We’ve gained a lot in recent years when it comes to cars, especially in terms of safety, but we’ve lost some cool stuff too. You don’t see many removable body parts anymore. Sure, you can still take the top and doors off your Jeep or Bronco, but nobody ever does. The two cars we’re going to look at today have removable rear roof sections that are probably light enough to actually take off with the help of a buddy.
I guess the majority of you share my affinity for old Mazda trucks, because it won yesterday. I’m a little surprised; I expected the 4Runner to put up a better fight. It sounds like the body damage didn’t do it any favors. If it were in better shape, it might have fared better, but then it wouldn’t have been $3,500.
I dig those old 4Runners, but I think I’d take the Mazda too. I had an earlier B2000 Sundowner when I lived in Minnesota, and I loved it. I have no need for another pickup, but a truck like that could be for fun, not just utility.
One of the things I like about the forthcoming Slate truck, and there’s a lot to like, is the reconfigurable body. It can be a pickup, two different styles of SUV, and probably other things too, once the aftermarket gets hold of it. But it’s definitely not a new idea. Both of the cars we’re going to look at today have removable rear roof sections, and one of them could be replaced with a whole new setup if you so desired. Let’s check them out.
1989 Nissan Pulsar NX – $3,495
Engine/drivetrain: 1.6-liter OHC inline-4, five-speed manual, FWD
Location: Sherwood, OR
Odometer reading: 146,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Every time I see a Nissan from the 1980s or ’90s, it makes me wonder what the hell they’ve been doing for the past fifteen years. I mean, look at this thing: dramatic styling, T-tops, and two different owner-changeable rear body sections, and this was an economy car. Not the cheapest one Nissan offered, but not a whole lot more expensive. There’s no reason it can’t build stuff like this anymore, except fear that it won’t make as much money as the powers-that-be want. A modern Pulsar NX could be a really cool car, and it’s totally doable. But I suppose we’ll just have to be content with an old one.
There’s nothing special about the Pulsar mechanically; it’s the same thing as a Sentra from the era. It has a 1.6-liter four-cylinder with throttle body fuel injection that makes 90 horsepower, pretty typical for the time. It’s front-wheel-drive and has a five-speed manual. It runs and drives great, and the seller says they’ve never had any problems with it.
The interior is pretty well-preserved, but the seat fabric has a few popped threads that are concerning. You’ll have to be a little gentle with it, I think, to keep those seats nice. It doesn’t look water-damaged, though, which bodes well for the condition of the T-top seals.
I’ve always really liked the styling of the Pulsar. It’s a cool little car, with a lot of interesting details. This one is a little faded, but it’s straight and rust-free. It only comes with the standard hatchback, but that’s not a surprise; I haven’t seen one with the “Sportbak” station wagon back in years. I think it was more popular in the brochure than it was in real life.
1990 Daihatsu Rocky SX – $4,200
Engine/drivetrain: 1.6-liter OHC inline-4, five-speed manual, 4WD
Location: Warner Robins, GA
Odometer reading: 148,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Japanese automaker Daihatsu has made some really cool vehicles over the years, but they aren’t well-known in the US. Daihatsu only officially sold cars in the US for five years, from 1988 to 1992. Only two models were offered: a tiny hatchback called the Charade, and this little 4×4, called the Rocky. These things are unbelievably rare. I haven’t seen a Rocky for sale for a very long time, and the last one I saw wasn’t nearly as clean as this.
Like its rival the Suzuki Sidekick, the Rocky is a body-on-frame design with a live rear axle and independent front suspension. It has four-wheel-drive through a dual-range transfer case. The engine is a 1.6 liter four-cylinder. This one runs and drives well, and it has a new clutch, but it does have a leaking power steering pump. You might just have to keep adding fluid to it for a while; I think a new pump might be hard to come by. Oh, and yes, that’s an aftermarket air filter, but the stock air box is included if you’d rather put it back to original.
The Rocky’s seats have fabric faces, but vinyl backs and sides. And it appears that vinyl isn’t Daihatsu’s strong suit. Both seats have cracks and rips in the vinyl portion. It’s worse on the driver’s side, as you’d expect. It’s in good condition otherwise, and the seller says the air conditioning works.
