Ironicsupplement
Ironicsupplement
Ironicsupplement

THAT is a lovely dashboard.

The Wagonaire and both Suzukis on this list are awesome. The Lexus is pretty cool too, actually. I've recommended friends with small families look into lightly-used Kizashis. They are perfectly sized for four, decent on gas and supposedly handle very well for their class.

The PT is a lot of car for the money. I'd put my turbocharged GT convertible against any in its price class (specifically the Volkswagen Beetle, turbo or otherwise) but custom drop tops scare me.

I'm impressed a car as beautiful, rare, and practical, as that 164 sold for less than $5,000. Depreciation is a splendid thing.

An enormous interior, decent build quality and better style than the more common Volvo wagons of the time. Great car!

I realize this article is a trolling exercise, but I'll take the bait. The PT Cruiser is awesome - it's practical, immensely roomy for it's 14-foot length, and reliable. GT versions gets to 60 in 7 seconds, which is quick for their time and price. My convertible GT has been perfectly reliable and I haven't noticed

The "openometer" gauge Mini puts on its convertibles should be at the pinnacle of any useless list.

Now playing

And the fastest version (the R3) set 29 records at Bonneville. Four-passenger cars that hit 169 mph were sort of rare back then:

The original Scion xB is only 13 feet long and 5 and-a-half-feet wide but is enormous inside and has a nearly-flat floor. The Saab 9000 from the 1990s was a smidge over 15 feet long (about the length of a Jetta), but was classified as a large car by the EPA due to it's Town Car-like interior.

The Fiero GT was a solid performer, but it made with plastic body panels, not fiberglass.

Stunning car, inside and out. The attention to detail is superb.

Car and Driver praised these when they first came out, and I can see why. Neons had personality and were the only sedans at that price that went 0-60 in less than 8 seconds. They also came with a standard passenger-side airbag, which was rare for economy cars of the era.

I think the styling looks great, especially at the front. Imperials were the most expensive American car of their day. They were built with extra-thick sheetmetal to better hold paint and compared well dynamically with the Eldorados and Lincolns of the era. Plus, they got 20 mpg, which wasn't shabby at the time. These

Some disparage the 500 as impractical, but it'll accommodate two people and a weekend's worth of luggage, or four adults for short trip. I weigh more than 200 pounds and am as flexible as an i-beam but was able to climb in the back with no problem at the New York Auto Show, and found it adequately comfortable even

I really dislike it when the passenger-side airbag covers are visible. It looks careless - like those slapped on third brake-lights you'd see in the late 80s and 90s. Most cars these days have seamless airbag covers, preserving the look of dash. This bothers me more than the headlights.

This ad is as honest as ant other. Luxury cars do appeal to mature (older/richer) people. That's true now, and it was even more true in the mid-60s. Also, Imperials of that era had seriously overbuilt frames and stressed isolation from the road, so the quietness claims are believable vs other convertibles (they made

I drive a 2006 PT convertible with the 230-horsepower turbo engine. It's been a fantastic car for the money (perfectly reliable, quick, great engine sounds, and seats four adults comfortably). This particular example is for extremely specific tastes, though, and I can't see it bringing 10-large.

The early 80s Imperial was the most expensive regular production American car of its time. They had problems with their fuel injectors, but were not terrible cars by the standards of the era. Some of the weight was due to extra heavy sheetmetal used in the body to resist dings and provide a smoother surface for the

An X1/9 with an engine swap from the new 500 Abarth would be lovely.