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.
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.
I had a burgundy Voyager with burgundy interior. Protip: do NOT let kids color in there as they will lose one behind the car seat and that sucker will melt and permanently fuse to those seats. Also the engine shit the bed, so I’ll going Taurus.
I would rather own a Voyager than a Taurus, but today the one owner Taurus wins. I don’t like buying something that the last owner doesn’t even want to maintain unless its dirt cheap.
There’s like, three Cadillac Broughams worth of red interior in that mini-van. Sign me up!
My dad blames everything he doesn’t like about post-1977 cars (such as the lack of colorful interiors) on the Japanese, but the truth is it was the “shareholder is God” idea taking root.
“Why do you waste our investments on so many different colors of seats, door inserts, dash liners and steering wheels when this chart (derived from very cherry-picked data) shows most consumers don’t care what color the inside or outside of their vehicle looks like?”*
*They do to a point, but their wages haven’t kept up with inflation and they need a car ASAP, so they just pick what’s on the lot instead of taking the time to order a car with the features and options they want
The rear wheels being too far forward in their arch is a Ford trademark that they’ve been doing forever: https://thevaultms.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/IMG_5216-scaled.jpg
Woodgrain wagovan for the win!
Though I’d feel bad letting the dogs ruin that faded-flowers bordello of an interior.
Normally I’d go for the Voyager. But in this case, that Voyager is way overpriced given that it’s essentially a project that to me, is worth maybe $1000 given the work it needs and the really high mileage.
So my vote goes to the Taurus even though it has an engine I advise people to avoid.
As much as I love and have owned many Tauruses (Tauri?) all of them wagons, this Mitsu fan club member has to go with the van… because!
I would choose the Voyager, only because a van is more practical to me than a sedan, but I don’t have room in the garage and we have an HOA. The HOA doesn’t specifically prohibit having an ’88 Plymouth Voyager parked in the driveway, but I feel they’d make an exception for this one.
Chose Taurus today. I don’t love it but for $2500, at least it seems like a car that is sorted out. I don’t want that van esp. with it needing a bunch of attention/parts. Working on those engines is not fun. A lot of bloody knuckles mixed with grease.
It’s funny, immediately before Mark wrote that it was hard to tell the difference between 1st & 2nd gen Tauri, I thought “man, the 2nd gen looks so much better.”
The slimmed-down head- and taillights went so far in making it seem sleek, not just smoothed-over. I think it was related to the transition from sealed-beams, which demanded a certain height up front (or else subterfuge like pop-ups or screening). The 1st gen headlights were just as tall as sealed beams, merely encased in an aero shell. But the 2nd gen looked like the future, when the overhang of sealed beams was past.
I have this vague memory of the Ford marketing folks touting that the original Taurus dash had female designers…and that they used buttons (the kind that are sewed on your shirt) to pick out the button sizes. This was a big deal in the car magazines at the time.
The second gen abandoned the round dash stuff…went back to more conventional approaches.
I guess Ford changed its mind and decided that men were making the buying decisions not women? Those were weird but fascinating times.
Oh…yes…back to the pick. Probably the van. I need something to haul parts around for my other projects. Also, the van’s red interior executes the entire car womb vibe better than the Taurus.
I don’t really have love for either, but the better deal is the Taurus. The Voyager has tons more character, but I think it’s about done. Unless you’re a true enthusiast, then you could spruce it up with the spare parts and impress… someone? The 2nd gen Taurus isn’t even Detroit PD spec, so it won’t impress anyone.
Put the $2500 towards Uber gift cards. You will get more mileage from that and not have a 3,000 pound carcass to deal with at the end.
You get an up vote.
You should just get a van. With a van, it’s like you’ve got an MBA, but you’ve also got a fucking van. You’re not just a man anymore – you are a man with a van. You get a van, we could be men with ven.
I like them both, but without that option, I went Taurus.
Van, man. Van.
When I was in USAF Basic Training – Dad came to Texas to see me before a First Sargeant’s conference at a nearby base. He came to pick me up in a brand-new rented early production first-year Taurus. What a great car – Straight out of the future!
When Dad went home, he leased a fully-loaded Grand Caravan. The one with the problematic transmission.
It’s a shame he didn’t get a Taurus wagon.
I voted for the Taurus.
“It’s real velour, just let yourself go!”
There’s a JD Vance joke here, but I’m not going to touch it.
Both of these cars were game changers. Chrysler invented the minivan, and their supremacy has rarely been challenged since. Woodgrain, V6, and red interior make this the platonic ideal of early Mopar box – high miles and “needs some work” make it a nope for me.
Fewer people remember how completely earthshaking the Taurus was when new. The aero styling flipped the cart on American car orthodoxy and is why the car you drive now probably has swoopy curves rather than three creased boxes. The work Ford did on ergonomic interiors was also amazing. This was “Quality is Job One” Ford, and it was improved enough to not be embarrassing compared to the Japanese. The Taurus was the best selling car in America for years for a reason. I’ll take it.
The Taurus really did seem leaps ahead of the competition. My father, however, disagreed. He was an Audi fan at the time – weird for a western Canadian grain farmer. He was on his second 5000 (an ’85 turbodiesel) when the Taurus appeared, and as far as he was concerned the styling was just a poor attempt at imitating what Audi had done for the ’83 model.
He wasn’t / isn’t wrong.
The car I learned to drive in and took my driver’s test was a ’77 Chrysler Cordoba, white with red Martin Landau top and red interior, complete with, you guessed it, red rich corinthian leather! So I do have a soft spot for this shade of interior.
As for these two, I avoid any transverse V-engines as much as possible. But the Taurus has a longer hood, exposing more of the aft-side for maintenance, so I’ll take the easier to wrench on Ford.
Not as notable as the red interiors (not really my strawberry jam) but I appreciate that both are higher trims in versions where that seems to be less common: high spec Chrysler vans tend to be LWB, and I feel like high spec Sables may be more common than the Taurus (but just a theory).
I am also not a fan of woodgrain, but more than that I’d prefer a 2nd gen when it comes to the van. Taurus is lower miles and seems like it should run a little better.
I wonder among the blue, green, and red interiors, which was most common on the Taurus/Sable. I feel like the green may have been over the red, given the prevalence of green/teal shade exteriors of the time, that the red inside couldn’t be specced with. Sable brochures show the ‘garnet’ interior was gone after ’94 too.
Tauri from that era looked and drove pretty decently. Never having set foot in a bordello, I’d prefer a nice shade of blue for the cloth seats, but I do remember them being comfortable. Then Ford hit it with an ugly stick and went all in oval.
I liked the 2nd gen a lot, styling-wise. I had never noticed the rear wheel placement, but now I won’t be able to unsee it. But I don’t see many of these around anymore anyway.
I voted Taurus, but really, either one of those interiors would make my eyes bleed if I had to daily it.
I’m going with the van, but what sold me on it is the running boards. I’m a sucker for those old school aluminum wheel to wheel running boards. I wish somebody made them for my ’06 Sierra, but I’ve looked and nobody does.
Also, while I agree the wood paneling makes it look like an old TV, I think that’s the appeal of it.