Good morning! Today we’re headed out for some fun in the sun with a couple of convertibles, but we’re being safe and sensible, because they both have rollbar hoops. But first, let’s see how our rough-and-tumble work vehicles did yesterday:
Another Mopar win. I think if the GMC (or actually probably a Chevy, as was pointed out) had been a little less of a bruiser, it would have won. But you don’t buy a dually flatbed unless you need a dually flatbed, in most cases. And the early stickshift Chrysler minivans are pretty cool.
You have probably noticed that there are a whole bunch of different terms for convertible cars. The trouble is, nobody can agree on exactly which term means what. Is that a cabriolet, or a drophead coupe? If it has a tiny back seat, can it still be a roadster? Does it matter whether it was designed to be a convertible in the first place, or adapted from a fixed-roof car? Nobody is quite sure, and most of the terms date back to horse-drawn carriages, and they weren’t applied consistently back then, either. All I know is that a VW Phaeton is in no way, shape, or form a phaeton.
Today’s pair are generally considered cabriolets, owing to the presence of some permanent structure besides the windshield frame. In the case of both of these cars, the B-pillars are still present, connected by a structural hoop that goes over the passenger compartment but fits under a full convertible top. This gives you that open-air feeling, but adds a little peace of mind in case things go sideways (or upside-down). It also adds quite a bit of rigidity to the structure, something lacking in a lot of convertibles.
And you’ll notice that we’re spending a little more imaginary money today than usual. I just got tired of scraping the bottom of the barrel, and wanted to look at something shiny for a change. Let’s check them out.
1998 VW Cabrio GLS – $7,500
Engine/drivetrain: 2.0 liter overhead cam inline 4, five-speed manual, FWD
Location: Gig Harbor, WA
Odometer reading: 96,000 miles
Runs/drives? Great, according to the seller
First, I want to give credit to this seller for their photography. Parking this car in such a pretty spot for photos was a masterstroke of salesmanship; I want to climb into this photo, hop into this car, and drive off down that lovely coastal road. It’s the one thing I miss about owning a convertible: a twisty road, a perfect day, some good tunes, and a nice manual gearbox.
Yes, that’s right: This topless Volkswagen is equipped with the correct transmission. It doesn’t have a whole lot of power spinning those gears; this car has the basic “two-point-slow” four-cylinder. But when has a lack of power ever ruined a nice drive, if you approach it with the right attitude? This car runs great, has had a bunch of recent work including some upgrades to the suspension, and rocks a decent aftermarket stereo for the tunes. What more do you need?
It’s still under 100,000 miles, and it looks good both inside and out. VWs of this era have a bit of a reputation for finicky electrical systems, among other issues, but this one is about as simple as they get mechanically, and everything electrical works at the moment, so at least you’re starting from a good place. The seller does note that the top isn’t in great shape; it was replaced by the previous owner, but it may be due again. It rarely pays to skimp on a replacement top; take it from someone who suffered with a cheap ill-fitting replacement top on a Miata for several years. Just pony up for the good one.
Or, you know, just leave it down, and only drive it on nice days. That’s an option too.
2005 Chrysler PT Cruiser Convertible – $4,700
Engine/drivetrain: Turbocharged 2.4 liter dual overhead cam inline 4, four-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Salinas, CA
Odometer reading: 124,000 miles
Runs/drives? Sure does
We’ve looked at quite a few PT Cruisers before, and I know they can be polarizing cars. But I don’t think we’ve featured a convertible before. This version of the PT lost not only its roof, but its rear doors as well, which to me always drove home the point that Chrysler should have made it a two-door all along. It actually makes a striking-looking car, especially with the top down.
This one is some sort of special edition called a Dream Cruiser. But then, it seems like “special edition” PT Cruisers outnumbered regular editions; there were a ridiculous number of special packages available for these cars. It has the turbocharged 2.4 liter engine, unfortunately saddled with an automatic transmission. But this car’s mission is right there in the name – “Cruiser” – and for that purpose, an automatic will do just fine.
It’s in good condition, with only 124,000 miles on the clock, and a recent timing belt and water pump job. Everything works, and it looks nice and clean inside and out. I do wonder about the seat and steering wheel covers; are they protecting pristine surfaces, or hiding worn ones? Only one way to find out, I suppose. The pine-tree air freshener around the shift lever seems counterproductive in a covertible; you’ve got no shortage of fresh air.
I like the color, too; I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a metallic brown PT Cruiser before. I think the trick to a car like this is not trying to force it to be something it isn’t, just appreciate it for what it is: a reasonably comfy, reasonably economical little car with a top that goes down.
