Author’s Choice Showdown: GMC Safari vs Land Rover Discovery vs Chrysler LeBaron vs VW GTI

Happy Friday, Autopians! How the hell is it December already? I swear, last week it was July … oh well. As the spider said, time’s fun when you’re having flies. For this week’s Friday special, we’re doing another four-way shootout – but instead of the cars you chose, we’re going to take a second look at my favorites. Why? Because I can.

So first, let’s see how yesterday’s vote went down. I honestly had no idea how this one was going to turn out. The Z3 was the more desirable car before you factored in the current owner’s “improvements,” but there’s a lot to unpack there. And I don’t just mean all the crap they left on the floor. I didn’t know how much you were willing to overlook.

As it turns out, you couldn’t get past the Lambo doors and the silly spoiler and whatever other indignities had been visited upon that poor little roadster, and chose the threadbare but stock GTI. For once this week, we are in agreement. If I were looking for a GTI, I’d rather have a MkII; I drove a MkII Golf in college and absolutely loved it. But this one would do nicely too.

So now that we have our foursome, let’s recap them, so you can appreciate the wisdom of my choices.

1986 GMC Safari – $1,850

Pros: As durable as a hammer, can be anything you want

Cons: Would lose a drag race to a snail driving a 240D

On Monday, this scruffy Safari van lost to a much cleaner and slightly cheaper Ford Aerostar, and I suppose on the face of it, the Aerostar was a better deal. But I prefer the Astro/Safari’s styling, and I like the idea of a blank slate. Custom vans need to make a comeback, and this old school-district stuff-hauler needs a second lease on life. It’s plain white and empty now, but there’s no reason it has to stay that way.

The trouble, for a lot of you, was what’s under this van’s doghouse: GM’s trusty old “Iron Duke” 2.5 liter four cylinder. Yes, for the first few years, you could get the Astro and Safari with a four, and in some cases, a stick, too. I’ve seen exactly one manual Astro ever, so they’re not what you’d call common. This one is equipped with a TH700R4 automatic, the same transmission used in V6 Astros and Safaris, as well as full-size trucks and Corvettes. It’s absurdly overkill for the little Iron Duke, and that’s a good thing. Yeah, it’s going to be pokey, but what’s your hurry?

1995 Land Rover Discovery – $2,500

Pros: Land Rover capability, rare manual transmission, runs and drives great

Cons: Land Rover reliability, interior is trashed

This first-generation Disco lost spectacularly to a red Saab turbo on Tuesday. I believe Saab is still undefeated in Showdowns. Everyone loves them, which makes it all the more curious that the company went out of business. Anyway, Land Rover is still around, but they sure don’t make trucks like this any more. The Discovery Series I is as tough as they come, with two solid axles driven by Rover’s aluminum V8, in this case through a five-speed stick.

Like the Safari, this Landy doesn’t have much of an interior. The back seat is gone, the front seats are trashed, and a lot of the plastic inside is broken or missing. But fancy interiors in these things are overrated. Land Rovers were never meant for Rodeo Drive; they were built to traverse far more hostile terrain. This would make a great weekend off-road toy, and for that, you don’t need nice leather seats.

1990 Chrysler LeBaron – $3,750

Pros: exceptional condition, low miles, comfy seats

Cons: less-desirable powertrain, boring color combo

I actually went back and forth on this one. The Oldsmobile Cutlass convertible that won was an awfully nice car, but it had twice the miles on it, and it was bright red, and I’ve never liked bright red cars. I’m not in love with the beige on this LeBaron either, but it’s less offensive.

This LeBaron also features the Mitsubishi-built V6, which is a decent engine, but Chrysler’s own turbocharged four-cylinder is cooler, and probably gets better mileage. The LeBaron was technically available with a manual, but unlike the Astro, I’ve never even seen one LeBaron convertible with a stick. Coupes, yes, but no convertibles. But I suppose, for a soft-edged cruiser like this, an automatic is fine.

2009 Volkswagen GTI – $4,500

Pros: practical, efficient, six-speed manual

Cons: VW with over 200,000 miles, not the most fun GTI

This is probably the most practical car here. Four-door hatchbacks aren’t terribly common in America, but in other parts of the world, especially Europe, this style of car does most of the heavy lifting. You can haul people or stuff, park easily, and not use too much fuel doing it. Get a “hot hatch” version like this, and you can even have some fun along the way.

Yes, it has a lot of miles on it, and VWs after about 1988 or so don’t have the best reputation for reliability. But in this case, high mileage might be a good thing: these cars don’t take kindly to neglect, and there’s no way it would have lasted this long without proper maintenance. The stuff that could go wrong probably already has, and been fixed. There’s not much to fear from this car, as long as you keep up on stuff from here on out.

So here’s how we’re going to play this: You tell me which car I’m most wrong about, and cast your vote accordingly, then explain your choice in the comments. So you’re not voting for one of these, you’re voting against one. Make sense? OK, cool. Have a good weekend, and I’ll see you all back here on Monday.

(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)