This Rocky was used as a tow-behind dinghy for an RV for many years, so it’s equipped with a tow bar on the front. And someone installed those awful-looking LED headlights in it. But it has cool two-tone paint in good condition, and five nice alloy wheels. More importantly, it isn’t rusted out.
You don’t see many of either of these on the road anymore, and you didn’t see many Rockies to begin with. Either one would give you plenty of cred at an ’80s/90s show like RADwood, and both should be fun to drive. Which one is more your style?
As a former Rocky owner, who would like to get one again, a few points.
You cannot get an engine for these. Well, sure, you can find them if you wish. You will find one from overseas that has no warranty and is used…and that goes as well as you think. And you will need one because these are well known to snack on head gaskets. Were I to find another one, I would likely do either a 22r sway (challenging because of how long the engine/tranny/TC is) or a TDI.
They don’t really rust out because the body is galvanized steel.
They have the sneaky awesomeness of having some secret Toyota running gear that makes some things easier, and other things simply less challenging.
Still this one is too much
I had an ’86 Pulsar SE in brochure red in the 90’s. That car made at least three round trips from Calgary to Houston every year while I was in university. Manual was great, engine was virtually bulletproof. A bad ECU killed it off at just shy of 400,000km.
The t-tops had a proper storage area under the rear floor, and in my tenure never leaked.
Would own again.
No power steering pumps available for the Rocky so beware.
I don’t think mine had a pump at all…or is that what you meant
So, I read that, and this has started me down the wormhole.
I know I had an SX. This one is an SX. I remember goofing with the steering briefly (something that actually worked just fine) and I don’t remember anything that looks like the vane pump I see in manuals. It was when I threw a body lift on mine. As mine had quite a few, shall we say, issues when I first got it, it’s completely possible it had one, it failed, and the new rack didn’t have it.
Also, a lot of the searching I saw about Rockys confuses the Rocky that other markets got: the chassis code was typically F300, and the ones elsewhere were completely different. So, now I need to look.
I have oodles of pics I can’t attach via mobile. I loved that thing.
CA18DET swap. Yellow Rims, and remove the rear hatch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAEiG4rZYDs
I grew up seeing a silver Pulsar when new-ish with a square-back in Reno, NV. So somebody at least got one of those here.
If I was going to get something Rocky sized, it’d be a Samurai, so I picked Pulsar today.
one positive for the Rocky is that they are wider and thus more stable
I guess, but it feels like parts and after market support would be way better for a Suzuki.
The Rocky is probably the better buy here, assuming that you can find original headlights to correct that unfortunate swap. With both vehicles though I feel like the sellers have decided uncommon = $$$$$ without considering how most people will look at them. The Pulsar is a tarted up FWD economy car and the Rocky is an uncommon badge in a very common segment. Unlike a Tracker getting parts for the Rocky will be a challenge.
I’m still voting for the Rocky though because I’ll bet it’s a hoot off road and a holler (of terror) on road.
if you don’t mind sourcing the Philippines or Indonesia, you can get a lot of stuff. Certainly not everything.
There was a Pulsar in my town of 1400 people when I was growing up, remember seeing it. Also in the same town was a Metropolitan, 63 Vette convertible, more Monte Carlos than you could shake a stick at, along with a massive guy who drove a first gen Fiesta (during warm weather he’d open the sunroof to be able to sit up straight.) I had no idea at the time the Pulsar was fairly rare, it was just a car in town.
So yeah, I’m taking the Pulsar. The changeable roof is one thing, but I don’t know if there’s anything more 80’s than those taillights.
How about both?
The little Rocky looks like it would be a fun little 4X4.
The Pulsar for the taillights alone
I made the same decision but based in just the pop-up headlights.
Damn, tough Friday! I’m usually in the NINTA camp (Nissan Is Never The Answer) but the Pulsar is their one car I really like.
You need to change that to “Nissan Is Never Justifiable Answer” for obvious reasons.
True, after 1995, it isn’t. And I like NINJA better now
I’ll take the Japanese Tracker, please!
