On today’s menu, we have two small domestic sedans from the 1990s, both of which are equipped with their optional twin-cam engines. One has a bunch of power toys and an automatic, while the other is more stripped-down and has a stick. Which one of them will you choose? We’ll find out.
Yesterday’s results prove that I can’t predict the outcome with any degree of accuracy. I mean, yes, the Pontiac Grand Am won, but the grossly overpriced Ford Fairmont gathered a lot more votes than I expected it to. Most Fairmont fans wanted to ditch the carbureted four-cylinder, but the replacement engine of choice was not a V8, but rather a turbo 2.3 liter four from a Thunderbird Turbo Coupe or Mustang SVO. I wholeheartedly support this choice. It’s a lot more interesting than just shoving a 302 in there.
I would love to drive that Fairmont, either before or after a turbo swap, but as far as actually owning one, the Grand Am is an easy choice. An N-body with a stick is my kind of car, as unlikely as that seems.
Back in the 1990s, many small cars came with two engine options: a single overhead cam four-cylinder, or a double overhead cam version of the same engine with an extra twenty or thirty horsepower. Often, this more powerful engine came attached to a higher trim level with a bunch of other options, but a couple of automakers offered the twin-cam engine a la carte. Today, we’re going to look at one of each.
1995 Saturn SL2 – $2,500
Engine/drivetrain: 1.9-liter DOHC inline 4, four-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Odometer reading: 131,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Saturn’s original sedan debuted in three trim levels: the basic SL, which came with nothing, the SL1, which added power steering and a right-side rearview mirror, and this SL2, which added bigger wheels, painted bumpers and mirrors, nicer seats, and most importantly, a twin-cam engine paired with lower gearing for quicker getaways.
Fun-loving types ordered the SL2 with a five-speed manual, which made for a legitimately entertaining little car to drive. But as with most cars, the optional automatic was a lot more common. This car has just 131,000 miles on it, which, if it has been maintained, is nothing for one of these cars. The seller doesn’t expressly say how well it runs, but they do call it a “great little car,” so I presume it runs and drives just fine.
In addition to the automatic, this car has a few other options like power windows and locks, and air conditioning. Unfortunately, the air conditioning doesn’t work; the seller claims it just “needs a charge,” but we all know how that goes. The good news is that the rest of the interior is in really nice shape.
It has some scuffs and scrapes in the rear bumper, but apart from that it looks really good. The trouble is that the same plastic dent-proof panels that keep it looking so young can hide rust. The seller says this car was garaged, but it’s in Ohio, so better take a look underneath.
1997 Plymouth Neon Expresso – $3,500
Engine/drivetrain: 2.0-liter DOHC inline 4, five-speed manual, FWD
Location: Keizer, OR
Odometer reading: 148,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
This is a car I know well, and really like. The Dodge and Plymouth Neon replaced both the K-car-based Shadow and Sundance, and the captive-import Colt, and in both cases it was an improvement. The Neon was never a fancy car, but it was a fun and economical car, and after some early teething troubles, a pretty reliable one as well. This Expresso model was the mid-level trim, with a few sporty touches.
The Neon’s base single overhead cam engine was no slouch, putting out 132 horsepower, but this optional twin-cam engine sent 150 horses to the front wheels through either a five-speed manual or Chrysler’s trusty Torqueflite automatic. I used to own an automatic Neon, and it was fine, but I’ve driven manuals, and they’re a whole lot more fun. The seller of this one says it runs great, and it isn’t due for a timing belt change for quite a while yet. That’s good, because a timing belt job on one of these is a chore and a half.
The Neon was launched in an era when economy car interiors were a lot more fun than they are now. Less fancy maybe, but a lot more fun. There is no reason not to equip all economy cars with seat fabric that looks like the opening credits to Saved By The Bell. It shows some wear, but it clearly hasn’t been abused. There isn’t much to go wrong either, with crank windows and manual locks.
The Neon’s color palette for the first couple of years was nothing short of amazing. You could get a couple of different blues, a couple of different greens, magenta, purple, yellow, and this great aquamarine blue. That’s another thing that should come back: bright colors. I think the last economy car with a decent color palette was the Mitsubishi Mirage. It’s in pretty good shape, with just a few bumps and bruises. It’s a West Coast car, so rust shouldn’t be an issue.
I know, modern cars are a lot safer and probably more efficient, but I don’t care. I miss cars like these, and I’m glad there are still a few around. I have a definite favorite between the two of them, but as always, this is your show. Which one would you drive off in?
Saw the headline and came to vote for the Saturn, went for the 90s-rrific Neon instead. I think I still have a couple restaurant napkins from the late 80s in that color.