Yesterday here in Portland was a damn near picture-perfect summer day: low 80s, not a cloud in the sky, and a light breeze. I drove home with my windows down and my sunroof open, and counted five convertibles with the top down on my way home. Cars like this are made for days like that, and if you’ve never driven a convertible around with the top down on a summer night, you have hardly driven at all. Which one of these is the perfect ride for it?
(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)
If you find two non-running versions of these cars, we can have “basket-handle baxket-cases”
I commend the sellers on the pictures representing the target markets… the Cabrio with pictures out in nature, at a cottage while the PT is on the side of a highway, or at the cemetary.
That being said – no way in hell I’m paying more for the old VW. I’ve owned and liked a PT (even though it was a purple autotragic, much to my chagrin at the time) so I’m definitely picking that one.
I know I’m swimming upstream voting against an audience favorite, but I just can’t vote for the VW. One, because it’s a modern VW, which is the only thing worse than a modern Chrysler, IMHO. Two, because that 2-door PT just looks so damn good, especially in that color. Three because the PT has an actually useable back seat. And four, because, as far as Chrysler products go, the 2.4 Liter Turbo was a surprisingly reliable little beast and owner ratings of the 2005 Cruiser seem to be overwhelmingly positive.
Welp, I’m def’nitely a RagMan, but neither of these hold interest.
But I’m also a team player so I’ll vote, and I pull the lever for VW. Here’s why: In the mid sixties my fun-loving uncle had, among many cool vehicles, a 62(?) Beatle with a a canvas sunroof. And whenever he’d leave from visiting our house or vacation rental, he’d always stick his hand up through the roof and give 8-year old me and my sisters a great big wave that lasted for about five-hundred feet. We’d practically squeal with delight!! (I know I know, but it’s the little things, right?).
So here I am with this image, and this choice.
Wave Hard Live Free
My Dad would do that too with his Beetle. But he would only use 1 finger to wave bye bye.
Good times!
I’m going against conventional wisdom and spending my money on the PT. I like the color combo
No. What? No.
There’s only two kinds of convertibles that are acceptable: Cadillacs and Miatas/Z4’s/Caterhams. Giant cruisers where performance does not matter at all or purpose built sports cars. Everything else is just a compromised design.
I worked with a bricklayer who would roll up to the job in a ’74 baby-blue/white top, Grand Ville ‘vert. It was maybe a notch or two below daily driver, but he did take care of it.
The kid was naturally cool, and it was fun to watch him exit this ElvisMobile and grab a canvas bag of trowels, joiners, 4-foot level, and then go bust his butt and do some really nice work.
Good times on the construction site.
While I don’t disagree with your two categories, I’d argue that the compromise design is in fact worthy b/c…it gets driven the most. Weekend toys and vintage iron are great and all, but there’s something to be said for a convertible that you drive all the time.
It makes everyday things like going to the grocery store fun, rather than turning into the equivalent of doing a load of laundry in your washing machine.
What about Jon Voight’s LeBaron convertible? Ha ha
Seriously? Any convertible should be fun or you’re doing it wrong
I predict this is one Mopar loses. Funnily enough, I grew up in a blended VW and Dodge/Plymouth family so I’m a bit partial to both companies’ products. I hate the PT Cruiser, though. The Golf is a clean, simple design on a capable platform powered by an economical motor. It looks good top up or down. The Cruiser? Well, you got the Cruisers for the nasty stuff.
Those seat covers are absolutely horrible. But I’ll take the VW any day over the clown car.
Plus… there’s a lot more information on the VW. 5 crappy pictures and a few lines of text on the PT Cruiser? Pass.
I know everyone’s catnip is a manual, but I don’t think they’re that precious for a lazy top-down cruise. I just am terrified of VW issues, and my imaginary money is important. I also like the color, and being a contrarian, so give me the PT.
I voted PT for the simple reason that the ragtop wasn’t available this side of the pond.
I’m a card carrying VW hater but this is an easy win for the Cabrio. Manual transmission, less miles, and timeless styling. The bread basket Golf convertibles have always looked good and always will look good. The PT Cruiser is early 2000s Chrysler garbage/Boomer bait. It wasn’t cool then, it isn’t cool now, and all the car blog hipsters who are trying to make it a thing in 2023 are lost souls who need to be brought back to the light.
Weird that we have polar opposite relationship to VW and voted separate ways. I think VW fans just dislike the 2.slow so much that they couldn’t possibly see themselves spending 7 grand on one.
7k is way way too much money but the aba 2.slow is the best gas engine VW made until the 07k 5 cylinder. People in the comments here bashing a mk3 and thinking it’s a mk4 because it has a facelift. These were amazing cars, I’ve owned 10 mk3 golf/Jettas and got three over 200k and one to 325k before the rust killed them.
