoke from the exhaust. The rest of the van needs some attention, but it includes a whole list of parts that the seller bought but hasn’t had time to install yet. We’ve all been there; finding time to wrench when you don’t strictly need to is tough sometimes. Do it yourself and save, I guess.
The interior is the star of the show here; the crushed red velour doesn’t look like it has been around for 275,000 miles. It makes me wonder if someone had it redone at some point, though I can’t imagine anyone putting that much effort into an old minivan.
It’s a bit faded outside, but not bad for being so old. It shouldn’t have much in the way of rust underneath, but it’s worth checking to make sure. I’m not personally a fan of the woodgrain, but I know some people like it, so more power to you. To me, it looks like a TV cabinet from the ’80s.
1994 Ford Taurus LX – $2,500
Engine/drivetrain: 3.8-liter OHV V6, four-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Raeford, NC
Odometer reading: 164,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Here’s another relic from days gone by: the Ford Taurus. Ford sold zillions of these things in the ’80s and ’90s, and as a result, a lot of us have stories about them as well. What’s funny about the Taurus, though, is that as futuristic as it looked when it was new, there’s no mistaking it for anything but a late-’80s or early-’90s car now.
This is a second-generation Taurus, which looks so much like the first generation that I’ll forgive you if you can’t tell them apart. It’s powered by the optional Essex 3.8-liter V6 instead of the standard Vulcan engine, along with a four-speed automatic, the only transmission available unless you opted for the high-performance SHO model. The Essex V6 had some issues with head gaskets failing early on, but I think they were pretty well ironed out by this point. This one runs and drives “with no issues,” according to the seller, and is a one-owner car.
Beige as it may be outside, inside this Taurus is a nice, deep red. Note that even the steering wheel and seat belts match; that’s how things were done back then. The seat and carpet are a little worn, but still serviceable. I’m generally not a fan of those carpeted dash mats, but in this case, it seems to fit the feel of the car. I can’t make out what the cassettes sitting on top of the dash are, but I’m curious to know. And hell, you might be able to get them thrown in with the car.
One thing about this car puzzled me, until I looked at some photos of other Tauruses: it looks like the rear wheel is too far forward in its arch. I was worried about suspension damage, but photos of other cars showed the same thing; it seems they’re just like that. I never noticed it before.
If you dislike red interiors in cars, I’m afraid you’re out of luck today. But if, like me, you find them striking, which one looks more inviting to you? Oh, and I suppose you can consider the rest of the cars if you want, too.
No to both. I can’t do full red interiors. I had one car with a bordello red interior, but it had a black dash, wheel and centre console, so it wasn’t too bad. These just look terrible to me.
I had a 1979 Caprice Classic wagon. Two tone red exterior (no wood), and MILES of red vinyl on the inside. Three rows of red seats. red seatbelts, red headliner, red dash, red steering wheel. I’m pretty sure the knob on the shifter stalk was red.
A box lined in red
That can carry all my shit.
The shit box winner.
I do love a bordello red interior.
My ’85 Escort had one. I bought my Mazda3 in part for its unapologetically red seats.
I don’t really need a mid-size sedan (just downsized out of one), and the van, while a little faded outside, looks pretty darn good inside. If the Mitsu mill is trashed, swap in a turbo 2.2 and have a little fun.
Voyager for me today.
The minivan is really clean for 275k. Highway miles, I’d bet.
But “needs work” is just too open-ended against “one owner, runs great”.
Now you put that song (and video, just look at that hair) in my head for the rest of the day.
Hush hush I do I.
Thanks. Now it’s stuck in my head too.
I’ll save the Taurus for Halloween and dress up as ROBO-COP.
You mean the 6000 SUX? I’d buy that for a dollar!
I am not all that radwood I guess, though I do kind of see the interest in either of these still being on the road. I guess if I was going to buy one of these though, it would be for a winter beater. I feel like the Taurus would get me through better in this case. the Caravan is seemingly coming into it’s own on interest due to some Youtubers buying them lately, and it would be kind of fun to see if the VR4 set up could be swapped under and into this little Van, but that would require a lot more Autopian funny money and the thrill would wear off quick I imagine.
even with the 3.1 and chalky paint, I would probably still go with an olds of this era. https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/782da8a6-f4a3-4d04-bb8d-95d5fe0cdd9a/?aff=atempest&utm_campaign=atempest&utm_source=autotempest&utm_medium=trp&utm_campaign_id=1&utm_trusted=TRUE
https://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/listing/1982-oldsmobile-cutlass-supreme-grand-rapids-mi-2887637?
Hahaha, it may just be my phone’s formatting, but your comment last line is ironically “rusted=TRUE”
formatting, it says trusted=true, but probably Rusted is true as well.
Maybe with the V6 but I had a Voyager with the carbureted 4. Thing would vapor lock at the drop of a hat.
Taurus. I had plenty of exposure to a van almost exactly like that one (same color, year, and interior, but without the running boards), and it ate up transmissions like Skittles while blowing the telltale blue smoke cloud everywhere it went. The Taurus is not exactly my ideal exterior color, but that interior is classic 90s Ford red and I’m all for it.
The Caravan might be instantly recognizable as a classic – it’s still a Chrysler.
Seeing them on the road well after expiry was more due to their ubiquity, than to their durability.
