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?
The Neon is genuinely fun to drive.
It goes through head gaskets quickly iirc, the headlights are merely small tea-light candles behind plastic lenses, but the transmission and chassis are quite competent for a spirited jaunt.
The Saturn is probably the better car if you wanted a-to-b though.
Man, we had great small cars in the ‘90s. Saturn, Neon, Focus – all practical and could be legit fun. I’d take either of these, but had a slight preference for the Neon even before I saw it had a stick.
There’s a geezer that shows up at tuner car events in Green Bay with a bright red hotted-up Neon that he auto crosses. It’s a standout amount the sea of slammed, boosted, glowing Japanese cars with coffee can mufflers. He gets genuine respect from the young ‘uns.
As much as I like those first-gen Saturns, a 5-speed Neon in an actual color is an easy pick. Neons have a great community (I used to frequent the forums back when I had one) and there’s still an aftermarket if you decide you want to tinker with it.
I feel like this must be a re-spray because I remember this particular color coming off in sheets
I had a ’95 Saturn SW2 (the twin-cam wagon) with a 5-speed and enjoyed it, though the engine was burning some oil by 90K. The automatic would sap most of the pleasure out of the car. No matter how hard I cringe at the color, I’ll go for the Neon and expect a little more fun.
Saturn, because it comes with scotch tape for quick repairs.
That Neon is gonna crush it today.
Had a Neon back in ’02 when I was living in the US. Drove that thing all across the mid-Atlantic region, camped out in the back seat when I got too tired to drive, learnt about opposite lock on dirt roads in it, ate shrimp while driving down the Interstate in it. I’d definitely have another, particularly in that colour and manual.
I only take the Saturn because that is almost like the exact one my dad had. His was the blue black and I learned to drive in that and a bronze escort wagon. It was a beast in the snow and the plastic panels shouldn’t rust.
Strangely enough I had a co-worker that had a neon but in the paint peeling periwinkle and we usually parked next to each other.
Neon! I still remember the celebrity challenge races back in the day.
Neon today. Teal manual > silver automatic.
I think that could be the perfect Neon too. DOHC, manual, 4 door, a good color.
Came here to say the same! Teal manual wins easily.
I was thinking the perfect Neon would be a 2-door version of today’s choice.
It always struck me as looking like an afterthought. I’d accept that in a wagon or hatchback for the extra utility, but not in a coupe.
The Saturns came in some great colors and were quite fun with a stick. Silver and auto, meh. Very rare vote for the Chrysler product from me today. Cool color and right transmission would be a fun little beater.
The Saturn is a 31-year old car that lived in the salt. Their corrosion protection is decent for the era, but chemistry never stops.
I once knew someone who disposed of their used motor oil by using it to top off a well-worn DOHC Saturn (a notorious oil burner), uh, so there’s that as a feature, if you hate making trips to the environmental disposal centre.
They’re boring but cromulent cars, and the automatic makes it doubly so.
The lack of rust in Oregon gives the Neon a mile-long head start over any rust-belt car. The stickshift just is icing on the cake. At 148k, don’t worry about the timing belt, because you’re riding that end of the maintenance curve.
Just enjoy the last of the miles with smiles. How could you not with that colour?
I’m grinning like an idiot at your casual just-so deployment of “cromulent” and italics.
Fun words are fun!
No, see, it burns the oil so you don’t have to dispose of it! You just add more at each fuel stop. It’s brilliant, really.
This is literally a “feature” in new Briggs and Stratton engines. They’re calling it “Top and Go” or something like that. The oil that is gone is just…gone! No need to worry about where it went or the condition of anything inside the engine, just add more!
I once knew someone who disposed of
theira nearby shop’s used motor oil by using it to top off awell-worn DOHC Saturn300,000 mile late-’70s Impala.Saturn. Back in the day it was the only American-made car that was holding value at the same rate as a Honda Accord. Well-made, thrifty and reliable*, the Saturn was an example of what could have been. And then, as in so many other tragedies, GM management happened.
AC issues don’t scare me at all. I have the tools and some know-how, shouldn’t be a big deal.
This model year didn’t have the automatic seat belts. That’s a win regardless of what car it is.
*The automatic in the Saturn is a known weak point, but much can be done to keep it in good nick with just regular fluid and filter changes. Better: it has a drain plug and an external filter, so that maintenance is a simple matter of pulling up on ramps, firing up your audiobook and getting to the work.
NEON
ARGON
KRYPTON . You’ve got a few noble gases left to finish the game.
Has anyone taken Helium yet? Anyone? Bueller, Bueller?
RADON because fuck ’em, that’s why!
Why even do a showdown today, Mark? The only thing this little Neon could possibly lose to is an identical Neon with $3500 in the trunk.
I love a Saturn, but that Neon is a great color with fun seats… plus a stick.
Stick-shift? A fun color? Adorableness?!
Hi!
What do you get when you cross a Tomagatchi, a jazz paper cup and that girl with the matching scrunchy/leg warmer combo that swiftly became your sexual awakening?
That Dodge Neon.
Yes, please!
I have owned both of these (though not these specific years). Normally, I see Saturn and I vote Saturn, but I’m with everyone else here. If you read the descriptions, no reason to not go Neon.
That neon with a manual and the 90s color scheme, no contest, easy pick!
Had a Saturn. While vacuuming it notice the plastic kick panel on bottom of door frame was loose. Picked it up and found the metal rocker panel under it was full of large rust holes. Same on the other side. 130k miles, but 7 years in Northern New England. Beware.
Wow, this is a showdown of economy car bliss for me. A 90’s Saturn versus a Neon? Gonna need a cold shower after this showdown.
Obviously the Saturn would have more of a chance with a stick. I’m going Neon here (like I imagine most would). And I’m pretty fucking weird about how much I love Saturn.
I feel like this is going to be a blow-out. Will anyone pick the auto with non-working ac over the manual Neon?
You are 100% correct!
Only people that look at the pictures and nothing more? But even then I’d expect most to spot the stick-shift.
Amazing how GM and Chrysler both got these cars pretty much right (yeah a Civic or Corolla would still be better but they were at least competitive when new; and miles ahead of anything domestics had sold in this size unless they were having a Japanese company make them on their behalf), and then they followed both of them up in the 2000s with two of the worst cars ever made.
At least Chrysler had a good excuse – the infamous “merger of equals” and Daimler sending their bean counters to Detroit for a sort of Rumspringa of cost-cutting.
Chrysler had the bad luck of being bought out by ze Germans, who chased away talent and innovation much in the same manner that….well….actually not let’s stretch that metaphor too far.
GM just was gonna GM in the early 2000s as its slow wasting disease accelerated. Which mostly meant continued mediocrity tinged with occasional flashes of past greatness (Hi Pontiac G8!). To think that Saturn could resist the infection of the accountant brigade was mostly a delusion at that point.