Pop up headlights, a stick, the potential to turn it into a shooting brake, AND I can still probably get parts for it?!?
AND it’s cheaper?!? Pulsar, all day, every day, and twice on Sunday.
The Pulsar is just more my thing. Quirky, small, sporty. Granted, I’d like a GTi-R or VZ-R even more, but I’ll take the NX over an offroader that I’ll never take offroad. Both for rarity and not wanting to associate with the guy in the squarebody on 44s and onto his third beer.
My mom had a Pulsar NX SE 16 valve when I was a late teen.
Loved the look of the car, pop-up headlights and T-TOPS!!!
Then I drove it.
Buzzy engine that needed to rev forever to make any power.
Notchy, vague shifter with very long throws.
Clear coat started pealing after 2 years and the red paint was chalky by year 3.
So many trips to the dealership for warranty issues.
Mom got rid of it after 5 years and ~40k miles due to poor reliability.
I’ll go with the Rocky!
The Rocky gets my vote. It does all the things the Pulsar does, and it has 4WD.
Subjectively, compared to the Rocky, the Pulsar seems to be a dime a dozen! I can’t think of the last time I saw a Rocky!
Gotta be the Pulsar. That interior shot gives me all the feels. I grew up in the (sadly not sport-) bak of a red one. I think I’ve told this story here before but Mum got it almost new, learned to drive stick in it from her sister, and drove it for many years. Once I came along it was many more years with me in a carseat in the back. I remember starting it up for her before driving to school (make sure the gearstick is all wiggly!), trying to plug all the drips in the t-tops going through the carwash, and getting rear-ended by a dump truck at a stoplight (everyone was OK). Still drove it for a few more years. I think we even removed the hatch once to bring a Christmas tree home in it. We sold it once she got tired of the stick and the lack of space.
A few years later we saw a red Pulsar for sale on the side of the highway and had to ask about it (the car would have been at least 15yrs old; a relic for an ’89 in the rust belt). It still had the dent in the driver’s t-top from a break-in! We bought it back on its last legs and drove it into the ground. I miss that car, and the ‘81.5 Z28 that my dad drove at the time. Those were our only cars when I was little.
That story was worth re-telling. Thanks.
Today needs a Both option. I like both.
But I guess Nissan if I can only have one.
Those would make it pretty wild 2 car garage
Why not both? I vote both. For being a Midwesterner you rarely see any of these around and both of these looks to be really good condition for the price.
Tough choice! I saw a Pulsar NX on the road earlier this week, and it had the kammback (hatchback?) instead of the usual notchback configuration. I do like compact hatchbacks.
But that Rocky is the cleanest example I’ve seen since the 90s. It has exactly the right amount of upsized tire to give it that driveable Tiny Mighty Mo look, playful to look at but all business once you get behind the wheel.
Either would be fine but I think I’d go with the Rocky.
It earnestly wanted a both option, as this would make a pretty somewhat efficient two-car solution. Rocky for the winter, Pulsar for the summer.
While I’ve owned a couple small 4x4s, I’ve never owned a T-Topped car, or one with Pop Up Headlights, the Pulsar gets me both!
I’m all for Rocky road today.
I remember these as pretty decent little machines, and I suspect parts like power steering pumps are pretty generic. I doubt Daihatsu made their own. A set of seatcovers, a pair of headlights, ditch the towbar, and it’s good to go.
Try to get the price down, though. IMO, both of today’s cars are overpriced for their age, mileage and condition.
I posted this elsewhere…but I don’t remember mine having a power steering pump at all. I’ll have to look at engine compartment pics when I get home but it was pretty spartan in there
I’m not really into trucks or SUVs, so gimme the ‘zuzu.
Both look like decent deals, though.
I meant the Nissan.
Need.more.coffee…
Seems like the Nissan would be easier to keep functional, and is already more functional.
That Nissan and a new Hummer would make a hilarious all-T-Tops two-car garage.
I went for the Rocky. It looks like a plucky fun little runabout.
New wheel bearings, and remove the front towbar, and change all the fluids.