The Taurus, however, is the
beigered Altima.Sure, it wasn’t anywhere near as durable as a Tercel of its era. But I’m certain that it’ll happily run poorly for a very very long time.
I fell in love with the all red interior of the 2021-25 Lexus is350/500 cars. They feel like a throwback to many of the great grand touring car interiors going back to the early twentieth century. Bugattis and the Mercedes 300SL Gullwings are two examples.
It looks better in tailored leather than cloth, though.
We had both of these as family cars when I was a kid, so I have to go with the Taurus. It was just a far better built car, and survived over 280K miles of abuse, while the van lost its transmission around 120k I think.
I still remember the poor quality plastics and fabrics in the van that got sticky as they aged, and no amount of cleaning could bring them back.
If any car is striking you, red interior or not, you’re going to need a good doctor. And probably a lawyer.
And your own red interior will likely suffer some damage.
Keeping the red interior, not exterior is optimal,
It’s the human equivalent of keeping the shiny side up.
The top side of me is getting progressively shinier.
You guys are hilarious It just occurred to me that the Taurus was built the same year my son was built. He’s an attorney now, but not the kind that will take on this kind of case.
A Lincoln Lawyer you say?
A 275,000 mile blue smoke “needs work” TV cabinet (love that description, btw) vs. a 160,000 mile sedan that currently works? I don’t need a van so it’s an easy Taurus win. By ’94 the transmissions were better, right?
These Fords were starting to look pretty archaic by the mid-90s, particularly the interior with the squashy bench seats that look like the old sofas people consign to front porch duty in the classier neighborhoods. Compared to what Toyota and Honda were offering, it’s no wonder this lost best-seller status.
Color-keyed interiors are one of the reasons I think Genesis is killing it. They have recently had a blood red, medium blue, and jade green in their lineup (mainly the G/GV 80 and 90) and they all look great.
SUPER easy choice today. I already have had a 89 blue smoking 3.0L Caravan. NO thanks, never again.
I don’t necessarily dislike red interiors, but what I do hate is blobs of single color permeating American car interiors to this day. Blob of red, blob of blue, blob of black. It’s all freaking horrible. The above perhaps being the most horrid examples of that.
Having said that, I’m a large Ford sedan guy, currently driving the last gen Taurus so the Taurus would be my virtual pick. Looks nicely preserved, too. Plus, I really hate that gen of the Voyager.
My early automotive life was full of Caravans.
I have no desire to go back. Besides, I like the way early Tauruses look, before t h e b e a n . Would’ve been even better as the wagon, but today I’m rectifying not having driven a Ford lately.
My early automotive life was MGs, Packards, getting driven to Sunday school by my aunt in an E Type and a cheap Maserati in highschool (cheaper than a pinto, but the tires cost almost as much as another pinto)
So a velour interior minivan seems pretty exotic to me.
…I don’t know if you meant to make me feel inadequate, or poor, but you did.
We were the town weirdos.
I am irrationally fond of ’80s and early ’90s Chrysler minivans. I like how these were unapologetically utilitarian. No sacrifices were made in the name of styling. Yet this somehow ended up creating a vehicle that always looked plain but never awkward or dated (at least, aside from the woodgrain). For me, the van is today’s clear winner.
Also, red interiors are great (really, any interior that is an actual color is great). The Taurus interior is nice, but the van’s is spectacular. It fits my mental image of an ’80s bordello – maybe the designer drew inspiration from a visit to a house of ill repute?
I’ll take the van. It’s ripe for a turbo 2.2 to replace that V6. Torque steer all the things!
I’ve been watching way too much minivan content lately, so that’s where my vote is going. I used to have an obscene urge to EVO8 swap a K-Car, for an absolute unit of a sleeper sedan. Starting to think the Chrysler minivans are an even more fitting target.
Since I hate wrenching on transverse mounted V6 engine, I’ll pick the one that appears to need less work – the Taurus. And it even has a tach. Sporty!
I’m strangely temped by the van, it looks comfy and could carry my stuff. But I feel like I’ve heard that version of Taurus makes a decent long-running appliance? Neither do anything for me.
My first car was a 77 Pontiac Grand Prix, silver with red interior. I had to add black velour seat covers when I got stationed in Orlando, that vinyl was brutal.
If the Taurus were an SHO, we’d have a proper competition 🙂
I took my driver’s test in an ’88 Caravan (SWB V6, no wood grain) with that exact burgundy interior and would absolutely buy one for the lulz and then some. The funny thing in the 90s was that nobody thought it was a weird interior. It was still pretty normal.
Unfortunately, aging domestic brand cars that aren’t pickup trucks are extremely rare in most of the South and I don’t think I’ve seen one of this generation for at least a decade, no kidding. Most of my exposure to aging domestic steel is in the summer time when the Midwest Contingent makes the roadtrip down to the Gulf of Whatever, just as God and Mellencamp intended.
Wow. I haven’t thought of the “renaming” of the Gulf for a couple of months. So much other stuff to process in the meantime. Thanks for the reminder.
I kinda want the van, but the pile of parts it comes with makes me wonder if there’s an issue the owner can’t find, so he loaded the parts cannon.
Taurus, I guess.
That Voyager is only about 150 miles from me….hmmm, and it’s the weekend!