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.
Is there some legal reason we can’t include the links to the Marketplace listings in these articles? Both of these are close enough to pique the interest of some of my Radwood-era-obsessed friends. Also me.
The headers for each car are links to the ads, always have been.
Well aren’t I the idiot. Thanks.
Voyager all the way! My grandmother had almost that exact van when I was a little kid, including the paneling and red interior. Looking at those pictures made me instantly think of the awesome memories of my sister and my cousins and I all riding to Piggly Wiggly in that thing. I had all but forgotten about it, but it is really cool to see that there are still a few out there.
Almost guaranteed no one restored the upholstery in the Caravan. I had an 89 with the same red-hell interior. I beat the absolute shit out of that thing and for the last 4 years I had it, didn’t even bother washing it. Hauled a college dorm room worth of stuff for 4 years, hauled bricks, plywood, you name it. Seats still looked brand new. Say what you want about the rest of the van, they used one hell of a durable fabric on those seats.
Wouldn’t mind having one again. They’re great for hauling wood in the winter when you don’t want to get it snowed on before it gets to your shop.
I know this is going to be blasphemous to a chunk of folks here who have Feelings™ about the wood grain panels, but I would pick the van in a heartbeat, rip all the faux-wood panels off the outside, and wrap the whole thing in a custom vinyl getup with the gaudiest Boris Vallejo and/or Julie Bell print I could find, then pull out everything behind the front seats and put in red carpet, a CRT television, an old Nintendo, and some bean bag chairs. That’s my kind of Van Life.
I’d only buy the van if I needed another storage shed. Gun to my head, I have to buy one of them, I’d reluctantly buy the Taurus.
The only time I rode on a Taurus it was a coworker who used his car as a dumpster. It was disgusting, and I’m still traumatized by riding in that Taurus, but it’s still better than that Chrysler.
My parents had a 76 Volvo 244. Red exterior, red interior. That’d be my choice.
Taurus…for us!
As the self-proclaimed biggest Taurii fan in the Autopian community, this one is as easy as it gets, even if I do have to worry about head gaskets.
Taurus! Now theirs an American car that’s got exactly what you’ve been looking for! Taurus For us, Taurus for us, Taurus. Have you driven a Ford lately?!!!
Y’know, I had an 88 Plymouth Horizon with a full red interior but never thought much about it. Now that I *am* thinking about it, though…. I’m pretty sure all the later-year Omnirizons just keyed the interior to the paint. A nice touch, considering they’d probably charge 500 bucks for something like that now.
The headline and the voting choice are asking you which interior is more inviting, not which engine/transmission you think is better.
The Voyager interior looks like it just rolled out of the factory. The Taurus looks a little worn and has that horrible dash carpet. Plus I’m sure the Voyager has more cupholders. Based on the interior alone, the Voyager takes it.
Both are going to eat transmissions. I can remember my dad throwing in transmissions with his buddies for both of those all the time in the 90s. That 3.8 always a problem where the 3.0 was ok. And the Mitsubishi engine is about at oil pump time. But I guess if I had to choose Taurus just because it looks cleanish. I hated the Taurus my mom had with that interior though.
I had a Taurus in that color, powertrain and interior as a company car – the only difference was that mine was a wagon. It’s a blancmange car in every way. It had just enough power and just enough handling to make it to tolerable but it’s not a car you could ever fall in love with.
I drove it for a couple of years before a mechanic test driving a police car rear-ended it and wrote it off – I still have neck issues to this day because of that accident. Then the company decided to pay mileage instead of paying for a replacement car, so I replaced it with a Dodge Intrepid ES – a better car in every way.
Compared to a first gen Chrysler minivan with the truly craptastic 3.0 Mitsu engine, the Taurus is a clear winner here.
Have a bunch of used motor oil? You can now dispose of it in a way that makes an EPA employee’s eye twitch uncontrollably by putting it into that Mitsubishi engine.
I had a vehicle with that engine. The engine ticked happily away to itself for most of its 140k miles while consuming a steady diet of gasoline and 5w30. Since the van predates the awful 4-speed Ultradrive with the much better 3-speed auto, I’ll actually consider it.
The Taurus is impressive for have a 3.8 and automatic combo make it to 160k+, because neither were known for durability.
Woodgrain does it for me, along with the lifter tick.
I never really have liked the Taurus… I had an ’89 that I bought in like ’96. It was grandma-fresh, immaculate, drove exactly as intended. But “as intended” kinda sucked.
I ended up flipping it for a profit and keeping my beater ’86 Camry.
Gonna go with the woody on this one.
A beat up minivan with almost 300k and a rebuilt engine that is already burning oil? Sign me up! Wait no…I’ll take the pretty clean Taurus with half the miles. Wood grain tugs my heart strings but today is no contest.
Pretty easy choice for most of us, looks like. I’ll point out, having owned a 1997 Taurus that’d been used to pull a small boat, that one can tow a trailer if one must haul stuff. And that 3.8 would pull just fine.
A Taurus, not Gemini, Cancer, Leo etc.
Just based on the interior alone, I’m gonna have to go with the Voyager. The seats look FAR more supportive than the Taurus. That being said, I absolutely HATE the skinny steering wheel in the Plymouth. I have enormous hands, and I feel like the skinny steering wheel would get really uncomfortable to hold for extended period. OVERALL the Taurus is the winner, but those seats make my back hurt just looking at them.
Going with the Taurus in spite of the 3.8 – I just like it better. Also, the head gasket issues with that engine were very much still a thing for a lot longer than 1992. We had a 1997 Windstar 3.8 that blew steam on the way to trading it in (good timing, the deal was already done and the dealer didn’t care cuz they were wholesaling anyway).
While the Voyager wears its interior better (something about that maroon/woodgrain exterior combined with it feels very appropriate) the Taurus is the right choice.