The PT Cruiser color is actually a shade of purple called “Dark Plum Pearl”. It’s actually a really nice color when it’s shimmering. I especially like how they tied the interior trim with a purple accent to tie it together. I bought a 2004 PT Cruiser GT Turbo w/ a 5-speed as the very first car I’ve ever purchased. I absolutely LOVED that thing and miss it terribly. (Even if it did get returned under the lemon law – LOL – I would still buy another one if the right opportunity came up). They were fun, practical, fast, and IMO looked great. Especially the convertibles with the top down like this. I think they looked a little silly with the top up though. PT FTW!
Not to be that guy, but the color is actually Deep Lava Red and was only available on the 2005 Dream Cruiser Series 4 (like this one is). I also had a GT 5spd and I miss it dearly
I was 14 in 1998 and I wanted any tiny, convertible VW to be my first car.
When I ended up with was a 1981 Mercury Tracer. At least it was a manual …
Chrysler is no Toyota, but VW is even scarier!
Also, this PT is a turbo, so it’s basically a Neon SRT4 convertible 😀
I want to vote VW solely because the person actually put in the effort to sell the car. I’m a big Mk4 guy as well. The Cab is super clean too. Unfortunately my dude is about double where it would actually sell. A cab is the least valuable of the roughly 69 different variations of the MK4. Add the 2.slow and you’ll have a great view of the cyclist who passes you by. 7.5k is Miata money. It’s like paying for a theme park to stand in line. You get to experience all but the fun part of Miata ownership.
So, find me dressed like John Steinbeck cruising with Charley in my drop top Cruiser. Only because that turbo 2.4 rules. I don’t get to shift my own gears. But I can do 65 uphill in my peak millennial irony car.
I went with the underdog. That interior on the VW would drive me friggin nuts. And the price is way to high.
I know I am going to be in a minority here, and I would almost never pick an auto over a stick, but I have never particularly cared for VWs, especially from this era, and I have always kind of liked the drop top PT. The PT looks like it’s in somewhat better condition, the color is fantastic, it’s far more utilitarian, and it’s cheaper.
I’ll take the VW. I don’t have strong opinions about either of these vehicles, but the VW has a manual transmission. The third pedal is worth paying an extra $2,800.
VW b/c I spent years wrenching on this model for old girlfriend (she bought it to replace her totaled Miata). Pretty easy to work on, mostly – spark plug 3 is a PITA to access I recall.
And I’ll prove it. The reason the rear seats are discordant colorwise with the rest of the interior is…an owner got the wrong, non-obvious color when reupholstering/replacing.
The OEM interior looks tan to any normal human being BUT according to VW, it’s officially gray. Same with the top.
I nearly made the same mistake when having the top replaced on girlfriend’s, so glad I checked and double checked and then at the shop, actually brought the dusty swatch sample book out to the car to directly compare.
There’s just something so joyus and cheery about that Cabrio that I can’t put my finger on.
It has the same essence of a Miata, one could say.
Not gonna lie, I think the PT is the better choice here, it looks sharp, is in pretty good shape, and will have enough power to actually get up a hill, and it’s cheaper! But I just like the VW more, can’t put my finger on why, probably just because I hate Chrysler. I would pay more for the Cabrio despite acknowledging the PT is probably the better buy.
I’ll take the VW, so I can drive through the woods with my friends listening to Nick Drake.
Easily the best commercial VW has ever made. I can’t think of anything as evocative of youth and night driving. Never knew I’d want a Cabrio until I saw that
I came to the comments to reference that commercial. It is incredibly effective at evoking the feel of driving a convertible on a cool Summer night that Mark references in the writeup.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-kqUkZnDcM
Drivers wanted.®
I remembered that commercial late last night after I had already put this to bed, otherwise I would have included the link. Thanks for covering for me!
The Milk Way/Pink Moon commercial is exceptional. Over 20 years later it still resonates. It’s timless, like the animated Tootsie Roll commercials.
VW, please!
The mods are pretty well thought out – except for the ill-fitting seat covers that really don’t match the original interior – and it’s a 5MT.
Most importantly, it’s not a PT Loser.
This is gonna be a blowout.
I may be the world’s biggest PT Cruiser apologist, but even I would take a manual bitch basket over a slushbox convertible PT Loser.
I predict my vote giving the PT a 1-0 lead will be the last time it’s ahead.
No VWs, ever ever ever. Saving almost $3000 is just a bonus.
Yeah, it’s the better option in many ways, I just can’t go for a PT. I just have always hated them.
I am with you on this one.
V10, you need to drive a mk2 GTI once. I think it will change your no vws ever policy.